SOHO Italia [500 Preston St] | 96m | 30 fl | Completed

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

ThThe SOHO Italia condo association will be first in line opposing any new development to the south and will have the finances to hire high-priced talent to make their case, something that the current community can't afford to do.

In a similar vane, I'm going to hold my breath to count how long it takes the future residents of the SOHO Parkdale to start making noise about all of the social housing in Mechanicsville.

[Luker]

Originally Posted by Dado

The would-be buyers are likely going to be buying for the view of Dow's Lake, not access to rapid transit, so they're going to want their parking spaces, which, it turns out, will mainly be above grade (4-5 storeys of above ground parking, 3-4 of below grade). For those lucky enough to get one of the above grade spaces, that means a shorter elevator ride to their cars and even less reason to consider taking transit.

Of course the fact that the would-be buyers will likely be buying for a view also means they'll be mighty annoyed when someone comes along to develop the un[der]developed properties either side of Preston at Carling with even taller, wider buildings. The SOHO Italia condo association will be first in line opposing any new development to the south and will have the finances to hire high-priced talent to make their case, something that the current community can't afford to do.

Great, sad, and scary post for many reasons, to us, and others in general..

[jitterbug]

Even if this project results in just another non-descript Claridge-style condo box, the developer clearly knows a thing or two about marketing. Most Ottawa residents have now at least heard about the "tallest building in Ottawa" and you can bet that when SOHO Italia starts sales they will be brisk. And judging by the sales office currently being built on the site, it won't be long before those sales start to materialize.

Claridge must be paying close attention.

[adam-machiavelli]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It's a building shadow, not a Balinese dragon eating the sun. Since the earth rotates about its axis, any given property, other than those immediately north of the building, will be in shade for a brief period in any given day.

Pedestrians and cyclists seem to manage downtown, with all of its 20+ storey buildings, quite fine. Maybe they can give some tips to Preston Street pedestrians and cyclists on how to deal with the everlasting night that this one building will cause.

Don't even get me started about the permanent darkness in downtown! I'm not against a building of this height in this location as long as, in the long term future, the collection of development projects around there don't also block out the sun. Every building creates a shadow in one spot for a brief period of time. Every adjacent building increases the time a shadow is cast on a piece of space. Parts of Toronto have a design requirement that direct sunlight must be able to hit given blocks of streets for at least 3 hours per day. I support intensification, and I think many more residents would too if such a requirement existed in parts of this city too.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

Don't even get me started about the permanent darkness in downtown! I'm not against a building of this height in this location as long as, in the long term future, the collection of development projects around there don't also block out the sun. Every building creates a shadow in one spot for a brief period of time. Every adjacent building increases the time a shadow is cast on a piece of space. Parts of Toronto have a design requirement that direct sunlight must be able to hit given blocks of streets for at least 3 hours per day. I support intensification, and I think many more residents would too if such a requirement existed in parts of this city too.

The loss of sunlight in DT Ottawa is a direct result of not allowing tall buildings, not the opposite (though I'm sure you're aware of this). Developers are refused the heights they propose or they don't even ask for them as they know what the answer will be and the result is shorter buildings on every single square inch of useable space, making no use of setbacks and not leaving any place for the sun to shine through. A tall thin tower would be the best thing for this location and for many locations downtown to minimize the impact that shadowing might have at street level.

[Harley613]

not to mention the wind tunnel effect created by medium height blocks filling every cubic inch of every city block.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

Don't even get me started about the permanent darkness in downtown! I'm not against a building of this height in this location as long as, in the long term future, the collection of development projects around there don't also block out the sun. Every building creates a shadow in one spot for a brief period of time. Every adjacent building increases the time a shadow is cast on a piece of space. Parts of Toronto have a design requirement that direct sunlight must be able to hit given blocks of streets for at least 3 hours per day. I support intensification, and I think many more residents would too if such a requirement existed in parts of this city too.

I use to have the same mind set you do until i really looked around the city and took in to count with how out of control urban sprawl is.With that said i now fully support taller buildings vs urban sprawl.

[adam-machiavelli]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

The loss of sunlight in DT Ottawa is a direct result of not allowing tall buildings, not the opposite (though I'm sure you're aware of this). Developers are refused the heights they propose or they don't even ask for them as they know what the answer will be and the result is shorter buildings on every single square inch of useable space, making no use of setbacks and not leaving any place for the sun to shine through. A tall thin tower would be the best thing for this location and for many locations downtown to minimize the impact that shadowing might have at street level.

I am aware and agree that height restrictions downtown led to developers purchasing entire blocks to build medium-height, squat buildings and this too is also bad. Like I've indicated before, I will support this building if it enhances the human scale of our city. The best strategy is to ensure there are gaps between tall buildings. This can be done by assigning height minimums and maximums to every lot in areas targeted for significant intensification. These heights should follow a peak-and-valley pattern where the peaks occur at intersections and the valleys are mid-block areas.

[adam-machiavelli]

Originally Posted by reidjr

I use to have the same mind set you do until i really looked around the city and took in to count with how out of control urban sprawl is.With that said i now fully support taller buildings vs urban sprawl.

I agree that we must end sprawl. But I think, in terms of intensity, many Ottawa residents would prefer Amsterdam over Hong Kong. We don't need to build as if we're Hong Kong. Our land supply is not THAT limited.

[McC]

Ken Gray's chimed in with a cranky "No"
http://communities.canada.com/ottawa...tle-italy.aspx

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

Don't even get me started about the permanent darkness in downtown!

What permanent darkness would that be?

I work downtown and have lived at three different downtown addresses north of Somerset, west of the canal, south of the Ottawa River and east Bank. I don't remember there being any permanent darkness anywhere.

Parts of Toronto have a design requirement that direct sunlight must be able to hit given blocks of streets for at least 3 hours per day. I support intensification, and I think many more residents would too if such a requirement existed in parts of this city too.

There is nowhere in Ottawa I can think of where shade is a problem. I'd like to see someone think of the shade, for once. There are way too many public spaces where you cannot get real relief from the mid-summer sun. Exhibit A: almost every Transitway station.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

Ken Gray's chimed in with a cranky "No"
http://communities.canada.com/ottawa...tle-italy.aspx

In other news, sun to rise in east, set in west on Wednesday.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

I am aware and agree that height restrictions downtown led to developers purchasing entire blocks to build medium-height, squat buildings and this too is also bad. Like I've indicated before, I will support this building if it enhances the human scale of our city. The best strategy is to ensure there are gaps between tall buildings. This can be done by assigning height minimums and maximums to every lot in areas targeted for significant intensification. These heights should follow a peak-and-valley pattern where the peaks occur at intersections and the valleys are mid-block areas.

The best way to ensure human scale, is to maximize the public-access uses at ground level, minimize the distance between sidewalk and building, and minimize the distances between buildings and changes of building use and purpose.

Setbacks and gaps are antithetical to human scale.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by McC

Ken Gray's chimed in with a cranky "No"
http://communities.canada.com/ottawa...tle-italy.aspx

Even if you disagree with his stance on it, I think he has captured how this thing will play out perfectly. He's also seen through the talk about the Italian museum and hiding the parking through billboards.

I gather that Gray doesn't think much of Lahey based on the convent project.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Even if you disagree with his stance on it, I think he has captured how this thing will play out perfectly. He's also seen through the talk about the Italian museum and hiding the parking through billboards.

I gather that Gray doesn't think much of Lahey based on the convent project.

I agree that the museum thing is going nowhere, but what in Dog's Green Earth do people in Ottawa have against outdoor advertising?

[Skyway]

I don't see much difference between 25 and 35 stories (shadows, parking etc.) But it seems you need the taller buildings to get the best and sleekest designs. So the more floors they pare off the more I think this will limit the design and from the building being an iconic presence at the entrance to Little Italy.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

The loss of sunlight in DT Ottawa is a direct result of not allowing tall buildings, not the opposite (though I'm sure you're aware of this). Developers are refused the heights they propose or they don't even ask for them as they know what the answer will be and the result is shorter buildings on every single square inch of useable space, making no use of setbacks and not leaving any place for the sun to shine through. A tall thin tower would be the best thing for this location and for many locations downtown to minimize the impact that shadowing might have at street level.

We're not going to get tall thin towers set on top of a 3-6 storey podium. We never do, anywhere, ever.

What we get are tall blocky towers or shorter towers of the same footprint that look squatty.

The basic truth of the matter is that in downtown Ottawa, next to no one has any reason to build nice buildings. The federal government wants the cheapest buildings it can get to house its workforce and doesn't care what they look like while much of our "private sector" consists of various lobbyists, NGOs, foreign missions, contracting agencies, etc., most of whom barely use up a floor, never mind a building. All they want is cheap office space, and cheap office space is had by building blocky towers, the higher the better. We have not much of a bona fide private sector engaging in one-upmanship to get the best looking head office in town - because there aren't any head offices to speak of. The only exceptions are some of the more arms-length government agencies like EDC. To the extent we have nice buildings, most of them are far older and much shorter dating from a different age when Ottawa was the home to lumber barons, early industrialists and a few railway tycoons rather than just civil servants.

There is no such thing in downtown Ottawa as a trade-off between tall nice buildings and short ugly ones. You can have a short ugly building or you can have a taller version of the same ugly building.

Originally Posted by reidjr

I use to have the same mind set you do until i really looked around the city and took in to count with how out of control urban sprawl is.With that said i now fully support taller buildings vs urban sprawl.

We're not going to solve sprawl with a handful of tall condo buildings few can afford to own a piece of in the few livable communities we have.

When places like Fairlawn Plaza (opposite Carlingwood) are "redeveloped" by putting in single-storey retail boxes at the edge of the existing parking lot along Carling, or when the entire 'Train Yards' thing goes through with its expanses of surface parking, you know there's no seriousness when it comes to intensification and when the same kind of thing keeps getting approved in "greenfields" you know there's no seriousness to addressing sprawl in a meaningful way either.

[AuxTown]

There is no such thing in downtown Ottawa as a trade-off between tall nice buildings and short ugly ones. You can have a short ugly building or you can have a taller version of the same ugly building.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but not this. I think it would have been cool to see significantly taller versions of EDC, Constitution 3, Mondrian (I'm biased, I know), World Exchange, and others. These are all decent-looking buildings built with quality materials and could have brought in interesting, while still boxy, presence to our DT. Anyway, I like the density of our CBD and with LRT, tons of condo construction, and the continuously-growing feds I'm sure it will continue to get better, tall buildings or not.

[sgera]

OTTAWA -- A developer has briefed city politicians over its hope to erect the city’s tallest building, a potentially controversial 35-storey condo tower near the corner of Preston Street and Carling Avenue.

Mastercraft Starwood, a Toronto-based builder with Ottawa roots and a number of other “SOHO” developments throughout the city, will be asking the city for a second rezoning of the site in order to allow the proposed 230-unit project, dubbed SOHO Italia. The company has hired well-known local architect Rod Lahey, whose preliminary drawings depict a soaring tower with a series of undulating terraces that reach to the sky and digital billboards on the lower floors that disguise parking.

Although these early plans won’t likely be submitted to the city’s planning department until next month, the developer has already met with Mayor Jim Watson, planning committee chairman Councillor Peter Hume, and the ward representative, Councillor Diane Holmes, to brief them of the plans.

Watson was unavailable for comment on Monday, but spokesman Bruce Graham said the mayor had made no commitments and that he “looks forward to the public’s input” on the matter in the coming months.

Both Hume and Holmes, however, expressed skepticism that the extra heights are justified and characterized the project as “overwhelming,” “daunting” and “out of perspective for the area.”

“Of course, everyone is trying to get up high enough to see Dow’s Lake,” said Holmes. “It’s all about making as much money as you can from those top floors that have a view of the water.”

The city’s official plan, which lays out where and how intensification should unfold across the city, calls for heights of around five storeys on a street deemed a traditional main street like Preston. But a number of years ago, the site at Preston and Sidney Street was rezoned for about 64 metres, or approximately 20 storeys. At the time, the extra height was given because the location fit in with a number of the city’s intensification goals, including the fact that it is near public transit.

But now the developer is asking for another 50-per-cent increase in height to 112 metres, or 35 storeys.

“This (site) already has lots of height, it’s not a small building to begin with,” said Hume. “The zoning there adequately reflects the city’s goals when it comes to intensification.”

Lahey said in an interview Monday that he sees the site as “a gateway” or entrance to Little Italy, adding that the extra height the builder is requesting allows for “a little more fun with the architecture.” He suggested that Ottawa has a downtown that “is less than inspiring,” architecturally speaking, partly because buildings have been kept “artificially low.”

The plans for the building call for the first two levels to be a museum or pavilion of some kind that will “highlight the Italian community,” said Lahey. On top of that would also be about four levels of parking, disguised by digital billboards, like a mini-Times Square. (There’s also a provision for underground parking as well.) The condos themselves would start on the seventh floor.

There’s a concept — relatively new to Ottawa — that developers asking for height over and above what the zoning calls for should give something back to the community. In this case, the developer would donate space for an Italian-heritage museum.

The only trouble is, there is no Italian museum.

“It’s still very difficult to find someone who’s going to run a museum,” said Holmes. “They cost money to run. I don’t think the community benefit is real.”

Hume added that although “there’s still a lot to discuss,” so far he too is not seeing any community benefit that would be worth giving the developer the extra height.

“I’ve yet to be convinced,” he said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busines...#ixzz1BRezXow4

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

The loss of sunlight in DT Ottawa is a direct result of not allowing tall buildings, not the opposite (though I'm sure you're aware of this). Developers are refused the heights they propose or they don't even ask for them as they know what the answer will be and the result is shorter buildings on every single square inch of useable space, making no use of setbacks and not leaving any place for the sun to shine through. A tall thin tower would be the best thing for this location and for many locations downtown to minimize the impact that shadowing might have at street level.

The only reason this tower is tall and thin is that the lot is tiny. The plans and pictures over at Eric Darwin's site make it pretty clear that the building takes up basically 100% of the lot area.

I think a building of this height would be acceptable on a larger property where it could be built on a podium or include some open space (a la the Vancouver model). The Dow Honda property would be such a site. I don't think this is it.