Reimagining Ottawa’s architecture

[Urbanarchit]

*

[Urbanarchit]

*

[Urbanarchit]

*

[J.OT13]

Plenty of good ones on the "tallest Canadian proposals" thread.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=179543

Here are a few I would like to see in Ottawa for two sites, only shorter versions;

One of these for the Metro-LCBO site on Rideau Street containing upscale retail, but with a height of 350-450 feet;

Originally Posted by Ramako

7. 50 Bloor Street West (Toronto): 277m / 909ft


49. Cumberland Terrace Redevelopment (Toronto): 163.2m / 535ft

And another potential for PdV IV. If Brookfield purchased and redeveloped the whole block, they could easily fit 2 office buildings and a hotel (just like the other phases), maybe even a fourth building as well as a useable plaza, maybe even a concert hall or something (podium). I would like the buildings to vary between 350-500 feet.

Originally Posted by Ramako

[12. 225 Sixth Tower One (Calgary): 247m / 810ft and 39. 225 Sixth Tower Two (Calgary): 178m / 584ft

http://www.marketwire.com/press-rele...po-1814383.htm

[Urbanarchit]

*

[Urbanarchit]

*

[Urbanarchit]

*

[Uhuniau]

Some of the posted buildings are all shiny and towery and pretty, but absolute abortions at street level.

[Urbanarchit]

*

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by defishel

not every building should have to work magnificently at street level

Yes, they really should. That doesn't always mean mixed use, but every building should be as pleasant for pedestrian passing by as they are from afar.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by defishel

I think that's the difference between utilitarian and artistic. It would be great to have buildings that are both, but not every building should have to work magnificently at street level, provided that they're beautiful and provide other benefits. Many of these buildings are wonderful pieces of art, and that is something we shouldn't forget.

But working well at street level should be the default position, and if a building is going to be a dysfunctional, pretentious, or street-killing piece of crap at grade, there had better be a good reason.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by defishel

I can't forget Calgary's Telus Sky Tower

I can.
Shiny, glassy, awful. The kind of architecture that helps make CBD's like Calgary's or Ottawa's such dull, insipid, and sterile places.

[Urbanarchit]

*

[Urbanarchit]

*

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by defishel

Unquestionably it should be the default, but we should be open to a variety of different buildings. I think a lot of the buildings presented in this discussion may not be the greatest at street level, but there is a good reason for it, as it's apart of an interesting design.



Why can't this building that looks pleasant from far away not look pleasant close up while not being mixed use? For example, the Lithwick Building in Ottawa has mixed use at street level, but the stores are not right up against the sidewalk. It may not be an "abortion at street level" but it's not perfect either, yet it's a great building.

This thread is about sharing buildings that we personally would like to see in Ottawa. What I would suggest for both of you is to contribute buildings that you would like to see in Ottawa that you think are aesthetically pleasing and also perform the jobs that you look for in a great building. They can be old, new; demolished or extant; fantasy ones you drew up yourself or one's that someone else designed. But the point is we're sharing buildings we like and think might make an interesting addition to the city in some way. In fact, they do not need to be 100% the same buildings in the pictures, but take some sort of architectural inspiration from them. So the buildings that are terrible at street level could potential be changed so that they work well at street level.

I was hoping that this would be a friendly place to discuss buildings other than what's currently going on in Ottawa, but could still be fun to have here.

Please don't interpret my sharing an opinion of buildings needing to be good for the street as contrary to "a friendly place to discuss buildings other than what's currently going on in Ottawa." I simply don't see how it would be. You have some already that look to be excellent at street level, such as the proposed Holt Renfrew Centre, Cumberland Terrace, etc.

I generally don't go for the notion of dropping in architectural gems onto the map like chess pieces, but prefer to see buildings respond to their site and context. I travel extensively and read lots about architecture all over the world, but the notion of 'buildings I would like to see built here,' I would really only see them as examples to be interpreted in a local context.

But just for shits and giggles, a couple interesting projects in New York:


Two luxury rental towers, developed by JDS Development and designed by SHoP Architects. They will hold 800 apartments and be connected by a "show-stopping" skybridge that has an indoor pool and lounge.



How about a building with some private pools, one for each apartment?

[Urbanarchit]

*

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by defishel

Right, and don't concrete or brick buildings do the exact same thing?

Unless they are a total blank wall, no.

It's not the material so much as the lack of human interest. There's just nothing going on at street level with those shiny towery things.

I mean, Ottawa hardly has any glass buildings and yet our city is still dull, insipid, and sterile.

Ottawa has about the same glass-at-street-level quotient as any other Canadian CBD.

The thing that makes a city interesting is a variety of different buildings of different shapes and materials.

But what do you believe makes cities wonderfully exciting, interesting places?

How buildings are used, how people use them, how they function at street level.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by defishel

Why can't this building that looks pleasant from far away not look pleasant close up while not being mixed use? For example, the Lithwick Building in Ottawa has mixed use at street level, but the stores are not right up against the sidewalk.

Why is the word "but" there?

This thread is about sharing buildings that we personally would like to see in Ottawa. What I would suggest for both of you is to contribute buildings that you would like to see in Ottawa that you think are aesthetically pleasing and also perform the jobs that you look for in a great building.

Um, Paris?

I don't know why modern architects bend over backwards to find new and creative ways to make buildings the just don't work at a human level. For thousands of years, we didn't make it hard to find doors. Buildings were tight to the street. The most interesting and useful land uses were at street level. Why did we have to start frigging with that basic formula? And how do we make them stop?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by defishel

Ottawa hardly has any glass buildings

Have you not been toour ~Blue Glass~ district at Kent between Albert and Gloucester? Or seen the C.D. Howe or Darcy McGee buildings on Sparks? Or how about most of what Urban Capital has built in the last decade+ here in Ottawa.

Granted most of these buildings look like crap and most non glass buildings built in the last 20 years are also crap.

Not sure where I was going with this.

[Urbanarchit]

*