[waterloowarrior]

424 metcalfe/beaver barracks by CCOC (Barry J Hobin & associates is the architect)
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/a-lacac/2008/05-08/424_site_presentation_8.5x11.pdf
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/a-lacac/2008/05-08/City%20let%20Lazear%20Apr22.pdf

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/424metcalfeaerial.jpg

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/424metcalfesiteplan.jpg

I really like the site plan for this one

[Kitchissippi]

:previous: I like the courtyard set up but I'm not so sure about the 8 storey building in the corner. I was really hoping they would set aside some set-back so that in the far future, the Museum of Nature would gain some visibility from the Queensway. Right now the perspective seems crammed. When the museum building and the Windsor Arms apartments were built, the Queensway was a railroad so that view was never considered.

Also, Metcalfe is supposed to be a tourist gateway -- tourists coming from the west (eastbound Queensway) are signed to go this way to get to Parliament Hill and the InfoCentre. It would be nice to see something more festive and exciting on the corner.

[kwoldtimer]

Interesting. A proposal for that site has been a long time coming.:tup:

[Rathgrith]

Isn't the Iraqi Embassy there right now?

[Kitchissippi]

The Iraqi embassy is on McLeod, on the front side of the museum. This site is behind, beside the YMCA

[kwoldtimer]

:previous: I like the courtyard set up but I'm not so sure about the 8 storey building in the corner. I was really hoping they would set aside some set-back so that in the far future, the Museum of Nature would gain some visibility from the Queensway. Right now the perspective seems crammed. When the museum building and the Windsor Arms apartments were built, the Queensway was a railroad so that view was never considered.

Also, Metcalfe is supposed to be a tourist gateway -- tourists coming from the west (eastbound Queensway) are signed to go this way to get to Parliament Hill and the InfoCentre. It would be nice to see something more festive and exciting on the corner.

Perhaps Ms. Holmes will help you out - she'll probably think that 8 stories on that corner is too tall! :haha:

[O-Town Hockey]

Perhaps Ms. Holmes will help you out - she'll probably think that 8 stories on that corner is too tall! :haha:

I'm sure they've already thought of that and actually hope to get approved for 5-6 storeys. What a farce.

[movebyleap]

How odd! I've never seen those buildings before! Barracks? Well, in any case - good thing they're getting rid of them. They're just awful looking!!

[waterloowarrior]

here's a project overview (http://www.ccochousing.org/announcements/424%20Metcalfe%20Project%20Overview.pdf) from CCOC's website

[Mille Sabords]

:previous: I like the courtyard set up but I'm not so sure about the 8 storey building in the corner. I was really hoping they would set aside some set-back so that in the far future, the Museum of Nature would gain some visibility from the Queensway. Right now the perspective seems crammed. When the museum building and the Windsor Arms apartments were built, the Queensway was a railroad so that view was never considered.

Also, Metcalfe is supposed to be a tourist gateway -- tourists coming from the west (eastbound Queensway) are signed to go this way to get to Parliament Hill and the InfoCentre. It would be nice to see something more festive and exciting on the corner.

Personally, I don't have a problem with an 8-storey building providing a strong edge to this corner, to signal an entrance into urban conditions from the highway, and to channel the perspective and the view toward the museum with a sharper focus than if the eye were distracted with the type of aimless suburban shrubbery one would find within a typical Ottawa "building setback".

I give this proposal good marks on urbanity and on their approach to site development.

I'm also happy to see they're loosing the paramedics station, which was in the wrong location to begin with. My wife used to live in the Windsor Arms years ago when they were talking about building that paramedics station and most people weren't too thrilled with the prospect of sirens at any hour right by their windows. Good riddance.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Now THAT's what I call urban infill! :tup:

[ajldub]

:previous:
:previous:
I'm with you Milles, I like the density. It takes priority over views from the queensway in my opinion. In Dublin, where I have been living for five years now, when a highway cuts through a city they make the walls surrounding the highway out of stone. This absorbs 100% of the sounds and vibrations so you can walk along the stone wall and have no idea that cars are on the other side. It's great. We should do it in Ottawa. Ideally I'd like to see the NCC bury the queensway and put down a tree-lined boulevard with a speed limit of 70 on top, but like most things we bring up on this forum it's far too bold and visionary an idea for them.

So is this project a mix of public housing/condos then?

[O-Town Hockey]

Besides being adjacent to the Queensway, that spot is a gem. It's really nice along that stretch of Metcalfe, the park around the Nature museum is gonna be really nice, and you can walk to the Glebe or DT in minutes. These units will bring in a few bucks.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Besides being adjacent to the Queensway, that spot is a gem. It's really nice along that stretch of Metcalfe, the park around the Nature museum is gonna be really nice, and you can walk to the Glebe or DT in minutes. These units will bring in a few bucks.


That is a really good location. Close to the Glebe and Downtown, Bank St., the Museum and a nice park, Elgin St., the Canal...Dang, maybe I should try and move in there... :haha:

[Kitchissippi]

I have no problem with the density, in fact I would like to see something denser, with an even taller building at the corner, possibly to balance with the YMCA tower. What I was hoping for was the possibility of a wider sidewalk on the Metcalfe side, with a setback that at least lined up with the museum building's curved "apse". I find the Windsor Arms a bit too forward and it pinches the view. It has gotten worse since the Museum of Nature built its south addition which presents a black stone wall as you drive towards it with the museum's name on it. It's really cool (I think there is or was supposed to have water flowing down it) but it needs more width to be appreciated better because it feels a bit closed in. I know the Windsor Arms is in the way, but maybe it too gets "redeveloped" somehow in the future.

I've gone onto Museum's new terrace and it is a spectacular space. When the East side opens, the cafeteria will have access to it.

[rodionx]

Personally, I don't have a problem with an 8-storey building providing a strong edge to this corner, to signal an entrance into urban conditions from the highway,

That corner could definitely use an eight story signal that it's the beginning of a residential area. Currently, it takes drivers a couple of blocks to figure out they're not on the highway anymore. So I'm ok with the lack of views. Eyes on the road!

[ajldub]

It would actually be a great place for a twentysomething tower that would make a bold statement that downtown begins here. And it would look great driving right by it on the Queensway.

[adam-machiavelli]

I was just talking to someone who helped do the social aspects of the planning of this place. Apparently every new unit is going to be subsidized housing.

[ajldub]

Maybe one of the professional planners on this site can clarify things for me, but hasn't it been shown time and again that building projects that are 100% public housing is a really bad idea?

[Mille Sabords]

Maybe one of the professional planners on this site can clarify things for me, but hasn't it been shown time and again that building projects that are 100% public housing is a really bad idea?

You're right, the most current thinking says that a tenure mix is much better. Toronto is experimenting a new mixed-tenure approach (rental, subsidized rental, and condo ownership) in their Regent Park redevelopment, which is a massive laboratory and one I think will prove itself as the way to go.

This particular one, I'm not too worried about because it is one relatively small site and it already abuts a private rental building (the Windsor Arms) as part of a fairly fine-grained urban fabric.

But there are several areas in the city, starting with the "projects" in Lowertown, which would lend themselves to the Regent Park formula when the time comes to redevelop them.

[Bucolic Urbanity]

Perhaps Ms. Holmes will help you out - she'll probably think that 8 stories on that corner is too tall! :haha:

I believe that Diane Holmes got a bit too involved early on and then the matter of conflict of interest came up and the City went hands off.

I have the original PDF of the RFP but I don't know how to post links like that.

[d_jeffrey]

Maybe one of the professional planners on this site can clarify things for me, but hasn't it been shown time and again that building projects that are 100% public housing is a really bad idea?

What I would suggest is a subsidy directly for housing, based on income and family dependants. This way none of this complicated mess, the city has no value in buidling housing anyways, and being public, it just costs lots more in the end.

[adam-machiavelli]

I too support mixed housing in theory. However, there are many many examples of mixed housing where lower income/subsidized residents felt or were subjected to behaviour by more wealthier residents (with more legal resources at the ready) with the intention of kicking them out of the building just because they think the value of their condo will go up by $5-10k for doing so.

[c_speed3108]

The tricky thing about mixed developments is while everyone seems to support the idea in principle, when it comes to laying hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table...people run.

or as another poster said, if they don't run it creates a class structure in buildings/complexes which does not do anyone any good either.


I am personally a more of a fan of a) trying to protect against the rising costs of housing and b) helping those in lower incomes improve there economic position through the opportunities available around them so that they can then afford reasonably priced properties.

[the capital urbanite]

...I'd like to see better integration with the YMCA.

Aren't they supposed to renovating the YMCA tower?...why not extend the Courtyard concept into the YMCA lot?

[c_speed3108]

...I'd like to see better integration with the YMCA.

Aren't they supposed to renovating the YMCA tower?...why not extend the Courtyard concept into the YMCA lot?

Nice idea! :)

[Mille Sabords]

The tricky thing about mixed developments is while everyone seems to support the idea in principle, when it comes to laying hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table...people run.

or as another poster said, if they don't run it creates a class structure in buildings/complexes which does not do anyone any good either.

I am personally a more of a fan of a) trying to protect against the rising costs of housing and b) helping those in lower incomes improve there economic position through the opportunities available around them so that they can then afford reasonably priced properties.

I spent some time thinking about this and they are very good points. It is not a simple matter to pin down with a single solution, though, because economic conditions change and may require different tools and types of responses.

For example: instituting a housing subsidy to poorer households is a good approach in theory and works best in a context of economic stability or prosperity. But in times of economic instability or recession, there are potentially more households to subsidize at a time when tax revenues may also drop from a slowdown in growth, lower amounts of user fees collected, fewer building permits issued, fewer development charges collected, etc. How does a municipality navigate such a system of support through time and economic ups and downs?

On the other hand, for all the trouble that comes with it, housing stock constitutes an immobile asset which a municipality can leverage, or lease out for revenue to a management company, or package as a safe type of REIT with a rate of return that approximates government bonds, since there is virtually no vacancy in assisted housing units and rent increases (and therefore rates of return), along with operating costs, are predictable.

And, on your other point regarding buyers unwilling to purchase next to subsidized housing: Yes, that is the experience. Which is why so many eyes are on Regent Park as it unfolds. The bet they are making is that, through urban design, the streetscape will be integrated in such a way as to mask the difference between a subsidized building and a market building. Much as in older urban fabrics (and in older European cities), where a streetscape is a succession of contiguous buildings and a passerby won't know who lives in them because they all have storefronts along the sidewalk, Regent Park has gone boldly toward a genuine type of urbanity that will allow buildings to meld into a streetscape and therefore create a "place", or a neighbourhood, where the tenure matters less than the overall desirability of living there (because it is lively, close to everything, convenient, walkable, etc.).

We have been treating subsidized housing as "sites" and isolating them, either geographically or through urban design blunders like setbacks, side yards, etc., that make them identifiable and prone to standing out, when in fact we should be integrating those buildings as completely as possible with their neighbours to stitch an urban fabric that won't let you tell the difference.

[waterloowarrior]

up for LACAC approval
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/a-lacac/2008/07-17/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0147.htm

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/a-lacac/2008/07-17/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0147_files/image008.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

Ottawa.ca downtown development page
http://ottawa.ca/residents/planning/downtown/construction_en-36.jpg
424 Metcalfe
Proposed redevelopment - former Beaver Barracks property
Type: Private non-profit rental apartments and townhouses
Developer: Centretown Citizens Ottawa Non-profit Housing Corporation (CCOC)
Architect: Barry Hobin
Units: 185

[waterloowarrior]

application page (http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__6ATJ3P)on the city's website is up

[c_speed3108]

For a non-profit, I must say, this looks pretty darn good :tup:

[harls]

WTF..

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2008/08/21/6521256-sun.html



New station coming down

City's building on site for housing 'poor planning'

By LAURA CZEKAJ, SUN MEDIA

A paramedic post that cost the city about $600,000 to build four years ago with funds from the Ontario government will be torn down as part of a new affordable housing development.

In what is being called a case of "poor planning" on the part of the municipality, the station on the northwest corner of Catherine and Metcalfe streets will be demolished and incorporated into the Beaver Barracks affordable housing development to maximum use of the space.

DEMOLITION COSTLY

When the first stage of the project is complete, including the construction of three buildings, one of which will house the new paramedic post, the second stage will begin with construction on the former station site.

The cost of demolishing the existing post and including it in the new design will cost the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation about $100,000. Altogether, the first phase of the project will cost about $26 million.

The non-profit housing provider has received $8.5 million from the three levels of government through the Affordable Housing Initiative. The remaining $18 million will be financed.

What makes the demolition of the post even more curious is why the site was selected in the first place.

The city inherited the property from the region, which had purchased it from the federal government to build affordable housing.

Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes said whoever selected the property as the site for the paramedic station either wasn't aware of its intended use or was swayed by the fact it was city-owned and didn't require the purchase of another property.

"I think it was an expedient move," she says. "There was a need for a new site and here was a piece of land the city owned, but in fact it was a very poor use of the site."

The cost of building the station was drawn from capital funding provided by the province as part of the transfer of paramedic services to the city.

The station serves as a rest stop for paramedics who have space to park their ambulance between calls.

"It seems evident that it's poor planning," says Kevin Gaudet, Ontario director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

To have a new building that has to be torn down to accommodate a newer building, at the initial expense of the taxpayer, is an absurd waste of money, Gaudet says.

CHOSEN FOR LOCATION

The city-owned plot of land was chosen largely for its accessibility to the Queensway and downtown.

"The intent was to get housing on that site from day one and it wasn't really fair or appropriate to hold up the paramedics' post while we were waiting to sort out the housing problem," said city housing director Russell Mawby.

It wasn't until after the station was built that the province provided funding allowing affordable housing on that site to move forward.

Paramedic deputy chief Pierre Poirier doesn't anticipate any impact on service or response times since the new post will be completed before the existing one is demolished.

CCOC intends to break ground on the first batch of buildings this fall.



:no:

[Mille Sabords]

I've always wondered about that paramedic station. Even before the Beaver Barracks project took shape there is the nice old apartment building next door, the Windsor Arms. The logic of putting a potentially noisy paramedic station next to an apartment building always escaped me.

[waterloowarrior]

Contamination delays sale of Beaver Barracks site
Wednesday, 08 October 2008
By Megan Haynes
Centretown News

A disagreement has delayed the sale of the property owned by the city at 424 Metcalfe St. to a nonprofit housing corporation.

The land, better known as Beaver Barracks, is contaminated with old pipes and other leftover waste, and the interpretation of who is responsible to clean up the site has delayed the sale of the property until Nov. 26.

The city will determine where it can provide funding support after it receives a revised budget from the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation, an organization that deals with low-income and

sustainable housing. The CCOC plans to buy the vacant property from the city for one dollar andturn it into 140 units of low-income residences.

Russell Mawby, the city’s housing director, says Ottawa has a legal obligation to ensure the site is clean enough to build on.

Because the CCOC wants to dig out a hole in the ground and fill it with concrete, Mawby says there is an issue over who is responsible to pay to remove the soil and dump it.

“It’s never been a secret [the ground is contaminated],” says Catherine Boucher of the CCOC.

“What we understood was that the city’s real estate and property department had set aside money toremediate the site.”

The site has been cleaned up to current environmental standards, says Mawby. He explains the ground isn’t contaminated with chemicals or dangerous materials, but is full of garbage and debris left over from its previous dwellers. Mawby stresses the soil isn’t dangerous; rather just pricey to remove.

“I think it’s a little disingenuous for the city to say we’ll do the work to decontaminate the soil, so long as you don’t dig,” says Boucher.

The cost to clear out the dirt is estimated at $600,000 which the CCOC doesn’t have, says Boucher.

“We’re a non-profit corporation. We’re not Minto. The money has to come out of the project itself. So either our building is less sustainable or less affordable,” she adds.

Because the units will be low income housing, the city can’t let the CCOC raise the rent prices, says Mawby.

The city and the CCOC are working on the revised budget, which will be presented to the council within the next few weeks, says Mawby.

However, Kanata North Coun. Marianne Wilkinson says the city simply doesn’t have the money to cover these costs.

“Right now, we have to find $57 million in cuts,” she says. But she adds she is willing to wait for the revised budget before saying that the city cannot provide funding.

Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes, who proposed the motion to defer the sale, says the city has an obligationto clean up the site.

“We’re squabbling over $600,000, and we’ll be getting that paid back with 50 years of property taxes,” says Holmes.

Boucher says the cost of construction will go up once the ground freezes and as the price of steel continues to climb.

These factors will be included in the resubmitted budget, which Boucher wants to have at councilbefore the end of the month.

[ottawatraffic]

“We’re squabbling over $600,000, and we’ll be getting that paid back with 50 years of property taxes,” says Holmes.

Amazing how she does not recognize this when it comes to development charge relief in her ward.

[O-Town Hockey]

“We’re squabbling over $600,000, and we’ll be getting that paid back with 50 years of property taxes,” says Holmes.

Amazing how she does not recognize this when it comes to development charge relief in her ward.

How unfortunately true that is.

[waterloowarrior]

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/beavermslive.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

http://beaverbarracks.ca/gallery

http://assets.beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/2008-06-01/beaver_barracks_aerial_view.800.png?1224050573

http://assets.beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/2008-05-15/20080522-005.jpg?1224050573

http://assets.beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/2008-05-15/20080522-004.jpg?1224050573

http://assets.beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/2008-05-15/20080522-003.jpg?1224050573

[osirisboy]

is there a reason why its so short?

[Ottawade]

Probably due the extremely close proximity to the Queensway (nothing like owning a penthouse that looks out on to highway traffic!) and the close proximity to the nature museum. It would be a bit of shame to brood over such a nice looking castle :)

[jeremy_haak]

It looks like it would be a nice place to live in. Not ever building has to be a highrise.

[osirisboy]

Probably due the extremely close proximity to the Queensway (nothing like owning a penthouse that looks out on to highway traffic!) and the close proximity to the nature museum. It would be a bit of shame to brood over such a nice looking castle :)

I dont understand, you shouldnt have tall buildings by a highway? I would rather be 25 floors above the queensway not at eye level of the thing. and a tall building on the catherine street side wouldnt intrude on the museum.

[osirisboy]

It looks like it would be a nice place to live in. Not ever building has to be a highrise.

when you are downtown they sure as hell should be. especially when its right by the ugly ass YMCA tower.

[kwoldtimer]

Work now seems to be underway on this site. If so, it must be some kind of Ottawa speed record.

[theKpa]

Should be a decent infill development. That corner building looks interesting in the renderings.

[Ottawade]

One of the Jane's Walk this weekend was given by the director of maintence at the CCOC. It was an interesting walk and one of the stops along the walk was the Beaver Barracks site. Talked about the ground floor retail going in, hoping to be complete on the first phase in about 2 years. Also talked about ideas for the name of the private street that will be put through the development.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3574/3507587272_3eafecc4fb_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3643/3507587534_ef7dc6d9b4_b.jpg

[jcollins]

One of the Jane's Walk this weekend was given by the director of maintence at the CCOC. It was an interesting walk and one of the stops along the walk was the Beaver Barracks site. Talked about the ground floor retail going in, hoping to be complete on the first phase in about 2 years. Also talked about ideas for the name of the private street that will be put through the development.


Which of the buildings has the ground floor retail going in?
Based on the renderings and the plan I couldn't tell.

[Ottawade]

Apparently the side along Cathrine street will have ground floor retail though they aren't sure which type of tenants they will get as they aren't sure coffee shops and the like to take up residence there. (I said hardware store!)

Not sure if its the Phase I or II or both...

[kwoldtimer]

Apparently the side along Cathrine street will have ground floor retail though they aren't sure which type of tenants they will get as they aren't sure coffee shops and the like to take up residence there. (I said hardware store!)

Not sure if its the Phase I or II or both...

Seems a very odd location for any sort of retail. I could see small offices of some sort, but that would be about it.

[Ottawade]

I agree, though they definitely have the right idea. When all is said and done their development will have 262 units I believe. I'd imagine we will see more along the lines of what is on the other side of Catherine (small real estate branch offices and the like).

[waterloowarrior]

southfacing from above
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23575605@N08/3561460828/
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3623/3561460828_374c83fb39.jpg

[O-Town Hockey]

I noticed the other morning that the crane for this project comes REALLY close to the YMCA building. Great to see things moving along with this project and EDC despite the financial turmoil. We need a couple more cranes to go up as the nature museum, HP, and Mondrian shouldn't be up for too much longer.

[Deez]

foundation nearing completion (my photo)

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e2/Reersmeer/IMG_1793.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

crappy shot at a stop light. not too tall yet.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2506/3796346117_0004b31649_o.jpg

[harls]

I noticed the crane at the Museum was finally taken down (Off topic, sorta.)

[waterloowarrior]

by Southfacing... nice angle http://www.flickr.com/photos/23575605@N08/3810440734/
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3560/3810440734_8596cf7261.jpg

[O-Town Hockey]

Here's a couple of renderings that I don't think have been posted yet. Looks pretty sweet if you ask me. Too bad it'll be so noisy being so close to the 417. From www.beaverbarracks.ca

http://beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/20090523T125200-001.jpg

http://beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/20090523T125151-001.jpg

http://beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/2008-06-01/beaver_barracks_aerial_view.800.png

http://beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/2008-05-15/20080522-005.jpg

http://beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/2008-05-15/20080522-004.jpg

http://beaverbarracks.ca/gallery/2008-05-15/20080522-002.jpg

[rodionx]

I like it too. It's very Centretownish, if such an adjective exists. It's like they took the major Centretown building types and put them all together on one site. Nothing flashy, but it works.

[mrarlyn]

I'll be keeping an eye on it as it goes up. This is a great example of what can be built even with the local politics.

[jcollins]

Anyone have any recent pictures of this one?

[waterloowarrior]

Ottawa Urbain has some pictures
http://www.ottawaurbain.ca/424-metcalfe-mise-a-jour/444/

http://www.ottawaurbain.ca/include/ottawaurbain/images/uploaded/1257125787_31266_thumb.jpg

[Davis137]

I like seeing this little site above the Queensway...makes it look like more development and rejuveination (spelling?) is taking place downtown and in centertown...

[waterloowarrior]

aerial by southfacing from oct 25
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23575605@N08/4048146940/
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2557/4048146940_6f29955140.jpg

here are a few more angles
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23575605@N08/4048156696/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23575605@N08/4048155694/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23575605@N08/4047406849/

[Bootawn]

Website addy: www.beaverbarracks.ca

Click on the "Updates" tab at the top of the page for ongoing photographic updates of the construction.

You can also follow us on twitter @beaverbarracks

Cheers!