HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #461  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 2:57 AM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,769
I'm starting to fear that some random "chateauesque" peaks are going to be slapped on to the (more bland in each iteration) modern box and that the result is going to be kitsch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #462  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 3:26 PM
pfaffml's Avatar
pfaffml pfaffml is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Windsor-Essex
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
I'm starting to fear that some random "chateauesque" peaks are going to be slapped on to the (more bland in each iteration) modern box and that the result is going to be kitsch.
I don't think that's what architectsAlliance will do. Adding a sloped roof will alter the sightines to the existing Chateau which is the only thing that the modernist addition has going for it. I think they will just add more limestone to the park facade to break it up and detail the glass to be more "compatible" (perhaps emulating the Tiffany windows from the Laurier Room?). Also a sloped roof would also go against everything Peter Clewes has stated as his design intent. He's not about to add a "historicist" roof to his modernist proposal.

I do wish that they would consider altering the massing so that it's not one big box and instead several smaller pavilions grouped together. The facade on the park looks scary and monotonous right now. But I doubt that will happen since it would alter the efficiency of the floor plan and the room layout which Larco is hoping for.

Last edited by pfaffml; Jun 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #463  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 3:34 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfaffml View Post
I don't think that's what architectsAlliance will do. Adding a sloped roof will alter the sightines to the existing Chateau which is the only thing that the modern addition has going for it. I think they will just add more limestone to the park facade to break it up and detail the glass to be more "compatible".

I wish that they would consider altering the massing so that it's not one big box and instead several smaller pavilions grouped together. The facade on the park looks scary and monotonous right now.
The reaction to public opposition so far seems to have been to keep the modern addition as safe and innocuous as possible, and I'm less and less sure that's the right way to go. I guess something modern but bold and iconic would have been too much to hope for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #464  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 3:59 PM
pfaffml's Avatar
pfaffml pfaffml is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Windsor-Essex
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
The reaction to public opposition so far seems to have been to keep the modern addition as safe and innocuous as possible, and I'm less and less sure that's the right way to go. I guess something modern but bold and iconic would have been too much to hope for.
I think it's clear by the push back and surveys on all the design iterations so far, that the public would like to see matching addition or to not have an addition at all. Not having one at all is out of the question. Larco wants those suites and they are going to get them and Peter Clewes will never design a matching addition. It's the antithesis of what he believes as a designer. The architectsAlliance portfolio only shows slick but ordinary modern condos, which is what we are going to get in the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #465  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 4:25 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfaffml View Post
I think it's clear by the push back and surveys on all the design iterations so far, that the public would like to see matching addition or to not have an addition at all. Not having one at all is out of the question. Larco wants those suites and they are going to get them and Peter Clewes will never design a matching addition. It's the antithesis of what he believes as a designer. The architectsAlliance portfolio only shows slick but ordinary modern condos, which is what we are going to get in the end.

I agree - the end result may well be something unpopular with the public AND architecturally ho-hum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #466  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 4:43 PM
FFX-ME's Avatar
FFX-ME FFX-ME is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,032
Larco and Architect's Alliance's approach seems very Trumpian. They will continue to propose ridiculously inadequate additions until the public tires of the debate and says "fine!". We are already starting to see evidence of this happening. Ottawa will then become another example on a list of bad additions to historical buildings like the former addition to Hotel MacDonald in Edmonton:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #467  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 5:09 PM
pfaffml's Avatar
pfaffml pfaffml is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Windsor-Essex
Posts: 7
A realistic look at what's in store for the future of this addition:

https://carleton.ca/arthistory/2018/...ateau-laurier/

I'm not liking what I'm reading.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #468  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 5:34 PM
daud daud is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfaffml View Post
A realistic look at what's in store for the future of this addition:

https://carleton.ca/arthistory/2018/...ateau-laurier/

I'm not liking what I'm reading.
I haven't followed the developments yesterday closely but my understanding was there was a real change in process that will essentially result in a rubber stamp in december.

Up until now, proposals have been presented, rejected, represented and rejected again. With the events of yesterday, as I understand it, there will be one more proposal presented and approved by a city staff member-no vote, no discussion, no opportunity to say no except by said staff member.

Jim watson is an astute politician. I like him and you can see him maneuvering the system well as it related to lansdowne, rideau carleton raceway etc..

I think this design is a huge mistake and I suspect the revamped design will be just as bad and that from the time it is built and onwards, people will go to major hills park and say "what were they thinking"

I thought the NCC would have a say in this, and it appears not which is unfortunate.

At the end of the day, its private land, but in the hearts of citizens, it is much more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #469  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 6:22 PM
movebyleap movebyleap is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix View Post
Right, so, I got fed up and spent half an hour sketching this out using some of my little sister's art supplies. I made my own modern Chateau Laurier expansion design.

My "mission" was: keep it as a box to maximize space, have lots of glass, but have elements that echo the original and complement it rather than detract from it.



I wanted the ground level to echo the original, so there is more stone. The windows could obviously be different, but I hope I get across the point that at street-level, this would blend in well with the existing structure. A section could become a "glass atrium" to denote that it is very much an entrance, and a modern one at that.

I created false crenelations that echo the existing structure, and would also bring your gaze upward which would then draw the eye toward the existing copper roof and "mask" the flat roof of the addition somewhat. There is still a plentiful amount of glass to open up the structure and provide spectacular views from within the addition.

This is what I came up with in 30 minutes and frankly, I think it's far better and more thoughtful than the garbage these goofballs took months to produce.
This is indeed vastly superior to all of Mr. Vancouver Condo King's proposals!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #470  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 8:28 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by movebyleap View Post
This is indeed vastly superior to all of Mr. Vancouver Condo King's proposals!
Thank you.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #471  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 2:38 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfaffml View Post
I do wish that they would consider altering the massing so that it's not one big box and instead several smaller pavilions grouped together. The facade on the park looks scary and monotonous right now. But I doubt that will happen since it would alter the efficiency of the floor plan and the room layout which Larco is hoping for.
I agree the wall facing Major's Hill Park is too monotonous. The variation in the north facade and set-backs on the top two floors was something I liked about the third version presented to the public (see below) while I preferred the materials and height of the latest version.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #472  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 2:27 PM
bradnixon bradnixon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,272
Looks like some Carleton Architecture students have taken a stab at the addition.

A couple of their proposals look pretty interesting.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...tion-1.4849083
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #473  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 2:41 PM
bradnixon bradnixon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,272
^^ I really like this one:



("Sitelines" by Teagan Hyndman and Lauren Liebe).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #474  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 5:42 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon View Post
^^ I really like this one:



("Sitelines" by Teagan Hyndman and Lauren Liebe).
I can't remember; is it sativa or indica that makes you see that way?
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #475  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 6:31 PM
bradnixon bradnixon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
I can't remember; is it sativa or indica that makes you see that way?
Stay classy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #476  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 7:00 PM
OTSkyline OTSkyline is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,194
I actually like that better than the last official proposal. Keeps the same colors and materials for the walls and roof, adds glass/modern addition and is cool enough to add distinction but low enough not to overpower the original hotel.

The only thing is this addition probably doesn't have the square footage the development company is looking for to add X amount of rooms/condos and be profitable (although that's not my concern).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #477  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 5:00 PM
OTownandDown OTownandDown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 64
Does anyone remember, off hand, where one might find the tunnel/rail turning tunnel map under the Chateau Laurier? I remember seeing the map with the tunnels superimposed over the plan of the hotel, but can't seem to find it...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #478  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 5:56 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,145
I have a book, but never seen it online. The turning tunnel is entirely under the Plaza Bridge. It is still accessible through the bike rental shop. Not sure how far it is (even less level difference) from the Château-Union pedestrian tunnel.

Worth noting there is also a tunnel between 700 Sussex and Connaught building that connects to the hotel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #479  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 6:25 PM
OTownandDown OTownandDown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
I have a book, but never seen it online. The turning tunnel is entirely under the Plaza Bridge. It is still accessible through the bike rental shop. Not sure how far it is (even less level difference) from the Château-Union pedestrian tunnel.

Worth noting there is also a tunnel between 700 Sussex and Connaught building that connects to the hotel.
The tunnel from the east is the tunnel I'm interested in. Does it go under the footing from the parking garage, or just butt into the east side (north-east) corner of the main building? There's a loading dock shown in those new renderings, does that mean the tunnel has to go?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #480  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 6:58 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,145
There's a little about the tunnel, including a few pictures, on Urbsite.

http://urbsite.blogspot.com/2009/09/...1928-wing.html

The tunnel was built well before the parking garage, so I don't think its demolition or the hotel's expansion will have any effect on it.

I'll see if my book has any more info.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:33 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.