30-48 Chamberlain Ave | 51m | 16f | Proposed

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by SL123

The level of opposition from residents and some councillor to a 14 story tower next to the highways gives me no hope

I'll have to watch that meeting on YouTube to try to figure that one out. Not only is it beside the highway, it is north of the adjacent houses, so shadows won't be a concern. Those houses will probably benefit from the blocking effect the building will have on the highway noise..

[McDonald's Racoon]

Wow did the people even see the proposal? Why would there be any pushback against this building is beyond me. The NYMBYS will stop at nothing for nothing to ever get built in Ottawa...

[phil235]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I'll have to watch that meeting on YouTube to try to figure that one out. Not only is it beside the highway, it is north of the adjacent houses, so shadows won't be a concern. Those houses will probably benefit from the blocking effect the building will have on the highway noise..

One issue is that the GCA conducted a height and character study for Bank St. that is intended to evolve into a secondary plan. While much of it is reasonable, there is a big overreach in limiting these lots to 6 storeys, which makes no sense, and negatively impacts housing affordability.

This is a good proposal, and I see almost no reason to oppose it. If anything, it will be better for the houses one block south, as it replaces surface parking and forms a barrier from the highway. (And I say this as a homeowner in very similar circumstances.)

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by phil235

there is a big overreach in limiting these lots to 6 storeys, which makes no sense, and negatively impacts housing affordability.

Land speculation negatively affect affordability. They build taller buildings to maximize profit on land, which drives prices higher due to the speculation. If heights were actually enforced that speculation might be reduced thus increasing affordability.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Land speculation negatively affect affordability. They build taller buildings to maximize profit on land, which drives prices higher due to the speculation. If heights were actually enforced that speculation might be reduced thus increasing affordability.

I’ve never seen any research that suggests height limits increase housing affordability. Do you have something that backs that up? They are artificial restraints on supply, so it’s hard to see how that would lower prices. There are definitely height thresholds in terms of construction costs, but I don’t see how that would apply here.

The sites along Chamberlain and Isabella are generally less desirable than most sites in the Glebe, and should be cheaper to purchase. Aside from the fact that they are more logical places for higher buildings, the lower land costs should allow for units that are more affordable than others in the neighbourhood. That was certainly the case for the retirement condos built a bit further down on Isabella at Metcalfe. My view is that we should be putting as many units on this cheaper land as possible.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Land speculation negatively affect affordability. They build taller buildings to maximize profit on land, which drives prices higher due to the speculation. If heights were actually enforced that speculation might be reduced thus increasing affordability.

As it stands Ontario underbuilt by roughly 100,000 homes in the 4 years prior to covid, and that is where your speculation is coming from. Speculating that supply will continue to be restricted to amount lower then demand.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/sta...884067843?s=20

Secondly the majority of the Glebe is zoned to R3 so ~3 stories and ~ 3 units per lot with ample setbacks, not exactly Mid-rise or even Low-rise central.

[rocketphish]

Tall-building proposals lead to planning committee approvals
Ottawa city council will consider the committee's recommendations on July 21.

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Jul 08, 2021 • 3 hours ago • 4 minute read

A long planning committee meeting on Thursday was marked by several approvals for tall buildings outside of the downtown core.

All developers won committee approvals for their projects, though one application drew larger-than-usual opposition from members.

Council will consider the committee’s recommendations on July 21.


Committee not unanimous on proposed 16-storey complex at north edge of Glebe

Residents of a short street at the northern edge of the Glebe tried to convince councillors that a proposed 16-storey complex eyed for land behind their low-rise homes was unacceptable.

Rina Cerrato, one of the Rosebery Avenue residents who addressed the committee, said the city’s planning department cherry-picked policies in supporting the application for 30-48 Chamberlain Ave. The proposed development wouldn’t adhere to a guideline for a gradual height transition to neighbouring buildings, Cerrato said.

Scarabelli Realties wants to build a mixed-use building with 150 residential units, including 14 three-bedroom units, and commercial space on the ground floor.

The residents hired a lawyer to amplify their arguments.

Barry Hobin, the architect on the project, said a mid-rise building isn’t well-suited for the property and called for more focus on the form of the proposed building, not the height.

The current zoning allows a mid-rise building, but city planning staff believe the development proposal is suitable for the property and agrees with Hobin about preferring a slim high-rise over a long “bar” building.

Capital Coun. Shawn Menard opposes the proposal.

If the zoning amendment is approved by council, the ward would receive $952,295 thanks to an agreement under Sec. 37 of the Planning Act that allows community benefits to be traded for extra height and density. The money would be spent on traffic calming, park improvements and affordable housing projects.

The majority of planning committee sided with the developer and city staff.

Voting in favour were councillors Laura Dudas, Jenna Sudds, Jean Cloutier, Scott Moffatt, Allan Hubley and Glen Gower. Jeff Leiper, Tim Tierney and Catherine Kitts voted against the proposal.


<snip>


jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ttee-approvals

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by phil235

I’ve never seen any research that suggests height limits increase housing affordability. Do you have something that backs that up? They are artificial restraints on supply, so it’s hard to see how that would lower prices. There are definitely height thresholds in terms of construction costs, but I don’t see how that would apply here.

The sites along Chamberlain and Isabella are generally less desirable than most sites in the Glebe, and should be cheaper to purchase. Aside from the fact that they are more logical places for higher buildings, the lower land costs should allow for units that are more affordable than others in the neighbourhood. That was certainly the case for the retirement condos built a bit further down on Isabella at Metcalfe. My view is that we should be putting as many units on this cheaper land as possible.

Honestly no source, just trying to think about it from an overall perspective. If everyone knows they can make more from the land, then sellers can push up the price forcing developers to request more height to add more units.
It's been noted before on here that most development in the city has been either large SFHs in the suburbs or shoebox condos, and while technically more supply could contribute to affordability, I would argue a bunch of tiny units aren't really diversifying the supply of housing in the city, and overall aren't helping improve the affordability of housing (overall).

[phil235]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Honestly no source, just trying to think about it from an overall perspective. If everyone knows they can make more from the land, then sellers can push up the price forcing developers to request more height to add more units.
It's been noted before on here that most development in the city has been either large SFHs in the suburbs or shoebox condos, and while technically more supply could contribute to affordability, I would argue a bunch of tiny units aren't really diversifying the supply of housing in the city, and overall aren't helping improve the affordability of housing (overall).

The comments on speculation make sense - there is no question that it goes on and has negative impacts on the market. The link to height limits is an interesting angle. More certainty would discourage speculation, but zoning is such a blunt instrument that it will never be the case that we’d want to eliminate variances (this lot being an obvious case where the zoning doesn’t make sense). Maybe there is a place where we have more certainty without tying hands in a way that inhibits supply.

As for diversity of supply, that is true. I may be overly optimistic that opening up cheaper land would result in the construction of bigger units that are more affordable, but it seems to me that has to be part of the picture. As it stands now, the Glebe isn’t awash in smaller units, so even the more standard 600-900 sq ft condos and apartments diversify supply in the area.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Land speculation negatively affect affordability. They build taller buildings to maximize profit on land, which drives prices higher due to the speculation. If heights were actually enforced that speculation might be reduced thus increasing affordability.

A good example of this is 979 Wellington. Zoning was 6 floors. Previous developer was able to increase to 9 floors in 2017 for part of the lot. New developer, by their own admittance, overpaid to buy-up the entire block assuming they could get approval for 22 storeys.

Had they paid for the land based on the current 9 floor zoning instead of assuming they could get 2+ times what's allowed, units may have ultimately been more affordable.

Zoning should not necessarily be set in stone. This particular proposal is a good example of a taller development making more common sense then the current zoning. Blindly approving anything though is not a good strategy.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by phil235

The comments on speculation make sense - there is no question that it goes on and has negative impacts on the market. The link to height limits is an interesting angle. More certainty would discourage speculation, but zoning is such a blunt instrument that it will never be the case that we’d want to eliminate variances (this lot being an obvious case where the zoning doesn’t make sense). Maybe there is a place where we have more certainty without tying hands in a way that inhibits supply.

As for diversity of supply, that is true. I may be overly optimistic that opening up cheaper land would result in the construction of bigger units that are more affordable, but it seems to me that has to be part of the picture. As it stands now, the Glebe isn’t awash in smaller units, so even the more standard 600-900 sq ft condos and apartments diversify supply in the area.

That's fair, these units do bring significantly more people and different demographics of people closer to an area that already has an established retail and service presence. Unfortunately just having cheaper land probably will not open up larger scale units, it would probably take the city using a carrot or stick approach with developers to make that happen in the core.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

A good example of this is 979 Wellington. Zoning was 6 floors. Previous developer was able to increase to 9 floors in 2017 for part of the lot. New developer, by their own admittance, overpaid to buy-up the entire block assuming they could get approval for 22 storeys.

Had they paid for the land based on the current 9 floor zoning instead of assuming they could get 2+ times what's allowed, units may have ultimately been more affordable.

Zoning should not necessarily be set in stone. This particular proposal is a good example of a taller development making more common sense then the current zoning. Blindly approving anything though is not a good strategy.

That development is a very good example the ridiculousness of Ottawa zoning and the nimbyism that surrounds it. With all the changes and etc, the proposed dev is still 3 stories taller then zoning, and only contains 50 units less then the towers.

So instead of a slim tower the CA will get a Stubby one with just 50 units less on a lot within 600 metres of Bayview station.

What significantly worse for Ontario & Ottawa at large is basing zoning off of what the community will accept, base it on the growth rate, the available infrastructure, and other facts. but not the CA position.

[SL123]

This proposal seems to still be active and at Site Plan Control now. Some new documents were posted on DevApp although nothing seems to have change which is good IMO!

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...3-0069/details

[rocketphish]

Yes, they have made some significant changes. The building now contains 160 residential apartment units (up from 150) and 313 square metres of retail space at-grade. They have added 14 3-bedroom units, where there none previously. Design-wise, they seem to have changed the size and positioning of the podium windows, tower windows and balconies, as well as the detail of the roof-top pinnacle.

[ponyboycurtis]

The podium and tower is about as good a fit as you'll ever find for the area.

It's nice to look at a proposal and not really think .. it needs more height. I think its lovely the way it is.