2940 Baseline Rd. | 25-49m | 13/15/18f | U/C

rocketphish · #1 Posted **Jul 4, 2011, 5:11 PM**

Brigil Platinum Group is proposing the redevelopment of 2940 Baseline Road into 4 mid to high-rise residential buildings, comprising 588 rental apartment units. A bistro and coffee shop are also proposed on the ground floor of the apartment building fronting directly on Baseline Road as well as outdoor greenspace accessible to the residents.

You can find the development docs here:
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__8KU4GQ

This was also reported by OBJ today:
Local homebuilder targets rental towers

reidjr · #2 Posted **Jul 4, 2011, 6:17 PM**

I think this is a very good plan to have 4 buildings all rentals would be a perfect fit in that area.

Harley613 · #3 Posted **Jul 4, 2011, 6:32 PM**

absolutely fantastic idea and location...and some VERY much needed new rental units in the west end.

S-Man · #4 Posted **Jul 4, 2011, 6:41 PM**

It's hard to find an urban property like this one that encroaches so little onto residential land. Having commercial on both sides and a four-lane roadway on the other makes this a great location - and much less likely to incite NIMBYism from nearby homes. That parking lot near the offices to the left of the subject site looks like a zombie wasteland - some space going unused there...

MountainView · #5 Posted **Jul 4, 2011, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

It's hard to find an urban property like this one that encroaches so little onto residential land. Having commercial on both sides and a four-lane roadway on the other makes this a great location - and much less likely to incite NIMBYism from nearby homes. That parking lot near the offices to the left of the subject site looks like a zombie wasteland - some space going unused there...

I believe that space is set aside for phase 4 of those commercial buildings. There is a large sign at Baseline and Monterey that says they are leasing phase 4 ... although I believe that sign has been there for a long time now.

ml1471 · #6 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 1:58 PM**

I've only been in Ottawa for close to 5 years after living in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Manhattan, San Francisco, and Houston. There is one thing I have learned about Ottawa. Never underestimate the levels of NIMBY here. I have never seen anything like it. The residents seem so determined to make sure that sprawl and a car-oriented lifestyle continue.

In Harley613's picture above, I see two houses with backyard pools which are sure to object to the shadow and lost privacy that anything over 3 stories will result in. Obviously, the city should sprawl out further and increase everyone's property taxes so that these two families can work on their tans more and do a little skinny dipping when they want.

reidjr · #7 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 2:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ml1471

I've only been in Ottawa for close to 5 years after living in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Manhattan, San Francisco, and Houston. There is one thing I have learned about Ottawa. Never underestimate the levels of NIMBY here. I have never seen anything like it. The residents seem so determined to make sure that sprawl and a car-oriented lifestyle continue.

In Harley613's picture above, I see two houses with backyard pools which are sure to object to the shadow and lost privacy that anything over 3 stories will result in. Obviously, the city should sprawl out further and increase everyone's property taxes so that these two families can work on their tans more and do a little skinny dipping when they want.

The nimbys are out of control in this city you have people in the core that are aginst all mosy every single devlopement and this means urban spraw gets worse and worse.

gjhall · #8 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 2:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by reidjr

The nimbys are out of control in this city you have people in the core that are aginst all mosy every single devlopement and this means urban spraw gets worse and worse.

Whoa whoa there...SOME people in the core, with the loudest voices, are against everything. Most of us aren't.

MountainView · #9 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gjhall

Whoa whoa there...SOME people in the core, with the loudest voices, are against everything. Most of us aren't.

But unfortunately the people who are for the development never step up and tell council that they are pro-development and all for intensification. The only voice we ever hear are the voices of people against projects.

reidjr · #10 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gjhall

Whoa whoa there...SOME people in the core, with the loudest voices, are against everything. Most of us aren't.

Not all are but like at the amount of projects that are taken to the omb is it every project maybe no but very close.

Proof Sheet · #11 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 3:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ml1471

In Harley613's picture above, I see two houses with backyard pools which are sure to object to the shadow and lost privacy that anything over 3 stories will result in.

I know people who live in the neighbourhood to the north (Qualicum) and I'm sure they will be up in arms based on traffic and shadowing.

S-Man · #12 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 3:12 PM**

True to all that....
I think my blood pressure has permanently risen over the last few years because of the rampant NIMBYism - listening to the opposition to every project over two storeys makes me want to bash my head against a wall. Arguing with their point of view is like speaking to that wall. That said, some opposition is warranted, but the vast majority of it comes down to retired people wanting to preserve their view, the upward trend of their skyrocketing property values, privacy, peace and quiet, and traffic-free streets - DOWNTOWN!
It reeks of hypocracy and selfishness, especially when they're advocating more sprawl and money-draining roads to that sprawl as a solution to the great injustice of being inconvenienced by other people moving to their already dense neighbourhood. Then they complain about their taxes.

It's frustrating and amusing (mostly the former) as each new outrage emerges - outrage over increasingly smaller projects. Now we're having public meetings and OMB appeals about two-storey houses and triplexes. You could build a triplex next to a two-storey house in 1910, but not today.

S-Man · #13 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

I know people who live in the neighbourhood to the north (Qualicum) and I'm sure they will be up in arms based on traffic and shadowing.

What shadow is going to fall on this neighbourhood? Look at the distance between the proposed building and the neighbourhood to the north - the tall building will be in the middle of the subject property. Then we've got 4 lanes of traffic, tall backyard trees, and the fact that the sun rises and sets mostly in the east and west.
The NIMBY manifesto states, however, that if you can at all see any part of a building, or if its presence anywhere near you 'bothers' you, then your quality of life is being greatly impacted.

gjhall · #14 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

What shadow is going to fall on this neighbourhood? Look at the distance between the proposed building and the neighbourhood to the north - the tall building will be in the middle of the subject property. Then we've got 4 lanes of traffic, tall backyard trees, and the fact that the sun rises and sets mostly in the east and west.
The NIMBY manifesto states, however, that if you can at all see any part of a building, or if its presence anywhere near you 'bothers' you, then your quality of life is being greatly impacted.

You made the critical mistake of taking facts into account. Look at people who oppose buildings to the north of them over shadowing...unless someone moved the sun on us?

gjhall · #15 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 6:03 PM**

Also, shouldn't this thread be in suburbs?

S-Man · #16 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 7:29 PM**

I think this forum's use of the word 'suburbs' refers to being 'outside the greenbelt' but inside the urban boundary. Thus, Orleans, Stittsville, Kanata, Barrhaven, et al.

reidjr · #17 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 8:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

True to all that....
I think my blood pressure has permanently risen over the last few years because of the rampant NIMBYism - listening to the opposition to every project over two storeys makes me want to bash my head against a wall. Arguing with their point of view is like speaking to that wall. That said, some opposition is warranted, but the vast majority of it comes down to retired people wanting to preserve their view, the upward trend of their skyrocketing property values, privacy, peace and quiet, and traffic-free streets - DOWNTOWN!
It reeks of hypocracy and selfishness, especially when they're advocating more sprawl and money-draining roads to that sprawl as a solution to the great injustice of being inconvenienced by other people moving to their already dense neighbourhood. Then they complain about their taxes.

It's frustrating and amusing (mostly the former) as each new outrage emerges - outrage over increasingly smaller projects. Now we're having public meetings and OMB appeals about two-storey houses and triplexes. You could build a triplex next to a two-storey house in 1910, but not today.

The one good thing is this council seems more open to devlopment items pass quicker etc.

gjhall · #18 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 8:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

I think this forum's use of the word 'suburbs' refers to being 'outside the greenbelt' but inside the urban boundary. Thus, Orleans, Stittsville, Kanata, Barrhaven, et al.

Perhaps we should simply make that explicit. Call one "Inside Greenbelt" and the other "Outside Greenbelt" ... to make life easier, I would suggest Bell's Corner's and Blakcburn Hamlet be labelled "Outside Greenbelt" as they have some greenbelt between them and the contiguous area.

Proof Sheet · #19 Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 9:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

What shadow is going to fall on this neighbourhood? Look at the distance between the proposed building and the neighbourhood to the north - the tall building will be in the middle of the subject property. Then we've got 4 lanes of traffic, tall backyard trees, and the fact that the sun rises and sets mostly in the east and west.
The NIMBY manifesto states, however, that if you can at all see any part of a building, or if its presence anywhere near you 'bothers' you, then your quality of life is being greatly impacted.

I admit I messed up and forgot to apply facts regarding shadowing but you can be sure that the neighbours will bring it up along with increased taxes, decreased property values, drugs, vandalism, late night deliveries, general noise issues, increased traffic and schools that will be overcrowded and underfunded.

gjhall · #20 Posted **Jul 6, 2011, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

I admit I messed up and forgot to apply facts regarding shadowing but you can be sure that the neighbours will bring it up along with increased taxes, decreased property values, drugs, vandalism, late night deliveries, general noise issues, increased traffic and schools that will be overcrowded and underfunded.

The increased traffic will OBVIOUSLY result in children dying. I hear that all the time from NIMBYs.