by Joan Spice
CCCA Planning and Development Review Committee
Photo: Daniel Mullaly
The Centretown Citizens Community Association (CCCA) will host a public meeting on Wednesday, May 30 at 7:00 p.m. at the McNabb Community Centre to examine the draft Community Design Plan (CDP) for Centretown. The CDP will be considered by the City’s Planning Committee and City Council as early as June this year.
This article focuses on the draft CDP recommendations related to tall buildings and touches on issues that have been raised locally, as well as some recent writings by an Ottawa developer and two internationally respected architects on the subject of tall buildings. The comments and views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the CCCA.
The Draft CDP Recommendations on High Buildings
Location: The highest buildings would be restricted to two zones: the Catherine Street corridor and what is called the Apartment Neighbourhood, generally north of Cooper but as far south as MacLaren in the area between Elgin and the Canal.
How High: The highest buildings in the Catherine Street corridor and the Apartment Neighbourhood would be 25 and 27 storeys respectively. In the Apartment Neighbourhood, the recommended heights gradually transition down to lower heights in mid-rise zones (varying from five to nine storeys depending on the location) and to four storeys in the low-rise residential areas (east of Elgin and west of Kent.) In the Catherine Street corridor, there is one transition area. (See illustrations and text, pp. 87-88.)
Why? The stated rationale for tall buildings includes strong endorsement by provincial and municipal plans for “intensification in urban neighbourhoods such as Centretown that are well supported by transit, social services, amenities and employment opportunities;” the contribution that can be made by high-rise buildings “to a more socially sustainable city by providing a diversity of housing choice and a broad range of affordability; the expectation that “dense, well-designed mixed-use urban environments can help create active and interesting streets, are better able to support high frequency public transit and allow people to walk to their daily destinations of work, shopping and entertainment” (p. 86.)
Rationale for the maximum heights: The draft CDP recommends retaining the “general height pattern for zones for high-, mid- and low-rise developments” but suggests that “maximum building heights may vary from today’s permissions and have taken their cues from the existing built form context and recent development application approvals” (p. 86.) What this seems to mean is that the maximum heights recommended are based on what now exists, including the many developments that the City has approved in recent years which have not been in accordance with the Centretown Secondary Plan, current zoning or any approved policy framework.
Design: The draft CDP recommends that tall buildings “be given special attention to produce well-proportioned buildings that can integrate with their surroundings and contribute to the enhancement of the area’s image.” It presents a design strategy involving “point towers built on podiums” which are required ‘to maintain access to light and to minimize shadowing,” and “a pedestrian-scaled façade.” Photos in the document from other cities illustrate how much this would improve the current mediocre and oppressive block tower environment that dominates the business district north of Gloucester, if the design parameters are enforced.
Some facts and figures: The pace of growth in Centretown has been rapid and heights have been creeping up. The draft CDP (pp. 35-36) lists 34 major developments since 2000 — 15 completed, seven under construction (as of December 2011) and 12 approved for future development. Among the 15 completed between 2000 and 2011, the tallest is 23 stories. Eleven are under 12. Among the 12 approved for future development, only five are under 12 stories. Seven are 17 stories and up; of these, three are 27 stories. When complete, these 34 buildings will have added 4606 units to the community.
Possible Negative Impacts of Tall Buildings
Many of the recent developments were opposed by Centretown residents and the CCCA. Tall buildings have an impact on immediate neighbours, including loss of privacy due to balconies and windows, loss of light, loss of greenspace and wind effect. The CCCA and civic-minded Centretown residents have raised community-wide concerns about parking and traffic, insufficient infrastructure (including transit) and the need for trees, parks and greenspace. Some Centretown residents are concerned about the negative impact of high-rise living on civic engagement, community life and the importance of attracting families with young children versus the likelihood of attracting a largely transient population.
Not all developers and architects agree that higher is better or that tall buildings are necessarily good for people and communities even when they are well designed.
Sarah Jennings’ article in the Ottawa Citizen a few weeks ago expressed many concerns: “the high-rise buildings being contemplated and planned for our inner city will be suitable only as way-stations for young people, or warehouses for the elderly, besides those few who genuinely want to occupy and can afford the topmost floors; … it will be largely a transient community that will not lay down the habits and traditions and permanent behaviour which characterizes vital streets and city life. When we go high we abandon our streets. And with the lack of accommodation for families, the unsustainable extension of the suburban experience is guaranteed.” She concludes with this statement: “there are demonstrable ways Ottawa can grow into a healthy integrated mid-rise city without going high, but so far this option has been absent from the serious discussion among the powers-that-be.” (Ottawa Citizen, May 6 2012, Section A9)
In this article, Ms Jennings cites Dutch architect Rem Koolhaus, quoted in the New York Review of Books in late April. He characterizes big buildings as having an impact which “is independent of their quality” because they break “with scale, with architectural composition, with tradition, with transparency, with ethics. Bigness is no longer part of any urban tissue. It exists; at best it co-exists.”
The internationally respected Danish architect, Jan Gehl, who made an inspiring presentation at the Canadian Museum of Nature in October 2010, devotes much of his recent book to the need to respect human scale and human dimensions in urban planning. With some exceptions (e.g., Vancouver’s waterfront and Granville Island), Gehl makes the case for low-rise residential buildings, not above five stories. (Cities for People, October 2010).
Come to the Meeting! Listen! Ask Questions! Speak Up!
If you would like more information on the issues or the public meeting, please contact one of the following: Judy Forrest (judy.forrest@rogers.com) and Rob Dekker (robert.dekker@sympatico.ca), Co-Chairs of the CCCA Planning and Development Review Committee or Joan Spice (j.spice@rogers.com), Meeting Coordinator.