Tribeca | 84.5m | 27 fl x 2 | Completed - Page 4

Ottawade · #61 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 4:54 PM**

I'm gonna have to go with the council. Rushing a building through from one of the most uninspired builders in the city on a prime spot isn't worth it. I have no problems with the height and can't really tell enough about the design from the tiny crappy drawings, but rushing it through under the guise of a portrait gallery and then asking for approval even if they fail the portrait bid is blackmail.

YOWflier · #62 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Actually, the expression is more along the lines of " Holmes needs to take that stick out of her ass".

My preferred version of the saying would make it "Holmes needs to take her head out of her ass".

eemy · #63 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ottawade

I'm gonna have to go with the council. Rushing a building through from one of the most uninspired builders in the city on a prime spot isn't worth it. I have no problems with the height and can't really tell enough about the design from the tiny crappy drawings, but rushing it through under the guise of a portrait gallery and then asking for approval even if they fail the portrait bid is blackmail.

I concur. Good riddance to the portrait gallery, it's not worth it.

clynnog · #64 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ottawade

I'm gonna have to go with the council. Rushing a building through from one of the most uninspired builders in the city on a prime spot isn't worth it. I have no problems with the height and can't really tell enough about the design from the tiny crappy drawings, but rushing it through under the guise of a portrait gallery and then asking for approval even if they fail the portrait bid is blackmail.

If the article in the Ottawa Citizen is correct, to give Claridge carte blanche approval on a building designed in a matter of weeks to allow them 2 X density even if they don't get the Portrait Gallery awarded to them is pretty awful. For once, Doucet may be the voice of reason (I may regret that opinion later) in this whole thing.

Was anybody at the PEC meeting that dealt with this. I'm sure Molhatra was steaming along with the Mayor (who doesn't sit on PEC).

MilesDavis · #65 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodionx

The trade-off with the city should be this: the more you want to exceed the height limit, the higher the quality of your building should be. Remember how quickly opposition to the height of Hudson Park evaporated when they showed the revised design? Even Diane Holmes changed her mind.

.

Not true. Holmes only changed her mind because the residents of the Everett hated the design of the Hudson at 12 stories that encompassed the whole block more than the the two towers with a park in the middle.

The city went crawling back to Charlesfort to ask them if they would revert to their original plan.

Holmes is a complete idiot and her objection to any height increase keeps Ottawa from growing into a modern city. It doesn't make any sense to approve 25 storeys in the market and ask for twelve in an area that is a ten minute walk away and already has a Bell building at 27 storeys.

gatt · #66 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:10 PM**

hard to understand this city sometimes.

MilesDavis · #67 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatt

hard to understand this city sometimes.

Agree with you there.

If they have a probem with the design they should ask for changes but to limit height and grant only a conditional approval is dumb.

How can you go to market with a project when you know that you could possibly lose 7-10 storeys if the Gallery doesn't go through?

Cre47 · #68 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:19 PM**

They really need to do some clean-up into all of those zoning differnces, obviously it doesn't sense to have all those regulation differences within only a single lot. Being radical, I would abolish all height limits downtown. I would be quite angry to see it leave Ottawa except, if it is the St-Joseph Blvd proposal in Gatineau. I would more angry if it goes to Calgary.

Maybe Claridge should consider Lebreton Flats as an alternative, being close to the War Musuem and potentially other future museums in brand new rather then rotten structures likely the CMST on St-Laurent Blvd in the east end. Maybe at Lebreton, there will be less councillors and NIMBYs complaining about height and even so, opposition would be squashed by the remaining councillors and the mayor.

gatt · #69 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:21 PM**

a national musem should be in the nation capital.period.

ajldub · #70 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:24 PM**

The whole thing is bogus. How can you take a national cultural institution seriously when there's a guy barbequing on his patio two floors up? The gallery should go back to the original site on Wellington.

MilesDavis · #71 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajldub

The whole thing is bogus. How can you take a national cultural institution seriously when there's a guy barbequing on his patio two floors up? The gallery should go back to the original site on Wellington.

That would make too much sense.

gatt · #72 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajldub

The whole thing is bogus. How can you take a national cultural institution seriously when there's a guy barbequing on his patio two floors up? The gallery should go back to the original site on Wellington.

i give you this one.

Ron Mexico · #73 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cre47

They really need to do some clean-up into all of those zoning differnces, obviously it doesn't sense to have all those regulation differences within only a single lot. Being radical, I would abolish all height limits downtown. I would be quite angry to see it leave Ottawa except, if it is the St-Joseph Blvd proposal in Gatineau. I would more angry if it goes to Calgary.

Maybe Claridge should consider Lebreton Flats as an alternative, being close to the War Musuem and potentially other future museums in brand new rather then rotten structures likely the CMST on St-Laurent Blvd in the east end. Maybe at Lebreton, there will be less councillors and NIMBYs complaining about height and even so, opposition would be squashed by the remaining councillors and the mayor.

From what I heard, there was no complaint of heihgt, at least at the PEC meeting.

If you are not going to put height next to Place Bell, where are you going to put it?

MilesDavis · #74 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:36 PM**

Are you the Ron Mexico? How's your case of herpes?

harls · #75 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cre47

I would be quite angry to see it leave Ottawa except, if it is the St-Joseph Blvd proposal in Gatineau.

I would be surprised if that St-Joseph proposal were serious. Not a peep from Brigil since that one article in Le Droit over a month ago.

Kitchissippi · #76 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 7:55 PM**

I think the perfect location for the Portrait Gallery would be on the lower floors of the Memorial Buildings on Wellington opposite the Archives (which runs the Portrait Gallery). Those buildings have been underused since Veterans Affairs was moved to PEI. It would be nice to have a public use for these buildings, and could even be a good reason to expand Sparks Street Mall westward.

The long hallway inside the memorial arch would make a cool gallery space, maybe even for portraits of war heros:

ajldub · #77 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 8:02 PM**

Man that is a great idea Kitchissippi. It would be cheap for one thing which is always in style when the federal conservatives are spending on culture. I went in that building a few years back for something and the lobby is pretty nice too, marble and brass etc.

rodionx · #78 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MilesDavis

Not true. Holmes only changed her mind because the residents of the Everett hated the design of the Hudson at 12 stories that encompassed the whole block more than the the two towers with a park in the middle.

It's still a case of design trumping height limits. A thoughtful design for a tall building beat out a bad design for a 12-storey building and got accepted by the neighbours and approved by the city. Claridge's design, conversely, is both tall and ugly. If they change one of those things, they might have a chance. I vote for changing the ugly.

Jamaican-Phoenix · #79 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 8:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ac888yow

My preferred version of the saying would make it "Holmes needs to take her head out of her ass".

That also works...

MilesDavis · #80 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodionx

It's still a case of design trumping height limits. A thoughtful design for a tall building beat out a bad design for a 12-storey building and got accepted by the neighbours and approved by the city. Claridge's design, conversely, is both tall and ugly. If they change one of those things, they might have a chance. I vote for changing the ugly.

My point was Holmes didn't get behind it because of design, it's because she backed the lower height and it blew up in her face when the neighbours realized she had screwed them.

She had to back down when they realized their views were going to be even worse. She doesn't give a shit about design or quality.