SOHO Italia [500 Preston St] | 96m | 30 fl | Completed - Page 21

Urbanarchit · #**401** Posted **Nov 28, 2013, 8:50 PM**

*

waterloowarrior · #**402** Posted **Dec 13, 2013, 4:57 AM**

OMB hearing scheduled for April 28, 2014
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL120352

umbria27 · #**403** Posted **Dec 13, 2013, 3:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Interesting opinion. And by interesting I mean the opposite, of course.

So, Mr. Darwin isn't a fan of Soho Italia due to its lack of trees? I wonder if he can he find me a downtown or central condo where there is a notable landscaped area below? I doubt it.
With the City's overly expensive approval process combined with their unwillingness to approve tall highrises (unless you're Claridge), builder's have had to build to their lot lines, which practically eliminates the potential to construct a landscaped area below.
Plus, considering that there is a big open grassy area 2 mins to the south next to the beautiful arboretum and experimental farm gardens, I highly doubt that purchasers of Soho Italia will be expecting a forest in their front entrance.

I appreciate some of Mr. Darwin's other blog posts, he certainly has a unique perspective, but this one is pretty weak. No other condo has offered or provided a plethora of trees (even those in the suburbs) and yet somehow Soho Italia is setting the bar low?? Maybe if someone designed a condo modeled after the home of the Lost Boys from Peter Pan, made of trees, vines, branches and leaves he would have a positive review.

Jungle, forest, and ornamental garden hyperbole aside, all Darwin is asking for more frequent trees between humans on the sidewalk and the road, and some shade in the public piazza. These are not unreasonable requests. Regardless of the height, the first floor of any building is still the one that most of us humans interact with and it deserves some effort.

Marcus CLS · #**404** Posted **Dec 14, 2013, 12:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by umbria27

Jungle, forest, and ornamental garden hyperbole aside, all Darwin is asking for more frequent trees between humans on the sidewalk and the road, and some shade in the public piazza. These are not unreasonable requests. Regardless of the height, the first floor of any building is still the one that most of us humans interact with and it deserves some effort.

The existing lot footprint and sidewalks do not allow for trees or a widened sidewalk at this location (too small). Some comments posted for the CDP in this area (not on this website) indicated the parking lot on Beech by the Prescott should be set aside as a park. Interesting suggestion by the community but difficult given I believe Arnon owns that property. If the parking lot on Beech were to be redeveloped there is alot of space to work with for trees. Mixed use centre with 3 maybe 4 towers staggered diagonally across the site with green space or a true piazza in between. So in conclusion something good could be done nearby.

gjhall · #**405** Posted **Dec 14, 2013, 3:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus CLS

The existing lot footprint and sidewalks do not allow for trees or a widened sidewalk at this location (too small). Some comments posted for the CDP in this area (not on this website) indicated the parking lot on Beech by the Prescott should be set aside as a park. Interesting suggestion by the community but difficult given I believe Arnon owns that property. If the parking lot on Beech were to be redeveloped there is alot of space to work with for trees. Mixed use centre with 3 maybe 4 towers staggered diagonally across the site with green space or a true piazza in between. So in conclusion something good could be done nearby.

My understanding is that this is the only site with enough space for a viable groceries tore, which is also a major needed amenity for people in the area.

waterloowarrior · #**406** Posted **Feb 4, 2014, 1:30 AM**

site plan has also been appealed to the OMB

J.OT13 · #**407** Posted **Feb 4, 2014, 5:19 PM**

I might be off my rocker, but hasn't it already been to the OMB like 3 times? I know the site plan is a little different for previous versions, but this is getting annoying.

Urbanarchit · #**408** Posted **Feb 4, 2014, 5:37 PM**

*

McC · #**409** Posted **Feb 4, 2014, 5:42 PM**

it costs very little to launch an appeal, but it costs a great deal to build a case that can pose a serious threat to anything other than a proposal's schedule.

Also don't forget that at least one of those previous appeals was launched by the Proponent. It's not always neighbours and NIMBYs who appeal.

S-Man · #**410** Posted **Feb 4, 2014, 8:15 PM**

Ugh. Is this thing ever going to get built?

As far as I can figure, it's the only tower by Dow's Lake that has a chance of being built and affecting the city's skyline.

waterloowarrior · #**411** Posted **Feb 5, 2014, 2:52 AM**

All three appeals were filed by the developer. One zoning appeal for lack of decision. Another zoning appeal regarding the Section 37 agreement (community contribution requirements). And according to devapps the site plan has also been appealed, I assume for lack of a decision.

1overcosc · #**412** Posted **Feb 5, 2014, 4:14 AM**

^ from that I gather that we have a situation where the developer REALLY wants to build this thing. Odd given that Icon right across the street is having trouble selling.

Urbanarchit · #**413** Posted **Feb 5, 2014, 5:06 AM**

*

gjhall · #**414** Posted **Feb 16, 2014, 10:30 PM**

I think they're in a hurry because if the CIBC site gets developed, they will have a harder time marketing their building which then may not have any views to speak of...

JackBauer24 · #**415** Posted **Feb 19, 2014, 1:13 AM**

Has any developer been rumored to be looking at the CIBC lot?

How cool would it be if they had a Soho Italia 2 in that lot, and both were the wavy looking design (Mar. 2013 rendering) with some type of sky bridge connecting them... One can dream.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gjhall

I think they're in a hurry because if the CIBC site gets developed, they will have a harder time marketing their building which then may not have any views to speak of...

Urbanarchit · #**416** Posted **Feb 21, 2014, 1:24 AM**

*

Urbanarchit · #**417** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 1:41 AM**

*

canabiz · #**418** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 2:19 AM**

Just something I saw on CBC News earlier (and not pointing fingers at anyone) but the residents around this area aren't particularly enthused about this project. Quick Google search found this

http://www.centretownnews.ca/index.p...646&Itemid=133

S-Man · #**419** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 4:08 AM**

As tempting as it is to envision NIMBYs as scofflaws, I still doubt it. Abandoned buildings/those under construction/etc get vandalized or torched all the time, and it is usually young people who are bored.

An age-old thing.

JackBauer24 · #**420** Posted **Apr 20, 2014, 2:24 PM**

While I agree that vandalizing youths are probably the most likely source of these latest incidents, there has been a higher rate of condo sales offices vandalized in the Little Italy area compared to other neighbourhoods (at least to my knowledge anyhow) Going back 2 years ago, the front windows of the Soho Champagne office were broken, the Hom sales office was vandalized, and shortly after the front of the Claridge Icon sales office was coated with paint (looked like someone threw paint-filled balloons at it). Now this year in a two week span, both the Soho Champagne and Italia offices are targets.

During this time period, I can't even think of another condo office having a vandalizing issue - then again, it's not like it would be front-page news if it did.