General Update/Rumour thread

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Her rationale in such issues as voting IN FAVOUR of Minto's project in Manotick is nothing short of baffling: "Let them build out there as much as they want so we won't get another highrise in my neighbourhood." Methinks she might benefit from reacquainting herself with the city's official plan.

Why confuse her with facts...her mind is made up already.

I have had the (mis)fortune of dealing with her in meetings etc. on a project that is in her ward and never have I had to bite my tongue more than with her in the room. Staff who deal with her try and avoid her.

I didn't know she voted in favour of the Manotick project. Somehow, I don't think that a person is going to choose between a SFR or McMansion in the Tick or a high rise in Centretown...the two housing markets are mutually exclusive IMHO.

[rodionx]

[QUOTE=harls;3370154]Haven't heard anything. This sign's been gone for a while now.

That rendering is still at the bottom of the Galaxy Camera home page at http://www.galaxycamera.com/ It reads, "Here we grow again... Coming 2008." It used to read "Coming Fall 2007," so I presume it's just delayed, rather than cancelled.

[harls]

^ that's better than leaving up an outdated sign, I guess.. I've seen a few around Gatineau that still read "coming 2005"

I noticed this today- the Clarica Centre downtown has been renamed the Sun Life Financial Centre. Those goons in the toques were putting up some new lettering on the sign (for lease, etc.)

[waterloowarrior]

Residents at odds with city over new townhouses
Patrick Dare The Ottawa Citizen
Monday, February 25, 2008

A plan to tear down a house in New Edinburgh and replace it with six townhouses has residents there at odds with city planning staff and an award-winning architect over whether the townhouses belong in the historic neighbourhood.

Larco Homes wants to build six townhouses at 132 Stanley Ave. where today one house sits, built in 1967. The existing bungalow has no significant heritage value but the location is in the heart of the village, which has been designated a heritage conservation district.

The New Edinburgh Community Alliance has written a detailed critique of the development proposal and the City of Ottawa's planning staff decision to support it.

"The proposed construction would dramatically change the appearance of the street," says the alliance. "The negative impact on the streetscape would be profound."

The development has generated some heated response from residents.

Tony Roth has written to the city, describing the townhouse development as "a gross abrogation of the character of this street... like the Titanic amongst a fleet of tugboats."

Joan Mason called the development a "greedy crowding of the space" creating "vertical apartments" that are best found elsewhere in the city.

Paul McConnell, co-chairman of the New Edinburgh heritage and development committee, said that just last week people were getting letters from the city about plaques to be erected celebrating New Edinburgh's heritage status. But the development at 132 Stanley makes them wonder "the point of having a heritage district," he said.

Mr. McConnell said residents support redevelopment projects that respect the look and scale of the neighbourhood, and several exist, but the proposed three-storey project would overwhelm it.

"It's over-intensification dropped inside a heritage district," said Mr. McConnell. "What we're seeing now is intensification anywhere, everywhere."

The original design of the project had seven townhouses and garages facing Queen Victoria Street. The city's planning staff said that was unacceptable and a new design was done that put a laneway behind the houses and reduced the number of townhouses by one.

It's still too much for Rideau-Rockcliffe Councillor Jacques Legendre, who said that he agrees with the demolition of the house but can't support the proposed project because it is not in keeping with the guidelines for the heritage district. Mr. Legendre said any replacement development should be of similar height and size to homes in the neighbourhood. He said the three-storey townhouses are "a full storey higher than anything else" in the area.

"It's just too high and too massive," said Mr. Legendre, who said he found it "strange" that the city's heritage planning staff supported the project.

But the development has the support of Ottawa architect Barry Padolsky, who has written a cultural impact statement that supports the city planning staff's position.

Mr. Padolsky, who wasn't paid for his opinion, said that the townhouse development does affect its immediate neighbours but that it fits into a neighbourhood that has a wide range of building forms.

"I don't see anything wrong with it," Mr. Padolsky said Monday, noting that the house to be torn down is a 1960s bungalow with no heritage value.

Mr. Padolsky says he offers opinions on such issues as an independent third party because the city faces a dilemma: The city needs to grow in established neighbourhoods without overbuilding.

The issue will discussed at the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday beginning at 6 p.m. at Ottawa City Hall.


Then it will go to the city's planning and environment committee and full city council.

Uh oh, one storey higher than the other homes.... scary stuff (actually there are several 2.5 storey buildings in the area)

LACAC Report



what's being replaced....a shame to lose such a treasure


Here is what is set to replace them...

[waterloowarrior]

Charlesfort Sunnyside... from Clive Doucet's site

The Charlesfort proposal for the Sunnyside Public Library site

The Charlesfort proposal to redevelop the Sunnyside Branch of the Ottawa Public Library has generated considerable interest and concern. Many people have contacted me wanting to know where I stand. I stand behind the community and whatever consensus it reaches. The dialogue is ongoing and both the Charlesfort proposal and the community position may change as a result but I can provide the following preliminary view.

It is a beautiful site. It is underdeveloped. In terms of densification it should be redeveloped. The big question is how? The first priority should be retaining the library and for it to remain in public ownership. We don’t want to lose public assets. The second priority should be that the development contributes to the community in a positive way. Old Ottawa South has a Community Design Plan (CDP) for Bank Street, which was formulated as a result of two years of public consultation. According to that plan no building should exceed 6 storeys at the gateways to the community. Along the main portions of Bank Street the CDP height limit is four storeys. The development at the corner of Bank and Grove adhered to the CDP and I’ve been hearing a great deal of praise for that example of densification.

I haven’t heard from the community that there is an agreement to go beyond 6 storeys at the Library site and so my intention is to defend the CDP as the current expression of the community’s wishes.

My first priority in Old Ottawa South remains the redevelopment of the Firehall for which we are preparing final costing and Request for Proposal (RFP) documents.

[Aylmer]

Doesn't everyone love double posting!

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

THREE STOREYS!

That must be a burden to handel!
How will they live?
How will they survive?

Good God, Save these poor people!

[m0nkyman]

Here I was thinking that Victoria was freaky about height...

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

THREE STOREYS!

That must be a burden to handel!
How will they live?
How will they survive?

Good God, Save these poor people!

One way to get back at these NIMBY's is to ask them what the home that they live in originally displaced....corn field, small bungalow etc. The drawbridge mentality is alive and well in Ottawa.

[Aylmer]

You know what? Aylmer, being the richest sector in Gatineau, doesn't have a NIMBY infestation!
We build 3-4 storey condos and nobody notices!
I just find that weird: Ottawa has the NIMBYsindrome and Gatineau is almost completely intact!


and one for Aylmer

[O-Town Hockey]

The same carbon-copy 3 and 4 storey condos have been built in Kanata, Orleans, and Barhaven. People in the suburbs are very house-centric and don't really care what goes on outside their little single family home and its lawns. It's the people in older, established neighbourhoods who seem to get all caught up with the height of new developments. One of the big reasons is that these areas are much more dense and the shadow cast by the 3 storey building can (potentially) have a significant impact. In Aylmer et al these trendy new townhouse condos are built on empty lots and old farmland and don't really affect the amount of sunlight or the sightlines (or lack there of) of their neighbours. That being said, I definately do not think that people are justified to fight such a nice-looking and likely low-impact development.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

The same carbon-copy 3 and 4 storey condos have been built in Kanata, Orleans, and Barhaven. People in the suburbs are very house-centric and don't really care what goes on outside their little single family home and its lawns. It's the people in older, established neighbourhoods who seem to get all caught up with the height of new developments. One of the big reasons is that these areas are much more dense and the shadow cast by the 3 storey building can (potentially) have a significant impact.

I think that's a key point. Do we know how deep/far back on the lot these townhouses will extend? It often seems that developers go out of their way to build as large a footprint structure as they can get away with, or indeed "overshoot" and "compromise" to something semi-reasonable. From walking around in Westboro, there's a big difference between a house than extends 60' on the lot and one that extends only 30-40'. A two-storey that extends 60' can look (and indeed, probably is) more massive than a three-storey that extends only 30-40'. There are a few three-storey houses around here (even beside one-storey bungalows) but you don't notice them because they aren't oversized, yet a lot of the more recent two-storey infills (especially the semis) stick out like sore thumbs because of their footprint (even from a vantage point directly in front of them on the street because their depth contributes to a much higher roof). And the three-storey large footprint infills are just plain awful.

The purpose of intensification and densification is supposed to be to cut down on sprawl and reduce our environmental footprint; it's not supposed to be an excuse to build 2500+ sqft McMansion wannabes on small urban lots. Unfortunately, a lot of infill projects seem to meet the letter of the intensification policies without meeting the spirit of them.

The facades of this proposed townhouse block are fine, but without seeing massing diagrams or a site plan it's hard to say whether this is a good infill or not.

[harls]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

You know what? Aylmer, being the richest sector in Gatineau, doesn't have a NIMBY infestation!
We build 3-4 storey condos and nobody notices!

Believe me, there are some hardcore NIMBYs in Aylmer. Just read the Bulletin d'Aylmer's "Letters to the Editor" section... there was a good one in there last week about developers 'raping the landscape'.

[Aylmer]

I saw that one.
But they never do anything, they just complain.

[market3]

anyone have info on this
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=...-ottawa-canada

Neighborhood Dalhousie?

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by market3

anyone have info on this
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=...-ottawa-canada

Neighborhood Dalhousie?

It's for the City Centre property, currently a 1950's industrial building between Somerset and Wellington, west of Preston, just next to the O-Train tracks. Where the Orange Monkey is located.

There have been plans to redevelop this site for eons but nothing's happened yet. The latest delay is to figure out what will happen with transit.

Personally, I don't mind a bit of industrial grit in the downtown core and I've been to the Orange Monkey dozens of times, it's a fine establishment.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Uh oh, one storey higher than the other homes.... scary stuff (actually there are several 2.5 storey buildings in the area)

Here is what is set to replace them...

The saddest thing is that Larco finally got it absolutely 100% right, down to the front facades devoid of garages (which are off a back alley). Most of those neighbours should be on their knees kissing the ground Larco walks on, to deign grace their street with such a beautiful project. Their objections are petty and infantile, totally unbecoming of what ought to be a mature urban neighbourhood.

Kinda makes you wish Larco sells the site to Claridge to teach them a lesson...

[Aylmer]

Here Here!

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

The saddest thing is that Larco finally got it absolutely 100% right, down to the front facades devoid of garages (which are off a back alley). Most of those neighbours should be on their knees kissing the ground Larco walks on, to deign grace their street with such a beautiful project. Their objections are petty and infantile, totally unbecoming of what ought to be a mature urban neighbourhood.

Kinda makes you wish Larco sells the site to Claridge to teach them a lesson...

I happened to be on Stanley this afternoon and the street is a real hodge podge of sizes, densities, heights, vintage of homes and I can't see how this project will dwarf the whole neighbourhood etc.

Hopefully, this will sail through the heritage committee and then on to PEC/Council.

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Their objections are petty and infantile, totally unbecoming of what ought to be a mature urban neighbourhood.

Today's Ottawa Citizen has an op-ed about NIMBYism and refers to the Stanley Street property. They are on the same side as you Mille.