12 Posted Oct 8, 2018, 8:13 PM J.OT13 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Ottawa Posts: 11,714 Quote: Urbanarchit Originally Posted by



I wish they showed other angles. I'm not completely into the surface parking they placed on Loretta, and I feel like the underground parking right at a transit station is too much (and may affect Gladstone more).



All in all, I kind of like this. It's a good example of mixed-use, transit-oriented development. I like what's happening at the lower section - bring the building out to the street with a mid-rise podium and putting retail and some landscaping along Gladstone, with the MUP on the west side of the O-Train tracks. It's a significant improvement to the area now, which is all asphalt hardscaping. I like the restoration of the Bread Factory. I don't know about the need to connect it to the station (and I would prefer the station plaza that the City recommended).I wish they showed other angles. I'm not completely into the surface parking they placed on Loretta, and I feel like the underground parking right at a transit station is too much (and may affect Gladstone more). I wish they would preserve this building, too. All in all, I kind of like this. It's a good example of mixed-use, transit-oriented development.



In terms of parking, you're right the surface lot on Loretta goes completely against the principal of good urban planning, but we can't forgo the underground parking. Many urban residents continue to own cars to visit family in the burbs, or shop for IKEA furniture, or go out to the country on weekends... A few office workers and retail clients will continue to drive in for various reasons (poor transit service in their area, time crunch and other).



That said, parking should still be limited, say one for every two occupants.



Quote: roger1818 Originally Posted by The vast majority of the Trillium line traffic is Carleton students. As a result, hundreds of passengers are alighting (AM peak) at Carleton from each train, leaving lots of room for more people to board. The new condos/apartments are north of the university, so I just don't see it being an issue as they can fill the seats vacated by university students. For the suburban traffic, the trains are doubling in size, so they have reserve capacity for many years. As for the hospital, the by enlarge the load is distributed over a longer time period. Only the staff will come in waves, and I don't see that as contributing more than a couple hundred pphpd. I agree the bridge linking the proposal to the station is not necessary. It literally doesn't save anyone time to get to the station compared to the sidewalk (as opposed to the bridge they propose to connect the Bayview proposal to the station). And since the station will be open to the elements, the extra 15 seconds indoors won't do much to help.In terms of parking, you're right the surface lot on Loretta goes completely against the principal of good urban planning, but we can't forgo the underground parking. Many urban residents continue to own cars to visit family in the burbs, or shop for IKEA furniture, or go out to the country on weekends... A few office workers and retail clients will continue to drive in for various reasons (poor transit service in their area, time crunch and other).That said, parking should still be limited, say one for every two occupants.With the new trains, we're doubling the capacity. With the projected 12 minute frequency we're looking at about 2,500 phpd. Hoping that will be enough.