Tunney's Pasture Redevelopment

[S-Man]

I'd abbreviate it to NMHCCEO, just for ease of remembering.

[J.OT13]

So what do we want to see at Tunney's?

I would like to see the following;

1. Keep R.H Coats, Jeanne Mance and Brooke Claxton buildings.

2. Tear down everything else

3. Move departments to Bayview and/or downtown

4. Let sit for 50 years (or until the metrO (from here forth, I refuse to call it LRT)) is extended west.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Yep. I've been living in the East end since '04 (Vanier and now Beacon Hill). The 12 has become such a disaster in rush hour since it's never on time and often full. OC Transpo insist on using lots 40 foot buses on that route too.

SRSLY THOUGH.

It's been four years since the split of the old 2, and the Rideau-Montreal corridor service has gone steadily downhill. Dozens of daily trips dropped, and way too many runs operating on 40 footers, instead of bendies.

No one in management, no one at city hall (hello, Councillor Whatsisname), and none of the lawyers who represent the public on the commission, give a rat's arse.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So what do we want to see at Tunney's?

I would like to see the following;

1. Keep R.H Coats, Jeanne Mance and Brooke Claxton buildings.

2. Tear down everything else

No way. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has to stay!

[McC]

I agree, but keeping Main Stats might impose a tradeoff between maintaining the Grande Allée effect of TP Driveway or adding life to it. It seems to me that something has to give.

Do we drop the Grande Allée itself? Building down the centre, blocking the "iconic view" of Brooke Claxton, and perhaps tearing down (one, two, three or four?) rows of maturing trees to move the streets and sidewalks closer to the existing/replacement buildings?

The buildings on the west side are smaller and appear generally to have been built to a lower design spec than Main Stats, but replacing just them either means maintaining the symmetry and proportions the Grande Allée and reducing the possibilities for enlivenment, or dismantling Grande Allée, see above.

For J.OT13's list, some of the lab buildings probably must be kept, too, like the one at Eglantine and Banting (I think that's where the monkeys are, btw); but that still leaves 2 very large blocks for development on the west side of Banting north and south of that building. Update: Inexplicably, these two blocks are not tagged for residential development in the deck on the PWGSC website

I would also offer a land swap with the Mosque so that Premier Ave can be connected to Banting (and Yarrow?), and Pontiac should be connected to Columbine at the north end of the site. Unfortunately connecting Clearview would require almost $2M to expropriate a couple of homes on Northwestern (though you could probably make it back if you expropriated 3 or 4 houses and left room to put in new infills -- those are not the nicest houses on the street, afterall). 2xUnfortunately, linking the Mechanicsville street grid is much harder: Lyndale is aligned with Main Stats (in my "keep" pile), and Burnside is exactly halfway between Columbine and Eglantine, assuming Jean Talon and the building north of it are in the "drop" pile. I suppose you could run Burnside all the way through, splitting each of those long blocks between Columbine and Eglantine into two shorter ones (maybe only ~150 ft deep?)

And to be precise about the take or leave list, I'd add the Annex of the Claxton building to the "drop" pile (poorly executed with inferior-looking materials, ruining its relationship with Brooke Claxton, IMO).

[J.OT13]

A few years back, the Citizen was stating that one of the buildings at Tunney’s, I’m pretty sure it was Stats Can, was in completely disrepair and not salvageable. Might have been Health Canada, I don't remember. But I do know I was bummed about it cause' I thought it was one of the nicer buildings.

I totally agree that the Claxton's annex should be torn down sooner than later and we probably do need to keep the labs at Tunney's (we don't want those monkeys escaping downtown hanging on the top of PdV's antenna).

[McC]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

(we don't want those monkeys escaping downtown hanging on the top of PdV's antenna).

it's moments like this that I wish I had photoshopping skills, and photoshop.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

it's moments like this that I wish I had photoshopping skills, and photoshop.

Put a "hint, hint" in there, and someone might take it.

[Ottawan]

Vision for Tunney's Pasture a clouded one
Ottawa Citizen - Joanne Chianello
September 18, 2012

Hundreds flowed through the federal government’s information session Monday evening to get a glimpse of two visions for the redevelopment of Tunney’s Pasture.

But visitors could be forgiven for mistaking the artistic renderings for the sort of puzzle where children are supposed to circle the differences between the drawings.

Other than some minor design features, the two options for Tunney’s Pasture were identical: more federal office buildings, a commercial tower near the Tunney’s transit station and condos along Parkdale Avenue.

As an employment campus, either option could be a vast improvement over the underused and outdated Tunney’s of today. But that’s not what Public Works promised us last month. Assistant deputy minister John McBain told us then that the government “will want to get away from the cold institutional feel that the pasture now has, to develop more of a mixed-use that would have eyes on the street, that would have people living in the community.”

If he says so. But it’s unclear from what we saw Monday.

The government showed only the bare bones of a 25-year plan to double the density at Tunney’s Pasture, from the current 10,000 employees to 20,000. The 49-hectare employment campus is smack in the middle of one of the hottest real estate areas in Ottawa, bordered to the north by the John A. Macdonald Parkway, to the south by Scott Street, to the east by Parkdale Avenue and to the west by Sir Frederick Banting Driveway.

Both options keep four buildings with heritage influence: The Brooke Claxton Building; the Health Protection Building; the Central Heating and Cooling Plant and the Statistics Canada Main Building. Together they account for 273,000 square metres of office space.

And both plans call for Sir Frederick Banting to be connected to the parkway. That link will be necessary to handle the additional traffic from twice as many workers, despite the fact that Tunney’s is located on public transit.

There’s a plan to build an office tower just north of the Tunney’s transit station. Consumer-type retailers could be accommodated in this highrise, which differs slightly in the two versions.

However, Option 1 calls for buildings arranged in squares about the size of regular city blocks. Raised parking structures will in the centre would be topped with green roofs, accessible to employees — but not to the community at large.

This version calls for 453,000 square metres of new office space and 800 residential units to be built along Parkdale.

Option 2, on the other hand, includes slightly less new office space — a mere 368,000 square metres — but 1,000 residential units.

Also, the “city blocks” are larger in Option 2, providing a little more open space. And while both designs retain the green central boulevard that is Tunney’s Pasture Driveway, the second option sets off the entranceway more attractively with water features, including what looks to be a pool in front of the Brook Claxton Building.

Larry Mohr likes Option 2 better. The management consultant and real estate blogger lives nearby, and he can see himself running or biking through the property on the weekends.

But even Mohr doesn’t see how the site “integrates” with the surrounding neighbourhoods. “The community really has no reason to go through there,” he said.

He’s makes a point. And a troubling one.

Where are all the “eyes on the street,” all the people living in the community that Public Works assured us would be there? Sure, more people will be living on Parkdale, but the design directs their eyes outward. The interior of a redeveloped Tunney’s threatens to be as isolated as it is now, perfect for late-night drug deals.

The site is mixed-use in name only: there will be office and retail and residents located on the Tunney’s property, but there’s nothing to get them mixing together. What about exploring the possibility of putting retail in the first floor or two of a federal office building? Or placing a condo complex right in among the bureaucrats, instead of on the periphery?

Building a commercial tower near a transit station is fine, but why not build it right on top of the new Tunney’s LRT station, integrating them into a vibrant landmark for the area?

These are all worth discussing, if only the federal government was truly interested in our ideas. (Or the city’s ideas, for that matter: Mayor Jim Watson’s absence from any discussion on redeveloping Tunney’s Pasture hasn’t gone unnoticed.)

But instead of actually consulting residents, Public Works hired architecture and planning firm HOK Canada in 2009 to work on the project and presented two barely distinguishable alternatives. We have three weeks in which to cast a vote. Gee, thanks.

“People will get a chance to say they like it or they don’t,” said Coun. Katherine Hobbs, who represents the ward where Tunney’s Pasture is located. “Who knows if it will make a difference?”

The Kitchissippi councillor generally approves of the residential buildings planned for Parkdale, but beyond that doesn’t expect much to change about the community’s relationship with the vast expanse that is Tunney’s Pasture.

“I see the rest as a bit of a wasteland.”

That’s a bleak perspective, but unless the federal government dramatically rethinks its plans, Hobbs’ view will quickly become conventional wisdom.

To comment on the redevelopment plans for Tunney’s Pasture, visit www.tpsgc-pwgsc.ca/biens-property/pdpt-tpmp/cn-bn-pp-eng.html.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Vision+Tunney+Pasture+clouded/7256461/story.html#ixzz26pP1e9TZ

Unfortunately I couldn't go to the info session myself, but would love to hear from anyone who had the chance. My impression, based solely on this Citizen column and the associated images, is that this is better than the status quo, but doesn't go nearly as far, nor is nearly as creative, as I'd like.

Unfortunately the information presented at the meeting doesn't appear to be loaded to the master plan website yet, making it very difficult for those of us who weren't able to attend to comment within the short deadline...

[J.OT13]

I thought I might go, but I figured it would have been a bit out of my way for something I figured was probably not that productive at this stage. I have no faith in the federal government’s ability in redeveloping anything.

And considering the whole "tighten our belt" and "lay off everyone" phase, this is not the time to make master plans to redevelop anything.

[rocketphish]

from the Ottawa Citizen

Tunneys Pasture: Option 1


Tunneys Pasture: Option 2


Tunneys Pasture: Option 1


Tunneys Pasture: Option 2

[J.OT13]

Damn, I should have gone!

Seems they're keeping most of the buildings. I would have liked to see Jean Talon prendre le bord.

[J.OT13]

Feds eye 4.9M square feet of new office space for Tunney’s Pasture

Public Works officials provided the first in-depth glimpse of its redevelopment plans for Tunney's Pasture on Monday evening, offering two options that would both add millions of square feet of office space to the sprawling government campus.
Topics : Public Works , HOK Architects , Export Development Canada , O’Connor , Parkdale Avenue , Ottawa

Both plans envision retaining the existing three million square feet of office space. At an open house, an official with the private-sector design team acknowledged the deteriorating physical condition of some of the buildings on the Tunney’s Pasture campus, but said they could be rehabilitated and that there were no imminent demolition plans.

(Representatives from HOK Architects, which received a $664,000 government contract to prepare a master plan for the campus in 2009, planning and engineering firm Delcan, and Public Works were all present at the open house, but would only speak to the media on the condition they not be directly quoted.)

The first option would see an additional 4.88 million square feet of new office space constructed. That’s roughly ten times as much space as is contained inside the new Export Development Canada headquarters at the corner of O’Connor and Slater streets.

To put the number in further context, if all that space was constructed overnight, it would increase the federal government’s overall inventory of leased and Crown-owned property by approximately 12.9 per cent, according to government documents.

The more intensive “option one” - characterized by buildings constructed close to roadways reminiscent of a downtown city block - would also include an additional 172,000 square feet of laboratory space, 800 residential units and nearly 560,000 square feet of commercial space.

Officials were vague on the nature of the space, saying that it would be both oriented towards serving the thousands of civil servants working at Tunney’s Pasture, as well as the surrounding community.

The second option features more green space and only 3.96 million square feet of new office space. There’s slightly less commercial space than in the first option, but the number of residential units - which would be built along Parkdale Avenue on the east side of the campus - increases to 1,000.

Some of the existing parking would be buried underground, but officials say bedrock on the site would limit it to roughly two storeys. Even though the number of people working on the site is expected to roughly double to 20,000, planners anticipate many of those will take transit, negating the need for increasing the amount of on-site parking. (An official said he did not have the exact number of parking spots on hand.)

Officials have so far spent three years drafting the 25-year Tunney’s Pasture master plan, which is intended to guide future redevelopment.

After gathering feedback on the two proposals, Public Works and its consultants intend to prepare a report, circulate it to other organizations such as the City of Ottawa, and then present it to the National Capital Commission for approval by mid-2013.

A senior Public Works official said no budget has been established for any redevelopment and said it would be premature to discuss the extent of the private sector’s role in constructing any new buildings.

“We will look at all the options available and pick the one with the most innovation and the least cost,” he said.

Option 1:

Office: 7.81 million square feet of gross floor area (2.94 million square feet of existing space plus 4.88 million square feet of new space.)

Labs: 452,084 square feet (279,862 square feet of new space plus 172,223 square feet of new space.)

Commercial: 559,723 square feet (527,432 square feet of "hub service" space plus 32,291 square feet of other commercial space.)

Residential: 800 units

Future development parcels: 1.18 million square feet (office or residential)

Total: 10 million square feet and 800 units



Option 2:

Office: 6.9 million square feet (2.94 million square feet of existing space plus 3.96 million square feet of new space)

Labs: 452,084 square feet (279,862 square feet of existing space plus 172,223 square feet of new space)

Commercial: 527,432 square feet (409,029 square feet of "hub service" space plus 118,403 square feet of other commercial space.)

Residential: 1,000 units

Future development parcels: 1.08 square feet (office or residential).

Total: 8.96 million square feet.

Now there saying that the old buildings are in "acknowledged the deteriorating physical condition" but they can be "rehabilitated"? So how was the Sir John Carling building in worst shape that it absolutely needed to be emptied? Or even the Lorne; was it really that bad?

[MaxHeadroom]

Sir John Carling Building has irreparable structural problems. I was told ten years ago that the columns in the tower were cracked, although I have not seen any real confirmation since that is indeed a fact. Regardless it WILL be torn down.

As for the Lorne, it had structural problems within the foundation itself. This article oversimplifies the actual problem as "slowly sinking into the ground"
http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Constructi...ng-begins-Lorne-Building-redevelopment/1

With existing buildings, the shell can be demolished, leaving the structure for reuse. The problem with that strategy is that sometimes the floor to floor height is insufficient to put in proper ceilings with enough room for all the lights, ductwork, plumbing, and IT stuff that modern buildings require under code and for getting the space leased to selective tenants. Reusing the structure is worth a few LEED points, if the building is going to target that standard as a goal. If done right, the results can be spectacular as in the case of the Toronto BMW dealership downtown.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by MaxHeadroom

Sir John Carling Building has irreparable structural problems. I was told ten years ago that the columns in the tower were cracked, although I have not seen any real confirmation since that is indeed a fact. Regardless it WILL be torn down.

As for the Lorne, it had structural problems within the foundation itself. This article oversimplifies the actual problem as "slowly sinking into the ground"
http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Constructi...ng-begins-Lorne-Building-redevelopment/1

With existing buildings, the shell can be demolished, leaving the structure for reuse. The problem with that strategy is that sometimes the floor to floor height is insufficient to put in proper ceilings with enough room for all the lights, ductwork, plumbing, and IT stuff that modern buildings require under code and for getting the space leased to selective tenants. Reusing the structure is worth a few LEED points, if the building is going to target that standard as a goal. If done right, the results can be spectacular as in the case of the Toronto BMW dealership downtown.

Thanks for the info.

While I'm here, I would like to ask a random engineering question; is a steel structure better than a concrete structure? I would assume so since, as far as I can tell, steel and steel structures can be modified, added on, repaired or repurposed more easily. And of course steel is superior to concrete in the event of an earthquake.

So I wonder why are most high-rise buildings built out of concrete these days?

[Postmaster]

Looks pretty stock. More mid-rises. I suppose however that if it centralises more of the federal apparatus it can't be all that bad. I hope they got transit figured out for this one.

[ThaLoveDocta]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Thanks for the info.

While I'm here, I would like to ask a random engineering question; is a steel structure better than a concrete structure? I would assume so since, as far as I can tell, steel and steel structures can be modified, added on, repaired or repurposed more easily. And of course steel is superior to concrete in the event of an earthquake.

So I wonder why are most high-rise buildings built out of concrete these days?

Speaking very generally, here is a short answer...

Concrete is cheaper than steel, but is only strong in compression ie axial load in columns or the top half of most beams.
This is why we add rebar - the thin steel acts like a rope in tension.

The first rule of engineering reminds us, you "Can't Push a Rope"
So steel and concrete are used in tandem to create structures capable of withstanding various loads.

Steel on the other hand is equally strong in each direction. And, when rolled in the right shapes like a W section (ibeam) or HSS (box beam or tube), can be used effectively as a structural component.

Both materials have their own pros and cons, concrete is very workable, and is cast on site (if not precast) where as steel must be layed out in detail in advance, and shipped to site like giant legos.


Small commercial buildings usually use concrete foundations, and steel structures, with concrete floors on the deck.

Larger buildings often replace the columns and large beams/girders with concrete for cost savings.
Ground floor columns of a skyscraper would need massive steel sections ($$$) to take the load of a normal reinforced concrete column (less $$$).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ThaLoveDocta

Speaking very generally, here is a short answer...

Concrete is cheaper than steel, but is only strong in compression ie axial load in columns or the top half of most beams.
This is why we add rebar - the thin steel acts like a rope in tension.

The first rule of engineering reminds us, you "Can't Push a Rope"
So steel and concrete are used in tandem to create structures capable of withstanding various loads.

Steel on the other hand is equally strong in each direction. And, when rolled in the right shapes like a W section (ibeam) or HSS (box beam or tube), can be used effectively as a structural component.

Both materials have their own pros and cons, concrete is very workable, and is cast on site (if not precast) where as steel must be layed out in detail in advance, and shipped to site like giant legos.


Small commercial buildings usually use concrete foundations, and steel structures, with concrete floors on the deck.

Larger buildings often replace the columns and large beams/girders with concrete for cost savings.
Ground floor columns of a skyscraper would need massive steel sections ($$$) to take the load of a normal reinforced concrete column (less $$$).

Thanks again for your answer. It puts a lot in clears a lot of questions.

[amanfromnowhere]

Eric Darwin put an article in his WestSideAction with some pics:

Cow Plats in the Pasture

Option 1:


Option 2:

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I like option 2 if only because of the water features, but this development is so lacking in so many respects.