Château Laurier expansion | Approved

[mykl]

God I hope I don't have to chain myself to a post in the parking lot when the excavators come....

I'll join you.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I'll join you.

Count me in as well.

[Harley613]

Well it looks like we have found a location for our next SSP Meet! BYOB.

[rocketphish]

Senator wants NCC to have power to limit development near Parliament Hill

Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: December 13, 2019

Serge Joyal will leave the Senate in February, but first he wants to give the National Capital Commission power to regulate development near Parliament Hill.

The raucous public debate over a planned addition to the Château Laurier drove him to launch a private member’s bill, Bill S-203, the Liberal senator said in an interview Thursday.

Currently the NCC can make decisions about development on the Hill itself, but not on private land nearby, Joyal said.

“Canada is the only G-7 country” that does not have the power to regulate development near national historic sites, he said.

He said this allows developers to build projects that cast a shadow over Parliament Hill and which are not in keeping with the Parliamentary district.

It was, he said, a problem that only occurred to people once Larco Investments made public its plan to add a seven-story, contemporary addition to the century-old Château.

He is not opposed to expansion of the Château, but this proposal does not meet the criteria for the type of development that should be allowed next to such an important historic site.

“I will be retiring in February. I will stay for second reading (of the bill) and then Senator (Patricia) Bovey will take over as sponsor,” he said.

The bill is called “An Act to amend the National Capital Act (buildings or works of national significance)” and was introduced to the Senate on Tuesday. It would apply to both building and demolition within several hundred metres of the Hill and other national historic sites.

Provinces have the power to protect the areas around their important sites, Joyal noted.

The controversial addition to the Château is in limbo after the city’s committee of adjustment rejected the hotel owner’s request for a minor variance in September.

In a written decision, the city’s committee of adjustment rejected Larco Investments’ request for a variance that would have allowed the firm to break ground on its seven-storey, 147-room addition to the historic hotel.

In rejecting the request, the five-member committee said the variance was not minor in nature.

Larco will appeal.

Heritage supporters have widely attacked the Larco plans. The City of Ottawa’s official heritage protectors — a panel of community experts in heritage and architecture — said council’s planning committee should reject the latest design.

Joyal said other senators have been supportive of his idea so far. If his bill passes the Senate it would be sent to the House of Commons, where he believes it may be non-partisan enough to pass even with a minority government.

He also thanked this newspaper for keeping the story in the public view.

tspears@postmedia.com
twitter.com/TomSpears1

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/senator-wants-ncc-to-have-power-to-limit-development-near-the-hill

[CityTech]

Is that even constitutional? Urban development/municipal affairs is constitutionally delegated to the provinces (and provinces in turn designate that to their creatures, the municipalities).

[rocketphish]

UNESCO wants Château hotel addition re-assessed 'before any irrevocable decisions are made'

Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: February 12, 2020

UNESCO warns that the planned addition to the Château Laurier could damage the “viewscape” and the overall value of the Rideau Canal, which is a World Heritage site.

It wants the project held until it is re-assessed.

The addition, along with a plan to build apartments beside the Cataraqui River in Kingston, “could have a significantly negative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property (i.e. the canal) and should not proceed until their full impacts have been assessed,” UNESCO says.

The warning comes in a letter to the Canadian delegation to UNESCO, from Mechtild Rössler, director of UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre.

UNESCO is basing its request on a technical evaluation by another international body, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).

UNESCO calls the canal “the best preserved example of a slackwater canal in North America demonstrating the use of European slackwater technology in North America on a large scale. It is the only canal dating from the great canal-building era of the early 19th-century that remains operational along its original line with most of its original structures intact.”

The technical review says Ottawa has concluded the addition would not have any physical impact on the canal, and would not lessen its heritage status as a military route.

But it says the view may be a problem and Ottawa “has not addressed this aspect of the property.”

Specifically, it says Ottawa’s Official Plan calls for measures to ensure that “visual quality of the waterway and view from the waterway, as well as natural and cultural features, are evaluated.”

As well, “the viewscape framed by the Canadian Parliament Buildings and the Château Laurier Hotel overlooks the Ottawa Locks, which is the largest single set of locks” in the entire Rideau system. The views around this area are “quintessential to the Rideau Canal experience.”

The review says it is “essential that utmost care be taken in assessing impacts before any irrevocable decisions are made.”

The review stops short of judging whether there would be too much impact, but asks for a full evaluation — by the federal government, not by the city. (The canal is Parks Canada property.)

UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre asks to be kept informed of developments.

Heritage Ottawa, a volunteer organization that has opposed the Château addition’s design, said it has just received the UNESCO document and needs time to discuss it.

But president David Flemming said the concept of the view around the canal is indeed central. “That’s part of the basis of our challenge,” he said.

“Obviously view planes, compatibility, impact on the canal — those are all things that we feel should have been taken into consideration.”

Flemming said his group asked UNESCO to become involved in November, just at the time of the great fire in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. The cathedral is UNESCO heritage site as well..

He didn’t hear back.

“Somebody had asked me: Have we got a reply from UNESCO? And I said no, and the woman I sent it to — I just saw her on TV talking about the cathedral. I said maybe the Château Laurier and the Rideau Canal are not on her mind now.”

Then the reply came. “We’re going to be looking over it in the next few days,” he said.

This newspaper has invited a representative of Larco Investments, which owns the hotel, to discuss its response.

tspears@postmedia.com
twitter.com/TomSpears1

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/unesco-wants-chateau-hotel-addition-re-assessed-before-any-irrevocable-decisions-are-made

[acottawa]

This seems pretty ridiculous to me. There are no mentions of importance of 20th century hotel architecture in the citation, no mention of views of the cityscape. The addition in no way impedes access to the canal or blocks views of the canal. While the proposed addition clearly has its flaws, it is nowhere near as ugly as many of the buildings surrounding the canal (various 1960s brutalist apartment buildings, for example).

[kwoldtimer]

Reassessed by whom and on what legal basis? Since it’s UNESCO does that mean it falls to the GofC to undertake the review? :shrug:

[mykl]

This seems pretty ridiculous to me. There are no mentions of importance of 20th century hotel architecture in the citation, no mention of views of the cityscape. The addition in no way impedes access to the canal or blocks views of the canal. While the proposed addition clearly has its flaws, it is nowhere near as ugly as many of the buildings surrounding the canal (various 1960s brutalist apartment buildings, for example).

Those items were in place BEFORE it became a UNESCO site. They're only concerned with what comes next, and rightfully so.

[acottawa]

Either the presence of post-1930 buildings in the vicinity of the canal detracts from the heritage value of the canal (in which case there never should have been a designation) or it is not (in which case this should be of no interest). If they thought the view of the 20th century back of the hotel was integral to the 19th century canal then they should have included it.

[Harley613]

Either the presence of post-1930 buildings in the vicinity of the canal detracts from the heritage value of the canal (in which case there never should have been a designation) or it is not (in which case this should be of no interest). If they thought the view of the 20th century back of the hotel was integral to the 19th century canal then they should have included it.

Complete Bull. Unesco was formed in the 1970's. The Chateau Laurier was already a grand old dame by then and is now ancient in Canadian terms. We can't pick and choose the exact date when something became classic, however the Chateau is now an obvious example of the great Canadian Railroad Hotel and it ought to be preserved. Preserving heritage is the function of UNESCO and the fact that other less important buildings have been built in the same area further up the canal since the Chateau was built certainly doesn't diminish the Chateau's importance. The Chateau is omnipresent in any photo or view plane of the very historically important and UNESCO recognized locks and as such it should be protected.

[acottawa]

Complete Bull. Unesco was formed in the 1970's. The Chateau Laurier was already a grand old dame by then and is now ancient in Canadian terms. We can't pick and choose the exact date when something became classic, however the Chateau is now an obvious example of the great Canadian Railroad Hotel and it ought to be preserved. Preserving heritage is the function of UNESCO and the fact that other less important buildings have been built in the same area further up the canal since the Chateau was built certainly doesn't diminish the Chateau's importance. The Chateau is omnipresent in any photo or view plane of the very historically important and UNESCO recognized locks and as such it should be protected.

If UNESCO thinks the back of the Chateau Laurier is of global heritage significance then it should designate the Chateau Laurier, not try to lump it in with an unrelated heritage canal.

[Harley613]

UNESCO's mandate is to preserve World Heritage Sites. The Chateau has inexorably become part of the heritage of the locks, which are the linchpin of the Rideau Canal, which is the Raison D'Etre of the entire city of Ottawa. The Chateau is part of the ambiance of the locks, they are tied together historically and visually. I am very pleased that a world class organization like UNESCO is speaking up about this issue after our spineless local council deferred and lapsed in their judgement.

[acottawa]

UNESCO's mandate is to preserve World Heritage Sites. The Chateau has inexorably become part of the heritage of the locks, which are the linchpin of the Rideau Canal, which is the Raison D'Etre of the entire city of Ottawa. The Chateau is part of the ambiance of the locks, they are tied together historically and visually. I am very pleased that a world class organization like UNESCO is speaking up about this issue after our spineless local council deferred and lapsed in their judgement.

It sounds like your support of this UNESCO initiative has way more to do with your personal dislike of the expansion project. What about the dozens of projects that have occurred within the vicinity of the canal: Rideau Centre expansion, NAC renovation, Convention Centre, various Carleton and OttawaU projects, the LRT, Lansdowne, Queensway and 401 construction, the new Kingston bridge, the new ferry terminal in Kingston, the Wolfe Island wind farm, various condo projects. Should UNESCO be blocking those too, or just the ones you personally don’t like?

UNESCO’s citation in no way mentioned the Chateau Laurier as being an inexorable part of the heritage of the locks. If they thought that was the case they should have said so. If it is that inexorable then Parks Canada should buy the hotel.

[J.OT13]

It sounds like your support of this UNESCO initiative has way more to do with your personal dislike of the expansion project. What about the dozens of projects that have occurred within the vicinity of the canal: Rideau Centre expansion, NAC renovation, Convention Centre, various Carleton and OttawaU projects, the LRT, Lansdowne, Queensway and 401 construction, the new Kingston bridge, the new ferry terminal in Kingston, the Wolfe Island wind farm, various condo projects. Should UNESCO be blocking those too, or just the ones you personally don’t like?

UNESCO’s citation in no way mentioned the Chateau Laurier as being an inexorable part of the heritage of the locks. If they thought that was the case they should have said so. If it is that inexorable then Parks Canada should buy the hotel.

I'm relatively ok with Château expansion. There's a lot I like about it, and other things less so but I don't believe it will detract from the old structure all that much, though I understand the strong opposition by others.

That said, I think the general consensus is that the Rideau Centre's expansion has little to no effect on the canal, the NAC renovations were very respectful of the old architecture and have improved the building, the Convention Centre is far better than the old Congress Centre, the modern University buildings have created nicer vistas than what we had 10-20 years ago with mostly brutalist architecture that had stood on its own for decades, the O-Train provides a more modern look and feel than the old Transitway (those ovverhead wires are not visually appealing), Lansdowne is far better than the old parking lot and concrete south-side stands, the Queensway over the canal remains unchanged.

I can't speak for the Kingston projects because I am unfamiliar with their relationship with the canal.

Point being, all of the projects you mentioned, in Ottawa at least, have mostly improved the area around the canal. The Château Laurier expansion on the other hand, could have a negative impact on existing vistas.

Now does UNESCO have authority over what happens near the canal, maybe not, but its voice does matter.

[acottawa]

I'm relatively ok with Château expansion. There's a lot I like about it, and other things less so but I don't believe it will detract from the old structure all that much, though I understand the strong opposition by others.

That said, I think the general consensus is that the Rideau Centre's expansion has little to no effect on the canal, the NAC renovations were very respectful of the old architecture and have improved the building, the Convention Centre is far better than the old Congress Centre, the modern University buildings have created nicer vistas than what we had 10-20 years ago with mostly brutalist architecture that had stood on its own for decades, the O-Train provides a more modern look and feel than the old Transitway (those ovverhead wires are not visually appealing), Lansdowne is far better than the old parking lot and concrete south-side stands, the Queensway over the canal remains unchanged.

I can't speak for the Kingston projects because I am unfamiliar with their relationship with the canal.

Point being, all of the projects you mentioned, in Ottawa at least, have mostly improved the area around the canal. The Château Laurier expansion on the other hand, could have a negative impact on existing vistas.

Now does UNESCO have authority over what happens near the canal, maybe not, but its voice does matter.

But these are your personal opinions about the aesthetics of particular piece of architecture or project. What is the policy you want UNESCO to undertake? Is it supposed to judge the aesthetic value of projects in the general vicinity of heritage sites?

The hotel has nothing to do with the canal, except that they happen to be in the sane general vicinity.

[kwoldtimer]

But these are your personal opinions about the aesthetics of particular piece of architecture or project. What is the policy you want UNESCO to undertake? Is it supposed to judge the aesthetic value of projects in the general vicinity of heritage sites?

The hotel has nothing to do with the canal, except that they happen to be in the sane general vicinity.

I’m not an expert wrt UNESCO, but I believe its mandate does extend to the impact of projects in the vicinity, so whether or not one wants such a mandate is not relevant.

[acottawa]

I’m not an expert wrt UNESCO, but I believe its mandate does extend to the impact of projects in the vicinity, so whether or not one wants such a mandate is not relevant.

Where does it say that? All we have is an excerpt from a letter from an official that cites no jurisdiction or legal requirement.

This looks like the typical tactic of UN officials that like to be seen scolding developed countries.

[kwoldtimer]

Where does it say that? All we have is an excerpt from a letter from an official that cites no jurisdiction or legal requirement.

This looks like the typical tactic of UN officials that like to be seen scolding developed countries.

I know it was a factor wrt the Casco Viejo of Panama City and the construction of a causeway around it, a few years ago. So there seem to be precedents. Whether that represents an explicit UNESCO mandate, I couldn’t say. How I would evaluate the impact of nearby new construction on existing heritage, I also couldn’t say, although I doubt it’s a one-size-fits-all proposition.

[acottawa]

I know it was a factor wrt the Casco Viejo of Panama City and the construction of a causeway around it, a few years ago. So there seem to be precedents. Whether that represents an explicit UNESCO mandate, I couldn’t say. How I would evaluate the impact of nearby new construction on existing heritage, I also couldn’t say, although I doubt it’s a one-size-fits-all proposition.

In that case UNESCO designated the whole old town (as they did in Lunenburg). There is not the case in Ottawa. The designation is just for the canal and related infrastructure.

[J.OT13]

New Château Laurier design agreed upon by Larco and Heritage Ottawa. Looks like a throwback to the first proposal.

Jim Watson
@JimWatsonOttawa

I am pleased to see that LARCO and Heritage Ottawa have worked collaboratively and agreed on a new design for the Château Laurier that protects views from Major’s Hill Park and meets Council’s key conditions for improvement. 1/2

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfTfbUqXgAAUmoP?format=jpg&name=smallhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfTfc97XYAEk9cM?format=jpg&name=small

12:03 PM · Aug 13, 2020·Twitter Web App

Jim Watson
@JimWatsonOttawa

I’ll look forward to the debate at Committee and Council on this proposed design that protects the cherished Château Laurier for current and future generations. 2/2

12:03 PM · Aug 13, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/JimWatsonOttawa/status/1293941313671507968

[J.OT13]

I preferred the previous version. This one is too damn tall. I can't comprehend how after 4 years we end up with something that's pretty much the first iteration in massing, but the last in design.

[J.OT13]

Latest Château Laurier design pleases heritage group, mayor

'Dramatically altered' design a vast improvement, Heritage Ottawa says

CBC News · Posted: Aug 13, 2020 1:15 PM ET | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5685025.1597335702!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/chateau-laurier-ottawa-design-2020.jpg
The latest design features a U-shaped courtyard and vastly improves sightlines of the grand hotel, according to Heritage Ottawa. (@JimWatsonOttawa/Twitter)

Both Heritage Ottawa and Mayor Jim Watson say they're pleased with the latest design for an expansion of the city's iconic Château Laurier hotel.

According to Heritage Ottawa, the "dramatically altered" design represents a "ground-breaking change" that "will see an end to the widely vilified horizontal bar-shaped structure that blocked the rear view of the historic hotel."

The new design features two pavilions with a low-rise connector, which the heritage group said is "more compatible with the irregular silhouette of the original hotel," and improves views of the building from Major's Hill Park and the Rideau Canal.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5685183.1597340453!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/chateau-laurier-addition-expansion-design-2020.jpg
A view of the latest proposal from the National War Memorial area. (Larco Investments)

Heritage Ottawa also approves of the use of Indiana limestone cladding, as well as copper and bronze elements that reflect "the heritage character-defining elements of the historic hotel."

Larco Investments, which bought the hotel in 2014, submitted the first expansion proposal two years later. It and several subsequent attempts were roundly criticized by the public, politicians and heritage experts alike.

In September 2019, Ottawa's committee of adjustment turned down parts of the design that city council had voted to allow.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5147058.1562883734!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/chateau-laurier-may-2019-as-seen-from-major-s-hill-park.jpg
This design proposal, the fifth, was submitted in May 2019. (Larco Investments)

In a statement Thursday, Heritage Ottawa commended both Larco and the ordinary citizens who demanded a better design.

"This ground-breaking change of course was made possible by the citizens of Ottawa and by Canadians from across the country who, responding to the absence of government action, joined Heritage Ottawa in its fight to find a better outcome for this beloved National Historic Site."

Mayor Jim Watson also signalled his approval on Thursday.

Watson did not provide a timeline for that decision.

In a separate statement Thursday, Larco confirmed it had settled its dispute with Heritage Ottawa before the province's Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, and said it will now begin talks with the National Capital Commission about the project.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5284594.1568578736!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/chateau-laurier-hotel-woman-photograph-major-s-hill-park-ottawa.jpg
A woman photographs the Château Laurier hotel from Major's Hill Park in Ottawa on Sept. 15, 2019. (Claudine Richard/Radio-Canada)


Clarifications

Aug 13, 2020 6:06 PM ET A previous version of this story said Larco has settled its dispute with Heritage Ottawa before the province's Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and that Larco will now begin talks with the National Capital Commission about the project. In fact, Larco still has to appear before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the company said it's ready to resume talks with both the City of Ottawa and the National Capital Commission regarding the revised design plans.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-hotel-design-ottawa-1.5685003

[J.OT13]

CHÂTEAU LAURIER ADDITION: HERITAGE OTTAWA ANNOUNCES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH HOTEL OWNER AND NEW DESIGN FOR PROPOSED ADDITION

Thursday, August 13, 2020
HERITAGE OTTAWA | Media Release

HERITAGE OTTAWA is pleased to announce that it has reached an agreement with Capital Hotel Limited Partnership, an affiliate of Larco Investments Ltd., and the owner of the Château Laurier Hotel, concerning the proposed addition to the Château Laurier.

The agreement is based on a dramatically altered design of the addition that will see an end to the widely vilified horizontal bar-shaped structure that blocked the rear view of the historic hotel.

This ground-breaking change of course was made possible by the citizens of Ottawa and by Canadians from across the country who, responding to the absence of government action, joined Heritage Ottawa in its fight to find a better outcome for this beloved National Historic Site.

This breakthrough was enabled by the owner’s willingness to consider public concerns and to work with Heritage Ottawa and internationally respected Canadian conservation experts to revise the design in favour of a more compatible scheme that respects the heritage character of the Château Laurier. We appreciate Larco’s openness to negotiation and the good will it showed in those discussions leading to a resolution of this dispute.

The new two-pavilion design with low-rise connector is more compatible with the irregular silhouette of the original hotel and reopens iconic views to the rear courtyard that reveal the U-shaped form and picturesque qualities of the Château Laurier from Major’s Hill Park and re-establishes a more favourable relationship with the Rideau Canal.

The preponderance of Indiana limestone cladding and copper and bronze elements reflects the heritage character-defining elements of the historic hotel.


“From the beginning we have called for an appropriate contemporary architecture that respects the heritage characteristics of the hotel, and we are very pleased with this result,” said Richard Belliveau, president of Heritage Ottawa. “Heritage Ottawa could never have achieved this outcome without the advice of heritage experts and historians, and more importantly, without the financial and moral support of the Friends of the Château Laurier and the hundreds of Canadians who gave so much to this important cause.”

The Minutes of Settlement and associated design will require approval by the City of Ottawa and the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT).

Contact : info@heritageottawa.org

https://heritageottawa.org/news/ch%C3%A2teau-laurier-addition-heritage-ottawa-announces-settlement-agreement-hotel-owner-and-new

[Multi-modal]

I preferred the previous version. This one is too damn tall. I can't comprehend how after 4 years we end up with something that's pretty much the first iteration in massing, but the last in design.

Disagree. This is all just everyone's own opinion, but to my untrained eye the latest proposal has way more visual "nods" and alignment with the old building (roof line, 1st and 2nd story windows, etc.) than the old one.

I also like how you can see more of the old building's roof line and interior through the courtyard from Major Hill's Park.

[J.OT13]

Disagree. This is all just everyone's own opinion, but to my untrained eye the latest proposal has way more visual "nods" and alignment with the old building (roof line, 1st and 2nd story windows, etc.) than the old one.

I also like how you can see more of the old building's roof line and interior through the courtyard from Major Hill's Park.

We can see more of the interior courtyard, which is good, but it hides the back of the east and west wings and that part of the iconic roof line. I'll need to see more and better renderings (from the Hill, the Canal and the Museum of Civilization in particular) to formulate a complete opinion.

[rocketphish]

Heritage Ottawa finds common ground with Château Laurier owner on design, ending legal fights

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Aug 13, 2020 • Last Updated 5 minutes ago • 2 minute read

https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/ottawacitizen/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/7dbb908b-0bb6-4a63-842e-cc5c367eec46_79649086-w.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=650

The owner of the Château Laurier and a heritage advocacy group have drawn up a compromise when it comes to the design of an addition to the historic hotel.

Larco Investments announced Thursday that it reached an agreement with Heritage Ottawa on a new design that will end the advocacy group’s court action and challenges filed at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

“This breakthrough was enabled by the owner’s willingness to consider public concerns and to work with Heritage Ottawa and internationally respected Canadian conservation experts to revise the design in favour of a more compatible scheme that respects the heritage character of the Château Laurier,” Heritage Ottawa said in a written statement.

“We appreciate Larco’s openness to negotiation and the good will it showed in those discussions leading to a resolution of this dispute.”

Larco said it will be filing the new design plans with the City of Ottawa and the National Capital Commission. The city will need to approve the latest design.

“The new scheme will have 155 rooms, which is greater than the 147 rooms in the previous scheme, as the reconfiguration of the area and massing has permitted an increase in the number of rooms while keeping the overall square footage the same or slightly less,” Larco spokesperson Dennis Parolin said.

Larco’s architect on the project is Peter Clewes of architectsAlliance.

According to Heritage Ottawa, “the agreement is based on a dramatically altered design of the addition that will see an end to the widely vilified horizontal bar-shaped structure that blocked the rear view of the historic hotel.”

The group lauded a new two-pavilion design with a lower connecting piece that won’t block the views from Major’s Hill park to the back of the U-shaped heritage hotel.

The new design “re-establishes a more favourable relationship with the Rideau Canal,” Heritage Ottawa said.

The increase of Indiana limestone, copper and bronze will better complement the hotel, the group said.

Heritage Ottawa president Richard Belliveau credited the many people who backed their fight against the previous architectural plans.

https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/ottawacitizen/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/41d0e5e2-936d-4375-b8b9-c5b8ea2632c7_79649088-w.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=650

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

[rocketphish]

Larco Investments Announces Agreement with Heritage Ottawa on Proposed Addition to Château Laurier
August 13, 2020

OTTAWA, ON Thursday, August 13, 2020 – Capital Hotel Limited Partnership, an affiliate of Larco Investments Ltd. and the owner of the Fairmont Chateau Laurier, is pleased to announce that it has reached an agreement with Heritage Ottawa with respect to the proposed addition to the Fairmont Chateau Laurier.

This revised scheme for the addition was designed by Larco’s architect Peter Clewes, of architectsAlliance, after consultation with and input from experts in heritage architecture, including representatives from Heritage Ottawa.

Pursuant to the agreement reached with Heritage Ottawa, the parties have agreed to consensually resolve the legal proceedings presently before the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT), which are related to the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in 2019, in such a manner so as to permit the revised architectural scheme.

Now that this agreement has been reached with Heritage Ottawa, Larco Investments Ltd will be re-engaging with both the City of Ottawa and the National Capital Commission with respect to the revised design plans.

The agreed upon architectural scheme for the proposed addition is depicted in the two images attached.

A.0.3 Major’s Hill Park view from Colonel By Statue

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/A.0.3-300x185.jpg

A.0.6 War Memorial View

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/A.0.6-300x202.jpg

-30-



For more information, please contact:

Suzanne Valiquet
Momentum Planning and Communications
Phone: 613-729-3773/Cell: 613-222-7839
svaliquet@momentumplancom.ca

http://chateauvision.ca/en/larco-investments-announces-agreement-with-heritage-ottawa-on-proposed-addition-to-chateau-laurier/

[rocketphish]

:previous:

"Capital Hotel Limited Partnership... is pleased to announce..."

Ya, right! ;)

[kwoldtimer]

Would it have been totally kitsch to put a copper chateau roof on the western annex? (Worked for the Supreme Court building). :shrug:

[DarthVader_1961]

Out of curiosity...

The roof on the Chateau is copper. As it ages, it turns green. Will the roof in the addition be roofed in copper as well?

[pfaffml]

I'm surprised they're still intending to go through with this, given the pandemic and the economic slump. Massing is better and significantly breaks down the previous bar they proposed. The facade articulation is the still the same aA barcode found on many of their condos which is already tired and dated although props to them for sticking to limestone, copper and bronze as their materials. I still think that any modern gesture here is inappropriate and antithetical to the site and the hotel. It lacks the timelessness and fantasy that the current hotel provides.

[Harley613]

After all this time we can be absolutely confident they have no will to go back to the drawing board. As for the various iterations they have released of the same general design language I find this one the most palatable by far.

[J.OT13]

This is it. No doubt this design will be built. I would have liked another architect have a go at it, someone who has experience with heritage buildings and/or expanding heritage structures with modern additions.

Peter Coffman came to the same conclusion I did a few hours ago in this Tweet:

Peter Coffman
@TweetsCoffman

Interesting to note how much closer the new design for the #ChâteauLaurier is to the original proposal than to any of the ones in between. How did the process, over a nearly 4-year span, get us further and further away from a solution instead of closer?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfVfgCrWAAIujeW?format=jpg&name=smallhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfVfhgrXYAIWytE?format=jpg&name=small

7:00 PM · Aug 13, 2020·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/TweetsCoffman/status/1294046237268877312

[Harley613]

God that original design was hideous and ornery. It fought with the Chateau for attention with it's bulges and crevasses. At least the latest design is subservient to the Chateau. It's very 'meh' but at least it flows with the original massing and doesn't attract the eye nearly as much as the other designs. Preserving some views of the courtyard from Major's Hill Park is a bittersweet victory.

[Kitchissippi]

I wish the NCC would just “bribe” Larco with a prime piece of LeBreton to build nothing here :D Landswap this tiny site with something much bigger next to Pimisi station where they can build anything and barcode to their heart’s content.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I wish the NCC would just “bribe” Larco with a prime piece of LeBreton to build nothing here :D Landswap this tiny site with something much bigger next to Pimisi station where they can build anything and barcode to their heart’s content.

I would unironically much rather have this happen than any of the proposed additions so far.

[J.OT13]

Got that original design was hideous and ornery. It fought with the Chateau for attention with it's bulges and crevasses. At least the latest design is subservient to the Chateau. It's very 'meh' but at least it flows with the original massing and doesn't attract the eye nearly as much as the other designs. Preserving some views of the courtyard from Major's Hill Park is a bittersweet victory.

Although it's the same massing as the first design (I would like to see the full numbers to compare: height, square footage, number of rooms...), the new proposal is an improvement. As you say, it doesn't compete for attention as the first, or most other, versions did. Good on Larco for working with Heritage Ottawa on these improvements; it's a wonder this wasn't done years before.

I feel like at the end of the day, it was a choice between preserving the views of the interior courtyard from Major's Hill or preserving views of the rear roof line and masonry walls from Parliament Hill, Entrance Bay and Hull.

If the proposal was one or two floors lower, the angle of the roof matched the angle of the original and had dormers instead of slats, then my opinion might shift in favour just a little bit more.

[OTSkyline]

I would have preferred nothing can built or that the extension the same "chateau-style", although with that being said I do believe this latest version is better than the previous. I like the low 1-story glass "connector" which breaks up the previous proposed wall.

[Uhuniau]

I feel like at the end of the day, it was a choice between preserving the views of the interior courtyard from Major's Hill or preserving views of the rear roof line and masonry walls from Parliament Hill, Entrance Bay and Hull.

Except it isn't.

[J.OT13]

Except it isn't.

It is though. Something will get built. The zoning allows for it. There are no heritage protection rules to protect the current view.

[YOWetal]

It is though. Something will get built. The zoning allows for it. There are no heritage protection rules to protect the current view.

Yes exactly. A more confident city might propose a slender 15 story tower in exchange for giving up the rights to develop the rest and adding a permanent public amenity there.

I know dreaming in technicolour but even a bit of height in exchange for something narrower would have been a better solution.

Agree this is an improvement.

[J.OT13]

Out of curiosity...

The roof on the Chateau is copper. As it ages, it turns green. Will the roof in the addition be roofed in copper as well?

It's unclear. They (Heritage Ottawa, Larco, Media) seem to interchange copper and bronze constantly. Not sure if they're talking about the colour or materials.

I agree, they should go with copper. When the addition is built, the roof of the old hotel should be changed at the same time so that the entire building matches. I wish they would do the same on Parliament (at least match the West, Centre and East Blocks and the other buildings individually).

[OTownandDown]

...proving once and for all that if you present your renderings correctly, anybody will buy it.

[harls]

Landswap this tiny site with something much bigger next to Pimisi station where they can build anything and barcode to their heart’s content.

Hey, it's not a barcode. It's the QR code for my winning lottery ticket.

[McKellarDweller]

I wish the NCC would just “bribe” Larco with a prime piece of LeBreton to build nothing here :D Landswap this tiny site with something much bigger next to Pimisi station where they can build anything and barcode to their heart’s content.
:tup:
This was my outlandish fantasy too. Was happy to see it written!
I think it would have been way more palatable to taxpayers than some other options to steer the process.

[suburb]

It is though. Something will get built. The zoning allows for it. There are no heritage protection rules to protect the current view.

In all fairness, the latest proposal is vastly better that the absolutely disgusting parkade that we all had to live with for so many years. I actually can't believe people didn't protest against that prior addition.

[Harley613]

In all fairness, the latest proposal is vastly better that the absolutely disgusting parkade that we all had to live with for so many years. I actually can't believe people didn't protest against that prior addition.

The parkade was disgusting inside but on the outside it was clad in limestone and matched the beltline above the second floor of the Chateau very well. It was pretty low-key. Most of us didn't even realize that it blocked an elegant courtyard until it was gone. I don't think it was a huge juxtaposition like the new addition will be. Hell, I'd take it back over what they are planning.


https://travelwithbender.com/files/6014/4116/5647/fairmont_chateau_laurier_IMG_0638-2.jpg

https://media2.trover.com/T/54d506d3d6bdd478cd00537a/fixedw_large_4x.jpg

[J.OT13]

In terms of the visual impact on the historic hotel, I too much preferred the old parking garage. They actually put in a decent amount of effort in the design, especially considering when it was built.

An expansion that would have been 4 of those garage arches wide along the canal, to create the proposed courtyard; the Major Hill's face aligned with the exterior walls of the two original wings; and the height (maybe slightly higher) of the protruding staircase at the back of the 1912 wing. That would have resulted in about the same volume as the parking garage, persevered the important views fully, and, from my point of view, been fully compatible.

[rocketphish]

New Château Laurier design is evidence of a system that failed

Peter Coffman
Publishing date: Aug 17, 2020 • Last Updated 1 hour ago • 3 minute read

After nearly four years of resistance, re-design, protest and even legal action, we now have a proposal for the addition to the Château Laurier that has met Heritage Ottawa’s approval. Is it better than what city council approved last summer? Yes. Is it a truly outstanding design that will be a jewel in the crown of the parliamentary precinct? No. Is it the best outcome possible given our inadequate heritage processes? Probably.

Let’s look at those questions one at a time.

We’ve only seen two renderings of the design, so there’s still a lot we don’t know about it. But it does appear to be a significant improvement. The design approved by council is a horizontal block that sits across the opening to the courtyard like a giant deadbolt. The twin pavilions lift the deadbolt and re-open the door between the park and the Château. Their asymmetrical massing offers some echo of the picturesque quality of the older building. This is all good, as is the more abundant limestone and strong horizontal divisions, which connect the new to the old without compromising the addition’s distinctiveness.

So, is this what real excellence looks like? No, it’s not. The most successful additions to historic buildings I’ve seen start by understanding the old building and imagining what its present-day architectural descendants might look like. It’s a method that has stood the test of time. Christopher Wren did this at Oxford’s Tom Tower in 1681, as did Arthur Erickson at Ottawa’s Bank of Canada almost exactly 300 years later. Their designs look less like “additions” and more like offshoots that grew naturally from the original at a later date. From the start, the Château Laurier addition was conceived as an independent entity, retrofitted with as many compatible features as the design could manage. That works to a point, but will never result in excellence.

Is that the best result that our heritage protection process can deliver? Actually, even that conclusion is too generous. Our official process ended with city council’s approval of a design so outstandingly bad that public and expert opinion were united in opposition. It took hundreds of people, donating thousands of dollars, plus legal action from Heritage Ottawa, to nudge the design toward something minimally acceptable.

This is for a building that enjoys the maximum heritage protection that our laws provide. The outcome is evidence of a system that failed, not one that works.

We should give credit where credit is due. Without the dogged determination and tireless efforts of a handful of volunteers at Heritage Ottawa, the council-approved design would already be under construction (full disclosure: I am on the board of Heritage Ottawa, but was not part of the process that reached this agreement). And building owner Larco, faced with a PR disaster that must have surpassed its worst nightmares, commissioned one new design after another, some with substantive changes, apparently doing its best to follow directives given by city staff.

We need to ask, though, how this process went so wildly off the rails. How did council come to approve a design that was almost universally panned? How was Larco, having produced a first design that was widely criticized, allowed to veer wildly off in all design directions for years, before ending up with a solution that was really just an improved version of that first design? Nothing in this process suggests the city ever had a coherent vision of what was or was not appropriate, never mind a rudder to steer us there.

Some people are very enthusiastic about this design, which is great news. Others clearly loathe it, which is inevitable. For many in between, it is simply the least bad solution possible under the circumstances. Must we always aim so low?


Peter Coffman is the supervisor of Carleton University’s History and Theory of Architecture program, and past president of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada. He can be contacted at peter.coffman@carleon.ca or @TweetsCoffman.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/coffman-new-chateau-laurier-design-is-evidence-of-a-system-that-failed/wcm/aa668109-248c-472a-89f9-76d5e317f377/

[kwoldtimer]

New Château Laurier design is evidence of a system that failed

Peter Coffman
Publishing date: Aug 17, 2020 • Last Updated 1 hour ago • 3 minute read

...


We need to ask, though, how this process went so wildly off the rails. How did council come to approve a design that was almost universally panned? How was Larco, having produced a first design that was widely criticized, allowed to veer wildly off in all design directions for years, before ending up with a solution that was really just an improved version of that first design? Nothing in this process suggests the city ever had a coherent vision of what was or was not appropriate, never mind a rudder to steer us there.

Some people are very enthusiastic about this design, which is great news. Others clearly loathe it, which is inevitable. For many in between, it is simply the least bad solution possible under the circumstances. Must we always aim so low?


Peter Coffman is the supervisor of Carleton University’s History and Theory of Architecture program, and past president of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada. He can be contacted at peter.coffman@carleon.ca or @TweetsCoffman.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/coffman-new-chateau-laurier-design-is-evidence-of-a-system-that-failed/wcm/aa668109-248c-472a-89f9-76d5e317f377/

Direct those questions to Mayor Watson. He knows...

[OTownandDown]

Direct those questions to Mayor Watson. He knows...

Unfortunately the Mayor has little to do with the system in place.

When dealing with bureaucrats, its always handy to know the process and what boxes to check before you start out. If you can make it through and keep them happy, you're good to go.

[rocketphish]

The Château Laurier will change. But will Ottawa?

Alex Bozikovic - Architecture Critic
The Globe and Mail
August 19, 2019 - Published 17 hours ago

The battle of the Château Laurier may, at long last, be over. For years now, some Ottawans have been attempting to stop an addition on the back of the 1912 hotel that is a national historic site – and, to some in the city, a place just this side of sacred. The debate has been both technical and tub-thumping.

It has also revealed just how people in the nation’s capital think about architecture and about their city. And that has not been pretty.

The opponents of the addition won, sort of. Last week, the local advocacy group Heritage Ottawa announced a settlement with the hotel’s owners, Larco; they had agreed to a new (sixth!) version of the design, and everyone will call off their lawyers. Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson has signed on.

The details (despite the heated rhetoric) are subtle. The existing hotel is roughly U-shaped. The gap in the U faces Major’s Hill Park and the Ottawa River. The main technical issue in this debate has been about where a new addition should go and what form it should take. The new version by the Toronto firm architectsAlliance extends the two arms of the U, with a single-storey event space in between. This allows the back end of the existing building to be seen.

“This is a victory from our point of view,” said Carolyn Quinn, a member of Heritage Ottawa’s committee on the Château. The non-profit group raised $150,000 in donations to support its fight against the previous version of the project – which would have closed up the back of the hotel’s U. In that respect, “We managed to get the owner to ditch what we hated,” she said. “What we have now is structures that emerge in a more complementary way that already exists.” (Full disclosure: I gave a lecture to the group in 2019 on an unrelated topic.)

This is all true; the changes to the form of the building, as well as increased use of the older building’s Indiana limestone and copper, link it conceptually to the fanciful 1912 building.

But the addition remains a modern building, with a rectilinear form, and facades designed with an irregular pattern of solids and voids – the characteristic work of architectsAlliance principal Peter Clewes.

So while Heritage Ottawa (a non-profit which effectively took over the file for the city) may be happy with this technical victory, it hardly appeases other critics of the project.

Many locals held a simplistic idea that new is bad, and old is good. This was expressed in many forms. A highbrow version came in an open letter last year from Margaret MacMillan and three other historians – published by Heritage Ottawa. They argued the hotel’s architecture “draws on history – the past of the chateaux of the Loire, light and Gallic and elegant.” The addition would “transform” the Château, and so it is “an attack on Canadians and their history.” The four worried that “a civic and national treasure will become a civic and national eyesore.”

This letter neither understands nor interrogates the real history of the building, which was confected to give 20th-century tourists a taste of ersatz royalty. These arguments would seem bizarre to a historian in Paris, or Madrid, or the European capitals to which (we are often told) Ottawa can compare itself.

In these places it is a given that new architecture can “transform” the older buildings it accompanies. New buildings express the ideas and the techniques of their time. This ideal is good enough for the Louvre, and the CaixaForum cultural centre in Madrid. It’s also good enough for a railway hotel.

But it doesn’t seem many Ottawans (aside from the heritage professionals) have absorbed this central lesson. Cities change. New architecture should not always defer; it can interject and respond. The Château addition is a polite compromise. It won’t do that.

Unfortunately, none of the other major buildings in contemporary Ottawa will do so either – the new public library and archives, the recently completed temporary homes of Parliament, the 2017 renovation to the National Arts Centre, which subverts the spirit of that important building. All could have gained from the intervention of citizens to make them more ambitious and beautiful. But in Ottawa, it seems beauty is history.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-the-chateau-laurier-will-change-but-will-ottawa/

[FutureWickedCity]

I agree with some of the critic's sentiments, but not the examples he chose. I think the new library is an awesome design and I think most people are happy with the updated NAC. More disappointing to me (in terms of exteriors anyway) was the Ottawa Art Gallery and the buildings at Lansdowne Park. In any case we definitely do need to aim higher. I'd like to see a mayor run on a campaign promise to stop ugly bland architecture.

[J.OT13]

Can we place the first proposals roof on the latest proposal?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfVfgCrWAAIujeW?format=jpg&name=smallhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfVfhgrXYAIWytE?format=jpg&name=small

[Truenorth00]

His criticism also ignores context. The hotel is not on some random lot in a distant suburb.

[J.OT13]

I agree with some of the critic's sentiments, but not the examples he chose. I think the new library is an awesome design and I think most people are happy with the updated NAC. More disappointing to me (in terms of exteriors anyway) was the Ottawa Art Gallery and the buildings at Lansdowne Park. In any case we definitely do need to aim higher. I'd like to see a mayor run on a campaign promise to stop ugly bland architecture.

I agree the NAC's addition is very well done. It respects the original architecture while opening it up to the city. That was the intent, and it succeeded.

Any sort of addition to the original Parliament Buildings would be unacceptable, so I'm quite happy with what was added so far (House of Commons in the courtyard, underground office space and committee rooms, underground visitor's centre with an entrance that respects the old architecture).

For the Senate Building, I agree we could have done more. A full, modern addition to the side, replacing the Corry Block, would have been better than the slim addition that looks tacked-on (makes Old Union look like façadism from certain angles, when it's not). It could also have solved the long standing issues with the underpass.

The new Central Library will be a great addition to the city, culturally and architecturally. It could have been bigger and grander, but would it have been necessary?

I agree that there something missing with the Art Gallery. The tower's design is better than standard Ottawa, but not great. Needs more colour.

Lansdowne, I don't care quite as much. It's outside the traditional city centre. It serves its purpose.

We could have a long conversation about the Confederation Line stations. The initial plans called for grand spaces with amazing architecture, but we ended up with the "Chevy", as the Mayor called it. Functional, but mediocre in nature.

[Harley613]

the 2017 renovation to the National Arts Centre, which subverts the spirit of that important building

The writer lost me right there. The NAC renovation is absolutely brilliant. Not only did it fix mistakes of the original design, it ushered the whole building seamlessly into the future.

[mykl]

The NAC blends well on the outside, but the inside does not flow beautifully like the original building does. And tucking the box office away in the basement is unfortunate. The little stairs at the new entrance and the second level runway creating an area with a low ceiling in a space with a huge height are both really unfortunate. Love the floor though.

[J.OT13]

The NAC blends well on the outside, but the inside does not flow beautifully like the original building does. And tucking the box office away in the basement is unfortunate. The little stairs at the new entrance and the second level runway creating an area with a low ceiling in a space with a huge height are both really unfortunate. Love the floor though.

That would be my only criticisms as well; the low ceiling at the Kipnes Lantern entrance and the location of the box-office, which should have been moved in or near the Elgin entrance.

[AuxTown]

The NAC blends well on the outside, but the inside does not flow beautifully like the original building does. And tucking the box office away in the basement is unfortunate. The little stairs at the new entrance and the second level runway creating an area with a low ceiling in a space with a huge height are both really unfortunate. Love the floor though.

I am sure tucking the box office away was quite intentional. They realized the almost no one uses the box office anymore....except to maybe pick up tickets which I am sure will be discouraged due to the pandemic. I love every aspect of the new reno. They didn't try to copy the old style but left references to the original brutalist 1960's architecture while moving towards more modern wood/metal/glass materials. And the changes on the outside leave enough of the original building intact so as to not lose the intention of the design.

[J.OT13]

Château Laurier addition, version seven?

I89BPsAiTCg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/2300-Render_MACKENZIE_4000x2250-300x169.jpghttp://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/2268-Render_EAST_BLOCK_VIEW_day_4000x2250-300x169.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/2268-Render-EAST_BLOCK_VIEW_night_4000x2250-300x169.jpghttp://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/2287-Render_MAJORS_HILL_PARK_4000x2250-300x169.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/2310-Render_WELLINGTON_ST_BRIDGE_4000x2250-300x169.jpghttp://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/Render_WAR-MEMORIAL-day_4000x2250-300x169.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/Render_WAR_MEMORIAL_night_4000x2250-300x169.jpghttp://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/Render_ALEXANDRIA-BRIDGE-4000x2250-300x169.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/Render_COLONEL-BY-STATUE_daytime_4000x2250-300x169.jpghttp://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/Render_COLONEL-BY-STATUE_night_4000x2250-300x169.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/Render_MUSEUM_OF_HISTORY_4000x2250-300x169.jpg

Larco's website, where you can view larger version of the images: http://chateauvision.ca/en/home/
DevApps: https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/__BAFWNK/details

[HomeInMyShoes]

The upper mechanical still bugs me, but this is better than what I'll call the 1960s CIBC version two. I can understand an idea as to why, but I just think the concept is right and the execution is not quite there.

The offset halfway up seems awkward to me, but it needs it. If the verticals were not split partway up it would read too tall in scale and not sit as well.

[rocketphish]

https://i.imgur.com/fEqM6Cr.png

https://i.imgur.com/ARlSdFE.png

https://i.imgur.com/NXNGKu6.png

https://i.imgur.com/VM2kgWp.png

https://i.imgur.com/Veh766Y.png

https://i.imgur.com/TMt4Tsk.png

https://i.imgur.com/ULiXBW9.png

https://i.imgur.com/AGGMuxi.png

https://i.imgur.com/j6DUvdD.png

https://i.imgur.com/gDq3zod.png

https://i.imgur.com/c7E0FSk.png

https://i.imgur.com/y2rr690.png

[J.OT13]

The upper mechanical still bugs me, but this is better than what I'll call the 1960s CIBC version two. I can understand an idea as to why, but I just think the concept is right and the execution is not quite there.

The offset halfway up seems awkward to me, but it needs it. If the verticals were not split partway up it would read too tall in scale and not sit as well.

I agree. The roof is the most cringeworthy part of it. That copper Aztec pyramid thing going on looks terrible. Why couldn't they do a mansard roof enclosing the top two floors and mechanical. Some modern examples:

https://mizrahidevelopments.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Mizrahi_Portfolio_1451Wellington_03.jpg
https://mizrahidevelopments.ca/portfolio/1451-wellington/

http://www.sigzincandcopper.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SIG_VITA_Newcastle_01-1024x683.jpg
https://www.sigzincandcopper.co.uk/vita-student-newcastle-contemporary-zinc-shingles-and-stone-cladding/

The weird box between the new and old west wings is weird.

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/20_11_16_chateauLaurier_2333-300x169.jpg
http://chateauvision.ca/en/illustrations/

Ultimately, I would have preferred an "L" shaped addition, keeping the Mackenzie tower with a three or four storey strip along Major's Hill to the canal.

[Kitchissippi]

I find the views from the War Memorial especially painful. It looks dated already, like it was built in the 1970s.

It's about as pleasant to look as as these were:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Justice_Annex_Building_Ottawa_Canada.jpg

[Tails2489]

Would a project like this be able to move forward if the hotel filed for Bankruptcy?

[pfaffml]

There's really nothing to comment on since Larco and aA are out of ideas. It's the first proposal in its massing again with the facade from the 3rd(?) scheme. Nothing new to see. In my eyes, the tower on Mackenzie is far too broad from the park and really overshadows the hotel. Also that tower's corner at the park is sharp and awkward from the street. It's trying to be dynamic but Mackenzie isn't at an angle for it to do this. I also agree that the ziggurat roof is odd. A mansard would be best or even the roof from the very first proposal would be better. It's not a bad building but it just doesn't belong attached to the Chateau Laurier.

[Urbanarchit]

And don't forget that renderings are always embellished to make buildings look more attractive to try to sell them. If something doesn't look good in renderings already, they will look even worse when built.

The design is ugly no matter what, but it detracts significantly from several of the most important views of the hotel. It should not be allowed to go through at all. If anything, another architect should be hired with better ideas or they need to change the heritage law to allow for something to be complimentary while small in scale so as not to detract.

[Uhuniau]

Is the bloody barcode-window fad ever going to end?

[movebyleap]

This is bloody awful. Where is a petition we can sign against this travesty? (I recall signing at least one or two previous petitions in the past).

[OTSkyline]

There also doesn't seem to be a lot of windows, for a new addition I can't imagine the views/natural light will be plentiful once inside this addition, which is unfortunate...

[YOWflier]

I can learn to live with the appearance of this addition from the front/war memorial view. I still and always will dislike what this is going to do to the view from the river side in its currently proposed form.

Actually, if I force myself I can learn to live with the west tower addition from that perspective because it has the same general width as the rest of the chateau and "blends" reasonably. The east tower is a behemoth that just dominates that view in a very bad way.

[Kitchissippi]

The architects must be a fan of this Photoshop effect (https://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-effects/blur-streaks/) :haha:

https://pe-images.s3.amazonaws.com/photo-effects/blur-streaks/dead-zone-blur-streaks-effect.jpg

[rocketphish]

City posts designs and application for Château Laurier addition
Larco Investments is applying for site control and development permits for a nearly 12,000-square-metre, 159-room addition of the hotel.

Bruce Deachman, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Nov 28, 2020 • Last Updated 1 hour ago • 1 minute read

https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/ottawacitizen/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1129-chateau.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=800

The City of Ottawa this week posted online the most recent applications by Larco Investments, which owns the Fairmont Château Laurier, for site control and development permits for a nearly 12,000-square-metre, 159-room addition to the rear of the hotel.

The application comes four months after Larco reached an agreement with Heritage Ottawa, which opposed earlier plans, on the new design, which includes two pavilions, one a 10-storey structure, the other 11 storeys tall, with a two-storey connector joining them.

The new design, says Heritage Ottawa on its website, “is more compatible with the hotel’s composition and irregular silhouette.” The original design, the City’s approval of which Heritage Ottawa challenged legally, called for a horizontal bar-shaped addition that blocked the rear view of the hotel.

Heritage Ottawa president Richard Belliveau on Saturday described this most recent development as simply a “pro forma” one.

According to the City, the new application will require heritage and site plan approvals from the City, as well as approvals from the National Capital Commission, and a decision from the province’s Local Planning Appeal Tribunal before construction can get underway.

Members of the public have until Dec. 23 to provide feedback.

Details of the latest proposal can be viewed at the city website: https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-engagement/projects/chateau-laurier-addition

Those wishing to comment, or be notified of upcoming meetings, project updates and decisions, can email chateaulaurier@ottawa.ca.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/city-posts-designs-and-application-for-chateau-laurier-addition

[J.OT13]

Not the Château Frontenac, but I'll leave this here anyway.

https://scontent.fyhu2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/72399225_2512655232125468_1083745855099371520_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=2&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=nQo8YW2lpREAX8bSmrG&_nc_ht=scontent.fyhu2-1.fna&oh=4a2b825dcd8b0736c135a9e92f4de3a7&oe=5FED552D

https://www.facebook.com/stgmarchitectes/photos/2512655225458802

[J.OT13]

Mathieu Fleury
@MathieuFleury
Join us for a virtual information session on Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 6 pm on the proposed new revised design for a rear addition to the Château Laurier hotel.

If you would like to attend, please register: https://s-ca.chkmkt.com/?e=216272&h=4DBD07F3268843F&l=en

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eq_Kf35XEAE4XwF?format=jpg&name=small

1:06 PM · Jan 5, 2021·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/MathieuFleury/status/1346518451498717187

[Beatrix]

https://twitter.com/MathieuFleury/status/1346518451498717187

Just DIE ALREADY!!

[J.OT13]

CHÂTEAU LAURIER RENO: Hotel owners could be in a position to put shovels in the ground in coming months

Ottawa's municipal government could brush off the design dispute next month and the hotel owner could be in a position to put shovels in the ground in the coming months.

John Willing, Post Media
January 8, 2021

https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/ottawasun/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/acr99932695094740-2570_82052016-w.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=564&type=webp
An architectural rendering for the Château Laurier addition. PHOTO BY LARCO INVESTMENTS / ARCHITECTSALLIANCE /PROVIDED

The controversy surrounding a future addition to the Château Laurier should finally be put to bed in 2021, and maybe sooner than later.

Ottawa’s municipal government could brush off the design dispute next month and the hotel owner, Larco Investments, could be in a position to put shovels in the ground in the coming months after more than four years of churning through proposals until there was a compromise.

Larco and Heritage Ottawa made a surprise announcement last August that they arrived on a settlement over the design of the proposed hotel addition after the heritage group pursued legal challenges to block the project from proceeding and Larco appealed a minor variance decision by the committee of adjustment. It was just a matter of Larco filing the design changes with the city.

A public comment period ended Dec. 23, but the city is holding an online information session Wednesday for people who register in advance.

A joint meeting of the city’s planning committee and built-heritage subcommittee is scheduled for Feb. 5 to address the revised design and site plan. Council will subsequently need to consider a staff report on the heritage permit.

Larco’s reps are scheduled to meet with the National Capital Commission’s advisory committee on planning, design and realty on Feb. 25 or Feb. 26. After that, the NCC board’s next scheduled meeting is in April.



https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/ottawacitizen/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/laurier3-w-e1610056268524.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=564&type=webp
An architectural rendering for the Château Laurier addition. PHOTO BY LARCO INVESTMENTS/ARCHITECTSALLIANCE /Larco Investments/architectsAlliance

Once clear from city hall and the NCC, and after formally ending legal matters at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, Larco can get a building permit to construct the 159-room rear addition designed by Toronto-based architectsAlliance.

Larco’s planning consultants on Thursday reported no project delays because of the pandemic. The entire process of excavation and construction has been estimated to take between three-and-a-half years and four years.

Public criticism waned after the release of the latest design in November. Architects increased the amount of Indiana limestone to make the addition better resemble the parent hotel and reduced the amount of glass, which to some critics was a glaring problem with the first drawings.

Now, the addition still looks different from hotel, but with more nods to the heritage structure. Achieving that balance has been at the centre of the design controversy since 2016.

Veteran heritage expert Julie Harris, who hasn’t worked on the Château Laurier file, said the new design would receive her vote of approval if she had a seat around a city hall decision table.

Harris, who was was highly critical of a previous iteration that Larco presented to councillors in 2019, said she sees a definite improvement in the latest renderings of the addition, especially when it comes to the tower-like extensions of the hotel wings designed at roughly the same height as the hotel’s roofline.

Canadians, and not just those who live in Ottawa, have been rightly concerned about the style of the hotel addition in the context of the surrounding historic vistas, Harris said.

https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/ottawacitizen/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/laurier2-w.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=564&type=webp
An architectural rendering for the Château Laurier addition. PHOTO BY LARCO INVESTMENTS/ARCHITECTSALLIANCE /Larco Investments/architectsAlliance

“People across Canada have spent billions of dollars protecting capital views, and the idea that you can do what you want (when) we’ve invested so much money, effort and talent, I think it offended people,” Harris said.

Heritage architect Barry Padolsky, a member of the built-heritage subcommittee, was involved in the negotiations between Larco and Heritage Ottawa on the redesign. He said it’s a “monumental achievement” for a community group to effect significant change to a major project.

The Château Laurier file has illustrated the importance of civil society groups in matters of urban planning and heritage protection, Padolsky said.

Padolsky acknowledged that the end result isn’t the best example in the world of designing an addition for a heritage building, but it’s a solid compromise.

“The new design goes a long way toward preventing an embarrassing intervention in the capital,” Padolsky said.

https://ottawasun.com/news/local-news/chateau-laurier-design-controversy-checking-out-after-four-year-wakeup-call/wcm/cadaa06e-8a27-4a66-a76a-4f1b62483499

[rocketphish]

Newest Château Laurier design faces fewer foes
Hotel owners worked with Heritage Ottawa to find 'acceptable' addition

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: Jan 28, 2021 7:48 PM ET | Last Updated: 12 hours ago

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5892400.1611871003!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/chateau-laurier-design-2021.jpg

Yet another redesign for an addition to the historic Fairmont Château Laurier hotel goes before a pair of city committees next week for approval, but this time, one of the project's staunchest opponents has been involved and sees the latest version as a victory.

Previous proposals dating back to 2016 involved a boxy shape, which critics likened to a radiator or shipping container, that stretched along the back of the building overlooking Major's Hill Park.

The current architectural drawings feature two towers — 10 and 11 storeys — connected by a two-storey base and will use Indiana limestone like the century-old hotel.

City staff recommend councillors on the planning committee and built heritage subcommittee approve a new heritage permit on Feb. 5, followed by city council on Feb. 24. Heritage Ottawa, a group that had launched legal challenges against the old design, will not oppose it.

It's not the first heritage permit the city has been asked to issue.

The former city council had first approved the addition in 2018 and the current city council voted to uphold that decision in July 2019, despite fierce opposition from dozens of residents, including former cabinet ministers and comedian Tom Green.

The challenge didn't end there, however. Heritage Ottawa began an appeal at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and launched a legal challenge, while the project itself was dealt a blow after part of its previous design was found to cantilever too closely to the Major's Hill Park property line.

Last winter, the hotel's owners approached the group and asked to work on yet another design, said Heritage Ottawa president Richard Belliveau.

By negotiating with Larco Investments, and consulting with experts in architecture and conservation, Heritage Ottawa said they came out with something "perfectly acceptable."

Heritage Ottawa never opposed a modern expansion, explained Belliveau, but did insist it respect the historic hotel and site.

"We are much happier now. Our campaign and all the support we had from the public has stopped what would have been truly an abominable addition on that space," he said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-heritage-redesign-heritage-ottawa-agreement-1.5892047

[kwoldtimer]

I thought it had been fully permitted. One loses track after so much back and forth...

[rocketphish]

Proposed addition to Château Laurier still doesn't meet the standard
On Friday, a City of Ottawa joint committee will consider the hotel owner's latest design pitch. Here's why it should be rejected.

Gordon Bennett
Publishing date: Feb 02, 2021 • 10 hours ago • 3 minute read

https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/ottawacitizen/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/0203-oped-bennett-w.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=750

By now most people – proponents, the public, politicians and professionals (architectural as well as heritage) – are probably exhausted by the ongoing saga of proposed additions to Ottawa’s iconic Château Laurier Hotel. A joint meeting of the City of Ottawa’s planning committee and built-heritage sub-committee will take place Friday to consider hotel owner Larco’s current proposal for an addition to Ottawa’s much-loved landmark. The recommendations coming out of that joint meeting will have a profound impact on the heritage value of this national historic site.

Notwithstanding Heritage Ottawa’s support for this proposal, the proposal currently under consideration by the city (often referred to as Version Six) is not compliant with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx) (S&G) and should be rejected.

The proposal violates the following provisions of the S&G: 1) make new work subordinate to the historic place; 2) new construction must not obscure or have a negative impact on character-defining forms or spatial configurations; and 3) an appropriate balance must be struck between mere imitation of existing form and pointed contrast. Version Six does not meet these requirements.

First, the east pavilion on the Mackenzie Avenue side of the château projects beyond the adjacent section of the existing landmark hotel, thereby completely obstructing views of a significant section of the historic château as one proceeds south along Mackenzie Avenue toward the hotel. This clearly contravenes the requirement in the S&G that a new addition be subordinate to the historic place, and that it not obscure character-defining forms or spatial configurations.

Second, the irregular, offset pattern of solids and voids on the façades of both proposed pavilions is completely at odds with the regular, vertical alignment of windows of the national historic site. The overall impression created by this asymmetry is of a Rubik’s cube where nothing aligns vertically (unlike the existing Château Laurier).

The stark and jarring contrast between the regular pattern of solids and voids of the national historic site, and the irregular, offset pattern in the proposed addition clearly violates the requirement to avoid “pointed contrast” expressed in Standard 11 of the S&G. If this is not pointed contrast, it is difficult to imagine what pointed contrast might actually be.

The design of the façades in Version Six is so incompatible, and so problematic overall, that correcting the problem of misalignment simply creates another problem and another incompatibility. The pronounced arrhythmia of the façades was completely unnecessary to achieve an acceptable level of distinguishability between the historic landmark and the addition. And to anticipate a possible rejoinder that this irregular, dissonant pattern evokes the asymmetry of the historic château: such a rejoinder would reduce this attribute of asymmetry to parody, if not absurdity.

I have immense respect for the four experts engaged by Heritage Ottawa who found that Version Six of the proposed addition to the Château Laurier was compliant with the S&G, so it is with some reluctance that I dissent from their conclusion, which did not consider the S&G in their totality. For example, it is not enough that Version Six avoid “mere imitation”; it must also avoid “pointed contrast.” In order to be compliant with the S&G, a proposal must be fully, not partially, compliant. Obscuring character-defining forms and employing pointed contrast on whole façades is not compatible with the S&G. Version Six should not be approved.

Gordon Bennett, former director of policy, National Historic Sites, played a key role in the federal government’s Historic Places Initiative, which included development of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/bennett-proposed-addition-to-chateau-laurier-still-doesnt-meet-the-standard

[J.OT13]

Chateau Laurier Update: My comments

Mathieu Fleury
January 26, 2021

https://mathieufleury.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Chateau-mackenzie-1130x565.jpg

First, I would like to say thank you to all of you for attending the information session as well as submitting comments and concerns about the latest submission for the addition of the Chateau Laurier.

Below I am sharing my comments, which will be part of the staff report, available on Feb. 26.

In addition to these comments, I feel it is important to share with all of you my concerns.

Once again, we are back to questioning the necessity to change this iconic building, the Chateau Laurier, which sits nestled within the Parliamentary Precinct. When you think of downtown Ottawa, it is hard not to picture this building in your mind. And although many can argue the face of this building will not change, the addition alters our perspective and impacts the sight of our historic row of Capital City buildings along Confederation Boulevard.

First and foremost, I think it is important to note, City Council approved (I dissented) the previous plans – which the community and residents across the City clearly were not happy with. The result we are faced with now, is only a result of LARCO reaching a settlement agreement with Heritage Ottawa, who appealed City Council’s approval of the Heritage Permit, at the Local Planning Approval Tribunal (LPAT)

To be honest, the plans we see today might be described by some as better or a compromise, but they are still not appropriate for this historic building. And I remain fixed on the opinion that the Chateau Laurier deserves better.

I can not speak to an outcome that has yet to happen, but I can honestly say, the outcome at committee and Council may very well echo what we have already seen – an approval for the Heritage Permit. If approved LARCO has expressed an intent to move quickly with building the addition.

And while many of us, myself included, may not be happy with the outcome, I do want to once again thank residents of this City for expressing their concerns, not backing down and to continue to push back, in an attempt for the best result.

As I mention in the comments below, the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, and should not change. I see no advantages to altering this beautiful building and there is purpose in respecting a building that has stood the test of time.

Councillor Mathieu Fleury comments:

Here we are presented with the latest submission of a proposed addition to the Château Laurier. As we all know, this submission was only obtained through an agreement between Heritage Ottawa and Larco to end an LPAT dispute.

It is important to me to first thank Heritage Ottawa for its continued and relentless dedication to ensuring Ottawa’s heritage is protected, recognized and not forgotten. As well, I wish to acknowledge the outpouring of comments and concerns from Lowertown residents, residents of Ottawa and across the country for caring about the future of our capital city’s heritage side on the Château Laurier proposed addition. What could only be described as a distasteful addition has been improved by these individuals’ efforts, and specifically by the dedication and push from Heritage Ottawa.

I also appreciate Larco accepted that its previous application was not appropriate. However, this was only thanks to the community engagement efforts, a loss at the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance request and the pending legal fight that we see ourselves here today. I appreciate Larco reaching out and coming to the table with Heritage Ottawa, willing to discuss with heritage experts what could be appropriate finally. I truly wish it didn’t take an LPAT dispute to get to this version, and this dispute is the sole reason that the achieved resolution is before us, and this proposed design is being presented.

The review process has posed a challenge for the City Council. Every time that City Council makes a decision, there are implications for a private property owner’s rights and requirements. City Council is used to that. However, here, the Château Laurier’s significance to the landscape of our capital city – regardless of private ownership – has shown the limitations of our typical reviews.

It is important to me to point out that I do not blame City staff who have followed legal authority and process limitations to its word. More so, I see the Planning Act, Heritage Act, and the Municipal authority process struggle to review such an important iconic asset.

As a capital city, this application has been a wake-up for the need to ensure our capital aspirations have the appropriate level of “Capital” review processes for such important landscapes.

When it comes to heritage buildings – whether they are locally, provincially or federally designated – there are guidelines set out to follow. These are just that. Guidelines. To be considered, followed, or adhered to. It is up to the proponent to decipher. It is up to staff to make recommendations, but the City cannot force an owner to build in a specific style. Like many others, I wish these guidelines had more teeth and allowed our dedicated heritage staff to do more.

And personally, I, like many residents, would prefer that the Château Laurier’s addition maintain its current iconic built form. Unfortunately, it is a private asset, and private property owners have the rights and tools to allow property modifications and additions.

Specifically, on the plans presented, the modern addition has been modified to include the two ten- and eleven-storey pavilions, an increase in height from the former proposal, with a two-storey connector in between. The use of limestone and repeated window patterns and glass are positive changes in the formally proposed materials.

The building at grade level offers a world class experience – this, to me, is its best feature. The connections and improvements, including the opening onto Major’s Hill Park, is a welcome addition to the improved plans. I would like to ensure that with this feature there is proper and simplistic integration between the Park and the Château Laurier’s new addition. Currently, as proposed, it allows the Château to benefit from the Park, but let’s make sure this is a two-way street, and park users and hotel clients can share this beautiful space and area so that the site can remain active and engaged year-long.

The new changes have increased the height from the 2019 version. I remain concerned about the height bringing dominance to the addition. Also, heritage designated buildings, such as the Château Laurier, should adhere to Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines. As these guidelines state, “A building may play a role as a character-defining element in a cultural landscape, in addition to having its heritage value. Additions to recent cultural landscapes should be undertaken with the utmost respect and care and complement the heritage value of the historic place.”

When designing a newly built feature, the guidelines define that it should be compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. I strongly feel the heritage building should be the focus, and the addition should remain in its shadow to maintain its architectural dominance.

As the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, one can argue that not every site should change – and from both local and capital perspectives, there are no advantages to changing this beautiful building. There is purpose in respecting the older building, the materials, the character, and the heritage building design that has stood the test of time.

The architecture of this building is an architectural style replicated by many other railway hotels across this country. From the copper roofing, cornices, turrets, marble floors, these features point to the link from one end of Canada to the other. It also points to spectacular moments in our history, when from one end to the other, tourists could travel our railway system and stay in a Chateaux-style hotel.

Heritage Ottawa has brought us to a better outcome. However, I would argue the modern addition still does not meet the expectations of the heritage-rich Parliamentary Precinct that this building is nestled within.

Looking across Canada, there are few of these hotels which have modern additions. From the Royal York in Toronto to the Empress Hotel in Victoria, B.C., they have maintained their prominence and distinction without adding to the building in a negative way.

Simply put, I will not be happy with a modern addition and cannot support what would break away from historical tradition.

To learn more about the latest application please visit this link: https://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=8358&doctype=AGENDA
https://mathieufleury.ca/my-chateau-laurier-comments/?fbclid=IwAR3BnxJfEKlQrwn0e76-YIyEwnmZw7AJDmaC7ubjCI0QHNBzwzWpKRYoQNA

[Williamoforange]

https://mathieufleury.ca/my-chateau-laurier-comments/?fbclid=IwAR3BnxJfEKlQrwn0e76-YIyEwnmZw7AJDmaC7ubjCI0QHNBzwzWpKRYoQNA

He qoutes the guidelines and then points out an example of what he things is good.

And the one of the examples specifically York Toronto doesn't follow those guidelines. As there is almost no separation between the original structure and the addition.

[White Pine]

I wouldn't call this particularly good, but I do appreciate how the middle is open so that you can see the old building from behind.

[Catenary]

Fleury: "As I mention in the comments below, the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, and should not change. I see no advantages to altering this beautiful building and there is purpose in respecting a building that has stood the test of time."

I mean, it's iconic, but isn't the most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct... Parliament? Specifically, the Peace Tower / Centre Block.

[J.OT13]

For anyone interested in today's Built-Heritage and Planning Committee.

56diP1N0JYI

[OTSkyline]

Fleury: "As I mention in the comments below, the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, and should not change. I see no advantages to altering this beautiful building and there is purpose in respecting a building that has stood the test of time."

I mean, it's iconic, but isn't the most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct... Parliament? Specifically, the Peace Tower / Centre Block.

Parliament aside then, I'd argue this is the second most iconic building in the city. Funny how random mid-rises or condos around the city get shot down and rejected at planning committee but something like this just flies by.. :hell:

[rocketphish]

Final Château Laurier addition design gets planning committee's OK
Architect Barry Padolsky, who called previous design an 'eyesore,' gives latest draft C+

Kimberley Molina · CBC News
Posted: Feb 05, 2021 3:19 PM ET | Last Updated: 3 hours ago

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5902280.1612529934!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/original_1180/chateau-laurier-rendering-feb-2021.JPG

The latest and supposedly final design for a controversial addition to Ottawa's Château Laurier easily won the approval of the city's planning planning committee Friday, despite receiving a lowly C+ from one well-known architect.

This is the sixth iteration of the design presented by owner Larco Investments since 2016. Previous versions have been likened to a radiator, a shipping container and an air conditioner tacked onto the rear of the landmark hotel, which opened in 1912.

Members of the planning committee voted 7-2 in favour of the new design, but it's still not to everyone's liking.

"In my view, the proposed design ... is not a great piece of architecture, and it is not one that will be a destination for tourists when they decide to travel again. It's not going to be an internationally acclaimed destination, a must-see," said renowned architect Barry Padolsky, who sits on the city's built heritage subcommittee, which also met Friday.

While Padolsky admitted the new design is an improvement over the original proposal, which he called "an architectural eyesore and an embarrassment to the pride of the national capital," he said it only rates a grade of C+.

Coun. Riley Brockington, one of three councillors on the built heritage subcommittee to vote against the design, also expressed his dismay, suggesting some of his colleagues were satisfied with "good enough."

"I'm not. This is my opportunity to say this is not acceptable and it's not good enough," Brockington said.

Subcommittee members Rawlson King and Catherine McKenney joined their council colleague in voting against the design, which lost on a tie but was subsequently approved by the more powerful standing committee.

The latest rendering includes east and west towers of 10 and 11 storeys respectively, clad in smooth Indiana limestone and overlooking a semi-private courtyard.

Heritage Ottawa has also indicated its approval of the new design, which in addition to the limestone includes copper and bronze features the group felt reflect "the heritage character-defining elements of the historic hotel."

At the same time, Heritage Ottawa president Richard Belliveau, who characterized the new design as "a worthy contemporary response," also called for stronger legislation to protect historically important buildings and monuments.

Another local group remains strongly opposed to the addition, however.

"I think everybody agrees that the most recent design is somewhat better, but somewhat better than worst is not acceptable," said Robin Collins of Protect Château Laurier, which formed after the addition was first proposed in 2016.

The design will go to city council for final approval on Feb. 24.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-final-design-1.5902271

[rocketphish]

Planning committee says council should approve latest, and possibly final, Château Laurier design
The majority of councillors on the planning committee have endorsed what one Ottawa heritage architect called a C-grade design for the Château Laurier addition.

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Feb 05, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 3 minute read

https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/ottawacitizen/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/82052016-acr99932695094740-2570-w.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=800

The majority of councillors on the planning committee have endorsed what one Ottawa heritage architect called a C-grade design for the Château Laurier addition.

The committee on Friday voted 7-2 in recommending that council on Feb. 24 accept the latest design and issue a heritage permit to the hotel owner, potentially putting to bed a years-long controversy over the expansion project.

Voting in favour of the design were councillors Laura Dudas, Glen Gower, Jan Harder, Allan Hubley, Catherine Kitts, Scott Moffatt and Tim Tierney. The two councillors in opposition were Riley Brockington and Jeff Leiper.

Brockington observed the lack of “a huge warm public embrace” of the latest design, which was the result of negotiations between hotel owner Larco Investments and advocacy group Heritage Ottawa.

If there’s still significant public opposition, it didn’t show at the committee meeting. Only one person not directly involved in the design process or negotiations signed up to make a presentation.

Robin Collins said most people see an unacceptable conflict between the modern design for the addition and the historic railway hotel. He asked for a “pandemic pause” to find other design options.

“A pause will stop this train from rushing through in this current climate,” Collins said.

No one on the planning committee supported another delay, and through nearly three hours of meetings on the topic Friday morning, the discussion and votes were relatively swift.

Earlier in the morning, the built-heritage subcommittee voted 3-3 on the design. Coun. Rawlson King, the subcommittee chair, joined Brockington and Coun. Catherine McKenney in voting against it. Coun. Scott Moffatt joined citizen members Amanda Conforti and Barry Padolsky in supporting the design.

Padolsky, a heritage architect and subcommittee member, offered a tepid review.

Where the previous design would receive a grade of F, the current design “is not an A+, an A or even a B,” Padolsky said.

“It’s probably in the C-, C+ ranking, which means it’s a pass, but just barely.”

Peter Clewes, the lead architect for the addition, said his latest design is “a consensus of opinion on the part of a lot of people” and that the concept is better because of the feedback process.

“In our world, there’s a lot of stakeholders and this is where we are today,” Clewes said.

Larco has been trying to get an approved design for an addition since 2016.

A planning appeal by Larco and Heritage Ottawa ultimately led to the design that council will consider. The two sides negotiated a concept and arrived at a settlement last year.

Compared to the previous design, the current proposal has more Indiana limestone and other similarities to the palette of the historic hotel. It tones down the visual impact from Major’s Hill Park in an attempt to calm people who were worried about the vista to the hotel.

City heritage staff said the design meets federal standards and guidelines for heritage additions. The guidelines call for additions to be “visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the historic place,” leaving it up to people to assess if a design meets the criteria.

The city was still waiting for Parks Canada’s comments on Larco’s revised cultural heritage impact statement when it comes to the visual impact on the Rideau Canal, though city staff didn’t think the federal agency’s remarks would affect their analysis.

Coun. Mathieu Fleury, who represents the area of the hotel, opposes the latest concept.

Mayor Jim Watson has indicated he believes the new concept meets council’s design conditions.

In a separate vote, the planning committee also approved the hotel expansion site plan. Brockington was the only no vote. The site plan doesn’t rise to council for approval.

The National Capital Commission needs to approve Larco’s proposal when it comes to the impact of the hotel addition to surrounding federal lands.

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/planning-committee-says-council-should-approve-latest-and-possibly-final-chateau-laurier-design

[rocketphish]

Château Laurier extension – sixth time lucky?
The fight over the hotel has shown that governments at all levels have work to do on heritage protection – if they're serious about it, of course.

Ottawa Citizen Editorial Board
Publishing date: Feb 05, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 2 minute read

Coun. Glen Gower summed it up neatly at a meeting Friday about the proposed addition to the Château Laurier: “I can’t believe we’re still debating over whether the design is historic enough.” Well, guess what? We are. Almost five years after château owner Larco Investments released its initial plan for an extension to the 108-year-old hotel, city councillors are still haggling over the updated pitch – version six, if you’ve lost count.

And while the city’s built-heritage subcommittee rejected the latest iteration (on a tie vote), that group is only advisory and the design patch easily slid through planning committee this week. It’s now off to full council for approval.

A large number of Ottawans detest any notion of a modernistic addition to the gothic revival-châteauesque character of their beloved landmark. That won’t change. But the owner has listened to at least some complaints over the years – enough, this time, to win over the community group Heritage Ottawa. The use of limestone cladding is a “significant improvement,” says Heritage Ottawa’s Richard Belliveau; the U-shape of the structure is respected; “cherished views” are maintained. Larco has gone from legal threats a year-and-a-half ago to calming some concerns. The heritage group, recognizing that private property is, well, private, offers its blessing.

City councillors have upped their game too. One of the early reasons for public alarm, you’ll recall, was over how politicians shovelled all the key decision-making onto non-elected city staff. Since then, the process has been more democratic. We know, for instance, that Coun. Rawlson King, who chairs the built-heritage subcommittee, rejects the design. We know Coun. Riley Brockington feels the proposal is “not good enough.” We know that, when this hits council on Feb. 24, all elected officials will have to take a public stand. Voters can hold them accountable as they like.

We also know that the overall heritage preservation process is weak. Wrote architectural historian Peter Coffman in the Citizen last summer: “It took hundreds of people, donating thousands of dollars, plus legal action from Heritage Ottawa, to nudge the design toward something minimally acceptable … This is for a building that enjoys the maximum heritage protection that our laws provide. The outcome is evidence of a system that failed, not one that works.”

This remains true. Governments at all levels must decide whether to put more teeth into heritage protection, or strip it down and streamline development. It would be nice if they acted before the next five-year debacle.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-chateau-laurier-extension-sixth-time-lucky

[caveat.doctor]

Fleury: Simply put, I will not be happy with a modern addition and cannot support what would break away from historical tradition.https://mathieufleury.ca/my-chateau-laurier-comments/?fbclid=IwAR3BnxJfEKlQrwn0e76-YIyEwnmZw7AJDmaC7ubjCI0QHNBzwzWpKRYoQNA

Loses any credibility there: imposing inflexible prejudgment and personal taste about "modern" design regardless of what is actually legally permitted by right or supported by others with different views, including people able to reach reasonable compromise - like Heritage Ottawa, as it turns out.

Fleury: "As I mention in the comments below, the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, and should not change. I see no advantages to altering this beautiful building and there is purpose in respecting a building that has stood the test of time."

I mean, it's iconic, but isn't the most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct... Parliament? Specifically, the Peace Tower / Centre Block.

Agree... though I think he meant to stress "Ottawa's most iconic building", i.e. the city's, as opposed to a federal building.

I wouldn't call this particularly good, but I do appreciate how the middle is open so that you can see the old building from behind.

I agree. And I think it's a better design for actual users of the hotel - you preserve the sightlines from the inside as well, e.g.

https://i.imgur.com/sPPXVN9l.jpg

Incidentally, the hotel really is worth a staycation (once stay-at-home orders are over). I had stayed there once over 10 years ago, before moving here. Some tasteful renos since. Here's how it looked inside recently before the current shutdown - fairly quiet nowadays, the family felt like we had the whole place to ourselves:

https://i.imgur.com/BepNMiBl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/SaRl7VIl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/aF611bDl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/J6dKoh5l.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/7mlgIldl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/MGcmV0wl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/S5N0Yeyl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/gVSUYWBl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/oUN8neSl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/VYhSyhUl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/JkyUOz8l.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/A9hlzORl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/6PC4CxWl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/9zpWUICl.jpg

[905er]

this expansion is sooooo wrong! it's quite upsetting .. there are gorgeous buildings of historic significance in the city.. not much in terms of skyline .. just mediocre mid rise towers maintaining a boring tabletop ... so knowing this, why not protect at all costs the buildings that actually add immense beauty to the city? the expansion completely ruins the view from the park. on it's own, in a different location, I wouldn't have a problem with the actual proposed building.. but added to chateau Laurier.. it's just WRONG WRONG WRONG!:hell:

[DarthVader_1961]

this expansion is sooooo wrong! it's quite upsetting .. there are gorgeous buildings of historic significance in the city.. not much in terms of skyline .. just mediocre mid rise towers maintaining a boring tabletop ... so knowing this, why not protect at all costs the buildings that actually add immense beauty to the city? the expansion completely ruins the view from the park. on it's own, in a different location, I wouldn't have a problem with the actual proposed building.. but added to chateau Laurier.. it's just WRONG WRONG WRONG!:hell:

This!!!

[Kitchissippi]

He qoutes the guidelines and then points out an example of what he things is good.

And the one of the examples specifically York Toronto doesn't follow those guidelines. As there is almost no separation between the original structure and the addition.

It just goes to say that if the addition to the Royal York in 1959 resulted in a high calibre, seamless and beautiful building without the guidelines (not to mention the same to additions to the Chateau Frontenac and the Chateau Laurier itself), compared to this jarring, inappropriate proposal adhering to the new guidelines, that maybe, just maybe, the guidelines are useless or improperly drawn up. Maybe the importance should be on getting a competent architect.

Personally, I think architecture has boxed itself into an egotistical regulated profession that thinks it calls the shots on defining contemporary culture. They should take cues from musicians and artists who allow different genres to co-exist and flourish or evolve. I look at most buildings today and they're nothing more than three-dimensional graphic design dumbed down to low-resolution rectangles and triangles that don't really reflect the way we live. It's like they're still playing Pong and Tetris while everyone has moved on to The Witcher or Assassins Creed.

[J.OT13]

My question is why the heck does the zoning allow a tall addition in the first place? Anything over 4 floors should not have been allowed.

[J.OT13]

Approved by Council, but not before Watson attacked Councillors who still oppose the project, threw Fleury under the bus for praising the first design before it was released to the public and calling some people's suggestion that the Feds buy the hotel ridiculous quoting the pandemic and economic downturn, glancing over the fact that that suggestion was made well before the pandemic. Not to mention the Feds DID own the hotel up until the Feds privatized CN in the early 90s.

What Watson did get right is that Larco did achieve the conditions set-out by the Heritage Committee in 2018 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-built-heritage-1.4710976) in their new design, though that could also be argued for the prior two designs.

[ssiguy]

I cannot believe they are allowing this abomination to go forward. Somebody is getting their palms greased big time.

[J.OT13]

I cannot believe they are allowing this abomination to go forward. Somebody is getting their palms greased big time.

It's been nearly 6 years and 6 or 7 versions, I lost count. Based on that, I don't think there's any palm greasing going around in this portfolio. This is just a classic case of "good enough".

I can't for the life of me figure out why Larco was so dead set on retaining that Toronto condo architect throughout this nightmarish episode. Why couldn't find someone with experience in heritage additions?

That said, good on Larco, I guess, for presenting so many versions over the years and eventually consulting with Heritage Ottawa to come up with something "good enough".

This project will create job, help the tourism industry bounce back and better link the hotel to Major's Hill Park. The old ballroom windows will be restored and open up to a great new outdoor space. The roof of the inner courtyard will be greened. Parking will be pushed underground. There will be some positives that will come with the addition, even if it's not obvious to all of us right now.

[Richard Eade]

OK, you are saying that the glass is half-full (although I'd argue that it is quarter-full, at best). I would still complain to the bartender if my Draft came that way.:cheers: