Rideau Centre Expansion | Completed

[c_speed3108]

As a small note on the Ogilvy's building: The top two floors of the building are not original. They were added later on.


One element of the Rideau mall expansion that I am disappointed not to see is the theatres on the 4th floor upgrade and expanded. Both more screens as well as some of the modern style setup with steeper seating etc. They would easily have the space to do it when they expand.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I thought about the visual symmetry (3 floors thru out), but we have the 8 storey Transportation building on the N-W corner. As for the blank wall (which would be lower than the Transportation building) we could see a mural depicting the history of the Rideau Centre area.

What about the floor heights? Are they the same as the rest of the Rideau Centre?

I, for one, am happy that they will finally do something with the Ogilvy building. I was hoping for a Simons there, but H&M was my 2nd choice. Speaking of Simons, I am disappointed that they aren't being mentioned in the expansion plans, I am also skeptical about Nordstrom, I would have much prefered to see Simons open up their 1st Ottawa area store in that space. For sure it would have generated way more traffic than a Nordstrom (too expensive for the average shopper) ever will.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

As a small note on the Ogilvy's building: The top two floors of the building are not original. They were added later on.

Yes, I know. Original building (which is to be preserved) dares back to 1907, full Nicholas street façade dates to 1917, 4th floor 1931 and 5th floor from 1934.

It has been in its full configuration for 78 years, so longer than any of its former configurations. When they built the expansions, every one of them we're built with meticulous detailing showing pride and respect for the building and every one of those expansions were approved supervised by Charles Ogilvy himself.

History is more than just a wall or two; history is a complete building that has stood on the same site, with all of its original (1934) features still intact (damaged, but never taken off the building, only the "Charles Ogilvy" sign is missing and the ground floor facings taken out for the Rideau Bus mall of 83') growing with its city, watching the years go buy with millions of people who went in and out of the building with memories of its glory days. And as I said before, after 15 years of abandonment, the building still looks as straight and solid as it did nearly a century ago (and over a century in the case of the 1907 store). If people think the buildings in the Chaudière district, that clearly have severe structural problems, can be saved, then Ogilvy's restoration should be a piece of cake.

And to answer Radster’s question about floor height; if you look at the detail of the wall section near the end of this document, right after the black and white picture of the 1917 store, it does in fact look like Ogilvy’s floors coincide with the centres expansion. But note that this is from the 2006 proposal which was only two floors (so the roof starts at about the halfway point of the 3d story window) as opposed to the 2012 proposal that will see 3 floors of expansion.

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...M-APR-0079.htm

[c_speed3108]

Ow that sucks. They are not evening keeping the entire first three floors...on a portion.

This could be better.

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yes, I know. Original building (which is to be preserved) dares back to 1907, full Nicholas street façade dates to 1917, 4th floor 1931 and 5th floor from 1934.

It has been in its full configuration for 78 years, so longer than any of its former configurations. When they built the expansions, every one of them we're built with meticulous detailing showing pride and respect for the building and every one of those expansions were approved supervised by Charles Ogilvy himself.

History is more than just a wall or two; history is a complete building that has stood on the same site, with all of its original (1934) features still intact (damaged, but never taken off the building, only the "Charles Ogilvy" sign is missing and the ground floor facings taken out for the Rideau Bus mall of 83') growing with its city, watching the years go buy with millions of people who went in and out of the building with memories of its glory days. And as I said before, after 15 years of abandonment, the building still looks as straight and solid as it did nearly a century ago (and over a century in the case of the 1907 store). If people think the buildings in the Chaudière district, that clearly have severe structural problems, can be saved, then Ogilvy's restoration should be a piece of cake.

And to answer Radster’s question about floor height; if you look at the detail of the wall section near the end of this document, right after the black and white picture of the 1917 store, it does in fact look like Ogilvy’s floors coincide with the centres expansion. But note that this is from the 2006 proposal which was only two floors (so the roof starts at about the halfway point of the 3d story window) as opposed to the 2012 proposal that will see 3 floors of expansion.

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...M-APR-0079.htm

Well said.

[spotlight]

in my own personal opinion (i'm allowed) ii actually really dislike the ogilvy building from a looks perspective.. it just looks very cheap and dingy.. i know it's been abandoned for a while but that's not what makes it look cheap and dingy to me.. it's rather the colour of the brick .. it's just bad.. i can agree that some of the detailing is nice but that's about all i like about the building.

i can appreciate the history of the building the fact that it dates back to so long ago and respect the tradition that was the Ogilvy Store but from a pure building perspective i wouldn't cry at all if it would've been torn down.

my 2 cents

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by spotlight

in my own personal opinion (i'm allowed) ii actually really dislike the ogilvy building from a looks perspective.. it just looks very cheap and dingy.. i know it's been abandoned for a while but that's not what makes it look cheap and dingy to me.. it's rather the colour of the brick .. it's just bad.. i can agree that some of the detailing is nice but that's about all i like about the building.

i can appreciate the history of the building the fact that it dates back to so long ago and respect the tradition that was the Ogilvy Store but from a pure building perspective i wouldn't cry at all if it would've been torn down.

my 2 cents

I can appreciate your opinion as you are in fact allowed to it. And I can see, although my opinion differs, how you might not like the brick colour. But do you believe that the Horticulture building deserves more respect than the Ogilvy?

It seems to me that the Horticulture is only "historic" because its architect was the pupil of an architect that, I think, was way over-rated i. e. Frank Lloyd Wright. It has absolutely nothing that could be considered as stand out features, and whatever interest it might have once had has been destroyed over the years. And, it being in Lansdowne Park, it was never part of the city's day to day life as the Ogilvy was. It is nothing but a bland, boring storage building. The Coliseum, which saw no debate for its rescue, had more to offer than the Horticulture.

Back to Ogilvy’s, if we truly are a group that stands for making this city a great urban experience bringing together a fascinating clash of both historic and modern design, the Ogilvy should be saved in its entirety. It is a reminder to the days before Ottawa was nothing more than a sea of bland office and apartment buildings, when private company’s took pride in their buildings and showed it by applying a great deal of effort into making their buildings spectacular pieces of architecture.

[spotlight]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I can appreciate your opinion as you are in fact allowed to it. But do you believe that the Horticulture building deserves more respect than the Ogilvy?

No i don't, i actually think that the city needs to really re-evaluate and re-think their definition of what a heritage building is or should be .. the aberdeen pavillion absolutely deserves heritage status yes.. the horticulture building is close it's a nice building with nice details but it doesn't deserve heritage protection in my opinion.

the city went way too lax in designating buildings heritage for not many merit points in my opinion

Heritage protection/designation.. to me is reserved for architectural gems or buildings that have had a significant moment or event in the city's history

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by spotlight

No i don't, i actually think that the city needs to really re-evaluate and re-think their definition of what a heritage building is or should be .. the aberdeen pavillion absolutely deserves heritage status yes.. the horticulture building is close it's a nice building with nice details but it doesn't deserve heritage protection in my opinion.

the city went way too lax in designating buildings heritage for not many merit points in my opinion

Heritage protection/designation.. to me is reserved for architectural gems or buildings that have had a significant moment or event in the city's history

I agree, they really do need to re-evaluate the definition of "historic".

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree, they really do need to re-evaluate the definition of "historic".

Tangential question, but there is a public list of Ottawa heritage sites - a Google maps mashup maybe?

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by umbria27

Tangential question, but there is a public list of Ottawa heritage sites - a Google maps mashup maybe?

http://www.openfile.ca/ottawa/ottawa...-network-above

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

http://www.openfile.ca/ottawa/ottawa...-network-above

Cool, thanks!

In other news, too give us all an idea and hope for the future, here from the Pacific Centre's website is a section about the malls redeveloppement.

For those who don't know, the Pacific Centre is the Vancouver equivalent to the Rideau Centre in Ottawa, i. e. the flagship downtown mall, both owned by Cadillac Faiview and both to get a Nordstrom and major re-newals and expansion.

•558,000 sq. ft. expansion of the Pacific Centre mixed use complex
•280,000 sq. ft. of AAA class office space
•230,000 sq. ft. will be a flagship Nordstrom Department Store
•48,000 sq. ft. of retail with 10 to 12 First-to-Market retailers
•LEED Certified

Architect : K. M. Cheng


http://www.pacificcentre.ca/en/redev...s/default.aspx

Oh, and they are converting the top 4 floors of the Sears building into office space. Kind of like what they could do with Ogilvy's, likely for less money.

I would like to know the exact cost for the Pacific's redeveloppment.

[lrt's friend]

I actually believe we should be respecting our heritage buildings more than we have. To some degree, I am saddened by the demolition of the Coliseum and I wish it could have been integrated with current Lansdowne plans. If we are really concerned about urbanism, we should look more towards Europe, where much more effort is made to preserve old buildings. On my first trip to Europe, I was struck by the effort that was being made to renovate old buildings in central Zurich. The value of modern buildings is often overrated. Who could really say that the architecture of the Rideau Centre is better than the old Frieman's Department Store or Ogilvy's? Furthermore, there is a great deal of collective good memories in these old buildings. After 40 years, there is still regret expressed that the old Capitol Theatre was torn down on Bank Street to be replaced by some very mediocre office buildings. I also believe that what we got when we demolished the Daly Building is underwhelming. I will therefore counter those comments that we should reduce our protection of heritage buildings. I believe that we should protect our heritage buildings more. Did you know that the Nicholas Sparks house had existed right until the early 1960s? A awful loss to some second rate federal building. Did you know that we almost lost the Billings Estate National Historic Site in the late 1960s, the oldest house in pre-amalgamation Ottawa? More heritage protection, not less.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I actually believe we should be respecting our heritage buildings more than we have. To some degree, I am saddened by the demolition of the Coliseum and I wish it could have been integrated with current Lansdowne plans. If we are really concerned about urbanism, we should look more towards Europe, where much more effort is made to preserve old buildings. On my first trip to Europe, I was struck by the effort that was being made to renovate old buildings in central Zurich. The value of modern buildings is often overrated. Who could really say that the architecture of the Rideau Centre is better than the old Frieman's Department Store or Ogilvy's? Furthermore, there is a great deal of collective good memories in these old buildings. After 40 years, there is still regret expressed that the old Capitol Theatre was torn down on Bank Street to be replaced by some very mediocre office buildings. I also believe that what we got when we demolished the Daly Building is underwhelming. I will therefore counter those comments that we should reduce our protection of heritage buildings. I believe that we should protect our heritage buildings more. Did you know that Nicholas Sparks house had existed right until the early 1960s? A awful loss to some second rate federal building. Did you know that we almost lost the Billings Estate National Historic Site in the late 1960s, the oldest house in pre-amalgamation Ottawa? More heritage protection, not less.

Amen to that!

[J.OT13]

Dosen't say a whole lot but here are "renders" of the four Nordstroms;

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....mediakitCanada

And the Rideau Centre, with massing of the expansion. You can see the new parking garage entrance at the end of Besserer and the rounded corner of the 1907 façade of the soon to be mostly lost Charles Ogilvy.

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_...tromRideau.jpg

Not sure why the OCC is missing.

[spotlight]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I actually believe we should be respecting our heritage buildings more than we have. To some degree, I am saddened by the demolition of the Coliseum and I wish it could have been integrated with current Lansdowne plans. If we are really concerned about urbanism, we should look more towards Europe, where much more effort is made to preserve old buildings. On my first trip to Europe, I was struck by the effort that was being made to renovate old buildings in central Zurich. The value of modern buildings is often overrated. Who could really say that the architecture of the Rideau Centre is better than the old Frieman's Department Store or Ogilvy's? Furthermore, there is a great deal of collective good memories in these old buildings. After 40 years, there is still regret expressed that the old Capitol Theatre was torn down on Bank Street to be replaced by some very mediocre office buildings. I also believe that what we got when we demolished the Daly Building is underwhelming. I will therefore counter those comments that we should reduce our protection of heritage buildings. I believe that we should protect our heritage buildings more. Did you know that the Nicholas Sparks house had existed right until the early 1960s? A awful loss to some second rate federal building. Did you know that we almost lost the Billings Estate National Historic Site in the late 1960s, the oldest house in pre-amalgamation Ottawa? More heritage protection, not less.

I think you misunderstood my point.. I completely agree that the buildings that warrant heritage designation should be protected vigorously. What i'm saying is that for many buildings on the protected heritage list currently they simply do not belong on the list.. having good memories about the building doesn't warrant heritage status... if a significant moment or event occurred or took place absolutely.. if the building holds unique architectural design absolutely.

I actually believe that there are buildings in Ottawa that deserve heritage status but don't have it .. while others are on the list without any warrant other than the fact that it was lobbied by a small group of concerned citizens.

Europe isn't a comparable, I love Europe and i've been in aww of the feel of the cities every time i've been. But you simply can't compare the feel of Europe with it's hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of history.

to get back to the sub plot that brought this on.. The Ogilvy building from a purely architectural stand point is a very average looking building with some nice details yes but details that can be found in many other buildings in the city therefore not unique.. In contrast, the transportation building at the other end of the Rideau Centre (also a heritage status building) has an ornate crown and detailing that can't be found in other buildings in the city .. that meets the criteria of uniqueness therefore it deserves heritage status.

That leaves a significant moment or event of history to get the ogilvy building to make sense as a heritage building ... As interesting as the Ogilvy department store was .. this location wasn't even the original location of the store ..seems like if the store's history in the city is the importance than the original location would've been the one to preserve.

for many, when they think of the ogilvy building, the giant STICHES sign comes to mind and the shell is nothing more than a dirty grungy looking building.

At the very least, the expansion resulting in tearing it down and rebuilding the facade will actually help the building look fresher (i still disagree that it should be kept however but it will at least look nicer) just as the reconstruction of the 90 george (rideau facing facade) did

In any event.. the building is designated heritage and that won't change .. so let's rejoice at the fact that the rebuilt facade will look much nicer and fresher and continue to debate (perhaps in another thread) what the criteria should be for heritage designation.

[J.OT13]

What other building has details like Ogilvy's? I really can't think of anything remotely like it.

And again, although no particular historical event took place at Ogilvy's, it saw the city growing from a small city of 80,000, sitting on the line of a rough lumber town and elegant capital city to a major metropolis as the center of a metro region of over a million people. It has always been an integral part of the city's day to day life, even as an abandoned reminder of Rideau Streets glory years as a lively retail street.
As witness to many historical events of the city, it is an important part of Ottawa’s history. It was built (although not at its full configuration, but the original 1907 steel structure and foundations are still in place) before the Château Laurier and Union Station, it saw the burning of Parliament and the reconstruction, two World Wars, the removal of the trams, the post war population exodus to the suburbs, the building boom of the 60’s and 70’s. It was one of only 3 buildings that survived the construction of the Rideau Complex, and even outlived the Congress Centre.

Even if no one historical event happened in the Ogilvy, it is still deserving of being saved in its entirety. And although it is not the original location, Charles Ogilvy, the actual founder of the department store, personally spent 20 years (1887 to 1907) in the original location, and 40 years (1907 until his death in 1947) in the current building. He also approved and oversaw every one of the 3 expansions.

So, in conclusion, even though no one specific historical event happened in the Ogilvy, and it is not the original store, it is still deserving of being saved in its entirety.
If a historical designation would need to follow all of your criteria, the city wouldn’t stand a chance at preserving its history.

Oh, and as for «seems like if the store's history in the city is the importance than the original location would've been the one to preserve», the original store at 92 Rideau Street was probably torn down in the early 80s to make room for the Rideau Centre. Let's make honour mr Charles Ogilvy by preserving his pride and joy, i.e. his one store that is still standing at 126 Rideau Street.

[amanfromnowhere]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

What other building has details like Ogilvy's? I really can't think of anything remotely like it.

And again, although no particular historical event took place at Ogilvy's, it saw the city growing from a small city of 80,000, sitting on the line of a rough lumber town and elegant capital city to a major metropolis as the center of a metro region of over a million people. It has always been an integral part of the city's day to day life, even as an abandoned reminder of Rideau Streets glory years as a lively retail street.
As witness to many historical events of the city, it is an important part of Ottawa’s history. It was built (although not at its full configuration, but the original 1907 steel structure and foundations are still in place) before the Château Laurier and Union Station, it saw the burning of Parliament and the reconstruction, two World Wars, the removal of the trams, the post war population exodus to the suburbs, the building boom of the 60’s and 70’s. It was one of only 3 buildings that survived the construction of the Rideau Complex, and even outlived the Congress Centre.

Even if no one historical event happened in the Ogilvy, it is still deserving of being saved in its entirety. And although it is not the original location, Charles Ogilvy, the actual founder of the department store, personally spent 20 years (1887 to 1907) in the original location, and 40 years (1907 until his death in 1947) in the current building. He also approved and oversaw every one of the 3 expansions.

So, in conclusion, even though no one specific historical event happened in the Ogilvy, and it is not the original store, it is still deserving of being saved in its entirety.
If a historical designation would need to follow all of your criteria, the city wouldn’t stand a chance at preserving its history.

Oh, and as for «seems like if the store's history in the city is the importance than the original location would've been the one to preserve», the original store at 92 Rideau Street was probably torn down in the early 80s to make room for the Rideau Centre. Let's make honour mr Charles Ogilvy by preserving his pride and joy, i.e. his one store that is still standing at 126 Rideau Street.

well said

[J.OT13]

Not about the Rideau Centre, but I figure this is the best place to ask; for the people old enough to remember, did The Bay remove all the windows and brick from the north side of Freimans or did they put up the shitty orange panneling on to of the original façade?

Check out the bottom-centre of the last picture of this post showing the Freimans original George Street façade.

http://urbsite.blogspot.ca/2012/10/m...ge-part-3.html

[Kitchissippi]

That old facade is probably still behind those metal panels. I remember the original renderings called for brick, with articulated T shapes that echoed the glass structure that juts out by the entrance, but it was likely too heavy and expensive for the old structure. You can see the intention for the facade on the left side, which was an entirely new structure. The renovation was gradual and took several years after the Rideau Centre opened. They never completely closed the store, merely blocking off sections and moving departments around. The old brick facade was really shabby with peeling paint and boarded up windows.

When the addition opened, there was a cafe that opened out to George street (you can still see the access door) and on the third floor there was a restaurant that had a decent view of the Market.