HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 2:18 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I am not at liberty to make details public, but another historic church is now being considered for a similar plan as Southminster and one option being considered is outright demolition because of the limited land available for redevelopment.
And that trend has picked up steam in recent years. The RC diocese merged, what, half a dozen parishes east of the Canal. Three United Churches merged in the near west end. Two or three Anglican congregations have merged in the past two years.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 12:32 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,338
Old Ottawa South residents fight church addition
Development puts the view in jeopardy, they say

by Michelle Nash Baker, Ottawa East News
Nov 10, 2017




What’s in a view?

In Old Ottawa South, some residents feel a view should be considered just as important as any heritage building – especially when that view is of a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The issue is the proposed development of the Southminster United Church at 15 Aylmer Ave.

In an effort to keep the church operational, the congregation signed an agreement with Windmill Developments to sell a portion of the property for $1 million.

The proposal is to retain the existing church building and renovate the basement to accommodate community uses. The sale is subject to re-zoning of the property to permit residential condominiums. Memorial Hall would be demolished and replaced with four three-storey townhouses and a 14-unit, six-storey apartment building.

The six-storey apartment building, some residents say, is too high and they add the view of the Rideau Canal, and the church itself will be lost.

Susan Brousseau points out the condominium will be higher than the church and higher than any building currently allowed in the neighbourhood. Brousseau is working with a group of residents aimed at reducing the height of the proposal.

“We all feel this is the gateway, the landmark in the community,” Brousseau said. “We just think this is wrong, we would ask for less, everyone would be cheering if it was less.”

Basically, Brousseau said, they are asking the developers to knock off the top of the building.

Brousseau said there is no doubt the view the future condo owners will have will be amazing – something she agrees with architect Barry Hobin about.

But Brousseau said the future condo owners aren't the only people who should matter.

“We are looking (at it from) the residents' point of view, the people skating on the canal – what will they see?” she said.

One of the biggest issues, Brousseau said, is that the developer’s proposal falsely shows what the view will be – the renderings portray the property in the height of summer, a time when the trees still have their leaves.

This will not be the case come skating season, Brousseau argued.

“It is unfortunate, as well, that the renderings do not include a winter scene, when, like most of the year, there will be no leaves. It is important that city council takes this into consideration,” Brousseau said.

Fellow resident Anna Cuylits said there is no doubt the new condo will dominate the view of the canal.

“It will take away, or replace the landmark view on the church,” Cuylits said. “It detracts from the image of the church and that concerns me. The viewscape just doesn’t fit in with the heritage character.”

Capital Coun. David Chernushenko doesn’t totally agree with the residents on the issue – he agrees the building will be too high and would like the proposal to be one-storey less -- but overall, the proposal is OK.

“It’s a challenge as a councillor when you are trying to parse out what are the real concerns and what aren’t,” he said. “This is one where as the councillor I have to say ‘Look I’m with you on a lot of things, but let's not go too far and let's just stick with what’s really substantial,’ and that is the height and the precedent setting.”

The councillor said he is concerned that if this height is approved then the height of future developments along Bank Street could continue to get too high.

Chernushenko pointed out that when Lansdowne Park was being redeveloped, the concern of the condominiums and the stadium facing the canal did not cause concern for UNESCO and he can’t see why the National Capital Commission or UNESCO would find concern with this proposal.

“It really is all about height,” Chernushenko said. “I will be trying to bring down the height. One storey too high does make a difference.”

The proceeds of the sale, the church said, will help complete long-needed maintenance on the main church building and renovate parts of the interior so the church can remain operational for the community.

The property that was sold is the addition, which was built in 1955.

The church plans to return to the original church building, as it existed in 1932 – with the original church remaining intact.

According to the church, the sale was the best option, as opposed to trying to raise the funds needed to fix the building.

“Frankly, over the years we’ve seen decreasing eagerness to financially support the vital work that we do,” the church said in a statement on its website. “More broadly, it’s no secret that Canadian institutions – from social clubs to churches – are suffering. That’s been readily apparent, especially over the last two decades.”

The offer from Windmill, the church said, provided an option for the organization to realize the benefits of returning to its "natural" building without needing the capital investment.

Chernushenko said it's absolutely essential that the church continue operating its programs.

by Michelle Nash Baker
Email: michelle.nash@metroland.com


https://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/...urch-addition/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 1:09 PM
SkeggsEggs SkeggsEggs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 359
I understand people don't like tall(ish) buildings in their neighbourhood. But does not one of them hear how ridiculous they sound? A tall building went up just across the canal and the heritage designation still stands... not to mention there are a number of ugly buildings (this building looks great) along the canal. If you don't want a tall building in your neighbourhood fine, but don't make silly arguments that the view of the canal will be lost. The designation is for the history of the canal and the significant achievement it took to build the canal. UNESCO does not give a flip about the roads or buildings that are along the canal. The residents are just making themselves look silly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 7:55 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,873
It sounds like the sale has been completed. If that is the case, it is fortunate. If not, there is a real possibility that the church will close. Then what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2017, 2:32 PM
AndyMEng AndyMEng is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs View Post
I understand people don't like tall(ish) buildings in their neighbourhood. But does not one of them hear how ridiculous they sound? A tall building went up just across the canal and the heritage designation still stands... not to mention there are a number of ugly buildings (this building looks great) along the canal. If you don't want a tall building in your neighbourhood fine, but don't make silly arguments that the view of the canal will be lost. The designation is for the history of the canal and the significant achievement it took to build the canal. UNESCO does not give a flip about the roads or buildings that are along the canal. The residents are just making themselves look silly.
Are they talking about THIS view being lost?

Ridiculous



*clutches pearls*

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2017, 3:13 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,873
I like sidewalks that just end at a street and go nowhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2017, 4:57 PM
MoreTrains MoreTrains is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I like sidewalks that just end at a street and go nowhere.
It certainly seems to be the top of design these days. (especially on Vancouver Island)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2017, 6:14 PM
kalabaw kalabaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 83
Okay, let the church run out of money and have it abandoned. Then leave it in decrepit state for a few years. Probably the residents will be happier to see a run-down building than their community actually getting more good developments. And what a silly argument about the renders not showing how the building looks in winter time. LOL! What a bunch of nimbys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2017, 7:25 PM
Arcologist Arcologist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nation's Capital
Posts: 687
I did Google Streetview across the entire area, and you really don't see much of the church, especially from the Canal where all you get is a side view of its long, large roof. You can't even really tell that it's a church from that angle, unless you're on Bank Street or east thereof. So the group's argument that the church should be the dominating view is a no-go.

On the flipside, I fail to see which homes in the area will lose their view of the Canal. The congregation's current community hall is located in the same place as the proposed condos and is already tall enough that views are blocked. So that argument is also null and void.

I also fail to see how a six-storey building is too tall for this site, given the type and height of other structures in the vicinity.

This group's complaint is absurd and should be thrown out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2017, 8:43 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,034
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcologist View Post
This group's complaint is absurd and should be thrown out.
Never misunderestimate the sense of outraged entitlement held by self-appointed community associations and nosey neighbours, especially in gentrified neighbourhoods, who seem to think they have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their real estate.

Then again, isn't Old Ottawa South where that lady was outraged that someone was building a replacement house next to hers, which was four inches taller?
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2017, 8:58 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
I rarely think a building is too high, but in this case I think it should be one storey less, so that the top of the new building is the same height as the midpoint of the church roof - this would achieve a classic design standard and would intuitively look better.

I would also support a building a few storeys taller, but I find the proposed height is awkward in its reference to the existing building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2017, 2:30 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,338
Planning committee buys time for controversial Southminster church development

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 28, 2017 | Last Updated: November 28, 2017 5:36 PM EST




Southminster United Church and the Windmill Development Group had a three-metre problem at council’s planning committee on Tuesday.

A single storey is preventing a community buy-in on a development, but that extra floor could protect the future of the church at 1040 Bank St. in Old Ottawa South.

Residents don’t find Windmill’s proposed design offensive.

“It just needs to be rejigged, that’s all,” resident Brian Tansey told the committee.

Easier said than done.

The application calls for the demolition of Memorial Hall, which was built in 1955, and the construction of four townhouses and a six-storey residential building with 14 units. The basement of the church would be renovated to host community events.

(The church was built in 1932 but it’s not a protected heritage building).

Windmill’s proposed six-storey building is the source of the controversy.

The National Capital Commission and Parks Canada don’t like that the building would affect the visual setting of the Rideau Canal. The six-storey building would be slightly higher than the church.

Residents aren’t crazy about that sixth storey, either.

“The dominance of the glass condo draws attention away from the church and even obscures it,” Anna Cuylits said.

However, city planning staff support the application, calling it a “well-designed, modest infill that respects and preserves the existing place of worship building.”

Nearly 400 people submitted comments on the application, with opponents decrying the proposed height of the new buildings, the density and the impact on the views around the Rideau Canal. There were about a dozen delegations at planning committee.

The church approached Windmill about a potential partnership as it faced a financial reality. They came up with a development scheme that would provide the church with critical revenue.

Andrew Brewin, chair of the church’s redevelopment committee, said the future of the church could hinge on the partnership with Windmill. The church needs money for its main building, which also acts as a community hub.

“This proposal allows us to stop the dripping,” Brewin said.

Rodney Wilts, a partner at Windmill, said if the company removed the sixth storey it would need to rethink the entire proposal on a tight development footprint.

“It’s not a viable option to say keep things we love and lop one storey off that building,” Wilts said.

The church will sell part of the property to Windmill for the residential development if council approves the necessary rezoning for what the company wants to build.

The planning committee voted to put off the decision until the Dec. 13 council meeting to let Windmill, city planners and Capital Coun. David Chernushenko figure out if the height of the six-storey building can be reduced.

<snip>

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ch-development
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2017, 3:52 PM
MoreTrains MoreTrains is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
Planning committee buys time for controversial Southminster church development

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 28, 2017 | Last Updated: November 28, 2017 5:36 PM EST




Southminster United Church and the Windmill Development Group had a three-metre problem at council’s planning committee on Tuesday.

A single storey is preventing a community buy-in on a development, but that extra floor could protect the future of the church at 1040 Bank St. in Old Ottawa South.

Residents don’t find Windmill’s proposed design offensive.

“It just needs to be rejigged, that’s all,” resident Brian Tansey told the committee.

Easier said than done.

The application calls for the demolition of Memorial Hall, which was built in 1955, and the construction of four townhouses and a six-storey residential building with 14 units. The basement of the church would be renovated to host community events.

(The church was built in 1932 but it’s not a protected heritage building).

Windmill’s proposed six-storey building is the source of the controversy.

The National Capital Commission and Parks Canada don’t like that the building would affect the visual setting of the Rideau Canal. The six-storey building would be slightly higher than the church.

Residents aren’t crazy about that sixth storey, either.

“The dominance of the glass condo draws attention away from the church and even obscures it,” Anna Cuylits said.

However, city planning staff support the application, calling it a “well-designed, modest infill that respects and preserves the existing place of worship building.”

Nearly 400 people submitted comments on the application, with opponents decrying the proposed height of the new buildings, the density and the impact on the views around the Rideau Canal. There were about a dozen delegations at planning committee.

The church approached Windmill about a potential partnership as it faced a financial reality. They came up with a development scheme that would provide the church with critical revenue.

Andrew Brewin, chair of the church’s redevelopment committee, said the future of the church could hinge on the partnership with Windmill. The church needs money for its main building, which also acts as a community hub.

“This proposal allows us to stop the dripping,” Brewin said.

Rodney Wilts, a partner at Windmill, said if the company removed the sixth storey it would need to rethink the entire proposal on a tight development footprint.

“It’s not a viable option to say keep things we love and lop one storey off that building,” Wilts said.

The church will sell part of the property to Windmill for the residential development if council approves the necessary rezoning for what the company wants to build.

The planning committee voted to put off the decision until the Dec. 13 council meeting to let Windmill, city planners and Capital Coun. David Chernushenko figure out if the height of the six-storey building can be reduced.

<snip>

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ch-development


My interpretation of the nay-sayers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2017, 4:02 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,613
There are so many spots along the canal where buildings are visible or dominate the view that I am left scratching my head at the idea that, in this spot, the top of the summer tree line must predominate. It seems very arbitrary (should the church itself be demolished since it also intrudes on the view of trees?).

Last edited by kwoldtimer; Nov 29, 2017 at 5:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2017, 8:30 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
There are so many spots along the canal where buildings are visible or dominate the view that I am left scratching my head at the idea that, in this spot, the top of the summer tree line must predominate. It seems very arbitrary (should the church itself be demolished since it also intrudes on the view of trees?).
All those people with houses closest to the canal should volunteer to demolish their houses for the good of the views and the UNESCO and so forth.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2017, 8:56 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Here is a Photo Sphere (2016) with both the church and the new Landsdowne condo
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.39629...!7i5376!8i2688
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2017, 8:35 PM
OTSkyline OTSkyline is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,551
Ottawa can't have tall buildings downtown because of Peace Tower
Ottawa can't have tall buildings on main streets because those should be reserved for 6-8 story midrises
Ottawa can't have tall buildings around the Canal because it would ruin the views

Hmm... seems like a trend here.

Now not only are they fighting high rises they are also fighting mid rises
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2017, 9:53 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
Planning committee buys time for controversial Southminster church development

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 28, 2017 | Last Updated: November 28, 2017 5:36 PM EST




The planning committee voted to put off the decision until the Dec. 13 council meeting to let Windmill, city planners and Capital Coun. David Chernushenko figure out if the height of the six-storey building can be reduced.

<snip>

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ch-development
So nice infill building in old Ottawa south 3 meters too high, lets put it on hold to study it further. The Salvation Army in Vanier that doesn't respect any of the City's rules and is opposed by thousands, push it through, quickly!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2017, 12:37 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
So nice infill building in old Ottawa south 3 meters too high, lets put it on hold to study it further. The Salvation Army in Vanier that doesn't respect any of the City's rules and is opposed by thousands, push it through, quickly!
I see an opportunity here. If the community puts up such a fuss over this tasteful, well-designed redevelopment, maybe the church should offer to sell the site to the Salvation Army instead. Chop 3m off the top to meet their wishes then build it out to the maximum permissible envelope to accommodate enough rooms to shelter 350 new members of the community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2017, 1:35 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
I see an opportunity here. If the community puts up such a fuss over this tasteful, well-designed redevelopment, maybe the church should offer to sell the site to the Salvation Army instead. Chop 3m off the top to meet their wishes then build it out to the maximum permissible envelope to accommodate enough rooms to shelter 350 new members of the community.
Genius!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.