Château Laurier expansion | Approved

[kwoldtimer]

I thought it had been fully permitted. One loses track after so much back and forth...

[rocketphish]

Proposed addition to Château Laurier still doesn't meet the standard
On Friday, a City of Ottawa joint committee will consider the hotel owner's latest design pitch. Here's why it should be rejected.

Gordon Bennett
Publishing date: Feb 02, 2021 • 10 hours ago • 3 minute read



By now most people – proponents, the public, politicians and professionals (architectural as well as heritage) – are probably exhausted by the ongoing saga of proposed additions to Ottawa’s iconic Château Laurier Hotel. A joint meeting of the City of Ottawa’s planning committee and built-heritage sub-committee will take place Friday to consider hotel owner Larco’s current proposal for an addition to Ottawa’s much-loved landmark. The recommendations coming out of that joint meeting will have a profound impact on the heritage value of this national historic site.

Notwithstanding Heritage Ottawa’s support for this proposal, the proposal currently under consideration by the city (often referred to as Version Six) is not compliant with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (S&G) and should be rejected.

The proposal violates the following provisions of the S&G: 1) make new work subordinate to the historic place; 2) new construction must not obscure or have a negative impact on character-defining forms or spatial configurations; and 3) an appropriate balance must be struck between mere imitation of existing form and pointed contrast. Version Six does not meet these requirements.

First, the east pavilion on the Mackenzie Avenue side of the château projects beyond the adjacent section of the existing landmark hotel, thereby completely obstructing views of a significant section of the historic château as one proceeds south along Mackenzie Avenue toward the hotel. This clearly contravenes the requirement in the S&G that a new addition be subordinate to the historic place, and that it not obscure character-defining forms or spatial configurations.

Second, the irregular, offset pattern of solids and voids on the façades of both proposed pavilions is completely at odds with the regular, vertical alignment of windows of the national historic site. The overall impression created by this asymmetry is of a Rubik’s cube where nothing aligns vertically (unlike the existing Château Laurier).

The stark and jarring contrast between the regular pattern of solids and voids of the national historic site, and the irregular, offset pattern in the proposed addition clearly violates the requirement to avoid “pointed contrast” expressed in Standard 11 of the S&G. If this is not pointed contrast, it is difficult to imagine what pointed contrast might actually be.

The design of the façades in Version Six is so incompatible, and so problematic overall, that correcting the problem of misalignment simply creates another problem and another incompatibility. The pronounced arrhythmia of the façades was completely unnecessary to achieve an acceptable level of distinguishability between the historic landmark and the addition. And to anticipate a possible rejoinder that this irregular, dissonant pattern evokes the asymmetry of the historic château: such a rejoinder would reduce this attribute of asymmetry to parody, if not absurdity.

I have immense respect for the four experts engaged by Heritage Ottawa who found that Version Six of the proposed addition to the Château Laurier was compliant with the S&G, so it is with some reluctance that I dissent from their conclusion, which did not consider the S&G in their totality. For example, it is not enough that Version Six avoid “mere imitation”; it must also avoid “pointed contrast.” In order to be compliant with the S&G, a proposal must be fully, not partially, compliant. Obscuring character-defining forms and employing pointed contrast on whole façades is not compatible with the S&G. Version Six should not be approved.

Gordon Bennett, former director of policy, National Historic Sites, played a key role in the federal government’s Historic Places Initiative, which included development of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/bennet...u-laurier-still-doesnt-meet-the-standard

[J.OT13]

Chateau Laurier Update: My comments

Mathieu Fleury
January 26, 2021



First, I would like to say thank you to all of you for attending the information session as well as submitting comments and concerns about the latest submission for the addition of the Chateau Laurier.

Below I am sharing my comments, which will be part of the staff report, available on Feb. 26.

In addition to these comments, I feel it is important to share with all of you my concerns.

Once again, we are back to questioning the necessity to change this iconic building, the Chateau Laurier, which sits nestled within the Parliamentary Precinct. When you think of downtown Ottawa, it is hard not to picture this building in your mind. And although many can argue the face of this building will not change, the addition alters our perspective and impacts the sight of our historic row of Capital City buildings along Confederation Boulevard.

First and foremost, I think it is important to note, City Council approved (I dissented) the previous plans – which the community and residents across the City clearly were not happy with. The result we are faced with now, is only a result of LARCO reaching a settlement agreement with Heritage Ottawa, who appealed City Council’s approval of the Heritage Permit, at the Local Planning Approval Tribunal (LPAT)

To be honest, the plans we see today might be described by some as better or a compromise, but they are still not appropriate for this historic building. And I remain fixed on the opinion that the Chateau Laurier deserves better.

I can not speak to an outcome that has yet to happen, but I can honestly say, the outcome at committee and Council may very well echo what we have already seen – an approval for the Heritage Permit. If approved LARCO has expressed an intent to move quickly with building the addition.

And while many of us, myself included, may not be happy with the outcome, I do want to once again thank residents of this City for expressing their concerns, not backing down and to continue to push back, in an attempt for the best result.

As I mention in the comments below, the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, and should not change. I see no advantages to altering this beautiful building and there is purpose in respecting a building that has stood the test of time.

Councillor Mathieu Fleury comments:

Here we are presented with the latest submission of a proposed addition to the Château Laurier. As we all know, this submission was only obtained through an agreement between Heritage Ottawa and Larco to end an LPAT dispute.

It is important to me to first thank Heritage Ottawa for its continued and relentless dedication to ensuring Ottawa’s heritage is protected, recognized and not forgotten. As well, I wish to acknowledge the outpouring of comments and concerns from Lowertown residents, residents of Ottawa and across the country for caring about the future of our capital city’s heritage side on the Château Laurier proposed addition. What could only be described as a distasteful addition has been improved by these individuals’ efforts, and specifically by the dedication and push from Heritage Ottawa.

I also appreciate Larco accepted that its previous application was not appropriate. However, this was only thanks to the community engagement efforts, a loss at the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance request and the pending legal fight that we see ourselves here today. I appreciate Larco reaching out and coming to the table with Heritage Ottawa, willing to discuss with heritage experts what could be appropriate finally. I truly wish it didn’t take an LPAT dispute to get to this version, and this dispute is the sole reason that the achieved resolution is before us, and this proposed design is being presented.

The review process has posed a challenge for the City Council. Every time that City Council makes a decision, there are implications for a private property owner’s rights and requirements. City Council is used to that. However, here, the Château Laurier’s significance to the landscape of our capital city – regardless of private ownership – has shown the limitations of our typical reviews.

It is important to me to point out that I do not blame City staff who have followed legal authority and process limitations to its word. More so, I see the Planning Act, Heritage Act, and the Municipal authority process struggle to review such an important iconic asset.

As a capital city, this application has been a wake-up for the need to ensure our capital aspirations have the appropriate level of “Capital” review processes for such important landscapes.

When it comes to heritage buildings – whether they are locally, provincially or federally designated – there are guidelines set out to follow. These are just that. Guidelines. To be considered, followed, or adhered to. It is up to the proponent to decipher. It is up to staff to make recommendations, but the City cannot force an owner to build in a specific style. Like many others, I wish these guidelines had more teeth and allowed our dedicated heritage staff to do more.

And personally, I, like many residents, would prefer that the Château Laurier’s addition maintain its current iconic built form. Unfortunately, it is a private asset, and private property owners have the rights and tools to allow property modifications and additions.

Specifically, on the plans presented, the modern addition has been modified to include the two ten- and eleven-storey pavilions, an increase in height from the former proposal, with a two-storey connector in between. The use of limestone and repeated window patterns and glass are positive changes in the formally proposed materials.

The building at grade level offers a world class experience – this, to me, is its best feature. The connections and improvements, including the opening onto Major’s Hill Park, is a welcome addition to the improved plans. I would like to ensure that with this feature there is proper and simplistic integration between the Park and the Château Laurier’s new addition. Currently, as proposed, it allows the Château to benefit from the Park, but let’s make sure this is a two-way street, and park users and hotel clients can share this beautiful space and area so that the site can remain active and engaged year-long.

The new changes have increased the height from the 2019 version. I remain concerned about the height bringing dominance to the addition. Also, heritage designated buildings, such as the Château Laurier, should adhere to Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines. As these guidelines state, “A building may play a role as a character-defining element in a cultural landscape, in addition to having its heritage value. Additions to recent cultural landscapes should be undertaken with the utmost respect and care and complement the heritage value of the historic place.”

When designing a newly built feature, the guidelines define that it should be compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. I strongly feel the heritage building should be the focus, and the addition should remain in its shadow to maintain its architectural dominance.

As the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, one can argue that not every site should change – and from both local and capital perspectives, there are no advantages to changing this beautiful building. There is purpose in respecting the older building, the materials, the character, and the heritage building design that has stood the test of time.

The architecture of this building is an architectural style replicated by many other railway hotels across this country. From the copper roofing, cornices, turrets, marble floors, these features point to the link from one end of Canada to the other. It also points to spectacular moments in our history, when from one end to the other, tourists could travel our railway system and stay in a Chateaux-style hotel.

Heritage Ottawa has brought us to a better outcome. However, I would argue the modern addition still does not meet the expectations of the heritage-rich Parliamentary Precinct that this building is nestled within.

Looking across Canada, there are few of these hotels which have modern additions. From the Royal York in Toronto to the Empress Hotel in Victoria, B.C., they have maintained their prominence and distinction without adding to the building in a negative way.

Simply put, I will not be happy with a modern addition and cannot support what would break away from historical tradition.

To learn more about the latest application please visit this link: https://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=8358&doctype=AGENDA

https://mathieufleury.ca/my-chateau-laur...-YIyEwnmZw7AJDmaC7ubjCI0QHNBzwzWpKRYoQNA

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

https://mathieufleury.ca/my-chateau-laur...-YIyEwnmZw7AJDmaC7ubjCI0QHNBzwzWpKRYoQNA

He qoutes the guidelines and then points out an example of what he things is good.

And the one of the examples specifically York Toronto doesn't follow those guidelines. As there is almost no separation between the original structure and the addition.

[White Pine]

I wouldn't call this particularly good, but I do appreciate how the middle is open so that you can see the old building from behind.

[Catenary]

Fleury: "As I mention in the comments below, the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, and should not change. I see no advantages to altering this beautiful building and there is purpose in respecting a building that has stood the test of time."

I mean, it's iconic, but isn't the most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct... Parliament? Specifically, the Peace Tower / Centre Block.

[J.OT13]

For anyone interested in today's Built-Heritage and Planning Committee.

• Video Link

[OTSkyline]

Originally Posted by Catenary

Fleury: "As I mention in the comments below, the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, and should not change. I see no advantages to altering this beautiful building and there is purpose in respecting a building that has stood the test of time."

I mean, it's iconic, but isn't the most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct... Parliament? Specifically, the Peace Tower / Centre Block.

Parliament aside then, I'd argue this is the second most iconic building in the city. Funny how random mid-rises or condos around the city get shot down and rejected at planning committee but something like this just flies by..

[rocketphish]

Final Château Laurier addition design gets planning committee's OK
Architect Barry Padolsky, who called previous design an 'eyesore,' gives latest draft C+

Kimberley Molina · CBC News
Posted: Feb 05, 2021 3:19 PM ET | Last Updated: 3 hours ago



The latest and supposedly final design for a controversial addition to Ottawa's Château Laurier easily won the approval of the city's planning planning committee Friday, despite receiving a lowly C+ from one well-known architect.

This is the sixth iteration of the design presented by owner Larco Investments since 2016. Previous versions have been likened to a radiator, a shipping container and an air conditioner tacked onto the rear of the landmark hotel, which opened in 1912.

Members of the planning committee voted 7-2 in favour of the new design, but it's still not to everyone's liking.

"In my view, the proposed design ... is not a great piece of architecture, and it is not one that will be a destination for tourists when they decide to travel again. It's not going to be an internationally acclaimed destination, a must-see," said renowned architect Barry Padolsky, who sits on the city's built heritage subcommittee, which also met Friday.

While Padolsky admitted the new design is an improvement over the original proposal, which he called "an architectural eyesore and an embarrassment to the pride of the national capital," he said it only rates a grade of C+.

Coun. Riley Brockington, one of three councillors on the built heritage subcommittee to vote against the design, also expressed his dismay, suggesting some of his colleagues were satisfied with "good enough."

"I'm not. This is my opportunity to say this is not acceptable and it's not good enough," Brockington said.

Subcommittee members Rawlson King and Catherine McKenney joined their council colleague in voting against the design, which lost on a tie but was subsequently approved by the more powerful standing committee.

The latest rendering includes east and west towers of 10 and 11 storeys respectively, clad in smooth Indiana limestone and overlooking a semi-private courtyard.

Heritage Ottawa has also indicated its approval of the new design, which in addition to the limestone includes copper and bronze features the group felt reflect "the heritage character-defining elements of the historic hotel."

At the same time, Heritage Ottawa president Richard Belliveau, who characterized the new design as "a worthy contemporary response," also called for stronger legislation to protect historically important buildings and monuments.

Another local group remains strongly opposed to the addition, however.

"I think everybody agrees that the most recent design is somewhat better, but somewhat better than worst is not acceptable," said Robin Collins of Protect Château Laurier, which formed after the addition was first proposed in 2016.

The design will go to city council for final approval on Feb. 24.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-final-design-1.5902271

[rocketphish]

Planning committee says council should approve latest, and possibly final, Château Laurier design
The majority of councillors on the planning committee have endorsed what one Ottawa heritage architect called a C-grade design for the Château Laurier addition.

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Feb 05, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 3 minute read



The majority of councillors on the planning committee have endorsed what one Ottawa heritage architect called a C-grade design for the Château Laurier addition.

The committee on Friday voted 7-2 in recommending that council on Feb. 24 accept the latest design and issue a heritage permit to the hotel owner, potentially putting to bed a years-long controversy over the expansion project.

Voting in favour of the design were councillors Laura Dudas, Glen Gower, Jan Harder, Allan Hubley, Catherine Kitts, Scott Moffatt and Tim Tierney. The two councillors in opposition were Riley Brockington and Jeff Leiper.

Brockington observed the lack of “a huge warm public embrace” of the latest design, which was the result of negotiations between hotel owner Larco Investments and advocacy group Heritage Ottawa.

If there’s still significant public opposition, it didn’t show at the committee meeting. Only one person not directly involved in the design process or negotiations signed up to make a presentation.

Robin Collins said most people see an unacceptable conflict between the modern design for the addition and the historic railway hotel. He asked for a “pandemic pause” to find other design options.

“A pause will stop this train from rushing through in this current climate,” Collins said.

No one on the planning committee supported another delay, and through nearly three hours of meetings on the topic Friday morning, the discussion and votes were relatively swift.

Earlier in the morning, the built-heritage subcommittee voted 3-3 on the design. Coun. Rawlson King, the subcommittee chair, joined Brockington and Coun. Catherine McKenney in voting against it. Coun. Scott Moffatt joined citizen members Amanda Conforti and Barry Padolsky in supporting the design.

Padolsky, a heritage architect and subcommittee member, offered a tepid review.

Where the previous design would receive a grade of F, the current design “is not an A+, an A or even a B,” Padolsky said.

“It’s probably in the C-, C+ ranking, which means it’s a pass, but just barely.”

Peter Clewes, the lead architect for the addition, said his latest design is “a consensus of opinion on the part of a lot of people” and that the concept is better because of the feedback process.

“In our world, there’s a lot of stakeholders and this is where we are today,” Clewes said.

Larco has been trying to get an approved design for an addition since 2016.

A planning appeal by Larco and Heritage Ottawa ultimately led to the design that council will consider. The two sides negotiated a concept and arrived at a settlement last year.

Compared to the previous design, the current proposal has more Indiana limestone and other similarities to the palette of the historic hotel. It tones down the visual impact from Major’s Hill Park in an attempt to calm people who were worried about the vista to the hotel.

City heritage staff said the design meets federal standards and guidelines for heritage additions. The guidelines call for additions to be “visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the historic place,” leaving it up to people to assess if a design meets the criteria.

The city was still waiting for Parks Canada’s comments on Larco’s revised cultural heritage impact statement when it comes to the visual impact on the Rideau Canal, though city staff didn’t think the federal agency’s remarks would affect their analysis.

Coun. Mathieu Fleury, who represents the area of the hotel, opposes the latest concept.

Mayor Jim Watson has indicated he believes the new concept meets council’s design conditions.

In a separate vote, the planning committee also approved the hotel expansion site plan. Brockington was the only no vote. The site plan doesn’t rise to council for approval.

The National Capital Commission needs to approve Larco’s proposal when it comes to the impact of the hotel addition to surrounding federal lands.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...nd-possibly-final-chateau-laurier-design

[rocketphish]

Château Laurier extension – sixth time lucky?
The fight over the hotel has shown that governments at all levels have work to do on heritage protection – if they're serious about it, of course.

Ottawa Citizen Editorial Board
Publishing date: Feb 05, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 2 minute read

Coun. Glen Gower summed it up neatly at a meeting Friday about the proposed addition to the Château Laurier: “I can’t believe we’re still debating over whether the design is historic enough.” Well, guess what? We are. Almost five years after château owner Larco Investments released its initial plan for an extension to the 108-year-old hotel, city councillors are still haggling over the updated pitch – version six, if you’ve lost count.

And while the city’s built-heritage subcommittee rejected the latest iteration (on a tie vote), that group is only advisory and the design patch easily slid through planning committee this week. It’s now off to full council for approval.

A large number of Ottawans detest any notion of a modernistic addition to the gothic revival-châteauesque character of their beloved landmark. That won’t change. But the owner has listened to at least some complaints over the years – enough, this time, to win over the community group Heritage Ottawa. The use of limestone cladding is a “significant improvement,” says Heritage Ottawa’s Richard Belliveau; the U-shape of the structure is respected; “cherished views” are maintained. Larco has gone from legal threats a year-and-a-half ago to calming some concerns. The heritage group, recognizing that private property is, well, private, offers its blessing.

City councillors have upped their game too. One of the early reasons for public alarm, you’ll recall, was over how politicians shovelled all the key decision-making onto non-elected city staff. Since then, the process has been more democratic. We know, for instance, that Coun. Rawlson King, who chairs the built-heritage subcommittee, rejects the design. We know Coun. Riley Brockington feels the proposal is “not good enough.” We know that, when this hits council on Feb. 24, all elected officials will have to take a public stand. Voters can hold them accountable as they like.

We also know that the overall heritage preservation process is weak. Wrote architectural historian Peter Coffman in the Citizen last summer: “It took hundreds of people, donating thousands of dollars, plus legal action from Heritage Ottawa, to nudge the design toward something minimally acceptable … This is for a building that enjoys the maximum heritage protection that our laws provide. The outcome is evidence of a system that failed, not one that works.”

This remains true. Governments at all levels must decide whether to put more teeth into heritage protection, or strip it down and streamline development. It would be nice if they acted before the next five-year debacle.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-chateau-laurier-extension-sixth-time-lucky

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Fleury: Simply put, I will not be happy with a modern addition and cannot support what would break away from historical tradition.https://mathieufleury.ca/my-chateau-laur...-YIyEwnmZw7AJDmaC7ubjCI0QHNBzwzWpKRYoQNA

Loses any credibility there: imposing inflexible prejudgment and personal taste about "modern" design regardless of what is actually legally permitted by right or supported by others with different views, including people able to reach reasonable compromise - like Heritage Ottawa, as it turns out.

Originally Posted by Catenary

Fleury: "As I mention in the comments below, the Château Laurier is Ottawa’s most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct, and should not change. I see no advantages to altering this beautiful building and there is purpose in respecting a building that has stood the test of time."

I mean, it's iconic, but isn't the most iconic building within the Parliamentary Precinct... Parliament? Specifically, the Peace Tower / Centre Block.

Agree... though I think he meant to stress "Ottawa's most iconic building", i.e. the city's, as opposed to a federal building.

Originally Posted by White Pine

I wouldn't call this particularly good, but I do appreciate how the middle is open so that you can see the old building from behind.

I agree. And I think it's a better design for actual users of the hotel - you preserve the sightlines from the inside as well, e.g.



Incidentally, the hotel really is worth a staycation (once stay-at-home orders are over). I had stayed there once over 10 years ago, before moving here. Some tasteful renos since. Here's how it looked inside recently before the current shutdown - fairly quiet nowadays, the family felt like we had the whole place to ourselves:

[905er]

this expansion is sooooo wrong! it's quite upsetting .. there are gorgeous buildings of historic significance in the city.. not much in terms of skyline .. just mediocre mid rise towers maintaining a boring tabletop ... so knowing this, why not protect at all costs the buildings that actually add immense beauty to the city? the expansion completely ruins the view from the park. on it's own, in a different location, I wouldn't have a problem with the actual proposed building.. but added to chateau Laurier.. it's just WRONG WRONG WRONG!

[DarthVader_1961]

Originally Posted by 905er

this expansion is sooooo wrong! it's quite upsetting .. there are gorgeous buildings of historic significance in the city.. not much in terms of skyline .. just mediocre mid rise towers maintaining a boring tabletop ... so knowing this, why not protect at all costs the buildings that actually add immense beauty to the city? the expansion completely ruins the view from the park. on it's own, in a different location, I wouldn't have a problem with the actual proposed building.. but added to chateau Laurier.. it's just WRONG WRONG WRONG!

This!!!

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

He qoutes the guidelines and then points out an example of what he things is good.

And the one of the examples specifically York Toronto doesn't follow those guidelines. As there is almost no separation between the original structure and the addition.

It just goes to say that if the addition to the Royal York in 1959 resulted in a high calibre, seamless and beautiful building without the guidelines (not to mention the same to additions to the Chateau Frontenac and the Chateau Laurier itself), compared to this jarring, inappropriate proposal adhering to the new guidelines, that maybe, just maybe, the guidelines are useless or improperly drawn up. Maybe the importance should be on getting a competent architect.

Personally, I think architecture has boxed itself into an egotistical regulated profession that thinks it calls the shots on defining contemporary culture. They should take cues from musicians and artists who allow different genres to co-exist and flourish or evolve. I look at most buildings today and they're nothing more than three-dimensional graphic design dumbed down to low-resolution rectangles and triangles that don't really reflect the way we live. It's like they're still playing Pong and Tetris while everyone has moved on to The Witcher or Assassins Creed.

[J.OT13]

My question is why the heck does the zoning allow a tall addition in the first place? Anything over 4 floors should not have been allowed.

[J.OT13]

Approved by Council, but not before Watson attacked Councillors who still oppose the project, threw Fleury under the bus for praising the first design before it was released to the public and calling some people's suggestion that the Feds buy the hotel ridiculous quoting the pandemic and economic downturn, glancing over the fact that that suggestion was made well before the pandemic. Not to mention the Feds DID own the hotel up until the Feds privatized CN in the early 90s.

What Watson did get right is that Larco did achieve the conditions set-out by the Heritage Committee in 2018 in their new design, though that could also be argued for the prior two designs.

[ssiguy]

I cannot believe they are allowing this abomination to go forward. Somebody is getting their palms greased big time.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I cannot believe they are allowing this abomination to go forward. Somebody is getting their palms greased big time.

It's been nearly 6 years and 6 or 7 versions, I lost count. Based on that, I don't think there's any palm greasing going around in this portfolio. This is just a classic case of "good enough".

I can't for the life of me figure out why Larco was so dead set on retaining that Toronto condo architect throughout this nightmarish episode. Why couldn't find someone with experience in heritage additions?

That said, good on Larco, I guess, for presenting so many versions over the years and eventually consulting with Heritage Ottawa to come up with something "good enough".

This project will create job, help the tourism industry bounce back and better link the hotel to Major's Hill Park. The old ballroom windows will be restored and open up to a great new outdoor space. The roof of the inner courtyard will be greened. Parking will be pushed underground. There will be some positives that will come with the addition, even if it's not obvious to all of us right now.

[Richard Eade]

OK, you are saying that the glass is half-full (although I'd argue that it is quarter-full, at best). I would still complain to the bartender if my Draft came that way.