17 Aberdeen St | 84 m | 23 fl | Proposed

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Not singling out Little Italian, but I've seen other commentary, usually of the freakout variety, over the heights of various proposed buildings in the general vicinity of southern Preston or the Carling O-Train station, and I can't help but think: if height and density aren't "appropriate" in that location, where, in the name of all that is holy, would the nattering nabobs of NIMBYtivity ever accept them?

Downtown Toronto. Anything closer would obscure their view of Lake Ontario

[J.OT13]

Although I am totally on board with this proposal, I can't help but think of how much trouble Mizrahi had with his proposal on Wellington West at Island Park for a mere 3 extra floors over the limit while this one, at 10 over the limit, was approved without question. Double standards?

[cityguy]

Any idea when construction would start?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Although I am totally on board with this proposal, I can't help but think of how much trouble Mizrahi had with his proposal on Wellington West at Island Park for a mere 3 extra floors over the limit while this one, at 10 over the limit, was approved without question. Double standards?

B*itchisippi is NIMBYer than Preston Street.

[BlueJay]

I like it. It's been years that I hoped they would move the Hilton Lac Leamy to the Ottawa side.

[Luker]

Originally Posted by bluejay

i like it. It's been years that i hoped they would move the hilton lac leamy to the ottawa side.

lol!

[little italian]

Originally Posted by gjhall

So I will echo Uhunian in respectfully asking 'little italian' - where they take issue with this amendment to the plan?

FWIW, I am for densification of little italy. I just don't understand the obsession with height, and wish that developers and the city would take a graduated approach to development.

A few points:

- Claridge, Sky One, Carling Two, Carling 3, Soho Italia, Champagne 2, Envie 2, the development formerly known as Nuovo, and this new tower provide a cumulative 285 (!) stories of condo in a neighbourhood that is currently predominantly 2 stories. And yet, condos are not selling. With a graduated approach, we'd could see slow but steady densification in this neighbourhood. The development at 170 Preston is a great example of something that has gone up fast, should look good, and provides real densification now; http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=217033. As people come to the hood, we'll get more amenities, which will drive further development. Heights can rise as and when necessary. Instead, the city is authorizing hulking towers for which there is no market. Developers then sit on empty or underused properties in anticipation of a distant future huge pay day, and the neighbourhood suffers for it empty, underused and ugly lots. The approval of this tower suggests we're set for more of the same, and a winner take all slow and jagged approach to building up this neighbourhood rather than a competitive steady state.

- gjhall writes that "Plans are about community aspirations". I agree that this should be the case. From my attendance at meetings where this plan was discussed, community members were and are concerned about heights. City planners worked on this, engaged with the community to find a balance between the aspirations of the community and the needs of the city -- at great taxpayer expense I would add. They settled on 15 stories as a compromise. The fact that the city approves height rises to anyone who asks, to me at least, makes a mockery of the idea that city plans have anything to do with community aspiration. It seems to me that they are more about allowing the city to say that it cares about community engagement, so that it can then turn around and do whatever developers ask -- community be damned.

- Uhunian writes "B*itchisippi is NIMBYer than Preston Street". I hate the prerogative use of NIMBY, and the idea that there are degrees of NIMBYism. Of course we are all self-interested, and all want to see our neighbourhoods improve in whatever way we think is best for our particular neighbourhood from our particular perspective. The real difference is more likely that Kitchisippians are more engaged, more affluent and know how to be more influential than residents of little italy, which has a high level of renters and social housing and is less organized to fight for the community's needs.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by little italian

FWIW, I am for densification of little italy. I just don't understand the obsession with height,

I don't, either, but by that I mean I don't understand the constant criticism and fear of height in buildings, when energy would be much better focussed on form, function, and street-level interaction, rather than obsessing over height as somehow inherently bad.

and wish that developers and the city would take a graduated approach to development.

"Graduated" how? In space, time, or both? To my eyes, this project would be graduated in both senses.

Claridge, Sky One, Carling Two, Carling 3, Soho Italia, Champagne 2, Envie 2, the development formerly known as Nuovo, and this new tower provide a cumulative 285 (!) stories of condo in a neighbourhood that is currently predominantly 2 stories.

I fail to see the problem.

And yet, condos are not selling.

That's a problem for the owners of the project, and of pretty well no concern to anyone else.

Instead, the city is authorizing hulking towers for which there is no market.

The lack of a market is a matter for the developer to worry about.

- gjhall writes that "Plans are about community aspirations". I agree that this should be the case. From my attendance at meetings where this plan was discussed, community members were and are concerned about heights.

Y tho?

Other than the restricted case of viewplane preservation, I do not understand the fixation that "community members" have with height. I really, really don't. Why does the community "aspire" to fix heights at - too often - an arbitrarily low limit?

- Uhunian writes "B*itchisippi is NIMBYer than Preston Street". I hate the prerogative use of NIMBY, and the idea that there are degrees of NIMBYism. Of course we are all self-interested, and all want to see our neighbourhoods improve in whatever way we think is best for our particular neighbourhood from our particular perspective. The real difference is more likely that Kitchisippians are more engaged, more affluent

DING DING DING.

You see that manifested in everything from NIMBYist opposition to All Of The Things to the precious Kitchisippians' distaste for sharing "their" buses with poor people. Classism, pure and simple, and, sadly, the city is culturally and structurally bound to respond to it.

and know how to be more influential than residents of little italy, which has a high level of renters and social housing and is less organized to fight for the community's needs.

What community needs are in any way deleteriously impacted by a 20-something floor residential building being built in it?

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by little italian

FWIW, I am for densification of little italy. I just don't understand the obsession with height, and wish that developers and the city would take a graduated approach to development.

A few points:

- Claridge, Sky One, Carling Two, Carling 3, Soho Italia, Champagne 2, Envie 2, the development formerly known as Nuovo, and this new tower provide a cumulative 285 (!) stories of condo in a neighbourhood that is currently predominantly 2 stories. And yet, condos are not selling. With a graduated approach, we'd could see slow but steady densification in this neighbourhood. The development at 170 Preston is a great example of something that has gone up fast, should look good, and provides real densification now; http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=217033. As people come to the hood, we'll get more amenities, which will drive further development. Heights can rise as and when necessary. Instead, the city is authorizing hulking towers for which there is no market. Developers then sit on empty or underused properties in anticipation of a distant future huge pay day, and the neighbourhood suffers for it empty, underused and ugly lots. The approval of this tower suggests we're set for more of the same, and a winner take all slow and jagged approach to building up this neighbourhood rather than a competitive steady state.

I'll bet that if you added up the number of predominantly 2-story dwellings in the area they'd cumulatively be greater than 285 stories. I fail to see your point.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Although I am totally on board with this proposal, I can't help but think of how much trouble Mizrahi had with his proposal on Wellington West at Island Park for a mere 3 extra floors over the limit while this one, at 10 over the limit, was approved without question. Double standards?

I don't think it's a double standard. I don't know if Sakto even had to do much lobbying as it seems like a no brainer. Sakto has an "interesting" history but I don't think there is any reason to not approve this project.

[Marshsparrow]

I say just build it... nothing else better to put in that spot

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by little italian

...And yet, condos are not selling.

This is a proposed rental building, so that bullet is dodged.

...With a graduated approach, we'd could see slow but steady densification in this neighbourhood.

I think it's fair to say that's exactly what's happening on this site. Both physically and over time. Infilling their own internal courtyard, adding a floor to an existing building, all within the floorplate of an existing mixed use development - what am I missing here? This isn't a pie in the sky tower on a random lot.

...Developers then sit on empty or underused properties in anticipation of a distant future huge pay day, and the neighbourhood suffers for it empty, underused and ugly lots.

Obviously not the case here.

... From my attendance at meetings where this plan was discussed, community members were and are concerned about heights. City planners worked on this, engaged with the community to find a balance between the aspirations of the community and the needs of the city -- at great taxpayer expense I would add. They settled on 15 stories as a compromise.

While I agree that's true for the area, I doubt there was concern about this site and context - as it is by all accounts, already developed.

... know how to be more influential than residents of little italy, which has a high level of renters and social housing and is less organized to fight for the community's needs.

Perhaps, but I fail to see how opposing a new rental tower would help the needs of this area with a high level of renters.

[BlueJay]

Interesting article. It may be nothing, but it may be something.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/04/09/...sia-questioned

[blackjagger]

Looks like this one is back on the burner with a proposed increase to 30 storeys.

https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans...appId=__ACBQLO

[AuxTown]

Kind of cool looking project. Very thin when viewed from N-S

[Arcologist]

Originally Posted by blackjagger

Looks like this one is back on the burner with a proposed increase to 30 storeys.

https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans...appId=__ACBQLO

If they're going for added height, then hopefully they improve the design as well.

[MountainView]

Originally Posted by Arcologist

If they're going for added height, then hopefully they improve the design as well.

In the application it says they are increasing their request to 30 floors without increasing the already approved height. I doubt they will change much of the exterior design

[rocketphish]

Sakto proposes three extra floors for planned 25-storey tower at Preston Square

By: OBJ staff
Published: Mar 26, 2019 2:16pm EDT
Updated: Mar 27, 2019 2:16pm EDT



An Ottawa real estate firm has revised its plans for a major addition to its Little Italy property, adding three floors and nearly 60 units to its previous proposal to build a 25-storey residential tower at Preston Square.

Council approved Sakto Corp.’s original plan in 2017 that included a new highrise residential building at Preston Square at 333, 343 and 347 Preston St. The proposal also called for a one-storey addition to the top of an existing eight-storey residential building on nearby Aberdeen Street.

That plan proposed a total of 22 new units for the Aberdeen Street building and 175 units in the Preston Square tower.

In a revised application recently filed with the city, Sakto says it now wants to add another three floors to the 25-storey highrise, boosting the total number of units in the tower to 232. The developer says the proposal will still be within the 148-metre height limit for the site. The new plan includes a full floor of amenities such as a gym and lounge on the 27th floor as well as additional amenity spaces on lower levels.

Located just south of the Queensway, the existing Preston Square development includes a pair of 11-storey office towers, the eight-storey residential building on Aberdeen Street and a four-storey commercial building. The five-acre site features a mix of office space, apartments, restaurants, bars and other commercial enterprises as well as underground parking for more than 1,000 vehicles.

http://www.obj.ca/article/sakto-prop...preston-square

[AuxTown]

The more I think about this project and drive by it every day the more I hate it. I think it will look really stupid stuck in between those twin towers. I know someone owns the land and wants to make the most use of it but, unlike the distant view of Icon between the existing towers, having something built in that empty spot that is significantly taller than its neighbours will look bad (at least the view from the 417 and other areas to the North). From the South on Preston (as rendered) it doesn't look terrible.

[Jayday23]

Residential tower expanded to 30 stories. Going to council for approval soon.

Colours of tower have slightly changed, but has stayed larger similar in style.