Claridge Moon/Skye [340 Queen St] | 84.4 m (x2) | 27 fl (x2) | U/C - Page 23

Harley613 · #**441** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

I'm guessing they neglected that side in the eventual possibility (probability?) that the neighbouring building gets redeveloped.

I'm picturing a new Claridge Plaza / Envie situation.

Personally, I am guessing they neglected that side because they are a pathetic cheapskate bait & switch developer that owns City Hall and can get away with whatever the hell they want.

harls · #**442** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phil235

Which is bizarre, as you’d think that is the side where the best views would be.

Best views for sure. Maybe they thought people would not like blasting sunlight in their rooms during the summer? I am sure there is some internal Claridge memo justifying their decision.

I don't know. I just play a doctor on TV.

I would have to go with OTSkyline's suggestion, with a mix of Harley613's well deserved pessimism.

SL123 · #**443** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 7:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

Personally, I am guessing they neglected that side because they are a pathetic cheapskate bait & switch developer that owns City Hall and can get away with whatever the hell they want.

Its also highly plausible that some stupid urbanism rules prevented them from it. Why would a developer not want to have big windows or balconies with a river view unless zoning or other city development rules prevented them.

J.OT13 · #**444** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 8:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

I'm guessing they neglected that side in the eventual possibility (probability?) that the neighbouring building gets redeveloped.

I'm picturing a new Claridge Plaza / Envie situation.

That argument works for the south tower, but not the north tower abutting Lyon.

Looking at the plans, they have emergency stairs on that wall, both towers, but that's just a partial explanation.

J.OT13 · #**445** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 9:01 PM**

I was able to look at the building from my office today for the first time, possibly since March 2020. The towers do have an ever so slight set-back at the second floor. The roof feature is currently just bare concrete, so I assume they will add something to beef it up. Overall, looks better from a few floors up and in person than it does in pictures.

GeoNerd · #**446** Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 7:09 PM**

A different angle. They ain't pretty. Definitely a missed opportunity to do something special on a large lot in a capital city. But, it's Claridge, it could have been worse.

phil235 · #**447** Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

A different angle. They ain't pretty. Definitely a missed opportunity to do something special on a large lot in a capital city. But, it's Claridge, it could have been worse.

That sounds like the motto of our planning department - Look, it could have been worse!

Harley613 · #**448** Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 8:57 PM**

I would have been moderately happy if they had just built them the way they were shown to the public and to council in the renders before when got approved.

Urbanarchit · #**449** Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

The Western exposure of Moon does zero favours for our CBD skyline. It's as bad or worse than any of the old brutalist buildings in the city.

I just noticed the windowshade hearts on PDV C today. How long has that been going on??

20220321_164919 by harley613, on Flickr

It's a building code thing relating moreso to fire safety - not a future adjacent building thing. Normally window (unprotected openings) are limited depending on the limiting distance. The area of permitted unprotected openings is calculated by taking the area of the facade and the limiting distance and then looking up in the OBC the table that tells you the percentage of that facade which can be unprotected. Where you measure to varies, but in the face of this building it is distance to middle of street (for Queen, Lyon, Albert) and then to the property line. The western side would have been measured to property line, which it appears they mostly built right up to for both towers (their property is L-shaped so the northern tower couldn't be moved farther east).

In order to have balconies and windows on the western side they would have had to setback the building enough that the unprotected opening would be large large enough. It is likely that the setback would have been significant enough that they would lose a lot of floor area that it wouldn't have justified having the setback to allow windows on the western side. That said, they could have had the southern tower with western glazing if it were built at Lyon, but then they would want to remove the north tower. With this configuration, they can sacrifice the western facade to have 2 towers with more units (more money for them).

Urbanarchit · #**450** Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

I think what you are trying to say is they could have not look like shit from the most visible angle if they had made them more than 28 stories tall as per Great Clump of Ottawa/Claridge Rules. Got it.

No, height is irrelevant. It's proximity to property line that is the determining factor. If they designed the the southern tower farther way from west property line they would have had enough of a limiting distance for windows on the west. The northern building though couldn't be improved, and building the 2 towers so close together would have created another Rideau Canyon effect for interior-facing units. A taller building still at the property line wouldn't change much except for having a taller, more prominent ugly west wall).

McKellarDweller · #**451** Posted **Mar 26, 2022, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

No, height is irrelevant. It's proximity to property line that is the determining factor. If they designed the the southern tower farther way from east property line they would have had enough of a limiting distance for windows on the west.

...which is what they should have done. These western elevations are garbage.

Believe it or not, downtown Calgary and downtown Vancouver avoid these type of lot-line-to-lot-line high rises with box-store back wall quality design, and yet buildings go up and developers make money.

J.OT13 · #**452** Posted **Mar 26, 2022, 11:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

It's a building code thing relating moreso to fire safety - not a future adjacent building thing. Normally window (unprotected openings) are limited depending on the limiting distance. The area of permitted unprotected openings is calculated by taking the area of the facade and the limiting distance and then looking up in the OBC the table that tells you the percentage of that facade which can be unprotected. Where you measure to varies, but in the face of this building it is distance to middle of street (for Queen, Lyon, Albert) and then to the property line. The western side would have been measured to property line, which it appears they mostly built right up to for both towers (their property is L-shaped so the northern tower couldn't be moved farther east).

In order to have balconies and windows on the western side they would have had to setback the building enough that the unprotected opening would be large large enough. It is likely that the setback would have been significant enough that they would lose a lot of floor area that it wouldn't have justified having the setback to allow windows on the western side. That said, they could have had the southern tower with western glazing if it were built at Lyon, but then they would want to remove the north tower. With this configuration, they can sacrifice the western facade to have 2 towers with more units (more money for them).

Thanks for the explanation. So what's needed is Vancouver style regulation that do not allow lot-line to lot-line towers. It's a City problem more than a developer problem.

Harley613 · #**453** Posted **Apr 17, 2022, 9:44 PM**

Today's Progress:

Harley613 · #**454** Posted **Apr 17, 2022, 10:52 PM**

Moon (84.4m according to SSP) next to Delta Ottawa City Centre (87m according to Emporis, 96m according to Skyscrapercentre). If anyone can help to figure out the actual heights of downtown buildings it would be greatly appreciated so I can sort the 'Tallest Buildings in Ottawa-Gatineau' wiki properly

J.OT13 · #**455** Posted **Apr 18, 2022, 12:45 PM**

Might have said that the mechanical penthouse is included in the Delta's height, but not Moon's, but even that doesn't explain it.

Harley613 · #**456** Posted **May 17, 2022, 11:24 PM**

These are just getting more horrendous the closer they get to completion. They are a blight on the skyline. 'The Dark Side of the Moon'.

Harley613 · #**457** Posted **May 17, 2022, 11:41 PM**

Are those blue crosses on the right tower about to peeled into white crosses like those fugly ones on Trinity + Chapel? If so, did RLA inspire Neuf, or did Neuf inspire RLA? I feel like screaming when I look at either of these projects.