The Emmy [81 Slater St] | 79m | 25f | U/C - Page 3

Arcologist · #41 Posted **May 15, 2019, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcologist

Here are the comments I sent to the file lead on this proposal:

Good morning,

I'm writing to provide comments on this proposal. Generally, I like to try and point out the good and the bad, but in this case, there isn't much good to say about it other than it's bringing some much needed residential into the CBD. In every other aspect, this building falls far short of what this city deserves. We are the nation's capital, in case our developers and folks at City Hall forgot. We deserve better.

As it stands, the building's design is more suited to some Soviet-era communist housing block, not a G7 capital. Its dark, uninspiring, featureless exterior leaves much to be desired. Its uninviting entrance lacks warmth. The choice of colours and materials is atrocious. It looks cheap.

I suggest that the proposal, in its current form, be outright rejected. I hope others have contacted you expressing the same frustrations. I know there is a community of people in this city that still care about what gets built, and this proposal just doesn't cut it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

A quick note to point out that I contacted the file lead directly through the City of Ottawa dev app website, but also cc'd the Mayor and all downtown ward councillors in hopes that someone will enact change.

OTSkyline · #42 Posted **May 15, 2019, 6:50 PM**

I get that we are trying to enact change but why not go straight to the source?

Instead of writing to the City and councilors complaining about this so-or-so proposal is ugly, etc, why not write to the architects and the designing firms? They are the ones coming up with these designs.

The emails or comments to them might be a bit different and not just "your proposals are ugly" but if we complain about the lack of variety in designs and materials and point out some new exciting proposals in other places in Canada hopefully that would motivate the architects and design firms here to do better next time. No?

AuxTown · #43 Posted **May 15, 2019, 11:37 PM**

Coming along nicely. It's not going to be tall but at least it will fill a relatively ugly void.

Urbanarchit · #44 Posted **May 15, 2019, 11:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

Coming along nicely. It's not going to be tall but at least it will fill a relatively ugly void.

I like your photo. The Claridge building on Lisgar is rather ugly from this view. Maybe the site beside it will get something really nice?

waterloowarrior · #45 Posted **Jul 27, 2019, 3:17 PM**

UDRP recommendations June 2019
https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/planning-...-panel/panel-recommendations#june-7-2019

rocketphish · #46 Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 7:43 PM**

Updated renderings:

J.OT13 · #47 Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 7:51 PM**

Not seeing much of a difference other than the ground floor pillars and glassier top/side. Still looks like a slightly taller Re, but with less finesse/detailing.

OTSkyline · #48 Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 9:17 PM**

Slightly better with the revisions. Too bad it'll be suffocating between three existing towers around the same height.

The CBD is already so dense and packed (from Laurier to Queen), I wish it would move further south and proposals like this would start shifting down to Gloucester, Nepean, Lisgar...

Harley613 · #49 Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 10:27 PM**

What a snoozefest and yet another addition to the homogeneous block that is the Centretown skyline.

Urbanarchit · #50 Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 11:18 PM**

It might be conservative for the area, but the revised design is definitely an improvement. I like the glass at the top and side. If it's still residential, this will be a decent addition to downtown as there aren't many options to live in the CBD.

The solid material on the front is a bit depressing with the colour, but maybe it'd be possible to improve the design with some smaller, inset balconies and a warm, orange-coloured brick instead.

Jayday23 · #51 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 1:55 AM**

will there be an angle where this would be visible as part of our skyline?

Harley613 · #52 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 3:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayday23

will there be an angle where this would be visible as part of our skyline?

I would say no. Just more filler.

OTownandDown · #53 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 2:58 PM**

Are these rentals?

The dark elevation was changed from a good-percentage of window/cladding to a full curtainwall, usually an indication of rental vs. condo. It looks like a 'friendlier' building with the full curtain wall, but really just requires more energy to heat and cool.

The interaction with the sidewalk is interesting. Previous renderings could be considered 'stark' with just a simple curtain wall to the entrance/commercial unit. Adding a colonnade makes it seems 'nicer' in the renderings, but adds clutter in real life, especially for those exiting the parking garage.

I think the light grey cladding, when done well, will be a timeless look, and hopefully the understated nature of this building will be met with well-built cladding. Understated, but well built, can look expensive. (Especially next to some if it's neighbours!)

J.OT13 · #54 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayday23

will there be an angle where this would be visible as part of our skyline?

It might, maybe, sort of, peak out from the east (Elgin) and south (Queensway) faces of the skyline.

The design is blah. I imagine a fairly high quality, if uninspired, rental building. I'll be glad to see a little more residential going up. It will contribute to the evening and weekend liveliness of the CBD.

Uhuniau · #55 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 3:14 PM**

Who cares about the roof? What matters here - especially in this bold new supposed world where Slater and Albert are to become more human places post-Transitway - is ground level form and function.

Given that it's sandwiched between other buildings of very similar height, nothing else in the public realm matters.

TransitZilla · #56 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Who cares about the roof? What matters here - especially in this bold new supposed world where Slater and Albert are to become more human places post-Transitway - is ground level form and function.

Given that it's sandwiched between other buildings of very similar height, nothing else in the public realm matters.

This is the correct take. The ground floor looks pretty sterile. No evidence of retail or anything else going on/.

J.OT13 · #57 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradnixon

This is the correct take. The ground floor looks pretty sterile. No evidence of retail or anything else going on/.

The plans posted in May 2019 show one retail space.

rocketphish · #58 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 6:02 PM**

Still just 746 sf of retail on the ground floor. And a rental office.

http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%...nd%20Elevations%20-%20D07-12-19-0061.PDF

J.OT13 · #59 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 7:00 PM**

The configuration changed since last year. Looks smaller than it was. Still better than nothing.

Urbanarchit · #60 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 7:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Still just 746 sf of retail on the ground floor. And a rental office.

http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%...nd%20Elevations%20-%20D07-12-19-0061.PDF

Considering its location downtown I don't see why it should include any parking spaces for this building even if there are only 8 spaces. It may be an awkward site, but if they didn't include parking and the access to it they'd have more space to allow for two decent retail spots instead of one and a small office. If the site is so small, then there's no reason parking should be included...

The pedestrian experience is lacking, though. Ironic considering Laney was interviewed in the fall where he claimed he was interested in urban planning, despite none of his projects being good urbanism.