424 Metcalfe/Beaver Barracks Redevelopment | Completed

waterloowarrior · #1 Posted: **May 1, 2008, 10:15 PM**

424 metcalfe/beaver barracks by CCOC (Barry J Hobin & associates is the architect)
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...ion_8.5x11.pdf
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...ar%20Apr22.pdf

I really like the site plan for this one

Kitchissippi · #2 Posted: **May 1, 2008, 10:23 PM**

I like the courtyard set up but I'm not so sure about the 8 storey building in the corner. I was really hoping they would set aside some set-back so that in the far future, the Museum of Nature would gain some visibility from the Queensway. Right now the perspective seems crammed. When the museum building and the Windsor Arms apartments were built, the Queensway was a railroad so that view was never considered.

Also, Metcalfe is supposed to be a tourist gateway -- tourists coming from the west (eastbound Queensway) are signed to go this way to get to Parliament Hill and the InfoCentre. It would be nice to see something more festive and exciting on the corner.

kwoldtimer · #3 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 1:57 AM**

Interesting. A proposal for that site has been a long time coming.

Rathgrith · #4 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 2:16 AM**

Isn't the Iraqi Embassy there right now?

Kitchissippi · #5 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 2:34 AM**

The Iraqi embassy is on McLeod, on the front side of the museum. This site is behind, beside the YMCA

kwoldtimer · #6 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 2:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I like the courtyard set up but I'm not so sure about the 8 storey building in the corner. I was really hoping they would set aside some set-back so that in the far future, the Museum of Nature would gain some visibility from the Queensway. Right now the perspective seems crammed. When the museum building and the Windsor Arms apartments were built, the Queensway was a railroad so that view was never considered.

Also, Metcalfe is supposed to be a tourist gateway -- tourists coming from the west (eastbound Queensway) are signed to go this way to get to Parliament Hill and the InfoCentre. It would be nice to see something more festive and exciting on the corner.

Perhaps Ms. Holmes will help you out - she'll probably think that 8 stories on that corner is too tall!

O-Town Hockey · #7 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 3:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Perhaps Ms. Holmes will help you out - she'll probably think that 8 stories on that corner is too tall!

I'm sure they've already thought of that and actually hope to get approved for 5-6 storeys. What a farce.

movebyleap · #8 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 3:40 AM**

How odd! I've never seen those buildings before! Barracks? Well, in any case - good thing they're getting rid of them. They're just awful looking!!

waterloowarrior · #9 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 3:49 AM**

here's a project overview from CCOC's website

Mille Sabords · #10 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I like the courtyard set up but I'm not so sure about the 8 storey building in the corner. I was really hoping they would set aside some set-back so that in the far future, the Museum of Nature would gain some visibility from the Queensway. Right now the perspective seems crammed. When the museum building and the Windsor Arms apartments were built, the Queensway was a railroad so that view was never considered.

Also, Metcalfe is supposed to be a tourist gateway -- tourists coming from the west (eastbound Queensway) are signed to go this way to get to Parliament Hill and the InfoCentre. It would be nice to see something more festive and exciting on the corner.

Personally, I don't have a problem with an 8-storey building providing a strong edge to this corner, to signal an entrance into urban conditions from the highway, and to channel the perspective and the view toward the museum with a sharper focus than if the eye were distracted with the type of aimless suburban shrubbery one would find within a typical Ottawa "building setback".

I give this proposal good marks on urbanity and on their approach to site development.

I'm also happy to see they're loosing the paramedics station, which was in the wrong location to begin with. My wife used to live in the Windsor Arms years ago when they were talking about building that paramedics station and most people weren't too thrilled with the prospect of sirens at any hour right by their windows. Good riddance.

Jamaican-Phoenix · #11 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 3:12 PM**

Now THAT's what I call urban infill!

ajldub · #12 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 7:38 PM**

I'm with you Milles, I like the density. It takes priority over views from the queensway in my opinion. In Dublin, where I have been living for five years now, when a highway cuts through a city they make the walls surrounding the highway out of stone. This absorbs 100% of the sounds and vibrations so you can walk along the stone wall and have no idea that cars are on the other side. It's great. We should do it in Ottawa. Ideally I'd like to see the NCC bury the queensway and put down a tree-lined boulevard with a speed limit of 70 on top, but like most things we bring up on this forum it's far too bold and visionary an idea for them.

So is this project a mix of public housing/condos then?

O-Town Hockey · #13 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 9:19 PM**

Besides being adjacent to the Queensway, that spot is a gem. It's really nice along that stretch of Metcalfe, the park around the Nature museum is gonna be really nice, and you can walk to the Glebe or DT in minutes. These units will bring in a few bucks.

Jamaican-Phoenix · #14 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

Besides being adjacent to the Queensway, that spot is a gem. It's really nice along that stretch of Metcalfe, the park around the Nature museum is gonna be really nice, and you can walk to the Glebe or DT in minutes. These units will bring in a few bucks.

That is a really good location. Close to the Glebe and Downtown, Bank St., the Museum and a nice park, Elgin St., the Canal...Dang, maybe I should try and move in there...

Kitchissippi · #15 Posted: **May 2, 2008, 10:47 PM**

I have no problem with the density, in fact I would like to see something denser, with an even taller building at the corner, possibly to balance with the YMCA tower. What I was hoping for was the possibility of a wider sidewalk on the Metcalfe side, with a setback that at least lined up with the museum building's curved "apse". I find the Windsor Arms a bit too forward and it pinches the view. It has gotten worse since the Museum of Nature built its south addition which presents a black stone wall as you drive towards it with the museum's name on it. It's really cool (I think there is or was supposed to have water flowing down it) but it needs more width to be appreciated better because it feels a bit closed in. I know the Windsor Arms is in the way, but maybe it too gets "redeveloped" somehow in the future.

I've gone onto Museum's new terrace and it is a spectacular space. When the East side opens, the cafeteria will have access to it.

rodionx · #16 Posted: **May 3, 2008, 1:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Personally, I don't have a problem with an 8-storey building providing a strong edge to this corner, to signal an entrance into urban conditions from the highway,

That corner could definitely use an eight story signal that it's the beginning of a residential area. Currently, it takes drivers a couple of blocks to figure out they're not on the highway anymore. So I'm ok with the lack of views. Eyes on the road!

ajldub · #17 Posted: **May 3, 2008, 1:02 PM**

It would actually be a great place for a twentysomething tower that would make a bold statement that downtown begins here. And it would look great driving right by it on the Queensway.

adam-machiavelli · #18 Posted: **May 5, 2008, 3:20 AM**

I was just talking to someone who helped do the social aspects of the planning of this place. Apparently every new unit is going to be subsidized housing.

ajldub · #19 Posted: **May 5, 2008, 8:27 AM**

Maybe one of the professional planners on this site can clarify things for me, but hasn't it been shown time and again that building projects that are 100% public housing is a really bad idea?

Mille Sabords · #20 Posted: **May 5, 2008, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajldub

Maybe one of the professional planners on this site can clarify things for me, but hasn't it been shown time and again that building projects that are 100% public housing is a really bad idea?

You're right, the most current thinking says that a tenure mix is much better. Toronto is experimenting a new mixed-tenure approach (rental, subsidized rental, and condo ownership) in their Regent Park redevelopment, which is a massive laboratory and one I think will prove itself as the way to go.

This particular one, I'm not too worried about because it is one relatively small site and it already abuts a private rental building (the Windsor Arms) as part of a fairly fine-grained urban fabric.

But there are several areas in the city, starting with the "projects" in Lowertown, which would lend themselves to the Regent Park formula when the time comes to redevelop them.