89-97 Beechwood | 21m | 6f | Approved

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by HrDm180

Apparently LCBO just signed for the bulk of the remaining space with hopes of having the store open by the holidays.

Fingers crossed - it has Been pending for over a year.

[waterloowarrior]

Site-specific zoning states that "The ground floor façade facing Beechwood Avenue must include a minimum of two active entrances"

That explains the 727 sq foot live/work unit with a door from the street into the living room. Hopefully, this actually is filled by a business.

Also, it appears this will be a rental building.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Site-specific zoning states that "The ground floor façade facing Beechwood Avenue must include a minimum of two active entrances"

That explains the 727 sq foot live/work unit with a door from the street into the living room. Hopefully, this actually is filled by a business.

Also, it appears this will be a rental building.

Thanks for the clarification. I looked at this property on GeoOttawa and thought it was on south side in a standard TM8 zone and didn't have a site specific TM zoning. I appreciate your response.

I would hope that if the City were to want to encourage some development on this property that requiring retail here could be removed. As other posters have stated in the current economic climate with lots of space available as people have walked away on leases or have closed up to require a minimum gfa of retail for a new development doesn't seem practical.

[kwoldtimer]

Just to note that demolition seems to have started on site.

[eastcanman]

The lack of ground-floor retail space in this development is disappointing, but hardly a surprise; even before COVID, Beechwood had been struggling to sustain its momentum. I've lived in the neighbourhood since 2017, and for a relatively short "Main Street" district adjacent to some of the wealthiest postal codes in the city, there's actually a surprising number of empty storefronts in prominent locations, from the spaces facing the barren former Sutherland's al fresco terrace at Beechwood and Marquette, to the abandoned former Jacobson's building, to the enduring cluster of vacant buildings on the St. Charles-to-Loyer block awaiting a buyer to redevelop it, to the eyesore at the corner of Champlain that's just now being demolished, to the significant space at Beechwood & MacKay that may-or-may-not someday become an LCBO, to the properties across Beechwood from it that always seem to have at least a vacancy each.

Most of the vibrancy of the neighbourhood seems to come from the variety of shops and restaurants operating out of small, unglamourous, standalone buildings - the kind of establishments that could never afford to move into the ground floor of a condo development or "luxury" apartment building. Places like Chilaquiles, Red Door Provisions, Fraser Cafe, Ola Cocina, Nature's Buzz, Muckleston & Brockwell, Bibi's... they're never going to be making the margins to afford Starbucks-level rent.

[kwoldtimer]

The local community associations have belatedly caught wind of the proposed changes and have begun agitating against them with the City. It seems that the increased number of apartment units is as much a concern to them as the absence of commercial units.

On another note, the old credit union building is starting to look more like a reno than a demo - could it be that this will be a condo rather than a rental and that this will be the sales office?

[kwoldtimer]

In response to community complaints, City staff (the Planning Department) has rescinded their delegated authority and will send the application to Planning Committee. Consequently, City staff will hold a public information session for residents in September concerning the revised proposed development.

Rideau-Rockcliffe Councillor Rawlson King is on board with this and will oppose the proposal to eliminate commercial space from the Beechwood frontage. He will not, however, oppose the proposal to increase the number of apartment units within the approved structure.

I think this is good news, as this proposed building is being seen as a precedent for other projects in the area.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

In response to community complaints, City staff (the Planning Department) has rescinded their delegated authority and will send the application to Planning Committee. Consequently, City staff will hold a public information session for residents in September concerning the revised proposed development.

Rideau-Rockcliffe Councillor Rawlson King is on board with this and will oppose the proposal to eliminate commercial space from the Beechwood frontage. He will not, however, oppose the proposal to increase the number of apartment units within the approved structure.

I think this is good news, as this proposed building is being seen as a precedent for other projects in the area.

I gather you disagree, but to me it seems rather strange to continue to insist on ground floor retail despite record high vacancies of retail space throughout the City based on Covid and connected issues. I can't imagine that developers these days faced with a vacant property or a redevelopment site that has the potential to build retail or residential are going to go with the retail route.

[J.OT13]

This isn't like a mall that lost a dozen retailers and an anchor or a big box store "Smart" Centre that can't fill a bunch of over sized spaces, yet keeps building. These were a couple of smaller retail store fronts that could include local services, some lost in the fire a decade ago. I can't imagine it would be too difficult to fill.

For what it's worth, it doesn't matter if the Councillor opposes the lack or retail. Watson Club will push it through with great indifference.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

I gather you disagree, but to me it seems rather strange to continue to insist on ground floor retail despite record high vacancies of retail space throughout the City based on Covid and connected issues. I can't imagine that developers these days faced with a vacant property or a redevelopment site that has the potential to build retail or residential are going to go with the retail route.

We may not be able to insist on commercial but we can insist on an active frontage and doors on the street.

[FutureWickedCity]

Maybe they could put a gym for the residents or a daycare on the ground floor that would animate the area at street level.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by FutureWickedCity

Maybe they could put a gym for the residents or a daycare on the ground floor that would animate the area at street level.

They did actually - their common room and gym are both adjacent to the street, at the southwest corner of the building.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

They did actually - their common room and gym are both adjacent to the street, at the southwest corner of the building.

But who cares if they're not accessible from the outside, and all you would see as a passer-by is a brick wall with deeply tinted windows you can't see into?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This isn't like a mall that lost a dozen retailers and an anchor or a big box store "Smart" Centre that can't fill a bunch of over sized spaces, yet keeps building. These were a couple of smaller retail store fronts that could include local services, some lost in the fire a decade ago. I can't imagine it would be too difficult to fill.

For what it's worth, it doesn't matter if the Councillor opposes the lack or retail. Watson Club will push it through with great indifference.

I'd have to check, but I think the approved proposal (which was the basis for the re-zoning) was for three commercial units. T

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

But who cares if they're not accessible from the outside, and all you would see as a passer-by is a brick wall with deeply tinted windows you can't see into?

Ya I agree - I was just saying.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I'd have to check, but I think the approved proposal (which was the basis for the re-zoning) was for three commercial units. T

Here's the previous floor plan. Three small units and a larger one:

Originally Posted by rocketphish

We somehow missed getting these revised images posted quite a while ago.

Site plan:

Sorry, I said a couple (2), but I use the word "a couple" to mean "a few".

[eastcanman]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This isn't like a mall that lost a dozen retailers and an anchor or a big box store "Smart" Centre that can't fill a bunch of over sized spaces, yet keeps building. These were a couple of smaller retail store fronts that could include local services, some lost in the fire a decade ago. I can't imagine it would be too difficult to fill.

I favour the presence of ground floor commercial generally, but for what it's worth, none of those businesses lost in the fire a decade ago have rushed back to occupy the ample supply of vacant commercial space along Beechwood, with the exception of Nature's Buzz - which now occupies a comparatively-derelict property down the street from its original location where the Beechwood/Mackay condos are now, because even the more successful small local businesses can't afford to set up shop in the ground-floor retail spaces of "luxury" residential developments. The likes of Hamie's Diner and Bread & Roses aren't going to start popping up in the kind of spaces that will exist in a property like 89-99 Beechwood.

[kwoldtimer]

Public meeting (zoom) scheduled for September 17th.

[kwoldtimer]

At the public meeting the other evening, the developer’s rep indicated that the proposal has been further revised to include three “live/work” units at ground level on Beechwood, rather than just one, and to increase their size to about 1,000sqft. Not enough to satisfy those who wanted retail units, but it conforms to policy so I’m guessing the revised proposal will be approved.

I’m a bit sceptical about the viability of the live/work units, but it’s an interesting experiment for the location. It remains to be seen to what extent it creares a precedent for Beechwood, and for other “Main Streets” that don’t require commercial use at street level.

[eastcanman]

Does anyone know what's happening with this one? The site's been pretty quiet - I don't think it's been touched since before the public meeting in September. Would they leave the building open to the elements all winter (since the back windows have been taken out)?