Rideau Centre Expansion | Completed

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Wide gaps in the mortar? What's next faux-wrought iron lamp posts!! This has gone too far!!

Wide gaps in the bricks or not, this proposed redevelopment is a vast improvement over its current state.

Honestly, I preferred the big, abandoned Ogilvy building to what's coming. IMO, that building was hands down, historically and architecturally, the greatest non-governmental building in this city. Not only that, but it had 0 structural problems, they could easily had restored it back in2000 and, with a little more investment and possibly sacrificing part of the Besserer façade, could have restored it to its mid-1940s version last year.

But instead, it was torn down with no debate and little protest while people, and in some cases the City, fight for non-descript residential buildings on Sussex, a shell of a small, uninteresting former school in the back of the Market and a brutalist 60s office building that will not be facing the wrecking ball, but will be tastefully refaced, expanded and re-adapted into an elegant hotel.

It burns me up enough when they tore it down, but making wider mortar joints that will visibly change the size and proportions of the building to simplify their so called "rehabilitation" is an insult. It is supposed to look exactly as it did in 1907. It is not supposed to be a rough replica like Caplan’s.

Even more insulting is that the wall will simply be hanging the wall on the new Rideau Centre without any sort of interaction/integration to the expansion. I mean come on! The ceilings were high enough in the original Charles Ogilvy building; they could at least align the floors to where they use to be so that people looking up at the wall from the street don't see a floor slab in the middle of the window!

[archie-tect]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Wide gaps in the mortar? What's next faux-wrought iron lamp posts!! This has gone too far!!

Wide gaps in the bricks or not, this proposed redevelopment is a vast improvement over its current state.

OK I appreciated the sarcasm, but it's not really the increased mortar width, it's more the accumulation of all the mentioned items. What ever the approach is, let's just be clear about what it is what the aim is and also be clear about what it is not.

As for the issue of it being better that the current state, well it's amazing the self-fulfilling nature of that little issue.

As a closing thought, I never understood the need to shorten whatever building was placed at the Ogilvy's corner, 5 stories would have been my minimum, condo, hotel, office ... anyone?

It feels very same-old same-old, just more of it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by archie-tect

OK I appreciated the sarcasm, but it's not really the increased mortar width, it's more the accumulation of all the mentioned items. What ever the approach is, let's just be clear about what it is what the aim is and also be clear about what it is not.

As for the issue of it being better that the current state, well it's amazing the self-fulfilling nature of that little issue.

As a closing thought, I never understood the need to shorten whatever building was placed at the Ogilvy's corner, 5 stories would have been my minimum, condo, hotel, office ... anyone?

It feels very same-old same-old, just more of it.

Heritage issues aside, I had the same thought about building a shorter structure, it seems counter intuitive to reduce the density of the Ogilvy footprint.

[mac_junkie1]

The bricks on the rear of the building are 1915-1917. They are the oldest part of the building that was saved. An older part was attempted, but the inevitable collapse ruined the idea (shame). And NO the "round" corner was not rounded brick nor was it original 1906. It was normal brick (1940's) put into a round design. If you wanted to retain the 1906 bricks, someone should've saved them in the 40s when the building was modernized. Maybe the original bricks had issues and it was best to replace them. We don't know, nor will we ever know. I don't see the "huge" deal in making the mortar gaps 2mm wider. I'm sure the mortar has shrunk over the years anyways and that's what gave it an "approx 8mm idea". If this make things easier in general, and they do state "valid" points. Padolsky and his team are very smart people and will make sure this is done right. He's the most respected heritage person in the city. They wouldn't half-ass this job. It means a lot to many and from a heritage standpoint, it will be done right. They didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Lets piss people off and increase the mortar gap by 2mm"... I'm sure they studied it and came to a logical conclusion that would benefit everyone involved. Also, we always knew it would most likely just be a "floating" facade in front of the new mall. They can't just "re-attach" this. The dismantling was a idea and it was the most cost efficient and the best way of doing it. Other ideas were suggested, but would've cost way to much to do. Also, to those bitchin, the street lights are "newer"... They aren't the same ones that have always been there, but a very close "clone" to the original ones.

Originally Posted by archie-tect

Seems somewhat of a weak justification for the change. It's tough to figure out if this is a restoration, rehabilitation or just a reinterpretation. Bricks from a newer part of the building (identified as less significant), recreated cornice and other associated details (removed some time ago) and topped off with new construction details. At some point you have to ask why bother?

[mac_junkie1]

We've all gotten used to the idea of the building being 5 floors. It was dated and useless in its current state, and trust me, it couldn't really be saved. Its structure was good, but WAY to much cash would've been needed to fix it. Years of neglect took a massive toll on this poor building. As much as I loved it the way it looked, I'm really anxious to see the building come back as its original vision look. This is what people saw and this look is what launched this company into being the successful business it was. It'll be much nicer. A picture on paper wont even come close to equaling how cool it'll look in person when its done. Let's wait and see. I'm anxious for the end result and I know it'll look great, much more then a grey and white sketch.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Heritage issues aside, I had the same thought about building a shorter structure, it seems counter intuitive to reduce the density of the Ogilvy footprint.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by mac_junkie1

Also, to those bitchin, the street lights are "newer"... They aren't the same ones that have always been there, but a very close "clone" to the original ones.

What streetlights?

[archie-tect]

Originally Posted by mac_junkie1

The bricks on the rear of the building are 1915-1917. They are the oldest part of the building that was saved. An older part was attempted, but the inevitable collapse ruined the idea (shame). And NO the "round" corner was not rounded brick nor was it original 1906. It was normal brick (1940's) put into a round design. If you wanted to retain the 1906 bricks, someone should've saved them in the 40s when the building was modernized. Maybe the original bricks had issues and it was best to replace them. We don't know, nor will we ever know. I don't see the "huge" deal in making the mortar gaps 2mm wider. I'm sure the mortar has shrunk over the years anyways and that's what gave it an "approx 8mm idea". If this make things easier in general, and they do state "valid" points. Padolsky and his team are very smart people and will make sure this is done right. He's the most respected heritage person in the city. They wouldn't half-ass this job. It means a lot to many and from a heritage standpoint, it will be done right. They didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Lets piss people off and increase the mortar gap by 2mm"... I'm sure they studied it and came to a logical conclusion that would benefit everyone involved. Also, we always knew it would most likely just be a "floating" facade in front of the new mall. They can't just "re-attach" this. The dismantling was a idea and it was the most cost efficient and the best way of doing it. Other ideas were suggested, but would've cost way to much to do. Also, to those bitchin, the street lights are "newer"... They aren't the same ones that have always been there, but a very close "clone" to the original ones.

What is the deal with the streetlights? Personally, I am not a big fan of the "older-looking" one's, I have always been partial to the double headed ones with one light over the street and one over the sidewalk. I think they have some in Gatineau.

As for the mortar height, as I mentioned previously it's not really that, but the accumulation of things. Cost wise, it probably would have been cheaper to maintain the building for 20 years, with regular maintenance, and lease it. But hey that's just me.

The floor heights are a strange thing as well, there are a number of ramps in the existing mall concourses to adjust to the Bay across the street, why is it any different here?

If anyone is interested google Woodward's Vancouver and see a larger project where the benefits far outweighed the lost Heritage components. I think in general it's always about what you gain versus what you lose... i.e. no Empire State Building without losing the Waldorf Astoria.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by archie-tect

What is the deal with the streetlights? Personally, I am not a big fan of the "older-looking" one's, I have always been partial to the double headed ones with one light over the street and one over the sidewalk. I think they have some in Gatineau.

As for the mortar height, as I mentioned previously it's not really that, but the accumulation of things. Cost wise, it probably would have been cheaper to maintain the building for 20 years, with regular maintenance, and lease it. But hey that's just me.

The floor heights are a strange thing as well, there are a number of ramps in the existing mall concourses to adjust to the Bay across the street, why is it any different here?

If anyone is interested google Woodward's Vancouver and see a larger project where the benefits far outweighed the lost Heritage components. I think in general it's always about what you gain versus what you lose... i.e. no Empire State Building without losing the Waldorf Astoria.

[mac_junkie1]

Obviously it would've been nice to maintain it for the past 20 years, but even then, it should've gone away to do this. WAY to many additions on the "west" wall made the building ugly and patchy. When it was built it was nice, but over the years, I don't think the idea of "keeping" it was so in the forefront. This needed to be done. It was botched too much over the years. Had it stayed true to a more original design it might've worked. Look at "Friemans". Its stayed the same for how long and the place looks AWFUL. Its falling apart at the seems. The floors creak and crack EVERYWHERE, its not level anywhere. Its shell needs to be kept and the whole interior stripped and started back, also eliminating "Frieman Mall" would be a great start. You walk in there and you think 1980's. Rideau Centre in certain parts look soooo out-dated, which is why the addition will be a huge refresher to a prominent location downtown. Let's not bash the project till its built. Every decision was done with brains behind it, specially when Heritage is concerned. If they had to go back and fix Friemans now, the mentality would be much different now then it was back in the 80s when they botched the side up and made it just a facade. Peel back the ugly 80s panels on George Street and show off the original part again. It can't make it worst haha. In all this, I only see positive, no negative. We can't undo the past, we can only learn from mistakes that have been made. As for the split levels in the RC, its dumb and shouldn't of been designed that way. Even with that, it wouldn't of made it even into keep Ogilvy's as it was. More ramps would've needed building and then it becomes to redundant. That's why the decision of storing bricks was more cost efficient. RC was forced to keep the facade, but they did it at the cheapest cost possible, while still doing it properly and with integrity.

Originally Posted by archie-tect

What is the deal with the streetlights? Personally, I am not a big fan of the "older-looking" one's, I have always been partial to the double headed ones with one light over the street and one over the sidewalk. I think they have some in Gatineau.

As for the mortar height, as I mentioned previously it's not really that, but the accumulation of things. Cost wise, it probably would have been cheaper to maintain the building for 20 years, with regular maintenance, and lease it. But hey that's just me.

The floor heights are a strange thing as well, there are a number of ramps in the existing mall concourses to adjust to the Bay across the street, why is it any different here?

If anyone is interested google Woodward's Vancouver and see a larger project where the benefits far outweighed the lost Heritage components. I think in general it's always about what you gain versus what you lose... i.e. no Empire State Building without losing the Waldorf Astoria.

[Kitchissippi]

I agree that this is historical preservation at its worst. Reused brick, whoop-de-doo. The spirit of a building is not in its materials but in the people that built it. Trying to re-create what the original brick layers did is like trying to reconstitute a steak from ground meat. Looks like we're getting hamburger.

I have not seen one successful recreated facade in this city — the Caplan building, 22 Eddy, etc — they all look sterile. I have no doubts the same will come out of the Ogilvy, it will be a cartoon of the original, but hey it's better than a picture in the archives at this point.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I agree that this is historical preservation at its worst. Reused brick, whoop-de-doo. The spirit of a building is not in its materials but in the people that built it. Trying to re-create what the original brick layers did is like trying to reconstitute a steak from ground meat. Looks like we're getting hamburger.

I have not seen one successful recreated facade in this city — the Caplan building, 22 Eddy, etc — they all look sterile. I have no doubts the same will come out of the Ogilvy, it will be a cartoon of the original, but hey it's better than a picture in the archives at this point.

.... and the sheeple will continue to shop, unfazed.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

.... and the sheeple will continue to shop, unfazed.

Well, can you expect the masses to care about historical preservation like the people on this forum do? It would be nice if they did, but it's not gonna happen.

I, for one, will be proudly shopping at the new and improved Rideau Centre. The mall is gonna drastically improve our downtown. As someone who enjoys the Eaton Centres in Toronto and Montreal, I can't wait to see Ottawa get a proper downtown mall. I don't see the point in boycotting retailers whose products I enjoy because I think CF made a mistake with the Ogilvy Building. With the amount of residents and tourists they'll be attracting, it certainly won't hurt CF.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

Well, can you expect the masses to care about historical preservation like the people on this forum do? It would be nice if they did, but it's not gonna happen.

I, for one, will be proudly shopping at the new and improved Rideau Centre. The mall is gonna drastically improve our downtown. As someone who enjoys the Eaton Centres in Toronto and Montreal, I can't wait to see Ottawa get a proper downtown mall. I don't see the point in boycotting retailers whose products I enjoy because I think CF made a mistake with the Ogilvy Building. With the amount of residents and tourists they'll be attracting, it certainly won't hurt CF.

It will undoubtedly succeed. The idea that people in significant numbers would boycott the mall because they don't like what was done to the Ogilvy façade is far-fetched. There are far better reasons to stay away from the Rideau Centre than that....

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

There are far better reasons to stay away from the Rideau Centre than that....

Sorry, and what would those be?

[JackBauer24]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Sorry, and what would those be?

Seriously, what's with the Rideau Centre hate? It's not like its a centre of sweat-shops powered by the blood and tears of baby seals - it's a downtown shopping mall in the need of an expansion and some renovating.

Maintaining historical buildings is great, if the building had been maintained to begin with - unfortunately Ogilvy's wasn't. Now in order to expand the Rideau Centre, part of his historical building will have to be re-created from scratch, opening up the likelihood that the end product will look different. The historical look will clearly still be in tact, it just may have to be executed using modern materials - and there's nothing wrong with that.

I just don't understand why one would boycott a mall over this - unless your name is Mr. Ogilvy.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Sorry, and what would those be?

Oh, I think we all know. It would be politically incorrect to say it, however.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Oh, I think we all know. It would be politically incorrect to say it, however.

Uh, no I don't know. It's one of the best performing shopping centres in North America with a fairly typical mix of national brand stores. Indulge me in your politically incorrect reasons to stay away from it?

[toaster]

I don't know either?

Anyway, I remember hearing that the mall charges the most per sq/ft in all of Canada, so I doubt they are fretting about losing those 2 people as customers.

[JackBauer24]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Oh, I think we all know. It would be politically incorrect to say it, however.

I second that, I am not aware of these reasons (political or otherwise) to stay away from The Rideau Centre. If you could kindly indulge us.....

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Oh, I think we all know. It would be politically incorrect to say it, however.

What, the homeless or criminal activity? Those are the only things that I would consider "politically incorrect". But of course, that would include all of the Market and a parts of the CBD. I know a lot of people who try to avoid the area (mostly suburbanites afraid of the big city), but that doesn't bother me at all.