601 Somerset St | 11m | 3f | U/C

[rocketphish]

The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Somerset Street and Percy Street. It is of rectangular shape and has an area of 478.63 m2, with a frontage of 20.14 m on Somerset Street and 24.14 m on Percy Street. The site has been vacant since October of 2015, after a fire demolished every structure on-site. The former two-storey mixed-use building consisted on ground floor commercial uses and residential apartments on the second floor. The site is currently vacant, except for the foundation walls and basement floor slabs exposed.

The Owners of the property are proposing to redevelop the site to consists of a three-storey, mixed-use building with 271 m2 of at grade commercial space, eight residential rental units on two levels and a basement. The proposal is a single phased development.


Development application:
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__AP1PPQ

Streetview:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.41228...7i13312!8i6656

Location:




Siteplan:




Rendering:

[rocketphish]

Design panel likes replacement building at Chinatown fire site

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citize
Published on: September 7, 2017 | Last Updated: September 7, 2017 4:26 PM EDT

The city’s urban design review panel likes the concept for a mixed-use building in Chinatown that would replace the previous structure destroyed by fire in 2015.

If only it could be taller.

The owners of 601 Somerset St. W., Shelley and Jamie Helmer, are constrained by their insurance company, which they say will only permit them to build something close to what stood there before.

Their proposed three-storey building at Percy Street would have commercial space at street level and eight apartments spread over the two upper floors.

The Centretown community design plan would allow the property to have five storeys, frustrating the owners who are at the mercy of their insurance company.

The good piece of news, however, is that the outside experts who sit on the city’s design review panel like the look of the proposed replacement building.

Alex Leung of grc architects walked the panel through the concepts during a formal review session on Thursday at city hall. The new building’s facade would have beige brick, cement board sidings and panels and metal siding.

“(The owners) just want to do something nice for the neighbourhood,” Leung told the panel.

The four experts on the panel generally thought the concept to be handsome and offered some design suggestions to the architect when it came to the side facing Somerset Street and a solid portion of the wall along Percy Street.

The property is currently a caged pit where buildings once stood.

Fire ripped through four businesses and apartment units at the corner of Somerset and Percy streets on Oct. 15, 2015, causing plumes of smoke to fill the air over Chinatown. Roofing work caused the accidental fire.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...town-fire-site

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Design panel likes replacement building at Chinatown fire site

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citize
Published on: September 7, 2017 | Last Updated: September 7, 2017 4:26 PM EDT

The owners of 601 Somerset St. W., Shelley and Jamie Helmer, are constrained by their insurance company, which they say will only permit them to build something close to what stood there before.

This isn't the first time this has happened recently (Bank and Fifth was another) that insurance companies have stymied the desire for a larger replacement building.

I don't understand why they care? Why can't they just provide the funds for a similar replacement building to be constructed and leave it up to the owners if they want to spend an additional amount beyond that? It seems asinine.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

This isn't the first time this has happened recently (Bank and Fifth was another) that insurance companies have stymied the desire for a larger replacement building.

I don't understand why they care? Why can't they just provide the funds for a similar replacement building to be constructed and leave it up to the owners if they want to spend an additional amount beyond that? It seems asinine.

Insurance is there to protect your property and recover what you lost due to tragedy. If the owner's plan was to tear down and rebuild anyway, the structure would have not inherent value to the owner, and only the contents would be considered lost, not the structure itself.

Without this kind of clause, it would increase their susceptibility to insurance fraud, where the owner arranges to have the structure "accidentally" destroyed for the purpose of having its replacement subsidized by the insurance company as the insurance company would need proof of intent do deny the claim.

Also, insurance companies are frugal, and look for any excuse they can find to not pay out a claim.

[J.OT13]

It's ok. Design review panel seems to have some low standards.

So if the insurance won't allow (or pay?) for a taller building, couldn't the owners build the foundation to support a future 2 floor addition?

[JHikka]

Work going on today at the site.

[JHikka]

This is currently below grade U/C.

[JHikka]

Steel framing is up for this one.

[waterloowarrior]

Found this on Google Images, not sure when it was taken