900 Albert St | 234/203/105m | 65/56/23fl | Approved - Page 7

S-Man · #**121** Posted **Sep 11, 2012, 10:09 PM**

I see that this proposal passed committee today, with some useful criticism from Eric Darwin re: pedestrian movement to transit stations. This is a good example of a useful discussion about ground-level details and the movement of human beings, and hopefully the conclusion is satisfactory.

With Diane Holmes, you get a reflexive "it's too tall", "canyons" and "doesn't fit neighbourhood/empty field". This perpetual focus on a single aspect of all proposed buildings means she would be a terrible candidate for the planning committee, because this is not constructive criticism, it's just knee-jerk comments about her favourite hang-up.

J.OT13 · #**122** Posted **Sep 11, 2012, 10:59 PM**

Anyone else heard about City Centre developement plans? I sure didn't. So how was Pheonix suppose to know and why should they be working with the owners of CC?

Proof Sheet · #**123** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 12:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

With Diane Holmes, you get a reflexive "it's too tall", "canyons" and "doesn't fit neighbourhood/empty field". This perpetual focus on a single aspect of all proposed buildings means she would be a terrible candidate for the planning committee, because this is not constructive criticism, it's just knee-jerk comments about her favourite hang-up.

I agree she would be terrible on Planning Committee...what I am surprised about is that she is not on Planning Committee..or has she done her stint on that committee. I have yet to see her commend a proposal that is private sector initiated.

Harley613 · #**124** Posted **Sep 13, 2012, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Reading this

http://twitter.com/ReevelyLive2

makes me think that Councillor Holmes has few if any allies on Council and really should be on Planning Committee if she wants to move forward her own agenda. If ever there was a Councillor whose ward is active in terms of development/planning matters it is hers...yet for some reason she is not on Planning Committee...anybody have any insight as to why she is not on that Committee.

Because she is a senile old witch and everyone at city hall knows it. Hopefully with more young people moving into condos in centretown she'll finally get the boot next election.

FiereSansVoiture · #**125** Posted **Sep 27, 2012, 9:58 AM**

Looks like the approved proposal got shrunk 2 stories from 34 fl & 31 fl to 32 fl & 29 fl

Anybody knows what height it got shrunk to?
The 34 fl tower was supose to be 140.8 m

FiereSansVoiture · #**126** Posted **Sep 27, 2012, 10:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FiereSansVoiture

Looks like the approved proposal got shrunk 2 stories from 34 fl & 31 fl to 32 fl & 29 fl

Anybody knows what height it got shrunk to?
The 34 fl tower was supose to be 140.8 m

Nothing official but from the last plans each floor was 3.8 m.
So the height would be 124.8 m or 133.2 m if we include the mechancial roof/logo element. Which still makes it the region highest proposal higher than claridge icon (128m|42Fl).
However, I'm not sure if the height for claridge icon includes mechanical floor.

J.OT13 · #**127** Posted **Sep 27, 2012, 1:30 PM**

Classic Ottawa, let's cut 2 floors from the proposal even though it makes absolutely no diffrence.

citizen j · #**128** Posted **Sep 29, 2012, 10:43 PM**

Doesn't matter; the tallest tower will still tell people it's 141m tall if asked.

drawarc · #**129** Posted **Sep 30, 2012, 5:24 AM**

Not sure if already posted, here's an image from Ottawa Sun, showing how it'd look from ground level:

Source: http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/09/11/...ts-planning-ok

S-Man · #**130** Posted **Sep 30, 2012, 7:04 AM**

Will the tie-dyed panels make it to the finished product? Because I'm not sure how I feel about those. Groovy, man.
Otherwise, not complaining about the shape. Better than the ever-present rectangle or cube!

J.OT13 · #**131** Posted **Sep 30, 2012, 4:18 PM**

It looks 1980's. And again with the Québec style colourful patterns, I'm getting sick of it.

S-Man · #**132** Posted **Sep 30, 2012, 6:44 PM**

We can do better than the 1980s! At least, I hope we can...

citizen j · #**133** Posted **Sep 30, 2012, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It looks 1980's. And again with the Québec style colourful patterns, I'm getting sick of it.

Yes, because if there's one thing Ottawa architecture has is way too much colour.

S-Man · #**134** Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 3:23 AM**

Colour splashed onto a wall for the sake of colour can still look out of place even to those who like colour.

AuxTown · #**135** Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 3:35 AM**

I like the angles a lot. The colour I can do without. This one, like all glass towers, is gonna come down to the glazing.

Harley613 · #**136** Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 4:58 AM**

it looks pretty awesome...but unfortunately it won't add any definition to the skyline. the roof will be lower than the average building in centretown and it's a little out of the way.

Jamaican-Phoenix · #**137** Posted **Oct 5, 2012, 2:42 PM**

I really wish those huge panels on the side were a public form of tetris that you could play from the bus terminal...

Luker · #**138** Posted **Oct 5, 2012, 4:08 PM**

That would be awesome. Bayview is a major hub and transfer point in our new lrt system, so why not?

Also, it will be interesting to see what the City Center Corp. is going to propose in its redevelopment plans(The land parcel is about 600 feet long by 300 feet wide).

m0nkyman · #**139** Posted **Oct 6, 2012, 12:31 AM**

I see a lot of corner offices...

Davis137 · #**140** Posted **Oct 6, 2012, 6:51 PM**

Love the height, scale, and overall design of this one. Hope it goes through...