359 Kent St, 436-444 MacLaren St | ?m | 27f | Approved - Page 2

J.OT13 · #21 Posted **May 18, 2022, 1:02 PM**

I like this one quite a bit. I would consider it a landmark, at least by NCR standards. Would be one of, if not the, nicest modern tower if built right.

passwordisnt123 · #22 Posted **May 18, 2022, 1:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

If Diane Holmes was still in politics she'd raise an army to fight this. This tower will be a great litmus test to see what the NIMBY response to a tall tower in Centretown is like with Catherine McKenney at the helm.

Well said. Totally agree, if Diane Holmes was still in office, this wouldn't have even been proposed in the first place. McKenney is WAY better than Holmes ever was so it will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

The only other thing worth noting is that I think NIMBYism doesn't have the same dynamics in today's Centretown compared to Sandy Hill, the Glebe or even Hintonburg. Somerset Ward is the poorest ward in the city largely because of Centretown and many people are renters with no real financial incentive to oppose intensification projects. The cadre of old, deep-pocketed boomer resident-owners who are allergic to change in Centretown are all in the Centretown Community Association and thankfully that association is a hot mess, totally in disarray and nowhere near as well-organized as their counterparts in wealthier neighbourhoods. I suspect the CCA will be completely impotent in rallying people to oppose this proposal.

OTownandDown · #23 Posted **May 18, 2022, 1:34 PM**

How can this be a landmark if 324 Laurier and Gotham already exist?

The height in a sea of Centretown homes? Does that make it 'landmark'?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against this being built. I just think Landmark is a bit of a stretch, and I wonder why marketing felt it was necessary?

Harley613 · #24 Posted **May 18, 2022, 1:44 PM**

Another un-scientific rough idea of how this could impact the skyline, this time from the East.

DTcrawler · #25 Posted **May 18, 2022, 5:49 PM**

Landmark or not, it's a nice design by any standard, and it will be fairly prominent given its location. Good work by Taggart / Hobin

originalmuffins · #26 Posted **May 18, 2022, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Landmark or not, it's a nice design by any standard, and it will be fairly prominent given its location. Good work by Taggart / Hobin

Especially given the views it'll create when driving by it on the highway. A building as nice as that will make the city look visibly better/feel fuller driving through.

GeoNerd · #27 Posted **May 19, 2022, 3:04 AM**

Not bad, but I see nothing that would merit a "landmark" designation. Vancouver House, Absolute World, Telus Sky...Those are landmark buildings. Albeit easier when the building is taller than 34 storeys. But some angled aluminum panels and a rooftop parapet is not going to cut it. 4/10 effort.

J.OT13 · #28 Posted **May 19, 2022, 1:06 PM**

Telus Sky and Vancouver House are basically the same. Two different cities, butt indistinguishable. They are also in cities that offer more impressive modern architecture.

In the context of Ottawa, I'd say this one is close to landmark. It will stand out amongst the rest. So land-mark. Marks the spot.

OTownandDown · #29 Posted **May 19, 2022, 1:17 PM**

two words:

hErI tAgE

Quote:

Originally Posted by feckless

What is the point/Why bother with retaining the two homes and repurposing them...is there some reason that we can not build density on that street, seems like a wasted opportunity to put more multi-use/multi-floor structure there.
Is this some kind of play to get the tower approved and they'll come back for a proper development on that side once they have got the buy into this or have bought up the other 2 houses beside the existing 2?

Harley613 · #30 Posted **May 19, 2022, 1:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Telus Sky and Vancouver House are basically the same. Two different cities, butt indistinguishable. They are also in cities that offer more impressive modern architecture.

In the context of Ottawa, I'd say this one is close to landmark. It will stand out amongst the rest. So land-mark. Marks the spot.

Really? Telus Sky and Vancouver House are so different to me. Similar design language for sure, but different cladding, one has balconies, the shapes are opposite (Sky slopes back, House leans over), and Sky is much much larger.

GeoNerd · #31 Posted **May 19, 2022, 1:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Telus Sky and Vancouver House are basically the same. Two different cities, butt indistinguishable. They are also in cities that offer more impressive modern architecture.

In the context of Ottawa, I'd say this one is close to landmark. It will stand out amongst the rest. So land-mark. Marks the spot.

Completely disagree. What is landmark about this? It is a box with a hat that has some aluminum panels on the side. The renders showing sharp angles at street level are deceptive. The elevations reveal that. Being “nice architecture for Ottawa” isn’t enough. Do I like the proposal ? Yes. Would I like it built? Also yes. But if the criteria for extra height is being a landmark building, this ain’t it. You could find a building like this anywhere. Nobody is going to stand out front of this tower staring at it and taking pictures. I could picture this tower at an O-Train hub somewhere. When Mastercraft Starwood proposed an arguably more interesting design for 267 O’Connor, Planning Committee voted against the “faux landmark” development. The chair openly said “I can go to almost every city in North America and see that building, I can’t say that it’s a landmark.” But who knows, maybe it will be enough to persuade planning staff, UDRP, or planning committee, but if I were betting, I’d say this is getting sent back to the drawing board.

Side note: Telus Sky and Vancouver House are not the same. Similar? Yes. They have the same architect. But Vancouver House is way nicer. Both would be considered landmark buildings. Maybe Taggart should consider hiring Bjarke Ingels. I’m not sure Hobbin is the right firm to design a landmark project.

Harley613 · #32 Posted **May 19, 2022, 2:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Completely disagree. What is landmark about this? It is a box with a hat that has some aluminum panels on the side. The renders showing sharp angles at street level are deceptive. The elevations reveal that. Being “nice architecture for Ottawa” isn’t enough. Do I like the proposal ? Yes. Would I like it built? Also yes. But if the criteria for extra height is being a landmark building, this ain’t it. You could find a building like this anywhere. Nobody is going to stand out front of this tower staring at it and taking pictures. I could picture this tower at an O-Train hub somewhere. When Mastercraft Starwood proposed an arguably more interesting design for 267 O’Connor, Planning Committee voted against the “faux landmark” development. The chair openly said “I can go to almost every city in North America and see that building, I can’t say that it’s a landmark.” But who knows, maybe it will be enough to persuade planning staff, UDRP, or planning committee, but if I were betting, I’d say this is getting sent back to the drawing board.

Side note: Telus Sky and Vancouver House are not the same. Similar? Yes. They have the same architect. But Vancouver House is way nicer. Both would be considered landmark buildings. Maybe Taggart should consider hiring Bjarke Ingels. I’m not sure Hobbin is the right firm to design a landmark project.

I completely agree with everything you said here. If this building was in North York it wouldn't even be noticed.

That being said I will be happy if it gets built, because Ottawa....

J.OT13 · #33 Posted **May 19, 2022, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

Really? Telus Sky and Vancouver House are so different to me. Similar design language for sure, but different cladding, one has balconies, the shapes are opposite (Sky slopes back, House leans over), and Sky is much much larger.

Took a look at both of them again. I see the differences now.

rakerman · #34 Posted **May 27, 2022, 3:29 PM**

https://www.359kent.com/

rakerman · #35 Posted **May 27, 2022, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Taggart Realty Management and Councillor McKenney’s office will be hosting a virtual public consultation meeting on Wednesday June 22nd [2022] from 6:30pm to 8:30 pm. To receive an invitation to this meeting, please submit your contact information

You have to sign up for the mailing list on the website to get an invite.

https://www.359kent.com/

originalmuffins · #36 Posted **May 27, 2022, 5:48 PM**

Very curious how long this will take to have shovels in the ground and them going full steam ahead with this after it gains approval. Seems like they want to get this approved and started ASAP.

J.OT13 · #37 Posted **May 28, 2022, 1:42 AM**

Seems pre-mature for a website.

originalmuffins · #38 Posted **May 28, 2022, 5:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Seems pre-mature for a website.

That's exactly why I was thinking they may be trying to get this up ASAP.

Harley613 · #39 Posted **May 28, 2022, 12:36 PM**

With the neighborhood up in arms over the height of an 18 story building over on Somerset, I'm sure the response to this one is going to be quite comical.

J.OT13 · #40 Posted **May 30, 2022, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

With the neighborhood up in arms over the height of an 18 story building over on Somerset, I'm sure the response to this one is going to be quite comical.

Personally, this area seems more appropriate for height than the O'Connor proposal (that I do support) since it doesn't have as many heritage buildings or businesses. It's just a mostly dead, super wide one way highway off ramp.