Quote:
Originally Posted by umbria27
I'm conflicted on this one. The proposed uses are great. It never hurts to have more people living in a pedestrian oriented area and the market badly needs a classy hotel.
On the other hand, I'd agree that the condo tower is too hefty for the location. There should at least be a nod to the low rise nature of the market by creating a proper podium and a skinnier tower.
As for the Union of Canada building, I wish they had done something much more creative with it. The building isn't an ugly design. It's just shabby because it's 45 years old. Think of what some of the towers being built today will look like at 45.
A smart, sensitive reno of the building would have emphasized its strengths, its geometry and symmetry. New glazing would go a long way to reducing the visual clutter that currently takes away from this effect. I would have even appreciated a post modern remaking of the tower, perhaps with some very obviously different cladding for that final unglazed floor. I'm sure there are thousands of architects with an appreciation for mid-century modern who could have thought of something more creative. The current proposal just takes the skeleton of the old building and creates a clone of all the current condos going up in the city.
|
Agree 100%. People have to realize that the union building is a piece of architecture history. I don't think anyone loves the current state that it's in but it could easily be cleaned up on the outside with some new cladding and new windows (even coloured, tinted, etc) and it would look great.
It's sad to see a comment from the heritage committee such as this...
Quote:
Claridge needs permission from the city’s committee on heritage buildings because the tower is in a heritage conservation district, where individual projects get reviewed to make sure they don’t wreck the neighbourhood.
The original building did quite enough damage, so that’s not something anybody really has to worry about, the heritage report says. It’s “completely out of context in terms of scale, design, materials (and) detailing” and it’s a landmark “only because of its size.” It is one of several towers in the area whose “enormous vertical and horizontal dimension, their siting and their materials and detailing, have in many cases destroyed the continuity that existed earlier.”
|
So what they're saying is that the building already ruined the area at the time it was built so let's continue to do so? What kind of attitude is this?
I feel like the city has no development committee and doesn't understand urban planning?
Why do residents in these buildings pay so much in city tax, but the builders/developers pay pennies to re-zone, build and convert parking spaces into sellable parcels of land?
On a side note, I think allowing tall buildings into the market area is a dangerous line to cross. It started with 90 George and this one will be pretty close also (at Dalhousie st.). The market is one of the oldest areas in Ottawa and has some of the richest history. We need to try to preserve it and the area as much as possible. We should be trying to get more art, crafts, fashion, fresh produce and market-type goods into the area. The actual byward market building should be expanded to two floors all around, with it being an indoor farmer's/grocer market for year-round shopping (winter farmer's markets don't work so well).
Oh I almost forgot to quote the best part of the Citizen article above:
Quote:
|
Claridge expects there’s a market for a new luxury hotel, particularly in that part of the city, and is pairing it with the more traditional condominium development because the company is more familiar with that kind of a project and is more confident of the economics of the package than it is of the plan for a hotel alone.
|
That's like me saying "I usually just fix vacuums, but if I can borrow your Rolls-Royce and your vacuum, I'll be more comfortable fixing both". WTF?! This spells out that you have no business building a hotel. Maybe you should be in partnership with someone with experience? I don't understand how this passed city councillors with a unanimous decision to let it proceed. Who's on the payroll?
Prev
Linear Mode
