SOHO Champagne [111 Champagne Ave S] | 66+82m | 22+25f | U/C

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

With respect to Arnon, it looks as if they are going cheap and storing cars on the surface. They should simply buy the Sunoco land (which I assume is a Brownfield), get a Brownfield Clean-up grant from the City, and then build a third tower. Their parking could go underground and ramping Hickory would again work. I get frustrated with the number of brownfields left vacant in this city.

My impression all-along with regards to this site is that this is exactly their intention. Develop the first two towers first, and then at some point when that project has been successful, acquire this parcel, and develop a third. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to make intuitive & business sense.

In any case, if I were buying in Soho Champagne, I would keep in mind that in addition to the already announced developments in the area, a third, potentially taller tower could end up right there to the south, another tower to the north (Humane Society), and that there is potential development to the east accross the O-Train tracks as well. That said, the setbacks (O-train corridor, the design of the towers on their podium) are such that I think even with all of those areas developed, the views from Soho will be excellent. But a buyer shouldn't expect completely unobstructed views to remain all that long.

[waterloowarrior]

report from the Dalhousie Community Association
http://dalhousiecommunityassociation...010-draft.html

Hickory at Champagne

Starwood Mastercraft is proposing 22 and 24 storey condo towers on a townhouse pedestal for the former Aquerello site. The height is contentious, it requires considerable rezoning and since it is within 600 metres of public transit the city can restrict the project to offer only 60% parking (the builder norm for this location would be 113%; the building is proposing 100%). This might increase the on street parking demand. We are concerned that if the City estimate of required parking is too low, the neighborhood suffers from congestion forever. The lower parking requirement is a progressive feature of Transit Oriented Development (ToD) planning concepts. However, the builder wants additional units because he is close to transit but doesn’t want to provide fewer parking spaces even though he is close to transit. Fewer parking spaces should keep units more affordable since parking spaces cost around $30 thousand each.

The situation is further complicated by the number of dead-end streets in the area, the current spill over of all day commuter parking (esp. for the Booth Street complex), etc. While a traffic study is not yet available, we do not anticipate overloading Preston, but do anticipate considerable walk-in mainstreet traffic, especially if the pedestrian bridge extending Hickory over the Otrain is built (by the City, at a later date).

Members expressed concern that the proposed tower height is too high for a mid-block, mid-neighborhood, non-gateway location; members were also concerned as it would be precedent setting, and there are numerous other development parcels along the Otrain corridor which we expect would want the same height. The requested height is bigger than current (max 15) storey Preston/champagne secondary plan. The association decided to write a letter opposing the height, especially for the mid-block location; but to indicate support for the principles of ToD.

There will be a public meeting about the proposal on Monday March 22nd at 7:30 at the Civic Hospital amphitheatre, sponsored by the CHNA.

[waterloowarrior]

125 Hickory Street
Sunday, March 14, 2010
http://dalhousiecommunityassociation...ry-street.html

On March 14 the DCA sent this letter to Douglas Bridgewater, in the City planning department, regarding the proposed Starwood-Mastercraft 22 and 24 storey development for 125 Hickory Street (former Aquerello site, near the Humane Society):


The board of the DCA discussed this proposal at length at its March 3rd meeting. We are all familiar with the site, and had elevations and site plans on hand during the discussion.

We feel the proposed height is excessive. This is a mid-block, land-locked location, not a gateway. Its location on a transit corridor, and with nearby access to a major arterial (Carling Avenue) means the site is suitable for intensification. In our opinion, a height the same as the adjacent Emerald Tower would be suitable.

The DCA supports the notion of Transit Oriented Development (ToD) requiring different conditions than might be applicable in other areas for similar developments. Reducing the parking requirements is appropriate for ToD and increases the affordability of the units. Since the site is immediately adjacent current cycling paths and the future cycling arterial proposed for the Otrain corridor, we feel there should be a significant cycle parking facility conveniently located within the building to encourage cycling. The more the reduction in parking, the more prime parking spaces should be required for Virtu-car or similar car sharing services.

We appreciate being informed of public meetings and the progress of this application at the email shown below.

Eric Darwin

President, Dalhousie Community Association.

EricDarwin1@gmail.com

www.ottawadalhousie.ca

[jcollins]

Emerald tower is the pair of towers on Carling right? What's their height?

Merrion Square a few blocks over is 8 and 10 floors.

I love the height that they're going with in this location, but they will make a strong argument saying that its a bit excessive. 16/20 floors would be fine, although I like the proposal as is.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by jcollins

Emerald tower is the pair of towers on Carling right? What's their height?

Merrion Square a few blocks over is 8 and 10 floors.

I love the height that they're going with in this location, but they will make a strong argument saying that its a bit excessive. 16/20 floors would be fine, although I like the proposal as is.

Builders are just playing the game, the propose an excessive height, knowing that after public consultations it will be lowered. They probably want 16-20 floors, so to get that, they aim higher.

[jcollins]

Originally Posted by Radster

Builders are just playing the game, the propose an excessive height, knowing that after public consultations it will be lowered. They probably want 16-20 floors, so to get that, they aim higher.

Which I think would look pretty good in this location.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Radster

Builders are just playing the game, the propose an excessive height, knowing that after public consultations it will be lowered. They probably want 16-20 floors, so to get that, they aim higher.

If the builder proposes 24 then the Councillor/local residents propose 8 and they saw it off at 16-20 and on paper nobody is happy but in reality both groups end up with what they saw as the logical meeting point.

This property at 125 Hickory has had a number of applications put forth on it and nothing has been built on it yet.

[jcollins]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

If the builder proposes 24 then the Councillor/local residents propose 8 and they saw it off at 16-20 and on paper nobody is happy but in reality both groups end up with what they saw as the logical meeting point.

This property at 125 Hickory has had a number of applications put forth on it and nothing has been built on it yet.

Do you recall what the other proposals have been height wise? And have they been rejected or just never gotten anywhere?

[waterloowarrior]

Councillor worried about intensification
By JON WILLING, OTTAWA SUN
Last Updated: March 17, 2010 4:48pm
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa.../13266436.html

A city councillor is concerned her ward is becoming a “wild west free-for-all” for intensification as two developers plan large residential projects there.

“It’s this word intensification that has been manipulated to the point that it’s over-intensification,” Kitchissippi Coun. Christine Leadman said Wednesday.

If there are two issues that have been keeping Leadman hopping recently it’s development and traffic, and as she points out, they’re intertwined.

First it was the proposed Ashcroft Homes development at the old Soeurs de la Visitation property on Richmond Rd., and now there’s a plan by Mastercraft Starwood to erect two condo towers on Hickory St., just west of the intersection of Carling Ave. and Preston St.

Leadman has problems with both proposals because she says they don’t fit the communities.

When it comes to the proposed development at 125 Hickory St., the design calls for a 20-storey and 24-storey tower, containing a total of 301 units. The developer also wants to build 33 townhouses on the property.

To build the project, the developer needs city approval to increase the maximum building height from 34 m to 76 m, and to reduce landscaped open space.

A transportation study done by the developer says traffic on local surrounding roads would increase by less than 40 vehicles per hour because of the project and other ongoing projects in the community.

The development will be the subject of a public meeting Monday night at the Ottawa Civic Hospital amphitheatre.

Leadman said the development would reach “extreme heights” and the local transportation network, despite being located beside the O-Train line, couldn’t handle it.

The ward has become an attractive area for developers, with neighbourhoods stretching from downtown to the east, past Westboro in the other direction, Carling Ave. to the south and the Ottawa River in the north.

Ashcroft wants to redevelop 114 Richmond Rd. for condominiums, retail space and a hotel. Heritage designation for the old monastery on the property is pending at City Hall.

Leadman said developers have been eyeing old Richmond Rd. properties that used to be car lots and other old businesses. She wants developers to come up with plans that complement the surrounding community.

“If developers came in with appropriate developments, it wouldn’t be a problem,” she said. “You have to look at it in the perspective of balance.”

Leadman said she’s not anti-development or taking a NIMBY (not in my backyard) approach to the situation.

“It’s not NIMBY,” she said. “It’s knowing what the impacts will be.”

jon.willing@sunmedia.ca

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

This woman seriously needs to stop, get a grip and look around and realize what the City's official plan is. Then, with any luck, she'll realize how stupid she's being and be quiet. Intensification, ESPECIALLY within the urban area, is part of the freaking plan.

This argument is so circular; they talk about wanting a vibrant, ecologically friendly, dense and urban Ottawa but they turn around and do everything in their power to see that intensification projects are stalled/get dropped. When will this city learn?!?!

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by jcollins

Do you recall what the other proposals have been height wise? And have they been rejected or just never gotten anywhere?

here's a previous proposal, not sure the reason for cancellation

Acquerello at Dow's Lake

source: Emporis

[jcollins]

Thanks for the info.

As for the article, ya I'm not sure what her deal is. Is she running again? hah.

[waterloowarrior]

here's the shadow study btw

[waterloowarrior]

also in the planning rationale they showed a potential scenario under the existing zoning (bulkier tower)

[ajldub]

This woman knows exactly what she's talking about. I don't know about this development specifically, but anybody who thinks you can squish 1100 living spaces onto the Sisters property, still have some kind of meaningful heritage redevelopment, and not cause total gridlock on Byron and Richmond is out to lunch. Read Denley's column today; he nails the issue.

There seems to be a trend in this forum lately that maximum height and density is always best, and it's getting a little dull. That's what Toronto has been doing for the last ten years and while some people have made a lot of money, the city now has some of the worst traffic on the continent. Not just the 401 but downtown.

I like seeing Ottawa redeveloped, but when a developer tries to take the city for 76m in a 34m zone, or when they try to put over a thousand units into a relatively small lot on Richmond, they are not being urban visionaries. It's just developer avarice, which has been around since the development game began. Christine makes a very legitimate point when she says that at some time intensification becomes overintensification. I think she's right when she says we're approaching that level in some neighborhoods.

She's also a pretty popular counsellor, by the way. She would probably win her seat again if there was an election soon.

[danny the dog]

Just want to clarify something, Ashcroft is not trying to put 1100 people into the Soeurs' site. The 1100 is a rough calculation on how many people would be living in all three developments that Ashcroft has going on Richmond. I say rough because that's the number the developer gave when answering a question at the community meeting. Also note that a good portion on the Soeurs' site would be for seniors.

Traffic is definitively a major concern for any development but what Jamaican-Pheonix pointed out a perfect example of the situation the city is in. We keep shooting ourselves in the foot every time we do not allow for sufficient intensification, especially on a site so close to public transit facilities.

As for Mrs. Leadman, this whole stance is because there is an election soon, try October 25th. There is anti-development, anti-height in almost every community and though they might be small, they are usually the loudest. They are good at fear mongering about development but to their credit are involved in the community. That makes them the kinds of people who are going to go out and vote in a municipal election and try to bring their neighbors along as well. She's doing it to keep away potential candidates who would use the issue against her.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

here's a previous proposal, not sure the reason for cancellation

Acquerello at Dow's Lake

source: Emporis

Yes, that was before the current proposal...the Acquerello had at least 2 owners (one a developer and then the architect of the development) and I'm sure there was a proposal before that or some sort of ap't complex on the site with the alignment of buildings different).

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by danny the dog

As for Mrs. Leadman, this whole stance is because there is an election soon, try October 25th. There is anti-development, anti-height in almost every community and though they might be small, they are usually the loudest.

Exactly...the silly season is upon us in terms of strange councillor flip flops and pronouncements. The Councillors will try and put freezes on development until after the election or other such grandstanding efforts.

I believe Councillor Monette is trying to do the same in Orleans now based on what I read in today's Ottawa Citizen.

[ajldub]

Acquerello folded due to lack of interest. It was about five years too early.

Leadman is a popular counsellor. I'm confident that she will win the next election. It may sound like fearmongering to you, but I can assure you that there are quite a few people living in Westboro/Wellington Village with legitimate concerns about the convent development.

[danny the dog]

Listen, I'm not saying that what you are saying is wrong. There are legitimate concerns about the site, as someone who lives in Westboro I get that and they need to be addressed of course. Primary among them is traffic. Management of traffic is Westboro, or along the Richmond Road West Wellington corridor is the city's responsibility. Up until now there is no community wide transportation plan, but that's not the developer's fault, so should someone who wants to build a condo be punished for that?

Leadman is popular because no one is challenging her, if someone who actually knows municipal politics gets into the race, it will be very very tight.

There are those who express there concerns in a civil manner and those who don't. My definition of a fear monger, in this case, is the later. Someone who doesn't want to listen to rational explanations, believes that developers are inherently evil, doesn't want change to happen because they are afraid of it and tries to get others to follow them. That's exactly what happens every times someone wants to build something in an urban neighborhood. Just to finish that thought, my guess is that what the anti-change people are really afraid of is the inflow of people into the community who do not think like they do. The kinds of people who would buy a condo and enjoy a more urban lifestyle.

Anyway, about this development, I like it. That whole area has got tons of potential, it's good to see some people doing something about it.