SOHO Champagne| 65.7m & 77.6m | 20fl & 24fl | U/C - Page 9

J.OT13 · #**161** Posted: **Jun 15, 2012, 5:39 PM**

I get that the price of building is going up but if they couldn't sell their units for the cheaper price, how can they think they will sell for these higher prices?

JackBauer24 · #**162** Posted: **Jun 17, 2012, 5:41 PM**

Ummm.... did you even look on the website? 1 of the 2 PH are sold (I believe a suite in 'red' indicates it is sold) - so I don't get your comment re: "couldn't sell their units". It looks as though 50% of the PH suites have sold.

But a $200k+ increase isn't a typical increase by any means, which set off a few bells in my head. After a little research it's understandable why there was an increase - it went up because it now comes with over 2,000 sq ft of roof-top terrace and a hot tub. That's a pretty decent reason for the increase, I think.

J.OT13 · #**163** Posted: **Jun 18, 2012, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Ummm.... did you even look on the website? 1 of the 2 PH are sold (I believe a suite in 'red' indicates it is sold) - so I don't get your comment re: "couldn't sell their units". It looks as though 50% of the PH suites have sold.

But a $200k+ increase isn't a typical increase by any means, which set off a few bells in my head. After a little research it's understandable why there was an increase - it went up because it now comes with over 2,000 sq ft of roof-top terrace and a hot tub. That's a pretty decent reason for the increase, I think.

No actually, I didn't look at their website. And yes, it is a fair reason to raise the price of the penthouse(s?). And quickly looking through their plans now (and the red suites), I think it's probably more than 50% sold. So ya, sorry for the stupid comment, I'll check the website first next time.

But, anyone know the exact reason why they are delaying the project?

JackBauer24 · #**164** Posted: **Jun 18, 2012, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No actually, I didn't look at their website. And yes, it is a fair reason to raise the price of the penthouse(s?). And quickly looking through their plans now (and the red suites), I think it's probably more than 50% sold. So ya, sorry for the stupid comment, I'll check the website first next time.

But, anyone know the exact reason why they are delaying the project?

I'm not sure, I've heard varying construction start dates, so I don't even know if they are delayed. But Soho is busy building their downtown project on Lisgar and I know that project's competition date was moved to May next year (originally is was to be Sept this year, when it was a 12 story building, it's now a 16 story building), so that may have something to do with the delay in starting their project on Champagne.

Marcus CLS · #**165** Posted: **Aug 2, 2012, 10:17 PM**

Well it's interesting that the thread description has not changed as a sign on site indicates an application has been submitted to go back to a 24 and 20 story proposal to be heard Aug. 12, 2012. This might explain at 80% sold why Tower 1 (17sty) has not started construction. Also the construction activity across the street might cause a delay for a start too.

S-Man · #**166** Posted: **Aug 2, 2012, 10:55 PM**

I guess in light of recent approvals/proposals of taller buildings nearby they are trying for more. What a difference a year and a half makes.

I was wondering why there was no action on site.

cityguy · #**167** Posted: **Aug 3, 2012, 12:53 AM**

The Aura in Toronto had an increase of 5 floors while it was under construction,so I don"t see this as a reason for a delay in starting.

S-Man · #**168** Posted: **Aug 3, 2012, 1:49 AM**

If this project was approved by committee and council for a certain height, I'm sure it has to go back for approval for any non-minor variance in height increase.

ThaLoveDocta · #**169** Posted: **Aug 3, 2012, 1:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityguy

The Aura in Toronto had an increase of 5 floors while it was under construction,so I don"t see this as a reason for a delay in starting.

Because with the stringent design codes now in place (read: limit states over-design codes) building shape/size/loading forms a critical element of foundation design.

You can't just arbitrarily add significant height to a building without adjusting the foundation for wind/earthquake/dead loading; and the added foundation reinforcing is expensive. Even more so if they use larger foundations and don't get approved for greater height to cover the cost.

I would suspect that the builders of the Aura built to suit the extra floors - and gambled that Toronto would approve their variance (probably a safe bet in Toronto)

waterloowarrior · #**170** Posted: **Oct 5, 2012, 4:12 AM**

appealed to the OMB http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL121118

kevinbottawa · #**171** Posted: **Oct 5, 2012, 1:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

appealed to the OMB http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL121118

Was it brought to the OMB by the developer?

kevinbottawa · #**172** Posted: **Oct 19, 2012, 3:29 AM**

This article is a few months old, but I don't think it was posted.

Quote:

SoHo Champagne developer refused additional height

Posted Aug 23, 2012 By Kristy Strauss

EMC news - As the Civic Hospital Neighbourhood braces itself for high towers and increased development in the coming years, some developers are asking for increased height.

But most recently, developers of the new SoHo Champagne development at 125 Hickory St. were refused any additional height allowance by the committee of adjustment after requesting four additional storeys on their already 16-storey tower.

The committee is an independent tribunal appointed by city council that looks at minor changes happening with developments across the city.

The request also comes before the area has finalized a plan that Kitchissippi Coun. Katherine Hobbs said would be a pedestrian-focused guide to planning development.

Alan Cohen, counsel for Soho Champagne developer Starwood-Mastercraft, pushed to have the height increase presented at the committee.

"My client is under a time rush," Cohen said. "Applications have to be processed and the world cannot stop because there's planning studies being conducted."

He said his client's application should be considered under the city's rules and policies in effect at the time it was submitted - not in light of new or potential policies.

"What the city is asking you to do is put everything on hold ... to see if it changes its policy and use this policy to support or resist applications," Cohen said. "It's contrary to approved case law and it's not appropriate in this case, and not fair."

While Cohen was successful in allowing the committee to hear the proposed change in height to one of the towers, the committee ultimately refused the application.

Hobbs called the request "major," and said the matter should not have been brought to the committee.

"I was very concerned and wrote out to the community," Hobbs said.

A new community plan for pedestrian traffic in the area will be considered in the fall and she wants to make sure the buildings compliment what that plan.

Amanda Farris, president of the Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association, submitted a letter to the committee asking that the matter not be heard since there is no plan in place.

"While we support intensification, we believe that with modest changes to by-laws and a planned vision for the community by way of a community design plan (CDP), we can work together to guide and encourage developments that are compatible with our mature neighbourhood," Farris wrote.

In an interview with EMC, Farris added that it makes sense to delay the application until there's a plan in place.

"I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the city to delay looking at these applications until there's a structure," said Farris.

http://www.emcottawawest.ca/20120823...itional+height

J.OT13 · #**173** Posted: **Oct 19, 2012, 3:32 AM**

So it could very well be the developer stating his case to the OMB.

amanfromnowhere · #**174** Posted: **Nov 28, 2012, 2:33 PM**

just walked by this site... it looks like they started some... digging. Interesting if they just waited for crane that soon would come down across the street (domicile's hom)?

amanfromnowhere · #**175** Posted: **Dec 12, 2012, 4:24 PM**

a new section in their web site:

http://sohochampagne.com/construction.html

kevinbottawa · #**176** Posted: **Dec 12, 2012, 4:30 PM**

Anyone know if they got the extra floors they were trying to get?

JackBauer24 · #**177** Posted: **Dec 13, 2012, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

Anyone know if they got the extra floors they were trying to get?

I believe their hearing for the additional floors is early 2013. But according to their website and sales office, nothing has changed height-wise.

JackBauer24 · #**178** Posted: **Feb 3, 2013, 5:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

Anyone know if they got the extra floors they were trying to get?

I just received an email from my realtor, looks like Phase 1 tower is going to be 20 stories - so now both Phase 1 and 2 are 20 levels up. Should make for a cleaner looking project. I'm sure an updated rendering is coming shortly.

gjhall · #**179** Posted: **Feb 3, 2013, 10:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

I just received an email from my realtor, looks like Phase 1 tower is going to be 20 stories - so now both Phase 1 and 2 are 20 levels up. Should make for a cleaner looking project. I'm sure an updated rendering is coming shortly.

Hmmm, I think their OMB hearing isn't until this coming week...can anyone confirm?

waterloowarrior · #**180** Posted: **Feb 4, 2013, 12:03 AM**

feb 28th is the hearing date
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL121118