Fusion (LeBreton Flats Phase 3) | 8fl /6fl | Completed

[OTSkyline]

I kind of just... forgot why I hated it.. Was just used to going with the flow and everyone else hating it..

But that is a nice picture and angle though...

[phil235]

I don't mind the design at all. The colour is definitely not good, but I suspect that it may age better than some of the other colours that are en vogue at the moment.

[Boxster]

IMO, the glass tower is out of place with the rest of the development. From certain angles, it actually looks as though it's leaning or crooked!

Originally Posted by defishel

You know what? I was thinking, why do people hate the first two phases of Fusion? I understand there is a consensus in Ottawa that these buildings are ugly, but I don't recall anyone explaining why these buildings are ugly.

Is it because of the colours used? Is it that they're not mixed-use? From certain angles it's not the most exciting building, but I don't think they're terrible (though yellow is not a favourite colour for me). They use glass and brick (bigger bricks). Is it their shape? They'd designed as a partially enclosed "courtyard/ quad", but that's what's planned for even in Bayview's CDP. Is it because they're the only buildings on LeBreton Flats, meaning that if more buildings are constructed people will like them more?

So, why don't people like these buildings, beyond the "I don't like them because they're ugly." What valid reason is there to hate them?

[monkeybongo]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't mind the design at all. The colour is definitely not good, but I suspect that it may age better than some of the other colours that are en vogue at the moment.

It's definitely not the colour itself, so much as the colour and quality of brick doesn't consider the area: lots of greenspace, war museum, heritage buildings, downtown office buildings.

The architecture is okay and the bottom half and top tower would look fine on their own in the right neighbourhood. The problem is that they don't match or contrast enough be considered to be designed well. The tower looks disproportionate small on top of the base and doesn't tie with any of the materials in the bottom base. The shape and design of the tower is too conservative to have contrasting materials or colours (i.e. the ROM museum extension). Perhaps use the same aluminum color in the window frames rather than the blue/grey trim? Match the earthy yellow tones and surrounding greenspace with perhaps wood accents features or living green wall?

[WannabeLandscapeArch]

I think it has been summed up perfectly here; It's not the design itself, it's that the building is an unfitting juxtaposition to the existing greenspace and skyline. With this being said, I don't think it's fair to pass judgement until all of the phases are done.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by monkeybongo

It's definitely not the colour itself, so much as the colour and quality of brick doesn't consider the area: lots of greenspace, war museum, heritage buildings, downtown office buildings.

The architecture is okay and the bottom half and top tower would look fine on their own in the right neighbourhood. The problem is that they don't match or contrast enough be considered to be designed well. The tower looks disproportionate small on top of the base and doesn't tie with any of the materials in the bottom base. The shape and design of the tower is too conservative to have contrasting materials or colours (i.e. the ROM museum extension). Perhaps use the same aluminum color in the window frames rather than the blue/grey trim? Match the earthy yellow tones and surrounding greenspace with perhaps wood accents features or living green wall?

Those are good points. Some of the aspects you mention scream micromanagement by the NCC.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by defishel

by Shel DeF on Flickr

^ From that angle/side, it actually looks decent. Nice shape, a little more vertical, brick and glass mix well together. I darker yellow would have been nicer, but otherwise, not bad.



^ This angle is offensive, and of course the most visible. No design work went into it; bland greenish blue glass box on top of a sickly yellow brick block. What a waste.

The lack of interesting retail and restaurants on the Flats is also an issue. It makes the area private and all around dead. 0 vibrancy, 0 reason to visit.

Future phases along Booth will be critical. They have to come up with spectacular architecture to compensate They need to make Booth a retail and entertainment area similar to Richmond and Bank. I hope to one day see a continuous strip of urban vitality from Albert Street all the way north to Wright Street in Hull. Same thing for Vimy Place to the Portage Bridge.

[emannigol]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

^ This angle is offensive, and of course the most visible. No design work went into it; bland greenish blue glass box on top of a sickly yellow brick block. What a waste.

You have to remember that these buildings were designed as a group. That angle is supposed to be an interior street view, and won't be seen as the other buildings go up around it.

[MaxHeadroom]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

bland greenish blue glass box on top of a sickly yellow brick block. What a waste.

If you don't like the colours, blame the NCC. They picked them and made the architect use them.

[1overcosc]

Is that plan literally just all residential buildings? There needs to be space reserved for retail in the area...

[phil235]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Is that plan literally just all residential buildings? There needs to be space reserved for retail in the area...

I believe there is retail space planned for Booth St.

What I don't understand is why they can't landscape the areas that are waiting for development, given that it's going to be 10 or 15 years before they need them. At CitiPlace in Toronto, they even set up a little par-3 golf course for a number of years in a very similar situation. Maybe we're good for golf courses here, but why not a few soccer fields?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by emannigol

You have to remember that these buildings were designed as a group.

There's the problem, right there.

[S-Man]

I go by this semi-often as I cross the Chaudière bridge, and it seems like work has stopped (or isn't progressing) at the wood-framed flats sandwiched in between the smaller condo towers.

For at least a couple of months there doesn't seem to have been movement - empty window holes and bare plywood, no new insulation, tarpaper, anything.

In Barrhaven, this thing would have been finished months ago. Are even normal, wood-framed projects afflicted with the Claridge-Lebreton Flats curse?

[Urbanarchit]

Here's the progress. It looks like with Fusion they're reusing the black and yellow brick from previous projects and the silver siding used for Tribeca, as well...


Fusion by Shel DeF

[Kitchissippi]

I'd hate to be an owner in that wood frame building. It is going to be wrought with problems having been exposed to rain for a season. The wood has probably absorbed a lot of moisture making it prone to mould. It will also shrink as it dries after it's finished causing cracks and creaks. I guess it's good that such an ugly building won't last forever

[S-Man]

The plywood is turning from light brown to grey, a telltale sign of weathering and exposure. I haven't been past in a week or so, but I have still yet to see a worker on that building. Why would they not seal it up? Why build it if you can't finish it?

As I said before, four-storey wood flats go up almost overnight in Barrhaven.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by defishel

Here's the progress. It looks like with Fusion they're reusing the black and yellow brick from previous projects and the silver siding used for Tribeca, as well...


Fusion by Shel DeF

Anybody else thinking that it actually looks kind of good from that angle?

[McC]

I think Phase I looks great from the east, too; which eventuaaaaalllllly will be the only angle that these first phases are really visible from... Although I do not understand why that middle building is wood framed, agree with S-Man, and Ben Gibbard "and I can't see. why you'd. want to. live here."

(obviously price, but will those units really be at that steep a discount to make them worthwhile? and when they were already pouring the decks for the buildings on either side, would it have really been that much more expensive to pour the floors of the middle one, too; even though it's shorter?)

[YOWflier]

Camera phone shot from today:

[MoreTrains]

Im curious as to whether or not the plans have been altered to reflect the LRT, this was probably answered a while ago, but I would assume the plan would have phase 2 taller and denser given the proximity to the LeBreton (I refuse to say the actual name) station.