Downtown Hilton Garden Inn and Homewood Suites / Completed

[Harley613]

Although I'm irked, as always, about yet another 27 story building in our CBD, I have to say the design is alright. The 23 story residential tower is only 7 metres shorter, so I assume it will have higher ceiling heights than the Hilton.

[J.OT13]

Sad to see the old Delta building go. Arguably the best (modern) building on the escarpment. I do like the design of the new buildings though. Good height, slim, good street presence. Architectural interest included in the towers themselves. I like that the podium has its own design; looks like an independent building. Roof top terrace between the two towers. All in all great project. Fits well on the escarpment with a simple, timeless design.

Only two draw backs;

1. I wish they would have included the office building as well. Raze the whole site, start from scratch. New office building could have been 30 floors; just a few dozens meters taller than PdV C (29 floors, but with shorter ceiling heights than newer office towers).

2. Direct connection to the O-Train. It's literally at your doorstep. No reason not to have that access.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Although I'm irked, as always, about yet another 27 story building in our CBD, I have to say the design is alright. The 23 story residential tower is only 7 metres shorter, so I assume it will have higher ceiling heights than the Hilton.

Could be the mechanical penthouse on top of the condo tower, which the hotel doesn't seem to have.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Sad to see the old Delta building go. Arguably the best (modern) building on the escarpment. I do like the design of the new buildings though. Good height, slim, good street presence. Architectural interest included in the towers themselves. I like that the podium has its own design; looks like an independent building. Roof top terrace between the two towers. All in all great project. Fits well on the escarpment with a simple, timeless design.

Only two draw backs;

1. I wish they would have included the office building as well. Raze the whole site, start from scratch. New office building could have been 30 floors; just a few dozens meters taller than PdV C (29 floors, but with shorter ceiling heights than newer office towers).

2. Direct connection to the O-Train. It's literally at your doorstep. No reason not to have that access.

Parking/ vehicular access and loading bays are the biggest problem for me. Choose one side for those things and leave the other two free of cars. Leave the bike lane on Bay Street free of giant vehicles and make Sparks Street commercial only. This is the 21st Century, not the 1960s where building car plazas was de rigeur. There isn't much consideration for pedestrians and cyclists. Not to mention it's right across from an LRT station.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

Parking/ vehicular access and loading bays are the biggest problem for me. Choose one side for those things and leave the other two free of cars. Leave the bike lane on Bay Street free of giant vehicles and make Sparks Street commercial only. This is the 21st Century, not the 1960s where building car plazas was de rigeur. There isn't much consideration for pedestrians and cyclists. Not to mention it's right across from an LRT station.

True. I do understand the need for a drop off zone, taxi stands, but this is a little over the top.

IMO, the parking entrance and drop off zone should be on Sparks. Why? Queen is to be our showcase street with the subway running under it, not to mention heavy pedestrian traffic coming in and out of station entrances. Bay Street is already a complete mess with traffic headed to Hull/Gatineau in the evening, and the bike lane of course. Sparks north of the development is a desolate place. You have absolutely nothing in terms of retail/entertainment anywhere west of Lyon, there's little vehicular or pedestrian traffic, it's not like anything will ever be done across the Street with the monumental, yet sterile West Memorial Building.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

True. I do understand the need for a drop off zone, taxi stands, but this is a little over the top.

IMO, the parking entrance and drop off zone should be on Sparks. Why? Queen is to be our showcase street with the subway running under it, not to mention heavy pedestrian traffic coming in and out of station entrances. Bay Street is already a complete mess with traffic headed to Hull/Gatineau in the evening, and the bike lane of course. Sparks north of the development is a desolate place. You have absolutely nothing in terms of retail/entertainment anywhere west of Lyon, there's little vehicular or pedestrian traffic, it's not like anything will ever be done across the Street with the monumental, yet sterile West Memorial Building.

True that would probably be better.

[Kitchissippi]

Wow, a site that is adjacent to an expensive new underground LRT station with potential direct access and they waste precious ground floor space on a drop off plaza for cars. Kind of sad. If there was a good case for an interior atrium space, this would have been one of them.

[cr872190]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Wow, a site that is adjacent to an expensive new underground LRT station with potential direct access and they waste precious ground floor space on a drop off plaza for cars. Kind of sad. If there was a good case for an interior atrium space, this would have been one of them.

Its a hotel. Car drop offs are inevitable.

[Mugwumper]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

True. I do understand the need for a drop off zone, taxi stands, but this is a little over the top.

IMO, the parking entrance and drop off zone should be on Sparks. Why? Queen is to be our showcase street with the subway running under it, not to mention heavy pedestrian traffic coming in and out of station entrances. Bay Street is already a complete mess with traffic headed to Hull/Gatineau in the evening, and the bike lane of course. Sparks north of the development is a desolate place. You have absolutely nothing in terms of retail/entertainment anywhere west of Lyon, there's little vehicular or pedestrian traffic, it's not like anything will ever be done across the Street with the monumental, yet sterile West Memorial Building.

Remember, there's a new 20+ story condo planned for 383 Slater, beside Bay Street. Eventually it'll be three new condo buildings. That's the block with the old Alterna credit union property and the parking lot. That development includes retail at ground level. It will all create more traffic in the area.

[daud]

Hilton Garden Inn and Homewood suites?...disappointed in the brands going in there. This is Hilton's portfolio:

http://hiltonworldwide.com/portfolio/

It would have been great to see an actual full service Hilton at this location, but they know the market and I can see demand for extended stay. A bit disappointed they are also going with a garden inn on this 27 storey property instead of Hilton proper but the brands they chose are reflective of the marketplace.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by cr872190

Its a hotel. Car drop offs are inevitable.

Agreed, but it seems half-assed. I would have designed it a bit differently, more of a covered drive through drop off, entrance from Sparks, exit onto Queen, that way cars and busses are not forced to do a tight loop in that drop off area, which as it stands will result in congestion, kind of like that old drop off at Rideau Centre.

As for the LRT comment. As much as direct access is great to have, and some buildings, especially the ones on top of the stations should have it, I disagree that all adjacent buildings should. I actually favour limiting direct access so as not to kill street life. If you connect every building to LRT underground, you have less pedestrians on the streets, which hurts street-retail.

Regarding the design of these towers, not bad, something slightly different, but again, boxy, which will fit right into everything else.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Radster

As for the LRT comment. As much as direct access is great to have, and some buildings, especially the ones on top of the stations should have it, I disagree that all adjacent buildings should. I actually favour limiting direct access so as not to kill street life. If you connect every building to LRT underground, you have less pedestrians on the streets, which hurts street-retail.

Regarding the design of these towers, not bad, something slightly different, but again, boxy, which will fit right into everything else.

For that reason, I certainly wouldn't support a complete PATH or RESO system in downtown Ottawa, though I do believe buildings that are directly adjacent, major hotels, stadiums/arenas and major public institutions should be directly connected. We already have 16-20 buildings connected or projected to be connected, what's another 3-5?

For example, if they build the library 2 blocks away and they don't connect it, it would demonstrate a lack of vision (200 million building, but too cheap for a 10 million dollar pedestrian tunnel).

Similar train of thought with the arena; if the proponents place it right next to one of the O-train Stations, but don't integrate the station, or at least provide a proper enclosed/heated connection, that would be a major fail.

[1overcosc]

Agreed. Ottawa simply doesn't have the large downtown population to support a PATH/RESO type of system without cannibalizing street life. Toronto has such a huge mass of residents, workers, and visitors in the core that it actually needs both the surface sidewalks AND the underground networks simply to keep everybody moving. We're not there.

[rocketphish]

Planning committee OK with moving heritage barn to Munster

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: January 26, 2016 | Last Updated: January 26, 2016 6:43 PM EST


<snip>


The committee also approved plans for four new condo towers on two separate sites.

The first two-tower project, at the corner of Sparks and Bay streets, includes a 17-storey hotel to replace the defunct one currently on the site (it used to be an independent called the National, and before that a Delta). The owner, Morguard Corp., wants to tear it and an adjoining low-rise apartment building down and build a 23-storey condo tower and a new 27-storey hotel.

Elsewhere, Trinity Development Group won approval for a pair of condo towers where the Ottawa Torah Institute High School (among other things) used to be. The two 25-storey buildings at 151-153 Chapel St., which have been reduced in height from what was initially envisioned, required a rezoning to exceed established height limits.

Trinity appears to want the city to open the intersection of Chapel and Beausoleil, but some residents, community groups and Rideau-Vanier Coun. Mathieu Fleury are opposed to such a move.

[email protected]
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...arn-to-munster

[rocketphish]

Is it April 1st already? Nope, just nepotistic legacy protection in action:

Heritage designation sought for hotel complex on verge of demolition

David Reevely, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 8, 2016 | Last Updated: February 8, 2016 6:42 PM EST

Ottawa Council’s planning committee has already signed off on the demolition and replacement of a Centretown hotel and office complex, but the work could be held up by a new attempt to protect the 40-year-old structures with a heritage designation.

The bid comes from Sarah Jennings, a heritage building advocate, a boutique property developer herself, and the wife of the complex’s designer, Ian Johns. The site is now owned by Morguard Corp., which wants to tear down the defunct hotel and an adjoining low-rise building at Sparks and Bay streets and replace them with a 27-storey modern hotel and a 23-storey condo building.

Johns worked for a company run by prominent land developer Bill Teron. It built the 350 Sparks St. complex to anchor the west end of Sparks Street and add buildings that would be a medium-height transition between taller ones downtown and shorter ones just to the west

The existing buildings are brick, contrary to the fashion in the 1960s and ’70s for concrete, Jennings’ application says, and they’ve held up well compared to other buildings of the era.

“The work was advanced for its time in Ottawa,” the paperwork says, and won an architecture award.

It is, Jennings acknowledges, a “Hail-Mary-and-a-half,” because city council is due on Wednesday to ratify its planning committee’s decision to support a rezoning that would allow the work to proceed. The builder would have to get further approvals before demolishing anything, but the rezoning would be a big step in that direction.

Heritage designations can protect buildings from demolition but the usual idea is to identify and label worthy structures beforehand. Regulators take a dim view of attempts to designate buildings only once someone has a plan to tear them down for some new project. Otherwise a heritage application could become a routine part of any determined attempt to oppose new construction.

[email protected]
twitter.com/davidreevely

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-of-demolition

[enrigue8]

These hotels are old but not ugly.They could have planned them on the parking back to the hotels close to Alterna bank instead .

[acottawa]

Wasn't the condo across the street (the one with the flower planter dispute that went to the Supreme Court) of the same era, part of the same project and an example of the same architectural style?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Wasn't the condo across the street (the one with the flower planter dispute that went to the Supreme Court) of the same era, part of the same project and an example of the same architectural style?

Yeah, same builder, same project. But you can see that they put much more thought in the design of the hotel.

I wouldn't mind having the hotel preserved (and office building demolished instead), but I also really like the design of the new towers.

[rocketphish]

Approved

Council approves Sparks and Bay streets development
Planning chair calls development good example of smart growth

By Jen McIntosh
Ottawa East News, Feb 17, 2016

Planning committee chair Jan Harder called the Morguard development at Sparks and Bay streets a great example of smart growth, following council approval of the zoning on Feb. 10.

The plan for 350 Sparks St. and 137 Bay St. includes one 23-storey condo tower and a 27-storey hotel to replace the existing three-storey apartment building and hotel.

The apartment building will have retail at the base and the new hotel will have more than 300 rooms. The apartment building will have 250 units.

The buildings will share a 348-space underground parking garage off Sparks. The existing garage on Queen Street will be demolished and replaced with a pedestrian entry to the existing office tower lobby.

The proposal also includes a 122-square-metre open public space on the northwest corner of Sparks and Bay streets

It’s the site of the former National Hotel and Suites, formerly part of the Delta Hotel chain. The existing 12-storey office tower on the east side of the site will remain but will be upgraded.

“It’s just steps from the new Lyon Street rail station,” Harder said. “This is very important to the west part of downtown.”

She said the developer had been to the city’s urban design review panel four times since the fall of 2014 and ended up with a plan that provides renewal to a whole city block in our downtown core.

“The visitors, residents and people who work in the office buildings will have immediate access to our transit system,” Harder said.

The planning rationale submitted by Fotenn says the “elegantly proportioned window openings of the West Memorial Building and Library Archives Canada inspired the exterior fac¸ade articulation of the proposed towers.”

Jennifer McIntosh is the political reporter for Metroland Media¹s Ottawa papers. She can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/n...s-development/

[Marc_Ottawa]

I've been watching the site for a couple of months, where workers are clearly doing some sort of demolition and/or construction. Today, I spoke to one of the workers about what they are doing and apparently, the plans have changed; the building is not being demolished but is being refurbished and will once again be a hotel...this time, a Holiday Inn!