3030 St. Joseph Blvd | 66m | 18f | Approved

[J.OT13]

“The community’s goal is to have no building there at all,” Fletcher said. “It’s a matter of making a moral argument, a credible argument.”

That just doesn't go together. How is "we don't want anything built there ever" a credible argument?

Worst part is, the City will reject the application, I'm sure of it. It's time to vote these clowns out.

[kwoldtimer]

Fear of landslides adds a new twist to the usual neighbourhood concerns.

[gjhall]

Deep deep lolz.

[waterloowarrior]

Loving this quote: “The community’s goal is to have no building there at all.” This is a rival to the top NIMBY quotes of all time on SSP

“The news of the rezoning application at the post office hit Beaverbrook like 9/11,” said Stirling. “It sent shivers of disgust through people in and beyond Beaverbrook. " http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/...d.php?t=195065

“But to have a strip mall on Riverside Drive is idiotic.” she said, drawing applause. “We don’t need a library. We don’t need stores. We need our green space.” http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=225684

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Loving this quote: “The community’s goal is to have no building there at all.” This is a rival to the top NIMBY quotes of all time on SSP

“The news of the rezoning application at the post office hit Beaverbrook like 9/11,” said Stirling. “It sent shivers of disgust through people in and beyond Beaverbrook. " http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/...d.php?t=195065

“But to have a strip mall on Riverside Drive is idiotic.” she said, drawing applause. “We don’t need a library. We don’t need stores. We need our green space.” http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=225684

For the Orleans project doesn't the as of right zoning and OP designation permit about 2/3 of the height they are asking for anyway.?

For the Beaverbrook project (which by the way looks like it was pared down a lot from the original 'monstrosity') wasn't there some quote that one of the residents wanted the 'historical setbacks' preserved.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by gjhall

True, and true in most cases - but planning for small scale retail (access corridors and doors, infrastructure for utility accesses and metering, wiring arrays etc) allows conversion back to small scale when the bank/drugstore type tenants move on to the next newest development.

This.

Too many projects don't incorporate this flexibility into their ground-level retail, and can only be converted, in either direction (splitting or consolidating) at great expense. Building this flexibility from the start is smart future-proofing.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Loving this quote: “The community’s goal is to have no building there at all.” This is a rival to the top NIMBY quotes of all time on SSP

“The news of the rezoning application at the post office hit Beaverbrook like 9/11,” said Stirling. “It sent shivers of disgust through people in and beyond Beaverbrook. " http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/...d.php?t=195065

“But to have a strip mall on Riverside Drive is idiotic.” she said, drawing applause. “We don’t need a library. We don’t need stores. We need our green space.” http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=225684

Oh man - this deserves a "greatest hits" thread of its own.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Oh man - this deserves a "greatest hits" thread of its own.

A little bird told me the City's planning department has a notebook of these greatest hits - I'd pay cold hard cash for that baby.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by gjhall

A little bird told me the City's planning department has a notebook of these greatest hits - I'd pay cold hard cash for that baby.

(Dusting off copy of Ontario Municipal Freedom of Information Act.)

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

(Dusting off copy of Ontario Municipal Freedom of Information Act.)

[Uhuniau]

Oh boy. Some good ones in the comments on the Citizen story:

The drawing does not depict the actual site nor does it show how close to existing homes this building would be. If you don't live near or are not familiar with this area, don't rely on this picture to comment. it is a fabrication and extremely deceiving

Why not develop the huge empty lot next to the Place D’Orleans park and ride if they want it close to the future LRT?

I agree with the land slides.. blasting will have to be done, which will shift the bedrock underneath it threatening any home along that stretch making them vulnerable... you disrupt settled land and guess what.. it's no longer secure which means that it could end up in a disaster.

Are they going to build underground parking? How are they going to accomodate the residents? That area is already crammed and going to cause so much disruption to all who live there.. I can see it now.. very bad idea. Build else where.. not there

This road is named after my family! Duford Drive... How unfortunate. I hope they reconsider the location of this proposed condo for many mentioned and personal reasons.

I think it's ridiculous to put a building on that corner considering there's a big sewer trunk and a water main going straight up that grassy hill

That would be shear stupidity from every angle and should never be approved.

That picture isn’t even close to what that corner looks like. If you know the area, the first question is, how is that building even going to fit on that lot!? lol.

No, that would be absurd. I live a stone's throw up the hill, and that lot is a steep hill of clay on limestone, unstable, and with many back yards and paths right around/through it. With so much open space available in the area, why would they try to cram a tall condo into that corner?

They would also have to cut into a hill, but still have the rest of the hill right behind them, in an area that has had some landslides. The area being in an earthquake zone, it would be a disaster waiting to happen.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Hey, anyone know where I can submit the following letter for publishing?

An Open Letter to Bob Monette

Forgive me Councillor, but I am confused. I was under the impression that you and your constituents fought tooth and nail for LRT and its extension to come to your neck of the woods. Am I mistaken? I must be, because I've heard tell that you are now fighting a 13-storey building in the vicinity of a future light rail station.

Based on the various reports from the city, I thought it would have been obvious to everyone by now that trains need riders, and riders like to live close to trains. It's why we're seeing new proposals and towers around the Trillium Line. Consequently, I am utterly perplexed by you and your fellow suburbanites arguing against such a sensible proposal near a future rail line. Perhaps there's some kind of disconnect.

Perhaps there's a disconnect between some who want rapid transit, but none of the consequences of such an investment. Perhaps there's a disconnect about what transit-oriented development means in certain communities. Perhaps there's a disconnect between your neighbour Mr. Fletcher and what it means to live in a city. After all, “The community’s goal is to have no building there at all,” Fletcher said. “It’s a matter of making a moral argument, a credible argument.”

Welcome to the City of Ottawa, Mr. Monette. This is what it means to be a growing part of it, especially if you want light rail that comes as part of the package deal.

Sincerely,

A fellow citizen

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Hey, anyone know where I can submit the following letter for publishing?

Both city papers, and whatever community paper still exists in Orleans.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Hey, anyone know where I can submit the following letter for publishing?

"Perhaps there's a disconnect between some who want rapid transit, but none of the consequences of such an investment. Perhaps there's a disconnect about what transit-oriented development means in certain communities. Perhaps there's a disconnect between your neighbour Mr. Fletcher and what it means to live in a city. After all, “The community’s goal is to have no building there at all,” Fletcher said. “It’s a matter of making a moral argument, a credible argument.”"

I particularly like this line, as it's my biggest frustrations with all of the complaints that inevitably come with developments like this.

Ottawa has over 1 million people and its time that residents of this city start accepting that. Developments like this are exactly what a city of our size needs more of. You don't like it? Move somewhere smaller that suits your tastes.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Hey, anyone know where I can submit the following letter for publishing?

How to submit a letter to the editor

Ottawa Citizen Editorial Board
Published on: March 4, 2016 | Last Updated: November 6, 2017 1:57 PM EST


We welcome letters to the editor. Some quick guidelines:

– Our address is letters@ottawacitizen.com . Please note, due to volume, we cannot respond to individual letters.

– Keep your letter short. While longer letters are sometimes published, we give preference to letters of under 200 words. Sometimes a sentence or two is sufficient.

– Please include your first and last name, address and phone number for verification (these will not appear in print; your name and municipality will).

– If you are responding to an article that appeared in the Citizen, please include, if possible, the headline and publication date of that article.

– Keep it civil, even if you are writing to disagree with someone.

– Please do not send us letters you are submitting elsewhere. Please do not send us “open letters” for politicians or other public figures. (They can read their own mail.) Please do not send poems.

– We cannot run every letter we receive, and so will usually give preference to local writers and those we have not heard from before. And, to repeat, we favour shorter letters (so that we can run as many different voices as possible).

– We edit for length, clarity and style, but strive to ensure your arguments are kept intact.

All that said, here it is again: Please email your letters to letters@ottawacitizen.com

We look forward to hearing your voice – and sharing it with other readers.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/let...-to-the-editor

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

– Please do not send us letters you are submitting elsewhere. Please do not send us “open letters” for politicians or other public figures. (They can read their own mail.) Please do not send poems.

Well, that precludes sending my letter to the Ottawa Citizen.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Well, that precludes sending my letter to the Ottawa Citizen.

Not necessarily. Just rejig it a bit to speak about the Councillor, not to him personally. Oh, and make sure that your sentences don't rhyme

[J.OT13]

Those rules are pretty asinine. Only us regular citizens have to abide. Politicians, business people, right-wing-nut former journalists and moderately well know people can go on for as long as they want, be as political as they want and address their letters to whoever they want.

[Dundas]

Any updates on this?
They had an other public consultation on January 24th to address concerns over the height of the proposal.

[Dundas]

Last I heard at the beginning of the year this is onhold until 2019. Bob Monette did not support the height of this proposal. He is now retiring and we have 17new candidates running for Orleans ward. I wonder out of the gang who would be the most to support this style of intensification?

Doug Feltmate and Rick Bedard, appear to be frontrunners because of their higher business profile and community connections.

According to the Ottawa citizen.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/ottawaci...-to-voters/amp