HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


    The Merit in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Ottawa Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2010, 5:38 PM
archie-tect's Avatar
archie-tect archie-tect is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 62
The design is interesting, the site is great, I am a big fan of Art Deco, but come on could we try designing without beige brick and black windows. Yes I know their buildings are considerably better than others developed in the City, but with higher standards come greater expectations for future buildings and I just don't think they've continued to push.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 2:07 PM
k2p k2p is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix View Post
Oh my...


Is that.....A building in Ottawa.......with a defined top?!?!
As well as the many other great points here, exactly.

Heaven forbid an interesting, non-box-like thing rise above the monotony.

This is off topic, but speaking of ugly tops, why is there no outcry that Place de Ville isn't getting a new, interesting--dare we say it--lit dome? The company that owns it is recladding BOM's tower in Toronto. Is it too much to ask for a new and interesting roof for the CBD's tallest tower?

Sorry, back to ogling the latest replacement for a surface level parking lot...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2010, 11:22 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
'Innovative' building raises eyebrows over height
Friday, 12 March 2010
By Tayleigh Armstrong
http://centretownnewsonline.ca/index...1472&Itemid=94


A proposed 20-storey condominium building next to Ottawa City Hall is generating concerns after the developer was granted a “minor variance” for a project that exceeds the zoning limit for the property by eight floors.

While the building’s innovative design has widespread approval, Centretown community representatives say the planned height of the tower should have triggered a full-fledged rezoning application, including detailed studies, and fear the approval by the city’s committee of adjustment could set a bad precedent for less acceptable developments in the future.

The area, which is currently a parking lot located directly across from the south entrance of city hall, is zoned for a maximum 12-storey building under city bylaws.

However, Charlesfort Development Corp. has designed a 20-storey structure with what it calls an “art deco” style.

“If you look downtown, a lot of the apartments look like monolithic boxes,” says Doug Casey, owner of Charlesfort. “We’ve come up with a real elegant looking building that will be a real contribution to the skyline.”

Nearly every piece of land in Ottawa is zoned, meaning that each piece has certain guidelines of what is allowed to be built.

A developer can apply for a minor variance, which means that the proposed changes to the zoning are considered insignificant, the project is an appropriate use for the land, and the general intent of the bylaw is being upheld.

Charlesfort applied for and was granted a minor variance despite the plan to build eight storeys above the zoning limit.

“When you’re looking at minor variance, you have to look at impact,” says Casey.

Gord Lorimer, the project's architect, says despite the proposed extra height, the impact of the building on the neighbours would be minimal. With Lisgar Collegiate to the east and surrounded by hotels on almost all sides, Lorimer says the building has no chance of blocking views or sunlight.

“It’s a really unique site,” he says.

However, the Centretown Citizens Community Association says the proposal should not be considered a minor variance.

“It almost doubles the size,” says Rick Devereux, a member of the CCCA’s planning and development review committee. “That’s not minor.”

Devereux says the issue isn’t about the building design or even the proposed scale, which he says could be accommodated.

“The building looked nice. It has personality and character,” he says. “But it’s not a minor variance, it should be a rezoning.”

Rezoning an area is a much longer process because detailed studies must be carried out rather than just allowing a one-time fix.

Devereux says he is worried that allowing Charlesfort to call its project a minor variance is setting a bad precedent.

“It has happened before that developers take a precedent and argue that since it happened before, it should happen again,” says Devereux. “Someone less well-intentioned could come along and take advantage of it.”

But there are still a lot of steps before construction can get underway. A full set of plans must be submitted to the city and Charlesfort says comments from the community will be considered.

“We do carefully look at the impact on the neighbours and we are very interested in what they have to say,” says Casey. “We’re just going through the whole process right now.”

Last update : 12-03-2010 07:04
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2010, 2:58 PM
Ryersonian Ryersonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 91
Scary....

Minor this is not...

Scary precedent as not everybody is Charlesfort....in fact nobody else is...The 'next guy' can cite this and do some serious damage somewhere else...At least it's Charlesfort this time...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2010, 3:47 PM
Ottawade's Avatar
Ottawade Ottawade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 288
Wow. Beauty. I can't imagine what the view must be like looking north at the chateau, the gallery, etc... Guess I should start saving all my nickles and dimes to afford the million dollar view :/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2010, 2:15 PM
Davis137's Avatar
Davis137 Davis137 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,290
Well, maybe they could set a new precident with this project. Lose the small town "Mom n' Pop" way of doing things mentality. I don't see too much trouble with a building this size in that location, and with other taller buildings built out AWAY from Parliament Hill (you can't see any of it from the Queensway or south of the CBD anyways, so how much relevance do the "Planes of View" have anymore?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2010, 10:33 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Appealed to the OMB (variance was granted according to article above, so it may be a neighbour or community association)
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL100288
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2010, 11:51 PM
blackjagger's Avatar
blackjagger blackjagger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Appealed to the OMB (variance was granted according to article above, so it may be a neighbour or community association)
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL100288
I'm quite mad about this. This is a beautiful building in an area surrounded by tall apartment buildings and City Hall. It would only add to the area and I think will someday be a great investment property. Maybe the OMB will bump them up to 25 storeys...lol.

Cheers,
Josh
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2010, 12:47 AM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Appealed to the OMB (variance was granted according to article above, so it may be a neighbour or community association)
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL100288
I don't have any direct knowledge on this but it may have been appealed as the objectors may have claimed that the variances were beyond the scope of the Committee of Adjustment and should have gone via a zoning amendment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2010, 3:55 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Called up the OMB... David Gladstone is the appellant for this one as well
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 7:08 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
OMB hearing starts on 14 July
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 9:53 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: 3,576
But of course! What's urban development in Ottawa without appeals to the OMB?
__________________
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
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 12:15 PM
Davis137's Avatar
Davis137 Davis137 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,290
Build It Dammitt!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 7:09 PM
citizen j's Avatar
citizen j citizen j is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,029
I think council is often (but not always) quite happy to have the OMB function as its arbiter, since it allows council members to avoid responsibility for decision making. Individual members can go through the motions of anti-developer/constituent-friendly brouhaha and then throw their hands up in the air in righteous indignation/resignation when development moves forward. Their performances are read as strong leadership when, in reality, they're more a mix of sound and fury signifying nothing. But it plays well at election time.
__________________
The world is so full of a number of things
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 7:16 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen j View Post
I think council is often (but not always) quite happy to have the OMB function as its arbiter, since it allows council members to avoid responsibility for decision making. Individual members can go through the motions of anti-developer/constituent-friendly brouhaha and then throw their hands up in the air in righteous indignation/resignation when development moves forward. Their performances are read as strong leadership when, in reality, they're more a mix of sound and fury signifying nothing. But it plays well at election time.
Well said...as a person who deals with City Staff and City politicians on a regular basis (I'd love to be able to avoid the latter but unfortunately they are involved), City Staff are usually a breath of fresh air in terms of decision making compared to self-serving lifetime Councillors. The City of Ottawa is a cumbersome entity in which it is quite easy for a politician to stall a development application based on no sound rational planning/engineering argument but the fact that it is an election year coming up can throw all reasonable decision making out the window.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 13, 2010, 12:35 AM
Davis137's Avatar
Davis137 Davis137 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,290
This is one of the best looking buildings I've seen proposed since I started participating on this website and it's forums. I can't understand that even if it IS election year/season, why councillors wouldn't want something like this building built, which could become synonomous with the Ottawa Skyline, and Ottawa in general. I know if I were a Councillor, I'd wanna be able to point out a building or successful project to people, and remind them that I approved it going up, etc etc...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 13, 2010, 2:23 AM
citizen j's Avatar
citizen j citizen j is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,029
If I were a self-serving councillor (there's a subjunctive statement!) I would privately love that building but publicly condemn it for casting a shadow on my constituents and clogging up their streets with additional vehicles in order to cover my ass when it came time to ask them to vote for me again. Sadly, there are too few incentives to encourage councillors to venture beyond that parochial little world to become (dare I say it) visionary community builders. Time for a change in the way the city is run. In addition to representatives at the ward level, council needs members-at-large to balance out the equation.
__________________
The world is so full of a number of things
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 13, 2010, 9:57 AM
eemy's Avatar
eemy eemy is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,456
The problem, of course, is who on council would champion having members-at-large on council?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 13, 2010, 4:14 PM
AuxTown's Avatar
AuxTown AuxTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen j View Post
If I were a self-serving councillor (there's a subjunctive statement!) I would privately love that building but publicly condemn it for casting a shadow on my constituents and clogging up their streets with additional vehicles in order to cover my ass when it came time to ask them to vote for me again. Sadly, there are too few incentives to encourage councillors to venture beyond that parochial little world to become (dare I say it) visionary community builders. Time for a change in the way the city is run. In addition to representatives at the ward level, council needs members-at-large to balance out the equation.
I completely agree. In Regina, where I'm from, I think they have 25% of the council who represent the city as a whole and are not affiliated with a specific ward. This serves to balance the rampant NIMBYism of a system such as ours. Not only would they (hopefully) vote in the best interests of the city as a whole, but they would also have an opportunity to speak up when councillors are obviously biased on a topic and try to use peer pressure to keep people 'honest'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 13, 2010, 4:52 PM
jcollins jcollins is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kitchener
Posts: 1,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey View Post
I completely agree. In Regina, where I'm from, I think they have 25% of the council who represent the city as a whole and are not affiliated with a specific ward. This serves to balance the rampant NIMBYism of a system such as ours. Not only would they (hopefully) vote in the best interests of the city as a whole, but they would also have an opportunity to speak up when councillors are obviously biased on a topic and try to use peer pressure to keep people 'honest'.
So then do people run for those specific positions? And then the entire city votes for them?
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:27 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.