96 Nepean St | 27 Floors | Proposed - Page 3

jaydog0212 · #41 Posted: **Jul 8, 2012, 2:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe Simpson

I totally agree with you. A difference in heights between buildings in that area would create a much cooler skyline. As it stands right now, Ottawa has one of the more boring skylines for a city of this size.

I would not call it boring not even close i have been to many city's where you have huge buildings while some may find that exciting i call that boring.

Admiral Nelson · #42 Posted: **Jul 9, 2012, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydog0212

I would not call it boring not even close i have been to many city's where you have huge buildings while some may find that exciting i call that boring.

It's hard to find visual interest in a skyline that resembles a flattop haicut.

jaydog0212 · #43 Posted: **Jul 9, 2012, 7:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

It's hard to find visual interest in a skyline that resembles a flattop haicut.

Sure that might be true but to have countless 40 floors towers is really not exciting.

CongoJack · #44 Posted: **Jul 9, 2012, 10:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydog0212

Sure that might be true but to have countless 40 floors towers is really not exciting.

I think common ground be found in the idea that uniformity is boring. The thing, is that imposing height restrictions is what encourages uniformity. Allowing 40+ story towers will not mean that people will stop building in shorter ranges. Also, height limits encourage developers to maximize their profit by building squat and square buildings that maximize the amount of floorspace that can be made available in a given lot up to a given height. If you want variety, allow height.

waterloowarrior · #45 Posted: **Aug 9, 2012, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

appealed to the OMB
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL120711

community association made the appeal
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busines...126/story.html

J.OT13 · #46 Posted: **Aug 10, 2012, 11:45 PM**

I would'nt mind seign it a bit lower for some variation. It's not like the building is anything spectacular; so not much of a loss.

kevinbottawa · #47 Posted: **Aug 11, 2012, 12:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I would'nt mind seign it a bit lower for some variation. It's not like the building is anything spectacular; so not much of a loss.

It's spectacular compared to anything we have in the city at the moment.

McC · #48 Posted: **Aug 11, 2012, 1:43 AM**

Spectacularly identical to two other Claridge towers on roughly the same block?

S-Man · #49 Posted: **Aug 11, 2012, 5:24 PM**

Make it look different!

Also, wasn't this item deferred for months at committee to determine if the surrounding infrastructure/psyche of the world could handle the construction of this building?

S-Man · #50 Posted: **Aug 11, 2012, 5:35 PM**

Similarity to other nearby buildings aside, that Citizen article elicited some pretty telling responses from readers (though they are likely the ones who appealed the thing in the first place. SOME community activist types really push the scary language/imaginary laws route).

I liked this quote:

"...zoning is illegitimate and increases inequality: height and minimum setback restrictions violates private property rights"

Huh??

Not to mention this (the myth that tall buildings built downtown iincrease your taxes):

"...the city using our tax dollars to defend yet another misguided decision in support of a private developer is outrageous."

"We don't have elected officials, we have heavy-handed henchmen who have no respect for the average city rate-payer."

Yeah, the last thing you want going into your city's coffers is cash! And people downtown instead of in Sprawlhaven? That ain't right. Fight the 1%!!!

Seriously, are some people just too stupid to understand anything? It's fine if you want to protest a building being taller than its neighbours, but to spread urban myths about taxation like this, well, it puts you in the fairy tale world of Ken Grey and his ilk.

kevinbottawa · #51 Posted: **Aug 11, 2012, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

Make it look different!

Also, wasn't this item deferred for months at committee to determine if the surrounding infrastructure/psyche of the world could handle the construction of this building?

If I remember correctly, it was deferred until June 26th and they sided with Claridge after some comments from experts.

Boxster · #52 Posted: **Mar 6, 2013, 8:55 PM**

Condo project at 96 Nepean St. gets go-ahead

Read more:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ot...761/story.html

waterloowarrior · #53 Posted: **Mar 6, 2013, 10:56 PM**

decision
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions...eb-27-2013.pdf

CCCA website
http://centretowncitizens.ca/?page_id=464

Postmaster · #54 Posted: **Mar 6, 2013, 11:06 PM**

No... floor.. reductions? Strange.

citizen j · #55 Posted: **Mar 7, 2013, 1:43 AM**

^27 is the new 16

Harley613 · #56 Posted: **Mar 7, 2013, 4:26 AM**

no kidding. *yawn*. a sea of stumps.