1451 Wellington St W | 39m | 12f | U/C

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by defishel

I agree, design should be more of a concern than the actual height of a building. To add, don't forget that not only does the city want to reject this building for being "three measly stories" more, but also that the community has out-and-out approved of, despite being taller than what their CDP allows.

However, I will say height should be a concern if you end up with a cluster of buildings of the same height, like Rideau or our CBD. Then asking for taller or shorter to change things up should be a part of design.

Damn right! Not only are the buildings on Rideau all the same height, but they all have similar terrible designs and they are all lot line to lot line.

The CBD, isn't too bad. Buildings usually have varying designs (excluding the Blue Glass District), the heights also vary somewhat and developers often leave space between towers, set-backs from the street and park or plaza space.

Another reason why I don't mind the CBD's monotonous height is that a CBD is suppose to be super dense with continuous 200+ feet walls.

Rideau on the other hand is our main street shopping/entertainment area; our version of Yonge, St-Catherine and Granville. These streets are mostly populated by 4-10 storey buildings with ground floor retail. You might find the odd tower, usually set back on a podium with a striking design. You won't find wall to wall bland, 300 foot pre-cast and concrete towers.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Damn right! Not only are the buildings on Rideau all the same height, but they all have similar terrible designs and they are all lot line to lot line.

The CBD, isn't too bad. Buildings usually have varying designs (excluding the Blue Glass District), the heights also vary somewhat and developers often leave space between towers, set-backs from the street and park or plaza space.

Another reason why I don't mind the CBD's monotonous height is that a CBD is suppose to be super dense with continuous 200+ feet walls.

Rideau on the other hand is our main street shopping/entertainment area; our version of Yonge, St-Catherine and Granville. These streets are mostly populated by 4-10 storey buildings with ground floor retail. You might find the odd tower, usually set back on a podium with a striking design. You won't find wall to wall bland, 300 foot pre-cast and concrete towers.

I know how much we groan about Rideau and how much this has been said, but Rideau is a failure and for some reason no one is challenging that.

When I was on top of that ugly parking garage in the Market yesterday, I looked at this vista and thought, "Ugh, it's going to look a lot worse with the 5 new proposed towers for the area." Behind 160 George will be three 27-storey buildings, beside it will be two 27-storey towers. Flat against the street. The Phoenix buildings are nearly the same as Plaza 3/4 minus the colouring and rounded corner. At least Claridge's Union du Canada condo proposal is going to be shorter than their preferred height (shorter by 4 floors, though), which will also be on the far left in this picture.

I don't mind the density of the CBD (love it, actually; I'm proud of that), but it's poor for pedestrians, and views of it aren't the greatest. I think moving South and West we should see some taller and some shorter, at least. And then when you get a bit of a distance from it, add a dramatically taller building to be wild.

With the main streets, the same can be said for the 6-storey limits. It will get to be bland when all you have are buildings of the same height all along it. I'd like to see some taller and some shorter to break up the wall.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by defishel

I know how much we groan about Rideau and how much this has been said, but Rideau is a failure and for some reason no one is challenging that.

When I was on top of that ugly parking garage in the Market yesterday, I looked at this vista and thought, "Ugh, it's going to look a lot worse with the 5 new proposed towers for the area." Behind 160 George will be three 27-storey buildings, beside it will be two 27-storey towers. Flat against the street. The Phoenix buildings are nearly the same as Plaza 3/4 minus the colouring and rounded corner. At least Claridge's Union du Canada condo proposal is going to be shorter than their preferred height (shorter by 4 floors, though), which will also be on the far left in this picture.

I don't mind the density of the CBD (love it, actually; I'm proud of that), but it's poor for pedestrians, and views of it aren't the greatest. I think moving South and West we should see some taller and some shorter, at least. And then when you get a bit of a distance from it, add a dramatically taller building to be wild.

With the main streets, the same can be said for the 6-storey limits. It will get to be bland when all you have are buildings of the same height all along it. I'd like to see some taller and some shorter to break up the wall.

The City should have imposed very high design standards for Rideau. And if not the City, developers should have stepped it up; it's arguably the most visible and most desirable area in the city. And again, I cannot stress this enough; same height sucks!

And no, I certainly don't suggest a wall of 6-8 storey buildings like Westboro. The problem most Ottawa main streets is that we demolish older 2-5 storey buildings and replace them with a line of one height, one design towers. Westboro Station and Q West (north side) come to mind. Same with Rideau. What makes the other mentioned streets great is not just varying heights, but varying façades.

Imagine Rideau if they would have kept and restored all the buildings that comprised Ogilvy; varied heights, varied designs.

Further east, there is no reasons why Phoenix can't by the adjoining parking lot and incorporate Dworkin Furs into the 4-5 storey podium of two towers, 12 and 16 storeys.

Although not in downtown Rideau, I also have an issue with the Rideau/Cobourg proposal where a nice old house (now a restaurant) will be demolished for a bland apartment building while the big ass parking lot next door will be preserved.

I would like to see parking lots redeveloped first, the lines of varied styled buildings preserved (and restored if need be) and larger historic buildings incorporated into new developments instead of replaced, replicated or façadismed.

In the CBD, we should continue building towers on podiums with arcades. A few 30-40 storey buildings (PdV parking lot, Standard Life III, and one more west of Lyon) would be great, with the rest stepping down towards the west and south.

All that to say, it pisses me off how the City approves any bland, boring building that matches the current zoning while rejecting good architecture if it varies a bit from the official plan.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And no, I certainly don't suggest a wall of 6-8 storey buildings like Westboro. The problem most Ottawa main streets is that we demolish older 2-5 storey buildings and replace them with a line of one height, one design towers. Westboro Station and Q West (north side) come to mind. Same with Rideau. What makes the other mentioned streets great is not just varying heights, but varying façades.

Imagine Rideau if they would have kept and restored all the buildings that comprised Ogilvy; varied heights, varied designs.

Further east, there is no reasons why Phoenix can't by the adjoining parking lot and incorporate Dworkin Furs into the 4-5 storey podium of two towers, 12 and 16 storeys.

Although not in downtown Rideau, I also have an issue with the Rideau/Cobourg proposal where a nice old house (now a restaurant) will be demolished for a bland apartment building while the big ass parking lot next door will be preserved.

I would like to see parking lots redeveloped first, the lines of varied styled buildings preserved (and restored if need be) and larger historic buildings incorporated into new developments instead of replaced, replicated or façadismed.

In the CBD, we should continue building towers on podiums with arcades. A few 30-40 storey buildings (PdV parking lot, Standard Life III, and one more west of Lyon) would be great, with the rest stepping down towards the west and south.

All that to say, it pisses me off how the City approves any bland, boring building that matches the current zoning while rejecting good architecture if it varies a bit from the official plan.

I agree with most of what you said. I'm equally unimpressed with the Rideau/Cobourg plans. I feel someone needs to stand up and actually do something useful if developers feel they have no social responsibilities.

I don't mind Westboro Station too much, except for the street interaction for the last phase. I'd like them to have kept at least this old building (toggle with the time travel feature to compare). They could have worked around it. Also notice how this building is has paired a pharmacy with a bank, not unlike Claridge Plaza 1-2.

Rideau would have looked much better if they kept the majority of the buildings along it. But if they kept Ogilvy as it was before at 5 stories and then built the extension at the 3rd or fourth floor so there's a different height along Rideau would have been better.

Hold on... So the site of Dworkin Furs is where the building will go, but there's space beside that that isn't being developed/ could be turned into another pair of twin towers? Do we know who owns it? Ugh... Ottawa, Ottawa, Ottawa...

I wonder if there's a bit of corruption? With the typical, boring developers the city just gives them what they want, even if it's detrimental. But if you have some developer new to the scene in Ottawa, they'll try to force you into doing what you don't want. Like, do they have some sort of backroom deal with Claridge and Richcraft?

[Skipper]

Well if the city can't be more accommodating for a new builder that has undertaken such extensive consultations and has the community association and neighbours on its side, it will deter builders from out of town to enter the market and we will continue to have bland ugly construction like the Claridge towers and the Qwest project and quality builders will avoid Ottawa.

Hold on, maybe it is because of the municipal elections this year that the City is reluctant to approve higher than appears in CDPs. However, how come has 560 Rideau has been rezoned from 6 storeys to 14 storeys?????? Can someone remind me whether developers contribute to municipal campaigns?????

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by defishel

I agree with most of what you said. I'm equally unimpressed with the Rideau/Cobourg plans. I feel someone needs to stand up and actually do something useful if developers feel they have no social responsibilities.

I don't mind Westboro Station too much, except for the street interaction for the last phase. I'd like them to have kept at least this old building (toggle with the time travel feature to compare). They could have worked around it. Also notice how this building is has paired a pharmacy with a bank, not unlike Claridge Plaza 1-2.

Rideau would have looked much better if they kept the majority of the buildings along it. But if they kept Ogilvy as it was before at 5 stories and then built the extension at the 3rd or fourth floor so there's a different height along Rideau would have been better.

Hold on... So the site of Dworkin Furs is where the building will go, but there's space beside that that isn't being developed/ could be turned into another pair of twin towers? Do we know who owns it? Ugh... Ottawa, Ottawa, Ottawa...

I wonder if there's a bit of corruption? With the typical, boring developers the city just gives them what they want, even if it's detrimental. But if you have some developer new to the scene in Ottawa, they'll try to force you into doing what you don't want. Like, do they have some sort of backroom deal with Claridge and Richcraft?

Love that time travel feature. Checked out the Ogilvy; you can see it not change at all since 2007 (other broken windows replied with plywood). I can see why they say it was deteriorating at a fast pace... NOT!

And yes, I wish they would have worked around BOTH buildings at Westboro Station. Thy could have made the plaza west of the brick building to keep the "Stevenson Hardware" art. The other building, I'm sure might have once had a nice façade that could have been replicated.

And yes, it's only the narrow Dworkin Furs lot that will hold the two Phoenix towers. Dworkin: gone. No debate. Parking lot stays for now and will likely be replaced by... wait for it... twin 27 storey bland condo towers. Don't know who owns that lot though.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Skipper

Hold on, maybe it is because of the municipal elections this year that the City is reluctant to approve higher than appears in CDPs. However, how come has 560 Rideau has been rezoned from 6 storeys to 14 storeys?????? Can someone remind me whether developers contribute to municipal campaigns?????

Doubtful. In this case the councillor and the residents of the ward support the building. For anyone to oppose it because they think they will not get elected because of this is silly. And I can't imagine the residents of Alta Vista Ward are as angry as residents of wards seeing development. Furthermore, it's kind of too late to try to do as residents want after three years of approving what people oppose. What's done is done.

But I wouldn't be surprised if there's favouritism for local developers over outside ones.

Have there been many that have come and failed in Ottawa's past that decided to leave the city be?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Skipper

Well if the city can't be more accommodating for a new builder that has undertaken such extensive consultations and has the community association and neighbours on its side, it will deter builders from out of town to enter the market and we will continue to have bland ugly construction like the Claridge towers and the Qwest project and quality builders will avoid Ottawa.

Hold on, maybe it is because of the municipal elections this year that the City is reluctant to approve higher than appears in CDPs. However, how come has 560 Rideau has been rezoned from 6 storeys to 14 storeys?????? Can someone remind me whether developers contribute to municipal campaigns?????

The City's opposition to the Mizrahi proposal shows developers that thought and effort is futile and your better off proposing some bland lot line to lot line bland building.

The one site isn't enough to win or loose the election. Besides, the community approves of this one, so does the councillor. The only one with a big problem with it, as far as I know, is Hume.

Reason why the Rideau one will be approved;

1. Old zoning, no CDP;
2. New infrastructure under Rideau increases capacity for higher zoning;
3. no one gives a shit about East Rideau.

And no, developers aren't suppose to contribute to campaigns. Could still be under the table though.

Note that the Rideau-Vanier's councillor, representing the ward with the most Claridge projects, can't say jack about them since his estranged father works for them.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Love that time travel feature. Checked out the Ogilvy; you can see it not change at all since 2007 (other broken windows replied with plywood). I can see why they say it was deteriorating at a fast pace... NOT!

And yes, I wish they would have worked around BOTH buildings at Westboro Station. Thy could have made the plaza west of the brick building to keep the "Stevenson Hardware" art. The other building, I'm sure might have once had a nice façade that could have been replicated.

And yes, it's only the narrow Dworkin Furs lot that will hold the two Phoenix towers. Dworkin: gone. No debate. Parking lot stays for now and will likely be replaced by... wait for it... twin 27 storey bland condo towers. Don't know who owns that lot though.

How much can we blame Fleury for what's been happening on Rideau? There's been how many proposals and only "one" that he's technically won, but what has he done to be guaranteed re-election? To ask for shorter buildings, better designs, or at least heritage conservation of two buildings?

The inside of Ogilvy might have deteriorated, but the outside I'm sure they could have kept. "Deterioration" and "not structurally sound" are favourites of developers when it comes to demolishing heritage buildings.

With how bad council consistently is with development, there must be another way to hold people to account and ensure proper development without this hold "voting every four years" thing that never produces desired results.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Note that the Rideau-Vanier's councillor, representing the ward with the most Claridge projects, can't say jack about them since his estranged father works for them.

Wait, West Rideau doesn't have a CDP? East does, but I'm surprised nothing for this area would exist.

He's estranged from his father? Maybe I was raised with odd beliefs, but if I'm estranged from someone why should it matter if my relative works for a company that's screwing over the city (not that the father should be penalized for his son's work any way)? If there's any integrity and care for the community and city then he should have been stricter. Maybe even tried to convince Claridge to do something better, right?

[J.OT13]

I'm not blaming Fleury (though I don't like the guy; think Ogilvy and Casino), but it would be nice to have someone who can face off with Claridge.

Ogilvy just needed a good interior cleanout and exterior restoration (could have used bricks and detailing from Besserer façade), but 0 structural work. That thing was solid as could be!

BTW, I'm starting a Rideau Street thread to continue this conversation.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm not blaming Fleury (though I don't like the guy; think Ogilvy and Casino), but it would be nice to have someone who can face off with Claridge.

Ogilvy just needed a good interior cleanout and exterior restoration (could have used bricks and detailing from Besserer façade), but 0 structural work. That thing was solid as could be!

BTW, I'm starting a Rideau Street thread to continue this conversation.

Good idea, we're too off topic. I'll respond to you there.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The CBD, isn't too bad. Buildings usually have varying designs (excluding the Blue Glass District), the heights also vary somewhat and developers often leave space between towers, set-backs from the street and park or plaza space.

Or, as I like to call it, dead space.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Or, as I like to call it, dead space.

They already have a plaza between tower I and II; it's used as a restaurant terrace, so not dead space.

What I'm suggesting is that they should have kept one of the old buildings with 50+ year of writing on the wall and build the terrace more east of the current location to a spot where the writing could have been displayed.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

They already have a plaza between tower I and II; it's used as a restaurant terrace, so not dead space.

What I'm suggesting is that they should have kept one of the old buildings with 50+ year of writing on the wall and build the terrace more east of the current location to a spot where the writing could have been displayed.

I mean, in general, those pointless stupid setbacks that the pointless stupid politicians, pointless stupid planners, and pointless stupid self-appointed community association types always seem to insist on, almost invariably become pointless stupid dead space.

I am hard-pressed to think of a set-back beautiful open space in Ottawa that actually functions as a people place.

I don't know which Towers I and II you're referring to.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I mean, in general, those pointless stupid setbacks that the pointless stupid politicians, pointless stupid planners, and pointless stupid self-appointed community association types always seem to insist on, almost invariably become pointless stupid dead space.

I am hard-pressed to think of a set-back beautiful open space in Ottawa that actually functions as a people place.

I don't know which Towers I and II you're referring to.

I'm thinking it might be the Clocktower Brew Pub on Richmond?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Damn right! Not only are the buildings on Rideau all the same height, but they all have similar terrible designs and they are all lot line to lot line.

What's the matter with lot line to lot line?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I mean, in general, those pointless stupid setbacks that the pointless stupid politicians, pointless stupid planners, and pointless stupid self-appointed community association types always seem to insist on, almost invariably become pointless stupid dead space.

I am hard-pressed to think of a set-back beautiful open space in Ottawa that actually functions as a people place.

I don't know which Towers I and II you're referring to.

Westboro Station at Richmond and Golden. Tower II has a Clock Tower Pub and uses the plaza as a restaurant terrace, as defishel mentioned.

When I talk about set backs, I'm asking for wider sidewalks. When I talk about plazas, I mean something usable and enjoyable with some sort of sculpture, water features, seating and/or, in the case of Westboro Station, a restaurant terrace.

Believe it or not, well designed and well placed parks and plazas are used, and enjoyed by the public. Good examples are the William Street mall, Place de Ville I, the World Exchange and the Market Courtyards.

But yes, in some cases, they are a total bust such as the plaza west of PdV Tower C, the park across the War Museum (other than festival season), the one in front of the old NCC info centre and the Bank of Canada Plaza. In fact, all of Sparks, west of Bank Street is under-utilized.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What's the matter with lot line to lot line?

This is an extreme example, but check out the sidewalk along the Bell switching building. Can't even walk side-by-side. And that my friend is the problem with lot line to lot line.


http://www.pastottawa.com/comparison...-o-connor/316/

Compare that to the Sunlife/Clarica Centre across the street where they left extra room. Wide sidewalks lined with trees.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This is an extreme example, but check out the sidewalk along the Bell switching building. Can't even walk side-by-side. And that my friend is the problem with lot line to lot line.


http://www.pastottawa.com/comparison...-o-connor/316/

Compare that to the Sunlife/Clarica Centre across the street where they left extra room. Wide sidewalks lined with trees.

But isn't this more about creating pedestrian space by taking away from the road instead of about buildings being right at the sidewalk? We could fix the southern side of Albert by widening the sidewalk by taking from the cars (not that anyone would want to walk next to Bell, which I'm sure planners were aware of when they did this strip). With smaller, older streets that may be harder to do.