101 Wurtemburg St | 59m | 18fl | Proposed

[McC]

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__8IGABH

Proposal to replace a mid-century mod* split level (a fine example of the type, whether or not one likes the type) with a slim, 18-storey, 66-unit condo tower at the T of Clarence and Wurtemburg, overlooking the Rideau River. Speaking of "fine examples," the proposal looks like a typical effort from from Claridge and DCYSA Architects.

* As it happens, Mid-Century Modernist profiles the house (and has one render of the proposed tower) here: http://urbsite.blogspot.com/2011/06/jules-morin-house.html

[c_speed3108]

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__8IGABH

Proposal to replace a mid-century mod* split level (a fine example of the type, whether or not one likes the type) with a slim, 18-storey, 66-unit condo tower at the T of Clarence and Wurtemburg, overlooking the Rideau River. Speaking of "fine examples," the proposal looks like a typical effort from from Claridge and DCYSA Architects.

* As it happens, Mid-Century Modernist profiles the house (and has one render of the proposed tower) here: http://urbsite.blogspot.com/2011/06/jules-morin-house.html

This proposal comes across to me as over-building.

Heck if something as tall was built where the Russian Embassy Annex is the second bedrooms in the two bedroom apartments would look out at an airshaft.

Looking at the way the stairways join on exit, the way they are pushing into the waterway setup, the narrow garage entrance all support this assertion.

[McC]

clearly you're a lot better at reading those site plans than I am! ;-)

[gjhall]

Looks like a tall slim tower on a street of high rise buildings. Not sure how it's overbuilding?

[Luker]

I see both your points, the lot is rather skinny however it is also fairly deep at about 50m from road to river. The 18 stories is certainly fairly tall for such a building with such a small street presence, foot print, podium, and community benefits, e.g. small parks, plaza, grocery store, community center ect... However this is modern day downtown and there is three other 'high-rises' on the street with single dwellings....

So what would you guys suggest for modifications?

[c_speed3108]

I am not even sure height is complaint really. The building beside is pretty tall.

It just the design and I use that word loosely. This thing is more of an engineering feat.

It looks like the question they asked is "how much can we jam onto this little site and still be (mostly) within the rules. It is just that everything in the design seems really squeezed. The windows of the second bedroom in the 2 bedrooms actually face each other. It is just filled with these really weird things.

They meet requirements and such but it seems like barely in many cases. The building has zero architectural appeal as well. It is just a big square box that cries for a large piece of land.

They have just pushed everything to limit. No visitor parking....at all. Only the minimum bike parking and not a spot more. They have reduce setbacks...particularly on the river side. They are using a narrower parking garage door. The elevators face each other because that is the only way they will fit. Even one side of the garage has to go down a few stairs to get to the elevator since it is offset level...again because that is the only way it will fit.

I am not even sure how to fix this aside from building a building on a different scale or finding a larger site.

[kwoldtimer]

Too bad that the Russian building next door isn't available to be incorporated into the building site. You could imagine something very nice following the curve of the river on the east and stepping down to the north. Oh well, another tall box it is, I guess.

[citizen j]

Hmm, not stumpy enough!

[gjhall]

Hmm, not stumpy enough!
I wish SSP had a twitter style "retweet" button for posts like this.