Claridge Icon [505 Preston St] | 143m | 45 fl | Completed

[JackBauer24]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

Don't forget lebreton. People are having a ton of trouble unloading those white elephants. It doesn't help that the area is still a wasteland almost 10 years in.

That wasteland would have looked great with a 20,000 person arena and a few parking lots around it. If only Ottawa had been awarded a sports franchise a few decades back where they would need something like that located centrally. One can dream.

[Boxster]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

That wasteland would have looked great with a 20,000 person arena and a few parking lots around it. If only Ottawa had been awarded a sports franchise a few decades back where they would need something like that located centrally. One can dream.

Putting a sports complex in that location would turn it for sure into real permanent waste land.

[McC]

It's taken over a decade since the Molson-Bell Centre was built, but the acres of surface parking that have surrounded (and blighted) its central location are finally being filled in with condo towers above sports bar podia. But LeBreton was never on the table, and Firestone wanted to build his New Arcadia on the Carp Floodplain (TM), so here we are.

[JackBauer24]

Originally Posted by McC

It's taken over a decade since the Molson-Bell Centre was built, but the acres of surface parking that have surrounded (and blighted) its central location are finally being filled in with condo towers above sports bar podia. But LeBreton was never on the table, and Firestone wanted to build his New Arcadia on the Carp Floodplain (TM), so here we are.

I thought LeBreton was an option. I recall reading something in the paper years ago that the city sweatened the deal to put the arena in Kanata with lower taxes or some other incentive.

But either way, if SBP had been built in or around downtown (like every other major North American city - aside from Pheonix) that area would be immensely different. Sparks St would actually be vibrant after 5 pm on weekdays, traffic getting to and leaving from the game would be greatly reduced (which is a big reason why people don't go to the games) and the local businesses would get a huge boost.

But regardless of my frustration over what is currently at LeBreton and what could have been, it won't change anything. However, there's still hope that the monstrosities that Claridge built could sink into an abyss - lord knows a deep dark endless hole would be an improvement over what's there now.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Welcome to Claridge (and other Ottawa builders business model) - design 1 building, duplicate it as many times as possible with little to no changes or updates, put in the bare minimum standard for finishes, repeat until sales stop.

It's funny how easily you could replace 'Claridge' with 'Apple' in this comment hahaha.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

I thought LeBreton was an option. I recall reading something in the paper years ago that the city sweatened the deal to put the arena in Kanata with lower taxes or some other incentive.

But either way, if SBP had been built in or around downtown (like every other major North American city - aside from Pheonix) that area would be immensely different. Sparks St would actually be vibrant after 5 pm on weekdays, traffic getting to and leaving from the game would be greatly reduced (which is a big reason why people don't go to the games) and the local businesses would get a huge boost.

But regardless of my frustration over what is currently at LeBreton and what could have been, it won't change anything. However, there's still hope that the monstrosities that Claridge built could sink into an abyss - lord knows a deep dark endless hole would be an improvement over what's there now.

Remember that at the time "the city" meant 10 different municipalities. The old city of Ottawa wanted nothing to do with NHL hockey and the NCC, though pretending to consider letting them use Lebreton, was apparently even less interested. I know I always refer to this article but it explains very well why SBP is where it is and it makes me realize we are just lucky to have a team to cheer for:

http://www.obj.ca/Opinion/Bruce-Fireston...8677/Why-Scotiabank-Place-is-in-Kanata/1

Oh ya, Go Sens!

[McC]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

I thought LeBreton was an option. I recall reading something in the paper years ago that the city sweatened the deal to put the arena in Kanata with lower taxes or some other incentive.
.

The key quote is about 1/4 of the way in to Firestone's story that O-Town Hockey linked to:

Let's first look at some of the alternative sites. LeBreton Flats is owned by the National Capital Commission, which informed us that it had a (very) long-term plan for the site that did not include an arena – it was just a rink to them. The NCC felt that national priorities such as a new museum (which turned out to be the War Museum) or a new Supreme Court of Canada building would take precedence.

[constructivism]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

How many Claridge condos have you stepped foot in (not including their models)? If you've had the chance to be in a few of their buildings, I think your opinion may change. I agree with you that most of their project exteriors are not aesthetically pleasing, but their interiors might actually be worse. The materials they use, the workmanship, the way in which their deficiencies are handled, the list goes on and on. Perfect example: my friend owns a place at CP1, they installed the large (12"x12" or 13"x13") bathroom tub surround tiles for his kitchen backsplash - mistakes happen when you're building 150+ condos, but it took him 9 months and the threat of legal action to have them change it to the correct tile. And that's just one of the many horror stories I've heard from Claridge condo owners.

Your theory about people buying Claridge because of, and not despite of, their cheap interior finishes to make it a better investment doesn't really make sense, because it's not as if Claridge's prices are way below everyone elses - in fact, they're prices are average at best. For the savvy investors out there, price isn't the top factor to consider when gauging investment options - value is. And since Claridge offers one of the cheapest finishing packages out there, but charges average prices - is there a lot of value there?

As for your take on the architects share of the blame: Architects are hired by the developer to design what the developer wants - plus they take into account the budget, height variences, by-laws, etc.... Not the other way around. Pointing the finger at the architects for poor and ugly buildings with terrible interior finishes is the same as blaming the roofing guys for putting Scotia Bank Place in Kanata over LeBreton. The developer cuts the cheques, he calls the shots. Any positive or negative comments should be aimed at the developer.

Unfortunate that mistakes get made with finishing, but that has more to do the administrator for that specific project than the developer itself in my opinion. The paperwork isn't making it to where ever it needs to go. I have owned several Claridge units, and have never had any major issues. That being said, I have heard "horror" stories. I just take it with a grain of salt, there are always three versions of the truth.

As for the "cheap" interiors; If I buy say a one bedroom or a a bachelor condo with the intent to rent it out for x years, I would instinctively prefer finishes that aren't the best quality. They will likely get damaged and require replacement. When resale comes around, a unit striped of builder's finishes, whether that be Claridge, Charlesfort, Urban Capital etc. will fetch a sizable premium.

Your last paragraph is laughable at best, but it humours me so I will respond. Why hire large Architectural firms and pay their high premiums to design your structure, if the developer is the one picking out the colour of the brick and or glass for example. It would be far cheaper for the developers to hire some small local firm.
For this project, do you honestly think Hariri Pontarini aren't calling the shots on how this building will look? The developer will tell them what they want for height, possibly fsi, and provide them with a $/sqft, but it is up to the Architect to make it work. The developer may tell the Architect to get the costs down, but other than that I can't see the developer instructing the Architect on how the building will look.
Granted Architects rarely get a carte blanche, but within reason they are calling the shots.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by McC

It's taken over a decade since the Molson-Bell Centre was built, but the acres of surface parking that have surrounded (and blighted) its central location are finally being filled in with condo towers above sports bar podia. But LeBreton was never on the table, and Firestone wanted to build his New Arcadia on the Carp Floodplain (TM), so here we are.

In fairness, the area around the Bell Centre (at least the downtown side) has always been reasonably vibrant, with a commuter rail station, offices, hotels, numerous bars and higher-end restaurants etc. I think the development of the areas south of the arena is more a function of the economy, plus the movement towards downtown housing that has impacted Montreal as much as every large Canadian city, (even though Montreal has always been ahead of the curve).

Not that I'm advocating surface parking, but I'm not a fan of the trend to surround arenas with a forest of highrises à la Toronto and Vancouver. I'd like to see some sightlines around those landmark buildings preserved. For instance, the lot in front of the Bell Centre would be much better used as a public square than for some generic condos as is currently the case. And don't get me started about the filling in of the Habs Centenial Plaza with a condo building (as much as I might covet a unit there).

In any event, faced with a choice between a downtown arena (i.e. Lebreton) and the current situation, there really is no comparison. A downtown arena that is used 100 times a year would have animated that area and vastly increased the desirability of other development there. In Kanata, in the past 10 years, it has spawned an auto mall and an Ultramar station.

[McC]

Originally Posted by phil235

In fairness, the area around the Bell Centre (at least the downtown side) has always been reasonably vibrant, with a commuter rail station, offices, hotels, numerous bars and higher-end restaurants etc. I think the development of the areas south of the arena is more a function of the economy, plus the movement towards downtown housing that has impacted Montreal as much as every large Canadian city, (even though Montreal has always been ahead of the curve).

I was thinking about the big parking lots north of the Bell Centre that isolate it from that vibrant urban life on Crescent, Bishop, etc. (Drummond-Lévesque-Montagne, McKay-Lévesque, around the Quality Inn between Crescent and Bishop)

[McC]

In any event, holy doodle are we off topic...
Tsk! Tsk!
<slaps his own hand>

[Boxster]

Originally Posted by phil235

In fairness, the area around the Bell Centre (at least the downtown side) has always been reasonably vibrant, with a commuter rail station, offices, hotels, numerous bars and higher-end restaurants etc. I think the development of the areas south of the arena is more a function of the economy, plus the movement towards downtown housing that has impacted Montreal as much as every large Canadian city, (even though Montreal has always been ahead of the curve).

Not that I'm advocating surface parking, but I'm not a fan of the trend to surround arenas with a forest of highrises à la Toronto and Vancouver. I'd like to see some sightlines around those landmark buildings preserved. For instance, the lot in front of the Bell Centre would be much better used as a public square than for some generic condos as is currently the case. And don't get me started about the filling in of the Habs Centenial Plaza with a condo building (as much as I might covet a unit there).

In any event, faced with a choice between a downtown arena (i.e. Lebreton) and the current situation, there really is no comparison. A downtown arena that is used 100 times a year would have animated that area and vastly increased the desirability of other development there. In Kanata, in the past 10 years, it has spawned an auto mall and an Ultramar station.

Right...and I can just imagine the Lebreton location and all the traffic this would cause downtown especially week days...as is the case with Kanata. Total CHAOS.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Boxster

Right...and I can just imagine the Lebreton location and all the traffic this would cause downtown especially week days...as is the case with Kanata. Total CHAOS.

As McC pointed out, we have drifted well off topic.

But I do need to respond to the traffic chaos argument, which is a bald assertion that is dragged out almost every time a city has proposed an arena downtown. It is a complete red herring. Transportation is actually considerably easier in a downtown location. The interconnectivity of downtown streets, better transit options (yes, even with buses) and walkability all make for a much easier dispersion of big crowds. Everyone isn't heading to cars in the same parking lot, making for the same highway interchange and then going in exactly the same direction. Transit doesn't have to consist of entirely of special trips, with transit vehicles and drivers sitting around idle for 4 hours while the event takes place. It's also much easier to scale for smaller events.

You may have noticed that pretty much every major arena built in North America in the past 15 years has gone downtown. There is a reason for that - they work better that way. Ottawa was actually at the very tail end of the trend of putting arenas in the suburban hinterland.

[bikegypsy]

So I check in a few times a week to see what's going on... interested to read the Icon thread. but 🞵🞵🞵. How the hell did it drift to downtown traffic and an arena?

Mofos that have venom to spit should at least stay on topic or just go to the Ottawa Sun and ramble on about anything even if it's completely irrelevant. At least have the initiative to create a new thread.

And I will add, if any of the members of this forum have more balls/smarts that it takes to do what Claridge has done, please be my guest and do something about it.

[TMA-1]

Well said.

Let's look a the site *any* building will improve and be impressed by the view the buggers will have. One may have to use one's imagination.



future icon 1798 by southfacing, on Flickr

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

So I check in a few times a week to see what's going on... interested to read the Icon thread. but 🞵🞵🞵. How the hell did it drift to downtown traffic and an arena?

Mofos that have venom to spit should at least stay on topic or just go to the Ottawa Sun and ramble on about anything even if it's completely irrelevant. At least have the initiative to create a new thread.

And I will add, if any of the members of this forum have more balls/smarts that it takes to do what Claridge has done, please be my guest and do something about it.

[Postmaster]

Anyone got updates on this one? I haven't heard much since they put everything on hold to review rampant highrise development in the city... or whatever they are calling this phenomenon.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Mofos that have venom to spit should at least stay on topic or just go to the Ottawa Sun and ramble on about anything even if it's completely irrelevant. At least have the initiative to create a new thread.

And I will add, if any of the members of this forum have more balls/smarts that it takes to do what Claridge has done, please be my guest and do something about it.

Sorry for the digression. Hopefully you were able to recover from your shock and disappointment.

[Marcus CLS]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Anyone got updates on this one? I haven't heard much since they put everything on hold to review rampant highrise development in the city... or whatever they are calling this phenomenon.

According to yesterday's Ottawa Citizen the application is now "reactivated" not approved. The article indicated that community response to a preliminary consultants report by George Dark centred on concerns for the east west side streets and not the High profile Carling Preston intersection. The 120 day deadline for processing applications or the developer can appeal to the OMB was approaching so the City decided to unfreeze certain applications this being one of them.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Ap...a+Preston+Street+back/8004568/story.html

[JackBauer24]

Originally Posted by constructivism

Unfortunate that mistakes get made with finishing, but that has more to do the administrator for that specific project than the developer itself in my opinion. The paperwork isn't making it to where ever it needs to go. I have owned several Claridge units, and have never had any major issues. That being said, I have heard "horror" stories. I just take it with a grain of salt, there are always three versions of the truth.

As for the "cheap" interiors; If I buy say a one bedroom or a a bachelor condo with the intent to rent it out for x years, I would instinctively prefer finishes that aren't the best quality. They will likely get damaged and require replacement. When resale comes around, a unit striped of builder's finishes, whether that be Claridge, Charlesfort, Urban Capital etc. will fetch a sizable premium.

Your last paragraph is laughable at best, but it humours me so I will respond. Why hire large Architectural firms and pay their high premiums to design your structure, if the developer is the one picking out the colour of the brick and or glass for example. It would be far cheaper for the developers to hire some small local firm.
For this project, do you honestly think Hariri Pontarini aren't calling the shots on how this building will look? The developer will tell them what they want for height, possibly fsi, and provide them with a $/sqft, but it is up to the Architect to make it work. The developer may tell the Architect to get the costs down, but other than that I can't see the developer instructing the Architect on how the building will look.
Granted Architects rarely get a carte blanche, but within reason they are calling the shots.

AHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! And MY comment was laughable.
First off, I've noticed you say "in my opinion" quite often - I've come to realize after reading a few of your posts, in MY opinion your opinion is based on very, very limited real-life experience and quite possibly only on your experience with Claridge.
Secondly, "Your last paragraph is laughable at best, but it humours me so I will respond"? Seriously? You actually typed that? Who died and made you the New Construction God? Oh wise, unfallable one, tell us how the relationship of a developer and architects works. We long to hear your input.... Actually, on second thought based upon your entire reply, I'm glad I added some humour to your day, but do us all a favour and skip the whole replying part.

Now for part that humoured me.....
"Unfortunate that mistakes get made with finishing, but that has more to do the administrator for that specific project than the developer itself in my opinion. The paperwork isn't making it to where ever it needs to go."
Do you honestly believe that the reason/issue for poor or shoddy construction is due to an administrative problem? It couldn't be the fact that Claridge uses the cheapest materials and couldn't finish a condo properly if their life depended on it, could it? Nahhh.... it's gotta be the paperwork. Is that the line Claridge tells their home owners?

"I would instinctively prefer finishes that aren't the best quality. They will likely get damaged and require replacement"
I think your instincts may let you down. While I do practice the "never buy the palace on the block" investment theory, I also don't take it to the other extreme and buy the crappy shed either. Price is definitely a factor when I am looking to buy a condo, but value is a more important factor to me. Like you said, when you buy a cheap condo with cheap finishes as a rental property, it's likely that after a few years many of these finishes will have to be repaired or replaced. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but to install a new kitchen or flooring requires money, money out of your pocket. Let's look at kitchen counter tops as an example. Some condos offer very thin 3/4" granite while others offer quartz countertops. Granite, although feels like a very durable material, is actually quite porous and requires a fair amount of maintenance to ensure it doesn't stain or crack. Quartz, on the other hand, is a much more durable and dense material that repels stains, doesn't crack, can be used as a cutting board and in general takes the abuse a kitchen dishes out. The cost differential to install granite v quartz - about $1,000-2,000 more for quartz (depending on the size of the kitchen of course). Let's fastforward 3-4 years, after a few tenants have occupied the suite and you're looking to sell the condo. It wouldn't be too surprising to have to purchase a new granite countertop ($4000-6000 w installation) while the quartz would still look great and no repair costs would be incurred. That just one example of comparing a below average condo vesus a above average one.

If you take the time and do a little homework and compare a condo spec to spec, you'll see that there is something to be said about the durability and longevity of higher quality condos. And that's just the interior of the suite, I haven't even touched on the wear and tear of poorly constructed amenities will have on your condo fees - have you heard of a special assessment? Have you been to CP1 lately to see the condition of their common elements? For a building only a few years old, I hope their proposed budget called for amenities repairs and/or replacements within the first 5 years.

"I can't see the developer instructing the Architect on how the building will look"

Is it so hard to see that an employer/client (in this case the developer) will tell the employee/contractor (in this case the architect) what they want and how they want it to look? In my opinion, it's a pretty basic concept to understand.

[Chadillaccc]

How tall is this estimated to be?