54-60 Bayswater Ave | 21m | 6f | Completed

[J.OT13]

• Video Link

[passwordisnt123]

This is a strong proposal. I like it.

Weird that they didn't go for more height closer to the blank wall though. From the video it sounds like that would have been preferable.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

This is a strong proposal. I like it.

Weird that they didn't go for more height closer to the blank wall though. From the video it sounds like that would have been preferable.

Someone asked that question and the response is that it was considered, but the smaller floor plates would have made dividing up the units more difficult.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Someone asked that question and the response is that it was considered, but the smaller floor plates would have made dividing up the units more difficult.

Yeah but if memory serves they only explored up to 9 storeys, scaling down and they concluded the smaller floor plates didn't make it worth their while. If they brought it to 10 or 11 storeys maybe it would have been more worthwhile. Or if it can save them hassle with the overlook issue but keep the existing square footage of the building, maybe they'd consider it.

[Williamoforange]

This is what is next door -

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4053239,...Ay_KYN4trgkmUoQQ8iIdg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That is a four 3 story homes, with no backyards, and a rooftop terrace. The "Perceived" problems don't really exist.

Also, what is certain councilors giving so much say to an unelected troop of NIMBYs, that on majority don't represent the local community in either its diversity or its general opinion. As shown by more recent studies on the CA themselves. Christ if you gave CA's final say Cityview would be staying R1 indefinitely.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0042098020964439

https://www.tvo.org/article/neighbourhood-associations-are-on-the-rise-is-that-a-good-thing

Anyways, here is the dev app for this site: https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-21-0090/details

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

This is what is next door -

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4053239,...Ay_KYN4trgkmUoQQ8iIdg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That is a four 3 story homes, with no backyards, and a rooftop terrace. The "Perceived" problems don't really exist.

Also, what is certain councilors giving so much say to an unelected troop of NIMBYs, that on majority don't represent the local community in either its diversity or its general opinion. As shown by more recent studies on the CA themselves. Christ if you gave CA's final say Cityview would be staying R1 indefinitely.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0042098020964439

https://www.tvo.org/article/neighbourhood-associations-are-on-the-rise-is-that-a-good-thing

Anyways, here is the dev app for this site: https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-21-0090/details

One thing I'm surprised we didn't hear in the meeting was the fear of 'density creep'. However, they did want to know where the venting units were going to go.

[rocketphish]

Centennial Developments Corporation is proposing the development of a six-storey mid-rise apartment dwelling at 54, 56, 60 Bayswater Avenue. The south side of the proposed development steps down to four storeys adjacent to the existing low-rise residential uses. A total of 40 residential units are proposed. One level of underground parking with eleven spaces and seven covered at-grade spaces at the rear of the building are proposed. The proposed development has been designed to respect the setbacks of the current R4UB Zone. Vehicular access to the underground parking garage is proposed from the rear lane.

Architect: S J Lawrence Architect

Development application:
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-21-0090/details


Location:




Siteplan:




Renderings:

[J.OT13]

This is a good proposal. Personally, I like the height and scale as is. Fantastic to see so few parking spots.

Watching the open house, I didn't feel the usual NIMBYism. Nothing about height or shadows (or at least, very little if there was). There were a few questions that I thought were a little over the top, like overlook (screens on the balconies is fine, but the windows are a non-issue) and traffic down the lane, but no one was calling for an outright rejection of the proposal or major re-design.

[rocketphish]

Builder proposes six-storey apartment complex near Bayview station

By: OBJ staff
Published: Jul 30, 2021 3:08pm EDT

A developer is proposing to build a 40-unit apartment complex a few hundred metres south of the Bayview LRT station.

In a development application recently filed with the city, Centennial Developments Corp. says the six-storey project at 54, 56 and 60 Bayswater Ave., near the intersection of Somerset Street West, would include 11 underground parking spaces and seven covered spots at ground level.

“The proposed development is in close proximity to a mix of uses and high-quality transit services, resulting in a more sustainable, liveable and resilient community,” planning documents prepared by Novatech Group say.

Centennial is seeking zoning amendments to allow the building to exceed the current four-storey height limit for the property and accommodate reduced setbacks.

The neighbourhood is seeing a growing wave of transit-oriented development proposals that also include a three-tower project at 900 Albert St. led by Trinity Development Group and CLV Group Developments’ plan to build a trio of mixed-use highrises on Gladstone Avenue near the future Corso Italia LRT station.

https://www.obj.ca/article/real-estate/r...y-apartment-complex-near-bayview-station

[rocketphish]

Updated renderings (Nov 2021):

[rocketphish]

Planning committee slows down high-rise application in Hintonburg

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
May 12, 2022 • 1 hour ago • 4 minute read


<snip>


“Edge” creep was part of a lengthy debate on another rezoning application in Hintonburg, this time on Bayswater Avenue, south of Somerset Street.

The project by Centennial Development Corp. would replace three homes at 54, 56 and 60 Bayswater Ave. with a six-storey apartment building containing 40 units. It’s a short walk to Bayview Station.

Leiper and the community association drew the committee’s attention to the creep of taller buildings into the low-rise neighbourhood to the south.

Leiper fought to add one more metre to a side yard setback to give some breathing room between the proposed building and neighbouring homes, but developer consultant Murray Chown said even a single metre would reduce the number of larger units in the new building.

The city has been keen on receiving development applications for intensification projects that include larger units for families.

Alan Cliff, who lives in the area, urged the committee to endorse the development proposal.

Hardly ever does the committee hear from regular citizens who speak up in favour of a rezoning project, but Cliff said the Bayswater Avenue proposal checks the city’s boxes when it comes to the housing and climate change emergencies.

He acknowledged there would be some neighbourhood impacts from building shadowing and increased traffic, but “if that’s the price we have to pay, we should take that deal every day of the week.”

Almost all members of the committee agreed. Leiper cast the only opposing vote in the committee’s 10-1 decision. Council will vote on the committee’s recommendation on May 25.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...down-high-rise-application-in-hintonburg

[SL123]

Leiper being a classic hypocrite once again. Climate change and housing crisis are only emergencies when its doesnt impact his ward.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by SL123

Leiper being a classic hypocrite once again. Climate change and housing crisis are only emergencies when its doesnt impact his ward.

Yup! Does he ever vote in favour of development in his ward? We're in a housing crisis and some of the proposals are quite decent, but he's votes against the thing we desperately need and he claims to be concerned about.

[kwoldtimer]

Isn't this location literally next door to, and across the street from, taller apartment blocks?

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

Yup! Does he ever vote in favour of development in his ward? We're in a housing crisis and some of the proposals are quite decent, but he's votes against the thing we desperately need and he claims to be concerned about.

Yes, he voted for the Westgate mall redevelopment among a couple others.

Can't really nail down a pattern but my guess is if it impacts the area covered by the Community association he used to a board member of. That CA being Hintonburg.....

Also, whatever happened to the Young conservative Jeff Leiper who if brought to today would be classed as a YIMBY....

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Yes, he voted for the Westgate mall redevelopment among a couple others.

Can't really nail down a pattern but my guess is if it impacts the area covered by the Community association he used to a board member of. That CA being Hintonburg.....

Also, whatever happened to the Young conservative Jeff Leiper who if brought to today would be classed as a YIMBY....

I'm not sure what your last sentence says.

He opposed 404 Eden, a lowrise apartment building in Westboro 1 block from Westboro Station and just off a main street because "people who bought houses on that street 20 years ago expect only houses to be built on their street". Also opposes two 12-storey buildings right beside Dominion Station ( a future LRT station). Opposes both buildings proposed/ under-construction at Island Park and Wellington. Got streets like Sherbrooke downzoned to avoid midrise buildings built along it, etc. He has more that he's opposed than supported, regardless of his past community association relationship.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

I'm not sure what your last sentence says.

He opposed 404 Eden, a lowrise apartment building in Westboro 1 block from Westboro Station and just off a main street because "people who bought houses on that street 20 years ago expect only houses to be built on their street". Also opposes two 12-storey buildings right beside Dominion Station ( a future LRT station). Opposes both buildings proposed/ under-construction at Island Park and Wellington. Got streets like Sherbrooke downzoned to avoid midrise buildings built along it, etc. He has more that he's opposed than supported, regardless of his past community association relationship.

Sorry about that, Jeff used to be a member of the Young Conservatives in his youth and if you go digging around you'll eventually find an article on his position against well the nimbyism he is now in bed with.

Not disagreeing with the rest, the guy is a hypocrite and has opposed thousands of homes that now house residents that may very well vote for him. Which makes one wonders if they know if it was up to Jeff they likely wouldn't be living in the Kitchissippi ward.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Sorry about that, Jeff used to be a member of the Young Conservatives in his youth and if you go digging around you'll eventually find an article on his position against well the nimbyism he is now in bed with.

Not disagreeing with the rest, the guy is a hypocrite and has opposed thousands of homes that now house residents that may very well vote for him. Which makes one wonders if they know if it was up to Jeff they likely wouldn't be living in the Kitchissippi ward.

Interesting! I had no idea.

I wonder about that. The housing crisis has really upset a lot of us younger people due to how badly it affects us and everything else in our lives that we're trying to work towards. Many of my friends and I grew up in Kitchissippi and want to continue to live here, but it's getting too expensive. What does it say when the people raised in your ward can't continue to live somewhere their family may have lived for multiple generations? At some point, the old Boomers who don't want development need to be disregarded as those affected by housing affordability (the young and upcoming generations) won't be so forgiving of politicians standing in the way and making their lives more unaffordable.

[jleiper]

I find it fascinating that in many forums I'm seen to be too pro-development, and then in others too anti-development! I'm going to the voters for one more term, and need to start putting some of this on paper.

I will say the condemnation as a NIMBY is newer, and a testament to the work that some are doing to raise the effect of the housing crisis on younger residents. I've got a 21-year-old who I despair of ever being able to live in Hintonburg unless he somehow strikes it rich. That's deeply concerning to me - for him and for everyone who is locked out of this neighbourhood by the prices. There is housing available, but fewer and fewer people can afford it. Kitchissippi offers, by far, the best quality of life in the city with incredible access to recreational, commercial and cultural amenities as well as transportation. It shouldn't just be for the richest. Adding to the supply is part of the answer, and we know that adding to the supply in neighbourhoods like this our specifically is ultimately a major part of responding to both the climate change and housing crises.

The more frequent condemnation I get, of course, is for being too pro-development. I can see the case. In just the past few years I've supported the infill up-zoning in Westboro and Hintonburg/Mechanicsville. I supported the Tubmans. I supported the three 30+ storey towers at Corso Italia station. I supported the dairy plant and Westgate, Churchill/Richmond, 1705 and 1655 Carling. A few months ago I supported the OPA/re-zoning at Holland Cross and at the same Council meeting this week at which I opposed Roosevelt I supported the Scott/Winona 30-storey without debate (or headlines).

I think what I'd say is that I'm not a planner, though I do take seriously my responsibility to know planning law and policy at a fairly granular level. I'm a politician who is supposed to represent people. To that end I consult, listen and read voraciously. I try to figure out what people think about the files I'm being asked to vote on. In many instances on planning files, the mainstream view is that I should oppose them. If I can find legitimate planning grounds on which to do so and still sleep at night, I give it my best shot. I think that's healthy. Council's role shouldn't be to simply rubber-stamp technocrats' recommendations. Residents have been given a say over those decisions by the Province through their elected local representatives, and their politicians should exercise that function thoughtfully.

Of course, the local councillor (who in every ward is often the opposing voice) doesn't get to make the final decision. Decisions are made by majority votes of 23 councillors and a mayor, subject to further provincial political (sometimes) or quasi-judicial (often) oversight and re-consideration. The implicit understanding that it is possible for Council to disagree with planning staff also helps mitigate overreach on the part of developers. Sometimes only the local councillor opposes a project, sometimes some larger number of councillors agree with the local councillor, and sometimes (rarely, but like we saw with Parkdale/Wellington this week), some majority of councillors might disagree with the planners' conclusions based on their respective understandings of how their residents want to see the city develop. All that tension in the system results, I would argue, in planning decisions that balance the popular will with technocratic considerations.

At the end of the day, I'm running for one more term of Council before getting out of politics. I want to be at the table of the comprehensive zoning by-law review for the same reason I initially ran for this job. We need to plan for growth, and then stick to those plans.

Someone brought up Eden, which is a perfect example. Our zoning across much of the city is still rooted in the late 1960s. The new R3 rules for Westboro both normalize existing intensification patterns with some new limits but also add R4 housing around the edges and along certain streets. I think we all expect that it will be the template for R3 zoning in the inner urban transect. If we'd had that when Eden came up, I suspect it would already have been zoned with an appropriate R4 just behind the TM and we wouldn't have had a spot re-zoning battle. I believe strongly we need to have exactly those discussions ahead of specific development proposals so that everyone knows the new rules. The comprehensive zoning by-law review is our opportunity to do that. I'll be working to ensure that that's balanced appropriately across the city, and that residents' resistance to change in their neighbourhood is balanced against the need to intensify to achieve our city-wide goals.

[rocketphish]

Thank you Jeff, for stopping by to explain your viewpoint. It's important to hear from all sides, in a reasoned manner. I appreciate it