Claridge Moon/Skye [340 Queen St] | 84.4 m (x2) | 27 fl (x2) | U/C - Page 10

YOWflier · #**181** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 1:53 PM**

Can we make a sticky thread with a single post explaining why downtown heights are the way they are so we don't have to rehash it all every time?

Flemay · #**182** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Can we make a sticky thread with a single post explaining why downtown heights are the way they are so we don't have to rehash it all every time?

I know there's a height limit downtown.
It's time to change it.

zzptichka · #**183** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 3:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flemay

Again, twin 27 floor towers.
Why isn't there more diversity downtown.This would have been a good location for
1, 30 fl. and 1, 35 fl. towers.
A flat, boring, uninspiring downtown.

17fl(x1) and 22fl(x1) would've been even better.

MattRichling · #**184** Posted **Jun 27, 2019, 7:03 PM**

As of today, Claridge has sold firm 33 units with another 10 units currently held reserved for signing. Pricing has not yet increased, yet we are told to expect an increase soon.

waterloowarrior · #**185** Posted **Jul 5, 2019, 10:43 AM**

Appealed to LPAT
https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__A74FV4

waterloowarrior · #**186** Posted **Jul 6, 2019, 7:43 PM**

Based on some of the public comments, guessing the adjacent condo building may have appealed?

Urbanarchit · #**187** Posted **Jul 6, 2019, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Based on some of the public comments, guessing the adjacent condo building may have appealed?

Of course, the old people in that building don't like change when anything new is built near them, even though they live right downtown. They also opposed the redevelopment of the hotel beside them.

J.OT13 · #**188** Posted **Jul 7, 2019, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

Of course, the old people in that building don't like change when anything new is built near them, even though they live right downtown. They also opposed the redevelopment of the hotel beside them.

The initial complete redevelopment or the re-clad?

Urbanarchit · #**189** Posted **Jul 7, 2019, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The initial complete redevelopment or the re-clad?

I don't know if they opposed the reclad (although I know some people did on architectural grounds), but most opposition was to the initial complete redevelopment from what I remember.

J.OT13 · #**190** Posted **Jul 7, 2019, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

I don't know if they opposed the reclad (although I know some people did on architectural grounds), but most opposition was to the initial complete redevelopment from what I remember.

Thanks for that. I can see why some people would have opposed the re-clad on "heritage" grounds, but I believe the end result respects the original concept, much more than a replacement at least.

Harley613 · #**191** Posted **Jul 7, 2019, 11:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

I don't know if they opposed the reclad (although I know some people did on architectural grounds), but most opposition was to the initial complete redevelopment from what I remember.

That reclad is nasty. It looks straight out of 1993.

Urbanarchit · #**192** Posted **Jul 7, 2019, 11:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

That reclad is nasty. It looks straight out of 1993.

Oh, I agree it!

The original cladding was much nicer as it was a good demonstration of 20th Century Modernism. There could have been a better way to go about recladding it and making the north side's street level better. The redevelopment proposal was much better than this, although the should have done better for Bay Street, Queen and Sparks, had more retail and done the parking/ drop off better.

The people I knew who opposed the reclad didn't live in the building, but were fans of architecture/ in the profession. The residents in the other building were just P/O'd about the redevelopment of the site and change in their neighbourhood from what I remember. But it's right downtown and beside an LRT station (literally beside it), so I can't imagine there'd be a valid argument against any highrise development there or for Claridge Moon.

danishh · #**193** Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 1:43 PM**

wait until the Lutherans try to build something on their parking lot and block that building's views of the river.

J.OT13 · #**194** Posted **Jul 22, 2019, 5:35 PM**

There's a yellow... shed... kind of looks like an ice fishing hut... on the site since Friday along with what looks like an old parking attendant booth at another spot. They seem to be doing something. Sales centre remains unchanged.

waterloowarrior · #**195** Posted **Jul 22, 2019, 5:42 PM**

Case status page for future reference... Nothing scheduled yet
https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL190316

Marcus CLS · #**196** Posted **Jul 27, 2019, 9:33 PM**

Pile Driver is on site at the west end Albert St. Frontage. Looks like getting ready to start the rental tower of the project. A bit confused given there is an appeal to the LAPT.

J.OT13 · #**197** Posted **Jul 30, 2019, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus CLS

Pile Driver is on site at the west end Albert St. Frontage. Looks like getting ready to start the rental tower of the project. A bit confused given there is an appeal to the LAPT.

Albert side? Looks like they are starting construction on the Queen side (Glue Pot Pub/O-Train parcel), with the Albert side still occupied by the sales office and parking lot.

MattRichling · #**198** Posted **Jul 31, 2019, 3:47 PM**

Prices have gone up by roughly $3,000 for the one-bedrooms, and $4,000-5,000 for the two bedrooms.

Urbanarchit · #**199** Posted **Jul 31, 2019, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattRichling

Prices have gone up. Roughly $3,000 for one-bedrooms, and $4,000-5,000 for two bedrooms.

What the honest frig!? Who can afford such ludicrous rents (especially for a Claridge building)? Those are San Francisco prices. Do they expect people are so rich that people can spend 36-60k of their annual income just on rent?

Ottawa has a problem with the cost of rents being far too high, and something needs to be done about it.

Addendum: turns out this is an increase in condo price, not monthly rental price.

GeneralLea · #**200** Posted **Jul 31, 2019, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

What the honest frig!? Who can afford such ludicrous rents (especially for a Claridge building)? Those are San Francisco prices. Do they expect people are so rich that people can spend 36-60k of their annual income just on rent?

Ottawa has a problem with the cost of rents being far too high, and something needs to be done about it.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Seems like someone's using opiates if they think those are reasonable, marketable prices....holy hell.