| |
Posted Aug 5, 2008, 1:52 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,858
|
|
Quote:
NCC, Claridge wrangled over LeBreton
Commission rejected builder's revised plans for flagship tower, year spent on compromise
Mohammed Adam, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, August 04, 2008
The National Capital Commission rejected key parts of Claridge Homes' design for the first building in its LeBreton Flats development because changes to the original plan contravened federal guidelines for the project, documents obtained from the NCC show.
The NCC not only rejected a design for the flagship glass tower now being built on the Flats, but also refused to approve a plan for a six-storey building that was to be the core of the second stage of the development.
Construction on a compromise design is now well under way, but for more than a year, the commission worked with Claridge to come up with an acceptable design for the first tower. The NCC was particularly concerned that modifications Claridge made to its plans -- from the original curtain-wall design to a window-wall system -- would alter the building's presentation and appearance.
The commission also didn't like the initial blue colour chosen for the tower.
The curtain wall the NCC wanted was essentially a sheet of glass enveloping the entire building without any visible breaks, meant to give the tower a sleek appearance.
The goal was to make the tower blend with the sky, leaving the six-storey concrete base or podium to catch the eye.
A window wall has interruptions in the glass at each floor, making for a less sleek design.
"In consideration that this landmark tower is not only the first, but essentially the public face of the LeBreton Flats residential development, the Commission considers essential that an accurate representation of the window wall system, detail and colour be made available for review and if satisfactory, approval by the NCC prior to construction," said a July 4, 2007 memo to Claridge president Bill Malhotra.
Rhys Phillips, an architecture critic, said the fundamental mistake was made four years ago and now the NCC and Claridge seem to be "arguing about rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
"You basically have a design that is somewhat better than what you see on Rideau Street. It is pretty bland, lacks animation and tends to be rather institutional," Mr. Phillips said. "It doesn't matter whether it is curtain or window wall, blue or green. It is a moot point. It is just going to be second-rate."
The NCC design committee also would not approve the second stage of the project because officials didn't like a modified design for the doors of the ground-floor units, which it found to be "contrary to the planning principles and objectives" of the LeBreton Flats design guidelines.
"Claridge Homes must, therefore, address these aspects of the design to the satisfaction of the NCC, and present the revised proposal to the NCC and its ACPDR (design committee) prior to construction," the July 4 memo said.
Because of the work Claridge had to do to satisfy the NCC, the project was delayed, prompting NCC board members to ask senior staff whether "Claridge had abandoned" LeBreton Flats, "as no work was evident."
And even though the commission's director of real-estate management, Peter McCourt, assured board members that work was going on, he said in an e-mail to Claridge that "the feeling seems to remain that work has slowed down."
After initially promising to comment to the Citizen on the memos, senior NCC officials changed their minds three days later and refused to offer any response.
In an interview, Claridge's Mr. Malhotra denied the company made any "meaningful" changes to the original design and criticized the Citizen for dwelling on irrelevant issues.
"There was no changes, depends on what you call changes. If the architect involved in the design says the design needs to be improved, he made the changes. But to my knowledge, there was no changes, like changes," he said. "I don't understand why you guys are wasting your time on things which are absolutely not relevant. You guys are just wasting your time, you don't have anything better to do?"
Claridge won the right to build the first batch of new LeBreton Flats homes essentially by default because two other companies that scored higher on an NCC evaluation -- Ottawa's Minto and Montreal's Alliance Prével -- withdrew their bids in a dispute with the commission. Several people criticized the NCC for a flawed selection system that cut out smaller and more creative builders and ended with the city's most heralded development project in the hands of a company that, according to the commission's own assessment, was not the best. The mood of the critics didn't brighten any when the winning bid was unveiled to reveal a plan that many people said was just ordinary.
The NCC stood its ground and senior officials expressed confidence that Claridge would do a good job as the plan unfolded. Besides, the detailed design of each building would be approved individually to ensure the best outcome, officials said.
The documents show that two years after the NCC approved the first phase of the landmark development, it was still in constant discussion with Claridge about changes to the design. One memo said changes to the tower were "significant enough in colour, finish and appearance to cause some concern among members."
Another memo talked about tower modifications "that would result in a substantial change to the façade and the previously approved developed design."
The first sign of problems with the Claridge design emerged in a Nov. 10, 2006, letter to company vice-president Neil Malhotra in which the NCC complained about changes in the design of the 12-storey tower.
According to the documents obtained for the Citizen by researcher Ken Rubin, Claridge made the changes for "budgetary reasons." But the NCC said the changes were significant enough to trigger a clause in the design approval regulations that called for the issue to be referred to the commission's advisory committee on planning and design.
At its meeting on Feb. 8, 2007, the committee rejected the choice of a window wall because it deprived the building of its previous "simplicity and consistency."
"The strength of the originally proposed design depended on the contrast between the articulated masonry base and the sleek glass tower," the panel said. But with the changes, "there appears to be a loss of the sleekness and elegance in the design that the committee recommended for approval in December 2005."
The committee rejected the choice of a blue colour for the glass tower, later settling for green. It also asked for the design of the balconies, the handling of the kitchen and bathroom exhaust and other physical attributes to be modified.
Prominent Ottawa architect Ron Keenberg said no one should blame Claridge because the NCC is getting what it bargained for when it selected the company as the builder. Mr. Keenberg said Claridge is in the business of making money. It is the NCC, whose duty is to demand architectural excellence, especially on as prominent a site as LeBreton, that should be blamed for any failure, he said.
"You are getting an OK apartment block, nothing special, but nothing bad. If it was built on Montreal Road or Richmond Road, we'd probably say, 'that's nice.' On LeBreton Flats, I'd have expected more. But the NCC got what they wanted," Mr. Keenberg said.
"If I were on the design committee, I'd just have said 'No' to the Claridge proposal in the first place because it was mundane, it was ordinary. But the problem is not with Claridge. The problem is with the NCC's low expectation."
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
|
.
|
|
|
Prev
photo by me
.
Linear Mode
