219-223 Bank St + 178 Nepean St | 32m | 9f | Proposed

[rocketphish]

217 Nepean Street Holdings Inc. and 211-231 Bank Street Holdings Inc. (Smart Living Properties) are proposing to construct a nine (9) storey residential use addition above the heritage contributing buildings located at 178 Nepean, 219 and 223 Bank Street. The proposed addition will create a total of 263 residential units consisting of a mix of bachelors to three-bedroom suites. Additionally, the development will reinstate ground floor retail-commercial space to provide up to five (5) total non-residential units with frontage onto Bank Street. Communal amenity spaces are proposed indoors within the main floor as well as outdoors on multiple rooftops including above the podium and above the 9th floor (rooftop). Private amenity spaces are also proposed on balconies. The development proposes 434 bicycle parking spaces and a bike repair area located internally to the building. The proposed development does not provide any vehicle parking or driveways on site.

The proposed addition retains the original roof ridgeline of the existing heritage contributing buildings, and steps back approximately 3 to 3.9 metres past the third floor to extend the new residential addition up to a height of six floors, after which the building steps back an additional 1.2 metres for a height of up to nine (9) storeys. The addition retains the two (2) storey building at 178 Nepean Street, and provides a continuous nine (9) storeys above. Along the back, the proposed addition is designed to create a courtyard around the rooftop of the one (1)-storey podium.


Architect: Woodman Architect


Development application:
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...2-0127/details

Location:




Siteplan:






Renderings:

[rocketphish]

[August 2022] 178 Nepean Street and 231 Bank Street were purchased by 211-231 Bank Street Holdings Inc. (Smart Living Properties) from Named Individuals for $8,075,000. It is improved with a variety of mixed-use buildings that range in height from one to three stories.

http://juteaujohnsoncomba.com/wp-con...gust-Sales.pdf

[phil235]

This is the kind of project that should be approved as of right.

[OTSkyline]

I'm a bit iffy on the design, but the added density, height & retention of the current facades on Bank Street are bonus points.

Would it even include a refurbished/spruce up of some of them (i.e the Wallacks corner in the render shows brown/beige bricks and some nice windows/doors at street-level where currently it's a bright white painted mess with low-quality windows).

https://goo.gl/maps/whaYhJj83jPSqFSR6

[RogueNacho]

I think the design is like almost there. I like this proposal a lot and if they could just maybe reduce the use of black brick on the upper levels, as well as ensure the use of quality materials elsewhere, then I think we're looking at something really good here. I'm hoping the renders are accurate in that we see them giving the heritage buildings a makeover and stripping that awful white paint from Wallack's. Would the fire escapes remain I wonder (solely for heritage aesthetics and not functionality)?

What's really cool to see is that there are zero parking spaces proposed for the building! That will be great to 1) speed up the construction of the project, 2) greatly lower the cost by avoiding excavating out a deep parking garage and 3), add 250+ residents to this area with no impact on vehicle traffic. These types of development should be greatly encouraged!

[SL123]

I agree this looks good design wise its almost there. I think i would prefer a bigger setback between the heritage building and the new addition. As is it looks a bit too much like facadism

[GeoNerd]

The charcoal brick consortium will eventually become the richest, most powerful, force in this city.

[J.OT13]

I'm a little confused. Are they actually preserving the buildings, or is it just façadism? Quotes like these sound like the buildings will be retained. The lack of underground parking suggests that as well.

intends to develop the subject property by retaining the existing heritage contributing buildings and constructing a nine (9) storey addition atop

The building retains the heritage buildings

If they do retain the actual buildings, I'll be happy, though I really dislike the black brick. I think a glass building, metal cladding or lighter masonry for the mid-rise portion would look better, otherwise it's overbearing.

[Ottawacurious]

I really like the ground floor levels and the attention to detail there. I would like the top layer more if it wasn't gray but was closer to 'white'. Maybe that'd blend in too much w/ the development to its rear?

For the middle, I might suggest to go a bit 'crazy' / more modern by replacing the black brick with a bright orange calcium silicate board siding/fiber cement shtuff similar to what is on 'The Eddy'. It'd contrast old-school main street w/ modern. Might not be horrible!? And it seems to be aging well-enough. Adds a bit of personality to the street.

All the exemptions they are asking for make sense including additional height. Agree w/ the above comment that this sort of development should breeze through permissions.

[Ottawacurious]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm a little confused. Are they actually preserving the buildings, or is it just façadism? Quotes like these sound like the buildings will be retained. The lack of underground parking suggests that as well.


If they do retain the actual buildings, I'll be happy, though I really dislike the black brick. I think a glass building, metal cladding or lighter masonry for the mid-rise portion would look better, otherwise it's overbearing.

I think they are only keeping the scale/"preserving the heritage roofline". So, sounds like all new construction to me; however, they also state the brick will be restored on page 14 (section 4.1.2...aka 16 of 44)

See section 4.1
http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...02-22-0127.PDF

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

I think they are only keeping the scale/"preserving the heritage roofline". So, sounds like all new construction to me; however, they also state the brick will be restored on page 14 (section 4.1.2)

See section 4.1
http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...02-22-0127.PDF

That's disappointing. We have so many parking lots and cheap 70s and 80s buildings, why target a row of mostly occupied heritage buildings that contribute to the urbanity of Bank?

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That's disappointing. We have so many parking lots and cheap 70s and 80s buildings, why target a row of mostly occupied heritage buildings that contribute to the urbanity of Bank?

The architectural plans show that the small retail units are being kept so the "urbanity" will remain just fine, and the facade will keep the street precence the same.

As for the interior these aren't museums, and even if the interior structure was kept it would have been gutted to update everything to code as they are required to do.

[Fraser]

Really disappointing design. An uninspiring, bland, grey box. More of the same.

[Harley613]

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That's disappointing. We have so many parking lots and cheap 70s and 80s buildings, why target a row of mostly occupied heritage buildings that contribute to the urbanity of Bank?

They’re heritage because they are quasi old. Not because they are great architectural masterpieces. They are likely very inefficient and are in need of some TLC. I don’t see gutting these relics, restoring their exteriors, and making them efficient modern buildings, as a bad thing.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

They’re heritage because they are quasi old. Not because they are great architectural masterpieces. They are likely very inefficient and are in need of some TLC. I don’t see gutting these relics, restoring their exteriors, and making them efficient modern buildings, as a bad thing.

I don't believe "heritage" should be reserved for architectural masterpieces (say Parliament) or places where famous people lived or conducted business. Heritage should include places where people normal lived and worked. There's a different feeling between old buildings that have been around for decades, you can feel the history inside and out and modern buildings with heritage facades mounted on them. Ogilvy's on Rideau, though they did a pretty good job restoring it to what it looked like originally, feels souless and fake. You walk into Joey's and it could be any modern smart centre restaurant.

It's also about minimizing waste. If a building's structure is still solid (and again Ogilvy's was a great example of this), then we should use it as is. Gutt the interior (while preserving what we can; floor boards, ceilings, detailing if it's still around) and modernize the electrical and plumbing, but keep the structure and whatever else we can.

Concrete is a big emitter of GHGs, so we should minimize the use of it when we can, that is, when we already have a adequate structure.

[Veggie]

It's nothing special and I don't know how to feel about the red/brown colour combo, but I like it more than what's there now. Once (if?) the other two buildings go up behind it, it's a nice little dense section.

[JHikka]

Everything above the podium is godawful but this is exactly the type of build that should be happening all along Bank. Good density, good height, just awful looking design and finish

[YukonLlama]

+1 to what everyone is saying; great concept but poor execution. This should be the model for increasing Bank st's density but we could at least make it pretty.

[rocketphish]

[September 2022] 219 Bank Street was purchased by 211-231 Bank Street Holdings Inc. (Smart Living Properties) from a Named Individual for $2,200,000 or $186 per square foot. It is improved with a three-storey mixed-use building with ground floor retail.

http://juteaujohnsoncomba.com/wp-con...mber-Sales.pdf