424 Churchill Ave N | 28m | 8f | Proposed

rocketphish · #1 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 12:59 PM**

Churchill Properties Inc. is proposing to redevelop the site at 424 Churchill Ave North with an eight (8) storey mid-rise residential apartment building containing 58 units, with two (2) levels of underground parking. The development is proposed to contain 2 bachelor units, 40 one-bedroom units, 10 one-bedroom + den units, and 6 two-bedroom units. 26 residential parking spaces and 5 visitor parking spaces and a total of 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided.

Architect: Open Plan Architects

Development application:
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...2-0152/details

Location:

Siteplan:

Renderings:

OTSkyline · #2 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 1:19 PM**

Wow, that looks great. Love the ground floor with tall windows & awnings, the simplicity of the design, the textured material on the penthouse level etc... Hopefully the outdoor lighting is installed as shown too, very nice.

Too bad it's not in a highly visible area but tucked away behind Richmond.

J.OT13 · #3 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 1:32 PM**

I agree, this looks fantastic. It has a Parisian feel to it.

ottawasoccer · #4 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 1:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree, this looks fantastic. It has a Parisian feel to it.

The fact that the two of you are endorsing this design/architecture just proves the lack of credibility in this forum. A wall of grey stucco and cheap materials. Nice!!! Did you like this building too??

J.OT13 · #5 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 2:16 PM**

Credibility is a big word. None of us are claiming to be experts or the ultimate authority on design and material standards.

Had the proposal been all stucco, I might have been more critical, but I think it provides a good balance. Stucco isn't always bad. Here's one project that I think made a good use of it:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4063...7i16384!8i8192

ottawasoccer · #6 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 2:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Credibility is a big word. None of us are claiming to be experts or the ultimate authority on design and material standards.

Had the proposal been all stucco, I might have been more critical, but I think it provides a good balance. Stucco isn't always bad. Here's one project that I think made a good use of it:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4063...7i16384!8i8192

That's a convenient position to take when I've seen many people on here offering very negative/outspoken opinions on other projects.

Williamoforange · #7 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

That's a convenient position to take when I've seen many people on here offering very negative/outspoken opinions on other projects.

Just take the architecture criticism for what it is, which is to say it's personal opinion, and from most here it's worthless (including myself though I don't usually comment on the architecture of a building).

OTSkyline · #8 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 2:39 PM**

We're all sharing personal opinions here, not professional.

And I've already listed some of the reasons why I like the design. More reasons than you've provided for disliking it (is it just because of the colour, or the stucco)?

And I'm not sure you can call it cheap materials at this early stage by just looking at a render.

ottawasoccer · #9 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

We're all sharing personal opinions here, not professional.

And I've already listed some of the reasons why I like the design. More reasons than you've provided for disliking it (is it just because of the colour, or the stucco)?

And I'm not sure you can call it cheap materials at this early stage by just looking at a render.

I would have never said anything and kept my opinions to myself. Like I pretty much always do, when it comes to a less than design. However, when I see daily a Rod Lahey or Barry Hobin design being put forward by actual proven developers, get ripped to shreds and torn apart on here... and then this is met with praise I can't help but shake my head in frustration. If this project ever goes ahead I think it could end up looking similar to the quality and execution of that Surface project on 12 Hamilton. Which too me is infuriatingly disappointing for a brand new building.

Ottawacurious · #10 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 3:03 PM**

Might become another case of bait and switch

I like it though. I think I'd like to see walk-around balconies on the penthouse floor. And/or maybe iron juliet balcony's with flower holders to maximize that Parisienne feel

Almost looks like they are proposing 2-way traffic on Danforth as well? (It's currently 1-way at the intersection of Churchill/Danforth). I'm curious to see what they do w/ the building at 352 Danforth (previously Blyth academy). It's the white box beside the car garage in the above photos. Available for rent atm: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...ttawa-westboro at $3000/month.

Otherwise, I like the height for the area. Hopefully they don't have to negotiate down at all.

Truenorth00 · #11 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 3:46 PM**

50 one bedrooms. 6 two bedrooms. This is what targeting investors instead of actual buyers results in.

Uhuniau · #12 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Wow, that looks great. Love the ground floor with tall windows & awnings, the simplicity of the design, the textured material on the penthouse level etc... Hopefully the outdoor lighting is installed as shown too, very nice.

Too bad it's not in a highly visible area but tucked away behind Richmond.

It's awesome that this kind of work is spreading off main streets and into their hinterlands.

Uhuniau · #13 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

50 one bedrooms. 6 two bedrooms. This is what targeting investors instead of actual buyers results in.

56 more homes for people for whom this is a suitable home.

silvergate · #14 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

56 more homes for people for whom this is a suitable home.

There's a lot of new development around Westboro but would be curious to see the breakdown of sizes. Wanna bet 3+ bedroom is severely underrepresented?

SidetrackedSue · #15 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 6:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Too bad it's not in a highly visible area but tucked away behind Richmond.

Given the height of the hill there and width of the intersection at Richmond and Churchill, I think this building will be highly visible, overlooking the people down on Richmond.

The house across Churchill from it, is one of my favourite things about this neighbourhood. It is highly visible from the intersection.

phil235 · #16 Posted **Dec 1, 2022, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SidetrackedSue

Given the height of the hill there and width of the intersection at Richmond and Churchill, I think this building will be highly visible, overlooking the people down on Richmond.

The house across Churchill from it, is one of my favourite things about this neighbourhood. It is highly visible from the intersection.

I agree that this is a very prominent position and it will be very visible. However, my personal, non-professional opinion is that it is also pretty ugly. A lot of bland greyness for a site like that.

SidetrackedSue · #17 Posted **Dec 2, 2022, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phil235

I agree that this is a very prominent position and it will be very visible. However, my personal, non-professional opinion is that it is also pretty ugly. A lot of bland greyness for a site like that.

I haven't decided if I like it or not yet. But it will be dominating. Will it grow on me like Dominican College dominating the hill from Lebreton? Maybe. Maybe not.

I agree with those who said they should put plant holders in so that those who want to add colour can do so.

Kitchissippi · #18 Posted **Dec 2, 2022, 3:48 AM**

I think they should go all out daring and have boldly coloured stucco

J.OT13 · #19 Posted **Dec 2, 2022, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

I would have never said anything and kept my opinions to myself. Like I pretty much always do, when it comes to a less than design. However, when I see daily a Rod Lahey or Barry Hobin design being put forward by actual proven developers, get ripped to shreds and torn apart on here... and then this is met with praise I can't help but shake my head in frustration. If this project ever goes ahead I think it could end up looking similar to the quality and execution of that Surface project on 12 Hamilton. Which too me is infuriatingly disappointing for a brand new building.

Your opinion isn't the problem. You brought some fair points. Surface for a while proposed a bunch of really nice designs, but they did not deliver (complete change of design after approval, poor execution or switching from condos to rentals even after claiming they had 80% or whatever sold).

The issue is that you're not just sharing your opinion, but attacking us in the process.

Spoonsy · #20 Posted **Dec 2, 2022, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

I would have never said anything and kept my opinions to myself. Like I pretty much always do, when it comes to a less than design. However, when I see daily a Rod Lahey or Barry Hobin design being put forward by actual proven developers, get ripped to shreds and torn apart on here... and then this is met with praise I can't help but shake my head in frustration. If this project ever goes ahead I think it could end up looking similar to the quality and execution of that Surface project on 12 Hamilton. Which too me is infuriatingly disappointing for a brand new building.

when you reach 1000 posts you have to swear a blood oath to condemn RLA and praise everything else