Bank Street Community Design Plan

[rocketphish]

Bank Street Community Design Plan

https://ottawa.ca/en/bank-street-community-design-plan

[rocketphish]

New Glebe plan calls for 4-storey cap along stretch of Bank Street
Height limits aimed at preserving central neighbourhood's charm

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: Nov 25, 2021 4:38 PM ET | Last Updated: 37 minutes ago

Ottawa's planning committee has approved new guidelines that will cap building heights along a section of Bank Street in the Glebe in an attempt to preserve the central neighbourhood's character.

The plan approved Thursday will cap future development between First and Holmwood avenues, a distance of about 550 metres, at four storeys.

A seven-storey apartment building by Minto at Bank and Fifth Avenue, and an eight-storey retirement home between Fifth and Holmwood, are alread near completion.

Buildings of up to six storeys will be allowed elsewhere on the strip, while nine storeys will be permitted south of Holmwood across Bank Street from Lansdowne Park. Towers of up to 22 storeys will be permitted at the north end of the Glebe on Isabella Street beside Highway 417.

Future buildings that front onto Bank Street should have facades and windows that match existing architecture, the plan suggests. At a few corners, properties would be "notched" to allow for trees and places to sit.

The plan also calls for the city-owned parking lot at the corner of Bank and Chamberlain Avenue near the Queensway to be developed for affordable housing.

Carolyn Mackenzie of the Glebe Community Association said the plan has the unanimous support of the association's board, and she hopes it will lead to fewer conflicts over development proposals.

"It's going to maintain the charm, the uniqueness that exists there now while adding density," added Coun. Shawn Menard.

The Glebe's new local plan for Bank Street rises to city council on Dec. 8, and will form part of the new official plan that has gone to Ontario's municipal affairs minister for approval.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...lebe-1.6262120

[J.OT13]

Planning Committee Presentation starting at 3:20:00.

• Video Link

[J.OT13]

Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but I support this plan and wish we had more like this along other traditional main streets. I do hope they slap some heritage preservation on a few buildings north of First, like the Chinese United Church and Ambassador Court (triangular shaped buff brick apartment building on the park) next door.

[SL123]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but I support this plan and wish we had more like this along other traditional main streets. I do hope they slap some heritage preservation on a few buildings north of First, like the Chinese United Church and Ambassador Court (triangular shaped buff brick apartment building on the park) next door.

I dont like the cap at 4 stories. The seven-storey apartment building by Minto at Bank and Fifth Avenue shows exactly how to add density to the glebe without messing with the character of the neighbourhood IMO

[phil235]

Originally Posted by SL123

I dont like the cap at 4 stories. The seven-storey apartment building by Minto at Bank and Fifth Avenue shows exactly how to add density to the glebe without messing with the character of the neighbourhood IMO

I agree that is a good building, but it is worth noting that it is not right on Bank St. On the other hand, the retirement home across the street is 8 storeys right on Bank, and it really doesn't continue the traditional main street feel at all.

I'd much rather see protection of the traditional mainstreets as pedestrian-scale people places, with higher buildings in strategic spots (on Chamberlain-Isabella, across from Lansdowne where you have a wider right of way, etc.). There are so many places for taller infill that it seems silly to be messing with streets that already work well.

In this case, the protected area is only a few blocks, a stretch of about 500m. That seems like a pretty good balance, particularly given that there are really no open lots in that stretch. My only concern with the 4-storey limit is that it might make infill unlikely for economic reasons, but I'm not sure that is the case. Old Ottawa South has seen at least a couple of successful 4-storey redevelopments along Bank.

[lrt's friend]

I drove down Bank Street from downtown to Billings Bridge today. I really like how the street is being intensified. The new 4 to 6 storey buildings really are nicely scaled to the historic buildings and it really give it an urban feel.

[JHikka]

The four-storey limit refers to 'street walls' which would encourage setbacks for higher floors, no? My understanding is that you could have a 20-story development but the tower section would have to be set back away from Bank.

[SL123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The four-storey limit refers to 'street walls' which would encourage setbacks for higher floors, no? My understanding is that you could have a 20-story development but the tower section would have to be set back away from Bank.

No four storey is four storey.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The four-storey limit refers to 'street walls' which would encourage setbacks for higher floors, no? My understanding is that you could have a 20-story development but the tower section would have to be set back away from Bank.

As far as I am aware it will limit the entire property for the majority of the properties facing bank and some directly behind those facing bank to 4 stories. With the guidelines basing their "height" limit around plane angles and setback requirements from both bank street AND the SFH housing behind the lots.

So I think until house prices rise enough that creating a land assembly and going through a site plan & OP/SP amendment can be deemed profitable, development on bank will halt. but hey were not in a housing emergency right? lol,

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/publi...haracter-study

http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...01-21-0018.PDF

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

So I think until house prices rise enough that creating a land assembly and going through a site plan & OP/SP amendment can be deemed profitable, development on bank will halt. but hey were not in a housing emergency right? lol,

I don't buy that argument. We have hundreds of acres of empty fields and parking lots waiting to be redeveloped. Dozens of massive approved and proposed residential projects that still haven't broken ground. I don't think we need to raise a traditional main street with no transit in order to get out of the housing crisis.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't buy that argument. We have hundreds of acres of empty fields and parking lots waiting to be redeveloped. Dozens of massive approved and proposed residential projects that still haven't broken ground. I don't think we need to raise a traditional main street with no transit in order to get out of the housing crisis.

"no transit" isn't very accurate. No rapid transit maybe.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

"no transit" isn't very accurate. No rapid transit maybe.

Meet in the middle. Slow, unreliable, low-capacity transit.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't buy that argument. We have hundreds of acres of empty fields and parking lots waiting to be redeveloped. Dozens of massive approved and proposed residential projects that still haven't broken ground. I don't think we need to raise a traditional main street with no transit in order to get out of the housing crisis.

City must intensify but not where I like the old built form....I think there's an acronym for that

The 4 story facade can still exist with a setback from the street and as for transit if this is as dense as bank is getting in this area then limited funds are better used elsewhere in the city that are seeing those increases in population, especially since those areas are also bringing in the majority of dev fees.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

City must intensify but not where I like the old built form....I think there's an acronym for that

The 4 story facade can still exist with a setback from the street and as for transit if this is as dense as bank is getting in this area then limited funds are better used elsewhere in the city that are seeing those increases in population, especially since those areas are also bringing in the majority of dev fees.

Sorry, have to take issue with your suggestion that we shouldn't invest in transit there. If you've been through Centretown, the Glebe and Old Ottawa South lately, you'd see that there is a ton of intensification happening in that corridor. When you look at the number of underdeveloped lots that still exist on or near Bank and the possibility of adding more housing at Lansdowne, there is all sorts of potential.

I'm not sure why you would argue against investing in better transit in areas that generate some of the highest transit ridership in the city (and not just commuter ridership). I would say that the failure to properly invest in urban transit is a big reason that OC ridership growth has been disappointing for years.

Lastly, I don't think that you can label someone who doesn't want to replace our main shopping streets with 20 storey buildings as a NIMBY. That misses a large chunk of the nuance in successful urban planning.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

Sorry, have to take issue with your suggestion that we shouldn't invest in transit there. If you've been through Centretown, the Glebe and Old Ottawa South lately, you'd see that there is a ton of intensification happening in that corridor. When you look at the number of underdeveloped lots that still exist on or near Bank and the possibility of adding more housing at Lansdowne, there is all sorts of potential.

I'm not sure why you would argue against investing in better transit in areas that generate some of the highest transit ridership in the city (and not just commuter ridership). I would say that the failure to properly invest in urban transit is a big reason that OC ridership growth has been disappointing for years.

Lastly, I don't think that you can label someone who doesn't want to replace our main shopping streets with 20 storey buildings as a NIMBY. That misses a large chunk of the nuance in successful urban planning.

I absolutely agree with you.

Where are people congregating? In our urban canyons dominated by high-rises or in areas with more human scaled development? It is almost always the latter, because there is still some sunlight reaching street level (and patios) and people are not facing swirling winds produced by the nearby towers.

If we ever want a bustling restaurant scene on Lebreton Flats, this will not be at the base of 50 storey condos. We better think of a section of Lebreton Flats being reserved for more human scale development.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

Sorry, have to take issue with your suggestion that we shouldn't invest in transit there. If you've been through Centretown, the Glebe and Old Ottawa South lately, you'd see that there is a ton of intensification happening in that corridor. When you look at the number of underdeveloped lots that still exist on or near Bank and the possibility of adding more housing at Lansdowne, there is all sorts of potential.

I'm not sure why you would argue against investing in better transit in areas that generate some of the highest transit ridership in the city (and not just commuter ridership). I would say that the failure to properly invest in urban transit is a big reason that OC ridership growth has been disappointing for years.

Lastly, I don't think that you can label someone who doesn't want to replace our main shopping streets with 20 storey buildings as a NIMBY. That misses a large chunk of the nuance in successful urban planning.

First not talking about Centertown this is about the glebe or at most OOS (South of the 417 north of rideau river).

As JOT pointed out, Dev is happening elsewhere, so why would a city increase its limited funds and Dev fees into an area that has little to no growth potential? compared to say Montreal rd or Carling where the need is far greater. At most at this density all the Glebe needs is bus lanes, the rest of the infrastructure has kept pace.

Secondly, If properly setback what difference does it make to the street level if its 4 to 20+ stories, and the sites as they are now are plenty deep enough to allow for more then 4 stories. Cities all over the world get along just fine with 6 to 8 story mainstreets. Ottawa already has its 4 story area, and its called byward market

Also, a hypothetical:

1) If Bank street got a subway, LRT, or BRT in the glebe would you still think 4 stories limit on the entire lot that face bank should still stand?

2) Exactly how far back must the 4 story height limit be kept to maintain the so called character/charm? and if a development was behind said line in an URBAN ward how high could they build? (cause I bet the lot depth meet the reasonable answer)


The Picture on the right: https://twitter.com/alexbozikovic/st...60766862577670 and others in that thread....

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

First not talking about Centertown this is about the glebe or at most OOS (South of the 417 north of rideau river).

As JOT pointed out, Dev is happening elsewhere, so why would a city increase its limited funds and Dev fees into an area that has little to no growth potential? compared to say Montreal rd or Carling where the need is far greater. At most at this density all the Glebe needs is bus lanes, the rest of the infrastructure has kept pace.

Secondly, If properly setback what difference does it make to the street level if its 4 to 20+ stories, and the sites as they are now are plenty deep enough to allow for more then 4 stories. Cities all over the world get along just fine with 6 to 8 story mainstreets. Ottawa already has its 4 story area, and its called byward market

Also, a hypothetical:

1) If Bank street got a subway, LRT, or BRT in the glebe would you still think 4 stories limit on the entire lot that face bank should still stand?

2) Exactly how far back must the 4 story height limit be kept to maintain the so called character/charm? and if a development was behind said line in an URBAN ward how high could they build? (cause I bet the lot depth meet the reasonable answer)


The Picture on the right: https://twitter.com/alexbozikovic/st...60766862577670 and others in that thread....

Well, as I mentioned in my post, I would strongly disagree with your assertion that there is no growth potential along Bank. Even in the 4-storey area (which to be clear is a total of about 8 blocks) there is plenty of room for growth and there is an equal number of blocks in the Glebe is zoned higher.

But I fundamentally disagree with your suggestion that we can only build transit in place where the most potential growth is. That’s how we ended up building rail into greenfields where transit-oriented suburbs are allegedly going to appear. Of course none have yet. Why, exactly, can’t we invest in transit where people actually live now?

And in terms of your suggestion that cities all over the world get by fine with 6-8 storey mainstreets, I’d be curious which cities have their major shopping streets at 8 stories (or higher as you seem to be suggesting). Certainly the shopping stretches of Ste. Catherine, St. Laurent or Yonge or Robson are not that high, except in a few spots. I’ll give you Fifth Avenue, but I’d say it’s an outlier. Even big, wide boulevards like the Champs-Élysées aren’t that high.

Human-scaled places are the most successful places for a reason. As lrt’s friend says, cities need a mix of different types of areas. Do you see any 20-storey buildings in the Plateau? And I don’t really get your point on Ottawa already having the Market. Cities can have more than one people-friendly area.

As for how far the limit should extend, I don’t think 20-storey buildings are necessary anywhere in the residential part of the Glebe or Old Ottawa South. There are plenty of spots for taller buildings along Isabella, along Bronson and near Lansdowne. Essentially just what the plan envisions. There’s no need to wreck an street that works really well, and is perhaps our best example of a 15-minute neighbourhood in a blind rush to build tall absolutely everywhere.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Well, as I mentioned in my post, I would strongly disagree with your assertion that there is no growth potential along Bank. Even in the 4-storey area (which to be clear is a total of about 8 blocks) there is plenty of room for growth and there is an equal number of blocks in the Glebe is zoned higher.

But I fundamentally disagree with your suggestion that we can only build transit in place where the most potential growth is. That’s how we ended up building rail into greenfields where transit-oriented suburbs are allegedly going to appear. Of course none have yet. Why, exactly, can’t we invest in transit where people actually live now?

And in terms of your suggestion that cities all over the world get by fine with 6-8 storey mainstreets, I’d be curious which cities have their major shopping streets at 8 stories (or higher as you seem to be suggesting). Certainly the shopping stretches of Ste. Catherine, St. Laurent or Yonge or Robson are not that high, except in a few spots. I’ll give you Fifth Avenue, but I’d say it’s an outlier. Even big, wide boulevards like the Champs-Élysées aren’t that high.

Human-scaled places are the most successful places for a reason. And believe it or not, cities can have more than one of those areas.

As for how far the limit should extend, I don’t think 20-storey buildings are necessary anywhere in the residential part of the Glebe or Old Ottawa South. There are plenty of spots for taller buildings along Isabella, along Bronson and near Lansdowne. Essentially just what the plan envisions. There’s no need to wreck street that works, and perhaps our best example of a 15-minute neighbourhood in a blind rush to build tall absolutely everywhere.

Mass transit requires density or lots of bus feeders. Bank Street has neither. “We want mass transit but we want to keep our two story (streetcar) suburban neighborhoods” is not a viable approach to urban planning. European cities often don’t have skyscrapers, but buildings in the city centre are typically 4-6+ throughout. There are few 2 story detached houses with backyards, whereas that is pretty much the entire bank corridor south of Laurier.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Mass transit requires density or lots of bus feeders. Bank Street has neither. “We want mass transit but we want to keep our two story (streetcar) suburban neighborhoods” is not a viable approach to urban planning. European cities often don’t have skyscrapers, but buildings in the city centre are typically 4-6+ throughout. There are few 2 story detached houses with backyards, whereas that is pretty much the entire bank corridor south of Laurier.

This is a bit of a strawman. I’m pretty sure nobody said anything about 2 storeys at any point. What I said was not 20 in our primary shopping area, which is 8 blocks long. 4 storeys is absolutely fine anywhere in those neighborhoods (and is in the plan).

As for the argument that Bank doesn’t have the density for higher order transit, look at lines like St. Clair or most of the Eglinton line in Toronto. Or Ion. A few blocks of high rises, taller buildings at some major intersections with good transit, and then kilometres of lowrise storefronts. Kind of like Bank.

As for feeder buses, bus routes can be changed. Bank/Bronson are the major N-S transportation corridors in Ottawa, so the demand is obviously there.