Château Laurier expansion | Approved

[rocketphish]

Council OKs controversial Chateau Laurier addition

By: OBJ staff
Published: Feb 24, 2021 5:38pm EST

At long last, the much-debated addition to the Chateau Laurier hotel has been given the green light at City Hall.

Council voted 14-10 Wednesday to approve the design and issue a heritage permit for the proposed addition at the back of the iconic downtown lodging.

The councillors who opposed the proposal were Riley Brockington, Rick Chiarelli, Diane Deans, Mathieu Fleury, Theresa Kavanagh, Rawlson King, Jeff Leiper, Catherine McKenney, Carol Anne Meehan and Shawn Menard.

“I voted NO because heritage matters and we can do better,” McKenney tweeted.

Mayor Jim Watson supported the updated concept, saying recently the plan meets “council’s key conditions for improvement.”

The proposal calls for an 11-storey and a 10-storey tower clad in Indiana limestone, which will extend the wings of the hotel toward Major’s Hill Park. A two-storey base will join the two towers, which will have a total of 159 suites.

Larco first publicly shared its controversial expansion plans – which include extended-stay suites – in 2016. Planners representing the real estate firm have said the extension is necessary for the hotel to stay competitive in Ottawa’s hospitality market.

But controversy has dogged the project almost from the start, forcing the company’s architects to go back to the drawing board to appease critics who said previous designs weren’t compatible with the historic hotel and would obstruct views of the main building from Major’s Hill Park.

Larco’s previous plan for a seven-storey, 147-unit addition was approved by the city’s planning committee in 2019, only to have the city’s committee of adjustment deny it approval for a minor variance – one of the final steps needed before obtaining a building permit.

The plan doesn’t quite have the all-clear yet. The National Capital Commission still needs to approve the plan because it affects nearby federal property.

https://www.obj.ca/article/real-esta...urier-addition

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

OK, you are saying that the glass is half-full (although I'd argue that it is quarter-full, at best). I would still complain to the bartender if my Draft came that way.

Particularly if it was full of pee instead of beer. And I feel like Larco is taking the piss with this proposal. I've seen great modernist additions to heritage sites. This is just value engineering.

[J.OT13]

Nope. For me, it's just glass half full of beer, water, Coke or whatever is enjoyable.

I understand those who are frustrated and Members of Council who voted against, but what would rejecting the proposal have achieved? It's within zoning (or damn close to it), so a vote against would have resulted in an expensive losing battle at LPAT. The City does not have the power to fire the architect or present it's own design. The private owner can do what it pleases within the zoning.

[J.OT13]

On a side note, the expansion presents the first opportunity for a partnership to replace the parking at the Clarence garage., as per the Market public realm plan.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

On a side note, the expansion presents the first opportunity for a partnership to replace the parking at the Clarence garage., as per the Market public realm plan.

Not sure what you mean here. There is no way in hell that the Chateau will be putting affordable public parking under the new building. Luxury hotels make a huge chunk of their profit off their ridiculously overpriced on site parking lots. Also, the current city garage in the market is small enough that the same capacity could easily be built underground on it's own lot during the rebuild.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Not sure what you mean here. There is no way in hell that the Chateau will be putting affordable public parking under the new building. Luxury hotels make a huge chunk of their profit off their ridiculously overpriced on site parking lots. Also, the current city garage in the market is small enough that the same capacity could easily be built underground on it's own lot during the rebuild.

Based on the public realm report, the City is looking for a private partner to build that replacememt parking off site. Presumably, this could be so that the new parking is built before the parking garage is torn down and/or to redirect cars just outside the immediate Market area.

You may very well be right that the Chateau Laurier may not be interested in participating for the reasons you listed.

[J.OT13]

Design review panel comments December 2020.

Château Laurier (1 Rideau Street) | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Larco Investments Ltd.; architectsAlliance; Momentum Planning and Communications

Summary

• The Panel reiterated the importance of ensuring that key views of the iconic Château roofline are maintained and that the new addition be subservient to the existing building. In this respect, the Panel was disappointed to see that the proposed height of the addition has been increased above the previous seven-storey proposal. The Panel is concerned that, at this height, the proposal will forever compromise the skyline of Ottawa.
• Several recommendations were made to adjust the massing and architectural expression of the addition to improve the building’s relationship to the Château. The goal should be for the addition to read as subservient to the historic building and to not overwhelm it.

Massing and Views to the Château

• The Panel felt that the proposed height of the addition is problematic and was concerned that the profile will interrupt views and vistas of the silhouette of the Château roofline from key vantage points. This includes views from the Rideau Canal, along Mackenzie Avenue, from Major’s Hill Park, and from longer “postcard” views of the Ottawa skyline.
• Explore means of reducing the size of the mechanical penthouse or eliminating it entirely, as it currently feels overpowering in scale.
• The relationship between the addition and existing building on the Mackenzie edge would be improved by setting back the mass from the street, and/or stepping back the penthouse. Currently, the massing overwhelms in this location and obstructs views of the east wing of the Château.

Architectural Expression

• The Panel questioned the syncopated fenestration pattern and recommended studying further quieting of the façade treatments. Continue to study the vertical lines of the cladding and how they might be reconfigured to simplify the pattern.
• It is recommended that the proposed datum lines of the addition be reconsidered, especially on the west facade. Currently, they overwhelm the heritage building and make the additional feel tall.
• The Panel strongly recommended that the overall roof height be lowered to be no higher than the spring point of the Château’s roofline.
• The Panel felt that the previous interlacing between the roof and elements of the base was more successful than the current more rigid datum line. The feathering of elements from the base and roof was a successful approach to blurring an otherwise stark roofline and interpreting the roofline of the Château.
• It was recommended that the team study the base of the addition and how it relates to the Château on the west façade and the expression of the rest of the addition. It currently reads as quite tall and stark. It may benefit from the introduction of horizontal lines to break up the strong verticality.

Materiality

• The inclusion of more stone and bronze in the scheme is appreciated by the Panel. This will make the addition more respectful of the heritage building.
• The Panel supports the increased amount of solidity in the architectural expression and felt that the new proportion of stone to glazing is a significant improvement on previous proposals.
• Given the importance of the east façade at the street level facing the ByWard Market, the Panel recommended that the team continue the high level of bespoke detailing at the residential, parking and loading entrances.

https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-develo...r-1-and-2-2020

[J.OT13]

NCC had a presentation on the Château Laurier interface with NCC land at yesterday's board meeting.

Presentation and submission available online:

https://ncc-ccn.gc.ca/events/virtual..._medium=social

Full NCC Board Meeting available on YouTube.

• Video Link

[TransitZilla]

^ That document could benefit from some illustrations. I'm having a hard time envisioning the changes they are describing within Majors Hill Park.

I still think there is a big opportunity being missed here to have a cafe/patio opening directly from the Chateau expansion into Majors Hill Park.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

^ That document could benefit from some illustrations. I'm having a hard time envisioning the changes they are describing within Majors Hill Park.

“In politics all abstract terms conceal treachery.”
― C.L.R. James

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

^ That document could benefit from some illustrations. I'm having a hard time envisioning the changes they are describing within Majors Hill Park.

I still think there is a big opportunity being missed here to have a cafe/patio opening directly from the Chateau expansion into Majors Hill Park.

They linked the submission twice on the website unfortunately. The presentation itself, which can be seen on the YouTube video, might provide more illustrations.

I agree it would have been great to have a café or resto facing Major's Hill. The park would then have two active anchors, with Tavern on the Hill as the first.

Here's one image from Twitter:


https://twitter.com/NCC_CCN/status/1407745500288360453

[zzptichka]

[Richard Eade]

That is quite a string of cars parked along the access lane (half way down the bluff). I wonder where all the people are. Is it 'free' parking? (And by 'free', I mean that the City/NCC pays for it instead of the drivers.)

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

That is quite a string of cars parked along the access lane (half way down the bluff). I wonder where all the people are. Is it 'free' parking? (And by 'free', I mean that the City/NCC pays for it instead of the drivers.)

Its pay parking. to me it seems like a total missed opportunity to extend Major's Hill, and integrate it better with the East side of the canal.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

That is quite a string of cars parked along the access lane (half way down the bluff). I wonder where all the people are. Is it 'free' parking? (And by 'free', I mean that the City/NCC pays for it instead of the drivers.)

Its a paid parking zone, and its ridiculous you have to drive past the tavern and down the crazy steep hill, which is basically a one-lane bike path.

Everyone's at the Tavern. It's a very very popular spot.

As for 'activating' the park, the NCC doesn't know how do to business/programming/activation of a park. Parks are supposed to be just trees and make-your-own-fun except for giant festivals that require 100 full time NCC staff to hire outside contractors to set up for.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

As for 'activating' the park, the NCC doesn't know how do to business/programming/activation of a park. Parks are supposed to be just trees and make-your-own-fun except for giant festivals that require 100 full time NCC staff to hire outside contractors to set up for.

For sure. Whenever they try to "activate" the park they fence it off for 2 weeks all to prepare for a 1-night limited audience event. Makes me groan every time.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

As for 'activating' the park, the NCC doesn't know how do to business/programming/activation of a park. Parks are supposed to be just trees and make-your-own-fun except for giant festivals that require 100 full time NCC staff to hire outside contractors to set up for.

Perfect summary of the NCC.

My worst nightmare..going to a house party and someone introduces themselves as saying they work for the NCC and I have to make small talk.

I still don't know what all of those people at NCC HQ do?

[McDonald's Racoon]

Woah, I just found out about this. Is anyone actually okay with this? The view of the Hotel from Major Hill's park is insanely picturesque and this addition just kills it...

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by McDonald's Racoon

Woah, I just found out about this. Is anyone actually okay with this? The view of the Hotel from Major Hill's park is insanely picturesque and this addition just kills it...

I'm one of the few that's unenthusiastically "ok" with it. although it will have a negative impact on views of the Chateau, Major's Hill will be better connected to the hotel at ground level, it will add a nice courtyard, green roofs... I wish it was lower (4-8 floors) and had a mansard copper or glass roof to better match the old hotel.

[movebyleap]

Originally Posted by McDonald's Racoon

Woah, I just found out about this. Is anyone actually okay with this? The view of the Hotel from Major Hill's park is insanely picturesque and this addition just kills it...

I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's hideous and the vast majority of people despise it.