335 Roosevelt Ave | 46 & 49m | 14 & 15f | Site Prep

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed. People on here complain about developments having too much parking, but when people raise concerns about the increase in traffic on local streets as a result of all the cars parked in that parking, they get labeled as NIMBYs.

That's because... that's NIMBYism.

You hear incumbent homeowners and neighbours complain about "traffic".

You never, ever, not once, hear those people tell you what they, personally, are doing to reduce the amount of imaginary "traffic".

All "traffic" means is "a car being driven by someone who isn't me." It's pure selfishness.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That's because... that's NIMBYism.

You hear incumbent homeowners and neighbours complain about "traffic".

You never, ever, not once, hear those people tell you what they, personally, are doing to reduce the amount of imaginary "traffic".

All "traffic" means is "a car being driven by someone who isn't me." It's pure selfishness.

Depends on who it is. I'm opposed to lots of parking in buildings (and have been quite vocal in this forum), but I don't even have a driver's license. A lot of my friends around my age don't drive either, but certainly people do.

Something that does get me is that there aren't many strong restrictions on how many cars one can own if they live in a house. I've shared my perspective that over the generations households went from no cars to 1 car per family to 1 car per adult in each household. People expect to have multiple cars, and many park on the street in front of their houses. We see houses in older neighbourhoods where you either had no parking (like Centretown) or rear/ side lane parking being torn down and replaced with houses with garages built into the house, taking up most of the front face. I think if we want to get serious about traffic and mobility, we should also restrict parking provided for houses and businesses. That said, I still oppose reducing what we provide in buildings. If you're within a certain distance of a transit station parking should not be provided, and the City should be more judicious about approving development where we can easily predict the residents will have to rely on a car to live there.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Oof...Reddit r/Ottawa is NOT having this NIMBYism..

https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comments/u6rgf1/12storey_apartment_proposal_in_westboro_a_concern/

I find that Reddit skews younger and most of us young(ish) people are more informed about urban planning issues and want more walkable, cyclable, denser cities and neighbourhoods while also being negatively impacted by our housing crisis. They recognize the need to build more and are rightfully upset when confronted with poorly-thought out opposition to change/ development. I agree that this proposal is quite needed.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

Depends on who it is. I'm opposed to lots of parking in buildings (and have been quite vocal in this forum), but I don't even have a driver's license. A lot of my friends around my age don't drive either, but certainly people do.

To be clear, I don't mean you personally; rather the "what about the traffic?!?!?" silliness you hear from Local Gentrified Property Windfall Association Local 26.

"Traffic" is what happens when other people drive.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

To be clear, I don't mean you personally; rather the "what about the traffic?!?!?" silliness you hear from Local Gentrified Property Windfall Association Local 26.

"Traffic" is what happens when other people drive.

That is true and building luxury, river view condos on residential streets, for people who will be driving everywhere, and its proximity to a transit station is a bonus for easy access to downtown on Canada Day is going to generate a lot of traffic. Leiper said that if the plan for the building was to build affordable housing with minimal parking, his opinion would be different.

[SL123]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed. People on here complain about developments having too much parking, but when people raise concerns about the increase in traffic on local streets as a result of all the cars parked in that parking, they get labeled as NIMBYs.

I welcome traffic. Traffic congestion is the only thing that will deter people from using their own car instead of public transit. IMO Traffic impact should even be disregarded when it comes to building in Transit Oriented Corridor.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by SL123

I welcome traffic. Traffic congestion is the only thing that will deter people from using their own car instead of public transit. IMO Traffic impact should even be disregarded when it comes to building in Transit Oriented Corridor.

Traffic ≠ Congestion

You can have a large amount of traffic and not have congestion. On the other hand, that large amount of traffic can make the streets less walkable and force more people into their cars when they should be using an more active form of transportation.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is true and building luxury, river view condos on residential streets, for people who will be driving everywhere, and its proximity to a transit station is a bonus for easy access to downtown on Canada Day is going to generate a lot of traffic. Leiper said that if the plan for the building was to build affordable housing with minimal parking, his opinion would be different.

That's a complete cop out to make his opposition to building homes sound reasonable. If the opposition is just parking fees have a point but it's not so he doesn't just slinging mud until something sticks.

Secondly people living in those "affordable homes" are just as likely to have cars as his supposed straw-men purchases of these "luxury" units opposed by those living in million+ dollar SFH. I know what one actually a luxury unit and it's not the one in this development....

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Traffic ≠ Congestion

You can have a large amount of traffic and not have congestion. On the other hand, that large amount of traffic can make the streets less walkable and force more people into their cars when they should be using an more active form of transportation.

Traffic will create congestion and it's a moronic reason to stop housing from being built as there residents aren't disappearing if this doesn't get built there just going to live somewhere else likely with less transit options.

[ottawasoccer]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

That's a complete cop out to make his opposition to building homes sound reasonable. If the opposition is just parking fees have a point but it's not so he doesn't just slinging mud until something sticks.

Secondly people living in those "affordable homes" are just as likely to have cars as his supposed straw-men purchases of these "luxury" units opposed by those living in million+ dollar SFH. I know what one actually a luxury unit and it's not the one in this development....

Agreed. He's conveniently pivoted his argument to Affordability and parking, but his opposition has nothing to do with that. He's listening to a few very vocal nimby homeowners who live nearby and think their OMB win in 2014 is final forever.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

That's a complete cop out to make his opposition to building homes sound reasonable. If the opposition is just parking fees have a point but it's not so he doesn't just slinging mud until something sticks.

Secondly people living in those "affordable homes" are just as likely to have cars as his supposed straw-men purchases of these "luxury" units opposed by those living in million+ dollar SFH. I know what one actually a luxury unit and it's not the one in this development....

The current design has almost twice as many “resident parking spaces” as the minimum permitted (311 vs 156). So you think that a building with the same number of units but half as many parking spaces will generate the same amount of vehicle traffic? People don’t buy cars to keep them parked 24/7.

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Traffic will create congestion and it's a moronic reason to stop housing from being built as there residents aren't disappearing if this doesn't get built there just going to live somewhere else likely with less transit options.

Congestion occurs when you exceed a road’s capacity. A highway vehicle lane can handle up to about 2000 cars per hour. A city street is about half that (per lane). Wilmont and Roosevelt won’t see anywhere near those traffic levels, so they won’t become congested. That isn’t to say there won’t be negative impacts.

The problem is most people don’t understand the difference between a street and a road. A street prioritized people. A road prioritized cars. Both serve a purpose but when you try to do both on the same ROW, you end up with a stroad that serves neither well.

I have no issues with building TOD in the area. The problem is, this is a car oriented development close to a transit station. People on this forum tend to make the argument “more towers, more now,” judging them first and foremost by their height, and secondly by their aesthetics, without any care or consideration on what effect those towers will have on the area around them.

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

Agreed. He's conveniently pivoted his argument to Affordability and parking, but his opposition has nothing to do with that. He's listening to a few very vocal nimby homeowners who live nearby and think their OMB win in 2014 is final forever.

The problem with that argument is that he has supported significantly larger developments a few blocks away. The primary difference is they were built on wide roads, designed to handle large amounts of traffic, not a narrow street.

[ottawasoccer]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The current design has almost twice as many “resident parking spaces” as the minimum permitted (311 vs 156). So you think that a building with the same number of units but half as many parking spaces will generate the same amount of vehicle traffic? People don’t buy cars to keep them parked 24/7.



Congestion occurs when you exceed a road’s capacity. A highway vehicle lane can handle up to about 2000 cars per hour. A city street is about half that (per lane). Wilmont and Roosevelt won’t see anywhere near those traffic levels, so they won’t become congested. That isn’t to say there won’t be negative impacts.

The problem is most people don’t understand the difference between a street and a road. A street prioritized people. A road prioritized cars. Both serve a purpose but when you try to do both on the same ROW, you end up with a stroad that serves neither well.

I have no issues with building TOD in the area. The problem is, this is a car oriented development close to a transit station. People on this forum tend to make the argument “more towers, more now,” judging them first and foremost by their height, and secondly by their aesthetics, without any care or consideration on what effect those towers will have on the area around them.



The problem with that argument is that he has supported significantly larger developments a few blocks away. The primary difference is they were built on wide roads, designed to handle large amounts of traffic, not a narrow street.

But the developer scaled down to 12 stories to reflect this... sounds like they tried to make a compromise even though 30+ gets approved numerous times 500 metres away. And they're still fighting and not getting any support. I think when Uniform switched their entire project down to 12 that should have been met with better response from everyone.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

But the developer scaled down to 12 stories to reflect this... sounds like they tried to make a compromise even though 30+ gets approved numerous times 500 metres away. And they're still fighting and not getting any support. I think when Uniform switched their entire project down to 12 that should have been met with better response from everyone.

But in 2014 to the appeal board ruled that it should be limited to 8 storeys. That was the compromise. Now the developer wants a compromise on the compromise and have it extended to 12 storeys.

Besides, it isn't about the height of the building, but the number of parking spaces. The developer wants almost double what's required for the location.

[ottawasoccer]

Originally Posted by roger1818

But in 2014 to the appeal board ruled that it should be limited to 8 storeys. That was the compromise. Now the developer wants a compromise on the compromise and have it extended to 12 storeys.

Besides, it isn't about the height of the building, but the number of parking spaces. The developer wants almost double what's required for the location.

Disagree. A lot has changed since 2014 in terms of planning policy, precedent, and the LRT.

I think they're asking for 0.8 parking that is not double what's required I don't even think that's the maximum allowed.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

Disagree. A lot has changed since 2014 in terms of planning policy, precedent, and the LRT.

Stage 1 was already under construction and the city had already announced the Stage 2 route and were claiming that it would be complete by 2023, so not that much has changed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lr...ns-part-of-city-s-transit-plan-1.1930671

[waterloowarrior]

The 2012 and 2014 OMB decisions were based on the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, 2003 City of Ottawa Official Plan, and the 2008 Westboro Secondary Plan (based on the 2007 CDP) - will be interesting when the Westboro plan finally gets a refresh

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Stage 1 was already under construction and the city had already announced the Stage 2 route and were claiming that it would be complete by 2023, so not that much has changed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lr...ns-part-of-city-s-transit-plan-1.1930671

The official plan changed, the city specifically called for more denser at transit stations including mid & high rises.

Jeff Lieper has opposed many projects in his Ward including a tower next to a mad transit station on that road of which you speak. Along with 12 story tower within 1km of multiple mass transit stations.

If you want to oppose it fine but a nimby you are.

[ottawasoccer]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

The 2012 and 2014 OMB decisions were based on the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, 2003 City of Ottawa Official Plan, and the 2008 Westboro Secondary Plan (based on the 2007 CDP) - will be interesting when the Westboro plan finally gets a refresh

To me that's one of the biggest problems here. The vocal residents keep pointing to the Secondary Plan as to why it should be 8 stories. The Secondary Plan is no longer a credible or reliable source for this area. It's so dated and has been ignored on dozens of other applications. It doesn't serve anyone in this situation.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

If you want to oppose it fine but a nimby you are.

Do you even know what NIMBY means? Look at where I live. Hardly my back yard. To me this is a waste of prime TOD land.

[waterloowarrior]

Approved at OLT
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlt/doc/2022/2022canlii78163/2022canlii78163.html