HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 4:12 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by passwordisnt123 View Post
Kelly Egan has a very peculiar knack of being against any kind of change or improvement. The very fact that developers have determined that there is significant demand for these formerly poisoned and toxic lands—land bulldozed and vacant for more than a half century—should in and of itself be cause for great optimism.

If you don't want to buy a condo in Lebreton, guess what: don't buy one. Plenty of other people seem to be interested. I'm surprised the Ottawa Citizen would pay for an article that's basically just Egan's recitation of things he doesn't personally like about a specific lifestyle.
To be fair, he is talking about the economics of supply and demand.

I had the same feeling when I read the year end newspaper story about the future plans for Ottawa through these major projects that are scattered all over the city. If supply clearly is going to outstrip demand, some of the these projects will either be scaled back, deferred or cancelled.

We have to have a degree of concern after seeing how the Claridge project has gone to date on Lebreton. With all these projects in the planning stages, somebody may end up being the loser. Hopefully, it is not the main Lebreton project, but it is the one that least advanced in the planning process.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 4:38 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
It's not an unreasonable proposition to ask for more height now, given the new TOD-oriented reality of the Flats, even though they "won" the original NCC competition based on much lower density. However, I think that the NCC should add a new stipulation of "architectural excellence" in return. You want the height, Claridge? Then turf Rod Lahey in favour of an international design competition, the built results of which must exactly match the renderings.
I agree, if the NCC allows this, they should make demands such as the design competition, have Claridge pay for the aqueduct side park in full (and not download it to the City), other community benefits...

Considering everything that's going on in terms of new development in the area, I would prefer that Claridge focus elsewhere like their parking lot with subway access on Queen at Lyon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 5:54 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Considering everything that's going on in terms of new development in the area, I would prefer that Claridge focus elsewhere like their parking lot with subway access on Queen at Lyon.
One could argue just the opposite, given all the development in the area, isn't it exactly the right time to talk about how this large parcel is developed alongside RendezVous, Library, Escarpment and City Centre/Bayview?

Queen and Lyon already has its built context for the most part, whereas this is more of a city building exercise, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 6:09 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanarchit View Post
I don't know if it's just the angle, but it seems like they forgot Nanny Goat Hill in the area (seems like the hospital is at the same elevation as the site). And the tallest seems a bit out of place, if you ask me.
Then where is the appropriate place?
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 6:11 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinbottawa View Post
Another rendering from the Open House. I posted this on Instagram and it caused an uproar.
Let me join the uproar: the street frontages, as rendered, blow goats. That's some serious 1970s ideas about how buildings work.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 6:14 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I look at this last image particularly at ground level and it doesn't appeal to me from the pedestrian perspective. Some buildings face the street, others don't. How do we make it a people place with this arrangement? It just looks like a place that would be cold and windswept.
Where are the entrances?

But, hey, Ottawa loves approving cold, windswept, pedestrian-unfriendly crapitechture, so the odds that this will proceed are probably higher than average.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 6:15 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
To be fair, he is talking about the economics of supply and demand.

I had the same feeling when I read the year end newspaper story about the future plans for Ottawa through these major projects that are scattered all over the city. If supply clearly is going to outstrip demand, some of the these projects will either be scaled back, deferred or cancelled.
And if so, that's the developer's problem.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 6:17 PM
Arcologist Arcologist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nation's Capital
Posts: 687
I LOVE the idea of a 55-storey tower at this location.

I HATE the idea of Claridge building it...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 9:12 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjhall View Post
One could argue just the opposite, given all the development in the area, isn't it exactly the right time to talk about how this large parcel is developed alongside RendezVous, Library, Escarpment and City Centre/Bayview?

Queen and Lyon already has its built context for the most part, whereas this is more of a city building exercise, IMO.
I guess I'm a little apprehensive that the area might be a little over-saturated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 6:43 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
And if so, that's the developer's problem.
And really not much of a problem when you only paid $4.4 mil for the land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2017, 6:22 AM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aylmer, QC
Posts: 6,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
...Then turf Rod Lahey in favour of an international design competition, the built results of which must exactly match the renderings.
But...but...that's not the Claridge Way!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2017, 10:57 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,368
Ottawa's urban design panel balks at 55-storey LeBreton condo
Experts worry Claridge tower will divert attention from nearby sites including Parliament Hill

By Joanne Chianello, CBC News
Posted: Jan 13, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 13, 2017 10:43 AM ET


The panel of urban design experts charged with reviewing development proposals for Ottawa expressed unanimous concern Thursday over a 55-storey condominium tower Claridge Homes hopes to build on the eastern portion of LeBreton Flats.

"The height of that tower blows me away," said panelist John Stewart, a landscape architect. "You've got flat, flat, flat, then this thing in the middle. We need to understand Ottawa as a special place."

On Monday hundreds of residents attended an open house to see Claridge's revised vision for its part of LeBreton Flats, just east of Booth Street — an area the developer is calling "The East Flats."

The preliminary plans call for at least four buildings ranging in height from 25 to 55 storeys, retail amenities including a grocery store, and a park system that focuses on the area's largely hidden historical aqueduct and bridge.

The five members present at the urban design review panel meeting Thursday were all impressed with plans to uncover the aqueduct, and urged the development team to play up that aspect of the project.

The chair of the panel, David Leinster, referred to the aqueduct as a "jewel" that few people even knew existed.

But the panel was also unanimous in its concern over a 55-storey landmark condo tower proposed for the east side of Booth Street, about halfway between Albert Street and the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway.

While the building does not impede protected sight lines to the Peace Tower, the panel felt the size of the tower took away from the focus of nearby national sites, including the Canadian War Museum, the Ottawa River and even Parliament Hill itself.

"One of the important things is that the tower height be considered with respect to the national symbols," said Leinster, a partner with The Planning Partnership in Toronto.

"I do have concerns with the views that were shown, that the height may compromise some of those views. I don't think anyone, historically, expected buildings of 55 storeys here. That wasn't really considered in terms of how people thought of LeBreton."

Claridge purchased the 4.4. hectares of LeBreton from the National Capital Commission over a decade ago for $8 million, with a promise to build 850 residential units in mostly mid-rise buildings. It has built three buildings so far, with 500 condos.

But now that light rail is being built along that corridor, and the city has called for intensification near the LRT stations, Claridge is looking to develop a denser community with up to 1,650 units.

The panel doesn't question the need to update the old plan for the site, but doesn't seem convinced that a 55-storey tower is the way to do it — at least at that location.

"Driving west to downtown, the signature tower will be in competition with Parliament Hill," said Emmanuelle van Rutten, an architect with Moriyama & Teshima Architects.

Van Rutten said she sees LeBreton as a transitional community between the downtown and the rest of the city, and would like to see the development designed as more of an integrated neighbourhood that welcomes the public into the area.

Claridge will likely submit a formal proposal to the city in a few months. Its plans may be revised to incorporate feedback from the public open house, as well as the concerns of the urban design review panel.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...eton-1.3933020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2017, 11:18 PM
Soi-Fon's Avatar
Soi-Fon Soi-Fon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 132
*Sight* I knew we couldn't possibly get something this nice downtown. I would have love to see a little skylines in Ottawa with the Icon, Sky tower, 900 Albert and this one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 3:15 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,881
I am not totally opposed to skyscrapers in Ottawa but Ottawa's situation is unique.

Not long ago, I read that even Montreal has height restrictions, that no building can be taller than Mont Royal.

Ottawa has a special feature, Parliament Hill. It is by far our most spectacular set of buildings.

Yet, we are keen on building modern towers near by. Why? First on Hull Island and now Lebreton Flats. How does this improve the appearance of our city? This is a major selling point. All we do by putting these structures up is to attract our eye away from Parliament. How will these buildings look in 30 or 50 years. Is this what we really want to do?

I visited Wroclaw Poland in 2015. It is a beautiful human scaled city except they put up one skyscraper, that isn't really downtown. Have a look. It is so out of place in this city and draws your eye from many miles away. It really isn't an improvement for that city. It looks totally out of place.



I have said it before. If we want towers, place them well away from downtown. With LRT, this becomes possible.

We have a special situation in our downtown. Why can we not have top quality human scaled development that does not overwhelm the skyline with second rate architecture?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 5:08 PM
HighwayStar's Avatar
HighwayStar HighwayStar is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: PHX (by way of YOW)
Posts: 1,193
Those opposed to skyscrapers in Ottawa must really freak out at London... where they put a GIANT ferris wheel directly across from Big Ben.

I'm sure a giant wheel on the EB Eddy property would sail through the NCC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 8:58 PM
OTSkyline OTSkyline is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,554
We already have these stupid protected views and sight lines from every angle of downtown and Parliament Hill. If they have done the analysis and this 55 story tower does not interfere with the protected views then what is the problem? Someone standing on Wellington St. in front of the Parliament is not going to be seeing this 55 story tower in the Lebreton (down a hill nonetheless, so the 55 story tower will not in fact be as high as 55 story in downtown).

We are a National Capital with over 1.3M residents and our downtown (and most of Hull) is all protected from tall buildings. Where does one propose we build these? In Sandy Hill or Pinecrest? Then we'll see how ""You've got flat, flat, flat, then this thing in the middle."



Urgh so frustrating...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 9:17 PM
Soi-Fon's Avatar
Soi-Fon Soi-Fon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I am not totally opposed to skyscrapers in Ottawa but Ottawa's situation is unique.

Not long ago, I read that even Montreal has height restrictions, that no building can be taller than Mont Royal.

Ottawa has a special feature, Parliament Hill. It is by far our most spectacular set of buildings.

Yet, we are keen on building modern towers near by. Why? First on Hull Island and now Lebreton Flats. How does this improve the appearance of our city? This is a major selling point. All we do by putting these structures up is to attract our eye away from Parliament. How will these buildings look in 30 or 50 years. Is this what we really want to do?

I visited Wroclaw Poland in 2015. It is a beautiful human scaled city except they put up one skyscraper, that isn't really downtown. Have a look. It is so out of place in this city and draws your eye from many miles away. It really isn't an improvement for that city. It looks totally out of place.



I have said it before. If we want towers, place them well away from downtown. With LRT, this becomes possible.

We have a special situation in our downtown. Why can we not have top quality human scaled development that does not overwhelm the skyline with second rate architecture?
Well, if you ask me,you can't compare these buildings in Poland to those who could get build (I wish) In Ottawa for one simple reason : THEY WOULDN'T BE NEAR ANYTHING HISTORICAL !

See my point, son ? It's not like they would be next to the peace tower or something like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 9:40 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTSkyline View Post
We already have these stupid protected views and sight lines from every angle of downtown and Parliament Hill. If they have done the analysis and this 55 story tower does not interfere with the protected views then what is the problem? Someone standing on Wellington St. in front of the Parliament is not going to be seeing this 55 story tower in the Lebreton (down a hill nonetheless, so the 55 story tower will not in fact be as high as 55 story in downtown).

We are a National Capital with over 1.3M residents and our downtown (and most of Hull) is all protected from tall buildings. Where does one propose we build these? In Sandy Hill or Pinecrest? Then we'll see how ""You've got flat, flat, flat, then this thing in the middle."



Urgh so frustrating...
What about the classic view of Parliament from the Interprovincial bridge. A 55 storey building would be the background of that classic view. Also from Major's Hill Park.

We need to learn a little bit about aesthetics. We gave into Bob Campeau in the 60s when he overbuilt Place de Ville by 5 storeys. That is still considered a mistake because the buildings really lack merit.

As far as where to build these skyscrapers. We are already doing so in Little Italy. How about Hurdman? or Centrepointe? or Westboro? or Tunney's Pasture? They are all on rapid transit.

There are all kinds of places to build 55 storey buildings that will not ruin views of Parliament.

We shouldn't just give into private interests since they are only really concerned about making a profit on that particular building. We all know the developers will sell units at a premium based on green space or views and then after everything is sold, then build on the green space or block the view with another building. We have already heard that comment from residents in the existing buildings on Lebreton Flats.

Let's face it, this is all about trying to ring out more money out of a piece of land. It has nothing to do with improving our city. It is about improving their bottom line.

If we are really keen on turning Lebreton into an urban paradise, we need buildings of good design that are a reasonable height and that fill in the area right to the edge of the sidewalks. We need continuous street fronts that is in keeping of an extension of downtown. We don't need towers in a park spaced significantly apart. I want to see creative and dense use of the land without building monstrosities. In keeping with the character of our downtown area, buildings of up 25 storeys seem reasonable.

Remember, we are talking about condos here. It is not as if we are bringing office jobs back into downtown. Instead, they are fleeing to the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 1:58 AM
Marshsparrow Marshsparrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,056
Likelihood of this being buit + Zibi + Rendez-Vous + + + = fat chance of zero!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 2:41 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,368
Time to post the Ottawa view planes documentation again.

The NCC has meticulously calculated where the best parliamentary, and national symbols, views are, and then protected the area in front of and behind it. I agree with OTSkyline... as this proposal doesn't (apparently) interfere with these sacred views, then it should not be opposed on that basis.

Quote:
CANADA’S CAPITAL VIEWS PROTECTION

Protecting the Visual Integrity and Symbolic Primacy
of Our National Symbols


http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/sites/defau...ction-2007.pdf
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 12:02 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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