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

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I've been listening to Catherine Mckenney whine about her precious four year old Community Design Plan that limited height at Bayview to 30 stories all day on CBC. Someone explain to me why the low rise and single family home residents of Hintonburg should dictate the use of remediated land at the meeting of two light rail lines that isn't even a part of their community other than being somewhat adjacent? Simply because they are in the same ward? Why does she (and the residents) think the buck stops with them? This is so much bigger than a neighbourhood development. This is a major piece of city building and I'm glad to see that councillors from across the city appreciate that and voted for it. /rant

I think the problem is that it is pointless to do a community design plan if it is just going to be ignored.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the problem is that it is pointless to do a community design plan if it is just going to be ignored.

Point taken... but in a city dominated by 27 story buildings, 30 stories probably seemed like it was "pushing the limits" at the time.

CDPs are vitally important at the street level... IMO they ensure the proper blending between "traditional main streets" and long standing residential neighbourhoods.

In this case, the question is... "who, and why would someone in the area negatively impacted by 60 vs 30 stories" ??

[Harley613]

Bayview is NOT the same community as Hintonburg. It may be in the same ward but it is completely segregated physically and emotionally from Hintonburg. Different thoroughfare, different scale..just happens to be loosely adjacent. These people should not expect to make decisions simply because they are in the same ward.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by ars

So.... who's gonna start the thread for this in the Skyscraper & Highrise Construction section?

Should be done for sure (Icon should also have one as far as I'm concerned).

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I've been listening to Catherine Mckenney whine about her precious four year old Community Design Plan that limited height at Bayview to 30 stories all day on CBC. Someone explain to me why the low rise and single family home residents of Hintonburg should dictate the use of remediated land at the meeting of two light rail lines that isn't even a part of their community other than being somewhat adjacent? Simply because they are in the same ward? Why does she (and the residents) think the buck stops with them? This is so much bigger than a neighbourhood development. This is a major piece of city building and I'm glad to see that councillors from across the city appreciate that and voted for it. /rant

You realize that it was the suburban councillors who were voting for while most urban councillors were voting against, right?
So essentially those living in 1-storey suburbia 10-30 km from the place dictating how the land should be used rather than those living within 1-5km.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Woooooooooo, this is some great news. I understand the concern by some about this being impactful for future development in the area, but seeing as these are rentals, this'll prove to be a pretty successful project. (community is pushing it.....marketing bleugh)

[Abe Simpson]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

You realize that it was the suburban councillors who were voting for while most urban councillors were voting against, right?
So essentially those living in 1-storey suburbia 10-30 km from the place dictating how the land should be used rather than those living within 1-5km.

Those urban councillors are only ever voted in because of the NIMBYs in this town. So of course they are going to beat the drum of keeping everything under 30 floors. For the love of god someone think of the children!!!

McKenney's argument is a flipping joke! Let me bring up Canary Wharf in London. When 1 Canada Square was built people were loosing their minds over the height of the building. Now look at London. Now look at not only Canary Wharf, but London as a whole. That one building stimulated growth in the city and it now has a proper skyline. There were some tall buildings previous to this, but nothing like we're seeing there now.

It took vision to build the way they did in London and I have the same hope this will now start to occur in Ottawa.

To people who dislike this type of growth like Catherine McKenney and her gang of NIMBY's...please move to Renfrew. You don't below in an urban center.

[passwordisnt123]

This is great news. Hopefully this opens the door to more height in this city to break the 27 storey monotony.

To be fair, I think some of McKenney and Darwin's other criticisms do have some merit. She's right, the developer probably should have paid a more for community improvement than $900K and there are too many parking spaces and the south side of the development likely will be a real dead zone and cut off the rest of the neighbourhood. And Darwin's right about the need for more active frontage.

Does anybody have any insight into the likelihood that those issues might be improved between now and final completion?

Also does anybody know what's happening with the bridge over the tracks? Since the paltry funds for that are getting reallocated to community gardens by McKenney and council, there's now zero funding for a pedestrian bridge over the tracks (or any other crossing for that matter). Is that just dead now or will the city find some way to cough up the money for that?

[Marshsparrow]

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!

[1overcosc]

The failure with the south side of the building is a legitimate criticism, and I'm somewhat annoyed the media and the NIMBYs focused on the height-related criticism instead.

[daud]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The failure with the south side of the building is a legitimate criticism, and I'm somewhat annoyed the media and the NIMBYs focused on the height-related criticism instead.

I haven't really seen the south side renders. I'm a bit confused because for me the south side seems to front the back of the city centre building which is also a loading dock. What would be the best side for the building's loading area or are people hoping for underground loading?

[little italian]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible decision?

Why are we building these massive towers surrounded by green and brown fields that will suffocate their redevelopment for years to come? Those 1400 units would look much better as a dozen human-scale 8-10 floor buildings. Now we are stuck with another decade or so of partially undeveloped Lebreton and Zibi brownfields that will inevitably be slowed down after this decision.

I'm with you zzptichka. This forum has a weird obsession with height over all other considerations.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by little italian

I'm with you zzptichka. This forum has a weird obsession with height over all other considerations.

It's a SKYSCRAPER forum.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Abe Simpson

Those urban councillors are only ever voted in because of the NIMBYs in this town. So of course they are going to beat the drum of keeping everything under 30 floors. For the love of god someone think of the children!!!

McKenney's argument is a flipping joke! Let me bring up Canary Wharf in London. When 1 Canada Square was built people were loosing their minds over the height of the building. Now look at London. Now look at not only Canary Wharf, but London as a whole. That one building stimulated growth in the city and it now has a proper skyline. There were some tall buildings previous to this, but nothing like we're seeing there now.

It took vision to build the way they did in London and I have the same hope this will now start to occur in Ottawa.

To people who dislike this type of growth like Catherine McKenney and her gang of NIMBY's...please move to Renfrew. You don't below in an urban center.

I get it people here want a sexy tower so they can relieve some of that small city inferiority complex of theirs, but Canary Wharf is a terrible comparison. Starting with the fact that it's a 10 Million people financial center of the World, to the fact that almost 30 years later Canary Wharf still doesn't have a single residential tower. I'm not sure what almost exclusively residential 900 Bayview could stimulate.

Canary Wharf is great and I would love me some 60-storey office or hotel building at Bayview, I don't care about the height and shadows. But when it comes to residential, IMO that's not the road I'd like this city to go down.

Unfortunately in Ottawa we still don't have any quality high density residential urban neighborhood development. Zibi could've been the first of its kind but now I'm starting to doubt it has a chance to be completed in my lifetime. And it makes me sad.

[Davis137]

Ottawa isn't the only community in Ontario, or Canada for that matter, that has had certain status-quo wrt urban density and development and struggled with building skyward. While yes, places like Hamilton, Kingston, the Tri-Cities, and other places had relatively tall buildings, but not enough of them. Suburban sprawl has leap-frogged green belts and protected lands everywhere. Because of that, various city councilors in different municipalities have had to rethink their longstanding development plans and guidelines, and are now allowing higher density (read: taller buildings) to take place in their city centers. Hamilton alone currently has more than 4 buildings of over 30 floors tall being built, Kingston is on the verge of approving buildings over 20 floors in various parts of the city. As far as I am concerned, we are seeing the same development relationships between developers and the City of Ottawa, where they are striving for greater density along transit corridors, and setting the stage for future infill projects that will stop the CBD and other parts of central Ottawa from being ghost-towns after 5 pm and on weekends.

Call it a hunch, but I would also suspect that it's better/more profitable to collect property taxes and land transfer taxes from 1000's of condos and apartments on a regular basis (seeing as most rentals and condo leases are much shorter than mortgages), than a few hundred McMansions 10-20km's away from the city center a lot less frequently.

I would view this as especially relevant when the developers are required through their partnerships with the city to be involved in the replacement and/or removal of legacy mechanical infrastructure assets, and chip in money for additional ones when required. Actually, I can recall that departments within the Federal Government have had to do this as well when they have had new office buildings built downtown...it's not just the private/residential sectors that do this with the city.

If nothing else, Trinity will be the catalyst for other large scale projects in it's vicinity, and it will hopefully create an interest in creative redevelopment that will be pedestrian and transit friendly for years to come...

[phil235]

Originally Posted by little italian

I'm with you zzptichka. This forum has a weird obsession with height over all other considerations.

I actually think that it's the community associations with the weird obsession with height. I know mine opposed solely on the basis that the building was 65 stories (without even reviewing the proposal). To me, height is far less important than street interaction, mixed uses etc. I have yet to hear an explanation of why a tall, thin 65 storey building has a bigger impact on the neighbourhood than a short, thick 30-storey building with the same number of units. Not once has anyone been able to answer this question in a coherent way.

[Ahump071]

I live on Spruce Street off City Centre Avenue and I'm 100 percent supportive of this project as it is currently proposed. If it is built as rendered using high quality materials it will benefit the image of the city and the neighbourhood a lot. It's a beautiful development. The fact that it'll be rental apartments and I own my home (split level townhome/condo) makes the numbers easier to swallow.

What I'm concerned about, which I believe has been raised by Coun. McKenney, is the plan for public amenities that comes with adding 3000 homes (if you add in the Claridge Booth Street development). We need a plan for all of those extra people, ie. schools, parks, gyms, grocery stores, etc. One of the articles I read on CBC compared it to an upcoming residential development in Stittsville where they're adding 800 new homes and those amenities were included in that proposal. 3000 compared to 800 and there is no current plan, other than the grocery store which I believe has been included at 900 Albert (and which is desperately needed in our neighbourhood). This is the real issue, not the height.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Ahump071

What I'm concerned about, which I believe has been raised by Coun. McKenney, is the plan for public amenities that comes with adding 3000 homes (if you add in the Claridge Booth Street development). We need a plan for all of those extra people, ie. schools, parks, gyms, grocery stores, etc. One of the articles I read on CBC compared it to an upcoming residential development in Stittsville where they're adding 800 new homes and those amenities were included in that proposal. 3000 compared to 800 and there is no current plan, other than the grocery store which I believe has been included at 900 Albert (and which is desperately needed in our neighbourhood). This is the real issue, not the height.

I agree 100% with your comments. While an urban area like this has many of the amenities already in place, this is a big influx of people and those considerations should be part of the planning. Fortunately the presence of completely vacant Lebreton/Bayview lands should make it easier in this case than it is with most large scale development like this. It is completely legitimate to keep the pressure on to ensure that the amenities do follow.

I should have been clear that the questions as to whether the community benefit being provided is sufficient, and whether the amount of parking included is too much are also legitimate. The complaints about the south side, less so. They seem to have done quite a nice job on the pedestrian amenities, and that is clearly the best side for loading docks etc. Either way, addressing those concerns involves relatively minor tweaks to the plan. They aren't reasons to demand that City Council refuse the application.

And the argument that the land is zoned for 30 storeys and that cannot change is nonsensical. I definitely know what I prefer between a short, blockey 30-storey building and the sleek 65-storey tower that is being proposed.

[lrt's friend]

I do think that the pressure is to overbuild every site, and this pressure is increasing with every such project. So, our community planning is becoming a mockery. This sets a big precedent with far reaching consequences. Why would anybody participate in any community planning meeting when basically every plan is overridden, often by a huge margin. So, we are inviting less interest in participation and a bigger sense of helplessness as developers use these precedents to build larger and larger projects so that profit margins grow exponentially.

I don't care if they build a 165 storey building at that site. It makes it no more an appealing place to visit. It actually becomes a place to leave, not a place to go to. Apartment buildings and condos are not attractions. It is public buildings, retail, offices and amenities that attract people to a location.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do think that the pressure is to overbuild every site, and this pressure is increasing with every such project. So, our community planning is becoming a mockery. This sets a big precedent with far reaching consequences. Why would anybody participate in any community planning meeting when basically every plan is overridden, often by a huge margin. So, we are inviting less interest in participation and a bigger sense of helplessness as developers use these precedents to build larger and larger projects so that profit margins grow exponentially.

I don't care if they build a 165 storey building at that site. It makes it no more an appealing place to visit. It actually becomes a place to leave, not a place to go to. Apartment buildings and condos are not attractions. It is public buildings, retail, offices and amenities that attract people to a location.

Why should a community planning exercise be used to set an arbitrary height limit for the junction station of our LRT line? Why is height the key consideration at all? The focus of these exercises seems to be almost exclusively on height, when there are other factors that have far more bearing on the livability of the area. And to be clear, this project is not bigger than it would have been at 30 storeys. It's just taller.

Also, this project has significant retail and office components, so not sure what you mean by your second comment. Those will attract people. And a large number of people will travel there because they live there, I suspect most using the LRT.

I get the value of a CDP as an input (not the final word) in planning for a local main street. I don't see that value extending to transit hubs. Those need to be looked at from a wider perspective.