Un rêve pour l'avenir de Chelsea Village

A Dream Future For The Chelsea Village

“ A greater diversity of lodging is needed for”

Young Families

Persons Living alone

The elderly

“ New developments should respect the existing heritage and

character without excluding the possibility for creativity in de-

sign “

“ An area recommended for increased housing

diversity is the lands owned by Innovation Chelsea”

Allow cluster developments where development densities re-

spect overall density allocations

Zone 2: Chelsea Village The Residents' village

Village Appropriate density

Mixed use

Public park space

Accommodations

Range of housing options including seniors housing

Pedestrian and Cycling friendly

Architectural quality and heritage preservation

Traffic control at intersection

What do the residents of

Chelsea want ??

Help to create this dream neighbourhood

Contribuer à améliorer le quartier et la

communaté

Provide more affordable housing solutions to enhance the

socio-economic diversity of our community

Fournir des solutions de logement abordable pour améliorer la

la diversité socio-économique dans notre communauté

MISSION STATEMENTS:

2010: A Feasibility Study for a multi-faceted neighborhood

We were almost there:

Findings of study as summarized

in Chelsea Master Plan:

“Proposed mix of residential and commercial uses as

well as a heritage market and green spaces that are

compatible with the express vision for the central area

of Chelsea”

“Answers to may requests from the citizens in

the visioning exercise , mainly by including a

large public space and market place.”

“Another area recommended for increased

housing diversity is the on the lands owned by

Innovation Chelsea.”

MTQ report designates most of the

train station land as unbuildable.

Rain storm puts the train indefinitely

on hold.

Chelsea Village stands to lose one of its’

most important future economic en-

gines if the steam train doe not run

again.

The community potentially loses an im-

portant land mass for the development

of much needed housing solutions.

The community stands to lose a mini-

mum of $400,000 per year in tax reve-

nue due to unbuildable land

UNBUILDABLE

UNBUILDABLE

Land Expropriated

for sewage and

water systems

UNBUILDABLE

( min: 40 housing units) UNBUILDABLE

(min 80 housing units)

Unbuildable

2011: Adversity Strikes!

Ski/Bike Chalet Inspiration

Heritage market

Open air train platform

performance stage

New Bus Station

A Park and Gathering place

Refurbishment of existing

buildings

2014: Out of adversity come new community oriented ideas: A gathering place for Chelsea residents.

A refurbished streetscape based community oriented shops and services

A diversity of housing solutions

A Public transportation hub

A walkable neighborhood

A gateway to our much loved ski trail

Covered train platform

performance stage

Community Gardens Community Gardens

New commercial buildings

Existing buildings

Diverse affordable housing solutions:

A few examples…But we can do better

Example of the “the look and feel” of our

new homes

Setbacks from existing buildings

to provide harmony of scale

Ground level

accessibility

walking paths to local

services and amenities

Design integrity on all

four elevations

Architectural detailing and

features to break up expansive

elevations

Elevations Cascading down

to single-family home scale.

Landscaping close to

building to reduce

perception of size.

Underground Parking to

Reduce impact of cars on the site.

Architectural Details to suit the community

and the neighborhood

Walking paths to

Freshmart and other local

services and amenities Train track ski trail at the

back door. New Bus Station

Train Track Walking

Trail???, or….

Putting it all together:

Affordability, Walkability, Accessibility, Livability, Diversity

Community Gardens

Community Gardens

Gateway to a refurbished steam train or

Recreational trail

New commercial buildings

Existing buildings

Floor plans for a

multitude of housing needs

Housing solutions for a broad spectrum

of our community

In harmony with the neighborhood.

Community

Gardens

Apple

Orchards

Unbuildable

Land

In harmony with the surrounding community

Local “Economic Engines” supporting the

neighborhood.

Past

Gilmour Mills

Highway 105: entry point to Chelsea—lost to

Highway 5.

Original commuter train

Harky’s garage

Steam train and proposed station development.

—lost to land instability.

Present

Freshmart

CLSC building and its’ businesses

Small businesses: Restaurants, Freshmart,

Hardware store, Auto repair businesses

Local Population.

Future

Synergy provided by an influx of new resi-

dents and new businesses into the area will-

provide a significant economic engine for

the future of our neighbourhood

A considerable improvement of the

local economy will be required if

this dream is to become reality

(It’s happening in Old Chelsea

Why not here? )

A Dream Future for the Chelsea Village

Chelsea Village

The Gateway to Chelsea and the Gatineau Hills

Economic Engines supporting the neighborhood : Past, present, and future

BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT DETAILS

Site Survey Topographical

PARKING:

Underground:114

Exterior: 22

Total: 136

A zoning change requested to in-

crease the density of zone 202 in

order to make up for the density lost

in adjacent un-buildable zones

Zoning and Land Stability

Sustainability

Social Environmental Economic Diverse housing options to ensure

an ongoing diversity of our socio

economic fabric

Housing options to enable multi-

generations of families to continue

to live in the community.

Planning and design, including the

creation of a vibrant “Main Street”

which promotes opportunities for

social casual interaction between

residents.

(85 Applicants for 12 lodging units in the

Farm Point senior home would seem to indi-

cate that we have gone beyond the point of

sustainability)

Walkable, village environment

with close proximity to public

transit.

Concentration of density from

unbuildable to buildable lands

allows for additional parkland

Goods and services and recrea-

tional opportunities with walka-

ble distance

Multi-unit, low-rise residential

format tends towards fewer cars

per household.

Transfer of housing units from unbuild-

able to buildable land retains the eco-

nomic value of Municipal taxation base.

The economic engine of residential

housing supports the provision of new

goods and services for the local popula-

tion , which in turn supports general in-

vestment and beautification of the vil-

lage, including the creation a financially

viable main street environment.

(Old Chelsea ‘s economic engines include the

Park and the Spa, which support the provision of

services to primarily tourists, which in turn pro-

vide the economic incentive for beatification and

improvement of the neighborhood.)

Samples of Community Reaction

Concerns

“ Community Performance Stage will be a huge disturbance”

“ What types of people will live there?”

“ The size and scale of the project will be a detriment to the community. “40 homes is OK 120 is two much”

“ I would prefer that it was not so close to our house but I understand the need for this type of housing.”

“ If I had my way nothing would be built at all. It would be best as a field - exactly as it is.”

Support

“ I’m getting older and I want to stay in the community. ” “ Your project will give me that option”

“ Vinyl Village in Wakefield is a great place to live despite what people say about the look and feel.”

“ I’m taking a huge chance on this neighborhood and I think that your plans will improve the neighborhood

and thereby improve my chances of success”

“Community Gardens would be an amazing addition to the community “

“ Could I buy One Dad? “ I want to stay in this community “

Housing diversity is needed to support the socio economic diversity of our community

Housing density will provide an economic engine to support improvments to the

neighborhood

Community planning documents define the needs and provide a guide

If it is truly good for the community, then the community will return its support .

Conclusions

APPENDIX

Affordability: There has been considerable confusion over the term “affordable”. Without picking up a dictionary let me take a shot at this: “Affordable” : If we were to analyze the social economic spectrum of our community we could determine the profile of the “average” Chelsea resident , and from that we could establish what is both affordable and acceptable to that person. Then, if we were able to build a housing option whereby the “average” unit was both affordable and acceptable to the average Chelsea resident , then I think we will have accomplished our commitment to building affordable housing for this particular community. Of course this does not preclude us from building housing options on both sides of the “average” including homes that are both afforda-ble and acceptable to people of much lesser, and greater, means than the "average" person. The studio suitable for the young single guy for example, or the 4 bedroom penthouse unit , with all the frills for that crazy investment banker that we’ve come to love over the years. To do otherwise would not only be discriminatory to the “un–average” but it would also remove the flavor of diversity from the community. The term “acceptable” used in this assessment is important in the following the sense: I could build a housing unit which would be both affordable and acceptable in Calcutta India , which would certainly be affordable to a Chelsea resident but clearly would not be acceptable. Similarly I could build a housing unit in Chelsea that would be both affordable and acceptable to an average Chelsea resi-dent, which would certainly be affordable to a resident of Rockliffe Park but would probably not be acceptable. This is where size comes in to the equation. People the world over accept a reduction in house size in order to live in an affordable living space in a given location. That is why you have micro apartments in Tokyo japan, That is why the “Smart House” development is being proposed in Ot-tawa, That is why a massive micro chalet condo is being proposed for Mont Tremblant. More importantly that is why I am proposing a building format which will allow me to offer small units which will be both affordable and acceptable to people who want to live in Chel-sea, including but limited to our Children and our seniors , and people who just can’t afford to anything else in Chelsea. Of course there are options other than my proposal. Four-plexes, eight-plexes, etc, etc, but this particular options allows me to offer units to the largest possible spectrum of our community in balanced way, which is in itself a definition of community is it not?

So there you go, that’s my best shot at “affordable” and that is what we are endeavoring to do with this project. In fact, we would like to

go a bit further by building the average unit a bit under average, in terms of affordability , because we think that over the past few

years average has gotten a bit too rich - and I think that average Chelsea resident might agree with us on that point.

Traffic

Density Placement Comparisons

120 houses on 1/4 acre lots spread over 30 120 condominium apartments

“ A greater diversity of lodging is needed espe-

cially for”

Young Families

Persons Living alone

The elderly

“ New developments should respect the existing

heritage and character without excluding the possi-

bility for creativity in design “

“ An area recommended for increased housing

diversity is the lands owned by Innovation Chelsea”

Allow cluster developments where development

densities respect overall density allocations

Zone 2: Chelsea Village

The Residents' village

Village Appropriate density

Mixed use

Public park space

Accommodations

Range of housing options including sen-

iors housing

Pedestrian and Cycling friendly

Architectural quality and heritage preser-

vation

Traffic control at intersection

What do the residents of

Chelsea want ??

The scope of the visioning process was

very large, and it did not arrive at con-

sensus on a more detailed level. In par-

ticular, densities for the various zones

remain at a conceptual level rather than

recommend specific numbers or ranges.

The results of the visioning process in-

vite further work to move from a broad

vision to more specific directions.

More detailed work would examine fea-

sibility from a sustainable development

perspective, including economic, social

and environmental considerations not

only for the study area, but for the larger

municipality.

Most Chelsea residents see the future of

their historic villages grounded in their

past as small rural villages, and are not

looking for radical changes to this small,

rural village character.

Residential and commercial development

must be of a sufficient density for a walk-

able village.

This is a living Document which has and will continue to be revised over time

as conditions change—as evidenced by the updates to date

Update #7 incorporated the landslide risk mapping. This appendix should, ide-

ally, have also included mitigation measures for reclaiming lost housing densi-

ty, such as the ability to cluster between zones in the affected areas.

While some may view the lost density as a benefit or an opportunity to retain

natural green space, others see it as a lost opportunity to build divers housing

in an important central village land mass.

Options for smaller multiple , smaller, buildings

Why show this when I

have already provided

this information to the

public—especially when

it is from Brigil

SKIING SKATING AND BIKE CHALET

Markhauser

Land Markhauser

Land Markhauser unbuildable Land

Markhauser

Unbuildbable Land

Major/Meredith

Unbuildable land

Markhauser Buildable

Land

Major Meredith

Unbuildable land

New municipal road

with water and sewer

pipes ready to be tapped

accessed for future

development

New Bus Station