1451 Wellington St W | 39m | 12f | U/C

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by cr872190

Hell if I was Mizrahi I would be running for the hills. The City's approval process is a joke, all these very loosely worded regulations. Even the OMB can't make heads or tails of the term 'landmark'.

I would be, too. They were rejected once before when they lost the bid for Arts Court, and now with everything they've been through with this site it really isn't worth continuing to deal with Ottawa. They are working on Canada's tallest building in Toronto, and can continue being successful without bothering with us. Even if they do attempt the landmark building thing (I'd be curious to see what they propose), this could very well be their last building here.

[1overcosc]

Is it just me, or does every project by a developer out of town get the hard shaft while all the Ottawa firms always get a pass for everything?

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Is it just me, or does every project by a developer out of town get the hard shaft while all the Ottawa firms always get a pass for everything?

Yup, noticed that a while too. Maybe there is corruption at city hall in favour of local developers.

[McC]

Mizrahi knew what the rules were, but he bought the place at a price that was *allegedly* too high to turn a profit building within those rules, and he was gambling on getting an exemption. That's called speculation, it's risky business, call the waambulance.

[Skipper]

I hope that Mizrahi decides to redesign the last three floors. If they decide to abandon this site, Ottawa will have what it deserves, a bunch of ugly Claridge towers. While the City and the OMB are imposing special requirements for this site, we continue to impose sub standard designs for most other sites. One just has to look at the Main and Main Development Project what the City has approved for 238 Richmond compared to what the same developer has designed for Toronto to see how low our design standards are.

[waterloowarrior]

Anyone have an example of a building top that could meet the criteria?

[143] To qualify for "landmark" treatment here, the architecture must exhibit the following:

A. If the developer claims that the extra storeys qualify for exceptional
treatment, because they contribute to "landmark" status, then it must prove
it. The focus here is not the landmark features of the rest of the building,
but specifically the landmark contributions of the top.

B. The Board takes no position on the ideal number of storeys. Although the
hearing focused on the number twelve, the Board was not shown why that
figure would be any more or less significant than any other figure above
nine. The test of contributing to landmark status, at the top, is the same,
regardless of the number of storeys involved.

C. It is not sufficient for the project to be "well-designed." Landmarks must
additionally be "very distinctive." Granted, they need not be "extraordinary"
(though if they were, they would be akin to a s. 37 contribution here). They
must nonetheless "stand out" from the background "by virtue of their
design." The Board has referred to this aspect as "an element of wow."

D. This project is also on a "Scenic Entry Route." Though the OP does not
define "scenic", the Concise Oxford Dictionary does, and refers to
"picturesque in (a) grouping." That is consistent with common parlance.

E. The Board deduces that it is not sufficient for a project to "stand out"
merely on the basis of eccentricity, or adherence to some doctrinal theory,
of interest only to textbook writers. At this high-visibility location, the top
should contribute to the ambience being "picturesque”.

F. That is consistent with the elegant and distinguished approach to the rest
of the building (on which there was no dispute), and the character and
function of Island Park Drive.

G. The Board expresses no opinion about the parties' previous discussions
about the top "disappearing into the sky." The Board only observes that, at
best, such an objective would apply to only certain hours of the day, and
that in any event, the upper floors must still display that "element of wow."

H. The Board takes no position on the ultimate shape of the topmost floors,
and how it could meet the above criteria. The Board would nonetheless
expect that a design which digressed the least from the planning
documents would be one with an architectural flourish, involving roof
angles in the vicinity of 40-60 degrees, similar in concept to the examples
cited earlier.

I. The Board continues to assume that the two lots on the site will be
developed together.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Anyone have an example of a building top that could meet the criteria?

So if he built it to 100 stories, would he capture an "element of wow"?

[McC]

Originally Posted by Skipper

I hope that Mizrahi decides to redesign the last three floors. If they decide to abandon this site, Ottawa will have what it deserves, a bunch of ugly Claridge towers. While the City and the OMB are imposing special requirements for this site, we continue to impose sub standard designs for most other sites. One just has to look at the Main and Main Development Project what the City has approved for 238 Richmond compared to what the same developer has designed for Toronto to see how low our design standards are.

The rules aren't ad-hoc to the site, they're based on the community design plan, which was written by different planners at a different time from the community design plans in other neighborhoods; the Westboro CDP is older, and by design or neglect was written with huge holes in it, such that any site can be a called a "gateway" and be exempted from the 6-stores limit that the community thought they were getting for the Main Street. The Wellington West CDP is a bit tighter.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

...involving roof
angles in the vicinity of 40-60 degrees...

What does this mean exactly? That the top part must be set back such that it is not visible from a 40-60 degree angle from the sidewalk? Some articles and the councillor say that this ruling could allow for other developers to create much-taller-than-allowed-by-CDP "landmark" buildings to circumvent the CDP or bylaws. But if it's based on view planes or whatever these are called could that mean the buildings wouldn't be of an unlimited height provided they are distinctive, but rather only taller than zoning permits if the degrees are respected. That would be only a couple of stories more, which to some may be considered a problem, but it's not something like 30 stories or so. What would the maximum possible height be?

OMB's west Ottawa condo ruling opens door to height violations, councillor says

DavidDavid SaliPublished on May 12, 2015


The Ontario Municipal Board’s decision to allow a Toronto developer to go ahead with a 12-storey west-end condo tower if it features “landmark architecture” could give builders a loophole to circumvent city-imposed height restrictions, an Ottawa councillor says.

Council rejected Sam Mizrahi’s proposal for an upscale condominium at the corner of Wellington Street and Island Park Drive last May because it violated the community design plan’s nine-storey height limit.

Mr. Mizrahi appealed the decision to the OMB, the provincial tribunal that has final say over municipal planning decisions. He argued a nine-storey building isn’t economically viable because the site is on contaminated land and requires a $2-million cleanup.

In its written ruling last week, the OMB gave the builder two choices – cut the condo tower to nine storeys or design the top three storeys in a way that makes them so exceptional they qualify as “landmark architecture.”

“It is not sufficient for the project to be ‘well-designed,’” the tribunal said in its report. “Landmarks must additionally be ‘very distinctive.’ They must … ‘stand out’ from the background ‘by virtue of their design.’ The Board has referred to this aspect as ‘an element of wow.’”

Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper, whose ward includes the proposed development, said most of his constituents would still oppose a 12-storey building regardless of what it looks like.

“If community and developer and city all agree that something is so … ‘wow’ that it should go ahead, that’s always there,” he said. “But in my view that has to be based on consensus. No matter how ‘wow’ this building is, I would expect that we’re still going to see significant opposition to it on the basis of exceeding the height that’s been prescribed in our secondary plan.”

The councillor said the OMB’s decision sets a potentially dangerous precedent because it could allow developers to get around height restrictions by offering up “landmark architecture” in exchange for extra real estate.

“The fundamental premise that somehow landmark architecture should automatically result in height greater than what we’ve planned for is something I reject,” Mr. Leiper said. “I think the whole city, certainly the urban area, will be following this closely. Now that the door’s been opened, we can expect a lot of different parties to walk through it. Mizrahi won’t be the last to rely on it.”

The concept of “landmark architecture” is extremely subjective, he said, adding the OMB lacks the expertise and the mandate to determine which buildings meet that definition and which ones don’t.

“Frankly, I don’t think that is the OMB’s job,” Mr. Leiper said. “The OMB is not a centre of architectural excellence.”

There needs to be a standard definition of “landmark” everyone agrees upon, he added, but coming up with it will be easier said than done.

“The big challenge for us is to try somehow to create a definition of landmark that has enough certainty to it that developers and communities and we as a city can sit down and look at an application and say, ‘Yes, that is landmark’ or ‘No, it’s not,’” Mr. Leiper said. “I don’t want to underestimate the challenge of doing that. It’s going to be difficult.”

He suggested putting designs to a panel of well-respected architects and planners.

“I don’t know if that’s feasible, though,” he said.

The West Wellington project is the first Ottawa-based construction proposal for Mr. Mizrahi, a prominent Toronto developer. He did not respond to OBJ’s requests for comment.

The OMB has given the city and the developer six months to work things out. Mr. Leiper said he remains confident the two sides can reach a compromise, although he’s not sure what the city’s next move will be.

“It is important that we get this right,” he said.

http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Residentia...o-height-violations%2C-councillor-says/1

[Jim613]

Originally Posted by cr872190

Hell if I was Mizrahi I would be running for the hills. The City's approval process is a joke, all these very loosely worded regulations. Even the OMB can't make heads or tails of the term 'landmark'.

I'm not as knowledgable about this stuff as you guys, but this isn't sitting well with me either.

The city shouldn't be in the opinion business, because staff and politicians come and go. One person's "landmark" is another person's "OMG WHAT IS THAT ?!?"

The city should have few basic but concrete rules. Height, materials, setback, etc... So someone's opinion of what a "landmark" is shouldn't come into play.

I know that opens the door to some ugly designs, but if these ugly designs meet the specific criteria, then so be it.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Jim613

I'm not as knowledgable about this stuff as you guys, but this isn't sitting well with me either.

The city shouldn't be in the opinion business, because staff and politicians come and go. One person's "landmark" is another person's "OMG WHAT IS THAT ?!?"

The city should have few basic but concrete rules. Height, materials, setback, etc... So someone's opinion of what a "landmark" is shouldn't come into play.

I know that opens the door to some ugly designs, but if these ugly designs meet the specific criteria, then so be it.

No room for architecture, eh? Nice buildings aren't good because they may be different and taller than what's set out in the CDP, and so should be rejected. (I'm not saying you hate nice-looking buildings, but I don't believe City-controlled buildings are good).

I'm reading this interesting book about 8 examples of infill in Berlin, except their process is different than typical: they list a few criteria based on function of the site, and then let 4 architects come up with their own ideas for how best to develop the site. They then have a panel examine each of the four ideas and choose the best one. You end up with creative solutions to problems in ways the City could not have imagined. It's a fun read to see these ideas and what jurors were thinking. Of course, one issue is it seemed like the government was the developer, and not a company out to make money.

I think it would be better if Ottawa were to care more about looks than arbitrary heights (the reason why 6 stories with setbacks is recommended is because some hypothesize that this is the best infill for the cities where great, European-like streets are created that don't result in developers make too much profit). In fact, I think the OMB made a similar comment about height. The issue is: the height of the building will not make or break a neighbourhood, but rather it's design will. As a student of architecture, I believe that interesting buildings make cities more fun and vibrant than limitations politicians, community associations and urban planners (not designers, by the way) impose on sites to control growth.

I'd rather see buildings like this one or even this one instead of more whatever designs like Q-West. But what's usually asked (height, material, setbacks) doesn't produce the two above buildings, just more of the same blah (or garbage architecture) that we typically get. I don't know about you, but I would much rather walk along a street with interesting buildings than buildings created by restrictive zoning.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by defishel

As a student of architecture, I believe that interesting buildings make cities more fun and vibrant than limitations politicians, community associations and urban planners (not designers, by the way) impose on sites to control growth.
.

I totally agree with you and it would be interesting to see how that line of thinking would be received with an organization like ASH.

[Jim613]

Originally Posted by defishel

As a student of architecture, I believe that interesting buildings make cities more fun and vibrant than limitations politicians, community associations and urban planners (not designers, by the way) impose on sites to control growth.

But who decides what 'interesting' is? That's where I'm getting hung up on.

I agree that 'interesting' buildings come in all shapes and sizes, but I also think that having a few (as little as possible) rules but making them 100% firm is a good way to go.

Aprroving buildings on a case by case basis based on vague interpretations must be confusing to the developers. If developer A get's approved for a 10 storey building, but developer B gets denied a 10 storey building, what will happen to developer C and his 10 storey building?

A consistent approach should be developed to give developers/residents/staff some sort of guidance.

But like I said, I know this strategy might result in some ugly buildings, but I'd rather have a few ugly ones instead of nothing at all

(Just quoting this peice but I agree with your whole post)

[McC]

Originally Posted by Jim613

If developer A get's approved for a 10 storey building, but developer B gets denied a 10 storey building, what will happen to developer C and his 10 storey building?

If developer A got approved and developer B didn't, it's because the rules were different; e.g., they were in different parts of town, with different CDPs, with different provisions. Because if one were approved and the other were denied under the same set of rules, the OMB would override the second denial in a heart-beat.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Jim613

But who decides what 'interesting' is? That's where I'm getting hung up on.

I agree that 'interesting' buildings come in all shapes and sizes, but I also think that having a few (as little as possible) rules but making them 100% firm is a good way to go.

Aprroving buildings on a case by case basis based on vague interpretations must be confusing to the developers. If developer A get's approved for a 10 storey building, but developer B gets denied a 10 storey building, what will happen to developer C and his 10 storey building?

A consistent approach should be developed to give developers/residents/staff some sort of guidance.

But like I said, I know this strategy might result in some ugly buildings, but I'd rather have a few ugly ones instead of nothing at all

(Just quoting this peice but I agree with your whole post)

I feel that most people already have an idea what "interesting" is. It may depend on your level of interesting in architecture or how open you are to different things though. If we were to show a group of people the second building I shared, would most people like it or say it's ugly and shouldn't be built? There might be a minority who dislike it, but I'm sure many more would like this building. However, perhaps one of the more important factors would be one's interest or involvement in architecture. I find those with little knowledge of architecture tend to dislike modern buildings and love older ones (their appreciation is merely superficial). For this reason, I think it would be worth having a panel of architects and designers examining proposals to determine whether it is attractive or not. I think they would be more experienced and capable, and maybe be able to set aside subjectivity.

The building should adhere to some minimums regarding functions (mixed-use), parking, subsidized units, density, with a minimum height (along the lines of what's set out in the CBD). If the building meets those minima than as long as it isn't as ugly as this one it could be approved. However, if any deviation is requested (let's say taller or shorter) the building would need to improve on other elements, with design being the most important. Consider it along the lines of the "Landmark Buildings" granting increased height if design and public square are provided.

My concern is that a developer would aim for a 30-storey building or taller, in which case some sort of standard should be set out to avoid excess. Maybe the height maximum could be no more than 50-100% of the height minimum? The main issue is that we have some developers who will try to get the maximum they could get for reasons of profit, so would an avenue of high-rises along Wellington or Bank be accepted if they are great building? Should we consider developing stricter standards if we are to allow more than a 100% height increase? How could one incentivize architecture with a reasonable height increase? That needs to be considered.

Another thing I was pondering is, would the panel of architects be summoned only for height deviation or also for the minimum to raise standards? The reason planning staff/ councillors can't reject based on appearance is due to subjectivity of what is considered good. But if a panel of architects is included in the process (with the architect and developer explaining the design) could we reject based on appearance? This way we can have acceptable designs as a minimum.

For me, I'd rather have a parking lot over an ugly building. At least then we can hope within a few years another developer might come along and propose something good, rather than get stuck with an ugly building for 70 years.

Summary:
Minimum planning standards set by planners that they judge building on; architecture (building form) discussed by expert panel of architects. Infill houses and areas for high-rises have different standards for architectural excellence.

For areas currently zoned for 6-9 stories:

1. 6-9 stories: base architectural, density, mixed-use standards for decent buildings
2. Height deviation of 50-100%: design, density standards increase for "landmark, special" design. Stricter than Point 1.
3. Height deviation beyond Point 2: rigorous standards applied such that it is possible but less likely for buildings taller than above standards to be approved, but if so they are of extreme quality. Should include retail, office space, residential. Strictest standard, encourages developers to focus on Points 1-2 as more realistic options, discourages exclusively high-rises.

If the city wishes to upzone a lowrise neighbourhood or increase certain plots from 9 floors to higher (thinking of Centretown) than that can be allowed prior to applications, provided that the new height increase/ zoning meets the aforementioned standards (standards for properties zoned higher than 9 have different standards than is mentioned here). Parking reduction should be primary concern of city, improvement of alternate modes of mobility (walking, cycling, public transport) responsibility of city to improve.

[Skipper]

I sure hope that Mizrahi Developments is successful in working with the city to get this project approved to the dismay of Mr. Leiper. If this developer is not successful at gaining approval, this site will be an eyesore forever.

-----------------

Developer confident west-end condo will meet 'landmark' standard
May 14, 2015Share 6


The developer behind a proposed west-end condo tower says he intends to work with city officials to create an “iconic” top for the building so it meets the Ontario Municipal Board’s standard for “landmark” architecture.

Sam Mizrahi, whose original proposal was rejected by city council last year, says he’s confident both sides can reach a consensus on a design that has the appropriate “wow factor” to stand out at the corner of Wellington Street and Island Park Drive.

“It’s very clear that this is a very prominent and very important corner and that you need an iconic building there,” the Toronto-based developer told OBJ on Thursday. “We work with all stakeholders in order to come up with something that’s great, and we will continue to do that.”

Council originally rejected Mr. Mizrahi’s plan for a 12-storey condominium last year because it violated city rules that limit buildings in that neighbourhood to nine storeys.

The builder appealed the decision to the OMB, which has final say over municipal planning decisions. He argued a nine-storey building isn’t economically viable because the site is contaminated and would cost $2 million to clean up.

In a written ruling last week, the OMB gave Mr. Mizrahi two choices: trim three storeys off the tower or design the top in such a way that it qualifies as “landmark architecture.”

On Thursday, the developer said he fully intends to go ahead with 12 storeys.

Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper, whose ward includes the proposed condo, said earlier this week he thinks most of the community would still oppose a building of that height no matter what it looks like. He also questioned the OMB’s ability to judge “landmark architecture.”

But Mr. Mizrahi said he doesn’t see that as an issue.

“I think in architecture there are definitions, and there is structure to what is iconic and what is landmark,” he said. “I agree that it is subjective to some point, but ... I think it can be addressed and measured.”

He pointed to the Supreme Court building, the Parliament Buildings and the Shaw Centre as examples of local architecture that would fit most experts’ definition of “landmark.”

“There’s a list of them that Ottawa has,” he said. “It’s defined by creating emotion that is timeless. It’s not trendy architecture – what’s in today and out tomorrow – it’s timeless architecture.”

Mr. Mizrahi said his company has already contacted city staff in the hope of coming up with “collaborative approach” to solving the dispute.

The OMB has given the two sides six months to work things out. Mr. Mizrahi said he expects to have a design approved in the next three months, with the aim of breaking ground on the project by next March.

[rocketphish]

Source: http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Residentia...-end-condo-will-meet-landmark-standard/1

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Anyone have an example of a building top that could meet the criteria?

Not at 12 storeys. And not in Ottawa at any height.

[McC]

http://kitchissippiward.ca/content/it-landmark-meeting-september-24-look-mizrahi-plans
IMO: Would have looked fine on Elgin St, at the Daly Building Site or at Lebreton Flats 15-20 years ago; at WestWelli and Island park 5 years from now? Not so much.

Is it "landmark"? Meeting Sept. 24 to look at new Mizrahi plans

1445, 1451 Wellington Street West – Information Session

Date: Thursday, September 24th

Time: 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Place: Kitchissippi United Church, 630 Island Park Drive

As many residents know, Mizrahi Developments has proposed a 12-storey development at the corner of Island Park and Wellington West. City Council disallowed the project, and the developer sought permission from the Ontario Municipal Board to proceed.

Last May, the Board ruled that the development would be capped at nine storeys according to the area’s secondary plan. However, it also ruled that if Mizrahi could demonstrate “landmark” architecture for the top of the building that it might be allowed to proceed with a proposal above nine storeys in height. The developer has decided not to reduce its project to 9 storeys and will seek approval for a 12 storey building from the Board. The applicant and the City are to report back to the Board by November 7th.

Mizrahi has now modified its proposal to reflect what it considers landmark architecture. The developer is providing an opportunity to show the revised design and the City is seeking public input with respect to the revised development proposal. Councillor Leiper is hosting this public meeting to give residents an opportunity to comment on the revised proposal, which will be demonstrated at the meeting (and is shown in inset - click to enlarge). City planning staff will also be on hand to answer questions about the process to date and potential next steps.

Please refer to the Development Application search tool on Ottawa.ca for the latest plans:

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__9X27IW

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__9X28MS

For further information, please call Councillor Jeff Leiper at 613.580.2485 or write to [email protected].

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by McC

http://kitchissippiward.ca/content/it-landmark-meeting-september-24-look-mizrahi-plans
IMO: Would have looked fine on Elgin St, at the Daly Building Site or at Lebreton Flats 15-20 years ago; at WestWelli and Island park 5 years from now? Not so much.

I am thinking 25-30 years ago - has a late 80s early 90s post modern flavour