Ugly Ottawa

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Someone will correct me if am wrong but the ones on King Edward are owned by the Shepherds of Good Hope or some other charitable organization.

The one at the corner of Murray and Cumberland I believe is the old Guigues school and has some historic value for the Franco-Ontarian community as it was where francophones made their stand against Regulation 17 in the early 1900s with the ban on French-language education.

A few years ago Guigues was slated for a pretty impressive rebuild as a seniors' condo building but it fell through.

I'd say that like many other buildings that are too close for comfort to the main Shepherds shelter at the corner of King Edward and Murray the development options are often stymied by this fact.

Once again, feel free to correct any errors.

The former school is now in danger of collapsing:

http://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/actu...7_section_POS3

[Harley613]

and why hasn't this been torn down already? not to mention just about everything within a one block radius?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Harley613

and why hasn't this been torn down already? not to mention just about everything within a one block radius?

Groupe Lauzon.

[gjhall]

Why would you want it torn down? It would make a great conversion project. In 2004, that's what they said they wanted to do with it:http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=...1-1747c208a98a
Then in 2005 they asked to demolish it and were refused:http://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/otta...V-APR-0098.htm

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harley613

and why hasn't this been torn down already? not to mention just about everything within a one block radius?

It has a historical designation, and so the city refused the application to tear it down. So the only solution for the developer is to wait until the building falls down by itself; that's what the NCC will do (and have done in the past) with the residential buildings on Sussex Drive ("saved" by the city a few months ago) and that was probably part of the reason Ogilvy was abandoned for 13 years.

The city needs a bylaw obligating owners to keep up historic buildings forever, not just saving them from the wrecking ball today.

[Harley613]

Sooo...in other words they will mothball a one block radius and wait until the magical day the missions mysteriously up and move....and then do something with the buildings? If they are still standing?

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Why would you want it torn down? It would make a great conversion project. In 2004, that's what they said they wanted to do with it:http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=...1-1747c208a98a
Then in 2005 they asked to demolish it and were refused:http://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/otta...V-APR-0098.htm

wow! you found the article that inspired this thread! good one! It's the first link. It mentions 'The Boat' and a couple others we've discussed.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by Harley613

wow! you found the article that inspired this thread! good one! It's the first link. It mentions 'The Boat' and a couple others we've discussed.

Whoa buddy, cool your jets.

[gjhall]

Perhaps we should commission one of these? http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blog.../#.USZkavKouhr

[Proof Sheet]

This building could go in the Ottawa Ugly category

http://goo.gl/maps/fAYHf

[Harley613]

Good call. I'm also going to start throwing in Gatineau buildings...but I'm not sure where to start...it's rather intimidating. There are so many. Perhaps the Auberge on the way to Cantley on the 307 ? I used to go to raves here in the early 90's!

[Capital Shaun]

Looks like the city might take the Claude Lauzon Group to task after threats of legal action:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...mes-fight.html

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Looks like the city might take the Claude Lauzon Group to task after threats of legal action:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...mes-fight.html

What if the City implemented new rules that required meeting certain stricter property maintenence standards for unoccupied buildings, with plenty of warnings and fines to the owner, and with the ultimate penalty after an extended period of non-compliance being expropriation?

It would certainly discourage derelict buildings, but would it be legally defensible?

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

What if the City implemented new rules that required meeting certain stricter property maintenence standards for unoccupied buildings, with plenty of warnings and fines to the owner, and with the ultimate penalty after an extended period of non-compliance being expropriation?

It would certainly discourage derelict buildings, but would it be legally defensible?

Not sure if we could legally force expropriation but we certainly can enact bylaws in order to fine owners of crumbling abandon buildings. Buildings with leaky roofs, rotten frames and cracked foundations are safety hazards after all if they fall to the ground.

[J.OT13]

It's ovious that the city bent down so easily for Cadillac Fairview because they are huge tax contributors, and partly because they are a fairly important part of implementing the Rideau Subway Station, but the Ogilvy is hands down the greatest example of demolition of a historic building by neglect. The worst part is, the building has no structural problems.

[Cre47]

The Citizen is doing a challenge trying to find the biggest eyesore. A few of them that are posted are still vacant former P-C stations which are filling up fast but... by weeds

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ot...667/story.html

[brentgaulois]

I suggest 1041 Wellington Street and Bayswater Apartments (which look the same). They're big, thick buildings that block sunlight in the area and hides the church across the street from it. Take a look at the building on Armstrong...

I think this building should be demolished and replaced with something more flattering, that allows sunshine through and everyone to view the church.

1041 Wellington Street https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&cl...ed=0CC4Q8gEwAA

52 Bayswater: https://maps.google.ca/maps?oe=utf-8...ed=0CDEQ8gEwAA

[McC]

Originally Posted by brentgaulois

I suggest 1041 Wellington Street and Bayswater Apartments (which look the same). They're big, thick buildings that block sunlight in the area and hides the church across the street from it. Take a look at the building on Armstrong...

I think this building should be demolished and replaced with something more flattering, that allows sunshine through and everyone to view the church.

1041 Wellington Street https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&cl...ed=0CC4Q8gEwAA

I think 1041 Wellington is social housing of some kind, I see lots elderly, people with wheelchairs, etc. there.

[brentgaulois]

Originally Posted by McC

I think 1041 Wellington is social housing of some kind, I see lots elderly, people with wheelchairs, etc. there.

I feel so silly I didn't Google what it was earlier. It is, indeed, social housing. I do still feel like the building is a bit of an eyesore in that particular spot, as giant wall shielding Hintonburg's northern section from St. François d'Assise church.

[McC]

I don't disagree with you about the aesthetics, shadows, etc. we have definitely learned how to do social housing better with the Beaver Barracks! But it's a big jump from there to saying that we should evict people from scarce social housing to fix up the looks. (now that would be gentrification!)

I don't think Ottawa's market has reached a point (yet) where you could make a compelling business case for selling off an existing highrise to be levelled and re-built to bring in enough revenue to pay for building more/better social housing elsewhere.

But let's say we can wave a magic want to make the economics work; even then, with the CDP for the area, it would be tough to replace this building with anything higher than 6 floors on a trad main street, and I think that would probably be the coup de grace to any business case.