HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & Urban Ottawa


    Tribeca West in the SkyscraperPage Database

• Building Data Page   • Ottawa Skyscraper Diagram

• Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #281  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 3:04 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix View Post
I approve but I'm sure of the residents in the imediate area do not. Also, I'm sure Diane Holmes will fight this tooth and nail...
Maybe the site plan, but I'm not so sure about opposition to the zoning... how could you be against a grocery store and a daycare in Centretown/the CBD? Of course there could be an element of sour grapes after the earlier rezoning/OMB appeal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #282  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 3:09 PM
rakerman rakerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet View Post
Good one...I'm sure she is having fits about this one.
I can only speculate, and I may be wrong, but I don't think Diane is reflexively against height. She just has a tricky problem to manage with swathes of Centretown as detached housing. If the city *always* plays fast and loose with zoning "adjustments" of a dozen storeys or more, how is she to protect single-family houses from having a giant tower stuck next to them? I don't think she's trying to protect the CBD from towers, she's trying to make sure that someone can't use precedent to stick a giant tower in the middle of low-rise housing.

The blocks west of Kent and south of say, Lisgar may have their issues, but they are solid brick homes with nice tree coverage for the most part (albeit much in need of gentrifying renovation in many places).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #283  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 4:57 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Maybe the site plan, but I'm not so sure about opposition to the zoning... how could you be against a grocery store and a daycare in Centretown/the CBD? Of course there could be an element of sour grapes after the earlier rezoning/OMB appeal.
As you are aware, as a member of the public it is much easier to fight a rezoning application than a site plan application (where technically only the applicant can appeal and/or the councillor can drag their heels...not that Councillor Holmes would ever do such a thing). You'd be surprised what people can be opposed to these days.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #284  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 5:21 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
a few thoughts

Quote:
Originally Posted by rakerman View Post
I can only speculate, and I may be wrong, but I don't think Diane is reflexively against height. She just has a tricky problem to manage with swathes of Centretown as detached housing. If the city *always* plays fast and loose with zoning "adjustments" of a dozen storeys or more, how is she to protect single-family houses from having a giant tower stuck next to them? I don't think she's trying to protect the CBD from towers, she's trying to make sure that someone can't use precedent to stick a giant tower in the middle of low-rise housing.

The blocks west of Kent and south of say, Lisgar may have their issues, but they are solid brick homes with nice tree coverage for the most part (albeit much in need of gentrifying renovation in many places).
At the same time I think we have to ask ourselves as a city if we can afford to have our core surrounded by detached homes and other low density, relatively land-extensive uses (especially parking lots) with low height limits. Since there doesn't seem to be an appetite to increase heights and build 100-200 metre tall buildings, our core will have to "build out." I know it's been discussed on another thread before, but I think we need to rethink the Centretown Plan, especially the "heritage" district.

And maybe we have to question the extent to which we need to "protect" single family homes from development and increased density (for those near the core). If I'm in an apartment and someone rezones beside me, blocks my (and hundreds of others) view and some sunlight, and the new apartments are facing straight into my unit I don't get much protection from the city. What makes detached homes so sacrosanct? Of course it's a good planning principle to reduce the impacts of these new land uses/densities and avoid things like massive shadows, wind tunnels, and protecting things like outdoor amenity space and reducing the impact of height... and clearly we've made huge mistakes in the past, but I think in some cases the downtown councillors have gone in the other direction and insisted that new development beside or across from detached homes should also be low density in character, even if surrounded by higher density on all other sides.

It's not an easy thing to tackle, since those neighbourhoods can be quite nice and have an attractive housing stock. The people living there understandably would not want any kind of dramatic change to the tree-lined neighbourhoods that they enjoy living in. But should we always follow the existing low density character or is it time to think about a different type of character for certain parts of Centretown? (to be clear I'm not advocating for St. Jamestown) Are single family homes just outside the CBD the best use of land or in the long term should they be replaced like parking lots or industry, at least in strategic locations? Bulldozing neighbourhoods and putting up towers has had some terrible results in the past, but at the same time I don't think the status quo is the best situation either, since even parking lots can be hard to redevelop.

But while Councillor Holmes gets a bad rap here and has said some outrageous things, I think you're right, for example she did support Mondrian and Central. Here's a quote from the planning committee minutes from Mondrian

Quote:
Councillor Diane Holmes expressed the view that, while the proposed building resembles no other in the vicinity, she was not sure this was a bad thing. She called it a modern statement and one that would add to safety and security on Bank Street. The Councillor felt that the positive impacts, such as people living and working in the same area, outweigh the negative. She added that juxtaposing the new building with the existing Scotia Bank building was of particular interest. Councillor Holmes asked that the committee support her amendment calling for the project to be approved.

Councillor Clive Doucet said that, while this project contained many desirable elements, a proposal for a 24-storey building was not something he could support. The Councillor expressed the belief this would create a wind tunnel and have a negative impact on the downtown core in the long run.
and for central

Quote:
Councillor Doucet stated his vehement disapproval of the proposal, suggesting the building is excessive in scale and height.

The Committee then considered the zoning application with an amendment by Councillor Holmes, who indicated her support for revitalizing the area and making Bank Street more pedestrian friendly south of Gladstone. She noted public response to flyers and consultation was minimal and suggested this location is an appropriate location for this building height.

Last edited by waterloowarrior; Nov 3, 2009 at 5:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #285  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2009, 2:36 PM
rakerman rakerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
But while Councillor Holmes gets a bad rap here and has said some outrageous things, I think you're right, for example she did support Mondrian and Central.
You make a lot of good points. Just to wrap the Holmes discussion - the main point I've heard her make is that developers shouldn't be abusing "minor variance" to try to get height far above zoning. For example the zoning for Choo's (Ashcroft's) Opus site was 6 storeys and he asked for a "minor variance" to 20 storeys.

I think Ottawa has lots of work to do to put up amazing (and tall) buildings in the CBD before we need to encroach on other areas of Centretown. Even New York is a mix of high-rise and brownstone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #286  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2009, 4:11 PM
movebyleap movebyleap is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates View Post
It could be an opportunity for Shoppers Drug Mart to continue its city-wide takeover.
My thoughts exactly!! (Or possibly Second Cup!!)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #287  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2009, 4:36 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Builder pitches grocer for site
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Bu...Portrait+Gallery+site/2195672/story.html
Councillor cool on proposal for failed portrait gallery site

BY DAVE ROGERS AND BERT HILL, THE OTTAWA CITIZENNOVEMBER 7, 2009


A developer is proposing adding a grocery store, day-care and retail stores to plans for a twin-tower residential development in Centretown.

The 1.2-acre site behind the Place Bell Building at 187 Metcalfe St. between Lisgar and Nepean streets has been a parking lot for about 30 years.

Claridge Homes, the owner, has been working on plans for two 27-storey condominium buildings for several years.

It originally hoped to win a competition for the Portrait Gallery of Canada and put it into the ground floor. The federal government scrapped plans for the gallery in 2008.

Under its latest zoning application, Claridge is proposing a 4,100-square-foot grocery store in the basement or ground floor on the Metcalfe Street frontage and about 42,000 square feet more commercial space below grade. The plans include a day-care centre in the basement, ground floor or second floor of one building, and townhouses along Lisgar Street.

A zoning bylaw amendment application for the site says Claridge is requesting the changes because of interest from potential tenants.

"A retail food store is also a highly appropriate street-level use in any urban environment; however, it is particularly fitting on the subject property due to the fact that there are currently only a limited number of such stores in the surrounding neighbourhood," a letter supporting the application said.

Councillor Peter Hume, who chairs the city's planning committee, said he is not impressed with Claridge's proposed "tuck shop" on the ground floor and disappointed in the emphasis on retail uses in the buildings.

"We were profoundly disappointed that the portrait gallery didn't go at that location," Hume said. "The zoning and the development around the site required a signature use like the portrait gallery anchoring the space.

"These are not the kind of anchor uses we were looking for to justify two 27-storey buildings. We would have accepted a school, but not something like a Loblaws or a Metro. I can tell you that all the goodwill on council about that site has gone."

Hume said the site should be developed so that it is a positive addition to Centretown.

The project has been controversial since Claridge convinced the Ontario Municipal Board to allow two larger buildings on the property. Some councillors were infuriated that Claridge won the right to build two 27-storey towers despite the cancellation of the gallery project.

The original Claridge proposal included space for the national portrait gallery within a residential and commercial development on the site. In exchange, council agreed to allow Claridge to build condominium towers of 20 and 24 floors. But in 2008 the board, a provincial agency with the power to overrule city planning decisions, ruled the towers can be a total of 10 storeys higher.

The OMB allowed Claridge to back out of a commitment to use what would have been gallery space for other public uses such as a museum, community centre or parkette.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #288  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2009, 6:35 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post

Councillor Peter Hume, who chairs the city's planning committee, said he is not impressed with Claridge's proposed "tuck shop" on the ground floor and disappointed in the emphasis on retail uses in the buildings.

"We were profoundly disappointed that the portrait gallery didn't go at that location," Hume said. "The zoning and the development around the site required a signature use like the portrait gallery anchoring the space.

"These are not the kind of anchor uses we were looking for to justify two 27-storey buildings. We would have accepted a school, but not something like a Loblaws or a Metro. I can tell you that all the goodwill on council about that site has gone."

Hume said the site should be developed so that it is a positive addition to Centretown.
How bizarre... How is a grocery store, daycare centre, and lively retail on a dead block not a "positive addition" to Centretown? There's a real need for a proper grocery store in the area, always a need for daycare, and it's currently A PARKING LOT!

The Portrait Gallery of Canada should never have been relegated to the ground floor of a condo in the first place. Hume has his priorities all messed up here.

I see absolutely no reason this project shouldn't go ahead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #289  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2009, 1:48 PM
Davis137's Avatar
Davis137 Davis137 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,365
This sounds kinda promising now...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #290  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2009, 10:07 PM
CondoGirl CondoGirl is offline
CondoGirl
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 26
Trailer for the Tribeca sales centre has been set up in the parking lot, with a view to opening in February 2010 (pic taken from a blogspot):

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #291  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2009, 10:17 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Grocery store new face of failed portrait gallery site
http://centretownnewsonline.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1224&Itemid=98
Friday, 27 November 2009
By Natalie Stechyson


Instead of browsing the portraits of Canada's greatest, residents could be checking for the greatest sales.
A grocery store may now take the place of a site formerly proposed for the Portrait Gallery of Canada underneath two planned downtown condominium towers.

Claridge Homes – a major home developer based in Ottawa – wants to add 42,000 square feet of retail space, including a grocery store, to the 27-storey twin-tower buildings slated for construction at 187 Metcalfe St.

The city had originally slated the ground floor of the proposed condominiums for the ill-fated portrait gallery.

Coun. Peter Hume, chairman of the planning and environment committee overseeing the project, says he is disappointed Claridge’s new plans for the ground floor don’t keep with the original “signature” concept.

“If it’s going to be a grocery store, that’s fine. That’s a positive addition to the east end of Centretown. But it could have been so much more,” Hume says.

“I would have been excited if it had been the new Ottawa gallery, or the new home of the concert hall. Something that was in keeping with the principles we advanced in giving them the zoning.”

City councillors re-zoned the site last year to allow 20- and 24-floor double residential buildings with the presumption that the ground floor would house the future site of the portrait gallery.

But when the federal government scrapped plans for the gallery, Claridge appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and was permitted to build two 27-floor buildings, despite the change of usage.

Claridge’s latest amendment for retail space was submitted to the city late last month.

A letter from Claridge’s consultant says Centretown will benefit from the additions because the area only has one other major grocery store: Hartman’s Your Independent Grocer on Bank Street.

Claridge also proposes to build a daycare in the building. The letter points out Centretown only has nine others.

“Both uses constitute day-to-day necessities which are compatible with the largely residential Centretown area to the south as well as the principally employment-oriented central area to the north,” the letter stated.

Neil Malhotra, vice-president of Claridge Homes, says the company tried to identify services that would be useful to the community.

“We’re trying to contribute to the fabric of the neighbourhood,” Malhotra says.

He adds the proposed stores and daycare centre, while perhaps not as signature as some councillors would like, will encourage more people to live downtown.

“There’s a push to bring people downtown and to do that you have to have these services,” Malhotra says. He would not reveal which grocery store chain is being considered for the site.

Derek Crain, president of the Somerset Village BIA, says Centretown could certainly use another grocery store, but thinks a more commercial strip such as Elgin Street would be a better location.

“To pile commercial use helter skelter, away from Bank or Elgin, might be a move in the wrong direction,” Crain says. “Services should be kept to more commercial streets.”

Elgin Street housed Centretown fixture Goldstein’s Freshmart until 2007, when the store closed its doors after the owner retired. Now the street is only served by Boushey’s Fruit Market, a small store five blocks from the condo site and across the street from the former Goldstein’s.

Manager Mark Boushey says he would welcome the addition of a new grocery store.

“There was a bit of a void left when Goldstein’s closed,” Boushey says.

He explained that his own business has been around for 60 years and has survived the coming and goings of other grocery stores because Boushey’s has a dedicated clientele.

The application to city hall moves forward in the new year. If approved, construction on the condos will begin shortly after.

Last update : 27-11-2009 06:47
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #292  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2009, 10:52 PM
Beatrix Beatrix is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 132
I'm glad the renderings show that the two towers are fairly different from one and other (despite being the same floor count).

I would hate to see another Claridge Plaza on this site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #293  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 6:43 PM
c_speed3108 c_speed3108 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,859
Ah finally found this thread...must be going blind.

Sales trailer is being setup. It is the one used for Claridge plaze I (and II to some degree)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #294  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 6:47 PM
harls's Avatar
harls harls is offline
Mooderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aylmer, Québec
Posts: 21,456
They should fit some wheels on that thing.. it gets around.

Wasn't it at the 287 Lisgar site before?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #295  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2009, 2:24 AM
Mille Sabords's Avatar
Mille Sabords Mille Sabords is offline
Elle est déjà vide!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Big Bad Ottawa
Posts: 2,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_speed3108 View Post
Ah finally found this thread...must be going blind.

Sales trailer is being setup. It is the one used for Claridge plaze I (and II to some degree)
It started life as the sales trailer for the Crystelle out by Merivale Rd. I remember that they had first misspelled it "Cystelle".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #296  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2010, 12:26 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255


Pic by Matt Richling, who says it's anticipated to launch mid-late February

www.TribecaOttawa.com/ doesn't work yet
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #297  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2010, 12:51 AM
ServiceGuy ServiceGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 335
Roughly 200 apartments with 700+ people registered for presales info. Claridge will be able to choose their buyers on this one. Lots of folks on these boards knock Claridge as a builder but they do consistently put up buildings that sell even if their finishing and service need improvement. It would be interesting to see them do a high-end designer type high rise project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #298  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2010, 2:13 AM
AuxTown's Avatar
AuxTown AuxTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by ServiceGuy View Post
Roughly 200 apartments with 700+ people registered for presales info. Claridge will be able to choose their buyers on this one. Lots of folks on these boards knock Claridge as a builder but they do consistently put up buildings that sell even if their finishing and service need improvement. It would be interesting to see them do a high-end designer type high rise project.
Like 700 Sussex?

I know many people have issues with certain aspects of that building, but, overall, it's a really nice looking building with some very high quality units inside.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #299  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2010, 10:00 PM
ServiceGuy ServiceGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 335
Tribeca is starting to be compared to other urban builders like Urban Capital and based on these basic renderings I'm looking forward to seeing detailed versions.

http://ottawacondos.blogspot.com/2010/01/welcome-to-tribeca-claridge-version.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #300  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2010, 10:21 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ServiceGuy View Post
Tribeca is starting to be compared to other urban builders like Urban Capital and based on these basic renderings I'm looking forward to seeing detailed versions.

http://ottawacondos.blogspot.com/2010/01/welcome-to-tribeca-claridge-version.html
It's interesting that they are mixing things up and using a different architect than usual. No offense to DCYSA but personally I'm not the biggest fan of their style, although I do like several of their more modern buildings.

I'd like to see more Ottawa developers using some of the Toronto architects like architectsAlliance, Core Architects, KPMB, Bregman + Hamann, MJMA and Hariri Pontarini (especially aA and Core) .. or some of the multi-national fims like HOK Canada. Institutional organizations and Toronto companies like Urban Capital and Morguard seem to use some of these firms but not really the residential builders.

Last edited by waterloowarrior; Feb 3, 2010 at 12:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & Urban Ottawa
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:28 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.