Old Ottawa South

The latest redevelopment proposal (71 Hopewell) is now up on the City of Ottawa's development applications page found here:

app01.ottawa.ca/post...n&appId=__7XXBRT

Common criticisms of this type of redevelopment are the size and height of the buildings, aesthetic characteristics, and the garage-dominated frontage. Any thoughts on this particular one? Likes? Dislikes? The development application is now in its "comment period" so now is the time to speak up.

What really irks me about this particular design is that it would have been a reasonably-scaled 3-story building, except:

(a) the roof volume is dead space. Older 3-story homes around here tend to have the 3rd floor enclosed in the roof volume, which reduces the overall mass of the structure. This design has an tall, empty roof plunked on top of an already tall 3-story building. I'm sure the rationale for this is that it's cheaper to build that way, since they can just frame a 3-story box and then throw roof trusses on top -- much easier than dealing with dormers and sloping interior walls.

(b) they've perched the whole thing on top of garages, ruining the streetscape. Our neighbourhood is built around the common element of the front porch. Here the designer is playing lip-service to the front porch by putting it on the second floor. What pedestrians see from the sidewalk is the blank "go away!" wall of garage doors. Again, I guess it's a retail value thing: houses with garages sell for more, never mind the fact that hardly any homes in the area have them, and the presence of the garages wrecks the design.

At least it's not a "Sky Bungalow". Yet.

Chris.

Reminder: Comments deadline for the 71 Hopewell development to the City is tomorrow--March 2, 2010. If you want to comment, please go to:

app01.ottawa.ca/post...n&appId=__7XXBRT

Gwen

The developer came around the neighbourhood again today May 2nd with a revised plan which looks pretty much how the other one looked (not the "carriageway") and has changed the appearance to "stone and brick" from "brick and vinyl", moved the garages back in under the new balconies also move to the front for two of the three.

On the whole not satisfactory, same footprint, same front garages.

He's telling my husband right now that he's "willing to comprimise" but he's not willing to change the size, which was our foremost objection.

I wonder why he's bending over backwards to get our approval? Can we really change this thing? Does someone know the answer to that?

A carriageway can be "cute" and seem to offer "options" in certain cases such as an access to an underground garage etc.
In this case where the consequence is a vehicular only rear yard it would be socially negative.
(see rear yards in area of 1085-1095 Gladstone and at 32-34 St Francis next door - etc. as an example - Ottawa e-maps an option but in person is telling) - many such also in OOS too I am sure. --> others offer up addresses ???
Thought the City likes such ideas, they (staff) do not have to live with the consequences of such applications for a small site, daily.

Sometimes the City seems to acknowledge (aka reward) a developer for "trying" to make better / converse with the other parties and then kind of roll over and accespt as was originally presented give "We tried". Trusting this will not become your case here.

For your (neighbourhood) part, you need to be collectively be seen as carrrying forward your "resolve" for that which is appropriately justified.
Avoid the "why bother" feelings - the Developer will outlast you.

I digress : ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Large split-faced limestone (like many an old foundation) looks 'comfortable' with simple old Rideau Red brick, as it is an Ottawa area vernacular.
When using smaller sized 'man-made' tumbled "stone" the colour pallette and detailing finesse comes more into play for the brick and stone.

If the developer is (as noted) now proposing a full brick faced building (with some stone) I would be mindfull that to do so he is either giving up some 5" +/- at each side unit wall and at rear (a substantial square footage area) , looking to use thin surface bonded veneer brick (1/2" + bedding), or such. I would not imagine they would wish to go for any variances to compensate re width change, all considering.

The garage doors were always set somewhat back under the front 3 decks (2 more decks (with roof over) than the Photo-shopped image of Sunnyside as posted on OOSA site - gave a good idea of scale in any case).

I believe Gwendolyn to also suggest that the 2 outer garages (right & left have been brought forward (flush or near flush to center garage?) so as to maybe lessen the depth a bit into the rear yard ... needs verifying.
If so, would tend to have the 3 garage doors look as if being for one large super garage. Not very appealing. Worse re. merits of articualtion.

When noting "same footprint" , are the rear yards still to the minimum of 7.5m? If so, and if the outer garages are moved forward, maybe this represents the area gain / compensation for loss due to brick on side walls ???

Without seeing, cannot suggest much further.
If revised plans / elevation details arise, maybe someone can send me a set or direct me to an web address where they may have been posted.

Saga continues.
Don Brown.

INFO RE TOWNHOUSE DENSITIES - HISTORY

Maybe worth noting also here when OOS repesentaives are speaking with the City, though newer Zoning By-Laws trump old .....

The reason that this issue of 3 Townhoses vs. semi-detatched or singles is even being discussed at this time is that the Zoning By-Laws have changed over the years in the name of "intesification / infill" vs. usage of existing in-ground site services , as follows:

[ note: comments where noted refer toteh zoning of 71 Hopewell ]

- AZ-64 City's first wide-area Zoning By-Law consolidation (1964) - no research done

- Z-2K updating circa early 1980's >>> R4 x64
>>> townhouse (row dwelling) a permitted use (if)
- lot min 15m wide (OK)
- lot area min. 464 sq.m. (OK)
- unit density of 37.5 dwelling units (DU) / hectare (10,000 sq.m.)
3 DU on this 464 sq.m. lot = 64.66 DU / Ha >>> NEAR DOUBLE THE DENSITY PERMITTED
- max. 5 DU per row (OK)
>>> THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED or REQUIRED A MAJOR VARIANCE PRE 1998

- Zoning By-Law of 1998 >>> R3M [ x225 ] ( exception not applicabel )
- lot area and width / DU is compliant for proposal
- NOTABLE -->>> DENSITY PROVISIONS FRO TOWNHOUSES WAS DELETED

- Zoning By-Law of 2008 >>> provisions carried forward as from change in 1998 re DENSITY

Question to City: Why, for "tight-knit" established comminuites where "intesification" only meant a change from max. of 2 to be 3 dwelling units, did the City not exempt such neighbourhoods as Old Ottawa South etc. from the resulting "misfortunes" now befalling the area ??
Surely this scale of change was not what the City "planners" / Province" had in mind when introducing intensification directives / guidelines !!!

Don Brown, B.Arch.