Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13
Telus Sky and Vancouver House are basically the same. Two different cities, butt indistinguishable. They are also in cities that offer more impressive modern architecture.
In the context of Ottawa, I'd say this one is close to landmark. It will stand out amongst the rest. So land-mark. Marks the spot.
|
Completely disagree. What is landmark about this? It is a box with a hat that has some aluminum panels on the side. The renders showing sharp angles at street level are deceptive. The elevations reveal that. Being “nice architecture for Ottawa” isn’t enough. Do I like the proposal ? Yes. Would I like it built? Also yes. But if the criteria for extra height is being a landmark building, this ain’t it. You could find a building like this anywhere. Nobody is going to stand out front of this tower staring at it and taking pictures. I could picture this tower at an O-Train hub somewhere. When Mastercraft Starwood proposed an arguably more interesting design for 267 O’Connor, Planning Committee voted against the “faux landmark” development. The chair openly said “I can go to almost every city in North America and see that building, I can’t say that it’s a landmark.” But who knows, maybe it will be enough to persuade planning staff, UDRP, or planning committee, but if I were betting, I’d say this is getting sent back to the drawing board.
Side note: Telus Sky and Vancouver House are not the same. Similar? Yes. They have the same architect. But Vancouver House is way nicer. Both would be considered landmark buildings. Maybe Taggart should consider hiring Bjarke Ingels. I’m not sure Hobbin is the right firm to design a landmark project.