170 Preston St | 16.5 m | 5 fl | Completed

rocketphish · #1 Posted **May 12, 2015, 5:37 PM**

The property owner proposes to build a 5 storey residential development on a 570.8 m2 parcel of land located in a Traditional Mainstreet Zone at the Northwest corner of Preston Street and Laurel Street. The project design will be developed as a mixed-use residential development combined with retail at grade. The proposal calls for 15 new residential units (four of them will be 1 bedroom units and 11 will be 2 bedroom units.

There will be access to a one level parking garage by way of a ramp connected to a laneway at the west boundary of the property. The combined parking will include 4 surface parking spaces adjacent to the laneway and 10 parking spaces in the basement.

The height of the building from grade is five stories, and is approximately 16.5 metres to the roof.

Development application:
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__0M1ZP1

Aerial:
http://binged.it/1HbYVKp

Renderings:

Siteplan:

Kitchissippi · #2 Posted **May 12, 2015, 7:49 PM**

The large setback on Laurel is unnecessary and looks weird.

OTSkyline · #3 Posted **May 12, 2015, 7:52 PM**

Nice little project for Little Italy and densification for Preston. However, I wish it could have been a bit more exciting, and maybe a tiny bit more tall, like 7 - 9 stories...

1overcosc · #4 Posted **May 12, 2015, 7:52 PM**

That is a great render... shows the context perfectly.

Urbanarchit · #5 Posted **May 12, 2015, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The large setback on Laurel is unnecessary and looks weird.

It looks like it's trying to align with the houses beside it on Preston and Laurel.

It's good for some intensification, but it's rather bland.

Boxster · #6 Posted **May 12, 2015, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The large setback on Laurel is unnecessary and looks weird.

I believe the set back on the side(back) was required for the 4 parking spaces. The set back directly on Laurel is nice as it adds a bit of greenery.

McC · #7 Posted **May 12, 2015, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

I wish it could have been a bit more exciting, and maybe a tiny bit more tall, like 7 - 9 stories...

we don't need 7-9 storeys on traditional main streets with relatively narrow rights of way, especially when it's not so deep a lot that you can have "invisible" upper floors using 45-degree step backs.

update: or at least where you can't have more than the one "invisible" set-back upper floor.

J.OT13 · #8 Posted **May 13, 2015, 12:18 AM**

It's a little plain, but a fine project nonetheless. Very happy with the height for the area.

waterloowarrior · #9 Posted **May 13, 2015, 12:36 AM**

The 3 metre side yard setback on Laurel is the minimum requirement in the by-law, although it looks like the existing building is closer than that. It could probably be moved a metre or two closer for a more urban look, but the setback would also create a nice public space/sitting area in front of the commercial units... or maybe a patio?

I think I liked the more urban treatment of Option A; maybe there could be some kind of blend between landscaped and seating area. Having entrances on multiple facades on a corner lot is fairly rare on Preston north of the Queensway. Not sure about the stucco

Ottawa needs more smaller scale midrise projects like this...not everything needs to be flashy, 50% higher than the CDP, high condo fees etc.

MoreTrains · #10 Posted **May 13, 2015, 1:55 PM**

I think it blends with existing buildings well with a modern flair. Im a fan. Hopefully a nice cafe or even bridgehead could go on the main floor.

McC · #11 Posted **May 13, 2015, 2:04 PM**

you're kidding, right? Bridgehead's HQ is literally across the street.

<fished in>

1overcosc · #12 Posted **May 13, 2015, 4:17 PM**

5 story midrise.. is this wood-frame? If so, this could be yet another project made economical as a result of the decision to allow 5-story and 6-story wood buildings. Good to see a policy reform work out.

MoreTrains · #13 Posted **May 13, 2015, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McC

you're kidding, right? Bridgehead's HQ is literally across the street.

<fished in>

Well, I had no idea. But perhaps they could be going the Tim Hortons route...

Perhaps a nice patisserie.

S-Man · #14 Posted **May 13, 2015, 11:58 PM**

Some 4-5 storey builds on the Quebec side go with structural steel, but that doesn't seem to be very popular in Ontario. I don't see anyone being brave enough to go five full storeys of wood at this point. Maybe a one-floor concrete wall (foundation extension?) with four floors of wood on top?

depends what market/price point they're trying to reach, I guess.

1overcosc · #15 Posted **May 14, 2015, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

Some 4-5 storey builds on the Quebec side go with structural steel, but that doesn't seem to be very popular in Ontario. I don't see anyone being brave enough to go five full storeys of wood at this point. Maybe a one-floor concrete wall (foundation extension?) with four floors of wood on top?

depends what market/price point they're trying to reach, I guess.

There have been wood-frame proposals in Toronto at 5-6 stories this year. The recent wave of 5-6 story proposals in Ottawa has me thinking that they may also be taking advantage of the building code change.

MoreTrains · #16 Posted **May 14, 2015, 1:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

Some 4-5 storey builds on the Quebec side go with structural steel, but that doesn't seem to be very popular in Ontario. I don't see anyone being brave enough to go five full storeys of wood at this point. Maybe a one-floor concrete wall (foundation extension?) with four floors of wood on top?

depends what market/price point they're trying to reach, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

There have been wood-frame proposals in Toronto at 5-6 stories this year. The recent wave of 5-6 story proposals in Ottawa has me thinking that they may also be taking advantage of the building code change.

Dont forget the massive wood building in Kingston that caught fire mid-construction, was torn down, the rebuilt according to the same plans. I believe it is 5-6 floors. The main consideration between wood and steel/concrete is cost. Wood is cheaper (and is theoretically just as safe when completed) but steel and concrete provide a more sturdy building with better sound proofing comparitivley.

I would imagine this building will be fully wood construction.

1overcosc · #17 Posted **May 14, 2015, 2:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Dont forget the massive wood building in Kingston that caught fire mid-construction, was torn down, the rebuilt according to the same plans. I believe it is 5-6 floors. The main consideration between wood and steel/concrete is cost. Wood is cheaper (and is theoretically just as safe when completed) but steel and concrete provide a more sturdy building with better sound proofing comparitivley.

I would imagine this building will be fully wood construction.

The Kingston building was actually built under the old building code standards... it used various loopholes to be allowed to build wood despite being 5 stories.

It's nearing completion now, its tenants are guaranteed move in for September. I have a friend who is moving into that place.. I tease him about the fire all the time lol.

Uhuniau · #18 Posted **May 14, 2015, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McC

we don't need 7-9 storeys on traditional main streets with relatively narrow rights of way, especially when it's not so deep a lot that you can have "invisible" upper floors using 45-degree step backs.

update: or at least where you can't have more than the one "invisible" set-back upper floor.

Who's "we", and who decides what "we" need?

cityguy · #19 Posted **May 14, 2015, 11:14 PM**

Nice addition to the neighborhood,what are they asking for a unit?

waterloowarrior · #20 Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 12:23 PM**

approved