900 Albert St | 234/203/105m | 65/56/23fl | Approved

c_speed3108 · #1 Posted **Feb 11, 2009, 8:39 PM**

EDIT: 2018 updated renders

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Latest renders and height increase for Trinity Centre at Bayview Station (900 Albert) in Ottawa. Preliminary sewer relocation underway and zoning going to Council next month.

232.5m / 65 fl (was 230.9m/65fl)
204.4m / 56 fl (was 192.7m/52fl)
130.7m / 27 fl (was 130.1m/32 fl)

Architect is GGLO from Seattle
http://www.gglo.com/

Thread
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...164924&page=23

Latest drawings June 2018
http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...une%202018.PDF

Formerly known as 801 Albert | 140.4m & 130.9m | 33 fl & 30 fl | Approved
and 900 Albert

Quote:

Phoenix proposes two 31-storey residential towers
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Tue, Feb 10, 2009 4:00 PM EST

An Ottawa developer has reactivated its plans for a residential development just east of the Bayview Transitway station, but has returned with a significantly taller proposal.

DCR Phoenix has submitted a site plan application to build a pair of 31-storey, 338-feet high-rise apartment buildings and a four-storey office building on a 5.35-acre site at 801 Albert St. (map), formerly known as 801 Wellington St., according to city documents.

The proposed development would create 466 dwelling units and 478 surface and underground parking spaces. The property would have to be rezoned to accommodate the increased density.

A rezoning application was initially submitted in 2003 to allow for a residential development consisting of townhouses, stacked townhouses and an apartment.

The development was to be incorporated into a light rail station as part of Ottawa's since-cancelled north-south rapid transit line, an individual familiar with the file said on background.

"It all came to a halt with the death of the north-south light rail and then it got put on hold for two or three years as water mains were being built through the site," he said.

In September 2007, the developer requested its application be reactivated and proposed two 19-storey towers.

The developer's most recent application has not yet been deemed complete by city planners, but is being circulated for early public review.

DCR Phoenix's manager of planning could not be immediately reached for comment.

.

Mille Sabords · #2 Posted **Feb 11, 2009, 9:05 PM**

"Surface and underground parking" already reeks of a tower-in-the-park type of garbage. I'll wait to see renderings, but it would make me smile more if I had also seen the words "retail podium" and "Integrated with a transfer station".

waterloowarrior · #3 Posted **Feb 11, 2009, 10:00 PM**

here's their old proposal('05)

http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/phoenixNe...ber28-2005.pdf

Jamaican-Phoenix · #4 Posted **Feb 12, 2009, 2:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

here's their old proposal('05)

http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/phoenixNe...ber28-2005.pdf

I quite liked that proposal.

rocketphish · #5 Posted **Mar 13, 2009, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

here's their old proposal('05)

http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/phoenixNe...ber28-2005.pdf

...and here's another old, yet different, rendering from their 2007 Corporate Brochure. Notice that they were still planning to get their hands on the Tom Brown Arena lands as well.

http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/aboutPhoe...pBrochure3.pdf

Maybe the latest plan of theirs will be third time lucky?

Davis137 · #6 Posted **Feb 12, 2009, 12:44 AM**

It'd be awesome to ANYTHING built west of Lebreton near Bayview/Scott Streets...would add some much needed rejuvination to the northern section of the city...

cityguy · #7 Posted **Feb 12, 2009, 2:14 PM**

I live on Preston,these towers rise up quite close to my house.

harls · #8 Posted **Feb 12, 2009, 2:52 PM**

The views would be phenomenal....

osirisboy · #9 Posted **Feb 12, 2009, 4:40 PM**

what are the chances of this thing actually getting built at 31 stories? did they make it taller so they have room to negotiate with the city on height?

highdensitysprawl · #10 Posted **Feb 12, 2009, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

what are the chances of this thing actually getting built at 31 stories? did they make it taller so they have room to negotiate with the city on height?

Happens all the time...it is rare that the public or councillors ask the developer to increase the height/density. City Planners do, but I've never known the public or the elected officials.

Its called the art of the negotiation.

cityguy · #11 Posted **Feb 12, 2009, 6:56 PM**

^that's what I'm thinking.

Beatrix · #12 Posted **Feb 12, 2009, 7:00 PM**

Well, the elevation at Bayview is substantially lower than that of the CBD. I don't think it would obstruct any views of Parliament....

waterloowarrior · #13 Posted **Mar 4, 2009, 4:10 AM**

application page (site plan)

To construct 2- 31 storey apartment buildings. + 2 storeys of mechanical equipment and 3-4 storeys of office building.

Deez · #14 Posted **Mar 4, 2009, 5:02 AM**

bahaha.

This thing is an absolute abomination of urbanism...some of which is the City's fault and some the developer's.

First of all...why on earth are the property lines set so frigging far back from Scott (Albert?)? This development is steps from the CBD yet the setbacks are similar to new single family home subdivisions in Avalon. And what abuts the property line? A surface lot? At the intersection of what could be an N-S-E-W transit transfer location? Give me a break.

TransitZilla · #15 Posted **Mar 4, 2009, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deez

First of all...why on earth are the property lines set so frigging far back from Scott (Albert?)? This development is steps from the CBD yet the setbacks are similar to new single family home subdivisions in Avalon. And what abuts the property line? A surface lot? At the intersection of what could be an N-S-E-W transit transfer location? Give me a break.

You can see from the site plan that this site is criss-crossed with sewer easements. If the buildings were brought any closer to Scott/Albert, they would be encroaching on the easement.

I don't think there's any other alternative in this case.

Deez · #16 Posted **Mar 5, 2009, 12:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradnixon

You can see from the site plan that this site is criss-crossed with sewer easements. If the buildings were brought any closer to Scott/Albert, they would be encroaching on the easement.

I don't think there's any other alternative in this case.

I guess that shows how much I know about reading site plans.

Would these sewers predate the current Scott St. alignment? I wonder if there are plans to move them...

k2p · #17 Posted **Mar 5, 2009, 11:02 PM**

Sorry, they need to build something that horrendous because of a steep incline? Monte Carlo, Hong Kong, San Francisco, New Zealand, Rio, Italian mountainsides have steep inclines. Scott Street?

Marshsparrow · #18 Posted **Jul 12, 2018, 2:23 PM**

These are the same people almost word for word that said the same thing about Lansdowne - and voila - seems to have all worked out well. The developper has vested interest to ensure the development integrates well with the neighbouring community - I'm certain this place will spur so much area improvement / demand it will be transformative - so welcome and overdue! Go Trinity!

alamgirkhan · #19 Posted **Jun 15, 2020, 8:47 PM**

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/viewp...0042950595.PDF

Dado · #20 Posted **Apr 28, 2010, 3:54 PM**

Just responding to a couple of earlier posts...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deez

bahaha.

This thing is an absolute abomination of urbanism...some of which is the City's fault and some the developer's.

First of all...why on earth are the property lines set so frigging far back from Scott (Albert?)? This development is steps from the CBD yet the setbacks are similar to new single family home subdivisions in Avalon. And what abuts the property line? A surface lot? At the intersection of what could be an N-S-E-W transit transfer location? Give me a break.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Usually they would just zone it Hazard or something similar to prevent development on that part of the land (at least where I work). Obviously the road ROW is particularly wide along Scott Street/Wellington in that area. I'd be curious to find out why.

It seems a little bit premature to begin developing Bayview. There should really be a more comprehensive plan for the area before development should proceed.

If you look on Google it's pretty clear that when the overpass of the railway was built they departed from the Scott/Wellington/Albert road RoW to get a more perpendicular bridge. The services however remain in the original road alignment, so there is this odd arc of a circle chunk of land encompassing the original road alignment south of the current one that's a challenge to deal with.

The City, naturally, hasn't completed the CDP for the area (which should have been done *before* the NS-LRT EA but after the 2003 OP&TMP - it's now underway again) so they don't know what to do with it, nor did they buy the property itself from the NCC when the latter sold it (which they should have for the NS-LRT).

The fact that the developer has no idea what the city would like to see there just adds to the problems (whether that's because the City doesn't know, or they didn't ask, or both, is hard to say - but probably both). The proposal also seems to be done in complete isolation from anything on the City Centre site, whereas I would think that one would wish to develop (or at least plan) the entire area between the O-Train, Somerset, Champagne and Scott/Wellington/Albert in one shot, which would allow for addressing issues of servicing, LRT routing/integration and making the two overpasses (Scott & Somerset) more pedestrian friendly environments.

It's pretty much typical planning in Ottawa, I guess. Why plan years ahead when you can plan in a disorganized unfocused frenzy at the last minute? It's so much more exciting this way.