News   Feb 05, 2024
Announcing SkyriseCities Ottawa Forum!
 2.2K     0 
News   Jan 27, 2020
Diamond Schmitt-Designed Library and Archives Revealed in Ottawa
 2.3K     0 
News   Nov 14, 2019
Second Tower in Ottawa's Greystone Village Reaches Milestone
 2.4K     0 

SoHo Westboro | 34m | 9s | Mastercraft Starwood | RLA

I'm opposed to this tower at this location. We should be retaining the village feel of the main street through Westboro with focus on appropriate setback for low rise density along Richmond. As a local, I'm all for the Westboro Village development because it supports the needed units around mass transit and doesn't compromise the natural feel of the neighborhood main street. Graham Spry will likely be sold and redeveloped in the future and with Tunney's development on the horizon which are great candidates for height. It seems a shame to me to sacrifice these historical and vibrant (by Ottawa standards at least) centres to jam in an out of context tower which is surely to result in a bait and switch stain on the village.
 
KissTheSky said:
I'm opposed to this tower at this location. We should be retaining the village feel of the main street through Westboro with focus on appropriate setback for low rise density along Richmond. As a local, I'm all for the Westboro Village development because it supports the needed units around mass transit and doesn't compromise the natural feel of the neighborhood main street. Graham Spry will likely be sold and redeveloped in the future and with Tunney's development on the horizon which are great candidates for height. It seems a shame to me to sacrifice these historical and vibrant (by Ottawa standards at least) centres to jam in an out of context tower which is surely to result in a bait and switch stain on the village.
Click to expand...
I don't support the tower but if we say nothing of height can be built in certain areas were going to end up with massive issues.
 
KissTheSky said:
I'm opposed to this tower at this location. We should be retaining the village feel of the main street through Westboro with focus on appropriate setback for low rise density along Richmond. As a local, I'm all for the Westboro Village development because it supports the needed units around mass transit and doesn't compromise the natural feel of the neighborhood main street. Graham Spry will likely be sold and redeveloped in the future and with Tunney's development on the horizon which are great candidates for height. It seems a shame to me to sacrifice these historical and vibrant (by Ottawa standards at least) centres to jam in an out of context tower which is surely to result in a bait and switch stain on the village.
Click to expand...
It my opinion, it's 9 stories. It's really not that big of an issue. It adds more than it takes away.
 
jay2028 said:
I don't support the tower but if we say nothing of height can be built in certain areas were going to end up with massive issues.
Click to expand...
I don't think its one or the other. It's not as if there aren't plenty of land use opportunities for height in the area and designating a historical area for the natural feel is worth preserving.
 
J.OT13 said:
That's what I call "true NIMBYism", those who think we should have a 6 storey limit everywhere and LeBreton+Zibi should be giant parks. Those who oppose even developments that are within zoning rules. Those who opposed any change regardless.

Leiper has been pushing for densification. He's been supportive of towers on Scott and small scale infills in Hintonburg. He's supported upzoning much of the inner Greenbelt. Once in a while, he does oppose projects that are well out of whack of existing zoning. Even with that, some will call him a NIMBY for this opposing this one proposal.
Click to expand...
It has become quite the reductive label as of late.

Especially in local politics where every single politician has taken a "NIMBY" position on something. If you look at votes that aren't unanimous at planning committee while Leiper has been chair, he has taken the "YIMBY" position on everything outside Tewin last fall. Aside from Tierney, every other councillor has taken at least two "NIMBY" positions from what I can tell. But even Tierney got a neighbourhood exempted from height in the new zoning bylaw. The Mayor himself has taken a "NIMBY" position on the Kanata Golf Course.

Personally, I would prefer to not have tall towers on mainstreets, but this is close to LRT so I am conflicted. Maybe they'd win me over if they promise not to put those stupid letters on their building!
 
Katimavid said:
It has become quite the reductive label as of late.

Especially in local politics where every single politician has taken a "NIMBY" position on something. If you look at votes that aren't unanimous at planning committee while Leiper has been chair, he has taken the "YIMBY" position on everything outside Tewin last fall. Aside from Tierney, every other councillor has taken at least two "NIMBY" positions from what I can tell. But even Tierney got a neighbourhood exempted from height in the new zoning bylaw. The Mayor himself has taken a "NIMBY" position on the Kanata Golf Course.

Personally, I would prefer to not have tall towers on mainstreets, but this is close to LRT so I am conflicted. Maybe they'd win me over if they promise not to put those stupid letters on their building!
Click to expand...
Even Tierney. He opposed 1649 Montreal (https://ottawa.skyrisecities.com/fo...al-741-blair-84m-25s-bertone-rla.41776/page-2) at the time because rich folks in Rothwell Heights. Tbf, staff also recommended against it. It has been rubber stamped by LPAT since and nearly at grade today.

I'd love to see towers on Scott and a transition down to Posthouse sized buildings in Westboro Village. That would still raise the density significantly while preserving some of that main street feel. The reality is that Councillors represent existing residents. For the most part, other than a few of Councillors (Luloff, Menard and Hubley come to mind) they've been pretty good at balancing what the locals want and responding to development pressures of a growing city.
 
I think the original proposal is perfect for the location.

Parkdale intersection is a spot for more height. Not here.

Plus the new proposal is ugly compared to the old one. If your going to feed me sh!t then toss some sprinkles on top at least.

Edit. I guess I have to reflect on what I said on SSP. Which is; I don't really care. Which I don't as far as height goes. I'm not going to say no. But there is a type of continuity that should be adhered too that I don't think is hard to discern. To a certain extent.. the NIMBY residents of this city kind of bring it upon themselves. Constantly going against proposals that are ideal for the location solely on the basis that its "too tall". Without ever seemingly examining anything else about the project.
 
Last edited:
I live close by and the approved 9 story proposal is acceptable to me. I agree the new proposal is a bit much. I like the idea of the Europeanization of the Main Street Corridors that is 6 to 10 story buildings. The issue is the existing secondary plan overlaps the 600 m. radious TOD established around Kitchissippi Station. Under the new comprenhensive zoning by- law one of the HUB zones is defined by allowing TOD development of greater height within 300 m. starting at a min. of 15 stories and higher. The compressive zoning by- law is subject to the provisions of the existing secondary plans, therefore the secondary plan trumps the 300 m. TOD Hub zone. However I believe it was posted earlier in this thread that the existing secondary plan was created in 2007 with a planning time line of 20 years. That means the secondary plan is due to be updated in 2027. Mastercraft Starwood could argue that the secondary plan is now outdated at the LPAT. They could submit the official documents now and drag it out till 2027. Having said that the nearest apartment high rise at Golden Avenue and Richmond Road is 17 stories which is a mere 180 m. away. Therefore from a purely planning perspective and not "feelings", I believe a 17 story proposal is acceptable and could be a compromise if it goes to LPAT. Perhaps Mastercraft Starwood should just revise it now and perhaps avoid LPAT. Other then the local councilor, which is one vote, it might just get approved. I am aware if there were a tie vote at planning committee the chair would be the tie breaker I believe. Therefore we all know how that would go.
 
Marcus CLS said:
I live close by and the approved 9 story proposal is acceptable to me. I agree the new proposal is a bit much. I like the idea of the Europeanization of the Main Street Corridors that is 6 to 10 story buildings. The issue is the existing secondary plan overlaps the 600 m. radious TOD established around Kitchissippi Station. Under the new comprenhensive zoning by- law one of the HUB zones is defined by allowing TOD development of greater height within 300 m. starting at a min. of 15 stories and higher. The compressive zoning by- law is subject to the provisions of the existing secondary plans, therefore the secondary plan trumps the 300 m. TOD Hub zone. However I believe it was posted earlier in this thread that the existing secondary plan was created in 2007 with a planning time line of 20 years. That means the secondary plan is due to be updated in 2027. Mastercraft Starwood could argue that the secondary plan is now outdated at the LPAT. They could submit the official documents now and drag it out till 2027. Having said that the nearest apartment high rise at Golden Avenue and Richmond Road is 17 stories which is a mere 180 m. away. Therefore from a purely planning perspective and not "feelings", I believe a 17 story proposal is acceptable and could be a compromise if it goes to LPAT. Perhaps Mastercraft Starwood should just revise it now and perhaps avoid LPAT. Other then the local councilor, which is one vote, it might just get approved. I am aware if there were a tie vote at planning committee the chair would be the tie breaker I believe. Therefore we all know how that would go.
Click to expand...
My concern is not this year but the new term of council.
 
Marcus CLS said:
I live close by and the approved 9 story proposal is acceptable to me. I agree the new proposal is a bit much. I like the idea of the Europeanization of the Main Street Corridors that is 6 to 10 story buildings. The issue is the existing secondary plan overlaps the 600 m. radious TOD established around Kitchissippi Station. Under the new comprenhensive zoning by- law one of the HUB zones is defined by allowing TOD development of greater height within 300 m. starting at a min. of 15 stories and higher. The compressive zoning by- law is subject to the provisions of the existing secondary plans, therefore the secondary plan trumps the 300 m. TOD Hub zone. However I believe it was posted earlier in this thread that the existing secondary plan was created in 2007 with a planning time line of 20 years. That means the secondary plan is due to be updated in 2027. Mastercraft Starwood could argue that the secondary plan is now outdated at the LPAT. They could submit the official documents now and drag it out till 2027. Having said that the nearest apartment high rise at Golden Avenue and Richmond Road is 17 stories which is a mere 180 m. away. Therefore from a purely planning perspective and not "feelings", I believe a 17 story proposal is acceptable and could be a compromise if it goes to LPAT. Perhaps Mastercraft Starwood should just revise it now and perhaps avoid LPAT. Other then the local councilor, which is one vote, it might just get approved. I am aware if there were a tie vote at planning committee the chair would be the tie breaker I believe. Therefore we all know how that would go.
Click to expand...

I suppose the tower steps back from the podium a fair amount facing Richmond and also has a little colonnade feature on the first floor of the tower portion. That's a plus. The tower being split in two offset and then having another floor stick up as a sort of crown with an angled roof is a plus.

Give me the original 9 floor proposal with another 8 on top and we are talkin!

Trying to think of the SOHO buildings and in what order they built them in. Lisgar, EW. Parkdale, Meh. Italia, Fantastic. So they seem to be trending better.
 
Lisgar and Parkdale were very nice at the time, but on the plain side in hindsight. Lack of retail and big garage door tacked on are disappointing.

Champagne 1 was nice, but I'm not a fan of Champagne 2's podium, but at least it has retail.

Italia is fantastic.
 
Oh right. Champagne. Of course.

Those two buildings would do better had they stood on their own on an arterial road with their opposite convex faces.

Now that I think about it.. They are effectively drawn out versions of Parkdale.

And Lisgar was not nice at the time. That building is... deplorable. I don't mind Parkdale but it lacks imagination. That being said it was the first to plant a flag on that stretch of road in some time. Given the elevation from the flats and all its new neighbors some extra height would have been nice. I appreciate that the backside of it is wall to wall balcony. If you look at Lisgar its just .. pure commie block on the north face.

So in the end. Champagne and Italia are their last 3 towers. I can get with that. This would be their first tower rolling with a non black or charcoal finish though.

I think dark finishes are picked because they hide mediocre design choices and try to look sharp.

Case in point. My parents used to have a 1988 Corolla Wagon. They had set it aside for me. . It was a medium metallic blue. All I wanted to do was paint it flat black. Think about that for a second haha.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top