Downtown Hilton Garden Inn and Homewood Suites / Completed - Page 2

J.OT13 · #21 Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 11:40 PM**

waterloowarrior, could you merge the "National Hotel (Former Delta Complex)" thread with this one?

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=208908

waterloowarrior · #22 Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 11:45 PM**

merged

Urbanarchit · #23 Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 12:51 AM**

*

J.OT13 · #24 Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

merged

Thanks!

J.OT13 · #25 Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 1:27 AM**

As many have expressed, I also liked the old hotel design. I was different. Stood out despite the fact it was vertically challenged (12 and 18 floors). Although it opened as the "Inn of the Provinces", it somehow matched many other Deltas in the country, such as the one in Montreal, now student residences and Québec City.

Seems to be a trend in Ottawa nowadays; tearing down fairly large/tall buildings (Lorne, Union Canada, John Carling...) We will soon have a new tallest demolished.

That said, the new towers will bring a much needed refresh to the western part of the skyline. Significantly more height (as opposed to the current buildings). Better match to Place de Ville.

Speaking of Place de Ville, I hope they either connect to the existing underground concourse or directly to Lyon Station. Not much of a stretch considering Morguard played ball with an entrance at Parliament Station.

J.OT13 · #26 Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 1:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cr872190

The Holmewoods Suites and Garden Inn brand in one hotel? Kinda hoping for an official upscale 'Hilton' in such a prime location. But that's Ottawa for you.

Strange. With 303 rooms, it's already fairly small. Stick with one brand... and that brand should be a full out Hilton.

J.OT13 · #27 Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 2:23 AM**

and page 15:

http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...gn%20Brief.PDF

Anyone notice a few labels out of whack? "National Library of Canada Complex", "St-Patrick's Basilica", "St-Andrew's Church".

Page 74 of the same document, they propose a new office tower sometime in the future.

Harley613 · #28 Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 3:38 AM**

*yawn*

cityguy · #29 Posted **Jul 19, 2015, 6:18 PM**

Not bad,but we have to remember it's early days yet. With new renderings and details it will most likely look very different when finished.

acottawa · #30 Posted **Jul 20, 2015, 1:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

and page 15:

http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...gn%20Brief.PDF

Anyone notice a few labels out of whack? "National Library of Canada Complex", "St-Patrick's Basilica", "St-Andrew's Church".

Page 74 of the same document, they propose a new office tower sometime in the future.

That's like one of those joke maps they give out to frosh to confuse them on the first day of class.

Sort of gives some clues about why we have such crappy projects some, the analysis gets passed along to someone that doesn't even have a basic working knowledge of google maps. Or the wikipedia.

Harley613 · #31 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 3:50 AM**

I'm just glad this development involves a 27 story tower. There is something so nice...so OTTAWA about 27 stories. 27 story towers are safe. It's like 'hey, let's build a new building! let's make it kinda tall, but not too tall...in fact, let's build it exactly as tall as every other building!'. If we keep building 27 story towers we will have the safest skyline in the world, no crazy tall mega-tall skyscrapers sticking out for planes to hit as they fly by.

bikegypsy · #32 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 10:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

I'm just glad this development involves a 27 story tower. There is something so nice...so OTTAWA about 27 stories. 27 story towers are safe. It's like 'hey, let's build a new building! let's make it kinda tall, but not too tall...in fact, let's build it exactly as tall as every other building!'. If we keep building 27 story towers we will have the safest skyline in the world, no crazy tall mega-tall skyscrapers sticking out for planes to hit as they fly by.

It's not an Ottawa thing, it's an NCC thing, and that's government. In fact, the NCC is directly responsible for Ottawa's stunted growth.

acottawa · #33 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 1:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

It's not an Ottawa thing, it's an NCC thing, and that's government. In fact, the NCC is directly responsible for Ottawa's stunted growth.

The NCC protects views which sometimes involves a height restriction in certain places (although it varies from site to site) but does not explain the prevalence of 27 floor buildings. I wonder if it isn't some building code thing (need for more elevators, better concrete, etc) so if the building goes higher and builders don't see the marginal benefit.

MoreTrains · #34 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

It's not an Ottawa thing, it's an NCC thing, and that's government. In fact, the NCC is directly responsible for Ottawa's stunted growth.

Mic Drop.

Also, If it werent for the sightlines to the Hill there would obviously be much larger creations in the core.

emannigol · #35 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 1:25 PM**

It's all captured in the city's official plan:

http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc.../dev012530.pdf

http://ottawa.ca/en/official-plan-0/...key-viewpoints

http://ottawa.ca/en/official-plan-0/...key-viewpoints

bikegypsy · #36 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 1:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by acottawa

The NCC protects views which sometimes involves a height restriction in certain places (although it varies from site to site) but does not explain the prevalence of 27 floor buildings. I wonder if it isn't some building code thing (need for more elevators, better concrete, etc) so if the building goes higher and builders don't see the marginal benefit.

The tallest building in the CDB is Place de Ville Tower C. Built by Robert Campeau, the building was originally approved by the city to be 42 stories. This is when the NCC stepped in and dictated 29 stories. Once built, the NCC viewed it as too tall and declared 27 stories as the new limit (i forget the limit in meters), the reason being that the Peace Tower should dominate the skyline. So yeah, it's part of the city building code but it's a rule which originates from the NCC. We therefore shouldn't be pointing the finger at the city or developers for this.

acottawa · #37 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 4:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

The tallest building in the CDB is Place de Ville Tower C. Built by Robert Campeau, the building was originally approved by the city to be 42 stories. This is when the NCC stepped in and dictated 29 stories. Once built, the NCC viewed it as too tall and declared 27 stories as the new limit (i forget the limit in meters), the reason being that the Peace Tower should dominate the skyline. So yeah, it's part of the city building code but it's a rule which originates from the NCC. We therefore shouldn't be pointing the finger at the city or developers for this.

Developers can build anything city zoning will allow outside of the protected area (downtown proper and the market) and only two buildings of any height have been built (the Minto Metropole and the Claridge Icon under construction). Ottawa is a city of 800k people where land prices aren't particularly high and there are few geographic constraints to growth, it isn't exactly conducive to encouraging tall buildings (not the NCC's fault). It doesn't help that neighborhood associations fight height like rabid ferrets (not the NCC's fault) and that the OMB discourages exceptions by putting way to much emphasis on precedent (not the NCC's fault) and that Ottawa developers have a penchant for designing butt-ugly buildings (also not the NCC's fault)

bikegypsy · #38 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by acottawa

Developers can build anything city zoning will allow outside of the protected area (downtown proper and the market) and only two buildings of any height have been built (the Minto Metropole and the Claridge Icon under construction). Ottawa is a city of 800k people where land prices aren't particularly high and there are few geographic constraints to growth, it isn't exactly conducive to encouraging tall buildings (not the NCC's fault). It doesn't help that neighborhood associations fight height like rabid ferrets (not the NCC's fault) and that the OMB discourages exceptions by putting way to much emphasis on precedent (not the NCC's fault) and that Ottawa developers have a penchant for designing butt-ugly buildings (also not the NCC's fault)

There have been many instances where buildings were proposed and the NCC imposed their law outside the core, like across the river (so, yeah, their fault). Whether or not taller buildings are justified or required is an irrelevant argument to dismiss the NCC's excessive domination over height limits in the core. Neighborhoods?... We're talking about the core, where residents have no reason to contest another tower. Irrelevant again. Butt ugly buildings? Yes, it is their fault... This is what they should be looking at, but they're not. Ottawa is a city of 900,000 at the center of a metropolitan area of 1.3 million where less strict height limits would have permitted architecture with better interaction at street level (taller and thiner buildings allowing more space around the podiums). Instead, we have a downtown core which is packed like a can of sardines. By enforcing ridiculous height limits, the NCC has encouraged the abundance of fat utilitarian structures. But we're really diverging from my original point: the NCC is responsible for the downtown 27 story limit, not the city. The reason the core looks like a table top is that all buildings are at their limit, and would be taller if permitted.

MarkR · #39 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

The tallest building in the CDB is Place de Ville Tower C. Built by Robert Campeau, the building was originally approved by the city to be 42 stories.

Part of City folklore is that on one of Campeau's buildings (maybe this one?) he made it taller that the original plan. He achieved this on a long weekend by paying his workers extra and getting three more floors added. It was of course noticed, but with City Hall not reopening until the following Tuesday not much could be done. And once built they were not (at least in those days) going to order him to remove those extra floors.

Pretty funny / outrageous if true.

J.OT13 · #40 Posted **Jul 21, 2015, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkR

Part of City folklore is that on one of Campeau's buildings (maybe this one?) he made it taller that the original plan. He achieved this on a long weekend by paying his workers extra and getting three more floors added. It was of course noticed, but with City Hall not reopening until the following Tuesday not much could be done. And once built they were not (at least in those days) going to order him to remove those extra floors.

Pretty funny / outrageous if true.

Would have been much easier with its steel structure. Still far fetched.

In terms of height restrictions, we can count ourselves lucky we are not as bad as Washington DC, however we need another Campeau figure to step up and fight the height limits to allow something at least 50-100 feet taller. Just to say we have a new tallest downtown.