267 O'Connor St | 90+100m | 28+30f | Proposed

[OTSkyline]

I like them.. Definitely considered different and "unique/cutting edge" in Ottawa at least. But yes, I also want to see more angles and renders. The article mentioned the podium is in limestone and has a curvy design (which is obviously not visible in that one render, so would like to see that.

Think of the nice views of the city and downtown from that skywalk
And boy would these puppies ever stand out in that area, especially driving east/west on the 417..

Also, I don't understand why they wouldn't build the two towers at once (like Claridge is doing with TriBeCa). Why would the second tower only be built "within the decade"?

[Kitchissippi]

Once the second tower is built – within the next decade, Ria said, a “skylink” pedestrian walkway will be added to connect the two towers.

"Within the next decade" smells like never. After the first building opens, in the wake of rising condo fees, the owners are going to say, "who's going to pay for the maintenance of that frivolous circular skywalk?"

[citydwlr]

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes does not approve:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...y-condo-towers

“This particular application doesn’t meet any of the criteria,” Holmes said Wednesday. “That site should be one building, not two,” she said, adding that the proposed open space is too small and would not be fully owned by the public.

They interviewed George Dark as well:

Noted urban designer George Dark, who helped to craft the policy as part of his work on the Centretown Community Design Plan, hasn’t had a close look at the developer’s proposal, but he agreed the exemption should be reserved for the “most special” projects.

“It’s the highest bar you’re supposed to jump over in Centretown,” he said. “It’s not supposed to just be a route to building taller buildings.”

Dark pointed to Toronto’s TIFF Bell Lightbox complex on King Street as an example of a landmark building.

And, I just kinda liked this comment by Hume:

Planning committee chair Peter Hume hasn’t looked at the proposal closely, but he said he’d be looking for “some expert opinion to tell me it’s a landmark.”

City planning staff have already advised the developer that the proposal will be subject to a specialized urban design review panel process.

[J.OT13]

Bland proposal. Just a couple more basic glass towers with a play on balconies. And what's the point of the Skywalks? They look like shit and they don't serve any sort of purpose.

Since they've changed the design of SoHo Italia... again... (see last post of http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...140090&page=22)

and since they're not actially respecting any of the "Landmark" guielines anyway, why not bring the 3d SoHo Italia proposal to Centretown with a little extra height (Two slimmer towers: 32 and 26 floors), while respecting all other guidelines.

[citydwlr]

Originally Posted by j.ot13

bland proposal. Just a couple more basic glass tower with a play on balconies. And what's the point of the skywalks? They look like shit and they don't serve any sort of purpose.

+1

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Bland proposal. Just a couple more basic glass towers with a play on balconies. And what's the point of the Skywalks? They look like shit and they don't serve any sort of purpose.

Since they've changed the design of SoHo Italia... again... (see last post of http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...140090&page=22)

and since they're not actially respecting any of the "Landmark" guielines anyway, why not bring the 3d SoHo Italia proposal to Centretown with a little extra height (Two slimmer towers: 32 and 26 floors), while respecting all other guidelines.

Actually, that would be great, if they could make it work. Two of the wavy-balcony Soho Italia would be a landmark, but the concave skywalks fit more with the wavy balconies than the square building.

Why do they like to interview George Dark at every opportunity? I find it funny that Hume is going to look for some expert opinion, yet he's chair of the planning comity?

It's true these towers are nothing special, but they're not terrible. Oddly, my anti-developer, anti-tall, anti-glass condos mother said she really liked these two buildings; that's not common!.

[m0nkyman]

I've posted my feelings about this proposal on my blog. Executive summary. They gutted the Tall Landmark Policy, so we get a mediocre proposal - http://www.thomasmcveigh.com/my_comm...onnor_proposal

[McC]

well said, sir!


PS, I spotted a little typo in the middle of sentence 2, paragraph 8; (a superfluous "a")

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by McC

PS, I spotted a little typo in the middle of sentence 2, paragraph 8; (a superfluous "a")

Fixed. Thanks!

[Harley613]

Very well written, and exactly parallel to my own thoughts. Nice!

[waterloowarrior]

recommended for refusal
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgvi...&itemid=319887

[Fatty McButterpants]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

recommended for refusal
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgvi...&itemid=319887

It's my understanding that this was denied because it didn't meet the criteria of a "landmark" building. I'm actually cool with that, if it means they're holding out for something other than yet another 27 storey glorified box. My only question is do these landmark building police even know where Rideau street is?

[1overcosc]

The "landmark building" rule was created specifically for the Centretown CDP (CDP = urban plan for a specific area), so it only applies within Centretown.

[Fatty McButterpants]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The "landmark building" rule was created specifically for the Centretown CDP (CDP = urban plan for a specific area), so it only applies within Centretown.

I other words you can build shit over there but not over here. Great rule.

[OTSkyline]

Great one of the only proposals I actually really liked and was rooting for...

As long as what they revise the plan to comes back BETTER than this, it's fine. But we have a tendency to reject things, and then they come back with a revised plan that is even worst and more boring than the original...

[Radster]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Great one of the only proposals I actually really liked and was rooting for...

As long as what they revise the plan to comes back BETTER than this, it's fine. But we have a tendency to reject things, and then they come back with a revised plan that is even worst and more boring than the original...

Glad they refused this, it looked tacky, definitely not landmark.

For a landmark building you need a renowned architect. Here is one of my recent favourites, from Warsaw, designed by Daniel Libeskind, Zlota 44, now that is a landmark condo building:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=zlota...w=1680&bih=925
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C5%82ota_44

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Fatty McButterpants

I other words you can build shit over there but not over here.

Essentially. I'm hoping the clause will find its way into other CDPs, ideally into the OP itself.

[Urbanarchit]

My personal belief is that they should have opened these sites up to a design competition, much like what they're doing for Arts Court. While architects may hate it, I think it can lead to some interesting designs for some of the best buildings around, instead of the typical stuff by the usual developers.

[rocketphish]

Planning department slams two-tower proposal for Centretown

By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Friday, August 15, 2014 08:56 AM EDT | Updated: Friday, August 15, 2014 09:14 AM EDT



A proposal for 27-storey dual condo towers with a bridge connection isn't good enough to be considered a "landmark" for downtown Ottawa, city planners say.

That's why city staff are recommending council refuse the development application from Mastercraft Starwood to build at 267 O'Connor St. at Gilmour St.

A scathing 36-page review compiled by city planners published this week says the blueprint doesn't meet the requirements for creating a special building in an important part of the city.

The developer is proposing to build a skywalk at the 27th floor connecting the two buildings, which would fit tightly on the site.

"In effect, the proposed development with two residential towers of 27 storeys extending to the street edges and adjacent property to the east will draw attention to itself not as a striking piece of architecture that in itself might be considered a piece or art, but rather as an anomaly within the central character area," planner Douglas James writes in the review.

There is currently a six-storey medical office building and parking lot on the property.

The proposed transformation would create 504 residential units, four townhouses and 407 sq. m. of commercial space.

Mastercraft Starwood put together the design with the city's "tall landmark buildings" policy of the Centretown secondary plan in mind. The policy recognizes the importance of eye-catching developments in the core of the nation's capital and allows architects to think outside the box, building up to 27 storeys.

The Museum of Nature, planners say, is a landmark building in Centretown.

Just because a building is tall doesn't make it a landmark, they explain in the review. The proposal "falls significantly short of a project that can be considered a landmark development," they say.

On the other hand, the Mastercraft Starwood's planning rationale filed with the development application says the buildings would be a "good fit within the proposed future context of the Centretown neighbourhood."

Council's planning committee will debate the proposal Thursday

jon.willing@sunmedia.ca
Twitter: @JonathanWilling

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/08/15/...for-centretown

[ars]

I like the look of the buildings in the initial proposal, but I agree with the recommendation. It's not up to snuff for a landmark building, it's too safe and boring.