a peek inside the fishbowl

1 | Giulia

September 13th, 2011 at 10:14 am

Hi Andrea,
I am very torn on this subject. I live in Whitehaven which is zoned for single family homes. Our neighborhood boasts 160 foot deep lots with some large 4-5 bedroom homes from the 50s and 60s, but also some tiny bungalows from the same era. The larger homes can sell today for good prices even if they are dated, the smaller bungalows are run down and cheap enough for builders to tear down and fill the full lot with million dollar houses without rezoning. When I mean fill, I mean completely full because all they have to do is keep the frontage dimensions. So that becomes the garage (original bungalow) and then they just build back. I am now surrounded by 9! million dollar houses, all within the last 15 months!
Westboro has the condos happening and that is changing things. I don’t think all change is bad and we can’t keep everything the way it was – where I am torn is that we need to provide houses/condos inside the green belt to avoid further expansions past Kanata etc. which is also leading to even more traffic – how do we balance all of this? Traffic, not ideal public transportation, inside and outside green belt development, no re-zoning requirements if frontage is kept…

2 | Dennis Van Staalduinen

September 13th, 2011 at 10:24 am

I get the squat-and-ugly vs. tall and somewhat (occasionally) nicer trade-off, because if you stick to the letter of the law that’s what the zoning allows. And yes, I would prefer a taller narrower building to one that takes up every square inch of airspace allotted.

But of course, as you point out, the real problem is the devil’s brew of game playing, fuzzy dice projections, and legal / OMB manipulation that happens in the absence of a smart, community-driven planning process.

The answer as always: an intelligent Community Design Plan, backed up by legislative teeth and a City planning department that is forced to respect it.

3 | andrea

September 13th, 2011 at 10:26 am

Why is it so hard to build something that’s appealing AND meets the zoning requirements?

4 | Tudor

September 13th, 2011 at 11:28 am

I would come up with a thoughtful comment but I’m too busy trying to get over the coughing fit induced by the construction workers sitting eight feet from my dining room window, smoking and talking, very loudly, about their *$%#ing boss and their %$&*ed-up shifts and those workers are here so that my new “neighbours” can wait in comfort in their current suburban house while the rest of us on the street live through the 7:00 Saturday morning noise, the maze of pick-up trucks lining both sides of the street and the dirt they leave behind, so that said new neighbours can move into their absolutely mongo-massive brand new house which will tower above the rest of ours and block our windows and the sun to our gardens and stick out like a sore thumb and this is all with the city’s blessing. No variances required. No consultation with neighbours. Nothing. Oh, and did I mention, all this will make the value of my property go up so I get to pay more taxes…

So, I guess my comment is, the city needs to have mechanisms in place for appropriate and respectful inner-city development if it wants to collect the money for permits and taxes arising from said development.

But it doesn’t.

5 | Mary

September 13th, 2011 at 11:31 am

If they want to truly show us that the residents of the 200 units will take transit, only build 50 parking spots.

6 | David

September 13th, 2011 at 1:27 pm

My family moved away from Athlone Ave in 2001 up to MacKellar Heights.
At the time, Westboro status and prices were *just* on the way up in terms of places to live in the city.

In ten short years, this city has managed to approve the re-building of what was once a quaint, accessible, convenient and quiet place to live into an over-priced, over-populated, over renovated area that is so crowded that it is completely dysfunctional on the weekends.
The streets of Westboro were not built to accommodate the number of residents and local “tourists” – not even close.

A new condo you say?
The greed of the city knows no bounds.

15 stories, 10 stories, 5 stories – what is the diff ?
The area is already so over the top and crowded this extra condo won’t make a bit of difference.

7 | sara

September 13th, 2011 at 1:57 pm

It makes a difference to me!!

Its hard to describe the deep disappointment and frustration I feel when discussing these things. This particular project hits especially close to home, since its not only my neighbourhood in question, it’s my street!! The parking for this proposed 16 storey condo will be accessed from my small dead end street. Goodbye street hockey for the million little kids that live on this block:(

While density is important so is building cities with character and charm. Westboro is a vibrant neighbourhood, full of rapid growth. While growth is good we need to be very careful to preserve the charm and village feel which makes this a neighbourhood worth developing. A 7storey building butting against small residential streets is already adding height and density to the neighbourhood, any more is simply looking for bigger profits and river views while ignoring the existing character of neighbourhing streets.

As for the whole 2 bad options tactic, I couldn’t agree with you more Andrea! I find it infuriating that this is how the developer has chosen to start “negotiations”. I would like option C please. The assumption should be that the allowable 7storey building would still be attractive, well designed, and include some green space. These things should be givens!! Otherwise what kind of city are we building here? What kind of neighbourhood? Density sure, but done well otherwise who will want to live here?

Argh..

8 | binki

September 13th, 2011 at 2:45 pm

Dennis is right…The answer as always: an intelligent Community Design Plan, backed up by legislative teeth and a City planning department that is forced to respect it

What is going on??? It’s a given that the Plan doesn’t work and can’t be applied/enforced. Why is that? Hey City Hall….do your job to make this work. A lot of people worked long and hard on this plan. It’s what the community wants and expects. Enough shrugging of shoulders. “Oh well” just doesn’t cut it. DO YOUR JOB!

9 | Lindsay

September 13th, 2011 at 3:37 pm

Are you upset that they’re being built, that they don’t look good, or both?

It’s such a tough subject. I live in a community of bungalows and I would hate to have a bunch of condos built next door! And it sounds like the tactics being used are disengenuous to say the least.

On the other hand, I really support densification (even in my own neighbourhood if necessary.) I guess too, people keep buying these condos… so obviously it’s still a great place to live!

I don’t know… I still haven’t figured out how I feel about it all. I do agree though that better planning and adherence to the plan would be helpful.

10 | Dan

September 13th, 2011 at 4:05 pm

I just had a quick comment about this statement: “Frankly, I don’t believe that the majority of people who live in pricey condos ever deign to take the bus.”

While I cannot speak to the figure quoted for the Metropole, I think one must be careful when making blanket statements such as these. In my building, there are over 40 units – “pricey condos” built as infill in this neighbourhood- and the vast majority of residents use public transit or cycle. In fact, very few residents own vehicles.

11 | andrea

September 13th, 2011 at 4:31 pm

For the record, I do support intensification, but I believe it has to be done with some care and sensitivity.

Dan –
That line was tapped out in haste so it came out sounding wrong. Your condo sounds progressive in the transportation department, but I still believe that most Westboro condo owners have at least one car. I’d love it if someone could prove me wrong on this one!

12 | Carl Neustaedter

September 13th, 2011 at 7:46 pm

I support intensification but only as it follows the CDP.
Isn’t it sad that building something to the lot lines with no green space is even an option? We visited Richmond BC this summer and found that all developments had minimum green space and children’s play area requirements. And vinyl siding is banned!
I concur with the comment that these condos at the Fendor site should only have handful of parking spaces. Right now, my Roosevelt neighbors and I are petitioning to have the speed limit lowered – and the City will only allow it to be lowered to 40 kmh. What will another 200 cars bring to our already overloaded street? What is Councillor Hobbs’ position on this? Councillor, we appreciated that you came to see with your own eyes the traffic problems on Roosevelt last winter; now we hope to see some action when it counts.

13 | Steve

September 13th, 2011 at 8:05 pm

The ‘we need it to be higher so it can be beautiful’ is nonsense. If the site was zoned for 3 storeys, they’d be saying a 3 storey building will be unattractive and they need to make it 7 to make it attractive. Likewise, if it was zoned for 14 storeys, they’d be saying they need to make it 25 to make it attractive, the 14 storey version would be a basic block. They always say it needs to be double what it is zoned to make it attractive.

I think there’s a real opportunity at the moment with a provincial election on to push for changes to the planning process and the structure of the OMB. And if we could make it (OMB reform) an issue not only in our riding, but that of Dalton McGuinty’s riding, then maybe we’d see some change.

To quote a previous, not current, councillor ‘intensification is not an excuse for over-intensification’.

14 | Lindsay

September 14th, 2011 at 8:38 am

I’ve been thinking about the quote above: ‘intensification is not an excuse for over-intensification’. I find it such an interesting idea. I hope it’s okay to comment on it…

My first thought was that the intensification we experience is nothing compared to what they see in many European cities or in places where they don’t have the same ability to sprawl as we do. Even the small Dutch cities I’ve been to have a densly populated core without much in the way of “suburbs”. It’s great! Most people walk or bike to work, there are vibrant markets and adorable living spaces. So, why doesn’t that work here?

Which led to my second thought – that it largely doesn’t work because we have different expectations. We wouldn’t be willing to live in the tiny houses/apartments that are required to fit a large number of people in small spaces. We also expect to each have our own outdoor space (a yard, a driveway, etc) rather than only having communal space. How much more important would parks and greenspace be if nobody had a backyard? How many more people could be fit into an area if the monster houses going up in Westboro were instead small duplexes or row houses (think Coronation Street)?

What is the definition of “over-intensification”? And more broadly, how do we, as a city, even have a conversation about intensification? Does it require a shift in mindset? How do you do it properly so you get buy in? Who is involved – the whole city or just the areas affected? Fascinating stuff! I’m sure people have thought more deeply about all this… this conversation makes me want to do some reading!

15 | andrea

September 14th, 2011 at 9:16 am

Thank you all, for keeping this conversation interesting and civil!

Steve: you raise a great point about OMB reform and I’m going to follow though with our candidates.

Lindsay: you can comment on anything you like! :)

I am not sure if it’s fair to compare Ottawa with old European cities because we evolved so differently. But at the same time I believe that there’s nothing stopping us from borrowing their best practices and making them our own… especially as it pertains to public transit and planning pedestrian and cycle-friendly cities.

In terms of “over intensification,” we’re already there (at least in Westboro.) The City undertakes population and traffic projections for urban neighbourhoods like Westboro. It’s my understanding that our population is beyond that what was projected for 2021. Could be a good question to ask our Councillor.

16 | James

September 14th, 2011 at 9:28 am

Unfortunately, the City of Ottawa never understood the administrative infrastructure it needed to deal with intensification (i.e., a strong city manager who cares about such things, a plan that reflects reality), and the presence/power of the OMB is a recipe for disaster. Add to that the fact that the city has always been in thrall with developers—dating back to Minto and Terron (I know a former mayor who lived with a developer’s family when his marriage went bad)—and you get what you have now. Like David above, I moved from Athlone, although a decade earlier, and don’t regret leaving a neighbourhood that now seems to have been thrown to the wolves by the city.

17 | andrea

September 14th, 2011 at 7:35 pm

I received an email that pointed me to some good information about Metropole transit usage. According to a CMHC report about the Metropole (you can read it in PDF format here) 28% of Metropole residents surveyed* take public transit to work as opposed to 18.5% of people in Ottawa-Hull overall. (The source of that last stat is 2001 Census.)

* Metropole contains 153 apartments. Not sure how many residents this equates to, but it’s worth noting that: “Forty-five residents were interviewed during the summer of 2006 to learn why they chose the Metropole, their level of satisfaction and their transportation choices.”

So 28% of 45 residents said they take the bus to work. So it seems that some Metropole residents do take public transit, and it’s probably more than the 2% I mentioned in this post. (Which is great, but it would still be great to have up-to-date data on this point. I stand corrected!)

I would like to add that I didn’t want this post to sound like an attack on condo residents, because that wasn’t my intent. I’m only asking the questions and wondering out loud when and where our breaking point might be. Where is the point of no return here?

18 | Grace

September 15th, 2011 at 8:40 am

I live in the Metropole complex and the bus is our family’s primary form of transportation. Our family of 4 own one car which is almost never used.
Every day there is a steady stream of people from the tower and townhomes to the transitway. I am not sure where you got your stat from but I would say it is closer to 80% take the bus regularly.
I am all for building homes near the transitway. It sure beats everyone having a lawn and two cars and commuting from the suburbs.

19 | Nick

September 18th, 2011 at 9:50 am

I’m a big fan of intensification in Westboro, but I think your point about throwing out the 14 and 16 storey proposal in order to get 9 or 10 is the one that is most accurate. I am hoping the officials involved will see through this, as the 14/16 is a pretty ridiculous proposal. There is a lots of room for a great 6-7 storey complex.

And I believe the threat to do short, squat and ugly is an empty threat. Yes, they will look to maximize the # of units, but not so much to overly hurt the perceived value of the place. They are competing against a bunch of great quality condos in the hood, so if they want to make something visually unappealing, they will do so at their own peril.

The fact it is in a super low density dead-end (s) is a key reason why even the slightest variance would be unacceptable.