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

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

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.

Why open space? How does magic happy open space suddenly make a tall building "acceptable"?

[cityguy]

I think the lot is a little too small for such a tall building,maybe the developers should buy the two small buildings just to the north.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why open space?

to accommodate a patio? a bit of landscaping a bench and a couple of trees to shade the sidewalk and green the street a touch? to leave room for someone to stop and look in a shop window without causing a collision from blocking the sidewalk? those are a couple of reasons.

Anyway the CeeB had Katherine Hobbs on this morning, apparently she's supportive of this proposal (outside of her ward). Kathleen Petty failed to ask the most obvious question, i.e. what Councillor Hobbs would think of this proposal if it was in her ward, say on Scott and MacRae, Somerset in Hintonburg, or Richmond/Wellington and Island Park. The only remark she made regarding Kitchissippi ward was to say hey, we have the Metropole "Ottawa's tallest building," (lots of people make that mistake) "so there." Real insightful. Anyway, I'm sure a lot of residents, not to mention owners of underused lots in her ward would love to know the answer to that question!

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

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

the plans SOHO Champagne (see upper left of the photo on the upper right http://westsideaction.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/proposal.jpg) are two towers on a townhouse podium, but as you say, these towers are not thin at all, and might as well be one single block they're so close together and take up so much of the vertical space above the podium (the view from the south-east is the wrong perspective, but would any light slip between those two towers?)

[m3i6]

""Stoneface Dolly's owner and Preston Street BIA member Bob Russell said he has mixed feelings about the proposal.

"It came out of the blue, it was a bit of a shock... I mean we're looking at a significant size building...and it's a concern," said Russell.

"On the one hand, I want to protect the heritage of Little Italy and that's what [the BIA is] trying to do...on the other hand, being a business owner I say well [it's] 2,000 more people coming in. So it's going to be very delicate to get a balance.""

Where do you figure the "2000 more people" figure comes from. That would be 9 people per unit. Carleton U makeshift dorms perhaps??

[reidjr]

Does anyone think this will be approved in some form meaning maybe not a 35 floors but smaller.

[blackjagger]

Originally Posted by McC

the plans SOHO Champagne (see upper left of the photo on the upper right http://westsideaction.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/proposal.jpg) are two towers on a townhouse podium, but as you say, these towers are not thin at all, and might as well be one single block they're so close together and take up so much of the vertical space above the podium (the view from the south-east is the wrong perspective, but would any light slip between those two towers?)

I'm looking at the site plan and the rendering doesn't seem to match it. Unless because of the height reduction from 24 to 20 and 20 to 16 storeys they have gone with a fatter tower. The original submission has much more slimmer towers at a little more then half of the hickory street frontage per tower.

Cheers,
Josh

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Dado

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 O-Town Hockey

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.

You're actually kind of proving the rule with the exception...

As you say, those buildings are decent at their current heights - far better than most of the rest. That proves though that just adding height isn't the determining factor in whether a building is built decently because it is evidently possible to do it with shorter heights. Adding more height is no guarantee of better quality because a developer doesn't think in terms of 'tall high quality' versus 'short low quality' but rather 'tall high quality' versus 'tall low quality' or 'short high quality' versus 'short low quality'. Any architectural flourishes always take money off the bottom line of a building of any given height. Proportionately they may take less off a tall building (and this is where this hope of higher quality tall buildings seems to come from) but if the developer is fundamentally not interested in making an attractive building it doesn't really matter how high they're allowed to build.

The trade-off is only going to exist in a place where there is a desire to build quality in the first place and in those circumstances height might becoming a limiting factor. But the desire has to exist first - and by and large in downtown Ottawa (for commercial buildings at least) it doesn't.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

to accommodate a patio? a bit of landscaping a bench and a couple of trees to shade the sidewalk

Buildings and their accoutrements are much better at shading sidewalks than trees are.

Anyway the CeeB had Katherine Hobbs on this morning, apparently she's supportive of this proposal (outside of her ward). Kathleen Petty failed to ask the most obvious question, i.e. what Councillor Hobbs would think of this proposal if it was in her ward, say on Scott and MacRae, Somerset in Hintonburg, or Richmond/Wellington and Island Park.

Funny, to me the obvious question is "So, have you heard yet from the usual people in the Breezehill and Sherwood area of your ward, calling to whinge about their morning sun and property values?"

Because you know that's coming.

[Harley613]

does anyone else find this whole thing reminiscent of north york in toronto? a secondary skyline just over the main highway from the cbd? the parallels are striking! this could anchor a secondary skyline, adding some some serious visual interest when passing through the city.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by Harley613

does anyone else find this whole thing reminiscent of north york in toronto? a secondary skyline just over the main highway from the cbd? the parallels are striking! this could anchor a secondary skyline, adding some some serious visual interest when passing through the city.

There is a similarity. Toronto has a third skyline in Scarborough around Scarborough Town Centre and the civic centre, which is somewhat similar to Tunney's Pasture.

[Marcus CLS]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

In other words, the exact opposite of how things are done in this stupid, suburban, "city".

And why can't Diane Holmes let the architects and engineers worry about whether the building will physically fit on its site? I am pretty sure those professionals know how to use surveying equipment.

As a surveyor let me assure you that architects do not know much about surveying equipement, they design, civil engineers, survey engineers and other engineers make it reality.

Remember the Big O. That architect is not allowed to set foot in this country without being arrested.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Marcus CLS

Remember the Big O. That architect is not allowed to set foot in this country without being arrested.

I'd let him into the country in return for the immediate arrest and deportation of anyone who has ever designed a building built on the Carleton campus.

[Harley613]

seriously. with the exception of dunton tower, which is a nice example of modernist architecture and anchors the site quite nicely...if quietly... the whole campus is a hodgepodge of HORRIBLE buildings. the library looks like a temporary military structure. carleton has one of the most beautiful locations you could imagine for a university and they've just ruined it.

[ThaLoveDocta]

Originally Posted by Harley613

seriously. with the exception of dunton tower, which is a nice example of modernist architecture and anchors the site quite nicely...if quietly... the whole campus is a hodgepodge of HORRIBLE buildings. the library looks like a temporary military structure. carleton has one of the most beautiful locations you could imagine for a university and they've just ruined it.

Don't mean to go OT but....
Looks like they're owning up that and now they're fixing it: http://www2.carleton.ca/campusplan/documentation/


This should be a great view in all directions if this (4th?) SOHO goes fwd...

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Buildings and their accoutrements are much better at shading sidewalks than trees are.

Deciduous trees do a better job when considered from a year-round perspective - they shade in the summer but let sun through in the winter. Buildings shade the most when least needed or unneeded (in the winter) and the least when most needed (in the summer).

Preston and Bank are somewhat more fortunate than Richmond/Wellington in that they are north-south streets, so shadows from tall buildings along them tend to move around during the day. This is much less the case for east-west streets where a wall of tall buildings effectively keeps the street in shadow most of the time in the winter.

The Westboro Station Phase II/III is still under construction at the moment but already it has turned the entire block of Richmond west of Roosevelt into a rather darkened environment at this time of year. It's far more pleasant in the rest of Westboro where the buildings on the south side are shorter, but, hey, so long as most of Westboro is still pleasant to stroll around in, it doesn't matter, right? All that matters is building tall buildings for the sake of building tall buildings so that the condos on the south side therein - whose inhabitants have left for the day - can have lovely sunlight while the street behind it - the reason for the desire to put a condo up in this spot in the first place - can be left in the shade. It's the urban equivalent of naming a suburban subdivision after the natural features you just blew away.

Meanwhile, the developers continue to have little interest in developing nearby Scott Street in the same way. What's there to overshadow? Nothing but a transitway trench. Clearly no streetlife to shadow there, so no point in building anything tall or even something that hits the height limit (and besides, what fun is there in building tall buildings few would object to? that would destroy our ability to slander the populace), and if something is built, no way will it include street-oriented ground floor units. No sirree, developers aren't about to help foster or promote streetlife where it doesn't yet exist.

That's how we end up with this opposite Westboro Transitway Station:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...wEeo5RA5bocjMlQ3YwGA&cbp=12,73.58,,0,5.4

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

Meanwhile, the developers continue to have little interest in developing nearby Scott Street in the same way. What's there to overshadow? Nothing but a transitway trench. Clearly no streetlife to shadow there, so no point in building anything tall or even something that hits the height limit (and besides, what fun is there in building tall buildings few would object to? that would destroy our ability to slander the populace), and if something is built, no way will it include street-oriented ground floor units. No sirree, developers aren't about to help foster or promote streetlife where it doesn't yet exist.

That's how we end up with this opposite Westboro Transitway Station:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...wEeo5RA5bocjMlQ3YwGA&cbp=12,73.58,,0,5.4

The Westoboro Collection proposal for a point tower on a mid-rise podium was pushed to a shorter fatter redesign after community engagement, but I wonder if the developers will be ringing up Katherine Hobbs with a revised version of their plan after hearing her on the radio?

(PS this was a good zinger "It's the urban equivalent of naming a suburban subdivision after the natural features you just blew away.")

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Dado

It's far more pleasant in the rest of Westboro where the buildings on the south side are shorter, but, hey, so long as most of Westboro is still pleasant to stroll around in, it doesn't matter, right?

What is the metric unit for pleasantness? (Pleasantosity?)

I don't find open sun to be pleasant. I find it very unpleasant. I would suspect many others, if not as sun-averse as I am, are at least shade-seeking, as I've noticed the difference between pedestrian traffic on the shady vs. sunny side of streets many times.

No sirree, developers aren't about to help foster or promote streetlife where it doesn't yet exist.

In many cases they aren't allowed.

In other cases, the self-appointed community guardians demand conditions or changes to projects (pointless setbacks, stultified and useless open space, no commercial use, for god's sake no pub or café, "no overlooks", etc.) that are antithetical to streetlife.

[Kitchissippi]

I don't mind the design of the proposal even though it just uses the cheap architectural trick du jour of curved balconies to make it interesting. But in context with the rest of Preston street it is horrible and insensitive. If the premise of this project is to create a "gateway" to Little Italy, it fails miserably. A gateway is supposed to set the tone for the rest of the street, and scale-wise it has nothing in common with the intimacy of the small shops and cafés that give the area its character. Unless the intended future for the length of Preston street is a canyon of 6-storey blank podiums plastered with supergraphics, this building will be out of place.

[citizen4829]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What is the metric unit for pleasantness? (Pleasantosity?)

I don't find open sun to be pleasant. I find it very unpleasant. I would suspect many others, if not as sun-averse as I am, are at least shade-seeking, as I've noticed the difference between pedestrian traffic on the shady vs. sunny side of streets many times.



In many cases they aren't allowed.

In other cases, the self-appointed community guardians demand conditions or changes to projects (pointless setbacks, stultified and useless open space, no commercial use, for god's sake no pub or café, "no overlooks", etc.) that are antithetical to streetlife.

I disagree. I have been walking around centretown for over twelve years. People invariable walk on the sunny side of the street when the weather is cool (fall, winter, spring). Most people prefer the sun except in the extreme heat of the summer. You are the exception here.