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

[Williamoforange]

I say this because I'm getting tired of having this fight everytime something greater then 4 stories is suggested in a urban ward. These proposals get fought using the same arguments regardless of the actual location, and when push comes to shove the same idea comes up that density can come from midrise, but then these same advocates councillors included ignore what would be required to do exactly that.

Density can come from midrise yes BUT to do requires more of the old to be replaced.

So I'll say this again, by the cities own growth estimates at an infill rate of 60%. It would require ~1-2 blocks/year/ward (excluding rural wards), of SFH to be completely demolished and replaced with 613 flats of 6+ units to meet the infill goal.

So as for this towers, the floor space of the towers are just making up for the infill density lost to SFH.

[UrbOttawa]

Feedback from a 'special design review' has been posted on devapps. The panel members are from some pretty notable firms around the world, which is encouraging that the city seems to be taking this landmark building thing seriously by seeking out expert opinions.

Overall the panel basically reiterates that the design is not landmark material and encourages the architects to go back to the drawing board for something more iconic. They also were opposed to the 2 tower massing.

I found this bit interesting:

While the applicant team's position was that it may be realistic to temper expectations of a development in the Ottawa market, that the Panel cited examples from Ottawa where this has been achieved. This perspective does not support the aspiration of building a landmark building in the Nation’s Capital.

There's a lot of casual talk and suspicion on this forum about architects lowering the bar with Ottawa proposals, but it's pretty discouraging to see that it's indeed a conscious part of the design process.

Here's a slightly more detailed render from the document:

[IMG][/IMG]

[RideauRat]

so does that mean that devs know they're baiting and switching and that's just how it rolls in Ottawa?

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by RideauRat

so does that mean that devs know they're baiting and switching and that's just how it rolls in Ottawa?

Sometimes. Sometimes they ask for changes after the fact to try to cut costs. Architects and developers in Ottawa don't really do "Architecture" or landmark buildings, as private developers aim to reduce costs by cutting corners. Working in the industry even for a short period and better understanding what other firms do made me lose faith in anything good being done in Ottawa.

I wonder what buildings the panel pointed to that they considered to be landmarks, but I don't think Ottawa has any recent buildings from private developers that could be considered such. I generally like Hobin, but some of their recent projects (highrises) are somewhat disappointing. I think they excel at doing midrise background buildings. See the updated rendering (instead of SketchUp screen caps) really emphasizes that this wouldn't be appropriate for this site. They are straight up and down 27 storey buildings with no setbacks or podium.

[passwordisnt123]

I agree that this design doesn't quite rise to the standard. of "landmark" but in reading through the Special Design Review Subcommittee report, I feel like the subcommittee was stacked with small-town, small-minded people.

The subcommittee members questioned what the drivers were behind the
proposed density and whether it was appropriate for this site and context from an
urban design perspective. As proposed, the density appears to be causing
challenges. The proponent and City staff are encouraged to consider what the
right density would be for the site and then study how best to achieve it, in terms
of built form.

Why should the city decide what is the "right density" for the site? Why are they the ideal arbiters of what is appropriate density for centretown, an area that should almost be as dense as we can make it.

• The members commended the design team on their efforts to design a two-tower
proposal on this small site but felt strongly that a two-tower massing is not an
appropriate built form for this site. It is strongly recommended that the proponent
continue to study alternative massing options.

"small site"? The site covers the width of an entire city block and a good chunk of its length. It almost can't get any bigger than this.

• It was questioned whether a high-rise built form was appropriate for this context

I want the names of the "experts" on this subcommittee who felt high-rise buildings shouldn't be located in the urban downtown of a G7 nation's capital. Show me their names. Please.

This subcommittee is a joke. I'd be ashamed to have my name attached to it.

[postingaboutottawa]

Taggart has a new design listed for a late 2024 launch on their list of future projects. Assume new planning docs will be submitted soon also maybe an indicator that they want to press for a 23 launch for the project on kent.



https://taggart.findspace.com/?search=development

[J.OT13]

Oh God no! That looks terrible. Much preferred the two towers with walking paths/parkland in between.

Counting 38 floors. Not sure how they think they'll get that through with such a godawful design.

[Harley613]

That rendering is terrible, but I think I'm looking at 1960 Scott on top of a giant bulky janky pedestal?

Wasn't this supposed to be a 'landmark' and 'iconic' and all that bullshit? Maybe it's supposed to be a landmark iconic 'KING OF THE CHARCWARTS' kind of deal? Like a giant middle finger to quality architecture in the heart of the city where architecture goes to die?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harley613

That rendering is terrible, but I think I'm looking at 1960 Scott on top of a giant bulky janky pedestal?

Wasn't this supposed to be a 'landmark' and 'iconic' and all that bullshit? Maybe it's supposed to be a landmark iconic 'KING OF THE CHARCWARTS' kind of deal? Like a giant middle finger to quality architecture in the heart of the city where architecture goes to die?

They went from "different" to "nice, good quality but not quite iconic" to "what in the hell !" asking for more height each time. They are getting further and further away from "landmark".

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by postingaboutottawa

Taggart has a new design listed for a late 2024 launch on their list of future projects. Assume new planning docs will be submitted soon also maybe an indicator that they want to press for a 23 launch for the project on kent.



https://taggart.findspace.com/?search=development

Still the case:

https://taggart.findspace.com/buildi...x=70000&type=A

Weird since they haven't even applied for this updated design as far as I know. Must be pulling a Trinity (@Bayview).

[SL123]

Application to demolish the current office building at 267 O'Connor St

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...4-0016/details