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

[Luker]

In Ottawa, unlike any other of the big Canadian, or American metropolitan areas for that matter, there is a large portion of the populace which believe condos are completely unacceptable and general. In Centertown, at distance of 1km to the CBD, the height of this project, 24&20 floors are respectable considering you know the development and ratchets expect that in this city a couple floors are coming off almost anything with over the 6 or 12 storey limits. Respectably there is no shadow concerns, adjacent to LTR, and Carling, as well as roughly a km to the 417 on ramps, Parkdale, Rochester, and again 1km to the ORParkway, and the QEParkway. Of course, the bylaws, everything south of Gloucester 12 stories hard CAP? Six stories on main thoroughfares and transit routes, really? While Furthermore, they pretend to utter this intensification plan, lose considerable taxpayer dollars at the OMB.

Not every development is perfect at all, in fact i'm all for demanding more out of developers and giving back with community aspects in projects, but the level of NIMBYism in this city is unprecedented and disapointing.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

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

Notice how much uglier and boring it looks compared to the two taller towers? I rest my case.

Originally Posted by ajldub

This woman knows exactly what she's talking about.

No, she doesn't. All she's doing is opposing any kind of meaningful intensification in her ward AND it's close to election time.

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.

While I agree that we need to be careful about development, in the past five years Westboro and West Wellington have exploded with condo development. The 1100 is not just for the Sisters proposal, but for the entire area. While I want to preserve the heritage building just like they did for Abbotsford House in the Glebe, who really cares? Let's be honest and stop and think for a minute; how many people in this city, let alone the neighbourhood, have actually gone and seen the Sisters site and explored it? It's hidden from public view and used only by a select few people. If you want to encourage people walkign through and seeing it, a very nice brick walkway from Richmond to Byron would be a nice addition and bring people to the site. As of now, it's always been hidden from the public view.

As for gridlock, again, who really cares? Commuters from the suburbs and people in the neighbourhood who are too hooked to their cars. Let's just assume the worst case scenario that the Number 2 bus goes at the speed of a tortoise. There is still the 16 on Byron, the Transitway nearby, the buses on Scott Street AND the fact that nearby is access to the Queensway, Carling, the Parkway, and Scott Street. Granted, we need a proper traffic study in the neighbourhood but for Pete's sake, even from my area near Fisher Park, it's only about a 20-30 minute walk to get to the heart of Westboro. Hardly an outrageous distance for walking or biking.

Ottawa needs to break its car addiction and there WILL be growing pains but that's what happens when a city grows and intensifies.

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.

Okay then, let's examine...

Here's the current proposal. Doesn't it look nice and sleek and fitting with the area providing a more interesting skyline?



Now for what would happen if it conformed to the height limit...

[/QUOTE]

Oh, my... It seems to be far more imposing and bulkier. I wonder why that is. Perhaps it has something to do with maximum occupancy for a given height which means the shorter the height, the bulkier(and usually by extension, the uglier) the building? Hmm...

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.

Two things; A) We are not Toronto and B) that has happened to every single major city on the planet in the known history of civilization.

The bigger a city gets, the more people live in it, and the more crowded it becomes. It's pretty much a universal constant and is inescapable. It's going to happen no matter what unless everyone gets a functioning jetpack. Every single major city I've been to, has had horrendous traffic. New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, New Delhi, Jaipur, etc. The list goes on and on and on.

And on the flipside, while Toronto has some of the worst traffic on the continent, it is also one of the most cosmopolitan, business-friendly, and vibrant cities on the continent. You can't have it both ways. It's impossible.

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.

When a developer tries to take the city for 76m in a 34m zone, I applaud the developer for trying because we both KNOW that even if they stuck to the 34m limit, there would cries to make it even shorter. Granted, they are not urban visionaries; that's why we actually hire and pay urban visionaries to figure this stuff out. The developers just want business because they ARE a business. And it doesn't help when the city of Ottawa creates such a stagnate and hostile environment. It's even evident in your post, dude.

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.

A legitimate point about what? No one can really quantify what constitutes overintensification when intensificiation is called for in all urban areas, including Westboro. And how exactly are we approaching that level in these neighbourhoods? Again, what really constitutes overintensification? Also, by some neighbourhoods, she clearly means her own and it's her own opinion.

Whether she wins or not, I still think she's being rather blockheaded, spitting empty election rhetoric and espousing several Doucet-esque qualities that are not attractive to me.

[ajldub]

Who really cares about heritage? Who really cares about gridlock? You are lost. Go back to your room and hang some posters of Manhattan on your wall, because that's about as much thought as you are putting into your case.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by ajldub

Who really cares about heritage? Who really cares about gridlock? You are lost. Go back to your room and hang some posters of Manhattan on your wall, because that's about as much thought as you are putting into your case.

ajldub, what are you going on about here???? Jamaican's post made a lot of sense actually, he made some good, valid points to back up his view.

[ajldub]

I'm talking about traffic concerns and heritage concerns being two massive considerations in the convent development. To suggest nobody really cares about either is not realistic at all.

Heritage Ottawa was founded in the 70's after the Rideau Street convent was destroyed for a strip mall, which is now Claridge Plaza. Lots of people care about this stuff.

[citizen j]

All the talk about traffic gridlock is a smokescreen or misdirection.
If the parts of Ottawa inside the Greenbelt that have been designated for intensification and are now either underdeveloped or vacant were built out at only 4-6 storeys, the existing transportation infrastructure would still be strained. Wellington/Richmond, for example, is currently a great big gap-toothed smile with significant holes in the streetwall. So, filling in all those gaps with development well within current zoning limits is still going to lead to gridlock IF EVERYONE CONTINUES TO DRIVE.
Mille Sabords brought this up in the Soeurs de la Visitation thread. Gridlock is actually a good thing, as it forces people onto transit/bikes/their feet and encourages those using the neighbourhood as a commuter throughway to rethink their route and/or their vehicle choice. Toronto City council seemed to understand this back in the late 60s/early 70s when they decided to stop building roads into downtown while similtaneously increasing the amount of development in the central area. They knew people would be redirected from private to public transit.

The media release from the community association tried to make the gridlock argument, but did so ineffectively because of the false logic built into their reasoning. What better place than next to a transit station for high-density intensification? I suspect concerns with transportation were not at the top of their real concerns with the SOHO proposal.

I don't discount the fact that someone might not want a 24-storey tower in close proximity to their now pricy early 20th-century single-detached dwelling in a central neighbourhood, or a block of condos wrapping around a heritage building. Those are not gridlock concerns, those are arguments of a different nature. And regarding those other arguments, ajldub, I agree with you on several points.

[ajldub]

I have a hard time believing gridlock is a good thing for any reason. Gridlock is really just a symptom of inadequate planning.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ajldub

Who really cares about heritage? Who really cares about gridlock? You are lost. Go back to your room and hang some posters of Manhattan on your wall, because that's about as much thought as you are putting into your case.

I see you are clearly capable of responding to my arguments as an adult.

Now wait for it...

Originally Posted by Radster

ajldub, what are you going on about here???? Jamaican's post made a lot of sense actually, he made some good, valid points to back up his view.

Woohoo! Validation! Thanks Radster. Good to know someone here can pause and reflect.

Originally Posted by ajldub

I'm talking about traffic concerns and heritage concerns being two massive considerations in the convent development. To suggest nobody really cares about either is not realistic at all.

Heritage Ottawa was founded in the 70's after the Rideau Street convent was destroyed for a strip mall, which is now Claridge Plaza. Lots of people care about this stuff.

Let me rephrase; I'm not saying that nobody cares, simply that this case in particular(Sisters site) shouldn't be such an issue since it was already hidden from the public eye. Preserving our heritage is great. I'd love to see all the victorian era homes, places likes Barrymore's and such preserved in this city but at the same time I have a hard time caring about a heritage building already hidden from the public eye in a proposal that will keep the heritage part AND provide density to a neighbourhood that calls for it.

Originally Posted by citizen j

All the talk about traffic gridlock is a smokescreen or misdirection.
If the parts of Ottawa inside the Greenbelt that have been designated for intensification and are now either underdeveloped or vacant were built out at only 4-6 storeys, the existing transportation infrastructure would still be strained. Wellington/Richmond, for example, is currently a great big gap-toothed smile with significant holes in the streetwall. So, filling in all those gaps with development well within current zoning limits is still going to lead to gridlock IF EVERYONE CONTINUES TO DRIVE.
Mille Sabords brought this up in the Soeurs de la Visitation thread. Gridlock is actually a good thing, as it forces people onto transit/bikes/their feet and encourages those using the neighbourhood as a commuter throughway to rethink their route and/or their vehicle choice. Toronto City council seemed to understand this back in the late 60s/early 70s when they decided to stop building roads into downtown while similtaneously increasing the amount of development in the central area. They knew people would be redirected from private to public transit.

The media release from the community association tried to make the gridlock argument, but did so ineffectively because of the false logic built into their reasoning. What better place than next to a transit station for high-density intensification? I suspect concerns with transportation were not at the top of their real concerns with the SOHO proposal.

I don't discount the fact that someone might not want a 24-storey tower in close proximity to their now pricy early 20th-century single-detached dwelling in a central neighbourhood, or a block of condos wrapping around a heritage building. Those are not gridlock concerns, those are arguments of a different nature. And regarding those other arguments, ajldub, I agree with you on several points.

Very well said, dude.

That's essentially the point I wanted to get across to ajldub, but you said it better than I ever could have.

Originally Posted by ajldub

I have a hard time believing gridlock is a good thing for any reason. Gridlock is really just a symptom of inadequate planning.

It's not good, but it's a fundamental part of large and growing cities. It's a symptom of the urban fabric; not necessarily inadequate planning although inadequate planning doesn't help...

Quick question though; am I to assume that you believe all the traffic woes of the world could be resolved with what amounts to near-perfect planning?

[ajldub]

I don't know, JP, I really just don't know how to enlighten you on the fact that the convent development is terrible.

I am glad you feel validated, though.

Why don't you answer me this: how is a wall built around a grade A heritage building a precedent for putting up a 12 storey condo in front of the building?

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by ajldub

I have a hard time believing gridlock is a good thing for any reason. Gridlock is really just a symptom of inadequate planning.

There is a meaningful difference between "gridlock" and "congestion".

"Gridlock" is when the urban grid is at a standstill and nothing moves. It is dangerous if an emergency arises and rescue vehicles can't get through. The statistical examples of that are mostly found in very large (aka multi-million) cities. There is no gridlock in Ottawa and we are statistically not even close to that even in our busiest downtown intesections.

"Congestion" is when traffic cannot clear intersections within a given number of signal cycles. We have this already in Ottawa and it is an accepted part of the urban condition at rush hour. It means that traffic moves slowly. This, in turn, allows people to feel more at ease walking next to slow-moving motor vehicles. This is a good thing in my book, if you are a pedestrian. Besides, slow moving traffic is good for streetside businesses. Drivers moving slowly and waiting three lights to clear a street corner start noticing stores.

If you are a motorist, you have a choice. In larger cities, drivers gradually self-select away from private vehicles and toward public transit when the time to drive becomes unacceptably long. Those who need to drive, will keep driving. Those who can choose, will choose. Some may still choose to stick to their cars and listen to the radio or whatever else. Some people actually enjoy long commutes as "alone time". No amount of transit will change that. But for those who value their time, then congestion is the only way to force the issue. Will the city be a driving city or a transit city? And part of answering "transit" is, very much, increasing frequency of service and establishing transit priority measures and bus-only lanes. Transit has to give you a clear time advantage. Vancouver is doing this. They meticulously congest their central area to get people to self-select.

In transportation planning, Ottawa is now starting to shift from the principle of "moving vehicles" to that of "moving people". I say that is not only adequate planning, it's exactly what we need.

[RTWAP]

I agree with ajldub's point that there is an attitude on this board that intensification is always good. It's not. The details of a project matter.

I agree with the general opinion that intensification is a positive, when weighing all the aspects of a particular proposal. We may all think the zoning limits are too low, but that doesn't mean that any proposal that exceeds them, by any amount, is justified.

Personally, I like the requested heights for this project, but don't like the proposal for the convent site.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ajldub

I don't know, JP, I really just don't know how to enlighten you on the fact that the convent development is terrible.

I am glad you feel validated, though.

Why don't you answer me this: how is a wall built around a grade A heritage building a precedent for putting up a 12 storey condo in front of the building?

Well, for starters, enlightenment is really just a matter of opinion. Therefore, neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Thank you. That's good to know since I really care about what people say on the internet. /sarcasm.

How is it a precedent? Two things:

A) The wall obscured the building from the public eye. Let's be honest, the only reason people are raising a fuss about this building is because it has the word "heritage" attached to it even though many have never seen nor had anything to do with the site. Now, before you lop my head off about me not caring about heritage, I am all for protecting the beautiful historic buildings we have. However, if the heritage aspect is to be preserved but still removed from the passing gazes of drivers and pedestrians along Richmond by having a condo in front of it, I can't exactly find a reason to complain or oppose it. Although, I will lament the destruction of the garden...

B) Now for an entirely different precedent. I see a lot of parallels between the Sisters site and what happened to the Abbotsford House site in the Glebe. The only discernable difference is that Abbotsford House didn't have a wall and the arrangement of the site was different. The Abbotsford House site ran parallel to the major area road(Bank St.) whereas the Sisters site runs perpendicular to the major area road(Richmond Rd.). Lo and behold, the Abbotsford site has the following: preserved heritage aspect and increased density(albeit seniors residence) along an approved corridor that corresponds to the city's official plan.

Now let's look at the Sisters site and what is being proposed...

Well make me shout and call me John Baird; it's even LESS! The condo towers/seniors residence are shorter AND have setbacks, there is FAR more greenspace included, an active effort to bring people to the heritage aspect in question, preservation of the heritage aspect itself and increased density along an approved corridor that corresponds to the city's official lan.


THAT, good sir, is my precedent.

[ajldub]

Oh. And how about the 12 storeys of condo directly east of the schoolyard playground, that will block any sunshine until maybe 2 in the afternoon for the students? What's your precedent for that? Casualty of war of the official plan for a utopian Ottawa?

[waterloowarrior]

Showdown brewing over condo proposal
Hickory Street plan ‘out of scale’ for area: Leadman



By Joanne Chianello , The Ottawa CitizenMarch 19, 2010 11:02 PM

Map
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Sh...383/story.html
Photograph by: Robert Cross, The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA — The latest conflict between residents and builders is set to spark on Monday when the developer of a proposed 334-unit complex just west of Ottawa’s Little Italy meets with community members.

Although the March 22 meeting is billed as a chance for the public to learn more about the 125 Hickory St. development and to voice any concerns, the councillor for the area has already said she does not support the plan.

“It’s very much out of scale for the area,” said Kitchissippi Councillor Christine Leadman, adding that she’s heard from both nearby residents and business owners “who share the same concerns.”

Mastercraft Starwood is the developer behind the SOHO Champagne project, which calls for two condominium towers — one 20 storeys high, and the other 24 storeys — plus 31 town houses. The structures would all be connected in a single complex at the intersection of Hickory Street and Champagne Avenue, just west of Preston Street and north of Carling Avenue.

Both towers would sit on a three-floor base or podium, which would also include the town houses. According to city planning staff, this design allows for more sunlight to pass through the buildings, than a wider, 12-storey building, while accommodating the same number of people.

If built, the condo towers would be taller than other structures in the area, said Leadman. There is a 14-storey building on Breezehill Avenue, less than a block way, and a 19-storey one being built on nearby Adeline Street.

The O-Train looms large in discussions about this project because the city’s intensification plan calls for more development near train stations. This proposal fits the bill for proximity, but Leadman charges that it falls short on several other fronts.

Intensification plans call not only for more residential units, but also amenities for the increased number of residents, the idea being that all necessary goods and services are within walking distance.

“They haven’t done that in this plan,” said Leadman of the 100-per-cent residential proposal.

The design for 125 Hickory calls for three levels of underground parking. Leadman said the high number of parking spots is also in contravention of the concept of intensification, which is to get people on transit and walking, and get cars off the road.

Although a condo without a parking space might sound like a hard sell, “you can’t have it both ways,” said Leadman.

Mastercraft, which is already building the SOHO Parkway condo tower across from Tunney’s Pasture, will make its presentation on Monday at the Civic Hospital Amphitheatre, from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ajldub

Oh. And how about the 12 storeys of condo directly east of the schoolyard playground, that will block any sunshine until maybe 2 in the afternoon for the students? What's your precedent for that? Casualty of war of the official plan for a utopian Ottawa?

Ottawa Technical Institute and Lisgar Collegiate immediately come to mind.

And who said anything about utopian?

P.S. The schoolyard mostly backs onto the heritage aspect of the site plan, so I don't think it'll exactly be 12 storeys they'll be dealing with.

[eemy]

This kind of reminds me of the Vancouver-style of condo development. This may have been mentioned, but will there be walkups?

[blackjagger]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

This kind of reminds me of the Vancouver-style of condo development. This may have been mentioned, but will there be walkups?

All the townhouses along the podium will be walk-ups. So all along Hickory, the O-Train cut, and Champagne. And yeah it reminds me alot of a Vancouver Style development.

Cheers,
Josh

[Dado]

Originally Posted by 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?!?!

Funny how that 4-or-5-storey condo being built on Scott Street at Winona right now never ran into any vocal opposition. I have not heard a peep from anyone about that project. The McRae Avenue project is attracting opposition only really from its backdoor neighbours on Clifton Road, although others want a traffic light put in at McRae and Scott (which is hardly what one could call an unreasonable request).

Given that I think you have to be careful about making blanket statements about opposition to intensification. It's perfectly possible to support the Official Plan's goals of intensification and still oppose intensification involving buildings above 6 storeys.

And I think Westboro and Hintonburg residents have a valid point when they ask "why so much here?" After all, we're still busy building new suburbs on a low-rise model; you have to look long and hard for anything higher than 4 storeys and you will not find any attempt to recreate a traditional mainstreet in new developments (Centrum Blvd, which Councillor Monette is opposing, is an after-the-fact attempt to create such a thing in Orleans). What's good and expected for Westboro and Hintonburg should occur further out in new developments where there's no one around yet to oppose them, right? Right now we're building a $53M transitway extension into Barrhaven's so-called "town centre" but the tallest building you'll find there is the cinema. There's a serious disconnect between what is expected in inner-area communities and what is allowed to be built further out. Indeed, the very same developers who complain about nimbys opposing their tall condos in the inner areas also complain about the City trying to impose minimum densities further out and restricting the growth of the urban boundary.

Originally Posted by 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.

I too was there when the 1100 number came out for the three developments, but I didn't believe the number when it came out of his mouth since moments before he had said what the total number of units was (can't recall now) and my instant mental calculation placed the population closer to 1500. I would think the number that everyone else calculated would be similar and that kind of low-balling just makes people angrier.

[waterloowarrior]

The Scott-Winona condo was originally zoned for 6 floors and was later rezoned for 8 storeys.. community association was against rezoning, or at least had concerns (loss of SF home character, traffic, height). Not sure why they built only 4 or so, my guess is that it was a wood construction vs concrete thing.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Dado

And I think Westboro and Hintonburg residents have a valid point when they ask "why so much here?" After all, we're still busy building new suburbs on a low-rise model; you have to look long and hard for anything higher than 4 storeys and you will not find any attempt to recreate a traditional mainstreet in new developments (Centrum Blvd, which Councillor Monette is opposing, is an after-the-fact attempt to create such a thing in Orleans). What's good and expected for Westboro and Hintonburg should occur further out in new developments where there's no one around yet to oppose them, right? Right now we're building a $53M transitway extension into Barrhaven's so-called "town centre" but the tallest building you'll find there is the cinema. There's a serious disconnect between what is expected in inner-area communities and what is allowed to be built further out. Indeed, the very same developers who complain about nimbys opposing their tall condos in the inner areas also complain about the City trying to impose minimum densities further out and restricting the growth of the urban boundary.

Developers won't build what they can't sell (or at least what they perceive they can't sell). A development will sell a whole lot faster in trendy Westboro or Little Italy versus "Barrhaven Station: Suburban living in the heart of the Riocan Marketplace. Steps to Kelsey's and Wal-Mart" For the consumer, if you're going to live out in Barrhaven, why not live in a townhouse or stacked town which will be fairly cheap and more spacious than a condo tower..... versus Westboro where a condo will be a much better 'bargain' versus the surrounding area and obviously be in a much more pleasant environment than a Barrhaven highrise. As for Barrhaven Minto will be building some more density (although in a different form than originally planned).

edit: Just talking about the present environment, that suburban town centre living can be a harder sell. I think with higher land prices and increased congestion these suburban town centres will be much more attractive.... look at all the massive development happening in suburban town centres in Toronto. And who knows, it's possible there is pent up demand right now but developers (and REIT shopping centre owners) just think it's too risky.

Edit 2: we had two recent examples on SSP where slow sales ended up turning multiple-apartment suburban developments into stacked towns