Claridge Icon | 143m | 45 fl | Approved

[jeremy_haak]

grooveduster:
If you contact the Planning Department, they should be able help you to request to have all notices related to this particular project directed to you regarding meetings etc.

[Marcus CLS]

I work in this neighbourhood and have felt this area is ripe for redevelopement. There has been lots of survey activity lately. Some of what I say may already may be known and is previosly mentioned in the thread but Dow Honda has been resurveyed and my sources are that it is or will be purchased by Claridge. The renderings show future buildings there.

The Arnon site has been resurveyed being the site of two government occupied office buildings (formerly Jet Form/ Adobe). I have noted that the N.W. quadrant of the site where a surface parking lot exists does not have an excavation. That is to say the existing underground parking does not extend to that quadrant.

The parking Lot on Rochester immediately adjacent to and East of Barry J. Hobin Architects et al has been resurveyed and recently the natural gas was disconnected from the lone house on the site. I would suppose all utilities are disconnected. It is too soon to tell if the low rise rental apartment building to the north will be part of any redevelopement.

Lastly, although there has been no activity recently the huge parking lot northeast of the Prescott had soil sample drill rigs on site several years ago. Some times when I walk through the parking lot I can still spot the metal and asphalt caps on the drill sites.

That's all I have to add.

[eternallyme]

What is with these inner-city councillors being so obstructionist? The most progressive councillors seem to be in the suburbs and outer urban area...

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

What is with these inner-city councillors being so obstructionist? The most progressive councillors seem to be in the suburbs and outer urban area...

Supporting development in someone else's ward far away from yours is a lot easier than if it's happening in your backyard

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

What is with these inner-city councillors being so obstructionist? The most progressive councillors seem to be in the suburbs and outer urban area...

I actually disagree with this statement, especially compared to previous iterations of Council.

-I think Hobbs is fairly pro-intensification, and would be more so if she wasn't being dogged by Ken Grey.

-Fleury is a bit of a sheep and doesn't seem to have strong opinions either way.

-Chernushenko, whether or not he could be considered successful, seems to be trying to genuinely reconcile the NIMBY and pro-development groups. Certainly he is far less obstructionist than Clive was.

The only central councillor that truly is a problem is Diane Holmes.

[McC]

This is the first time I've seen it suggested that Hobbs is "obstructionist" on development questions, and this would certainly be news to her opponents in the ward. I've been to three community meetings with her, and at two of these she was frequently heckled for being "in developers' pockets" and for having "already made up her mind to approve developers' proposals because they bought her campaign" or some such nonsense (the third meeting was too small and intimate to heckle, but people still had some harsh words)

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

I actually disagree with this statement, especially compared to previous iterations of Council.

-I think Hobbs is fairly pro-intensification, and would be more so if she wasn't being dogged by Ken Grey.

Correction: she's pro-developer.

The test for whether she was pro-intensification or pro-developer was the Fendor site.

Recall that the developer's proposal didn't actually change the level of intensification allowed on the site; it just changed it from being a mid-rise wall of sorts against the Transitway to a pair of taller towers that will overshadow a few houses on the north side of Workman in the winter.

If she was pro-intensification, she would have held to what the CDP and zoning already permitted because that allowed for intensification while minimizing impacts to anyone else. Heck, she could even have tried to split the difference, because I think one could build as high as a dozen storeys on that site without shadowing anyone. Instead, she fully supported the developer and presented a couple of minor street improvements (one of which was based on old data and not even doable anymore) without having consulted anyone else. Given the context, those are not the actions of someone who is genuinely pro-intensification.

So sorry, she's pro-developer, not pro-intensification.

-Fleury is a bit of a sheep and doesn't seem to have strong opinions either way.

-Chernushenko, whether or not he could be considered successful, seems to be trying to genuinely reconcile the NIMBY and pro-development groups. Certainly he is far less obstructionist than Clive was.

The only central councillor that truly is a problem is Diane Holmes.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by McC

This is the first time I've seen it suggested that Hobbs is "obstructionist" on development questions, and this would certainly be news to her opponents in the ward. I've been to three community meetings with her, and at two of these she was frequently heckled for being "in developers' pockets" and for having "already made up her mind to approve developers' proposals because they bought her campaign" or some such nonsense (the third meeting was too small and intimate to heckle, but people still had some harsh words)

Have you looked at her election financial statements?

She was the only non-mayoral non-incumbent candidate anywhere in the city to have the overwhelming majority of her financial support coming from sources identifiable with the development industry. She even outmatched Peter Clark. Unlike all other candidates in her position, she had scant financial support from individuals in her own ward.

Her campaign basically was bought on the contributions from the development industry, so the charge is hardly "nonsense".

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

Have you looked at her election financial statements?

She was the only non-mayoral non-incumbent candidate anywhere in the city to have the overwhelming majority of her financial support coming from sources identifiable with the development industry. She even outmatched Peter Clark. Unlike all other candidates in her position, she had scant financial support from individuals in her own ward.

Her campaign basically was bought on the contributions from the development industry, so the charge is hardly "nonsense".

I've seen the amounts of money, and the individual contributions were pretty small (3 figures); if she was bought, she was bought cheap. if she is for sale to the highest bidder, then the Westboro community associations could have passed hats and matched the developers pretty easily. If that's what residents believe, it's not too late to fix a missed opportunity, re-election season's only a short time away, buy her off now!

[Cre47]

Not if this was posted, but here is Ken Gray's piece of crap in the Bulldog.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...ding-thats-it/.

Ken should really look nearby and realize that there are buildings over 10 stories nearby, including one at 22 stories high.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Not if this was posted, but here is Ken Gray's piece of crap in the Bulldog.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...ding-thats-it/.

Ken should really look nearby and realize that there are buildings over 10 stories nearby, including one at 22 stories high.

The zoning and the existing (somewhat abortive) community planning documents contradict?!?! DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE! <steam comes out his ears>

[Ottawan]

He really shouldn't use terms like 'rule of law' if he doesn't understand them (and he very clearly doesn't)

[McC]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

He really shouldn't use terms like 'rule of law' if he doesn't understand them (and he very clearly doesn't)

No kidding, his suggestion earlier this week that communities decide* development approvals is the democratic opposite of the rule of law: tyranny of the majority.

*the key is in the "decide" rather than participate in the decision making, which is proper in a democratic rule of law.

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by McC

No kidding, his suggestion earlier this week that communities decide* development approvals is the democratic opposite of the rule of law: tyranny of the majority.

*the key is in the "decide" rather than participate in the decision making, which is proper in a democratic rule of law.

I'm trying to imagine what the city would look like if the community "decided" what got built.
In that hypothetical picture, Ottawa is 2 storeys tall.

[S-Man]

Who was it that said "Democracy means not always getting your way"?

Don't tell it to Ken Gray, or that crop of tuition protesters. Funny how the most self-righteous in society often fail to grasp the basics of their society.

I disagree that the 'majority' of a community would be against a certain project, more like a vocal minority. I somehow doubt that more than 50% of the Glebe were aligned with the sentiments of the FOL, or that more than half of Westboro are Ken Gray's. Maybe I'm wrong, but so often community activists do not represent the sentiment of the majority of the community.

[Postmaster]

I doubt this will be approved at anything more than 35 storeys. As far as Ottawa is concerned, a 40+ storey building is a dream by a visionary imagining what the future will look like in 50 years haha.

Sorry, I just don't have too much faith in our city spirit. We can't even install a roundabout without an uproar, much less a 400 foot building.

That being said, it would be really cool to see something like this, one can always hope!

[grooveduster]

grooveduster:
If you contact the Planning Department, they should be able help you to request to have all notices related to this particular project directed to you regarding meetings etc.

Thanks so much, Jeremy...will do for sure....

[Postmaster]

Any news on this one?

[K-133]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

I doubt this will be approved at anything more than 35 storeys. As far as Ottawa is concerned, a 40+ storey building is a dream by a visionary imagining what the future will look like in 50 years haha.

Sorry, I just don't have too much faith in our city spirit. We can't even install a roundabout without an uproar, much less a 400 foot building.

That being said, it would be really cool to see something like this, one can always hope!

As someone who would like to see a few taller structures in our city, I think in this case the city would be right to reject the application. This is not the space for this type of structure in my opinion.

Mind you, the views from up there would be stunning.

I wonder now if this is a strategic proposal by Claridge to try to stomp out some of the competition, i.e. Soho and their proposal across the street.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by K-133

As someone who would like to see a few taller structures in our city, I think in this case the city would be right to reject the application. This is not the space for this type of structure in my opinion.

Mind you, the views from up there would be stunning.

I wonder now if this is a strategic proposal by Claridge to try to stomp out some of the competition, i.e. Soho and their proposal across the street.

I'm wondering why? Next to an LRT station, on an arterial road, adjacent to a major greenspace, in area slated for high rise development?