335 Roosevelt Ave | 2x40m | 2x12f | Proposed

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by S-Man

These reporters have to go to every one of these meetings and hear the same argument verbatim in every neighbourhood for every development over 2 storeys. Must be maddening.

The Transitway corridor downtown and especially just west of downtown (Westboro, Tunney's, Bayview, City Centre, and Lebreton Flats) could hold 100,000 people and essentially pay for the future LRT, which would be damn appealing to all of those residents.

This location is about 150 yards from a Transitway station. One bus! Nepean? Downtown? Orleans? One bus to get there.
And you could also walk to stores, the pub, the beach. Sounds great. Sounds almost like the coveted European model they like to wax poetic about. Once that land is built on with 2 storey homes, it is gone. Hello urban boundary expansion!

Tall buildings will bother you - anywhere - if you make them the one focus of your day and your life. If a building near you destroys your hopes, dreams, furniture, and health,I think most of that destruction is imaginary, because it's all still there in real life! A tall skinny tower will not shadow a house all day. It's called the rotation of the earth.
I'm not sure if people in Ottawa have ever visited other cities, because they all have tall buildings and transit and evolving policies and zoning as well. They didn't just make a (bad) policy in the 1950s/60s and say 'that's it, we're sticking with this'

The Greber plan fell apart decades ago. These people are selfish NIMBYs, because they refuse to concede anything in the name of the greater good. It's their way or nothing; they couldn't care less about nature, or the countryside, or taxes and failing transit, it's all about getting what they want. There's no such thing as the greater good with these people - they know sprawl is unsustainable and a bad thing for both the environment and the economic sustainability of their city, but they'll gladly advocate for it as long as they can be free of the legions of 'peepers' eager to watch them get themorning mail and traffic on the street that only they are allowed to drive on.

Sorry, not much patience here.

Yes, yes, yes. Well said - I'd like to adopt this manifesto.

[adam-machiavelli]

Not all "NIMBY"s are worried about their properties losing value. Many are worried about their properties increasing in value, which leads to higher property taxes. Honestly, I think you all should stop wasting your time worrying about people who oppose development. They don't have a veto on approval and the more you engage in their arguments, the more you legitimize their cause.

[waterloowarrior]

When does Westboro development become an overdeveloped mess?
http://www.quietfish.com/notebook/?p=12896

Westboro tower development evokes emotion at community meeting
http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news...munity-meeting

[umbria27]

Bit of an aside here, but the repetition of the word "squat" through these articles to describe a midrise building here, stinks of the same pejorative skewing that tower opponents use when they describe them as "behemoths" and "canyons" created between them.

“Barry Hobin would never put his name on it,” the man stated.
Hobin didn’t respond directly, but after the meeting, he conceded the point.
“I don’t like that option, I find it too squat,” he said. “I’d have problems with it.”
That would likely mean Uniform wouldn’t be willing to do it, either, since they have been working exclusively with Hobin for the past 13 years.
George Georgaras, Uniform’s general manager, said after the meeting that his company didn’t like the squat option.
“Architecture is one of our primary focuses,” he said, “and we were not happy with the form we would get with the permitted zoning bylaw.”

I'm disappointed that an architect would play along with this game of lowrise ugly vs. highrise beauty, as if height were the only weapon in an architect's arsenal. Somebody please wake up every architect Vitruvius to Christopher Wren and tell them their buildings are ugly because they are squat.

[S-Man]

How about instead of 'squat', we substitute the word 'wall', because that's what the lowrise could be - a long rectangular wall.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by S-Man

How about instead of 'squat', we substitute the word 'wall', because that's what the lowrise could be - a long rectangular wall.

Precisely. Hobin has done plenty of low-rise developments, including some for Uniform, but in this location, you have a long narrow piece of land on the edge of a community adjacent to transit. Context matters. Good on him for knowing it.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Precisely. Hobin has done plenty of low-rise developments, including some for Uniform, but in this location, you have a long narrow piece of land on the edge of a community adjacent to transit. Context matters. Good on him for knowing it.

Hence my disappointment in Hobin's statement (at least as quoted in the article). Hobin is not quoted as saying that a midrise building is inappropriate in this context. He's quoted “I don’t like that option, I find it too squat,”. The obvious implication is that the building will be ugly because it is wider than it is tall. Short buildings got no reason to live, as Randy Newman says.
In the end perhaps it's too much to ask for a newspaper to get more nuanced than tall vs. short. For all I know Hobin did go into why such a building wouldn't blend with the streetscape and would block more street level light than a taller alternative. Perhaps the reporter couldn't get his head around such subtleties.

[Cre47]

Letter from the WBCA to Katherine Hobbs (I presume) and copied in our favorite blogger's page.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...t-development/

[waterloowarrior]

staff report recommending approval
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...lt%20Final.htm

[S-Man]

Good for staff - if this were 3 or 4 years ago, Christine Leadman would argue for cancellation, with Clive Doucet spending 45 minutes waxing elequently about a dream where this building is replaced by an existential living arrangement.

I'll check KGrey's blog for a rational, unbiased viewpoint on this development tomorrow...

[S-Man]

Latest on this from the Ottawa Nimby (Citizen)

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Plans+p...194/story.html

Honestly, I was surprised to read today's date on this, especially when you consider yesterday's article:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Propose...836/story.html

This paper devotes half its page space to people complaining. It has to stop. Ken Grey isn't editor anymore.

[McC]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Latest on this from the Ottawa Nimby (Citizen)

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Plans+p...194/story.html

Honestly, I was surprised to read today's date on this, especially when you consider yesterday's article:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Propose...836/story.html

This paper devotes half its page space to people complaining. It has to stop. Ken Grey isn't editor anymore.

I don't understand your problem with the article, it read to me like a pretty balanced presentation of the facts and each of the main players' opinions. I didn't read any judgements from the author or detect any clear slant, but I'm happy to be corrected.

[S-Man]

I'm not saying there's a slant from the journalist him/herself, I'm just questioning whether each group of citizens angry over the exact same circumstance (with varying heights) gets their own article in the Citizen. It's almost every single day.

This article, I will admit, is less petty than earlier stories concerning people wanting to remove school buses (or transit ones) off their street, and people's views from existing high-rises being ruined by other newer high-rises.

[McC]

Originally Posted by S-Man

I'm not saying there's a slant from the journalist him/herself, I'm just questioning whether each group of citizens angry over the exact same circumstance (with varying heights) gets their own article in the Citizen. It's almost every single day.

This article, I will admit, is less petty than earlier stories concerning people wanting to remove school buses (or transit ones) off their street, and people's views from existing high-rises being ruined by other newer high-rises.

The article is about the proposed development, and the controversy that it has stirred up, one of the relevant facets of the story is the Community Associations position (the "complaining"), other relevant facts are City Staff's position (presented in a fairly neutral light, I think), and the Councillor's position which is given the last word. Unless you are saying that this story isn't newsworthy at all, the statements by the angry citizens group belongs in the paper.

[S-Man]

There is allowed to be a story.

However, there has already been a story about residents being angered over this project, from late September.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/to...329/story.html

Essentially, there's a a story when the proposal comes out, another story when the proposal hits planning committee, and usually another when it passes council.
That's three storeys of people saying pretty much the same thing over every single development in a city of a million people. And that's not counting OMB appeals, either. That can add a further 3 or 4 stories.
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking people are getting too much of a voice when there are other things that could take the place of one or two of those storeys. That's just my feelings.
Papers are pretty selective in what they report these days, given page counts have fallen due to lower ad revenue streams. Some worthy stories (and people also worthy of attention) could be kicked off the list because those behind them aren't as loud.
Maybe I'm totally off base here, but those are my feelings. Feel free to disagree.

[rakerman]

I think this letter makes a reasonable point that whatever you think about height, the city needs a clear planning process, rather than "whatever the developers ask for". I'm all for height in many areas of the city core. Just not randomly dropped wherever a developer has bought a lot. Otherwise the city should just stop doing community plans and urban plans, if it's not going to follow and enforce them.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...r-open-letter/

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by rakerman

I think this letter makes a reasonable point that whatever you think about height, the city needs a clear planning process, rather than "whatever the developers ask for". I'm all for height in many areas of the city core. Just not randomly dropped wherever a developer has bought a lot. Otherwise the city should just stop doing community plans and urban plans, if it's not going to follow and enforce them.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...r-open-letter/

My big issue is people complain about developers going by the plans yet people live in areas that are say zoned for 20 floor buildings complain left and right when developers go by the plans.My point i am trying to make is its fine to say we need clear plans great but that goes for both developers and citizens you can't have it one way and say develpoers have to go by the cimmunity plan but citizens don't thats woudl create all types of issues.

[McC]

Originally Posted by reidjr

My big issue is people complain about developers going by the plans yet people live in areas that are say zoned for 20 floor buildings complain left and right when developers go by the plans.My point i am trying to make is its fine to say we need clear plans great but that goes for both developers and citizens you can't have it one way and say develpoers have to go by the cimmunity plan but citizens don't thats woudl create all types of issues.

Hey reid, if the proposed development is within the zoning rules, the community has NO SAY, the approval process is the construction permit process, so please, give me an example where the community* has fought a proposal that was within the zoning.

*not just one a few cranks, there are always a few people will complain about everything and anything.

[rakerman]

Originally Posted by reidjr

My big issue is people complain about developers going by the plans yet people live in areas that are say zoned for 20 floor buildings complain left and right when developers go by the plans.My point i am trying to make is its fine to say we need clear plans great but that goes for both developers and citizens you can't have it one way and say develpoers have to go by the cimmunity plan but citizens don't thats woudl create all types of issues.

If it's within zoning, it should be approved, the only issues should be insuring high-quality design and (where appropriate) ground-level retail and interaction.

The issue is with developers that don't just "minor variance" the zoning, they bust it by factors of 2x or more. There needs to be a real process to enforce zoning and, if there are compelling reasons to exceed, both get piles of immediate Section 37 money as well as REQUIRING the highest quality design and street-level interaction. There should be no spot exceptions - exceptions should only be granted as part of a review of the zoning to make it more appropriate.

Otherwise the entire city is just one continuous area of one-time spot-exception "minor variances" and neither the city nor the citizens nor the zoning mean anything.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by rakerman

If it's within zoning, it should be approved, the only issues should be insuring high-quality design and (where appropriate) ground-level retail and interaction.

The issue is with developers that don't just "minor variance" the zoning, they bust it by factors of 2x or more. There needs to be a real process to enforce zoning and, if there are compelling reasons to exceed, both get piles of immediate Section 37 money as well as REQUIRING the highest quality design and street-level interaction. There should be no spot exceptions - exceptions should only be granted as part of a review of the zoning to make it more appropriate.

Otherwise the entire city is just one continuous area of one-time spot-exception "minor variances" and neither the city nor the citizens nor the zoning mean anything.

My point is yes developers should go by the plans but so should citizens.