Château Laurier expansion | Approved

[ars]

From the article, seems like the updated redesign will still be a mess :/

[rocketphish]

Larco's Château Laurier expansion website:

http://chateauvision.ca/en/home/

[Mikeed]

First photo to show up on social media seems to indicate not much of a change.

Presentation: 7 – 7:45 pm / current time is 7:51.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxgV-zJWgAE1_fe.jpg

[SkeggsEggs]

Based on the photos and 3D model it looks exactly the same. Why bother making a big hoopla about the new design when it's pretty much the same?? Hopefully this never gets built as is.

According to Twitter users the architect said it is scaled down 8% and the facade is a little different.

[waterloowarrior]

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/01-View-from-Confederation-Square_Vue-de-la-place-de-la-Confederation.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/02-View-from-Wellington-Street-Bridge_Vue-du-pont-de-la-rue-Wellington.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/03-View-from-Wellington-Street-Bridge-night_Vue-du-pont-de-la-rue-Wellington-nuit.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/04-View-from-Rideau-Street_Vue-de-la-rue-Rideau-et-de-avenue-Mackenzie.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/07-Entrance-from-Mackenzie-Avenue_entreue-de-avenue-Mackenzie.jpg

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/06-Interior-Courtyard_Cour-inteurieure.jpg
http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/08-View-from-Alexandra-Bridge_Vue-de-la-pont-Alexandra.jpg


http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/09-Landscape-Plan_Plan-damenagement-paysager.jpg


presentation
http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/ChateauLaurierPublicInfoMtgPresentationWeb.pdf

press release
http://chateauvision.ca/en/press-release-proposed-design-fairmont-cha%CC%82teau-laurier-addition-project/

[kwoldtimer]

So basically, they've made the addition a bit smaller?

[FFX-ME]

Omg! Are you kidding me! Do it right or don't do it at all. Basically ruins the city skyline. F*** new age architect opinions, this has to be a chateau.

[daud]

Omg! Are you kidding me! Do it right or don't do it at all. Basically ruins the city skyline. F*** new age architect opinions, this has to be a chateau.

That's how I feel. I think someone needs to challenge the presumption that nothing can ever be copied in the same style. The view from the river and hull which is an iconic view, is especially what concerns me.

Why have they not shown a view from the centre of Major Hills park? What happens to this view?

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0b/1a/5d/31/view-of-fairmont-chateau.jpg

[YOWflier]

Garbage. Can dev app be denied? Building permits refused? Something, anything to stop it?

[Channing]

Looks like mostly they're showing just new angles, not that they changed much.

Give us the same views/renderings as the previous design for us to truly compare. Or are they just hiding the worst views from us now?

[FFX-ME]

That's how I feel. I think someone needs to challenge the presumption that nothing can ever be copied in the same style. The view from the river and hull which is an iconic view, is especially what concerns me.

Why have they not shown a view from the centre of Major Hills park? What happens to this view?

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0b/1a/5d/31/view-of-fairmont-chateau.jpg

Agreed! Saying you can't copy the style is absurd. They did it to both the chateaus Laurier and Frontenac. The iconic Frontenac tower was a later addition. Why not use this opportunity to embellish this landmark and make it more spectacular, insteaf of covering it up.

[Mikeed]

Well it is better. And they are set on having a modern addition,
not yet sure how I feel about it.

[FFX-ME]

Looks like mostly they're showing just new angles, not that they changed much.

Give us the same views/renderings as the previous design for us to truly compare. Or are they just hiding the worst views from us now?

Yea. Most of the pictures look better but they are pictures of the existing chateau with the addition hidden somewhere in the back.

[J.OT13]

I was actually ok with the design shown in September and I am an advocate of modern additions to historic buildings as opposed to knock-offs and faux-historic, but today, I'm actually insulted. How can they make this presentation telling us they've listened to the community's concerns. It's the same damn design most people hated, only slightly smaller. They could have at least changed the roof-line to match the original.

I'm also insulted with the drop off on Mackenzie Avenue. One is enough.

[FFX-ME]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-expansion-new-plans-1.3855587

Cbc news article

[White Pine]

I was actually ok with the design shown in September and I am an advocate of modern additions to historic buildings as opposed to knock-offs and faux-historic, but today, I'm actually insulted. How can they make this presentation telling us they've listened to the community's concerns. It's the same damn design most people hated, only slightly smaller. They could have at least changed the roof-line to match the original.

I'm also insulted with the drop off on Mackenzie Avenue. One is enough.

Not even sure it's any smaller. The expansion is hidden in almost all of the pictures shown.

[J.OT13]

Not even sure it's any smaller. The expansion is hidden in almost all of the pictures shown.

Can't tell by the renderings, but it's apparently 8% smaller.

[FFX-ME]

Oooh.. 8%

I feel like this is going to become Canada's Trump. Everyone will assume this won't get built but then remarkably will and people will riot.

[rocketphish]

Château Laurier owners unveil new drawings for 2017 expansion of iconic hotel

Susana Mas, The Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 17, 2016 | Last Updated: November 17, 2016 9:45 PM EST

http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2016/11/the-chateau-laurier-in-ottawa-is-proposing-a-new-addition-to4.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=700

The architects behind a controversial plan to expand the Château Laurier unveiled on Thursday a new set of drawings, two months after their initial submission was met with widespread criticism from the public and the city’s mayor.

The first set of plans featured two box-shaped modern additions made of stone and steel, to house long-term suites, which many felt stood in stark contrast with the character of the historic hotel. The plan also included a new courtyard, the greening of four roofs, and new underground parking garage open to hotel guests as well as the public.

Art Phillips, the director of development for Larco Investments Ltd., which owns the Fairmont Château Laurier, promised to make some changes.

He postponed a formal application to the city last month in a bid to seek more feedback from the community first and said his team was working on “refining the designs” based on feedback he received.

Changing the flat roof on the two box-shaped additions in favour of a more pointed design is one of the changes Phillips said his team was considering, though it would come at the expense of the green roofs.

http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2016/11/the-chateau-laurier-in-ottawa-is-proposing-a-new-addition-to9.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=700

Peter Clewes, principal of the Toronto-based firm architectsAlliance, said a wide-angle view in the images that were circulated to the media was responsible for “some distortion” which made the modern additions appear taller the hotel.

The team of owners and architects were surprised by the backlash their initial plans received following a briefing to reporters in September.

By contrast, Thursday’s presentation was tightly scripted in an effort to retain maximum control over the roll-out of their revised plans.

The owners and the architects involved were not available for interviews with reporters until after the public presentation was over, missing the major supper-hour newscasts.

http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2016/11/the-chateau-laurier-in-ottawa-is-proposing-a-new-addition-to6.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=700

While the initial backlash on social media was swift, only some 60 people or so took the time to write in with formal comments.

Phillips said he hopes to hold at least one more public meeting before submitting a final plan for approval sometime in 2017.

The renovations would begin once the celebrations for Canada’s 150th birthday are past.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/chateau-laurier-owners-unveil-new-drawings-for-2017-expansion-of-iconic-hotel

[J.OT13]

Shouldn't the title be; Château Laurier owners unveil "new" drawings for 2017 expansion of iconic hotel?

[rocketphish]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-expansion-new-plans-1.3855587

Cbc news article

Updated design for Château Laurier looks awfully familiar
Architect and hotel owner on hand to answer questions about updated design

CBC News, November 17, 2016 @ 10:06pm

https://i.cbc.ca/1.3856475.1479432857!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/chateau-laurier-side-by-side.jpg
Some of the images presented for the redesigned Château Laurier appeared to be the same as ones earlier presented. On the left, a design presented on Nov. 17. At right, the design presented in September.


Architects and owners of the Fairmont Château Laurier in Ottawa unveiled a series of new design drawings for the expansion of the iconic hotel at a public meeting on Thursday night.

The design team is hoping the updated renderings will be better received by the public.

On the surface, however, they looked very similar to designs that were widely criticized in September.

In September, social media reaction came quickly, with comments suggesting the design looked "like a series of barcodes," and would become "the ugliest building downtown" if plans went ahead.

Even Mayor Jim Watson chimed in, saying he didn't think the modern take of the original design would blend in with the hotel's older features.

New design 8 per cent smaller

The new design for the two-wing addition has been scaled back overall. Setbacks have been increased on both the Mackenzie Avenue and Rideau Canal sides of the building.

The roof on the hotel's east and west wings has also been changed to improve the view.

Design team heard public feedback

Art Phillips, director of development for Vancouver-based Larco Investments, which owns the Château Laurier, and award-winning Toronto architect Peter Clewes were on hand to answer the public's questions and speak about the project.

There was no public presentation following the September reveal.

The design team said it listened to community members and wanted to have a chance to explain the concept better.

"Tonight was really the opportunity for those those that expressed a very passionate position — particularly on social media two months ago — to come out this evening and we can actually have the benefit of a one-on-one conversation," said principal architect Peter Clewes.

The changes are intended to "make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place," Larco Investments said in a media release.

Initial reaction to the redesign suggested the changes may not have been significant enough.

Construction could start next fall

The Château Laurier is formally designated a city heritage building, which means certain restrictions apply to any changes.

Ottawa city council has to approve the design, and because the hotel is on federal land, the National Capital Commission also gets a say.

After Thursday's meeting, Larco Investments will submit an application to the city and the board of the NCC.

Construction could begin in late fall of 2017.


https://i.cbc.ca/1.3856479.1479431945!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_940/chateau-laurier-expansion.jpg

https://i.cbc.ca/1.3856461.1479431183!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_940/chateau-laurier-redesign.jpg

https://i.cbc.ca/1.3856527.1479438036!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/original_940/chateau-laurier-10.JPG


http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-expansion-new-plans-1.3855587

[rocketphish]

:previous: PS. There's a survey at the end of the CBC article, if anybody is interested in voting on the latest proposal:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-expansion-new-plans-1.3855587

[Harley613]

It looks 8% less horrific in addition to being 8% smaller, so at least is has that going for it....

[Pelleteh]

Revised or not, this is still ugly. They should perhaps have a look at the Lord Elgin that did manage extensions without loosing the building's caracter.

[Temperance]

They must think the public is pretty dumb - no view from Major's Hill Park - by far the worst angle from which to view the new buildings. I'm not sure how they can fix that view, considering that they have put up two ugly, soon to be dated, boxes between the park and the chateau.

[eemy]

This is an insult to public consultation. They ostensibly can't do a historic-style addition due to some sort of by-law. Get an exemption then, FFS!

[NOWINYOW]

Meh, I think it will work out fine. At least it's not like The Louvre with a glass pyramid!

The most disturbing aspect of this whole episode is the number of people that come out to complain about an extension that will really only be seen from Major's Hill Park, meanwhile streets like Rideau, Albert, Slater, Metcalfe, LeBreton Flats etc are littered with monotonous, least-inspired boxes and not a peep of protest.

[Mikeed]

I feel like my biggest issue is with the roof lines, and the rather dated fin design common for our era, as seen on the finance building and the ACCE building at Algonquin, among others. And when I say dated I mean more of it is a fade of our time that while on the finance building I think it looks great, I really don't think it will age well here. Mostly cause I think the fin design on the finance building speaks to a internationalism element while the non-linear design here doesn't work- it creates too much noise.

So the boxy elements of the roof line and the noise inducing fins really creates a design that I think, not an expert, clashes with the rest of the building. I'm not against a modern expansion, but do one that doesn't clash!

Also the lighting vastly over powers the rest of the building and may impact the dominance of the Hill.

[Peter North]

Who is this architect clown? Take a hint bro. Everyone hates it.

[ars]

My only response after seeing these new renders:

Hahahaha NOPE

I hope people keep opposing this until they drop this modern glass building bs altogether.

Meh, I think it will work out fine. At least it's not like The Louvre with a glass pyramid!

The most disturbing aspect of this whole episode is the number of people that come out to complain about an extension that will really only be seen from Major's Hill Park, meanwhile streets like Rideau, Albert, Slater, Metcalfe, LeBreton Flats etc are littered with monotonous, least-inspired boxes and not a peep of protest.

The glass pyramid at Louvre is definitely not as intrusive to the design of the rest of the historic buildings around it.

This is infinitely worse, in my opinion, and an insult to Ottawa considering that the Chateau is one of the most recognizable buildings in Canada.

[m0nkyman]

I was actually ok with the design shown in September and I am an advocate of modern additions to historic buildings as opposed to knock-offs and faux-historic, but today, I'm actually insulted. How can they make this presentation telling us they've listened to the community's concerns. It's the same damn design most people hated, only slightly smaller. They could have at least changed the roof-line to match the original.

I'm also insulted with the drop off on Mackenzie Avenue. One is enough.

Agree completely.

[lrt's friend]

What really bothers me are all those vertical lines in the middle floors of the new building. To me, it clashes with the architecture of the old building. But what do I know about architecture.

[Capital Shaun]

As others have stated, the roof line is a major problem. It'll still look boxy and out of place, especially when viewed from Major Hill's Park. It's like the architects were forbidden from using any angles other than 90 degrees.

If it's going to be mostly glass, I can live with a variation of the "barcode" design. It's certainly more original than a standard grid pattern of a typical office tower.

And who ever decided to have all this hoopla for this so-called "update" (after the numerous complaints last time) needs to be shamed big time. It's pretty much the same design with some minor tweaks.

[OTSkyline]

Agreed, this is a joke. A couple of weeks and a re"launch" party just to show the same design at 92% of the old size? Pathetic...

I would like the extension to copy the existing one BUT at the very least, i'd be interested to see what the following revisions would look like:
-Change the windows on first floor so they have the same dome shape at the top to copy the existing ones
-Take out the fins in the middle section and stick to mostly just glass
-Change the roof to copy the existing copper roof line with angles and gables

[daud]

Article with the Architects perspective:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/after-mixed-reaction-the-architect-behind-the-chateau-laurier-expansion-explains-the-revised-design

"Q: For people who didn’t like the overall look, that hasn’t change today?

A: No. I would say we’ve refined it. But no, it has not changed in any substantive way.

We’re dealing with what I would call objective criteria and subjective criteria. In the latter, on the continuum of architecture design there are those who believe we ought to do something that is historical, they hate modernism, that’s just the way they feel. They’re just uncomfortable with it, they love a sense of connection to history. And at the other end of that continuum there are modernists, hyper-modernists, who believe you should do buildings of our time."

Correction...

1. there are people who feel you should do something historical HERE, in this circumstance, for a myriad of reasons.

2. They don't hate modernism at all, love it quite frankly, just hate that it is plopped up like lego against a French Chateau backing onto a beautiful urban park, next to gothic parliament buildings.

This architect is coming across as quite the character to put it nicely.

[Kitchissippi]

"Châteauesque buildings are typically built on an asymmetrical plan with a roof-line broken in several places and a facade composed of advancing and receding planes."

Even if they used a contemporary style, they should at the very least take some of these principles into consideration.

Plus, the arabesque patterns and tacky surface ornamentation in the rendering are really awful . They could look nice on some other building elsewhere but completely incongruous with the existing Chateau.

http://chateauvision.ca/wp-content/uploads/07-Entrance-from-Mackenzie-Avenue_entreue-de-avenue-Mackenzie.jpg

[enrigue8]

It very ugly !
Why not make an international competition for a landmark like that ?
Unfortunately, in Ontario there is no international competition because the foreign designs are too pretty and too futuristic for us canadians .It will change our mind and lifestyle and pathetic architects like mr Clewes will be out of job.
It will be the end of pathetic architecture in Canada.
Just watch how ugly Toronto became because of bad developers and architects.
Everywhere in the world,architecture is better than here.
Sorry folks to say that.

[FFX-ME]

Yea and that Clewes guy is somewhat to blame for Toronto.

You know, Ottawa is known for neo gothic architecture. Why not build more instead of crappy glass boxes. Make the city more interesting and unique.

[citizen j]

Hmmm, not a fan.
But here are a few observations.
If they were to propose a more historically sensitive addition, unless they were willing to spend a significant amount on designing and finishing it properly it would likely age poorly -- think bad 80s pomo pastiche.
Second, having recently travelled in the UK and Germany, the juxtaposition of historical and contemporary architectural styles doesn't strike me as particularly heinous. A few things this addition has going for it: it respects the horizontal breaks in the massing of the older additions; it doesn't loom over the older additions (the iconic roofline is still visible from the Alexandra Bridge, for instance); and it isn't attached to the older additions all the way up to the roofline.
Room for improvement? Absolutely. End of the world? meh.

[daud]

Hmmm, not a fan.
But here are a few observations.
If they were to propose a more historically sensitive addition, unless they were willing to spend a significant amount on designing and finishing it properly it would likely age poorly -- think bad 80s pomo pastiche.
Second, having recently travelled in the UK and Germany, the juxtaposition of historical and contemporary architectural styles doesn't strike me as particularly heinous. A few things this addition has going for it: it respects the horizontal breaks in the massing of the older additions; it doesn't loom over the older additions (the iconic roofline is still visible from the Alexandra Bridge, for instance); and it isn't attached to the older additions all the way up to the roofline.
Room for improvement? Absolutely. End of the world? meh.

I get what you are saying. A few observations;

1. I hate it less than I did before but still feel there should be a much more interesting proposal.
2. Building in the same style comes down to $. Of all the variables factoring for and against building in this chateau style, money is the big one. Much of the resulting commentary can come back to dollars. If they are not going to spend the money to do it properly it will look bad. what those of us that support an imitation of the architectural style are suggesting is that the money should be spent to do it properly. respect the building and its style. But I would guess the owners are not willing to spend those dollars. So, in some respects, all this jabber about respecting time periods could be influenced by a lack of will to spend the bucks.

I just feel there has to be a better way than what they've proposed. I fully respect the private property and business that Larco is in. This city needs hotel rooms badly. But, i'm also very concerned about the major hills park view. This is as close to central park as Ottawa can get and the north end of it is graced with a chateau. Now it will be a glass building with a hint of spires behind it. What is the price of that view? This proposal will look bad in 20-30 years, that is certain, so for this reason, I'm really against it.

[enrigue8]

Yea and that Clewes guy is somewhat to blame for Toronto.

You know, Ottawa is known for neo gothic architecture. Why not build more instead of crappy glass boxes. Make the city more interesting and unique.


You right.We don t know how to make a city great and unique in this country.
Just pure glass tower is not architecture at all.

[rocketphish]

Château Laurier revised additions 'inappropriate' and 'incongruous': Heritage Ottawa

Susana Mas, The Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 28, 2016 | Last Updated: November 28, 2016 7:41 PM EST

http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2016/11/the-chateau-laurier-in-ottawa-is-proposing-a-new-addition-to9.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=750

The proposed expansion of the Château Laurier should not be allowed to go ahead in its current form, Heritage Ottawa says.

The critique comes a little more than a week after the owner of the hotel and its team of architects unveiled a revised design following an original plan that sparked public outcry two months earlier.

In an open letter posted on its website, Heritage Ottawa says the proposed additions to the Château resemble a modern condo and, as such, are “inappropriate” and “incongruous” with the historical character of the iconic hotel.

Larco Investments Ltd., the owners of the Fairmont Laurier in Ottawa, held a public consultation on Nov. 17, and a 3D scale model of the revised design was unveiled for the first time.

While the height and size of the proposed additions, which would sit at the back of the east and west wings of the hotel, were scaled back by about eight per cent, the overall design did not change.

“I would say we’ve refined it. But no, it has not changed in any substantive way,” Peter Clewes, principal of the Toronto-based firm architectsAlliance and the lead architect behind the proposed design told the Citizen at the time.

Some modifications were also made to the façade and the roof of the building.

According to Heritage Ottawa, “The current design of the proposed addition is incongruous with the heritage character of the Château Laurier and its environs.”

“Bluntly stated, the proposed addition resembles a contemporary condominium. Located elsewhere, the proposed design might be appropriate for a freestanding residential building. As an addition to Ottawa’s Château Laurier, the currently proposed design is inappropriate and stands to forever compromise iconic views of Canada’s capital,” said the open letter, which was posted Sunday.

Heritage Ottawa is a non-profit group made up of volunteers committed to the conservation of historic buildings in the city. It is proposing that a group of experts be formed and an intensive planning session be scheduled to come up with “a compatible design.”

It said the session would be chaired by “an eminent heritage conservation architect” and the group made up of various community stakeholders, including Heritage Ottawa, a heritage planner and a heritage landscape architect familiar with the national capital.

According to Heritage Ottawa, the Château is too important “to settle for anything less than a solution of architectural excellence that honours the original building’s heritage value, and contributes to the further enhancement of the nation’s capital.”

“Until a design is produced that meets these criteria, any Château Laurier expansion project should not be permitted,” Heritage Ottawa said.

The rules for the conservation of historic places in Canada say any proposed additions must be compatible with the old without mimicking what is already there.

Clewes, an award-winning architect, has acknowledged there is a fine line between the two.

“What we’re trying to do within that continuum is find a careful balance between making a connection to the past and making a connection to the future. And you know, it’s a tricky business. We will continue to work on that,” he’s told the Citizen.

Art Phillips, the director of development for Larco Investments Ltd., which owns the Château Laurier, postponed a formal application to the city so his team could hear from Ottawa residents first.

The city will have to approve the design and, because the hotel sits on federal land, the National Capital Commission will also have a say.

If approved, construction would begin in the fall of 2017.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/chateau-laurier-revised-additions-inappropriate-and-incongruous-heritage-ottawa

[kwoldtimer]

I'm surprised at Heritage Ottawa's restrained descriptors. I thought they might be tempted to channel Prince Charles and describe the proposal as being "like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved and elegant friend". ;)

[FFX-ME]

Faith in humanity has been restored. :worship:

[rocketphish]

Here is a view from the hotel rooms in the Château Laurier that will be lost, if they ever construct the new buildings between the current hotel and Major's Hill Park. This was taken from the northernmost end of the east wing of the hotel. Presumably, the view of this face of the iconic hotel would be largely blocked from just about everywhere in this photo as well.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5452/31283727041_32e060225a_h.jpg (https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5452/31283727041_8207283c4b_o.jpg)
Click image for much larger version

Panorama by me
Dec 3, 2016

[rocketphish]

Château Laurier owners tell city council there's growing 'acceptance' for proposed expansion

Susana Mas, The Ottawa Citizen
Published on: December 6, 2016 | Last Updated: December 6, 2016 7:35 PM EST

The owners of the Château Laurier have delivered a public consultation report to city council which they say shows a growing acceptance for the proposed expansion of the iconic hotel after its design first sparked public outcry nearly three months ago.

The expansion project includes two new wings at the back of the hotel to lodge long-term suites, new terraces connected to the hotel’s grand ballroom, the greening of the hotel’s roofs, a new exterior courtyard and gardens, and the replacement of a 5-storey parking structure with an underground garage with additional spaces.

The report, which the owners of the Château Laurier say marks the end of the pre-consultation process, is based on the feedback they received during a public meeting where the team of architects gave a 45-minute presentation, took questions from the public and unveiled a 3D scale model of the proposed design. Community stakeholders were also consulted privately in September.

According to the report, the results of the survey show that the overall look of the proposed design and its relationship with the existing Château remain the most divisive aspect of the expansion plan.

The Nov. 17 meeting was attended by 92 people, 56 of which took the time to respond in writing to a questionnaire.

Of the 56 respondents, 50 per cent said they agreed with the overall appearance of the proposed additions, while 43 per cent did not. Similarly, 48 per cent agreed with the relationship of the additions with the existing Château, while 43 per cent disagreed. While the survey did not provide room to mark a third option, five per cent of respondents wrote in that they “partially agreed,” according to the report.

The vast majority of respondents, over 90 per cent, agreed with the removal of the old parking structure and the removal of existing loading bays and service area. Additionally, over three-quarters of respondents also agreed with the proposed changes to the entrance on Mackenzie Avenue.

http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2016/12/1207-chateau.jpg?quality=55&strip=all

The report included a selective sample of the hand written comments provided by the respondents.

“Overall appearance: close, but not quite!” said one respondent while another told the owners to “Pick a side: blend in or be bold.”

Among the critical comments from other respondents: “Nothing new”; “Most unsympathetic to the original style! The Lord Elgin neatly added two wings — why can’t you?”; and “Addition has achieved the standards and guidelines principle of being distinct, but I’m not sure about compatible.”

Some considered the revised additions an improvement over the original design and said the 3D scale model helped to visualize it, while others didn’t see any change.

“The maquette was very useful,” was one response. “The model changed my perception entirely,” wrote another respondent. “Much better design then the first, still too tall from Major’s Hill Park,” was another observation.

Others were very pleased with the overall appearance of the proposed additions saying, “Kudos to the design team! Having missed the initial consultation back in September and only relying on media, this project was blown out of proportion as to the fictitious possible effects. It looks great and is long overdue.”

“More people should get informed on this new project before being so negative towards this very important addition to bring the hotel into the future,” another said.

“The Château Laurier hotel is one of my favourite buildings in Ottawa … the architects have been very respectful to its beauty and heart,” and “Thank you for respecting the views of the Château Laurier roof tops and front side facades … the new part of the hotel fits in well and looks terrific,” were two responses from complimentary respondents.

Despite the presentation and 3D scale model, some respondents remained split.

“I’m not an architect so, I may be out of touch with what is doable to make the new development both separate and subordinate to the old. Therefore, I’m in the middle. Perhaps it will grow on me,” one person said.

The report was compiled and delivered to city council by Suzanne Valiquet, president of Momentum, an Ottawa firm retained by Vancouver-based Larco Investments Ltd. which represents the owners of the Château Laurier.

“In conclusion, there appears to be an increase in community acceptance at the design approach being taken,” the report said. “As a result Larco Investments Ltd. is concluding the pre-consultation phase for this proposal and will be moving forward with a formal application for site plan control.”

David Jeanes, president and chair of the board at Heritage Ottawa, said he was disappointed to learn that the Château owners have concluded the pre-consultation process.

“This suggests they are not going to make any significant design change,” Jeanes said.

Heritage Ottawa, a non-profit group made up of volunteer experts committed to the conservation of historic buildings in the city, penned a second letter following the public consultation meeting, calling the proposed additions “inappropriate” and “incongruous” with the historical character of the iconic hotel.

The group called on the Château owners to hold a “design charrette” where a group of experts would sit down for an intensive planning session to come up with “a compatible design.”

“It certainly says they’re not contemplating anything like what Heritage Ottawa proposed,” Jeanes said. “We find that a bit disappointing.”

smas@postmedia.com
twitter.com/susanamas

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/growing-acceptance-to-proposed-additions-marks-end-of-pre-consultations-chateau-laurier

[Harley613]

This is how Trump got elected. Not enough people showed up to vote. Sad that 56 people are influencing public opinion through the media.

[gjhall]

This is how Trump got elected. Not enough people showed up to vote. Sad that 56 people are influencing public opinion through the media.

Whoa, cowboy. Cool your heels.

[FFX-ME]

This is how Trump got elected. Not enough people showed up to vote. Sad that 56 people are influencing public opinion through the media.

I was thinking the same thing. 56 cherry-picked people barely support the proposal. Outside of those people the vast majority of Ottawans despise the proposal. Their approach in the whole matter is utterly insulting to all Ottawans, city council, and heritage Ottawa.

[McKellarDweller]

[B]Château Laurier owners tell city council there's growing 'acceptance' for proposed expansion

This article, and the "poll" were the biggest crock of shit I've read in a legitimate news source in a long time.
Nice try, all involved.

[ars]

Let me guess, most of those 92 who liked it were friends, family or colleagues :rolleyes:

I wasn't even ever aware of this meeting.

I like how they gloss over the overwhelmingly negative response on social media and elsewhere, but I seriously hope our politicians don't gloss over the same thing.

[Soi-Fon]

Is there any chance that this joke get approved by the city ?

I would be enraged if this thing was added to the Chateau Laurier, a real shame.

[rocketphish]

Yes, we can successfully expand the Château Laurier – but only by respecting its basic values

Peter Coffman
Published on: December 8, 2016 | Last Updated: December 8, 2016 12:10 PM EST

According to representatives of the Château Laurier’s owners, there is “growing acceptance” in the community for its planned expansion. If they’re right that’s bad news, because we could be on the brink of a huge and irreversible mistake. But we need to get beyond the “I hate it” response and understand why the proposed design doesn’t work, and why no amount of tinkering (which is all the “revised” design amounts to) will change that.

First, why bother? What’s at stake when we alter – or lose – a historic building? People talk about it in terms of “beautiful” or “ugly,” but there’s even more at stake than that.

We are creatures of community. We seek community among those around us, of course. But we are also drawn to a community that extends through time. We want to feel connected with those who came before us, so we honour the dead, invoke the ancestors and, in extreme cases, we even study history.

Historic architecture is one of the most tangible, even visceral ways of connecting to that time-travelling community. So, the fundamental question we have to consider when faced with major alterations to a heritage building is: how much we are willing to undermine that aspect of our community?

This is not a new problem. For as long as humans have been making buildings, we’ve been changing them. For more than 2,000 years, architects have shown us how to be innovative and contemporary while still being respectful – even deferential – to the past (the ancient Romans were geniuses at this). History teaches us that there is no cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all formula for success. But there are common principles to those alterations to historic buildings that have gained enduring respect.

Perhaps the most important of these principles is that the new construction must show it understands and works with the architectural “language” of the old. This “language” doesn’t come from details such as the height of the storeys or the kind of stone used. It’s rooted in the overall sensibility of the building, and the values that it evokes. Ancient Greek and Roman architecture spoke a language of rigorous order and intellectual clarity. Gothic spoke a language of transcendence. Renaissance châteaux (and their later revivals, such as the Château Laurier) spoke a language of romance and power.

History is full of examples of new additions to old buildings that understand this principle. The 12th-century architect at Vézelay in France added a Gothic choir to the century-old nave that, for all its difference in decoration, becomes a climax to the building instead of a violation of it. Filippo Brunelleschi respectfully and seamlessly added his Renaissance dome to the medieval cathedral in Florence – and in the process, cemented his reputation as the most innovative architect of his generation. Closer to home, Arthur Erickson added a huge Modernist backdrop to the classically styled Bank of Canada not by mimicking Classical forms, but by embracing Classical values such as symmetry, order and ornamental restraint. It can be done.

But it’s not being done at the Château Laurier, where the addition’s uncompromising Modernism does not even seem to understand, much less respond to, the romantic aura of the older building. The result looks like a few lines of hip hop added to a Shakespearean love sonnet.

The Château Laurier controversy is really going to test our commitment to heritage conservation. If a developer proposes a mutilation of an important historic building, and is sent away in the hope that they’ll return with a slightly less gross mutilation, that’s not heritage conservation. It’s heritage damage control. We are the nation’s capital. Is damage control really our highest aspiration, and the best we can do?

Peter Coffman is an architectural historian in Carleton University’s History & Theory of Architecture program, and Past President of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada. He blogs on architectural topics at http://carleton.ca/arthistory/hta-blog/

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/coffman-yes-we-can-successfully-expand-the-chateau-laurier-but-only-by-respecting-its-basic-values

[J.OT13]

Great article. Any expansion must pay homage to the original. Bank of Canada is a good example, with the simple modern glass addition "embracing" the old Bank building. Another would be the Victoria Memorial Building, with the new glass lantern, that replaces the long demolished stone tower that had to be demolished long ago.

And of course the NAC's expansion, continuing the geometric pattern.

I know a lot of people might not agree, but I believe the additions to the Lord Elgin does a dis-service to the structure. They tried to replicate and failed. Anyone with a keen eye for architecture can see it doesn't match.

[eemy]

Part of the difference with the Lord Elgin Hotel and Bank of Canada is that they are in the context of a crowd of other buildings. There is greater latitude in what can be done due to the fact that the building is already immediately contrasted with other buildings. The Chateau Laurier, on the other hand, is a singular structure that stands on its own and that is an important part of the Ottawa skyline from a number of angles. Any addition has to be very sensitive to this context and what they are offering here just doesn't cut it. If it were in a location like the Royal York in Toronto, they could get away from it, but it isn't and they can't.

[kwoldtimer]

Great article. Any expansion must pay homage to the original. Bank of Canada is a good example, with the simple modern glass addition "embracing" the old Bank building. Another would be the Victoria Memorial Building, with the new glass lantern, that replaces the long demolished stone tower that had to be demolished long ago.

And of course the NAC's expansion, continuing the geometric pattern.

I know a lot of people might not agree, but I believe the additions to the Lord Elgin does a dis-service to the structure. They tried to replicate and failed. Anyone with a keen eye for architecture can see it doesn't match.

Surely it's not about matching, it's about being sympatico. Lord Elgin's additions are sympatico, imho.

[J.OT13]

Part of the difference with the Lord Elgin Hotel and Bank of Canada is that they are in the context of a crowd of other buildings. There is greater latitude in what can be done due to the fact that the building is already immediately contrasted with other buildings. The Chateau Laurier, on the other hand, is a singular structure that stands on its own and that is an important part of the Ottawa skyline from a number of angles. Any addition has to be very sensitive to this context and what they are offering here just doesn't cut it. If it were in a location like the Royal York in Toronto, they could get away from it, but it isn't and they can't.

Agreed. The impact of the Château expansion would be greater then that of the Lord Elgin because it is "free-standing".

[black cat]

This addition is akin to the Chateau style meets a contemporary version of Mies van der Rohe. If the owners and Peter Clewes (supposedly a talented architect) cannot understand why the proposed north addition is a big fail, it is sad.

Presumably the owner needs a project that provides a certain amount of square footage to make the economics work in terms of demolishing the existing car park and relocating it underground. However, if the economics cannot be achieved without seriously compromising the fine landmark aesthetics of this building, then leave it as is.

The north east block is particularly poor in terms of form due to the jarring mannor by which it protrudes eastwards to the edge of the side walk on Sussex Street. This is an awful juncture of new and old. Interestingly no views are shown of the east side of the hotel looking northwards along Sussex Street.

Either the owner should rethink the north addition architectural approach and think Chateau style, or simply leave the building alone.

[AndyMEng]

What do you all think of the Berlin City Palace reconstruction project? They're rebuilding the City Palace with a facade in the old style, with a new, modern addition. For me, part of the problem with the Chateau Laurier is the barcode, randomized cladding. Its going to be dated looking as soon as it's finished.

I know we always complain, but something a little more boring might be more appropriate?

http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/01284/StadtschlossDrauss_1284079s.jpg

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1390928

[J.OT13]

Wait, what!!!! Ultimate bait-and-switch!!! :hell:

12-storey tower part of Château Laurier expansion plans filed with city

Craig Lord Published on February 10, 2017

The owners of Ottawa’s iconic Château Laurier are pushing ahead with their controversial expansion plans and recently filed a site plan application with the city that contains new details about the proposal.

That includes the height of the two towers planned for the rear of the property, which was not disclosed when property owner Larco Investments released its plans last year.

City documents state Larco wants to build an 11-storey (33.25 metres) tower on the east side and 12-storey (36.2 metres) structure on the west side. Both would be on a podium.

Real estate data firm Emporis pegs the height of the existing structure at 37.4 metres, or 11 storeys.

The number of rooms has been increased from 200 to 218.

The site plan application raises questions about the extent to which Larco Investments modified its plans following the criticism in September over its initial proposal, which included Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson tweeting that the developers should go “back to the drawing board.”

Larco development director Art Phillips later told OBJ that the plans would be “refined” and, in November, representatives of the hospitality company told a public meeting that it had scaled down the proposal by eight by percent but maintained the core cubic design.

A Larco spokesperson told OBJ Friday that the plans submitted to the city are largely the same as those presented in November.

Lead architect Peter Clewes said in November that he recognizes that some members of the public would prefer a design that more closely resembles the original building. But under planning rules, additions to heritage buildings are not supposed to mimic or duplicate the original structure. Instead, the new components should be “subordinate” to the historic building and have a modern appearance, Mr. Phillips said in September.

He explained that, when viewed from the outside, the Chateau Laurier has three principal elements: the building base, a midsection containing the rooms and the top roofline. The expansion proposes continuing all three of these elements, utilizing similar materials such as limestone and copper.

Other parts of the expansion include demolishing the existing five-storey parking garage as well as constructing a new underground car park and courtyard.

Mr. Phillips previously said that the company is eager to introduce greenspace to the property’s rear and restore sightlines that are currently blocked by the parkade – a structure he said he’s surprised was ever approved in the first place.

The developers will need a heritage permit to go ahead with the addition, one condition of which is a maintaining of the silhouette of the hotel’s iconic roof. In some of the publicly released renderings in September, the towers appeared to stretch above the existing structure and cut off views of the Château Laurier’s roof from Major's Hill Park.

According to Larco’s project website, the next steps will see the city arrange a community meeting before the proposal heads to the built heritage subcommittee and planning committee, before ending up at city council for final approval. The National Capital Commission will also weigh in before plans are settled.

If all goes according to plan, Larco anticipates construction beginning in fall 2017.

http://www.obj.ca/Local/Tourism/2017-02-10/article-4734637/12-storey-tower-part-of-Chateau-Laurier-expansion-plans-filed-with-city/1

[zzptichka]

Well there was no much "bait" to begin with.
Are there any pictures with these new towers anywhere?

[Soi-Fon]

Hell no, I doesn't want this joke of an "expansion" on the château Laurier. Why can't you just mimick the darn original architecture for cheese sake?

[YOWflier]

Reject application with extreme prejudice.

[1overcosc]

Reject, reject, reject.

If it goes to the OMB, and they approve it, get the provincial cabinet to override them and ensure its rejection. Yes, this is a power the province has. Seldom used, but this is a case where it would be wholly appropriate.

[rocketphish]

They've had many months to correct this, but there are still no renderings of the view from Major's Hill Park. I have to assume that this is intentional so that the public can't see how much of the historic building will be blocked from this angle.

You can get a hint of this from the tiny view they've provided from the middle of the Alexandra Bridge. This is it, blown-up. Can you spot the historic hotel behind those condominiums?

http://chateauvision.ca/en/illustrations/


http://i.imgur.com/MGxbwis.jpg

[Proof Sheet]

If all goes according to plan, Larco anticipates construction beginning in fall 2017.


You've got to give them credit for their optimism.:cheers:

[waterloowarrior]

http://ottwatch.ca/devapps/D07-12-16-0193

Site Plan Control: The City of Ottawa has received a Site Plan Control application to remove the existing parking garage at the Château Laurier hotel and construct an addition containing 218 long-stay hotel units, an interior courtyard and five levels of underground parking with 385 parking spaces.

[ortelius]

on the city's website
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-engagement/planning-and-infrastructure/chateau-laurier-addition

[ars]

on the city's website
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-engagement/planning-and-infrastructure/chateau-laurier-addition

I filled out the feedback form on the website, I did not hold back on my displeasure with this proposal.

[rocketphish]

Could this be the City bolstering it's case for turning down the application? I hope so!

Direct survey link: https://surveys.ottawa.ca/index.php/531554?lang=en

Special website launched to collect feedback on Château Laurier addition

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 14, 2017 | Last Updated: February 14, 2017 10:54 AM EST

The city has launched a special website to collect public feedback on proposed changes to Ottawa’s most iconic downtown hotel.

Larco Investments Ltd., which owns the Fairmont Château Laurier at 1 Rideau Street, is proposing to remove the existing parking garage and construct an addition containing 218 long-stay hotel units, an interior courtyard and five levels of underground parking with 385 parking spaces.

The company says the changes are necessary to address the growing need for long-term stay accommodations in Ottawa and to replace the old parking garage. The existing hotel has 426 hotel units, which would not be affected.

A 28-day comment period (https://surveys.ottawa.ca/index.php/531554?lang=en) on Larco’s site-plan application began Tuesday and will continue until March 14.

The planning department launched a new website (http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-engagement/planning-and-infrastructure/chateau-laurier-addition#tell-us-what-you-think) to facilitate the public’s engagement in what is expected to be high-profile application process.

“It’s such a high-profile project and building in Ottawa,” planning committee chair Jan Harder said Tuesday.

The application will be considered by both the built-heritage and planning committees in the future, as well as the committee of adjustment.

The Château Laurier hotel was built originally between 1908 and 1912 by the Grand Trunk Railway Company in the late Victorian French Château style. A wing along Mackenzie Street was added in 1929. The parking garage structure was added in 1960, and, in 1985, Rideau Street drop-off area was enlarged and a glass front was added to Zoe’s Lounge.

The proposed addition consists of two tall buildings, 11 storeys (33.25 metres) on the east side and 12 storeys (36.2 metres) on the west side, on a podium. The new underground parking would be accessed from Mackenzie Avenue. The Mackenzie Avenue forecourt would be landscaped and two new internal loading spaces would be created with access from the drop-off. A new internal courtyard is proposed, which would abut the existing ground-floor ballroom and have a new glass link to the hotel’s upper terrace along the canal side.

According to Larco’s application, the proposed addition uses a “contemporary design approach,” and the exterior is primarily composed of windows and Indiana limestone with bronze accents. The roof is clad in glass and copper. New and existing flat roofs would be landscaped. No trees within Major’s Hill Park would be removed.

This is the latest twist in the effort to expand the iconic hotel.

Larco’s initial plans, unveiled in September, included two box-shaped modern additions located on the east and west wings that many felt stood in stark contrast with the building’s character and drew a barrage of criticism from the public and Mayor Jim Watson.

The criticism led to a rethinking by the owners, who presented a new vision for the expansion to the public in November, which Peter Clewes, the main architect behind the proposed design, acknowledged didn’t look significantly different from the earlier plan.

But even those changes failed to impress everyone, with Heritage Ottawa saying the proposed expansion of the Château Laurier should not be allowed to proceed in its current form.

The Château, according to Heritage Ottawa, is too important “to settle for anything less than a solution of architectural excellence that honours the original building’s heritage values, and contributes to the further enhancement of the nation’s capital.”

The rules for the conservation of historic places in Canada say any proposed additions must be compatible with the old without mimicking what is already there.

The city will have to approve the design and, because the hotel sits on federal land, the National Capital Commission will also have a say.

The hotel’s owners hope to submit a final plan for approval sometime in 2017.

mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/special-website-launched-to-collect-feedback-on-chateau-laurier-addition

[TheGoods]

You've got to give them credit for their optimism.:cheers:
Optimism, I think they are wearing rose coloured glasses.

[rocketphish]

Here are a few new images from the Design Brief (http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_D07-12-16-0193%20Design%20Brief.PDF):

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3726/32906996015_fd4554e8b9_o.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/421/32906995955_2163e36d11_o.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2943/32526727960_5af4056824_o.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2293/32092261303_7c51386ee2_o.jpg

And finally, the only image I've seen so far that accurately depicts just how little of the historic hotel will remain visible from Major's Hill Park:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3769/32526728110_23bc9750f8_o.jpg

[Kitchissippi]

They're completely wasting the park frontage on a bunch of private rooms instead of space that has some public function that opens out, like a restaurant or cafe. This building is still turning its back on the park, just with more visual encroachment.

[YOWetal]

They're completely wasting the park frontage on a bunch of private rooms instead of space that has some public function that opens out, like a restaurant or cafe. This building is still turning its back on the park, just with more visual encroachment.

I think those are meeting rooms and will be a big selling point for their wedding business in particular.

[rocketphish]

Just found this rendering in the online survey. Funny that it's not on Larco's website.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3749/32093972873_bac28ca94a_o.jpg

[FFX-ME]

IMO, the only way to make a coherent modern addition that wouldn't mimic the current architecture or harm it would be to make the addition inside the courtyard. Put up a glass tower in the middle, similar to the museum of nature.

[AndyMEng]

IMO, the only way to make a coherent modern addition that wouldn't mimic the current architecture or harm it would be to make the addition inside the courtyard. Put up a glass tower in the middle, similar to the museum of nature.

You could maybe centre it at the end of the "U" but you couldn't put it in the middle, all the interior existing rooms look to the 'courtyard' which is currently just an ugly roof.

Removing the garage will be a great thing, and the garage needs to come down anyways, its so badly deteriorated.

1. The barcode style cladding will look dated REAL fast, and its too busy for a sympathetic match to the existing stone with punched windows. In this case, a more boring grid might be a better choice.
2. Material choice is great, keep it going, as long as it is actual stone and copper, and not a cheap imitation.
3. There should be an outwards-facing component to the ground floor at the park side, such as a public restaurant, coffee shop, or etc., with a pass-through to the main lobby on the front side. This might not be good business, because there's a ton of public space inside the chateau already and it would draw business from the front of house dealings. Although a small coffee shop centred on the amenities area (the low-rise connection) would go a long way to opening this up.
4. Love the proposed changes to the courtyard, re-opening it for active usage is a great thing.

I think what I've explained is not completely out of the question, and some small changes will go a long way. Leaving it like it is is not an option, the garage is coming down, and there'll be a big hole there. NOW, the real question is, if you just built a new garage and leave the courtyard ugly and assume that people don't care that there's a giant parking garage currently bordering the park OR you could sink the garage and just finish off the courtyard wall into the pool area with a glazed facade and call it a day (though the financial side of that is suicide because mining to install the garage will cost $200M alone, with a really really really long pay-back period), is that better or worse?

[roger1818]

And finally, the only image I've seen so far that accurately depicts just how little of the historic hotel will remain visible from Major's Hill Park:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3769/32526728110_23bc9750f8_o.jpg

Where did you find this North Elevation drawing? I couldn't find it in the liked Design Brief.

IMO, the only way to make a coherent modern addition that wouldn't mimic the current architecture or harm it would be to make the addition inside the courtyard. Put up a glass tower in the middle, similar to the museum of nature.

While from a visual perspective it might be better, given that this is a hotel, I don't think you want shove a new tower in the courtyard. All of the courtyard rooms would then have a wall or windows a couple meters from their own window.

I don't have an issue with them demolishing the 1960's parking garage and replacing it with something more useful. The biggest issue I have is with the height of the new towers. Personally, I would rather see a single, shorter building spanning the entire area of the current parking garage, but it should be below the roofline (optimally a few meters below).

This is the view we need to protect:
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/09/ef/86/9b/major-s-hill-park.jpg
Photo courtesy TripAdvisor (https://www.tripadvisor.ca/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g155004-d184931-i166692497-Major_s_Hill_Park-Ottawa_Ontario.html)

[FFX-ME]

You're right, I hadn't thought about the courtyard rooms. I guess then that Kitchissipi's earlier proposal would be best, but it's apparently against the law...

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7306/16426153066_0bdaf51c61_h.jpg

If you can't put it in the middle and you can't mimic then you are forced to cover a part of the existing structure.

[roger1818]

You're right, I hadn't thought about the courtyard rooms. I guess then that Kitchissipi's earlier proposal would be best, but it's apparently against the law...

If you can't put it in the middle and you can't mimic then you are forced to cover a part of the existing structure.

Agreed, that would be nice. I suspect the other issue is they are wanting to protect the indirect view of the river/park from the courtyard rooms.

The thing I like about design of the parking garage is it is subtle. You barely even notice it is there unless you are looking for it. If they did something similar (with a flat roof), it would have a minimal effect on the aesthetics of the building even if it was a few stories taller and they added windows,

The problem is no architect wants to design something that no one will notice. They want to make a bold statement.

[ortelius]

make it all underground :)

Deep Sleep: Inside The World's Most Amazing Underground Hotels (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2017/01/22/deep-sleep-inside-the-worlds-most-amazing-underground-hotels/#4567888b4bbf)

[rocketphish]

Where did you find this North Elevation drawing? I couldn't find it in the liked Design Brief.

That one is from the Elevations (http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_D07-12-16-0193%20Elevations.PDF) doc.

You can find them all here on the City's development application page:
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__0FUWSI

[rocketphish]

The problem is no architect wants to design something that no one will notice. They want to make a bold statement.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. And IMO this is probably why there exists this "rule" that you can't just mimic an existing heritage structure. It isn't a law (that I'm aware of). It's a guideline that's being pushed by architects to allow themselves unfettered freedom of design. Well, you know what?... it's a stupid guideline and one that should be pushed-back upon. It may be useful in some scenarios, but in a situation like this, it's doing a great disservice to heritage preservation.

The Chateau Laurier has already had one major expansion (1927-1929) that mimicked the 1912 original, and you know what? nobody is trying to pass off the addition as part of the original structure. And the addition doesn't take away from the original at all... it complements it beautifully! Why can't we do the same thing now? Because architects, that's why. Harumpf.


The Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_D07-12-16-0193%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Impact%20Statement.PDF) is massive, but very interesting to peruse.

[roger1818]

That one is from the Elevations (http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_D07-12-16-0193%20Elevations.PDF) doc.

Thanks, that helps. :)

The thing I like about design of the parking garage is it is subtle. You barely even notice it is there unless you are looking for it. If they did something similar (with a flat roof), it would have a minimal effect on the aesthetics of the building even if it was a few stories taller and they added windows

I'm guessing (from the elevations drawing) that the current parking garage is about 10 m tall (above ground floor level) which would be about 13 m above grade. IMHO, even if they doubled that to say 21 m (rounding up) above ground floor (8 floors) but made it the full width, they would have almost as much space, but it would have less of a visual impact.

[Bruce Banner]

"Special website launched to collect feedback on Château Laurier addition"?!?!?!?!

Cripes, even this guy has heard the word on the street on this one ...

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/86/pics/86bjohnny.jpg

[roger1818]

"Special website launched to collect feedback on Château Laurier addition"?!?!?!?!

Cripes, even this guy has heard the word on the street on this one ...

I suspect the city wants documented evidence of strong public objections to the plan to fight the OMB. The un-elected OMB almost always sides with the developer and will usually overrule decisions made by the elected city council (which explains Larco's optimism). If the city can make it a political issue, the province might overrule the OMB, especially in an election year.

[FFX-ME]

Therein lies the crux of the issue. And IMO this is probably why there exists this "rule" that you can't just mimic an existing heritage structure. It isn't a law (that I'm aware of). It's a guideline that's being pushed by architects to allow themselves unfettered freedom of design. Well, you know what?... it's a stupid guideline and one that should be pushed-back upon. It may be useful in some scenarios, but in a situation like this, it's doing a great disservice to heritage preservation.

The Chateau Laurier has already had one major expansion (1927-1929) that mimicked the 1912 original, and you know what? nobody is trying to pass off the addition as part of the original structure. And the addition doesn't take away from the original at all... it complements it beautifully! Why can't we do the same thing now? Because architects, that's why. Harumpf.


The Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_D07-12-16-0193%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Impact%20Statement.PDF) is massive, but very interesting to peruse.

Then it's a no brainer, they should just mimic the design and add on it.

This whole "we don't want to confuse the history of the building" stuff is bullshit. The Chateau Laurier isn't even 100 years old (most of it) and when it was built it did not represent the architechture of the time. Little known secret...it's actually not a real French Chateau! WHaaaa!

[TheGoods]

Then it's a no brainer, they should just mimic the design and add on it.

This whole "we don't want to confuse the history of the building" stuff is bullshit. The Chateau Laurier isn't even 100 years old (most of it) and when it was built it did not represent the architechture of the time. Little known secret...it's actually not a real French Chateau! WHaaaa!

Not sure how old the Lord Elgin is and if it would fall under this criteria but they expanded based on the same architecture.

[roger1818]

Not sure how old the Lord Elgin is and if it would fall under this criteria but they expanded based on the same architecture.

According to Wikipedia, the Lord Elgin Hotel opened in July 1941.

Looking at the picture below, the additions to the north and south are in a similar style, but slight differences (larger windows, differences in material) mean you can definitely tell they are not part of the original structure.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Lord-elgin-hotel-night.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALord-elgin-hotel-night.jpg)
Lord-elgin-hotel-night (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALord-elgin-hotel-night.jpg) [CC BY-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], by The original uploader was Phixed at English Wikipedia, from Wikimedia Commons

[AndyMEng]

According to Wikipedia, the Lord Elgin Hotel opened in July 1941.

Looking at the picture below, the additions to the north and south are in a similar style, but slight differences (larger windows, differences in material) mean you can definitely tell they are not part of the original structure.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Lord-elgin-hotel-night.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALord-elgin-hotel-night.jpg)
Lord-elgin-hotel-night (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALord-elgin-hotel-night.jpg) [CC BY-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], by The original uploader was Phixed at English Wikipedia, from Wikimedia Commons

Wikipedia:
"Significant renovations in the 1990s and 2000s resulted in the construction of large additions to the north and south of the building, the refurbishment and enlargement of existing rooms, and the addition of 60 new guestrooms, new meeting rooms and a new fitness facility which was finished in 2002"

[lrt's friend]

But the modern additions to the Lord Elgin Hotel are harmonious with the original building and don't try to outstage it. I can't say that about the proposed Chateau addition.

[roger1818]

But the modern additions to the Lord Elgin Hotel are harmonious with the original building and don't try to outstage it. I can't say that about the proposed Chateau addition.

Agreed. That is the point I was trying to make. The 1960's parking garage at the Chateau (that they are replacing) is also harmonious with the original building. If they could do something like that it would suit the building much better, even if taller than the garage (to a point).

[TheGoods]

According to Wikipedia, the Lord Elgin Hotel opened in July 1941.

Looking at the picture below, the additions to the north and south are in a similar style, but slight differences (larger windows, differences in material) mean you can definitely tell they are not part of the original structure.


Thanks for the clarification, I actually did not notice the difference with the larger windows, as for material, I did notice there was a colour difference in the brick but I taught that it was the same brick but newer and with time, it would age and blend in more with the original building.

[TheGoods]

But the modern additions to the Lord Elgin Hotel are harmonious with the original building and don't try to outstage it. I can't say that about the proposed Chateau addition.

Also agree, I actually could not tell that the expansion was suppose to be different.

[Arcologist]

Here's the link to the City of Ottawa feedback form:

https://surveys.ottawa.ca/index.php/531554?lang=en

Have your say!

[Harley613]

Here's the link to the City of Ottawa feedback form:

https://surveys.ottawa.ca/index.php/531554?lang=en

Have your say!

Done! Thank you.

[FFX-ME]

From Jon Willing of the Ottawa citizen:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/a-lot-of-passion-city-receives-more-than-1700-responses-on-chateau-design


'A lot of passion': City receives more than 1,700 responses on Château design consultation


http://tu9srvbirvvtnyr3cg1lzglhlm90dgf3ywnpdgl6zw4uy29t.g00.ottawacitizen.com/g00/2_b3R0YXdhY2l0aXplbi5jb20%3D_/TU9SRVBIRVVTNyRodHRwOi8vd3BtZWRpYS5vdHRhd2FjaXRpemVuLmNvbS8yMDE2LzExL3RoZS1jaGF0ZWF1LWxhdXJpZXItaW4tb3R0YXdhLWlzLXByb3Bvc2luZy1hLW5ldy1hZGRpdGlvbi10bzIuanBlZz9xdWFsaXR5PTU1JnN0cmlwPWFsbCZ3PTg0MCZoPTYzMCZjcm9wPTEmaTEwYy5tYXJrLmltYWdlLnR5cGU%3D_$/$/$/$

Ottawa City Hall received 1,759 responses in a month-long consultation on the proposed addition to the historic Château Laurier.

In a rare move, the city spearheaded an online consultation that allowed people to chime in on the hotel’s plan to add two buildings, 11 storeys and 12 storeys in height, and five levels of underground parking. The existing parking garage would be dismantled.

The city kept the online form available until 3 p.m. on Wednesday instead of sticking to the original plan of closing off comments Tuesday.

“We knew there was a lot of interest in this application,” city planner Allison Hamlin said Thursday.

City staff now have to go through all the responses and compile the feedback.

Hamlin said there’s a variety of responses in the forms that she has seen.

“There’s a lot of interest and there’s a lot of passion,” she said.

An “as we heard it” report presenting the feedback is expected to be ready by the end of March.


“That feedback is also going to be shared with the applicant and the heritage working group,” Hamlin said.

The heritage working group includes national and local experts who will advise the city, the National Capital Commission and the hotel owner, Larco Investments, on the project.

Hamlin said there could be more than one meeting of the heritage working group before council’s built heritage subcommittee considers the proposal.

The city hasn’t scheduled a community meeting yet, but Hamlin expects there will be one before the built heritage subcommittee meeting.

Ultimately it’s up to the hotel owner to make any changes to the design.

The city’s timeline for the approval has the design going to the urban design review panel in April and the built heritage subcommittee in June. Planning committee will then review the proposal and council will have the final sign-off. The committee of adjustment will also consider some of the proposed work.

The existing 426-unit hotel, which was built between 1908 and 1912, wouldn’t be altered under the plan. The owner wants to add 218 long-stay units and an interior courtyard. The underground parking garage would have 385 spaces.

The exterior of the proposed addition would be Indiana limestone with windows and bronze accents. The roof would be copper and glass.

[Marshsparrow]

oh good grief... where were these people when they built all the other crap in this city?

[cr872190]

The existing 426-unit hotel, which was built between 1908 and 1912, wouldn’t be altered under the plan. The owner wants to add 218 long-stay units and an interior courtyard. The underground parking garage would have 385 spaces.


By long-stay units is it possible they mean condominiums like the Fairmont Residences (http://www.fairmont.com/residences/) in Vancouver? I notice they have a separate lobby and amenity space.

[gjhall]

By long-stay units is it possible they mean condominiums like the Fairmont Residences (http://www.fairmont.com/residences/) in Vancouver? I notice they have a separate lobby and amenity space.

No, those are condos, these are rentals, as I understand it - more like a luxury long-stay hotel.