HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Suburbs


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2012, 4:39 AM
S-Man S-Man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,639
After the countless meetings and revisions a year or so ago at Greenbank and Craig Henry to get a 6-storey "skyscraper" knocked down to a highly unwanted 5 storeys, the developer isn't going to get the public consent for 7 storeys, or 6, or 4, etc, etc.

First of all I don't know why anyone would want to live there; second of all, the residents of Beaverbrook won't have it. It's 2-storey 1970s-style "Garden City Specials" or nothing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2012, 1:56 AM
Lakche's Avatar
Lakche Lakche is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Orleans
Posts: 80
Ugh the new render is kinda plain... the original render looked really nice!

So this one is opposed because it's "too high" but just down the road... like literally 1 block down the road, is a 10 storey apartment building. Was that too high? How did it get built...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 12:36 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 2:59 AM
S-Man S-Man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,639
It seems it is still too high. Not Garden City-ish enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 3:24 AM
citizen j's Avatar
citizen j citizen j is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,029
It seems expressly designed to kill children. And old people.
__________________
The world is so full of a number of things
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 1:21 PM
amanfromnowhere's Avatar
amanfromnowhere amanfromnowhere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa/Stockholm
Posts: 367
no way! Bill Teron says it still reminds him an elephant, in his backyard
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 3:44 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,762
The streets are narrow and there is no area of interests anywhere around the place (i.e. not a walkable neighbourhood). Furthermore, the streets are way to narrow and the possibility for good, reliable transit service is non-existent.

Infill and density should be in the city or on rapid transit lines, not in a suburban neighbourhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 4:47 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,193
from the Ottawa Citizen


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 5:55 PM
citizen j's Avatar
citizen j citizen j is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
The streets are narrow and there is no area of interests anywhere around the place (i.e. not a walkable neighbourhood). Furthermore, the streets are way to narrow and the possibility for good, reliable transit service is non-existent.

Infill and density should be in the city or on rapid transit lines, not in a suburban neighbourhood.
Just checking to see if you really just said that the suburbs should be left as they are. Interesting position.
__________________
The world is so full of a number of things
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 6:29 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen j View Post
Just checking to see if you really just said that the suburbs should be left as they are. Interesting position.
To a point, yes.

This proposal here does not in any way encourage people to live a healthy, car free life. The nearest shopping plaza is around 3 kilometers away and no one will bus, or walk that distance in the suburbs.

They might take the bus to the city for work, as a lot of people who live in single family houses do (mostly park and ride), but they will always use a car outside rush hour.

It sort of defeats one of the main purposes of intensification, bring hundreds upon thousands of people at the doorstep of shops/services/entertainment where one can live car free by choice with no problem.

Now I do think there are circumstances where intensification in the suburbs could work. Examples include Hazeldean road, Robertson or near Kanata Centrum (the best spot in my opinion since it replicates a traditional downtown) where people are near transit and those all-important shops and services.

But of course that should not come at the expense of park and rides (at grade, below or above grade structures) because they are essential to encouraging the thousands of suburbanites living in single family homes to take the bus to the City, if only to avoid traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 8:30 PM
Ottawan Ottawan is offline
Citizen-at-large
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Expat (in Toronto)
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
To a point, yes.

This proposal here does not in any way encourage people to live a healthy, car free life. The nearest shopping plaza is around 3 kilometers away and no one will bus, or walk that distance in the suburbs.

They might take the bus to the city for work, as a lot of people who live in single family houses do (mostly park and ride), but they will always use a car outside rush hour.

It sort of defeats one of the main purposes of intensification, bring hundreds upon thousands of people at the doorstep of shops/services/entertainment where one can live car free by choice with no problem.

Now I do think there are circumstances where intensification in the suburbs could work. Examples include Hazeldean road, Robertson or near Kanata Centrum (the best spot in my opinion since it replicates a traditional downtown) where people are near transit and those all-important shops and services.

But of course that should not come at the expense of park and rides (at grade, below or above grade structures) because they are essential to encouraging the thousands of suburbanites living in single family homes to take the bus to the City, if only to avoid traffic.
I feel that intensification needs to occur throughout the city, including the suburbs. While I personally wouldn't want to live in Beaverbrook, clearly more people do than the current number of units there permits or else these developments would not be getting proposed as they would be uneconomical.

Yes, development here will still depend on cars and not have the same positive impact as a similar condo tower might on a traditional mainstreet inside the greenbelt that is well served by transit. However, this development still moves towards a better city when compared to that same number of units having to be built yet further away from the core on an even-quicker expanding fringe (which is the alternative to this sort of development).

As compared to new development on Kanata's fringe, these units are centrally located. Beaverbrook is a good area for intensification as it is one of the few parts of Kanata that is (for this style of suburb) close to employment (March Road), shopping (Centrum) and proposed transitway alignments.

In short, this is a highly suitable area for intensification. Other suburbs have the occasional tower without loosing their caché. Alta Vista and Manor Park, two reasonably elite neighbourhoods, come to mind as places that have not suffered from the elephants in their backyards. Beaverbrook will also be fine, aside from a mild case of hysteria.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2012, 3:37 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
appealed to the OMB
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2012, 9:39 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdoc...&itemid=115042

2.
ZONING - 2 THE PARKWAY

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0158
KANATA NORTH (4)

That the Planning Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to Zoning By‑law 2008‑250 to change the zoning of 2 The Parkway from Minor Institutional (IA1) to Residential Fifth Density Subzone Exception (R5 [XXX]).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 9:10 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Reevely watched what happened on this (these?) proposal(s) at Planning Committee today, heard a gong, called the situation "wretched" and concluded:
Quote:
Whether you think Kanata needs a 10-storey (or so) condo, as Morley Hoppner does, or absolutely does not need one, this is a silly way to do urban planning.
Nailed it.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...2-the-parkway/

Last edited by McC; Nov 27, 2012 at 9:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 9:21 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
Reevely watched what happened on this (these?) proposal(s) at Planning Committee today, heard a gong, called the situation "wretched" and said:

Nailed it.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...2-the-parkway/
I wasn't at the meeting but David Reevely nailed it perfectly...the quoted sections below encapsulate in a nutshell what it can often be like in dealing with the behometh known as the City of Ottawa...especially in relation to the guarantees reference.



. In theory, if the latest version of the plan is acceptable to everybody, the city could approve it and Morley Hoppner could build a seven-storey thing and drop its OMB appeal. In practice, everyone wants guarantees from everyone else and without actually providing any themselves.

The city wants a promise from Morley Hoppner that if the city approves the seven-storey version, it’ll drop the OMB appeal. Morley Hoppner won’t drop its OMB appeal until it has city council’s approval in hand, whereupon the city will have absolutely no leverage to apply. And nobody can control what any random person in the community might want to do, such as appealing anything the city might choose to approve, or not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2012, 12:03 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
I would be pretty upset if I booked off work just to come to the meeting and have the developer ask to defer. I think it would be good if planning public meetings were held in the evening. It also may be good to restructure things to have borough councils like Toronto does, so that rezonings, traffic calming, sign by-law exemptions etc would be dealt with locally, while planning committee would deal with OPA's, policy changes, and city-wide issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2012, 2:33 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
I would be pretty upset if I booked off work just to come to the meeting and have the developer ask to defer. I think it would be good if planning public meetings were held in the evening. It also may be good to restructure things to have borough councils like Toronto does, so that rezonings, traffic calming, sign by-law exemptions etc would be dealt with locally, while planning committee would deal with OPA's, policy changes, and city-wide issues.
Totally agree....Committee of Adjustment is like that...if the applicant or committee defer they don't need to provide a revised notice of the new date.

Getting back to 2 Parkway if the developer had proposed 7 storeys at the start, they may have got a positive stack recommendation and a vote in favour with one dissenting..but the community is so ticked off at this lets make a deal planning that I would not be surprised if an appeal is filed. I also don't think that 7 storeys will be low enough and not respecting the garden city ideals that many in the community hang on to
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2013, 11:37 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
amended plan recommended for approval at 23m / 7 fl / 95 units http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgvi...&itemid=123769

original report was for refusal at 32m / 9-10 fl / 120 units
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgvi...&itemid=125005
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2013, 10:07 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
approved at planning committee, now onto council
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2013, 10:17 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
The streets are narrow and there is no area of interests anywhere around the place (i.e. not a walkable neighbourhood). Furthermore, the streets are way to narrow and the possibility for good, reliable transit service is non-existent.

Infill and density should be in the city or on rapid transit lines, not in a suburban neighbourhood.
Why should suburban neighbourhoods be immune from infill and increasing densities? That's an artificial brake on natural economic evolution. It needs to be lifted.
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 > Suburbs
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.