The Mia [12-24 Hawthorne Ave] | 20m | 6f | U/C

[BenYOW]

JBPA Developments Inc. has requested a Zoning By-law Amendment and is proposing to redevelop the property with a 6-storey residential apartment building with a total of 67 units consisting of 42 one-bedroom units and 25 two-bedroom units. The building will include private indoor amenities including a gym and business centre. Two levels of underground parking are proposed, allowing for 50 vehicular parking spaces, bicycle storage, and an internal waste room. The garage will be accessed through a recessed door at the westernmost extent of the front building wall.

Development Application: Link

Architect: Roderick Lahey Architect Inc.

Renderings Package: Link

Site Plan


Elevation Drawings

[rocketphish]

More imagery:


Location:




Renderings:














Floorplans:

[SL123]

Perfect "Missing-Middle" housing proposal! We need more of those

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by SL123

Perfect "Missing-Middle" housing proposal! We need more of those

Maybe the city could change the ZBA so that these projects can be built as of right. Instead of its originally approved master plan to outlaw this height pretty much anywhere except MTSA and a few limited areas.

As for project is 1) not set back far enough in front, 0.7m vs 2m and not setback past the 4th story far enough....2) not set back far enough in back 6.7m vs 7.5m 3) probably the most problematic one, its too tall....a 6 story building is too tall for this location....20m vs 14.5m (which would only allow ~4 stories.)

Why this doesn't get proposed often because the effort to get this approved won't be that far off that to get a tower somewhere else...

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Maybe the city could change the ZBA so that these projects can be built as of right. Instead of its originally approved master plan to outlaw this height pretty much anywhere except MTSA and a few limited areas.

As for project is 1) not set back far enough in front, 0.7m vs 2m and not setback past the 4th story far enough....2) not set back far enough in back 6.7m vs 7.5m 3) probably the most problematic one, its too tall....a 6 story building is too tall for this location....20m vs 14.5m (which would only allow ~4 stories.)

Why this doesn't get proposed often because the effort to get this approved won't be that far off that to get a tower somewhere else...

Why would the City allow these as of right, when they can meddle and pick apart the design as they normally do. Non architects and non engineers at the City critiquing designs that they have no official ability to but they still do and those powers could be eroded by the province so you can expect a lot of push back.

[UrbOttawa]

Build it! RLAs style is so much better suited for mid-rises like this.

Hawthorne could make for a nice commercial street, too bad theres no retail purposed here.

[Ottawacurious]

I guess I'm mistaken but I had thought all the houses and businesses across the street are on borrowed time? Something to do with the highway widening? I thought that was why the red oak closed but now there is a fancy looking restaurant (gray jay) there now in its stead?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by UrbOttawa

Build it! RLAs style is so much better suited for mid-rises like this.

Hawthorne could make for a nice commercial street, too bad theres no retail purposed here.

My thoughts exactly. They should insist on some retail here, particularly with the longer-term plan to create a Main-Hawthorne-Elgin axis. Lots of potential there.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

I guess I'm mistaken but I had thought all the houses and businesses across the street are on borrowed time? Something to do with the highway widening? I thought that was why the red oak closed but now there is a fancy looking restaurant (gray jay) there now in its stead?

My understanding is that the plan has changed. Those buildings were to be demolished for the Canal bridge replacement, but they seem to have found a work around. Not sure of all of the details.

[Takingoff]

You are right that many of the houses/businesses across the street are slated for demolition due to staging for bridge replacement. I believe that the former royal oak will now get a reprieve with the latest planning submitted, but its in rough shape though.

That said, this makes an ideal blank slate to extend a commercial strip that links to Main Street. The north side of Hawthorne backs onto the Queensway and would hopefully lead to fewer nimby complaints.

[Ottawacurious]

Couldn't find the best page but this one shows they plan on leaving the buildings in place and building the bridges on Ballantyne Park for the rapid replacement.

https://queenswaydowntownbridges.com/en_CA/faq/

Didn't realize they were building on both sides of the hwy. Sucks to be those on Harvey Street

[McKellarDweller]

Thumbs up for the roof deck.
The prefab panels on some elevations are garbage, and not an actual acceptable finishing material for quality housing, but it looks like I'm out of luck for the foreseeable future in Ottawa on that subject.

[waterloowarrior]

Thanks for sharing the update on the Queensway.
This is John Bassi's development company
https://www.jbpa.ca/about

[rocketphish]

[June 2022] 12-18 & 20 Hawthorne Avenue was purchased by JB Holdings Inc. from Zelma Palef Holdings Limited for $2,985,000 or $247 per square foot. It is zoned Traditional Main Street.

http://juteaujohnsoncomba.com/wp-con...June-Sales.pdf

[waterloowarrior]

Site plan application submitted (docs not up yet)
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...3-0043/details

[rocketphish]

Now with designated ground-floor commercial space (March 2023)

64 residential units: 24 x 1 BR, 17 x 1 BR+Den, 20 x 2 BR, 5 x 2BR+Den.
Commercial area: 284.5 m2





















http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...02-22-0096.PDF

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Now with designated ground-floor retail (March 2023)

Woooo

[Williamoforange]

Who owns the commercial portion of condos? ... Is it the condo board/the building? Or is it retained sold as a commercial condo?....

I ask because it looks like some of the amenities might be located in commercial space, which could be converted back to commercial.

[cr872190]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Who owns the commercial portion of condos? ... Is it the condo board/the building? Or is it retained sold as a commercial condo?....

I ask because it looks like some of the amenities might be located in commercial space, which could be converted back to commercial.

The only communal amenity space shown is the rooftop terrace.

Commercial units are almost never part of the condominium corporation and are usually held by the developer for lease or sold individually. They have shared facility agreements with the corporations that share some costs and access to condo-held common elements.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Woooo

Way better. This is a game-changer for that stretch. Can't wait for the complete street to connect Main to the bridge.