HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2012, 2:11 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
159-167 Parkdale Ave | 96m | 31f | Proposed

We just received notice that Richcraft has applied for rezoning of these three properties. The location is the northeast corner of Parkdale and Lyndale, where the Cottage and Kitchen was, as well as a couple of small apartments on either side. The application isn't online yet, but the proposal is for 28 storeys, with commercial at grade and up to 188 units, no numbers for parking spaces. The old restaurant has been empty since last fall, but the apartments are still occupied (for now).

I'm not surprised by the height, after 99 Parkdale and other applications around town, and I'm not too concerned with that, since the impacts in my backyard are about the same once the building is anything taller than about 15 storeys (e.g., SohoParkway-size). Although, I think from an urban design perspective, something in that 15 storey range -- give or take -- would be more appropriate immediately next to a part of the neighbourhood that's primarily detached and semi-detached single family housing, with a few low rise apartments (a very different situation from around 99 Parkdale, at the north end of the hood, which is almost all high rise).

There's no mention in the letter about FSI to give a sense of the overall size of building they're thinking of, but one worrisome aspect of the zoning request is to reduce all setbacks to 1.5m. (does this mean a Richcraft Special? i.e. a lot-line to lot-line slab?). A rear setback of 1.5m would be a reduction from 7.5m in the current zoning -- which, granted, sounds like a lot -- but 1.5m isn't very much at all... e.g., it's not enough for delivery truck for the commercial spaces, nor is it a very great distance for the neighbouring house on Lyndale to be from say a restaurant's exhaust fans, if another eatery goes in (not sure what, if any rules govern this, but will be inquiring with the planner for my own edification).

They did some exploratory drilling in the spring. The depth of any hole, and the safety measures they plan to take (especially after the Galleria Phase I disaster) will be another thing we'll be watching for. Blasting for the SoHo Parkway caused a neighbour's gas line to leak, and made her quite sick before the problem was diagnosed. Sure, they'll have insurance, but dealing with claims for any impacts isn't anyone's idea of a picnic. If/when this goes through, (and if Richcraft decides to build this century!) I think I'll be going around taking a few photos foundations, retaining walls, etc., you know, just for reference ;-)

Richcraft assembled the land last year; details from January:
http://www.juteaujohnsoncomba.com/ms_january2012.htm
Quote:
Another significant transaction was the purchase of 159-167 Parkdale Avenue. The property was acquired by Richcraft (Parkdale) Ltd. from a number of vendors for $3,125,000 or $212/sf of site area. It is currently improved but was purchased for its development with a residential condominium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2012, 3:13 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
He/Him - Gen Y
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 15,643
For me, I think that one of the advantages of a tall building is to leave open space around, you know, to avoid lot line to lot line. I wouldn't approve this thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2012, 3:35 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
For me, I think that one of the advantages of a tall building is to leave open space around, you know, to avoid lot line to lot line. I wouldn't approve this thing.
yes, trading height limits for a podium-and-slender-point-tower form of development is something I support and encourage, even (especially) literally in my own backyard, but all I can envision with Richcraft's portfolio is 28 storeys of this: http://www.bit.ly/OAO56x or this: http://www.bit.ly/L65yUt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2012, 3:43 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
He/Him - Gen Y
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 15,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
yes, trading height limits for a podium-and-slender-point-tower form of development is something I support and encourage, even (especially) literally in my own backyard, but all I can envision with Richcraft's portfolio is 28 storeys of this: http://www.bit.ly/OAO56x or this: http://www.bit.ly/L65yUt.
swell, more cutting edge designs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2012, 6:46 PM
Ottawan Ottawan is offline
Citizen-at-large
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Expat (in Toronto)
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
We just received notice that Richcraft has applied for rezoning of these three properties. The location is the northeast corner of Parkdale and Lyndale, where the Cottage and Kitchen was, as well as a couple of small apartments on either side. The application isn't online yet, but the proposal is for 28 storeys, with commercial at grade and up to 188 units, no numbers for parking spaces. The old restaurant has been empty since last fall, but the apartments are still occupied (for now).

I'm not surprised by the height, after 99 Parkdale and other applications around town, and I'm not too concerned with that, since the impacts in my backyard are about the same once the building is anything taller than about 15 storeys (e.g., SohoParkway-size). Although, I think from an urban design perspective, something in that 15 storey range -- give or take -- would be more appropriate immediately next to a part of the neighbourhood that's primarily detached and semi-detached single family housing, with a few low rise apartments (a very different situation from around 99 Parkdale, at the north end of the hood, which is almost all high rise).

There's no mention in the letter about FSI to give a sense of the overall size of building they're thinking of, but one worrisome aspect of the zoning request is to reduce all setbacks to 1.5m. (does this mean a Richcraft Special? i.e. a lot-line to lot-line slab?). A rear setback of 1.5m would be a reduction from 7.5m in the current zoning -- which, granted, sounds like a lot -- but 1.5m isn't very much at all... e.g., it's not enough for delivery truck for the commercial spaces, nor is it a very great distance for the neighbouring house on Lyndale to be from say a restaurant's exhaust fans, if another eatery goes in (not sure what, if any rules govern this, but will be inquiring with the planner for my own edification).

They did some exploratory drilling in the spring. The depth of any hole, and the safety measures they plan to take (especially after the Galleria Phase I disaster) will be another thing we'll be watching for. Blasting for the SoHo Parkway caused a neighbour's gas line to leak, and made her quite sick before the problem was diagnosed. Sure, they'll have insurance, but dealing with claims for any impacts isn't anyone's idea of a picnic. If/when this goes through, (and if Richcraft decides to build this century!) I think I'll be going around taking a few photos foundations, retaining walls, etc., you know, just for reference ;-)

Richcraft assembled the land last year; details from January:
http://www.juteaujohnsoncomba.com/ms_january2012.htm
I generally agree with this assessment, although the height concerns me even less considering the fact that it is right across from Tunney's Pasture, which has (and likely eventually will have more) buildings of greater height.

I will be unimpressed if it is lot-line to lot-line, although that is a distinct possibility. I hope it will be a podium design. I'm happiest about the ground-floor retail, as I feel Parkdale north of Scott is sorely lacking (and could support) retail space. I also hope that they have their parking access on the rear alley - that is a good concept incorporated in 99 Parkdale that should be repeated here.

I also hope that Richcraft actually moves to build the thing sometime this decade, rather than letting the leases expire and the buildings deteriorate to the point that they demolish them and replace it with either a gravel lot, or a temporary grass 'park'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2012, 7:25 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Thanks for the support, Ottawan! Because I'm a transparent kind of guy, here are the comments that I sent to the city planner, based on the information available to date (WARNING: some repetition from my posts, above).
Quote:
1) With respect to the proposed height, I believe that from an urban design perspective, something in the range of Soho Parkway’s size (i.e., 15 storeys give or take a few) would be more appropriate given that the lot is immediately adjacent to a part of the neighbourhood composed primarily of detached and attached single family housing. The situation here is very different from that around 99 Parkdale, at the north end of the hood, (a proposal that we have generally supported) which is surrounded largely by high rises. This would still represent an increase in height over the current zoning, and I believe that increases in height beyond such a range should only be permitted in exchange for exceptional design (and I strongly note that Richcraft does not have a reputation for exceptional design). That said, we are not surprised by the height sought, given 99 Parkdale and many Claridge applications around town, and we are not overly concerned with the height per se, since the impacts on our backyard are about the same once the building is anything taller than about 15 storeys.

2) What I am very concerned about is the massing of the building, including the size of its floorplate, the use and location of setbacks, the situation of the tower on the lot, etc. I am supportive of the design principle of trading height limits for a podium-and-slender-point-tower form of development (with street-oriented townhouse or commercial uses at the ground floor). Such a form would somewhat mitigate the negative impacts that any high-rise development of this lot would have on natural light and air circulation to our home (we currently enjoy lovely river breezes, the loss of which would have severe impacts on both our quality of life and energy use in our home). However, I have observed that Richcraft builds/proposes towers that tend to occupy most of the lot, with few setbacks. In the letter, there is no mention about FSI to give a sense of the overall size/form of building being considered, but the request to reduce all setbacks to 1.5m is quite worrisome in this respect. Are we to expect 28 storeys of this: http://www.bit.ly/OAO56x or this: http://www.bit.ly/L65yUt? (NB: I would strongly oppose such a building form at any height)

3) A specific concern with the proposed rear setback: 1.5m does not leave enough for a delivery truck to serve the commercial spaces, nor is it a suitable distance for the neighbouring house on Lyndale Ave, e.g., to be from a restaurant's exhaust fans. Can you advise what, if any rules govern this? E.g., are there any minimum allowable setbacks from commercial ventilation?

4) Much of the back lane is currently unusable: it has heaved, and become overgrown with vegetation. However, if the developer intends to use of the lane during and after construction, there could be damage to our townhouse complex’s rear retaining wall and landscaping, which is common property of Parkdale Mews. In general I would be interested in seeing this currently-blighted area behind our property improved as part of a development, and that any “feral” vegetation removed be replaced with improved greenery.

5) The other area of concern at this time is the depth of any hole to be dug, and the safety measures that Richcraft plans to take (especially after Richcraft’s Galleria Phase I disaster, and the Centropolis mishap) as our common property, as well as service lines and foundations, will only be a few metres from a construction dig that will likely require significant and prolonged use of dynamite. As an example of the source of our concern: during the blasting for the SoHo Parkway’s deep parking garage, the vibrations appear to have caused a neighbour's gas line to leak, which made her quite ill before the problem was diagnosed and fixed.

5) Finally, with 99 Parkdale, a great deal of confusion was caused by the constantly changing numbers of units and parking spaces proposed at various points throughout the process. No number of parking spaces is specified in your letter, but I would like to ensure that any traffic study, etc., is done using a consistent number of units/parking spaces, and if those numbers increase, that a new study is required. With 99 Parkdale, the number of proposed parking spaces varied by as much as 50% in different iterations of the proposal, and it was not at all clear in reading the final Planning Department recommendation to Council which of these numbers was used to generate the traffic forecasts, etc.
We're also very happy that they're talking about ground floor commercial, since the Cottage and a Kitchen worked with a pretty niche clientele for years, and now we have new "captive markets" going in with all of the condo development (not to mention the long-term potential for massive development on the west side of Parkdale and new smaller-scale infills within Mechanicsville proper). We also think access via the laneway is the right way to go, and was among the pluses in the 99 Parkdale proposal. About the height, and comparing heights on the east side of Parkdale to those on the west side or deeper into Tunney's, the thing to keep in mind is how the triangles work from street level. RH Coates is a tall building that appears to be on Parkdale because there is nothing between it an the street, but it is effectively well over 100 metres from the neighbourhood, and it quickly becomes invisible from street level because it's blocked by the closer buildings; this wouldn't be the case with a building of the same height on the east side of Parkdale. Whereas, slightly shorter buildings on the west side of Parkdale wouldn't loom over the neighbourhood for the same reason RH Coats doesn't, and I think that in general, buildings on the east side of Parkdale should step down further from there, unless we are leveraging exceptional design. I would say the same thing about Parkdale (and Holland) south of Scott Street.

Last edited by McC; Jul 6, 2012 at 7:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2012, 4:50 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
He/Him - Gen Y
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 15,643
Well said!

Hopefully they can understand and appreciate the difference between NIMBYs and constructive, intelligent criticism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 3:17 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Development Application docs are online now
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__864WQK

It's a pretty sharp tower/podium (as proposed), nothing revolutionary, but the playful arrangement of the windows in the north side and the way the north side projection is cantilevered out are all interesting design features. The functional podium with ground floor townhouses and a commercial space (shown as a café, of course) are also much appreciated from a neighbourhood perspective. I'm also glad that they've (so far) resisted the temptation to have a half dozen different coloured/textured materials, which rarely works well IMHO -- glass and greige may be a boring, but it could be so much worse. It's proposed to be a pretty big building, with six levels of underground parking (all dug out of bedrock), so no matter what the finished product looks like, it'll look like nothing but a lot of hole for a long long time. Total units is listed at 196 (instead of the 188 we were told by the city planner), parking allocation seems reasonable so far, but expect more confusing yo-yoing on those numbers to follow. Still concerned about the rear setback (requesting only 1m, not 1.5, because city rules define "Rear" differently), and the Delcan traffic paper notes that the proposed ramp to the garage is also non-conforming, so that will take some monitoring, too: lots of families use that sidewalk, so we'll need good sitelines to make sure no little kids get squished by someone pulling out who is already mentally on the ORP.

Direct link to the renders here:

http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...02-12-0064.PDF
(at the end of the .pdf are a bunch of street-level photos of what the building would look like from various vantages, which are appreciated; but conspicuously absent is a shot from inside the Mechanicsville neighbourhood proper, say from in front of the Croatian church a block away on Hinchey, that would be nice too.)

Last edited by McC; Jul 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 3:45 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
He/Him - Gen Y
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 15,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
Development Application docs are online now
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__864WQK

It's a pretty sharp tower/podium (as proposed), nothing revolutionary, but the playful arrangement of the windows in the north side and the way the north side projection is cantilevered out are all interesting design features. The functional podium with ground floor townhouses and a commercial space (shown as a café, of course) are also much appreciated from a neighbourhood perspective. I'm also glad that they've (so far) resisted the temptation to have a half dozen different coloured/textured materials, which rarely works well IMHO -- glass and greige may be a boring, but it could be so much worse. It's proposed to be a pretty big building, with six levels of underground parking (all dug out of bedrock), so no matter what the finished product looks like, it'll look like nothing but a lot of hole for a long long time. Total units is listed at 196 (instead of the 188 we were told by the city planner), parking allocation seems reasonable so far, but expect more confusing yo-yoing on those numbers to follow. Still concerned about the rear setback (requesting only 1m, not 1.5, because city rules define "Rear" differently), and the Delcan traffic paper notes that the proposed ramp to the garage is also non-conforming, so that will take some monitoring, too: lots of families use that sidewalk, so we'll need good sitelines to make sure no little kids get squished by someone pulling out who is already mentally on the ORP.

Direct link to the renders here:

http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...02-12-0064.PDF
(at the end of the .pdf are a bunch of street-level photos of what the building would look like from various vantages, which are appreciated; but conspicuously absent is a shot from inside the Mechanicsville neighbourhood proper, say from in front of the Croatian church a block away on Hinchey, that would be nice too.)
Nice building, hoping they use good materials (if approved). Nice setbacks from the street, but you are right about the rear set back, maybe a bit too close. Glad that it's a bit taller than their proposal at 99 Parkdale, a bit of variance is always good.

I'm afraid that all the buildings on Parkdale will end up black/gray; SOHO, proposal(s?) for 99, this one...

BTW, anyone else have problems opening the city application website? For me, it either doesn’t open at all or one page at a time (open a page, next one shows "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" so I have to go back and click again every single time).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 4:13 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Glad that it's a bit taller than their proposal at 99 Parkdale, a bit of variance is always good.
"a bit taller" is right: at 85m, it'd be 1m higher than was approved for Urbandale at 99 Parkdale
Quote:
I'm afraid that all the buildings on Parkdale will end up black/gray; SOHO, proposal(s?) for 99, this one....
Don't worry, Hobin coloured 99 Parkdale a darker shade of grey and even used a bit of beige (!) in the podium, so they won't look the same at all! ;-)
Quote:
BTW, anyone else have problems opening the city application website?
???it worked fine for me this morning; now, not so much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 4:55 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
He/Him - Gen Y
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 15,643
[QUOTE=McC;5767997]"a bit taller" is right: at 85m, it'd be 1m higher than was approved for Urbandale at 99 Parkdale

Really; just 1 meter? I guess it looks like more of a difference because Urbandale's proposal "top" starts a few floors earlier (page 20 of the PDF).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 5:54 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
"a bit taller" is right: at 85m, it'd be 1m higher than was approved for Urbandale at 99 Parkdale

Really; just 1 meter? I guess it looks like more of a difference because Urbandale's proposal "top" starts a few floors earlier (page 20 of the PDF).
The Planning Department report on 99 Parkdale said the zoning amendment was for 84m; it's probably just be a trick of the perspective and the variation in the shape of their tops.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 7:48 PM
Ottawan Ottawan is offline
Citizen-at-large
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Expat (in Toronto)
Posts: 738
The design has done a really good job with creating a very legit podium that looks as though it will interact well at street level on Parkdale. I also like how the tower tops out - the mechanical floor will not be super obvious.

The tower itself is good but not spectacular. A lot will depend on the quality of the glazing used.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 6:00 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
He/Him - Gen Y
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 15,643
Don't know if there is anything new in this submission, but here we go anyway;

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__80WE1G
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 6:43 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Don't know if there is anything new in this submission, but here we go anyway;

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__80WE1G
Floor plans appear to be updated to show a commercial podium instead of townhouses, and treatment of the rear of the site has changed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 7:05 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
He/Him - Gen Y
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 15,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjhall View Post
Floor plans appear to be updated to show a commercial podium instead of townhouses, and treatment of the rear of the site has changed.
Thanks.

Glad to see retail on the ground floor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2012, 2:33 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 8,928
Richcraft has a preview site up
http://www.richcraft.com/condos_parkdale.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2012, 3:04 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 8,928
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2012, 1:51 AM
Davis137's Avatar
Davis137 Davis137 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,126
Has some design attributes not too much unlike Trump Toronto in that render...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2012, 3:37 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
That building is going to kill so many children.
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:09 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.