2023

3030 St-Joseph Boulevard | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Mastercraft Starwood, RLA Architecture, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the refinements to the proposal since it last attended the UDRP in 2019.
• The Panel recommends further refining the integration of the development with the public realm, with particular regard to the interactions at the ground level along St-Joseph Boulevard and the 1^st level along Duford Drive.
  • Consider encroachment agreements to further develop the public realm spaces and enable greater animation of the corner as a community amenity space and gateway element.
  • Consider embellishing that corner space for community use and to help anchor the building within a stronger public realm; further improving the relationship of the building to the streets surrounding it.

• The Panel recommends refining and simplifying the podium expression by applying a brick materiality rather than spandrels at the north-east and south-west corners of the podium.
  • The Panel suggests considering more of a feature architectural element along the eastern edge of the building, potentially referencing the flatiron approach of past renditions.
  • The Panel suggests simplifying and selecting a singular cladding material for the backdrop of the proposed eastern plaza space.

• • The Panel suggests wrapping the canopy and stone colonnade around the eastern portion of the podium at the corner to give it more depth as a ground level feature.

• The Panel recommends adjusting some aspects of the material palette.
  • The Panel suggests a warmer tone of brick, such as a red brick, at the podium level to further differentiate the massing of the podium from that of the tower portion.
• The Panel recommends further exploring options for articulating the top element of the tower which screens the mechanical penthouse.
  • Consider screening the mechanical penthouse at the top of the tower with a lighter material or architectural element rather than a dark solid brick wall.
• The Panel recommends further establishing a sustainability strategy for the site, with particular regard to how the site will manage stormwater run-off, retention, and drainage.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel strongly recommends opening up the corner plaza element beyond the property line to provide a robust corner POPS/public realm at the intersection of St-Joseph Boulevard and Duford Drive, as previously contemplated in the 2019 UDRP submission.
  • Consider including street trees and hardscaping beyond the property line along St-Joseph Boulevard and at the corner intersection.
• The Panel has concerns with the currently proposed curved retaining wall closing the plaza space off from the public.
  • Consider opening up the corner plaza element by either extending the retaining wall along Duford Drive straight out to the intersection or by minimizing the location of the retaining wall / seating, which is related to the potential restaurant, creating publicly accessible space beyond.
• The Panel recommends further developing the greenspace on the south side of the building along Duford Drive into a publicly accessed POPS with street trees, seating, and plantings.
  • Consider continuing the street tree planting from St-Joseph Boulevard around the corner and up the hill into the neighbourhood along Duford Drive.
• The Panel recommends pursuing the opportunity for public art in the corner plaza, and establishing the corner as a community gateway.
• The Panel has concerns with the potential for hydro lines to interfere with the long-term viability of the street trees along St-Joseph Boulevard.
  • Consider working with the City to bury the servicing and hydro lines.
• The Panel recommends treating the hardscaping in the public realm with pavers, including the driveway, rather than asphalt.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends further developing the landscape, particularly with regard to water runoff, stormwater retention and drainage.
• The Panel recommends further greening the site, particularly along the south side of the building.
  • Consider stepping the site from the south of the building down to St-Joseph Boulevard, with a more naturalized landscape of trees and bioswales, to further manage stormwater on-site and contribute to the resiliency and sustainability of the neighbourhood.
• The Panel recommends providing less parking in favour of more space for sustainable and active transportation modes.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel recommends refining the eastern elevation of the podium, as it is a particularly important view.
  • The Panel suggests the earlier design, which took more of a flatiron approach to the corner element, was more successful at capitalizing on the unique shape of the property parcel and creating a gateway element into the neighbourhood.
  • Consider the importance of that eastern corner view along the streetscape and as a gateway to the neighbourhood up the hill.
• The Panel has concerns with the window-wall element and how it wraps around the corners, both at the north-east corner and the south-west corner of the podium.
  • Consider using the podium brick material in place of the spandrels at both corner locations.
  • Consider bringing the canopy and stone colonnade from the north façade around the eastern portion of the podium at the corner.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a more contextual material for the podium than the black brick.
  • Consider red brick, or a warmer tone than black brick, at this site.
• The Panel has concerns with the stark blank walls surrounding the garage entrance area.
  • Consider adding some architectural detailing to the lower 1- or 2-storeys of the building.

265 Catherine Street | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Brigil, BDP Quadrangle, GBA Group

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the thorough submission materials, especially the information on the transformation of the project through consultation with stakeholders.
• The Panel supports the proposal’s ambitious program and most of the project design.
  • The Panel appreciates the proposal as a significant piece of city building in this evolving neighbourhood.
  • The Panel supports many aspects of the proposal; the public spaces, inclusion of arts and markets, and active frontages are most appreciated by the Panel.
• The Panel generally supports the treatment of the streetscape and built form along Arlington Avenue.
  • The Panel recommends further studying ways to reduce the effect of the podiums on the townhouses and park space, and allowing for more light in those spaces.
• The Panel highly recommends a stronger tower-podium relationship is needed along Catherine Street.
  • The Panel recommends more articulation of the sections between the towers with some variation in the heights needed.
• The Panel recommends pairing the two taller western towers with similar design and architectural expressions, while retaining a separate design for the smaller eastern tower.
• The Panel strongly supports the use of “Rideau Red” brick, particularly along Arlington Avenue.
• The Panel recommends refining the material palette of the podium façades along Catherine Street to read more as a rich streetscape and less as a pastiche of façades.
• The Panel recommends further collaborating with the City on the shared condition of the park space, particularly with regard to the timing of the programming and executing it successfully.
• The Panel strongly recommends further developing the sustainability strategy of the proposal, particularly with regard to resiliency in adverse weather events and on-site energy generation.
  • The Panel strongly recommends adding a sustainability lens to the proposal for the next stage of the development review process will be important.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel strongly supports the ambitious program for the site. It has the potential to become an exemplary development in Centretown if well executed.
• The Panel stresses the prominence and importance of the views to and from the site.
• The Panel has some concerns with the proposed development as it relates to the surrounding context and offers the following:
  • The Panel recommends further developing and refining the ground plane and the connections to the surrounding streets.
  • Consider the following: What is the ground plane relationship with the surrounding area? What are the desire lines for pedestrians to walk through the site? Where might pedestrians be coming from and going to? How does this site draw in or facilitate pedestrian movement/connectivity?
• The Panel recommends further refining the public realm landscaping and street-tree planting to ensure a viable and robust landscaping plan throughout the block.
  • Consider more of a rhythm that paces you down the street rather than clumps of trees and plantings where viable.
  • Consider a stronger green edge along Catherine Street, and capitalize on more of a rhythm to the green edge characteristic along that streetscape.
• The Panel appreciates the initiative to include public art within the site, noting the site should be considered as a whole (including the public park) in order for the ground plane design to mesh seamlessly as an entire block.
  • Consider the potential of the public art initiative as one of many layers that helps tie the whole block together.
  • Collaborate with Ottawa Parks Planners to achieve a seamless integration of the park with the site’s ground plane design/function.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends further developing the sustainability plan for the site, with a particular focus on the resiliency of the site and the potential for energy generation on site.
  • Consider the huge opportunity for sustainable strategies with a full block site.
  • Consider the potential for blue-green roofs given the large expanse of roof space.
  • Consider heat exchange systems, ground source energy, combined with the use of the roof spaces. Could be game-changing and more sustainable and resilient in the short and long-term.
• The Panel strongly recommends exploring low impact development principles as part of the proposal’s sustainability strategy, particularly with regard to providing a robust tree canopy and softscaped planting beds as a mitigation to heat island effect and stormwater management.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the inclusion of the Parliamentary viewshed studies.
• The Panel appreciates the disposition of the buildings on the site, and the articulation and exterior expression of the buildings.
• The Panel suggests the expression of the centre tower is particularly elegant and strong.
• The Panel recommends applying the same treatment/expression of the centre tower to the 2^nd tower next to it on the Lyon Street corner, while maintaining the 3^rd tower by the park/Kent Street as its own unique expression.
  • The Panel recommends investigating a development in Toronto at Bathurst and St-Clair for by the same architects which parallels particularly well with regard to developing a multiple tower block with generous public amenity space and programmable opportunities.
• The Panel appreciates the articulation of the façades, however, consider giving each of the 3 towers their own podium bases which are uniquely articulated.
  • Consider that each street edge treatment has a slightly different context, and the podium heights should reflect those nuances.
• The Panel recommends lowering the podium portions between the towers by 1-storey to help with the articulation of the podium and realize the intended effect, while still providing large surfaces for outdoor amenities.
• The Panel appreciates the townhouse scale along Arlington Avenue and the relationship they have to the existing streetscape.
• The Panel appreciates the Arlington Avenue view and how the Arlington Avenue edge of the site has been successfully integrated with the streetscape and neighbourhood.
• The Panel appreciates the use of the “Rideau Red” brick in the podium level to help relate the development to the heritage brick buildings of Centretown.
  • The Panel appreciates how the “Rideau Red” brick helps to anchor and define the podium while simultaneously quieting the expression by relating well with the surrounding red brick context.
• The Panel has concerns with the expression of the podium along Catherine Street appearing a bit too much like a pastiche.
  • The Panel appreciates that finding the right balance between unity and differentiation in the podium expression along Catherine Street is challenging.
  • The Panel recommends a bit less differentiation in materiality and tone along Catherine Street to help unify the podium expression, deploying an architectural expression and articulation of the individual segments that creates a unique yet unified rhythm along the streetscape.
  • The Panel suggests some refining of the podium along the Catherine Street façade is needed. Consider a series of architectural details and complementary materials. Often, main street City blocks have similar materials with different architectural details.
• The Panel recommends modifying the massing of the ‘white building’ along Arlington Avenue and adjacent to the park in order to allow for a more sunlight to come through to the park space.
  • Consider a step-back at the upper level(s) or reducing the height of the podium in that area by 1-storey. As currently proposed, this portion of the podium will cast shade on the park, particularly in the mid- and late-afternoon.
  • Consider varying the heights and depths in the podium massing to create architectural interest and break up the podium mass.
• The Panel appreciates the amount of amenity space provided at the podium roof level.
• The Panel recommends expressing the two western towers in a similar manner, as they share a podium, and expressing the lower eastern tower in its own singular expression.
  • Consider pairing similar architectural expressions together rather than splitting them up.
• The Panel has concerns with the streetwall’s height and consistent mass, which is a departure from the current rhythm of buildings and façades in Centretown.
  • The Panel recommends addressing and mitigating the 6-storey ‘wall-like’ appearance of the podium with a podium which has a range of heights. One approach could be to have the towers rest on their own podiums, creating infill podiums between the towers with some variety and rhythm and with one reduced floor.
• The Panel has concerns with the livability of the townhouses along Arlington Avenue and how they tie into the rest of the site design.
  • The Panel recommends exploring options to make a transition to the side streets with the townhouses, particularly along Lyon Street and Arlington Avenue.
  • The Panel recommends some podium areas should be dropped around the townhouses and park space. Consider the potential to provide more sunlight into the interior laneways and public spaces as well.
• The Panel appreciates the use of red brick materiality, particularly along Arlington Avenue, and supports a more extensive use of brick materials throughout the site.

945 Bank Street (Lansdowne 2.0) | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment & Zoning By-law Amendment Application | City of Ottawa, Hobin Architecture Inc., OSEG, ERA Architects Inc., Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the project coming to the UDRP and is hopeful that the project keeps trending in a positive direction.
  • The Panel supports the removal of the 3^rd tower and replacing it with a public realm space and greater access to the public promenade.
  • The Panel appreciates the project opening up to Aberdeen Pavilion and continuing to give Aberdeen Pavilion as much breathing room as possible.
  • The Panel appreciates the view corridors being protected and the scale of the podium being lowered to be more suitable with the heritage building.
• The Panel recommends placing strong emphasis on the materiality of the podium, in particular, and how it relates to the brick buildings across Exhibition Way as well as to the streetscape character along Bank Street.
  • The podium should fit in to the existing context and streetscape character.
• The Panel recommends the RFO should adhere to the Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Buildings, and granting any exceptions ought to be explicitly tied to other asks/desired outcomes.
• The Panel recommends the two towers be as far west as possible, with the shorter tower nearest to Aberdeen Pavilion and the taller tower nearest to Bank Street.
• The Panel highly recommends preserving and implementing a green roof design to the Event Centre, regardless of whether it is accessible or not, as it will be a highly visible 5^th façade of the building, highly visible from various viewpoints.
• The Panel recommends two options for the Event Centre relationship with the park.
  • Either creating a bermed condition with a deliberate connection to a green roof on the Event Centre, OR creating a strong architectural edge interface to the park which animates/activates the park space and provides natural light to stream into the Event Centre.
  • Regardless of which option is pursued, more should be done to bring natural light into the Event Centre.
• The Panel appreciates the idea of a green roof on the building podium in addition to one on the Event Centre rooftop, and recommends pursuing that idea further.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel strongly recommends including the Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Buildings as part of the RFO requirements. These buildings ought to be exemplary of what the City’s Design Guidelines suggest.
• The Panel has concerns with the barrier-free accessibility of the project. Ensure that the grand stairway, residential parking, public promenade, etc. meet accessibility standards.
• The Panel has concerns with the Event Centre roof not being greened, and much preferred the previous iteration of the Event Centre as a buried earthwork.
  • Considering how prominent the surface of the Event Centre rooftop will be, the Panel recommends reconsidering the green roof design, regardless of whether public accessibility is feasible or not.
• The Panel appreciates the mixed-use scheme with residential units in the two towers above a commercial podium.
  • Consider providing access to the commercial spaces on both sides, Exhibition Way and the promenade, to help activate the promenade space.
• The Panel appreciates the increase in separation distance between the towers to 40m+.
  • Consider moving them closer towards Bank Street and giving the Aberdeen Pavilion as much breathing room as possible.
• The Panel appreciates that the 3^rd tower has been removed, freeing up the site in a positive way and adding a plaza in its place which helps allow the site to breathe.
• The Panel appreciates the scale and relationship of the current proposed podium with the Aberdeen Pavilion and how that relationship appears as one looks down Exhibition Way.
  • However, consider locating the loading and servicing further away from Aberdeen Pavilion.
• The Panel recommends two options for treating the relationship between the Event Centre and the park space.
  • Either berm the edge very deliberately with a green roofscape, OR create a strong and deliberate building edge to the park space with a green roofscape which would allow for more natural light in the Event Centre and help with programming.
• The Panel appreciates the amount of porosity that is being aspired to in the currently proposed design. The idea of a public promenade with access to commercial uses and strong public realm, while providing connections for people, is highly encouraged.
• The Panel has concerns with the path around the Event Centre roof and how the circulation will function, and recommends refining the functionality of that element.
• The Panel is encouraged that the current scheme is greatly improved, with the removal of the third tower and opening up around Aberdeen Pavilion with more public space being created.
• The Panel appreciates how the lower podium provides clearer and simpler pathway connections to the north stands, and helps the user understand how this building connects with the site.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a green roof on the podium, as well as the Event Centre, to help the appearance, and increase sustainability.
• The Panel recommends exploring ways to improve pedestrian connectivity through the proposed promenade, both to the west and the east, and particularly focusing on the circulation from the stands to the east park.
• The Panel recommends reconsidering the location of the loading and servicing entrance to be away from the Aberdeen Pavilion and closer to the Bank Street entrance. Locating a servicing entrance next to a prime public plaza is not ideal operationally.
• The Panel supports the two-tower scheme with a public plaza instead of the three-tower option.
• The Panel appreciates the proposed increased separation distances between the towers.
• The Panel recommends giving as much separation and space as possible to Aberdeen Pavilion, and thus placing the towers closer to the Bank Street end.
• The Panel recommends moving the commercial loading/servicing entry elsewhere to allow that space to provide more of an opening towards the Event Centre and promenade from Exhibition Way.
• The Panel recommends exploring ways to program and animate the park from the Event Centre edge. Whether a berm or an architectural edge, consider how that relationship with the park will be animated and bolstered.

Sustainability

• The Panel strongly advocates for the roof of the Event Centre to be green and for the building to be exemplary in terms of long-term sustainability.
  • The Panel strongly recommends against the roof being just membrane roofing, and believes there has to be a special treatment to the Event Centre roof.
• The Panel recommends being very specific in creating the criteria for the RFO, and recommends including both the Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Buildings and High-Performance Development Standards as tangible metric-based criteria for the RFO.
• The Panel recommends implementing a holistic system to the sustainability of the project that encompasses the whole span of the project. Look to existing models such as One Planet, etc...
• The Panel recommends affordable housing as an important social sustainability contribution of the project and should be included in the overall design of the project to meet the City’s goals.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the revisions that have been made to improve the project from where it was previously in terms of urban design.
• The Panel recommends ensuring quality noble materials and finishes are used in the design of the buildings and public realm.
  • The Panel suggests referring to the original Lansdowne Plan principles, which acknowledged the need for brick materials fronting Bank Street to help tie in the new buildings with the Bank Street character.
  • The Panel recommends mandating brick material on the RFO, and recommends the podium read as a series of pavilions broken-up by the central stair.
• The Panel recommends, as an option, exploring possibilities of the Event Centre having an edge condition along the park on the eastern side and western sides.
  • Consider, rather than berming, allowing natural light into the Event Centre from that eastern side.
  • Explore creative ways of adding to the Event Centre’s building expression with glass along that edge. Rather than a bow shape, it could be on an incline, as it is a higher element at the edge of the field/stadium.
  • The Panel highly recommends the green roof be incorporated, and advises to consider/explore the idea of the Event Centre being an edge to the park, framing the park with architectural interest rather than berming it.
• The Panel had concerns with residential suites facing south and looking into the backside of the north stands/bleachers.
  • The Panel appreciates that the residential suites in the podium looking southward seem to have been removed from the previous iteration and repurposed as amenity space, however, continue to ensure that there aren’t units in the lower few storeys of the towers that look straight into the backside of the stands/bleachers.
• The Panel appreciates the lower podium scale, with a 9m setback at the 12m height along Exhibition Way, and a total of 18m height for the podium, as shown in the latest illustrations (page 33, 3: Alt Demonstration Plan, also pages 26-28).
• The Panel recommends creating a provision in the RFO that the heights of the towers step down meaningfully towards Aberdeen Pavilion, with the taller of the towers closer to Bank Street.
  • The Panel agrees with limiting the height and the overall number of suites in a site-specific by-law.
• The Panel strongly recommends setting a 750m2 threshold for the tower floorplates as per the High-Rise Design Guidelines.
  • The Panel cautions against granting approval for anything greater than the existing Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Buildings suggest. Exception to the tower floorplate sizes ought to only be granted if it is tied to other strong initiatives of urban design and social/environmental sustainability that this project is delivering.
• The Panel recommends the heights remain along the same lines as what is currently suggested/proposed, one 40-storey tower and one 25-storey tower, with the taller tower closest to Bank Street.
• The Panel appreciates how the façade at the ‘entrance moment’ of the field has been addressed, as well as the west side of the podium.
• The Panel recommends exploring opportunities for views from the Event Centre toward the field.

1345 and 1375 Hemlock Road, and 375 Codd’s Road | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Rod Price, Mataj Architects Inc., WSP, Bayview Group, RorTar Land Development Consultants

Key Recommendations

• The Panel recommends further studying the intent of the Wateridge CDP and the connectivity of this development with the ones to the north.
• The Panel recommends re-examining whether there is a need for vehicular access in through these courtyards.
  • The Panel recommends reducing the amount of vehicular circulation into and through the sites/courtyards, and treating these outdoor spaces as legible pedestrian spaces through the use of pavers and landscaping.
• The Panel strongly recommends all parking should be underground and within the building envelopes, with access directly to/from the streets.
• The Panel recommends improving the pedestrian character and quality of the courtyard spaces, and providing 2.5m wide through-block pedestrian connections from the park to the north and east.
• The Panel recommends providing a consistent and continuous commercial edge along Hemlock Road and along the north and east sides of the community park space.
  • Consider the importance of these sites as central walkable commercial areas for the surrounding community context, as per the Wateridge CDP.
• The Panel recommends bolstering the relationship of the buildings to the park, and exploring ways to improve/continue the diagonal connection from 1050 Tawadina Road.
• The Panel recommends potentially moving one of the towers from Building 1 (B1) to Building 3 (B3) in order to help with the overall composition of the blocks and the towers.
• The Panel recommends breaking up the podium of B1 along Hemlock Road by meaningfully setting back the central portion between the towers to give some relief.
• The Panel has strong concerns with EIFS as a material, especially in the lower 5-storeys, and recommends using a masonry material in the podiums.
• The Panel recommends calming down the various materials and simplifying the architectural expressions to better represent individual volumes with a singular material.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel recommends having B2 and B3 framing the park space with commercial uses and having symmetrical composition of the buildings on the block.
  • Consider the parks prominence on the block as an important central feature to the overall development. Commercial retail active frontages on the park, Codd’s Road and Hemlock Road are important, as intended by the CDP.
• The Panel strongly recommends incorporating consistent commercial uses facing the park, for both B2 and B3, which would be much better use of those active frontages and would improve the interface and interaction of the buildings with the park.
• The Panel recommends reviewing the community vision of the Wateridge Village CDP, and adhering more closely to the guidelines’ intent to establish a community that prioritizes pedestrians, connectivity, and sustainability.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a stronger and more holistic sense of place through architectural expression and public realm design. As currently proposed, these buildings/sites feel like they could be anywhere and do not give a sense of place or community.
  • Consider looking back to the original masterplan for Wateridge and developing the proposals to be more in line with the community vision established through that process.
• The Panel recommends looking to the original masterplan for Wateridge in developing the overall site plan for these 3 sites and the park. They ought to interconnect and feel seamless to one another through a strong and cohesive public realm and landscaping plan.
  • The Panel recommends thinking of the sites more through a pedestrian and resident experience lens, where residents can enjoy a walkable and urban lifestyle.
• The Panel recommends taking another look at the Wateridge CDP and the greater context of the surrounding area. These sites are intended to be the central aspect of the community, with strong commercial and pedestrian spaces. The scheme needs to be reconsidered for better integration with community masterplan.
• The Panel recommends placing the accesses to underground parking directly off the public streets, rather than internal to the sites, with the ramps located within the building footprint area.
• The Panel strongly recommends reducing/removing the surface road network on the sites and replacing them with strong through-block pedestrian-oriented areas/connections, as characterized by the community vision in the CDP.
• The Panel has concerns with some of the ground-level units, particularly those on the backside of the buildings, not having enough of a landscape buffer from the proposed surface parking areas.
  • Consider removing the surface parking and providing pedestrian through-block connections, or otherwise bolstering the landscaping buffer between the ground-level units and the vehicular roadway/parking.
• The Panel has concerns with the servicing/loading areas being too close to the lobby areas, outdoor amenity spaces, and some of the ground level units.
  • Consider placing the servicing/loading areas within the building footprint, along with the underground parking ramps.
• The Panel has concerns with the location and functionality of the garbage areas for B1, B2, and B3, and their proximity to the amenity courtyard areas and residential units.
  • Consider pairing the garbage with the parking ramp and orienting them closer to the street rather than imbedded in the interior landscape of the site.
  • Consider all parking ramps and garbage/servicing areas as being internal to the building envelope and with direct access from the street.
• The Panel recommends developing larger and more deliberate courtyard spaces that are integrated with their surroundings and context to provide valuable amenity and respite for residents.
• The Panel recommends a continuous commercial frontage along Hemlock Road for B1 and B2.
• The Panel recommends reinforcing a strong east-west pedestrian connection from Codd’s Road to Michael Stoqua Street along the north edge of the properties.
  • Provide a 2.5m wide pedestrian connection paved in a unique way, and ensure there is a bit of a landscaped buffer between the pedestrian pathway and the properties to the north.
• The Panel recommends reinforcing a strong north-south pedestrian connection from the park space to Tawadina Road along the eastern edge of the B3 property.
• The Panel recommends the servicing areas need to be reconfigured to be more efficient in use and have least impactful civil intervention possible.
  • Consider having the servicing along with the parking access within the building and close to the street. Preserve the pedestrian link aspect over the servicing aspect.
• The Panel recommends reducing the amount of surface area that is dedicated to cars and repurposing the landscaping and public realm to be a pedestrian-first environment, with minimal/no surface parking, and the servicing ramps and parking enveloped and concealed within the building footprints. A much stronger public realm is needed on these sites.
• The Panel recommends reconsidering the sizes of the lobby spaces to be smaller and recommends locating the main lobbies on the street facing sides of the buildings (Hemlock Road and Codd’s Road). Currently, the lobbies are located on the backside of the buildings and the Panel recommends having entrances off the streets.
  • The Panel recommends swapping lobbies with the amenity spaces to create entrances off the streets and amenity spaces that are connected in tandem with outdoor courtyard areas would be more successful.
• The Panel recommends continuous and flexible retail space along Hemlock Road, with the exception of a lobby entrance space. Active frontage along Hemlock Road will be an important part of this central area in the community. Refer to the Wateridge Masterplan which outlines these areas as important active frontages.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to the diagonal pathway being provided by the property to the north at 1050 Tawadina Road and continuing that pathway/line through the property of B2.
  • Consider connecting to that pedestrian connection and through to the park space for ease of pedestrian connectivity.
  • Regardless of diagonal or east-west pathway, ensure pedestrian connectivity through the sites with 2.5m wide paved pathways and a strong landscape that goes from the park through the lots, and incorporating them with the internal courtyard spaces. Integration between the blocks is an important aspect of the designs and the Wateridge Masterplan.
• The Panel has concerns with the ground floor units on the north side of B1 and B2, and on the east side of B3.
  • The Panel suggests that to have ground floor units on those backsides of the buildings there needs to be a strong internal pedestrian network.
  • The Panel recommends repurposing some of those ‘backside’ areas to host the loading/servicing areas and underground parking ramps within the building envelope, and free up space for exterior amenity courtyards.
• The Panel recommends the intent of the backsides of the properties ought to be to have a series of courtyards and amenity spaces, with strong pedestrian connectivity, rather than service yards and surface parking areas.
  • The Panel recommends further considering the context of the area as an urban centre for this developing community, and thus more concerned with the pedestrian experience and connectivity with the surrounding neighbourhood rather than vehicular access and surface parking.
• The Panel recommends removing all surface roadway on the sites and internalizing the parking ramps and servicing areas within the buildings.
• The Panel recommends giving much more consideration to the public realm perspective and experience.
• The Panel recommends considering the use of some of the commercial spaces as restaurants with patios and therefore providing enough landscaped space for that kind of condition/use.
• The Panel recommends integrating the landscaping with the urban design and build-out of the 3 sites.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to the privacy of at-grade residential units.
  • Consider providing a couple of steps, half-walls/breeze-walls, for privacy of units.

Sustainability

• The Panel has concerns with the proposed stucco cladding material and it’s potential for weathering poorly.
• The Panel strongly recommends reconsidering the use of stucco materials and recommends pursuing noble materials instead. Stucco is not a durable nor sustainable material and risks aging very poorly.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to the environmental sustainability of the sites.
  • Consider integrating sustainability initiatives in a holistic way, potentially connecting the stormwater management systems, interconnecting swales, providing sustainable treatment of the rooftops such as green roofs; these would be good initiatives for the residents and the community, especially long-term.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel recommends exploring a more noble and durable material instead of the stucco.
• On B1, the Panel recommends setting back the 7-storey link between the two 9-storey volumes in order to create a break between the two prominent 9-storey volumes and provide a meaningful reveal from the street edge.
• The Panel recommends simplifying the material palette to have a singular material—such as brick or stone—that makes up most of the building(s), and then accentuating more deliberate vertical elements in each of the 9-storey volumes with another material, such as the white ACM panel.
• The Panel has concerns with the functionality and architectural expression of the angled balconies on B1 and B2.
  • Consider forgoing the angled balconies for a more conventional built form.
• The Panel has concerns with the small black strips wrapping the upper portions of B1 and B2.
  • The Panel appreciates that these elements are trying to break up the volumes, but recommends refining this element further or forgoing it entirely. Currently they accentuate the jarring nature of the high-contrast grey, black and white material palette.
• The Panel recommends rethinking the material palette and developing a scheme that is simpler, less crowded, and accentuates the larger building volumes with a single material each. Currently, the thick bands make the building feel top heavy, and the goal should be to have the building disappear into the sky above the 4-storey podium.
• The Panel appreciates the efforts to break down the volumes architecturally through different materials and colouration, however, the Panel strongly recommends using a masonry material on the lower 4-storey podiums, and designing the upper volumes to be simple with a durable material.
  • Consider the long-term lifespan of materials and how they will wear. The goal ought to be to reduce wear as much as possible.
• The Panel recommends a simplification of the façades, perhaps going with black masonry or another tone for the background volume and a white framework that articulates a few select features/volumes. The architectural expression should be much simpler and connect with the ground level in some way.
• The Panel appreciates the elegant use of stone material in the ground levels and recommends perhaps continuing this material into the upper levels of the buildings.
  • Explore ways to improve and enhance the relationship between the ground floors and the second floors of the buildings. Currently, there is an odd condition between the ground levels and the residential units above.
• The Panel recommends potentially removing one tower portion from B1 and relocating it as part of B3.
• The Panel appreciates the overall massing and proportions of the buildings. The Panel recommends the architectural expression and materiality needs to be simplified and relate more to the surrounding emerging context.
• The Panel appreciates the 4-storey podium heights.
• The Panel strongly recommends against using stucco which has a brick pattern, and recommend using a masonry material instead.
• The Panel recommends using a durable, noble material for the 4-storey podium base.
  • Consider stone/brick masonry as viable options.

400 Coventry Road | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Groupe Oradev Inc., Neuf Architect(e)s, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel supports many aspects of the plan.
• The Panel has concerns with the development appearing much too dense on the site and recommends removing some towers and increasing the heights of others in order to create a far more open and generous public realm.
  • Some panel members recommended reducing the density of the proposal while others suggested redistributing the density from Tower A and Tower D toward the south end of the site along the 417, and opening up the centre of the plan along the new internal public street, especially around the park.
• The Panel recommends refining the architectural expression of the signature towers on the north-east and south-west corners and exploring a simpler, lighter cladding for the two towers on the north side of the park.
• The Panel recommends 4-storey podiums along the internal street and park space, and slightly higher podiums along the edges of the site.
• The Panel recommends a much stronger complete street and boulevard along Coventry Road, and recommends the public realm between the building faces and the public sidewalk on Coventry Road be significantly improved and tie into a grander vision for the street to the east and west.
• The Panel strongly recommends removing all the surface parking on the site and placing all parking underground.
  • The Panel recommends underground parking ramps be placed within the building footprints.
• The Panel recommends widening the proposed internal public street to ensure the public realm experience is generous and places pedestrians first.
• The Panel recommends increasing the proportion of amenity space for residents on the site as well as for the overall community which will be growing in this area.
  • Consider setting a strong and ambitious precedent for the community that will emerge along Coventry Road in the future.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel has concerns with the proximity of the towers to the lot lines, and recommends the applicants further consider the potential for adjacent lots to develop similarly along the west lot line.
• The Panel has concerns with how dense the site feels with the towers.
• The Panel recommends reducing the appearance of an overly dense site without actually diminishing the density by providing more breathing room between the towers, and a generous public realm throughout.
• The Panel recommends eliminating the tower adjacent to the park (Tower D), and raising the height of the foreground tower (Tower E2), ultimately creating a zone along highway 417 which has four towers and a zone along Coventry Road which has two towers and the park.
• The Panel recommends considering an FSI for the site and reorganizing the determined FSI for the best possible planning, livability, and sense of place on the site.
  • The Panel recommends pursuing fewer towers and adding some height to the remaining towers would be an improvement to the site, allowing for more public realm space and airiness throughout the site at ground level.
• The Panel supports the location of the public road through the site, and the park space along its north side.
  • The Panel suggests ensuring that the internal road is public.
  • The Panel recommends removing the tower next to the park along Belfast Road (Tower D) and extending the public realm across the site on the north side of the internal public street.
• The Panel strongly recommends eliminating all surface parking, and providing a drop-off area along the internal public street for deliveries, etc.
  • The Panel discourages creating a vehicle-oriented ‘car court’ between buildings A, B, C1, and C2. Consider a pedestrian courtyard space instead.
• The Panel supports the idea of a through-retail connection to the park, and recommends establishing commercial and community uses surrounding the park to create a sense of place in this new community.
• The Panel recommends further considering how to best provide amenities to accommodate for this new community.
• The Panel recommends establishing a strong relationship between the ground-floor uses and the exterior public realm.
  • Ensure active frontages along the park that help to animate the spaces.
• The Panel recommends approaching the design of Coventry Road as a complete street and boulevard. Work with the City to establish Coventry Road into the boulevard that it ought to be.
• The Panel recommends that this site set a strong precedent for future developments along Coventry Road. Coventry Road can become something that is far different from what it is today and needs to be designed with the City to set a strong precedent with this site.
• The Panel recommends tucking the west side parking ramp under the building and allowing for a pedestrian pathway connection down the west and south sides of the property to connect with Belfast Road.
• The Panel recommends prioritizing the pedestrian experience of the boulevard along the new internal street before thinking about on-street parking along the internal street. If the ROW is to remain 18m, ensure the pedestrian experience and boulevard space is generous and places pedestrians first.
  • Consider widening the ROW to 20m+ if necessary to provide suitable vehicular access and generous pedestrian realm. Pedestrian usage should be prioritized in this site.
• The Panel recommends more consideration be given to the logistics of the public realm.
  • The Panel recommends further attention be given to the design and development of the ground plane, both interior and exterior, with particular focus on the boulevard aspects along the new and existing streets, and the spaces between the building faces and the public sidewalk on Coventry Road.
• The Panel recommends the underground parking ramp in the south-west quadrant of the site be placed internally within the building footprint.
• The Panel has concerns with building A and building B creating a wind tunnel that is uncomfortable for pedestrian usage, and recommend further considering the effects of wind on the pedestrian realm to ensure it is comfortable for sitting and standing year-round.
• The Panel has concerns with the close proximity of the towers and the effects of shadow on the site.
• The Panel recommends reducing the number of towers on site to a maximum of 6.
  • The Panel has concerns with Tower A and Tower D casting shadows on the park space.
  • Consider removing Tower A and Tower D and leaving the podium heights as they are at those two locations instead.
• The Panel recommends redistributing density on the site to open up the ground plane further, and recommends increasing the heights of the towers if necessary—particularly along the 417—to accommodate more breathing room between buildings and in the ground floor plane.
• The Panel recommends removing the surface parking court in the south portion of the site and replacing it with an urbanized courtyard space, while providing a small drop-off area along the new internal public road for temporary stopping.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends a Community Design Plan be established to assist with cohesion between developments, transportation networks and amenities for the developing new community.
  • The Panel has concerns that without an overall Community Design Plan along Coventry Road, a sense of place or community will not be successfully established.
• The Panel recommends thinking about the sustainability of the site in a holistic manner that incorporates all the buildings and landscaped spaces working together.
  • Consider the potential for a district energy system to help save cost and CO2 emissions over the longer-term.
  • Consider the opportunities for irrigation, storm water retention, and urbanizing the site by bringing much more sustainable infrastructure to the area.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel has concerns with how the exoskeleton on the south-west and north-east towers would function.
  • The Panel appreciates the play with balconies and elements of movement sought with the exoskeleton component, but has concerns with how it is being executed.
• The Panel strongly supports the 750m2 (or less) tower floorplates, that conform with the High-Rise Design Guidelines.
• The Panel has concerns with how pinched the public realm is with the towers, and recommends a minimum 3m setback from the podium edges to the base of the towers.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a combination of glass and masonry materials for the towers and podiums.
• The Panel recommends a maximum 4-storey podium height along the internal street and facing the park space.
• The Panel recommends retaining the two towers along the 417 as masonry cladding (Tower B and C1), and cladding the two inner towers (Tower A and C2) in glass or a lighter material.
  • Ultimately, the Panel recommends creating a series of six towers instead of seven, whereby the two middle towers (Tower A and C2) would be a lighter material and provide an openness to the middle of the block.
  • Consider reallocating the density on the site while removing one tower to help improve the public realm and livability of the proposal without losing density.
• The Panel recommends approaching the tower designs as three 2-tower sets, each set with their own architectural language, resulting in a pair of towers along Coventry Road, a pair along the 417, and a pair along the south side of the internal street that are glass and appear lighter.
• The Panel recommends refining the architectural expression of the signature towers on the north-east and south-west of the site. The current proposal with the exoskeleton design is not bold enough and is not reading strongly.
• The Panel recommends establishing more of a podium language to the site, and not punctuating every podium on site with a tower, to create more variety.
  • Consider leaving building A and building D as podium heights only, stepping down to 4-storey podiums as they approach the park space, and retaining the four corner towers, in order to open up the middle along the internal public street more successfully.
  • Consider how a stronger podium language on the site provides more usable roof space for much needed amenities. Think of amenity spaces that can comprehensively serve the whole community that is being created, rather than just for individual buildings.
• The Panel recommends 4-storey podiums internally facing the street and park space with the towers set back a minimum of 3m from the podium edge.

70 and 80 Woodridge Crescent | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Application | Fotenn Planning + Design (c/o Tyler Yakichuk), Accora Village, Ferguslea Properties, BBB Architects Ottawa Inc., WAA

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the proposed public realm and landscaped spaces of the development.
• The Panel has concerns with how wind impacts and highway 417 will negatively impact the usability and enjoyment of the landscaped public spaces.
  • Ensure measures are put in place to mitigate against these environmental factors.
• The Panel has concerns with the proximity of the proposed towers to the property lines and adjacent towers.
  • Consider setting the north tower further south to give more breathing room to the street and allow for a strong boulevard edge of street trees.
  • Consider setting the west tower further east to give more separation from a potential future development to the west.
• The Panel has concerns with the location of the parking garage ramp and structure, and recommends locating it in a less impactful location, preferably within the footprint of the building.
• The Panel recommends the project and applicant team return to UDRP again in a future stage of the application.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel has concerns with the close proximity to the western property and recommends ensuring there is enough of a setback to allow for a replicable development on the western property in the future while still providing livable units with good access to sunlight.
• The Panel appreciates the 12.5m tower separation being met on the east side of the building.
• The Panel recommends shifting the north tower a few metres west.
• The Panel has concerns with the proposed ramp location and recommends exploring other options for its location, preferably within the building envelope.
• The Panel suggests the goal should be to connect the two towers at grade, while still providing pedestrian connections through the site.
• The Panel appreciates the careful thought that has gone into the landscaping, however members have concerns with the potential pedestrian wind comfort in the plaza space.
  • Consider the wind studies to inform how to best improve the pedestrian realm and comfort in the landscaped spaces.
  • Consider how connecting the two towers at grade could help with the pedestrian comfort in the landscaped spaces.
• The Panel recommends enclosing the parking ramp access, preferably within the building envelope.
• The Panel has concerns with the north tower being too close to Woodridge Crescent and recommends setting the north tower further back to be in line with adjacent tall buildings and continuing the streetwall.
• The Panel recommends setting the west tower further back from the property line to provide more separation from potential future development, or securing an agreement with the adjacent property to the west to ensure nothing is built too close to the west tower in perpetuity.
• The Panel appreciates that the pathways have been thoughtfully designed in a way that supports pedestrian connectivity and accessibility.
• The Panel recommends providing a full row of street trees along the Woodridge Crescent frontage.
• The Panel suggests there is an opportunity on the west side of the north tower—adjacent to the pedestrian pathway connection—to have a commercial use on the corner.
  • Consider this location’s prime suitability for neighbourhood commercial food/retail.
• The Panel recommends giving additional attention to how the tower bases integrate with the surrounding context and the landscape.
• The Panel recommends further considering how the adjacent tower to the west (The Cobalt) will link into this site.
• The Panel recommends a robust planting plan for the south side of the property interfacing with the transit system and highway 417.
• The Panel appreciates the elegant positioning of the design, and atypical approach to the site.
• The Panel recommends strengthening the pedestrian connections to the transit system along the south-east portion of the site as much as possible.
  • Ensure a safe and straight-forward pedestrian connection is provided.
• The Panel recommends designing the landscaped spaces in a manner that helps reduce the wind impact on pedestrian and public spaces.
• The Panel strongly recommends designing the POPS and pedestrian realm to have a wind level where people can sit and stand year-round.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel suggests there may not be the need for a podium tower provided the parking ramp and structure is removed from the promising landscape and placed within the tower base.

The Panel has concerns with how the parking structure currently detracts from the strong landscape vision.

1184-1196 Cummings Avenue | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | TCU Development Corporation, Project1 Studio, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the elegance of the proposal’s design and its handsome building fabric.
• The Panel supports the overall building materiality, expression, and massing.
• The Panel appreciates the detailed thought that went into the building design.
• The Panel has strong concerns with the deep and narrow units, particularly those facing Weldon Drive and Cummings Avenue which do not have any balconies or access to the outdoors as currently proposed.
  • Consider further investigating ways to provide wider units that improve the access to sunlight, access to the outdoors, and overall livability of the units.
• The Panel appreciates the constraints of the site with regard to the road widening on Cummings Avenue.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to how the building interface animates and interacts with the streets.
• The Panel recommends ensuring that the trees and planters grow to be as large and robust as possible and recommends considering a courtyard-like pedestrian-first space in the parking area.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel recommends adding more opportunities for landscaping, paying particular attention to providing larger street trees that will thrive.
  • Consider the opportunity to use pavers in the parking area to give more of a courtyard feel to that space.
• The Panel has concerns with the potential for overlook issues to the sites on the west. However, the Panel appreciates that mitigation efforts have been made with planters and careful landscaping/tree buffer.
  • Ensure landscaped planters and large trees on the west side are realized (as seen on renders p.13-14).
• The Panel supports the two rooftop amenity spaces and the terraced planters in the courtyard that provide a source of natural light into the below-grade indoor amenity space.
  • Consider a co-working lounge at the below-grade indoor amenity.
• The Panel strongly recommends designing the units in a way that provides residents with the opportunity to open up their units to access the outdoors and, simultaneously, improve the building’s ability to interact with the street.
• The Panel recommends investigating the opportunity to introduce ground floor units that are accessed from the street and accompanied by front terraces, especially along Weldon Drive where there is more front yard space.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the elegance of the project design.
• The Panel has concerns with the unit sizes and layout.
  • Consider providing units with better natural light and improved livability.
  • Consider improving livability by adding Juliette balconies to the units. These could be internal or external, to mitigate any effects of the façade design.
• The Panel is supportive of the overall architectural expression, appreciating the use of wood, in particular.
  • Consider adding more of the wood elements into the building design.
• The Panel appreciates the rhythm and articulation of the façade.
• The Panel recommends refining the architectural articulation and materiality on the north and north-west façades of the building.
  • Consider stepping the black material down towards west along Weldon Drive to further convey the stepping of the north elevation.
  • Consider whether that 5^th floor on the north and north-west elevations would be better suited to the lighter wood material rather than the darker metal panel. 
• The Panel has concerns with the entrance off Cummings Avenue being too subtle and understated. While the proximity to the setbacks is limiting for the entrance, a shallow canopy or articulated frame would be beneficial.
  • Consider a more prominent entrance element along Cummings Avenue.
• The Panel appreciates the colour palette and materials selected for the proposed design.
• The Panel appreciates the handsome façades, particularly on the south and west sides where the building elevations will be prominent until further context is built.
• The Panel has concerns with how deep and narrow the units are as currently proposed.
  • Consider introducing inset balconies for some units to reduce the depth and to provide access outdoors for some residents/animation on the street sides.
  • Consider Juliette balconies or NanaWalls where inset balconies won’t work, with the glass guard on the interior side of the unit, to retain the architectural expression while also providing the opportunity for residents to open up the end of their suite.

Consider giving some more variation in unit shapes/sizes to provide different options.

2829 Dumaurier Avenue | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Brigil, Roderick Lahey Architecture, Stantec, Fotenn Planning + Design, Levstek Consultants

Key Recommendations

• The Panel has concerns with the limited amount of landscaping and tree planting in particular.
  • The Panel recommends adding more tree planting and improving the urban realm as much as possible. Consider using pavers for any hardscaped surfaces rather than asphalt.
• The Panel has concerns with the vehicular circulation and maneuvering on the site.
  • The Panel recommends removing the porte-cochere and reducing or removing the surface roadway/parking as much as possible. Consider ways to move the parking ramp closer to Dumaurier Avenue and incorporate it within the building footprint. This would have the added benefit of opening up more space for other uses.
• The Panel recommends investigating ways to incorporate large soil volumes at grade over the underground parking as well as on the podium rooftop, and greening/landscaping these areas as much as possible. Remove unnecessary roadway areas and improve the overall landscaping of the site.
• The Panel strongly recommends the building podium be aligned with the curvature of Dumaurier Avenue and be lowered to a 4-storey podium to create a dynamic and animated urban commercial edge that interacts with the park space across the street.
• The Panel recommends introducing a townhouse scale to the residential portions of the podium.

• The Panel recommends designing the building in the round to ensure there is no backside to the development.  The Panel recommends placing the bicycle storage area below grade level to free up space for a through lobby amenity area or commercial space.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel recommends embracing the gateway aspects of this site within its surrounding context.
  • Consider ways to improve the building’s connection with the nearby LRT station and interaction with the streetscape and the adjacent park areas.
• The Panel appreciates that the building is seemingly not affecting the sunlight of the adjacent park areas during the bulk of the day.
• The Panel recommends extending the podium towards Dumaurier Avenue to respond closely to the curvature of the street.
  • Consider taking more cues from the immediate surrounding context, especially as a building that is wedged between two park areas.
  • Consider the potential for more area on the podium rooftop dedicated to exterior amenity while adding ground floor area hugging the street curvature more closely. The Panel believes there will be a need for the added commercial space in this area as it develops into a TOD community adjacent to the LRT.
• The Panel recommends designing the site in a way that directs cars into the underground parking more quickly, preferably with the parking ramp integrated within the building footprint.
• The Panel recommends locating the bicycle storage on a mezzanine level halfway down to P1, ultimately allowing for more amenity or commercial space that traverses the lobby area—a through amenity/commercial space.
• The Panel has concerns with the porte-cochere area.
  • The Panel recommends significantly reducing or removing the surface roadway/parking spaces.
• The Panel recommends significantly improving the landscaping elements on site and adding more street trees with proper soil depth along Dumaurier Avenue wherever possible.
• The Panel appreciates the suggestion from the architect that more planting could be introduced, noting this would be a worthwhile endeavour.
• The Panel recommends ensuring that the west side of the building does not feel like a back of the building.
  • Consider ways to allow for more indoor to outdoor interactions.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel recommends pursuing a curtainwall system on the two glazed corners to emphasize the corner elements and window-wall system on the balconied areas. This could work well with the perforated balconies proposed The Panel appreciates the simple expression of the tower and recommends ensuring that the corner glazed portions remain the highlights of the design.
• The Panel recommends designing the building in a way that responds to the curvature in a more deliberate manner.
  • Consider moving the podium edge closer to Dumaurier Avenue, to strengthen the street-to-building interface and relationship.
• The Panel has concerns with the orientation and scale of the podium.
  • Consider lowering the podium to 4-storeys.
  • Consider responding more to the curvature of Dumaurier Avenue and having the commercial retail component fronting on Dumaurier Avenue.
  • Consider extending the north end of the podium towards Dumaurier Avenue and creating more/larger commercial and/or amenity spaces at ground level.
  • Consider introducing 2-storey town units above the ground-level retail and lowering the overall scale of the development a bit.
• The Panel recommends giving more design consideration to the top portion of the tower and how it meets the sky. For the foreseeable future it will be the tallest building in the area.
  • Consider ways to articulate the tower top to be a bit more exuberant, would be worthwhile to pursue.
• The Panel recommends the building design should consider being viewed in the round and therefore not have a ‘backside’, as the tower will be an important and prominent piece of the skyline in this area for the foreseeable future.
  • Consider embracing the community on all sides.

1166 Bank Street | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Architects DCA Inc., James B. Lennox and Associates Inc.

Key Recommendations

• The Panel recommends further refinement of the public realm design along Bank Street and Grove Avenue. Considering that the sidewalks along Bank Street are narrow, there is potential for the retail to be more engaged with the street.
  • Consider removing the softscaped green area along Bank Street at the north end and replacing it with a hardscaped condition, with pavers between the building and the sidewalk edge. This would allow the retail to be more connected with the street, keeping the public realm along Bank Street very clean and simple.
  • Along Grove Avenue, consider the possibility of a café or restaurant space at the corner area, and explore planting trees along Grove Avenue—likely in the public realm—using soil cells and a slightly raised bed to create a strong treed connection back into the neighbourhood.
• The Panel appreciates the progressive approach of mass timbre construction and understands the limited cladding options available for this type of building.
• The Panel appreciates the earlier studies that were included in the presentation that help to describe the thought process informing the design.
• The Panel has concerns with the varied colours and materiality of the building and recommends pursuing a single material and colour for each of the buildings main two volumes.
  • Consider that Bank Street has a noble quality to the stone and brick façade treatments, and the streetscape character is typically a single tone of a noble material.
  • Consider a two-tone scheme, with a brick base for the lower 4-storeys and a single colour of ventilated ceramic tile on the upper 2-storey volume.
• The Panel recommends stepping back the north elevation of the building for the upper 2-storeys to allow for increased glazing above the blank wall.
  • Consider a temporary mural or cultural piece for the blank wall in the interim.
• The Panel recommends pursuing blade signage rather than the proposed signage bands to reduce the likelihood of poorly aged signage.
• The Panel recommends exploring options for inset and/or Juliette balconies. There are many good examples of balconies above mainstreets, and access to the outdoors from one’s unit is preferable.
• The Panel recommends exploring options to reorganize the parking garage ramp and allow for more amenity space on the west side of the building.
• Consider tucking the parking ramp under building and within the building envelope. Otherwise, consider moving the parking ramp further west and allowing for a pathway/amenity area along the back of the building.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel has concerns with some unusual property lines on the site.
  • Consider coordinating with the City on the landscaped wedge at the north end of the property. Visibility to the commercial units is important.
• The Panel recommends reorganizing the bicycle storage/amenity/lobby area to maximize the size of the amenity space.
  • Consider moving the parking ramp closer to the property line and freeing up additional space for landscaping/amenity/bicycle access along the back of the building.
• The Panel recommends separating the waste storage for commercial tenants and residents into two separate rooms.
• The Panel recommends pursuing more of a hardscaped area with seating and street tree planting for the corner condition, rather than a softscape area.
• The Panel recommends redesigning the stairwell at the north end of the building to enter/exit at the rear (northwest) corner of the building, ultimately giving the street-frontage back to the commercial use and providing more flexibility.

Sustainability

• The Panel strongly supports the pursuit of a mass timbre structure for the building. More mass timbre projects are needed in Ottawa.
• The Panel recommends ensuring that the cladding materials can function successfully with the mass timbre structure proposed while complimenting its Bank Street context.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to how the parti-wall at the north elevation may be obstructed in the future.
  • Consider picking up on the architectural expression from the front of the building.
  • Consider ways to have temporary features in that space in the interim. Explore the potential for artistic murals or another cultural pieces. The north elevation will be quite prominent until the adjacent property is developed.
• The Panel appreciates that the building design uses the 4-storey datum from the corner building across the street on Grove Avenue to inform its scale and step-back.
• The Panel recommends bolstering the streetscape character of Bank Street by introducing red brick as the dominant material in the lower 4-storey portion.
• The Panel recommends pursuing only one tone of the ventilated ceramic tile.
  • Consider a red brick base for the building—potentially with the limestone accents—and a singular tone and materiality, possibly ventilated ceramic tile, for the upper portion of the building. This will help the building read as two main volumes and tie the development to the adjacent red brick corner building.
• The Panel appreciates the volumetric design and massing that is being pursued, as shown on the bottom of p.13 of the presentation.
• The Panel recommends taking more cues from the adjacent buildings’ architecture and materiality, which have solid singular architectural expressions and massing. Bank Street in this area has a calm architectural aesthetic and historical mainstreet character should be reinforced.
• The Panel appreciates the use of Belden brick and in combination with a terracotta or ceramic tile it will result in a handsome material and colour palette for the building.
• The Panel recommends exploring further ways to incorporate Juliette balconies for units.
  • Consider giving residents access to the outdoors from their units. Despite the noise coming from Bank Street, people will enjoy the hustle and bustle and ability to open up their units to the street and animate the streetscape.
  • Consider a combination of Juliette balconies and inset balconies for units, would be worthwhile to pursue.
  • Consider extending the balconies at the 5^th floor as much as possible to create larger terrace spaces.
• The Panel recommends pursuing one material and colour for the base of the building that wraps around on all four sides of the building base, and then a second material and colour for the upper 2-storey portion.
• The Panel recommends stepping back the 5^th and 6^th floors from the north property line 1.2m or more to allow for some windows on those upper storeys.

300 Montgomery Street (Phase 2) | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Riverain Developments Inc., Roderick Lahey Architecture, Main + Main

Key Recommendations

• The Panel has concerns with both parking garage options being proposed and would like to see a stronger response to a public space edge. Much more attention and consideration ought to be given to how the building interacts with the public realm at-grade. The proposed options are unsatisfactory.
• The Panel is very concerned with the parking garage above-grade that has transparency where the headlights and cars within will be visible.
  • The Panel strongly recommends the parking garage be opaque and mechanically ventilated.
• The Panel recommends further investigating new solutions to the above grade parking, focusing on finding a more integrated solution to the relationship between the building and park space. The current proposals are insufficient in this regard.
• The Panel has differing opinions on how to best address the design of the parking façades, but there is consensus amongst the Panel that the lighting of the parking façades ought to be less bright and animated than what is being proposed. The proposed lighting is overall not appropriate for this context.
  • Consider forgoing the lighting on the façades and instead uplighting from the ground either a tree canopy or artistic element.
• The Panel recommends incorporating planting as a major element of the parking garage design.
  • Work with the City to develop a podium edge that will complement the future park design. The Panel is not suggesting a green wall, but rather a green edge/buffer to the park.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel has concerns with the lack of a commercial space being proposed at the rear along the park space.
  • Consider ways to animate the park space as much as possible. Discuss opportunities with the City to animate/program the space.
• The Panel strongly recommends the Secondary Plan be met with regard to active frontages.
  • Consider animation on the dedicated park space. Perhaps some sort of active frontage can be divided between the park dedication and the building as a shared asset.
• Some Panel members appreciates the artistic element of the abstracted tree canopy on the parking garage ‘option 1’, as shown on p.29 of the presentation.
  • As a contradictory opinion, consider potentially merging the artistic element of the abstracted tree canopy with a mechanically ventilated parking garage structure and collaborating with the City to introduce a large grove of canopy trees in the dedicated parkland that would complement the abstracted tree artistic design.
  • Consider forgoing the lighting aspect of the proposed scheme as it is not necessary. The lighting as proposed appears bright and out of context. Consider alternatives such as uplighting a grove of trees. The Panel suggests there is a lot of potential in pursuing such an option.
  • Other Panel members preferred that the parking garage cladding would be more consistent to the building’s architecture.
• The Panel recommends exploring opportunities for part of the façade along the park space to have a community function and programming such as a movie projection/outdoor theater space.
  • Work with the City to develop integrated solutions, even if funding for park isn’t secured yet. A strong vision for the park edge will help to create a dialogue between the building/parking and the future park space.

Sustainability

• The Panel understands that the rooftop of the amenity is currently under development but recommends investigating whether a planted edge could be incorporated on the rooftop and add a green element to the façade. Could really add to the developments allure.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the evolution of the elevation designs from the previous ones.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a more orthogonal approach to the above-grade parking garage, as seen on p.31/33 of the presentation.
• The Panel strongly recommends that the above-grade parking garage be mechanically ventilated and not rely on porous façades.
• The Panel recommends further consideration be given to the integration of the above grade parking garage and the tower.
  • Consider designing the above-grade parking to appear as if it were a mixed-use podium, with solid opaque walls and mechanically ventilated.
• The Panel recommends integrating seasonal planting and ivies into the above-grade parking ‘podium’—both at-grade and at the parking rooftop
• The Panel has concerns with the stark walls of the parking garage.
  • The Panel recommends that if the currently proposed building is set, the best option may be to simplify the above-grade parking garage façades and to design a relatively plain but handsome concrete/brick/stone building, with a strong planting approach that integrates the garage with the park and surrounding streetscapes.

1531 St-Laurent Boulevard | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Figurr Architects Collective, Katasa Groupe + Development, GJA Inc., Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel recommends reconsidering the location of the parkland dedication and coordinating with City staff on where that may be best located.
• The Panel has concerns with the current park location being too shaded and secluded from future development in the area.
  • Consider the south-east corner of the site as the best opportunity for the placement of the public park. Opportunities to consolidate parkland with the adjacent property to the south in the future.
• The Panel recommends reducing through-traffic and servicing functions at-grade as much as possible, placing the garage access within the building footprint and as close to the Belfast Road access as possible.
  • Consider only having one access point for vehicles, preferably from Belfast Road.
• The Panel supports the proposed heights and density for the site but recommends that the tower floorplates be reduced to meet the City’s 750m2 guideline for high-rise design.
• The Panel recommends increasing the tower setbacks to give a more appropriate separation between the podium edge and the tower.
• The Panel recommends lowering the podium to 4-storeys throughout but could be convinced otherwise depending on what other refinements are implemented into the design.
• The Panel recommends giving added attention to the public realm and streetwalls of this project, as it will be a precedent setting development for the emerging neighbourhood.
  • Explore design solutions that make the public realm and any roadways on site more pedestrian friendly with traffic calming, including using pavers for the roadway.
  • Consider the opportunity to establish a robust tree line for the future of Belfast Road and St-Laurent Boulevard.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel recommends exploring different park locations and sizes. The currently proposed park location is quite isolated.
• The Panel recommends bringing the towers closer together—while still being reasonably separated—and suggests the park space be located along Lagan Way.
• The Panel suggests the project will be a pioneer in the area with respect to bringing multi-unit residential into this context. As such, the proposal must be exemplary to establish a precedent for the future neighbourhood that will emerge.
• The Panel recommends paying particular attention to the podium heights and streetwall as they will set an impactful precedent for the streetscape going forward.
  • Consider implementing a 4-storey podium height and a large enough setback from the streets to allow for a robust tree canopy. The public realm offering needs to be exemplary.
• The Panel recommends providing as much exterior amenity space on the podiums as possible.
  • Consider that currently and for the foreseeable future there is not much in terms of parkland and amenity in this area.
• The Panel has concerns with the at-grade units in this context. At-grade units may be better suited   when the neighbourhood residential character is further established.
  • Consider having the ground floor almost entirely dedicated to commercial and amenity space with the potential for larger scale commercial uses.
• The Panel recommends relocating the park space to an area on the site with greater access to sunlight. Locating the park on the east side of the site, and especially in the south-east quadrant is strongly recommended.
• The Panel recommends reorienting and consolidating the access point so there’s only one curb cut to access the site.
  • Consider keeping the access from Belfast Road and consolidating the two podiums into an L-shape along St-Laurent Boulevard and Belfast Road, leaving a drive-through access at-grade under the podium.
  • Consider placing the underground parking ramp as close as possible to the access from Belfast Road, while maintaining it within the building envelope/footprint.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the revised massing and overall aesthetic of the proposal.
• The Panel recommends a podium height of 4-storeys along St-Laurent Boulevard to align with Lagan Way.
• The Panel supports the height and density being proposed.
• The Panel has concerns with the slab-like built form of the towers and recommends the 750m2 floorplate (inclusive of balconies) guideline would help the overall shape of the towers and should be adhered to.
• The Panel has concerns with the size of the setback between the podium and the tower.
  • The Panel recommends implementing a more significant setback from the podium to the tower.
• The Panel has concerns with the 6-storey podium height along St-Laurent Boulevard.
  • Consider a 3- or 4-storey podium for the entire site and larger setbacks between the podium and towers to help make the towers less slab-like in appearance.
• The Panel recommends redesigning the podiums to front along Belfast Road and St-Laurent Boulevard.
• The Panel recommends staggering the towers at the north-east and south-west of the site, with parkland at south-east corner of the site. Consider an L-shape podium with two point-towers at either end, framing the streets with a robust public realm/podium interface. Connect the parkland dedication in the south-east corner with an outdoor amenity space for the residents.
• Some members suggested to clad the towers with a lighter tone material so that the overall massing would be less monochromatic.

8 Withrow Avenue | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment Application | Figurr Architects Collective, Stantec, Julian of Norwich Anglican Church, Multifaith Housing Initiative

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the ambitions of this project and supports the programming and social justice aspects proposed.
• The Panel understands the complexities and cost perspective of providing affordable units despite typically preferring underground parking.
• The Panel appreciates that some existing trees are being protected on site and will help anchor the development within the neighbourhood.
  • Consider retaining as many existing large trees as possible.
• The Panel recommends refining some minor details of the mid-rise façades and architectural expression, but overall supports the built form and ‘passive haus’ design of the building.
• The Panel recommends drawing on some of the previously proposed elements of the site (p.8 of the presentation) in the continued development of the stacked townhouses proposed on the western portion of the site.
  • Consider retaining the private terraces in the stacked towns, as well as the children’s play area and gardening plots/planters.
• The Panel supports the overall landscaping of the site, perhaps adding a landscape buffer to the front of the towns instead of driveways and consolidating the parking in one lot with a pedestrianized hardscape treatment.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel recommends consolidating all of the parking within the parking lot area rather than having individual driveways for the townhouses.
• The Panel recommends consolidating all the surface parking around the large tree and treating the parking lot more like a hardscaped courtyard with parking spots.
• The Panel appreciates that some existing trees will be retained.
  • Consider retaining as many existing large trees as possible.
• The Panel appreciates the ‘community shed’ idea and central plaza space. It will be a central meeting point for the programming on site.
• The Panel recommends continuing the development of the stacked towns. Look back to what is shown in previous version, as shown on p.8 of the presentation.
  • The Panel recommends retaining the strong terracing element from the previous design in the development of the stacked towns. Forgo the rooftop solar panels, if need be, to give each unit a private amenity terrace.
  • The Panel recommends reintroducing the idea of a children’s play area and the garden plots/planters in the site design around the stacked towns.
  • The Panel recommends sacrificing the driveways of the townhouses in order to create a landscape buffer and strong street edge.

Sustainability

• The Panel supports and appreciates the implementation of ‘passive haus’ design and affordable housing.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel recommends introducing podium scale along Merivale Road and/or a slight variation in the Merivale Road façade to make it less flat. However, the implications of ‘passive haus’ design are well understood, and the overall massing of the building is appreciated.
• The Panel has concerns with the architectural expression of the townhouses but appreciates that these are not final and are still evolving.
• The Panel appreciates the floating nature of the 7-storeys of residential above the recessed and darker ground floor level of the mid-rise.
• The Panel recommends refining the building top to be a little simpler. The current building top seems to conflict with the architectural language of the rest of the façade.
  • Consider a screen-wall that follows the same pattern and language of the façade and locating the outdoor amenity on the rooftop.

1083-1095 Merivale Road | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Shepherds of Good Hope, CSV Architects

Key Recommendations

• Overall, the Panel is quite supportive of this project.
• The Panel recommends blurring the lines between the pedestrian courtyard and the vehicular space, looking at paver treatments and landscaping as a means of creating a more pedestrian-first environment overall.
  • Consider keeping the whole inner courtyard as a pedestrian space generally, in a woonerf/courtyard style.
• The Panel appreciates how the proposed 6-storey building is integrated into the site and with the existing building.
• The Panel suggests the key to successful long-term housing on this site will come from further enhancing the internal courtyard area and outdoor social spaces.
• The Panel recommends bolstering the connectivity through the site to facilitate pedestrian movement on site as much as possible.
• The Panel is very supportive of the mural initiatives and community gardens that help personalize and make the site comfortable and home-like for residents. This is an important aspect of the site’s success as well.
• The Panel recommends ensuring that the canopied walkway and gazebo are special elements in the overall project and to not have too many objects taking up valuable spaces.
• The Panel is supportive of the materiality and massing generally, although some Panel members suggested reducing or removing the white/beige material in favour of red brick.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel supports dedicating space for a mural on the side wall. There is a culture of murals that is evolving in Ottawa which adds a lot of life to the architecture and gives the building a personal touch.
• The Panel appreciates the community gardens and planters being provided, which also work to make the place feel more of a home for residents.
• The Panel suggests the success of the courtyard design is crucial to the success of this project.
• The Panel appreciates the gazebo, covered walkway and custom paving in the courtyard space.
• The Panel supports making a nice garden space on site.
• The Panel suggests the pathways should be continued through the site. In the current proposal, walkways tend to end part way into the site without continuing through to the north and south limits of the site.
  • Consider using a custom paving scheme to continue the walkways through the site and enhance connectivity.
• The Panel recommends further developing the porosity and connectivity of the site in all four directions. Consider developing the project to have no ‘backside’, instead have the project feel as though it is fronting on all sides.
• The Panel suggests the signage along Merivale Road should be more subtle and located/associated with the garden and the entry stair. The idea should be to create a place that feels more like home, rather than a big sign with the building name. Dedicate those blank wall spaces to murals and art.
• The Panel suggests the landscaping of the site is really critical to its success as a space for long-term housing.
• The Panel recommends making the courtyards feel as spacious as possible.
• The Panel recommends transmitting light through the passageway by applying a more transparent material.
• The Panel questions whether a 1.5m walkway is too narrow, and perhaps a wider walkway around the building is called-for.
• The Panel recommends further investigating the landscape gestures that would help articulate the space and define it more clearly.
• The Panel supports consolidating the pedestrian ramps on Merivale Road.
• The Panel recommends sheltering the walkway as much as possible if feasible. Particularly from the parking lot to the entry door of 1095 Merivale Road (existing 3-storey), and from that entry door to the Para-Transpo pick-up/drop-off location. Consider further investigating what is feasible in this regard.
• The Panel recommends finding landscaping solutions to help screen the corner as much as possible.
• The Panel recommends further investigating ways to make the gazebo and covered walkway fit more seamlessly into the landscape design of the courtyard area.
  • Consider combining the gazebo and covered walkway into one seamless covered space.
  • Consider reducing the size of the turn-around area as much as possible to give as much space as possible to the social uses of the courtyard space.
  • Consider using a paver material for the drive aisle that feels more pedestrian in nature and compliments the social courtyard space rather than treating it purely as a service corridor/turn around.
• The Panel appreciates the intentions of an interior courtyard space but feels the space needs refining to maximize its potential.
• The Panel suggests the winding walkway that connects the rear parking towards Merivale Road ought to be connected more directly along the south or north edge of the building to create a more direct and deliberate through path.
• The Panel appreciates the allocated spaces for murals and hopes to see those come to fruition.

Sustainability

• The Panel appreciates that the applicants are thinking about the future evolution of the site in the design.
• The Panel recommends further consideration be given to how this site and proposal could adhere to the City’s sustainability standards, such as the upcoming High-Performance Development Standards, and add valuable environmental sustainability to the community.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the three nested volumes of the building architecture and appreciates the panelized cladding system along with its blue accents.
• The Panel appreciates the elegant massing of the building and sensitivity to the site.
• Some of the Panel members recommend changing the white/beige portion of the cladding to also be the red brick, keeping the building to two cladding materials rather than three.
• Other Panel members appreciate the white/beige material on the lower 4-storey volume facing Merivale Road, noting that it contributes to giving a stronger presence along Merivale Road. Consider defining each of the three volumes with their own materials.
• The Panel recommends increasing the main-level storey height to be more generous and welcoming to people arriving if it is feasible.
• The Panel supports the three-colour treatment to the building cladding and appreciates the black entrance volume as an accent that adds street presence and establishes the buildings character

30-48 Chamberlain Avenue | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Hobin Architecture, Lashley + Asso. Landscape Architecture, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel recommends treating the entrance areas and drop-off loop with more of a pedestrian quality, appearing more like a forecourt than purely a drop-off for cars. Consider treating these areas with pavers to incite a pedestrian-friendly space and slower vehicle speeds when entering or exiting the site from Chamberlain Avenue.
• The Panel recommends a more robust character to the urban street edge along Chamberlain Avenue, with larger/taller trees that—over time—can foster a consistent tree-lined edge and a strong buffer from the highway traffic.
• The Panel recommends a more contemporary brick expression to the podium design, but appreciates the use of brick nonetheless.
• The Panel recommends further developing the architectural expression of the prow/crown element.
  • Consider lighting the prow/crown as a “lantern” effect.
  • Consider integrating and veiling the mechanical room with the prow/crown element.
  • Consider how to best express the rooftop on all sides, rather than favouring one side at the expense of the rest. One portion can be accentuated, but the entirety must work in the round.
• The Panel appreciates the rhythm of the glazing and the more solid elements of the tower as well.
• The Panel highly recommends pursuing a more urban solution to the Chamberlain Avenue frontage.
  • Consider less of a lawn and shrubbery approach, and more of a hardscaped commercial edge with some better tree-lined screening, especially around the drop-off area.
• The Panel recommends creating a more contemporary form in the brick podium as shown in the inspirational images on page 14 of the presentation.
  • Consider stronger contemporary architectural details and tying that in with a pedestrian forecourt-like entrance/drop-off area.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates how the proposed design has addressed the complexities of the site and context well.
• The Panel has concerns with the narrowness of the public sidewalk and recommends helping widen the sidewalk through hardscaping around the street trees.
  • Consider landscaping with hard surface materials along the sidewalk to help widen the public realm space along Chamberlain Avenue. The ‘lawn’ portion of the landscaping frontage is a bit odd in the urban context of Chamberlain Avenue. Open-up whatever programming will be in the commercial space by implementing some hardscaping that makes the public realm more of an urban edge.
• The Panel recommends studying in greater detail the relationships at grade with the ground floor. Currently, the relationship to the public realm is extremely tight.
• The Panel appreciates the landscape architect’s “We are the Glebe” section of the presentation and recommends pursuing further opportunities to make the project and landscaping more ‘Glebe-like’ in its character.
• The Panel appreciates the street tree proposed by the entrance area assuming it has the proper soil environment to thrive but cautions against the implementation of planters and/or bollards near the entrance more generally.
  • The Panel suggests these high-volume spaces need to have a durable landscaping presence, especially given the adjacent roadway/highway environment. Investigate and consider alternative options.
• The Panel highly recommends that the lawn portion adjacent to the public sidewalk be reconsidered as a hardscaping area in order to create a much-needed urban edge along with plantings along Chamberlain Avenue.
• The Panel recommends implementing trees in the areas around the entrance and drop-off rather than any smaller shrubs. Trees will be more viable and more successfully veil portions of the drop-off area.
  • Consider introducing large street trees along the urban edge rather than many smaller shrubs and plantings, as seems to be proposed. Work towards a better solution to the urban edge landscaping overall.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends giving more thought to how this proposal could adhere to the City’s sustainability standards, such as the upcoming High-Performance Development Standards, and add valuable environmental and social sustainability to the Glebe community.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel supports the overall scale and materiality of the proposal.
• The Panel appreciates how the podium height and design relate well to the neighbourhood context to the south while the tower portion relates to the downtown and highway contexts.
• The Panel appreciates the contrasting materials and colours of the tower and podium.
• The Panel recommends a stronger integration of the tower and podium.
  • Consider bi-level articulation of the podium façade to tie-in with the tower treatment while maintaining the brick materiality and human scale of the podium.

•  The Panel supports the highlighting of the acute corner on the north-west, however the rest of the building top is lacking. Emphasizing a single corner creates a directional quality that diminishes the importance of other views.
  • Consider having a strong bi-directional presence from the east and west.
• The Panel recommends the crown element should be illuminated as a lantern effect.
• The Panel appreciates the relationship of the tower architecture over the red brick podium.
• The Panel supports the tower elements and details. The bay windows on the front-facing bachelor units are very successful and provide relief of the solid elements, which helps with the performance of the building and the energy modeling.
• The Panel recommends the crown of the tower to have an inset floor for the mechanical and more generally calming down the roofscape of the tower to better conceal the mechanical, despite understanding that value-engineering may cause a deterrence.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a more contemporary brick interpretation on the podium, suggesting that the current proposed podium design is reminiscent of a heritage building and that a more contemporary brick interpretation would suit the elegance of the tower better.
• The Panel recommends extending the entrance canopy or investigating alternative ways to enclose and accentuate the entry more.
  • Consider the need for some weather protection/privacy and providing a stronger gesture and more openness to the street as well.
• The Panel recommends further investigating how the east, west and north façades are viewed from the city.
  • Consider relating to the urban elements and downtown on those sides as best as possible, leaving the residential expression to be viewed from the south side.
• The Panel recommends merging the mechanical on the rooftop with a “lantern” effect at the crown.

The Panel recommends creating a balanced approach to the building façades, rather than overly accentuating the north-west corner element, and appreciates how the rhythm of the bay windows adds a dynamic quality to the building façade.

630 Montreal Road | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Yves Lussier Architects, MB Groupe Canada Developer, Ruhland and Asso. Ltd.

Key Recommendations

• The Panel is supportive of the project and greatly appreciates the affordable housing component of this project.
• The Panel appreciates the rooftop amenity terrace provided and its ambition for significant vegetation.
• The Panel understands the limitations of a tight site and the complexities that come with that and the change in grade.
• The Panel recommends revisiting aspects of the architectural expression with the goal of achieving a calmer expression, particularly along Montreal Road and the east façade.
• The Panel appreciates many of the components of the building, including the use of brick in the elevations, and recommends continuing to wrap the brick around all sides of the building, while creating a much stronger presence along Montreal Road (see p.66 of the presentation as an example of what could improve the Montreal Road façade).
• The Panel recommends pursuing a composition that clearly distinguishes the base, middle, and top of the building through common materials and architectural expression.
  • Consider how to bring the brick material into the east and north façades.
• The Panel recommends foregoing the columns at the top of the building, opting instead for full glazing.
• The Panel recommends foregoing the wood-textured metal, opting instead for a more authentic coloured metal material or another authentic material.
• The Panel recommends enclosing the garage entrance within the building envelope and using that addition to potentially reorient the ground floor units into second floor mezzanine/split-level units, thus opening up ground floor space for an amenity area and a commercial waste room.
• The Panel recommends addressing the Montreal Road façade as being more urban, formalized, and commercial than what is proposed, while considering the east, south, and west facades as residential expressions.
  • The Panel recommends landscaping the Montreal Road street edge accordingly as a formalized urban condition, with proper street trees and hardscaping, while simultaneously ensuring easy accessibility to the commercial units by removing the requirement to use stairs.
• The Panel recommends emphasizing the Montreal Road commercial storefronts to be more defined, while maintaining the flexibility of these storefronts changing over time (both in size and uses).

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel recommends pursuing a more formalized and urban landscape edge, especially along Montreal Road.
  • Consider more urban street trees with appropriate soil volumes and a slightly raised plant-bed to protect from winter damages.
  • Consider accessibility to the building and all commercial units. Stair only accesses should be revisited.
  • The current, more residential, landscape edge is suitable along the Borthwick street edge, but ensure proper soil volumes and protection from winter road maintenance.

•  The Panel recommends increasing the hardscaping along Montreal Road to allow for pedestrians to walk along the front of the commercial storefronts without requiring stairs.

Sustainability

• The Panel appreciates and admires the aspiration to have 20% of units be below-market-rate housing.
• The Panel is supportive of this project and the need for affordable/attainable housing options.
• The Panel recommends giving more thought to how this proposal could adhere to the City’s sustainability standards, such as the upcoming High-Performance Development Standards.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel recommends further refining the building’s architectural composition to distinguish it in three parts: 1) a base section at the lower-levels that animates the building at the street-level, 2) a mid-section which makes up the central part of the building design, and 3) a top section which articulates the building design as it meets the sky.
• The Panel recommends minimizing changes in materials and colours within each of the three parts of the composition to create a cohesiveness to each section of the building’s base-middle-top divisions.
  • The Panel recommends applying one main cladding material in the central mid-section of the building, and then applying a different material or colour to the base section, and a lighter or glazing material to define the top section.

• The Panel appreciates the size and treatment of the rooftop amenity space being provided.
• The Panel recommends continuing the brick treatment around the mid-section of the building to create a cohesive composition that is viewed in the round.
  • Consider providing more clarity to the facades with a tri-sectional composition from base to middle to top.
• The Panel recommends being more deliberate and intentional with which materials are used at different portions of the facades.
• The Panel recommends foregoing the patch of brickwork added to the top 3-storey section of the rear elevation, as it confuses the composition and legibility of the architecture.
• The Panel recommends revising the architectural expression of the building/materials.
  • Consider either a more deliberate checkerboard patterning, that plays with depth and materials in the elevations if that is what is intended.
  • Otherwise, consider pursuing a clearly defined ‘base, middle and top’ composition that evokes a calmer and more poised architectural expression in the elevations.
• The Panel has concerns with the extending shelves and their soffits being very difficult to detail.
  • Concerned that they would have to slope to drain, would require lots of joints throughout, and will be difficult to achieve the “thinness” that is required to achieve the desired architectural effect.
  • Consider giving more attention and consideration to how these elements will ultimately appear, function, and be maintained over time.
• The Panel encourages the applicant to be more authentic with material choices.
  • Consider pursuing a composite panel that matches the brick and is more easily installed to line the balconies rather than the proposed aluminum with woodgrain.
• The Panel recommends the applicant give greater consideration to the surrounding context in informing the building’s design.
  • Consider drawing datum lines from the surrounding context to inform the design of the building.
• The Panel appreciates the use of brick masonry, especially at this scale.
• The Panel recommends simplifying some of the gestures to create a more unified presence that ties all four elevations together more clearly.
  • For example, consider simplifying the gestures by removing the patch of brick in the upper 3-storey section of the composition, thus helping the building volumes to be more distinct from one another (see bottom right on page 9 for reference).
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to how the materials are used to help accentuate and define the two or three main volumes/masses of the building.
  • Consider further defining how the masses are distinct from one another (or not) through the use of materials.
  • The Panel discourages against the use of the white panels within the brick volume, particularly around balconies.
• The Panel recommends investigating further how the rhythm of columns at the ground and top floors could help articulate and bring architectural detail to the building, especially with regard to accentuating the building entrance.
• The Panel recommends continuing the rhythm of the pilasters along Montreal Road consistently in the brick medium/style that is used by the residential entrance on Borthwick instead of introducing a new material. Consider how metal coverings do not typically age or weather well.
• The Panel has concerns with the Montreal Road façade and the bright panels having control joints that will be quite visible in the façade.
  • Consider how to best manage the Montreal Road façade, whether foregoing the precast panels or finding solutions to mitigate the control joints appearance.
  • Consider revisiting how the balconies affect the architectural expressions of the facades, especially along Montreal Road, and consider implementing them more strategically to quiet down the facades.
  • Consider emphasizing the entrances of individual commercial units more deliberately.
• The Panel appreciates the previous built-from and massing of the proposal, as shown on page 66 of the presentation for the wind study.
  • The Panel recommends revisiting that building composition in its entirety or elements of it, preferring that approach and design of the Montreal Road façade in particular.
• The Panel recommends pursuing an internal garbage room space for the commercial units that is separate from the residential garbage room.
  • The Panel discourages against having commercial garbage placed curbside. Revise regulations surrounding garbage management with planners and consider providing interior garbage disposal space for commercial units.
• The Panel has some concerns with the two ground floor units being secluded, and the lack of ground floor amenity space and a commercial garbage room.
  • Consider allocating those units as space for a commercial garbage room and ground floor amenity space.
• The Panel highly recommends enclosing the garage ramp within the building envelope.
  • Consider the potential enclosing the garage ramp would provide for mezzanine/split-level units above the garage ramp (2^nd floor) with the added heights (approx. 6m), and larger terrace spaces at the 3^rd floor level (enclosed garage roof) if possible.
• The Panel recommends revisiting the architectural expression of the building, particularly along Montreal Road, to have a less planar façade.
  • Consider the architectural expression and massing of the previous rendition on page 66 of the presentation. It is more articulated and creates a varied sense of depth along Montreal Road, thus deliberately addressing Montreal Road as the front of the building.
  • Consider carrying the residential rhythm created by the red brick on the south and west sides of the building to the east side as well.
• The Panel appreciates how the top floor has been setback.
• The Panel recommends revisiting the role of the columns on the top and ground floors. How are these elements relating to and contributing to the rest of the design?
  • Consider focusing the columns purely to the ground floor and leaving the top floor as full glazing without the column work.
  • Alternatively, consider ways in which the columns rhythm can inform the articulation and details of the facades.
• The Panel recommends continuing the brick portion from the south elevation over to the east elevation, replicating the ‘base, middle, and top’ rhythm that is shown on the west and south elevations.

945 Bank Street (Lansdowne 2.0) | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment & Zoning By-law Amendment Application | City of Ottawa, Hobin Architecture Inc., OSEG, ERA Architects Inc., Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel recommends designing the site both for event days and the everyday experience of locals.
• The Panel recommends the focus of this next phase of development should be to ensure established qualities are not compromised by the new development.
• The Panel recommends year-round success of the pedestrian realm must be achieved and enhanced.
  • The Panel recommends the pedestrian accessibility of the site needs to be maintained for events such as the Farmer’s Market and future large gatherings around the proposed event space.
• The Panel supports opening up Exhibition Way to further pedestrian activity.
• The Panel has concerns with the proposed event centre being too high in the landscape.
  • The Panel strongly recommends lowering the event centre further into the ground and providing pedestrian access to the rooftop greenspace as a continuation of the park lawn.
    • Consider the overall pedestrian accessibility to the event space, and the potential for large gatherings.
• The Panel strongly recommends the towers follow the City’s guidelines of a 750-sq.m. floorplate.
  • The Panel recommends further investigating a single-tower or two-tower concept to allow for the 750-sq.m floorplates to be achieved.
  • The Panel suggests doing so will improve the porosity of the site and maintain north-south views across Lansdowne Park, while minimizing wind and shadow impacts on the public realm.
• The Panel has concerns with the orientation and location of Tower ‘C’ and its tight condition with the Aberdeen Pavilion.
  • Consider forgoing a three-tower approach.
• The Panel recommends that the future design of the podium consider using masonry to best relate to the Bank Street frontage and neighbourhood character.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates and understands all the challenges with funding and the complexity of adding users, servicing, access, and new stands, etc.
• The Panel suggests locating the truck entrance in front of the Aberdeen Pavilion is problematic and would create a lot of challenges.
  • Consider consolidating servicing to avoid conflicts.
  • Consider locating the servicing between the podium and the bleachers, preferably with access from west side closer to Bank Street to mitigate trucks driving further into the site.
• The Panel appreciates the existing amenities of Lansdowne and how it has maintained amenities that are multi-generational, with a good balance of commercial uses and public spaces/events. Consider reinforcing this aspect of the site.
• The Panel appreciates that the site could support additional density to help animate Lansdowne Park. However, the Panel has concerns with Lansdowne Park’s ability to provide space that is pedestrian friendly and pedestrian focused, which are central to Lansdowne Park’s success—and transformative for Ottawa.
  • The Panel recommends that this unique characteristic of Lansdowne as a pedestrian space and as a city outdoor public amenity must be protected and enhanced. Any diminishment of that would be a concern.
• The Panel has concerns with the lack of porosity north-south.
  • Consider increasing the porosity between the buildings in the north-south direction.
• The Panel has concerns with the relationship between Tower ‘C’ and Aberdeen Pavilion.
  • The Panel has concerns with how Tower ‘C’ seems to significantly obstruct the Aberdeen Pavilion and the event centre.
  • The Panel suggests that Tower ‘C’ obstructs the connectivity and accessibility of the site and negatively affects the north-south access in front of Aberdeen Pavilion.
• The Panel has questions and concerns with the location and orientation of Tower ‘C’.
  • Consider re-orientation to align with the street grid.
• The Panel appreciates that the views from the Rideau Canal have been maintained. However, Tower ‘C’ shifts the views away from the heritage of Aberdeen Pavilion and is much too prominent in the view planes.
  • The Panel recommends enhancing the entrance to the event centre and protecting the views of Aberdeen Pavilion by removing Tower ‘C’.
• The Panel recommends at a minimum to incorporate a 23-meter separation between Tower ‘C’ and the Aberdeen Pavilion.
• The Panel has concerns with the proposal’s large impact on the pedestrian realm, and outdoor eating and patio spaces.
  • The Panel recommends a single tower and podium approach that minimizes the wind and shadowing effects of the tower on the pedestrian realm.
• The Panel appreciates that there are various elements of the proposal that are being connected through the site by the promenade behind the stands and the ceremonial stairway, however these may not be the priority to preserve in the grand scheme.
• The Panel recommends any redevelopment of Lansdowne ensures that it remains a great destination in the city for Ottawans and visitors.

Sustainability

• The Panel strongly recommends and emphasizes that it is an important task to adhere to the sustainability standards and urban design guidelines that the City has implemented or is planning on implementing.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the aspirations and objectives of the project and the rejuvenation of the stands and site.
  • The Panel understands the economic model of the project and the neutral cost aspect.
• The Panel strongly recommends adhering to the City’s high-rise design guidelines for this City-led project.
  • The Panel strongly recommends that the guideline’s 750-sq.m. floorplate should be followed.
    • Views from the entrance off Queen Elizabeth Driveway (11), from the Bank Street bridge (13), and from Sunnyside/Bristol (7) are all significantly improved with a smaller floorplate design.
  • The Panel strongly recommends the massing be adjusted with slender towers that meet the 750-sq.m. floorplates and separation distances of the guidelines. Doing so would result in much better views of Lansdowne from afar, and reduce the shadow and wind impacts on the pedestrian realm.
• The Panel recommends that more slender towers and protecting important sky views will greatly improve the proposal.
• The Panel recommends staggering the heights of the towers with the goal of making the high-rise portion seem less like a barrier.
• The Panel recommends designing the project with a brick and stone material palette to help create a cohesive sense of a precinct and to strengthen the character of the area.
  • The Panel recommends the final product pick up on the prominent use of brick as a character element of Bank Street.
  • The Panel appreciates the articulation of the podium, however, recommends the materiality should be more tactile and more residential in nature rather than having a glazed commercial appearance.
  • The Panel recommends the final product should be a residential brick and stone palette, especially on the podium, to enhance the character of Bank.
• The Panel has concerns with the event centre in terms of how it blocks and interrupts the pedestrian experience of the site.
  • The Panel encourages the applicant to consider alternate sectional studies and provide further analysis to better inform the end result.
  • The Panel strongly recommends lowering the event centre into the ground and seamlessly connecting the park with its roof to create a park space for public enjoyment, despite additional cost.
• The Panel has concerns with the residential units facing the back of the north-side bleachers.
  • Consider other amenities instead to highlight the ‘highline’ effect. Residential units facing the bleachers should not be an option.
• The Panel appreciates the decision to setback the podium and open up space on the south side of Exhibition Way.
• The Panel recommends further developing the ceremonial stairway. Consideration needs to be given to accessibility standards.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a two-tower approach instead of the three-tower proposal.

2946 Baseline Road | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan Control Application | Brigil, Neuf Architect(e)s, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel strongly recommends bringing the scale of the two towers (Buildings 5 and 6) down to better respect the 45-degree angular planes and transition to the neighbourhood context better.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a 3-storey scale on the west side of the podium for Buildings 5 and 6 in order to better relate to the residential context immediately to the west of the site.
• The Panel recommends developing a strong pedestrian scale approach to the site.
  • Consider a pedestrian-friendly scale and public realm as a way to provide a central community space that relates better to the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood context.
• The Panel has concerns with the turning radiuses and tandem parking proposed on the site plan.

• The Panel strongly encourages the applicant to reconsider the character of the streets and foster a better public realm that supports active transportation and pedestrian usage.
  • Consider adding more trees to the site and streetscapes with soil volumes that can support their long-term growth.
• The Panel recommends relocating the at-grade parking of Building 4 to be below grade-level and maximize the at-grade street animation.
• The Panel recommends lowering the podium height of Building 4 to better transition to the low-rise residential scale to the south.
• The Panel recommends exploring design solutions that allow the towers to appear as though they disappear into the sky.
  • The Panel suggests adding more articulation to the podium’s form.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel is excited to see other parts of the city densify and appreciates the amount of thought and care that has gone into the design.
• The Panel appreciates the sites potential as a candidate to provide amenities to the community.
• The Panel supports the commercial units and the social spaces by the park.
• The Panel supports having at-grade restaurants with terraces for the neighbourhood.
• The Panel appreciates the proposed location of the park and pairing it with additional plaza space.
• The Panel suggests the current proposal is designed with too much roadway network.
• The Panel has concerns with the large turning radii that allow cars to drive too quickly through the site and cause a safety issue for pedestrians, especially with the adjacent park and commercial spaces being provided.
  • The Panel strongly recommends calming the streets by significantly minimizing the turning radii and potentially narrowing the streets, so they are perceived as local access streets and pedestrian streets.
• The Panel strongly recommends designing pedestrian-first streets to help encourage pedestrian use of the street and to unify the site as a cohesive whole.
  • The Panel recommends transitioning the pavement treatments to create a coherent public realm vision that allows the whole block to read as one, and in effect extends the public space beyond the curb.
• The Panel recommends improving the functionality of the roadways by removing all the surface parking on site and narrowing the streets to be woonerf-like.
  • Reconsider the role of the streets on site as being more pedestrian-friendly.
  • Explore and pursue design solutions for woonerf style streets that prioritize pedestrians and calm traffic.
• The Panel recommends tucking the parking entrance to Building 5 under the building rather than having it exposed to the elements.
  • Consider moving it to the west under the link as an option.
• The Panel appreciates the amenities offered throughout the project (roof, outdoor, indoor, all well handled).
• The Panel recommends the lobbies for both towers be paired along the drop-off road.
  • The proposal’s lobby for Building 5 seems quite impractical for drop-offs and impedes the uses for the central plaza space.

Sustainability

• The Panel appreciates the sustainability measures being proposed (grey water, etc.).
  • Ensure sustainability measures continue to be developed and implemented as the project moves forward.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel strongly recommends respecting the 45-degree angular plane guideline by lowering the towers and introducing a range of scales that transition better to the surrounding low-rise residential context.
  • The Panel has concerns with the height and density proposed when compared to the rest of the surrounding context.

• • The Panel recommends pursuing a better transition that includes a range of scales.
• The Panel recommends lowering the podium to better relate to neighbouring residences.
  • The Panel recommends creating a scale transition that is more sensitive to neighbours, especially on the west side.
• The Panel recommends providing more at-grade units, especially on the west and south park-facing sides.
  • Consider designing their massing to add another layer of transition from the street and residences.
• The Panel recommends introducing a 3-storey scale to relate better to the residential houses on the west side.
  • Consider lining the park and west side with a 3-storey townhouse scale, stepping back for a few more storeys of podium, and then stepping back again for the towers. Providing this series of scales and step-backs would offer a much friendlier transition to the neighbouring contexts.
• The Panel recommends reducing the separation distance between the towers, moving them closer to one another.
• The Panel has concerns with the overall success of the podium link between the towers.
  • Consider removing it as a gesture of respect for the western neighbours.
• The Panel appreciates the use of brick cladding on the podium.
  • Consider adding more articulation to the podium.
• The Panel appreciates the colour gradient aspect of the towers’ architectural expression, but has concerns about the colour choice matching too closely with the podium brick and making the entire building appear monolithic.
  • The Panel recommends having the towers’ colour gradient contrast the brick colour of the podium at the base.
    • Establish a colour gradient for the tower portions that contrasts the podium brick at the base in order to help the towers and podium read as different volumes and scales.
• The Panel recommends varying the colour gradient transitioning up the towers to not be as stark a change between segments. Weave the gradient changes into one another to help give the towers a sense of disappearing into the sky, ultimately helping the buildings appear less heavy.
  • The Panel believes that the success of the colour gradient as an architectural expression is dependent on it providing depth and texture to the towers.
• The Panel recommends lowering the back of the property (Building 4) to 6-storeys.
• The Panel has concerns with the sectional relationship of the daycare and the parking in Building 4 (see longitudinal sections on pages 44-46 of presentation).
  • The Panel recommends bringing the daycare and playground down to grade level on the south side by further lowering the underground parking under the daycare playground.
  • Ensure there is enough soil volume for grass and trees to survive and thrive—as proposed there are significant concerns with the lack of soil depth. Otherwise, design the playground as an elastocrete-like surface and provide ample man-made structures for shading.

2026 Scott Street | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Morley Hoppner Ltd., Hobin Architecture Inc., Project Paysage Inc., Fotenn Planning + Design, Colonnade Bridgeport

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the proposal and how it has developed.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to the nuanced relationships with the neighbouring properties.
• The Panel has concerns with the gesture of the bridge.
  • Consider the bridge volume to be half the height and not including residential units in the volume (e.g., amenity spaces).
  • Consider how to best treat the soffits as they will be highly visible.
  • Consider an art installation that is less aggressive and draws pedestrians through the site.
• The Panel recommends integrating the commercial units and public spaces in a way that supports animation and visual porosity between the two.
• The Panel recommends aligning the park project and its connection with the south-facing units.
• The Panel recommends exploring ways to have the flexible commercial/residential units at-grade be less opaque on the park side.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates the design of this project and supports the way it has developed.
• The Panel is excited with the park and the variety of components that have been programmed.
  • The Panel is hopeful the ice rink can be secured as it would be a great amenity for the community.
• The Panel recommends a tree-lined edge be incorporated on the east side of the property along Athlone Avenue.
  • Ensure there is also a green transition between the parking access and neighbours’ lots on both sides.
• The Panel has concerns with the commercial unit on the south side of the east building.
  • Consider the privacy of the neighbouring property in designing the proportion of window to wall ratio.
• The Panel appreciates the commercial space provided on the south side facing the park.
  • The Panel appreciates the potential for outdoor terraces and restaurant activities in the mid-block which help to animate the park and block.
• The Panel appreciates the connection to Lions Park and the commercial spaces lining the pedestrian connection from the street and transit.
• The Panel recommends further considering site porosity and connectivity.
  • Explore pedestrian desire lines and facilitate pedestrian movement in and through the site.
• The Panel has concerns with the art installation in the bridge void appearing too imposing and aggressive for a space that is trying to invite pedestrians into the site and park space.
  • The Panel does appreciate the lumber aspect of the art installation.
  • The Panel recommends considering an art installation that runs north-south along the pedestrian space and that will draw people through the space to act like a gateway.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to desire lines in the landscaping to ensure the success and use of the connections with the park and into the community.
• The Panel recommends further considering how the site will attract users.
  • Consider the importance of having community-based uses, perhaps live-work spaces.
• The Panel recommends avoiding a central object for the art installation and instead approaching it as an artwork that trails into the site and lures people.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends ensuring that social and environmental sustainability initiatives are included in the final design.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel supports the transformative and sophisticated design of the proposal.
• The Panel appreciates that the applicant is exploring different options for the bridge structure.
  • The Panel strongly recommends that it not be connected and instead use two cantilevered portions. It would be more successful in forming a civic threshold and inviting people into the site.
• The Panel strongly recommends tucking the parking ramps entirely under the building and out of the elements.
  • The Panel recommends providing full coverage of the parking ramp access to the East building.
• The Panel appreciates the inclusion of commercial space on the park. However, the Panel has concerns with the architecture of the west building’s southern units being too opaque with the blinder wall projections.
  • Consider introducing corner glazing in those units or making grade-level more transparent as a commercial base.
• The Panel has concerns with the bridge link being over-scaled.
  • The Panel supports the bottom 2-storey portion being used for amenity space.
  • The Panel has concerns with the upper 2-storey portion being used as residential floors.
  • The Panel recommends eliminating the upper 2-storey residential portion and keeping the 2-storey height for the amenity level.
• The Panel strongly recommends giving more attention to the design of the cantilevered soffits, both from the bridge link cantilever over the pedestrian through-way and from the tower cantilevers over the amenity spaces.
  • Consider including elements of visual interest and do not value engineer the soffit portions as they are quite dominant aspects of the design and façade.

The Panel supports the inclusion of generous terraces on the south side.

The City of Ottawa’s Urban Design Review Panel met on June 2, 2023. The meeting was hosted virtually using Zoom video-conferencing software.

2200 Bank Street (Phase 1) | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Smart Centres REIT, Roderick Lahey Architect, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel highly recommends revising the site design with a greater emphasis on the public realm and creating an inviting and enjoyable pedestrian experience.
  • The Panel recommends reducing considerably the amount of space in the site design that is vehicle focused and giving more space to the pedestrian realm.
  • Consider the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) nature of this site to inform the design accordingly. As proposed, the plan reads as a vehicular dominated site, and given the proximity to transit the number of streets and spaces for vehicles should be reduced.
• The Panel recommends redistributing the density around the parking garage and reducing the amount of parking provided.
• The Panel recommends seizing an opportunity for innovative design on the rooftop.
  • Consider animating the rooftop space with community uses.
• The Panel recommends introducing more colour and visual interest to the architectural expression.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel recommends developing a public realm design that is more conducive to the pedestrian experience and less utilitarian in its approach.
• The Panel notes that the transit plaza will be a very important central public space of this future neighbourhood, and thus it is important to seamlessly tie-in the proposed development with the future transit plaza design.
• The Panel recommends designing some of the proposed streets as more pedestrian-friendly and walkable streets rather than prioritizing vehicular use.
  • Consider reorganizing the programming to reduce the need for vehicular streets as much as possible.
• The Panel recommends investigating innovative solutions to provide more amenity space and make use of rooftop spaces.
  • The Panel has concerns regarding the lack of amenity spaces proposed.
  • Consider optimizing the use of the rooftop spaces as amenity and community use spaces.
    • E.g., Large podium rooftop could provide community with running track, soccer field, basketball courts, etc.
• The Panel recommends transforming the site design to be a more urban and pedestrian-friendly environment.
  • The Panel has concerns with the high proportion of the public realm dedicated to vehicles and drop-off areas. As proposed the site design is not pedestrian-friendly.
  • The Panel recommends approaching the sidewalk as a clear spine along the north-south axes and pedestrianizing some of the streets.
  • Consider redesigning the road network on the site to function better, prioritizing pedestrians and desire lines.
  • As proposed, the pedestrian sidewalks are jogging around laybys, and the Panel recommends re-calibrating the design of the streetscapes to focus on a pedestrian-first environment.
• The Panel recommends optimizing the rooftop amenities by providing recreational space(s) for all ages.
  • Consider and investigate possible alternative rooftop uses, rather than the common young professional rooftop amenity space design approach.
    • Consider innovative programming as a potential way of distinguishing the development from the norm.
• The Panel suggests considering the relocation of street parking elsewhere on the site to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic traversing the site and thereby refocusing on the pedestrian realm and pedestrian experience.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends reconsidering the amount of parking needed for this site, considering it is adjacent to a major transit station.
  • Consider dramatically reducing the amount of parking provided.
  • Marketing the site as a very sustainable and transit-oriented site is favourable.
• The panel recommends providing temporary amenity spaces on the site during the build-out of the development phases.
  • Consider carving out some of the surface parking from the altered parking lot plan to provide temporary amenities, such as lounging spaces and recreational activity spaces, in the early stages of phasing.
• The Panel recommends considering and planning out how the site is going to be used in the interim of full buildout.
  • Consider accessibility and amenities throughout the build-out of the phases, not just the final product.
• The Panel recommends giving more attention to the sustainable opportunities that could be pursued by this site.
  • The Panel recommends revising the new High Performance Development Standards that are part of the Official Plan.
    • Consider the opportunity available for district energy given the expansive size of the larger site all owned by one developer.
    • Consider additional open spaces that contribute to the integration of storm water systems.
    • Consider an exemplary tree canopy strategy on this site that contributes to storm water management and heat island reduction.
    • Consider the potential of the site for leadership in biodiversity and wildlife.
    • Consider designing the site in a manner that supports and encourages transit living and active transportation.
    • Consider low-carbon or passive house design principles.
    • Consider ways in which the greater site develops a long-term social sustainability of the site.

Built Form & Architecture

• The Panel recommends fine-tuning the tower element by reproportioning it.
  • Consider changing the scale of the base to 4-storeys instead of the proposed 2-storey height.
  • Consider stepping the volumes back from the street at 4-storeys to provide a comfortable pedestrian realm.
• The Panel suggests the previous two tower scheme was a more appropriate design for the site but understand how the economics have changed the design scheme.
  • The Panel recommends reviewing the spirit of the earlier plans, noting the incongruity between those original aspirations of the site and what is now being proposed.
• The Panel highly recommends reconsidering the 9-storey street-wall volume.
  • The Panel has concerns with the 9-storey section being too large in scale and overpowering the future success of the street.
  • Consider a 4-storey podium and appropriate step-backs to break up the volume, especially at top.
  • Consider reducing the height of the 9-storey volume few storeys and recapturing the suites by lining them around the perimeter of the first and second floor parking garage. Alternatively, consider transferring the building height to the tower in order to improve the public realm experience especially with regard to the future transit plaza’s use as a corridor and central gathering space.
• The Panel recommends increasing the amount of colour used in the materiality and architectural expression of the building.
  • The Panel recommends further exploring how colourful materials could be used to highlight aspects of the building and provide a more distinguished architecture, especially given the building’s high visibility directly adjacent to a major transit line.
• The Panel has concerns that the current proposed design feels overly industrial and doesn’t provide a sustainable, transit-oriented, residential feel.
  • Consider screening the parking garage from the street by introducing a step-back and a walkway/garden that wraps around the second level, that ties-in to some amenity space on the large rooftop above.
• The Panel recommends paying more attention to the built form design to ensure it is an appropriate urban, transit-oriented development.
  • Consider this site’s impact as a precedent for future development in the area, but also as a distinguished building directly adjacent to a major transit station.
  • The Panel suggests landmark design should be required, and further design refinement is needed to distinguish this building.
• The Panel recommends further breaking up the continuous box volumes.
  • Consider staggering the volumes more and using colour to emphasize different volumes and articulate the building.

18 Hawthorne Avenue | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | JB Holdings Inc., JBPA Developments Inc., Roderick Lahey Architect, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel recommends introducing side-yard step-backs at the upper two floors on the east and west façades, allowing for more glazing and lighting at the top of the building.
  • The Panel recommends increasing the amount of glazing on the upper two floors and improving the aesthetic of the building as viewed from the Rideau Canal.
• The Panel has concerns with the projected balconies on the north façade and the change in colouration of materials at the ground level.
  • The Panel recommends inset balcony nooks or Juliet balconies on the north façade facing Hawthorne Avenue.
  • The Panel recommends continuing the red brick material treatment to the ground level.
• The Panel has concerns with the placement of the building and urges the proponent to consider aligning the north façade with the adjacent buildings on the street.
  • Currently, the proposed design sits slightly closer to the street than adjacent properties and the Panel recommends setting the façade back to give space for street trees and to align properly with the other buildings on the street (approx. 2.7 metres setback from property line).
  • Adjusting the alignment of the north façade along Hawthorne Avenue would reduce the Panel’s concerns regarding the soil volume necessary to support street trees and the overhanging balconies interfering with them.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates the challenging nature of accessing the underground parking on a shallow site.
• The Panel has concerns with the opaque wall facing neighbours’ backyards in the rear.
  • Consider design solutions to mitigate that overlook condition with the neighbours.
• The Panel appreciates the inclusion of commercial at-grade and the potential for a good mixed-use street along Hawthorne Avenue.
• The Panel suggests further investigation into the design at ground level is needed to best support the commercial uses.
  • Consider the importance of the pedestrian realm in supporting commercial activity.
• The Panel appreciates that the typology of the lots and the existing fabric is challenging.
• The Panel has concerns with the lack of a continuous street-wall and the potential issues that may create.
• The Panel has concerns with the rear-yard raised wall and the viability of the trees in raised planters.
  • Ensure trees will survive and thrive to help the overlook condition in rear-yard and to mitigate the heat island effect.

Sustainability

• The Panel suggests undertaking a larger future context study of all the soft development sites in the area would be beneficial for the City.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the overall design of the building and the use of red brick and colour to help tie the building into the streetscape.
• The Panel recommends stepping the sidewalls back on the upper two floors to trim the bulk of the building and allow for unrestricted glazing, creating a lantern effect.
• The Panel recommends changing the cantilever balconies on the north façade to inset balconies or Juliet balconies. Consider how doing so would improve the condition/useability for residents, improve the condition for the street/sidewalk, and improve the building in terms of sustainability.
• The Panel appreciates that the area is undergoing a major transition and appreciates the proponents providing mixed-use with commercial at grade.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to the replicability of the development for other properties along Hawthorne Avenue.
  • Ensure that if more buildings of this type are developed next door, that there is sunlight coming through in a better way.
    • Consider stepping back on the east and west sides.
• The Panel discourages against material and colour changes in the same plane.
  • Consider using continuous red brick at ground level unless the building is stepped back above the material change to differentiate between the commercial and residential uses.
• The Panel has strong concerns with the shallow setbacks along Hawthorne Avenue, and the condition it creates for street trees and future pedestrian use.
  • The Panel recommends aligning the building façade to create a consistent street-wall line with adjacent buildings which setback further (consider the approx. 2.7 metre setback for adjacent heritage building façade).
  • The Panel recommends also introducing inset or Juliet balconies on the lower floors to improve the condition of the street and the relationship between the building and the pedestrian realm.
  • The Panel suggests the current proposal creates too much of a pinch between the building and the public realm on Hawthorne Avenue and recommends the condition be mitigated in some way to allow for better use of the sidewalk and relationship with the street.
• The Panel is supportive of the scale of the building for this area and context.
• The Panel recommends continuing the red brick to the ground level; a change in material is not necessary for the ground level.
• The Panel recommends providing more height at the main residential entrance to the building to distinguish it from commercial uses at-grade.
• The Panel recommends avoiding overhanging balconies on the lower floors to help highlight the entrance doorways and support the commercial activity.
• The Panel recommends reducing the size of the mechanical penthouse to be as small as possible and giving more of the rooftop space back to amenity space.

84 and 100 Gloucester Street | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan Control Application | Claridge Homes, EVOQ Architecture, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the finessing of the site and architecture.
• The Panel suggests further investigating how this block is going to develop and giving greater consideration to the replicability of the proposed development.
• The Panel has strong concerns with the lack of appropriate tower separation between this site and its adjacent properties with both existing and future development potential.
• The Panel appreciates the architectural expression of the proposed development, and its efforts to pick up on the eclectic nature of the neighbourhood.
• The Panel appreciates the proponent connecting the parking garages through the existing building.
• The Panel has concerns with the cantilever and the dark portion of the building being too close to the adjacent heritage building.
  • Consider providing more breathing room for the heritage building, allowing for a pedestrian connection wrapping around the rebuilt building.
• The Panel is supportive of the public realm treatment, and the efforts to provide good connectivity through the site.
• The Panel has concerns with the at-grade units.
  • Consider raising them (1-1.5m) above grade for greater privacy or changing residential uses for other uses (e.g., commercial).

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates the challenges of the site and the efforts made to bring all the pieces together.
• The Panel is encouraged and supportive of the building working with its neighbouring development to consolidate the parking entrance.
• The Panel appreciates the setbacks and variety provided at grade.
• The Panel has concerns with the relationship to the existing pool but understands the proponent has done the best they can regarding the surface easement and the pool.
• The Panel is encouraged and supportive of the design team’s efforts to provide site porosity and publicly accessible space on the site.
  • The Panel recommends further work with the adjacent properties to help bolster the pedestrian connections through the site and invite the public into the nicely designed spaces.
• The Panel does not support the at-grade units on the east side of the building between towers as proposed.
  • The Panel appreciates the efforts to encourage people to walk into the site but doesn’t think having residential units there is a good fit.
• The Panel suggests the at-grade units on the east side would need greater privacy to work as residential units.
  • Consider perhaps improving the privacy of those units or changing the uses of those spaces.
• The Panel notes that the pedestrian experience at ground-level needs to be enriched in this area and appreciates the proposed designs unique response to creating a more interesting ground-level plane.
  • The Panel is encouraged by the innovation that is brought to the site design.
• The Panel recommends further studying the ability for light to reach the courtyard and public spaces.
  • Consider how to allow light to penetrate to the street level.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends a comprehensive study of the area and building potential for the block to ensure sound urban design.
  • The Panel is concerned that the development of this site is neutralizing the adjacent properties for future development.
• The Panel recommends giving greater consideration to the other sites on the block and how they can develop similarly.
  • Consider the replicability of the site.
• The Panel recommends investigating access to sunlight as a matter of environmental and social sustainability of the site.
• The Panel recommends the proponent commit further to sustainability standards and review the new High Performance Development Standards that are part of the Official Plan.
  • Consider more innovative technologies for energy efficiency and sustainability.
  • The Panel has concerns regarding the use of corten steel and other materials in terms of long-term durability and sustainability.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel is supportive of the tower and height of the proposed development.
• The Panel has concerns with the size of the floorplates, setbacks and separation distances between buildings.
  • The Panel recommends the tower would have to be less than 750 square metres in floorplate size to work on this site.
• The Panel recommends greater side-yard setbacks around the darker volume on Gloucester Street and connecting the pathway around the back of that rebuilt building volume.
• The Panel recommends against neutralizing future development of adjacent sites or future opportunities for connectivity.
• The Panel appreciates the general architectural expression having a quiet built fabric with key elements of interest.
• The Panel recommends further study into the architectural expression on the west and south elevations.
  • As currently proposed, the broad tower dimensions make the building look flat and imposing, especially on the south side. Refining the tower proportions so that it is not as broad will help mitigate these issues.
• The Panel appreciates the finessing of the site and the proportions of the base and the podium.
• The Panel has concerns with how the proposed tower floorplate will affect the quality of life of residents and adjacent residents and highly recommends a small floorplate size.
  • The Panel suggests taking the rebuilt brick portion and lowering it by at least a floor.
  • The Panel suggests setting back the black glazing portion rather than projecting it forward over the pedestrian realm would greatly benefit the micro-climate conditions, trim the floorplate a bit, and significantly improve the pedestrian experience.
• The Panel generally appreciates the way the massing and the materiality of the design has been expressed.
  • The Panel is encouraged to see the eclectic nature of the neighbourhood expressed in the design.
• The Panel appreciates the proportions of the podium, and the contrasting between materials.
• The Panel is supportive of the window to wall ratio being proposed.
• The Panel has strong concerns with the separation between towers. The proposed clustering of towers is problematic and does not speak to the Official Plan’s vision of a liveable city.
  • The Panel recommends the scale of the towers and the space in between them needs to be reconsidered to help mitigate uncomfortable public spaces and living conditions on this block.
  • The Panel has concerns with the projected balconies and their sustainability. As proposed, many of them are small and not very functional. Consider the usability of the balconies, perhaps better off as Juliet balconies or inset.

381 Kent Street | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Katasa Groupe + Développement, Neuf Architect(e)s, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the scale and contextual development approach and welcomes the addition of mixed-use mid-rise to the neighbourhood and surrounding urban fabric.
• The Panel recommends revising the canopy designs of the residential entrances.
  • Consider a quieter and elegant gesture as an appropriate solution.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to the top of the building and how the roofscape meets the sky.
  • Consider quieting and detailing the roofscape element to fade away rather than impose.
• The Panel recommends integrating the POPS (Privately Owned Public Space), private terraces, and public park space to seamlessly collaborate with one another.
  • Consider a holistic approach to the design and landscaping of these spaces.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel commends the design team for a very elegant project that is appropriately scaled for Kent Street.
  • The Panel appreciates the setback to include the POPS and park space.
• The Panel recommends exploring further opportunities for greenery and some landscaping on the east side, between the building and the property line.
• The Panel greatly appreciates the commercial spaces provided on Kent Street and the use of residential at-grade to animate the side streets on Gilmour Street and James Street.
• The Panel suggests further design development of the front yard spaces at-grade regarding how they give back and enrich the streetscape.
• The Panel suggests co-designing the POPS and public park space with the City to ensure seamless integration of the sites landscaping elements.
  • The Panel suggests high quality lighting and street furniture will be crucial to the success of the POPS and public park spaces.
• The Panel recommends the POPS and public park space be designed in a manner that reinstates a very robust tree canopy in front of the building along Kent Street, as per built heritage photos of the once canopied Kent Street streetscape.
  • Ensure that the trees can thrive and mature into a large canopy.
• The Panel suggests a high-design park space that is thoughtfully animated under a large tree canopy will be crucial to this development and its function in this heritage district.

Sustainability

• The Panel commends the developer for undertaking a good 9-storey development that integrates well into the surrounding context.
  • The Panel appreciates the addition of a ‘missing middle’ model of development in this neighbourhood and hopes to see this model of development pursued more often.
• The Panel strongly encourages the proponent to put a greater focus of the design on environmental sustainability.
  • Consider innovative ideas that will contribute to the long-term sustainability of the building and neighbourhood.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel recommends not contrasting the residential entrances articulation from the building’s architectural language.
  • Consider simplifying the design of the entrances to be more in-line with the building’s architectural language.
  • Consider forgoing the contemporary gesture of the entrances for a more classic language.
  • The Panel suggest the wood soffits might work well to distinguish the entrances, but to otherwise stay within the building’s framework of expression.
• The Panel appreciates the building footprint and how the building fits within the site.
• The Panel appreciates that the massing and design gives the appearance of two buildings connected as one through a central link.
• The Panel appreciates the timelessness of the architecture proposed.
  • The Panel is encouraged to see good proportions and materials being used.
• The Panel recommends focusing on refining the details of the design and architecture. E.g., brickwork, lighting, corners, and joints.
• The Panel supports the white finishes and white concrete materials as part of the architectural detailing; however, the Panel recommends the long-term durability and maintenance of these materials be ensured.
  • The Panel has concerns with the tarnishing of the materials over time, especially the white finish and white concrete that must be high quality durable materials.

The City of Ottawa’s Urban Design Review Panel met on May 5, 2023. The meeting was hosted virtually using Zoom video-conferencing software.

200 Friel Street | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Ottawa Community Housing Corp., Diamond Schmitt Architects, KWC Architects, Lashley + Associates Landscape Architects, WSP Global Inc.

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the applicant voluntarily coming to the UDRP and the important social impact of building affordable housing.
• The Panel has concerns regarding the architectural expression of the base and tower.
  • The Panel has concerns regarding the breaking down of the massing.
  • The Panel has concerns regarding the texture of the building; further work is required.
• The Panel appreciates the use of colour in the design and the lifting of the base at street level as well.
• The Panel has given various suggestions on how to best approach the site design and building massing:
  • Consider a lower building that reduces the shadow impact on adjacent schools and yard.
  • Consider limiting the length of the podium along the street and increasing the height of the tower to provide greater social and public spaces.
  • Resident’s access to outdoor air and amenities is important, consider adding balconies; Juliet balconies are a good option that balances concerns over maintenance, cost, and energy efficiency.
  • Greater consideration should be given to the public realm. Consider providing a row of street trees and additional public space on both the Chapel and Friel sides.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel has concerns with the building not offering enough amenity space for the residents.
  • The Panel recommends more exterior amenity space should be considered.
  • The Panel recommends doing more for the public realm by adding new open spaces, rather than only redesigning the existing spaces.
• The Panel recommends considering a more interesting way of addressing the dead-end street.
• The Panel strongly recommends contributing to the streetscape by implementing a continuous street tree line along Beausoleil Drive. The streetscape plantings are a large part of the amenity and public space contribution of the building to the community.
• The Panel recommends using the second floor as amenity space for residents to allow for more ground-floor open spaces.
• The Panel recommends considering ground-floor canopies or trellises to assist in humanizing the ground-level space.

Sustainability

• The Panel appreciates the affordable housing endeavour and its contribution to social sustainability.
• The Panel recommends giving more consideration to sustainable living, accessibility, and public art.
• The Panel strongly recommends adding more amenity space, as the social components of the building design will play a significant role in the social and environmental sustainability of the site.
• The Panel recommends the energy efficiency of the building needs more consideration and suggests considering window shading elements and an energy efficient treatment of the rooftops (e.g., photovoltaic panels that can be complimentary with some low-maintenance vegetation).
• The Panel suggests considering social sustainability as an extremely important aspect of the building design.
  • The Panel recommends giving more thought to ways the building can help foster social activity and a sense of community (e.g., consider community gardens and other innovative solutions that bring people together).

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the complexity of the project given that it is a rather unique and tight site.
• The Panel appreciates the emphasis on the horizontality of the base and the verticality of the tower. However, the horizontality of the base can be strengthened further in terms of horizontal banding.
• The Panel appreciates the small floorplate size for the tower.
• The Panel recommends redesigning the window pattern in a way that strengthens the verticality of the three ‘pieces’ of the tower.
  • Consider composing the centre ‘piece’ to have a consistent fenestration pattern.
  • Consider vertically organized fenestration and window patterning rather than a random pattern to help accentuate the verticality of the various elements of the tower.
• The Panel has concerns with the shadow impact from the massing on the school across the street.
  • The Panel recommends a lower building to reduce shadow impact on the school to the north.
• The Panel recommends that a mid-rise/twelve-storey building which considers its relationship to the bulb of the dead-end and the curved streetscape of Beausoleil Drive would be better suited for this site.
• The Panel has concerns with the lack of balconies for residents.
• The Panel appreciates the simplicity of the design. However, the coloured stripes are not successful in breaking up the massing.
• The Panel recommends the building aim higher architecturally, perhaps by adding texture to the metal paneling or something that addresses the current flatness of the façade. Consider ‘Juliet’ balconies to help with reducing the flatness of the façade while addressing the lack of balconies.
• The Panel appreciates the glazed ‘floating’ treatment of the ground floor.
• The Panel suggests the podium could be much stronger by relating to the curvature of the street and creating a curved presence.
• The Panel recommends a more textured material for the tower.
• The Panel recommends the mechanical penthouse should be stepped back.
• The Panel recommends considering the long-term endurance and appearance of the building in the decision-making process for materials.
  • The Panel has concerns about the aesthetics of the metal panel as it ages.
• The Panel suggests the efforts to break up the bulkiness of the massing aren’t accomplishing the desired effect (change of heights, material changes, colour accents, fenestration, etc.).
  • The Panel recommends considering a slightly smaller building footprint on the site.
  • The Panel suggests using the windows to help delineate the changes in materials.

1640-1660 Carling Avenue | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Application | RioCan, Hobin Architecture, Fotenn Planning + Design, CSW Landscape Architecture

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the overall scale of the development and its contribution as part of what is becoming a larger landmark area in the city.
  • • The Panel recommends considering how this development will knit into the surrounding context as it develops and intensifies.
    • The Panel recommends undertaking additional modeling to anticipate different scenarios, especially to the east and west of the site.
• The Panel expressed various thoughts on how to better configure the layout of the site.
  • • The Panel recommends relocating the large open space from the north-west corner at Carling and Clyde elsewhere on the site. Options include:
      • Moving it to the centre of the block as shown in ‘option 1’ and ‘option 2’, and then improving the connection through to the park space in the development to the south.
      • Moving it and the central park space to run along the south of the site, with mid-rise along the middle of the site and towers along Carling to maximize views and sunlight on the site.
    • The Panel recommends relocating the two tallest buildings flanking the park on Carling Street and providing generous setbacks from the street given the need to accommodate the future BRT stop and to animate the commercial spaces.
• The Panel recommends six-storeys is the appropriate scale for podiums along Carling Avenue.
  • • The Panel recommends transitioning south of Carling Avenue to four-storey podiums.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel recommends the site plan could benefit from further study and investigation of different options.
• The Panel recommends considering the greater context of development in this area when planning the design and layout of the site, including the development sites to the south of the highway as well.
  • Given the intensification coming to this industrial park area, the Panel recommends undertaking a master planning exercise to determine if the area can accommodate the intensification proposed. Perhaps a Secondary Plan is needed for the area.
  • The Panel recommends ensuring that the social infrastructure essential to creating a new highly dense community is being provided.
• The Panel discourages against having the large open space at the north-west corner of the site.
  • Consider relocating the open space at the north-west corner of the site to the south-west corner, essentially extending the park in the development to the south. Doing so would create better opportunities for programming and recreational play.
  • Consider locating one of the taller buildings to the north-west corner and creating animation for that corner through ample commercial space and wide street-front setbacks—given BRT is coming to that corner.
• The Panel recommends the project design team keep the idea of a community building in the project, preferably in a way that relates to the provided public park spaces. A community building will provide important social infrastructure to the area.
• The Panel appreciates the alignment of the proposed new roadway.
• The Panel recommends improving the connection from the park space to the approved park along Clyde in the adjacent development to the south.
• The Panel recommends moving the corner POPS away from the corner of Carling and Clyde, instead aligning it with the park on Carling Avenue.
  • The Panel discourages making the park seem hidden and private, as is the sense from the current design layout. The Panel suggests extending the central park space up to Carling Avenue by relocating the POPS to make park space more visible and inviting from the main street, which is Carling.
  • The Panel recommends framing the park space by locating the two tallest buildings on either side, and then transitioning down in scale towards the south of the site.
• The Panel appreciates the scale of the landscape elements in the central park area.
• The Panel recommends not extending the small leg of the east-west public street. Instead, design that space to favour more green open space which provides the flexibility to create connections to a development to the east in the future if necessary.

Sustainability

• Considering the long build-out of the site, the Panel recommends the sustainability and public realm of the site must be very forward-thinking.
  • Consider designing to be top-of-class for current standards so the site can last long into the future (e.g., low-carbon or zero carbon site would help “future proof” the site design).

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel recommends the appropriate scaling of the podiums on the site would be to have six-storey podiums along Carling Avenue and scaling down to four-storey podiums for the rest of the site.
• The Panel recommends the project design team give considerable attention to the high-rise design guidelines, particularly those regarding tower step-backs from the podium and separation distance requirements between towers, as these will be key to the success of the development.
  • Regarding the street edge and podium conditions, the Panel suggests the inspiration from the bottom-right image on page 24 of the submission document is quite successful.
  • Regarding the tower body inspiration, the Panel recommends a simpler architectural design as shown in the bottom images on page 25 of the submission document.
  • Regarding the tower tops, the Panel recommends leaning towards a simpler design. Build off the inspirational images on the bottom-middle and bottom-right of page 26 of the submission document. Consider simple lighting and simple ways of having the tower meet the sky.
• The Panel recommends treating Clyde Avenue with a lower scale, the same way as buildings on the interior of the site and to the east have been scaled.
  • The Panel recommends focusing height on Carling and stepping down the scale southward.
• The Panel recommends giving more attention to the Carling Avenue buildings and frontages.
  • Consider three buildings along Carling Avenue, creating a new street wall.
  • Consider focusing park space and public squares at the south edge of the site and relocating the buildings to the north of the park space.
  • Consider stepping down the scale of buildings and podiums from north to south, thereby creating longer views with midrise being in the middle of the site and park at the south end.
• The Panel recommends paying considerable attention to the importance of podiums in strengthening the street wall, especially along Carling Avenue.
• The Panel suggests it may be a better approach to consider the site as a mid-rise neighbourhood with a few towers at key locations on the site.
  • The Panel notes it is important to consider the proportions of this area in regard to how it will be humanized—think of the pedestrian scale.
• The Panel recommends the design team give considerable thought to how this site will be viewed from afar.
  • The Panel suggests it is very important to consider how will this development help contribute to, improve, and define the skyline.

1050 Tawadina Road | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | WestUrban Developments Ltd., FAAS, Q9 Planning + Design Inc.

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the use of the easement as a positive aspect of the site design.
• The Panel recommends a variety of ways the materiality of the building could be improved. Think about organizing material selection within a base, middle and top typology.
• The Panel recommends not exceeding a three-storey datum for the darker coloured material. Consider using a brick masonry material for the three-storey base of the building and metal paneling for the top six storeys.
  • The Panel recommends special consideration should be given to transitioning to lighter colouration of materials towards the top of the building.
• The Panel recommends improving the relationship with the low-rise residential context to the east by focusing the highest points away from the low-rise residential housing.
• The Panel recommends lowering the building ground-floor as much as possible to improve the building’s relationship with the surrounding grade and residential neighbourhood context.
• The Panel recommends locating the street trees closer to the curb and lightening the appearance of the solid masonry patio walls to be more open and transparent to the street.
• The Panel strongly recommends giving more consideration to the internal courtyard space and designing welcoming amenity spaces at either end of the through pathway. Consider also creating a more naturally meandering pathway and a courtyard space that is usable by residents and neighbours for recreation/relaxation.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel has concerns with the entrance to the below-grade car park, which currently has large walls on either side.
  • The Panel suggests the parking areas require more technical refinement. Consider a simpler transparent guardrail.
  • The Panel also has concerns with the switchback ramp at the building’s entrance; further work needs to be done to improve the architectural expression of the entrance area.
• The Panel is very appreciative of the project team taking the site limitation of the sewer easement and turning it into a great opportunity.
• The Panel appreciates the diagonal pathway through the site, however, recommends that it should lead from something to something. Currently, the corners of the diagonal through-path are a surface parking lot at one end and views of single-family housing at the other. Further investigation into how this pathway can be designed to provide amenities at either end is strongly recommended.
  • Consider a more meandering pathway rather than a straight crossing.
  • Consider softening the walls in the courtyard space to be less rigid if having them at all.
  • Consider using plantings as guideways instead of walls.
  • Consider interesting ways of lighting the internal courtyard space.
  • Consider creating friendlier and more inviting conditions in the courtyard.
  • Consider furthering the opportunity for great public space by integrating public art.
  • Consider holding a placemaking exercise to make the courtyard space more of a gathering space for residents and surrounding neighbours.
  • The Panel recommends more design consideration be given to seize this great public space opportunity.
• The Panel suggests that the bicycle parking at the north-east of the site interrupts the pathway and presents an awkward space.
  • The Panel recommends removing the green buffer by the bicycle rack and giving more consideration to bicycle parking.
  • The Panel would like to see the open spaces become more of an event/destination at either end of the pathway.
• The Panel is concerned with the solid walls of the front patios.
  • The Panel recommends investigating two or three stepped levels of planters to give more depth to the street frontage.
  • The Panel recommends welcoming and relating more to the street by adding a level of transparency to the ground-level patios/entrances.
• The Panel appreciates the effort to provide the conditions for street trees that will mature. However, the Panel strongly encourages keeping the tree-lined condition consistent on all four sides of the site.
• The Panel appreciates the tree planting in the courtyard. However, the Panel has concerns with the raised beds feeling like barriers to the space and making it feel less like a usable open space and more like a space to purely pass through.
• The Panel recommends improving the integration of the courtyard building into the design of the courtyard space.
• The Panel strongly recommends revising and avoiding the linear alley condition of the pathway.
• The Panel recommends creating a landscaped buffer with plantings/street trees between the street edge and the sidewalk if permissible by the guidelines.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends improving the building’s sustainability efforts and integrating the courtyard space as a central component of its sustainability (e.g., reducing the heat island effect by reducing the hard surfaces as much as possible).
• The Panel recommends implementing green roofs, especially on the courtyard building that will be highly visible to residents.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the general massing of the building design.
• The Panel recommends improving the relationship between the east side of the building and the houses across the street. The Panel advises against creating an abrupt relationship to the adjacent housing across the street.
• The Panel recommends considering metal paneling as a material on the upper six floors. The Panel recommends further investigation into implementing a dual tone of metal paneling.
• The Panel advises against using materials that will deteriorate more quickly and have shorter lifespans.
  • The Panel recommends the use of brick as a material for the base of the building, then transitioning to metal paneling for the upper floors of the building, using a lighter metal paneling on the top few floors to create a tonal transition in the building’s architectural expression.
• The Panel recommends cladding the lower three storeys in brick masonry rather than the currently proposed dark grey cementitious panel.
• The Panel strongly recommends against using a woodgrain metal paneling as it distorts the materiality of the building. Consider letting the metal paneling appear as metal if that is the direction the design team chooses, not a metal woodgrain texture.
• The Panel recommends implementing colour tones that help establish a theme for the greater community.
• The Panel recommends making the relationship between the light and dark materials clearer (refers to p.18 of submission document).
• The Panel has concerns regarding the use of white stucco as a material; the primary concern is that it ages poorly and stains easily (refers to p.21 of submission document).
• The Panel discourages having long/large expanses of blank wall space, especially the case with dark materials and on corners.
  • The Panel recommends providing more visual interest to those wall spaces and ‘framing-out’ the corners.
  • The Panel recommends refraining from extending the dark grey material beyond the strong datum line of the three-storey podium.
• The Panel recommends considering residential wood doors paired with wood guardrails on a concrete slab for the ground-level patios and entrances.
• The Panel recommends lowering the south-facing portion of the building down a few storeys.
• The Panel appreciates the amenity space provided at the fourth and seventh floors.
• The Panel recommends breaking up the flatness of the upper six storeys more.
• The Panel recommends allowing the folded/inset geometry of the façade on the lower three storeys to go the full height of the podium volume to add architectural interest and alleviate the appearance of a large soffit band around the podium.
• The Panel recommends lowering the parking garage by 1.5 - 2 metres more to have the grade be consistent at the ground level rather than raised, thereby allowing the trees and entrances/patios to be at grade rather than raised.
• The Panel recommends that lowering the building by 1 - 2 meters would significantly help with the buildings most concerning issues (those being the solid walls and raised entrances of the patios and tree beds).
  • The Panel suggests lowering the building would significantly improve the relationship of the building to the surrounding context as well.

The City of Ottawa’s Special Design Review Panel met on April 14, 2023. The meeting was hosted virtually using Zoom video-conferencing software.

359 Kent St., 444 & 436 MacLaren St. | Formal Review | Zoning By-law  Amendment Application | Taggart Realty Management (Derek Howe/Kyle Kazda); Fotenn Planning + Design (Paul Black); Hobin Architecture Inc. (Patrick Bisson)

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the retention of the heritage buildings and the work required to preserve the Legion building as a cornerstone landmark and community anchor in the Heritage Conservation District.
• The Panel has concerns regarding the entrance off Gilmour Street into the Legion building and recommends reconsidering its location and redesigning the recessed element.
• The Panel recommends stepping-down the red-brick portion of the podium to better integrate the project design with the adjacent heritage district context.
• The Panel recommends reconsidering the design of the podium’s north façade with investigation into the various views on materiality, glazing and the entry canopy given by the Panel.
• The Panel recommends simplifying the architectural expression of the tower to achieve the landmark status requisite for the additional building height. Consideration should be given to the idea of a ‘simple elegance’, the building being viewed in the round, and therefore all four sides of the tower having a singular simplified iconic expression. o The Panel recommends highlighting the Legion building by quieting the tower’s architectural expression through simplified yet elegant pattern and materiality.

Site Design & Public Realm

• The Panel recommends the heritage properties at 444 & 436 MacLaren Street be better integrated into the overall site plan and public realm design of this iconic heritage site, as they contribute to the overall iconic status of this site.
  • The Panel strongly recommends removing at-grade surface parking in the site design (436 MacLaren Street), as it is inconsistent with the special landmark status of the site.
  • The Panel members appreciate the public realm spaces included in the design and are intrigued by its features; however, further development of the public space is needed to create a landmark public realm at the ground level. 
  • The Panel recommends improving the porosity and connectivity through the site in a way that would allow the public to move through and around the site and historic buildings more openly. Consider the heritage houses as pavilions in a landscape with connected courtyards or mews linking between the north entrance of 359 Kent Street and the MacLaren properties.  o The landmark status of this project and this site lends itself to a bigger public realm idea rather than a few smaller courtyard spaces that are essentially disconnected from one another and isolated.
• The Panel supports the civic and public use of the site and recommends that—as an integral component of this project—the civic use within the Legion Building should be confirmed prior to the permissions going forward.
• The Panel recommends widening the sidewalk along Kent Street as much as possible by extending the sidewalk to the face of the Legion building.
  • The Panel appreciates the introduction of much needed street trees along Kent Street, but recommends they be aligned with a widened sidewalk that extends from the intersection of Kent and MacLaren to the NW corner of 359 Kent Street.  
• The Panel recommends reconsidering the alignment of the sidewalk along Gilmour Street to provide a clearway that meets the accessibility needs of the visually impaired. As such, greenery and tree plantings should be brought in closer to the building face along Gilmour Street.

Sustainability

• The Panel strongly supports the environmental design of a low-energy all-electric building.
• The Panel suggests that curtain-wall glazing is perhaps not the most environmentally efficient and recommends adding more shading elements or more solidity behind the glass to give better insulation factors—especially given cold winters.
• The Panel appreciates the idea of photovoltaic paneling but has concerns over how that may appear in built form. Therefore, the Panel recommends displaying in greater detail how that will appear.

Built Form & Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the progression of the project, including the retention of heritage buildings as an anchor to the design.
• The Panel also appreciates the Legion building being integrated as a grounding element for the tower.
• The Panel suggests re-imagining the building’s articulation, and the materiality— especially the tower—to satisfy the landmark status at this location. The current tower expression appears more like an ‘everyday tower’ that doesn’t have the gravitas of a ‘landmark tower’.
• The Panel suggests simplifying and quieting the architectural expression of the tower would be the right approach for this heritage site—being an iconic landmark isn’t necessarily about making a bold statement. Consider accentuating the heritage building at the base by simplifying the tower, creating a quiet elegant vertical expression that compliments the heritage identity of the site.
• The Panel appreciates the tower being set back from the corner and the glazed separation between the tower and Legion building at the amenity level.
• The Panel appreciates the idea of simplicity in the tower design but feels that the current tower design is overly complex and appears busy, owing to several overlapping features in the architectural expression of the tower:
  • The Panel recommends the tower design have a simplified singular expression and be understood as unified composition on all four sides.
  • The current tower design has competing architectural expressions in the three-storey striating rhythm and the vertical ‘break’ element. o The Panel suggests using the vertical ‘break’ element as a design idea that evolves from the base of the building—perhaps at the junction between the limestone and brick portions of the podium—to inform the design and architectural expression of the tower.
  • The Panel suggests considering noble materials as part of the tower’s expression to render a higher-quality landmark appearance (e.g., limestone). The current use of aluminum cladding could appear conventional as it is a more commonly used material in Ottawa.
  • The Panel recommends reconsidering the crown element at the top of the tower. In its current form, the crown adds a cap element to the building that renders its appearance heavy. Consider using a lighter, less opaque, tower top.
  • The Panel recommends redesigning the crown element to accentuate the verticality of the tower, while maintaining the focus of the Legion building as the gem from which the tower elegantly elongates into the sky.
• The Panel recommends dropping the scale of the red-brick podium along Gilmour Street by at least one storey to: o Improve the relationship of the building with the surrounding neighbourhood scale and heritage context,
  • Enhance the prominence of the heritage Legion building on the corner as a landmark, and
  • Complement the vertical striation of the building design.
• The Panel supports the vertical rhythm and articulation of the red-brick podium but recommends improving the transition to the neighbouring buildings by lowering the full length of the podium down to be one storey lower than the Legion building, or by stepping the podium down on the east and north sides to better relate to the adjacent heritage house form context.
• The Panel recommends forgoing the canopy element above the red-brick podium as it adds unnecessary bulk and height to the design.
• The Panel recommends—along with the lowering of the podium by one storey— maintaining the amenity programming as a bi-level amenity with terracing that supports the already established programming.
• The Panel recommends designing the east façade of the red-brick podium to be more visually interesting—consider more windows or architectural details.
• The Panel suggests the recessed five-storey curtain-wall on the north façade of the podium, deceivingly, appears as a commercial atrium space when it is not. Consider a more consistent legibility of the Legion building on the non-heritage façades through continuation of the architectural expression.
• The Panel recommends reconsidering the expression of the three-storey entry canopy element to be more refined and timeless and suggests the volume of the entry canopy alludes to a three-storey interior space, creating a sense of incongruency between the exterior and interior volumes and functions of the Legion building.
• The Panel recommends re-imagining the ground-level treatment of the Legion building along Gilmour Street—perhaps as a squared recess rather than an angular one. Consider relocating the entry point closer to the corner of Kent Street where it currently is placed or along Kent Street where the two-storey opening stands.
• The Panel strongly recommends rebuilding the Legion building façade as closely as possible to the original, which includes retaining the light-coloured window treatments and mullions.

Next Steps

The Panel recommends the applicant’s revised design be circulated with the SDRP for review and comment, with the option of requiring a fourth meeting with the SDRP to be determined upon review.

178 NEPEAN ST., 219-223 BANK ST. | Formal Review | Site Plan Control & Zoning By-law Amendment Application | Smart Living Properties, Fotenn Consultants Inc., Woodman Architect & Associates Ltd., Commonwealth Historic Resource Management

Key Recommendations

• The Panel supports the treatment of the heritage façades and appreciates the emphasis on the restoration of heritage buildings. The massing and setbacks proposed are appreciated.
• The pedestrian experience and public realm enthusiasm is appreciated. The Panel supports increasing the public realm, but more exploration of street trees on Bank Street or other solutions to enhancing the Bank Street public realm is needed.
• The Panel recommends a more neutral and lighter palette for the addition. The superstructure appears heavy and is imposing on the prominence of the heritage buildings.
• The Panel appreciates the ratio of glazing to solid façade treatment as a sustainability measure.
• The Panel has some concerns regarding the overlook and amenity areas and their functionality. Consider adding amenity space to rooftop.
• The Panel recommends the applicants return to the UDRP for a further review.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates the retention of the “Wallacks” art store as a community anchor.
• The Panel recommends increasing the size of the public realm on the side streets, and considering another solution to enhancing the public realm on Bank Street if street trees are not viable.
  • The Panel recommends increasing the size of bulb-outs for public realm.

Sustainability

• The Panel suggests the applicant consider recycling or reuse of materials as a potential sustainability measure—for example, with historic wood.
• The Panel recommends considering the integration of photovoltaics in the building design as a measure to increase the buildings sustainability efforts.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel recognizes the challenges associated with maintaining and retaining the existing heritage building structures and appreciates the work that has gone into the analysis and restoration of the heritage elements.
• The Panel understands the desire to achieve original heritage qualities (paint/brick) but the applicant should consider retaining qualities that exist today and consider how far back in the ‘story’ of the site’s heritage to expose. Ultimately, the integrity of the heritage buildings should be the priority.
• The Panel recommends considering awnings and canopies as contributors to the historical character of the buildings.
• The Panel appreciates the explanation given for small suites and pre-furnished units. However, the amenity offering in such a case becomes even more important.
  • The Panel recommends reorganizing amenity spaces, as the mid-level amenity interaction with units and the open section to below on the second floor will be challenging to make work.
• The Panel recommends an exterior amenity be added to the upper roof of the addition. The Panel appreciates the façade subsets—creating a type of woven façade. However, a degree of simplification in the façade is recommended.
• The colouration of the materials on the addition appears very dark and heavy and makes the addition appear weighted above the heritage buildings.
• The Panel recommends fading away the upper portions of the building by lightening the colour palette to make the addition feel less imposing on the heritage buildings, allowing the heritage buildings to retain their prominence.
  • The Panel strongly believes the restored heritage buildings should be the focal point of this development.
  • The Panel appreciates the proportions of the building, which includes a stepped-back upper two floors.
  • The Panel recommends the applicant undertake a closer investigation and exploration of materials and colour choices to lighten and simplify the building as a complimentary yet subordinate addition to the heritage buildings.
  • The Panel suggests a smooth finished pre-cast or a limestone finish above the heritage buildings would better emphasize the heritage buildings and the existing masonry colour palette.
  • The Panel appreciates the architectural rhythm of the addition but notes the glazing could be articulated better to give the heritage buildings and windows prominence.
  • The Panel suggests considering a slightly larger size of glazing to help lighten the building addition and highlight the heritage buildings. This proportion of window to solid could even increase on the upper two floors.

1186-1194 WELLINGTON ST. W | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Minto Communities Canada, Dialog, Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates how the heritage aspects have been integrated.
• The Panel recommends adding finer details to the design of the building, especially in the lower two levels.
• The Panel appreciates the improvements made to the podium, however more balance is needed between wall and glazing. The Panel recommends solidifying the glazed Hamilton side.
• The Panel recommends reconfiguring the masonry planes to diminish the discomfort from the vertical and horizontal panels colliding.
• The Panel appreciates the improvements made to the public realm. The public realm and landscaping have evolved positively.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates the evolution of the public realm and laneway from the previous renditions.
• The Panel recommends adding more trees on Wellington Street and along the rear laneway.
• The Panel recommends introducing more pedestrian elements to the public realm.

Sustainability

• The Panel strongly encourages the inclusion of carbon-neutral and sustainable elements into the design (e.g. geothermal, etc.).

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the architectural expression of the curve and marquee as it appears more intentional.
• The Panel suggests the glazing on the Hamilton Street side does not fit well. Consider introducing more masonry to help frame the curve element and make it more visually expressive.
• The Panel appreciates the massing of the building and the ground-floor level canopies. However, finer details and a better rhythm/proportion in the lower floors is needed.
  • The Panel recommends investigating the treatment of the ground-floor level more closely. Consider a different tonality and applying more of a brick/stone element. For example, the Panel suggests reviewing the Minto Beechwood project, which includes similar elements such as a finer grain of materiality and the use of curtain wall retail.
  • The Panel recommends larger 1:50 scale drawings (for a portion of the first few floors) be prepared and submitted to staff for review.
• The Panel supports the dispersed brick planes seen in earlier versions of the project. The Panel notes that the current layout of the planes make the building appear bulky.
  • The Panel recommends reconsidering the placement/intersection of the vertical and horizontal masonry planes. Where they overlap appears misplaced and jarring. There is a similar condition on the rear laneway side where brick planes intersect.
• The Panel appreciates the refinements made on the podium level. However, more balance could be brought to the podium by adding some different materiality to the glazing walls.
• The Panel recommends introducing the same tonal quality of the church as an inspiration to help create some needed unity with the public realm and neighbourhood. The current tonal quality of the building appears very white and a stark contrast to the surrounding neighbourhood context.
• The Panel appreciates the vertical expression of the tower and podium.

230-232 LISGAR ST. | Formal Review | Site Plan Control & Zoning By-law Amendment Application | Albert Falsetto, Fotenn Planning + Design, Project1 Studio Inc.

Key Recommendations

• The Panel strongly supports the architectural expression, details, and rationale of the building.
• The Panel recommends a limiting distance agreement (LDA) should be considered to remediate limitations to the amount of glazing permitted on the sides of the building.
• The Panel recommends the applicant ensure that pedestrians on the sidewalk will not be blocked by cars waiting for the car elevator.
• The Panel recommends the focus of the building should be to demonstrate an exemplary ‘missing-middle’ project.
• The Panel recommends considering an effective urban garden landscape to enhance the quality of the streetscape along Lisgar Street.
• The Panel recommends further developing the activation of Lisgar Street through mechanisms such as the enhancement of the ‘front-porch’ rationale.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel recommends considering a limiting distance agreement (LDA) to allow for the shifting of the building or drive aisle width and to increase the amount of glazing permitted on the east side of the building.
• The Panel appreciates the car elevator idea but advises the applicant to consider the realities of queuing for its use and its functionality in terms of service, cost, and effect on the public realm.
  • The Panel recommends the applicant ensure that there will be enough space between the car park/driveway and pedestrian sidewalk for a car to idle while waiting for the car elevator.
• The Panel believes this project can be an exemplar for mid-rise buildings with added attention to detail on the streetscape and public realm.
  • The Panel would like to see more of a vision for the streetscape along Lisgar Street and recommends increasing the number of street trees and landscaping the streetscape as an urban garden edge.
• The Panel suggests the tight spacing of the front-yard planters cause a challenge for the site and recommends a less imposing edge treatment to alleviate the tight feeling of the space (eg. benches or a lower profile planter).
• The Panel recommends considering climbing vegetation as a suitable solution to increase vegetation on the site and soften the appearance of the private fencing.

Sustainability

• The Panel recommends further developing the sustainability measures of the building.
  • The Panel suggests the applicant consider demonstrating sustainable mid-rise intensification measures including a green-roof, urban ecological measures, etc. to achieve greater sustainability.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the well thought out details and commendable effort put into the design. The result is a building which functions both as a background building, as well as a building which stands out. A difficult balance to achieve.
• The Panel strongly advises it is essential that all the geometries and details in the building design be maintained in the final building construction—and not be value engineered.
• The Panel supports the way the base of the building responds well to the adjacent properties and other properties on the street.
• The Panel appreciates the terrace setbacks and the nesting idea at the top of the building.
• The Panel recommends an all-red brick façade treatment, as the darker black fragments of the building may be unnecessary.

5497 Manotick Main Street | Formal Review | Site Plan Application | Brian Clark Architect I 12213559 Canada Inc. - Applicant

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates and encourages the Applicant’s attempts to preserve existing trees on-site.
• The Panel appreciates the addition of diverse housing options to the community.
• The Panel recommends the proposed built form be adjusted to better address Manotick Main Street while providing additional side yard separation for the proposal.
• The Panel recommends the Applicant incorporate a more robust base material for the building in keeping with similar projects in the vicinity.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel is concerned with the approach to on-site parking and open ramp garage access abutting Manotick Main Street. The panel recommends the following:
  • Reduce surface parking abutting Manotick Main Street.
  • Incorporate the garage access ramp into the building.
  • If feasible shift the driveway location south to allow for additional tree retention.
• The Panel also noted the impacts of the parking area on the proposed ground floor unit and suggested that if the condition is to remain, some form of landscape buffer should be provided between a parking area and the residential unit.
• The Panel encouraged the Applicant to explore how the public realm connection could be bolstered on-site with a wider sidewalk and generous landscaping.

• The Panel encouraged the Applicant to explore the potential for outdoor amenity space at the rear or on the roof of the building. If outdoor amenity is provided at the rear of the building the means of access should be clarified to ensure minimal conflict with the abutting private residential terrace.

Sustainability

• The Panel encouraged the Applicant to bolster sustainability efforts through site and building design. The following suggestions were made to address this concern:
  • Consider a green roof on the building, white roof at a minimum.
  • Consider porous paving materials to manage storm water run-off from the amount of hardscape proposed.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel is concerned with the built form relationship to Manotick Main Street, and the interior side yard relationships as proposed.
• To address these concerns, the Panel recommended elongating the building (east/west) while reducing the width (north/south) to provide a stronger relationship to the street while increasing the side yard separation distances.
• The Panel encourages an alternative architectural response to the rear façade to address the natural dynamism and opportunity afforded by a waterfront site.
• The Panel recommended a redistribution of the stone treatment to the ground floor instead of the columns to help ground the building.
• The Panel recommended simplifying the cornice and key stone feature to respond to some of the more contemporary elements proposed.
• The Panel recommended that the materiality be carefully reviewed to ensure longevity.
• The Panel was concerned about potential venting for the parking garage on the rear façade and encouraged the Applicant to explore alternatives.

112 Montreal Road | Formal Review | Site Plan Application | Manor Park Management/ Rod Lahey Architects

Key Recommendations

• The Panel appreciates the project coming forward and sees this is a chance to create a new neighborhood within its existing neighbourhood context.
• The Panel recommends further exploration of the site design, landscape and associated functions at grade.
• Building A requires further study and enhancement to ensure it responds to its main street context on Montreal Road.
• Early consideration should be given to the differentiation of Phase 2 buildings while maintaining a relationship to the proposed Phase 1 buildings.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel is concerned with the conflicts associated with the back of house and front of house facilities meshed into one location. The following suggestions were provided to address this concern:

• • Re-locate garbage staging indoors to reduce paving.
  • Explore alternatives to the outdoor parking garage ramp.
  • Reduce paving and drop-off area to the greatest extent possible.

• The Panel recommends further exploration of the landscape treatment for Phase 1 as a stand-alone expression. The approach to phasing needs to fully consider what is happening at grade and ensure that Phase 1 is designed appropriately
• The Panel does not support the townhouse units that face out to the underground parking entrance. It is recommended that this space be allocated to a different interior function, such as the property management office. The grade related units may be re-located to the south elevation.
• The proposed children’s play area needs to be protected from traffic and should not be located in close proximity to Vanier Parkway.
• The applicant should explore how the exit stair projection can contribute to the event plaza.

Sustainability

Consideration should be given to more sustainable alternatives to heat and cool the development (heat pump etc.) – This could allow for the removal of the chiller. It is noted that when serving a larger area this form of alternative approach has proven to be a more viable and sustainable solution in the long term.

Built Form and Architecture

1. Building A

• It is recommended that Building A better relate to its main street context and be seen as a jewel along Montreal Road. Options to assist in this included the following:

• • Exploration of alternative approaches to the built form expression/datum line on Montreal Road.
  • Differentiation from the proposed high-rise buildings which should respond to the context of Vanier Parkway.
  • The Panel suggested a livelier approach, featuring more glazing at the ground floor, and more texture in base of the building, warmer colours, perhaps some wood elements at the ground floor, and greening as much as possible.

• The panel was supportive of the multi-purpose outdoor space on the west side of the building. This space should be designed to take advantage of natural light. The applicant could also consider pairing the proposed event space with the proposed multi-purpose space, creating outdoor space on the south side of Building A to avoid shadowing resulting from future phases.

1. Building B1

• Given the prominence of the high-rise building in this context, the Panel recommended further architectural exploration and enhancement. The following key suggestions were provided:

• • The Panel supports the treatment on top of Building B1 which could be made more exuberant with an increased glass lantern.
  • It is recommended that the contrast on the depth of the precast elements be increased to produce more light and shadow play on the façade.
  • The balcony expressions should be further explored.
  • The Vanier Parkway elevation needs to be explored further. The same level of detail on the long facades needs to wrap along the short facades.
  • The blank wall on the north elevation needs to be enhanced architecturally.
  • The treatment of the outdoor ramp could be improved through landscaping opportunities.

1125 & 1149 Cyrville Road | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | WESTRICH PACIFIC CORP; HP Urban Inc.; J+S Architect; James B. Lennox & Associates Inc. 

Summary 

• The Panel thanks the proponent for the presentation. There is support for the development addressing the missing-middle and the use of wood-frame construction.  

• There is a recommendation provide some density redistribution on site to address concerns regarding the proximity of the project’s eastern wing of Building A to the eastern lot line. 

• There is concern with the proximity of the fire route on the western side of the property to the residential units that abut it.  

• The Panel provides recommendations to also increase connectivity from the site to its neighbouring context, aid in wayfinding on-site, and increase the size and amount of amenity area and landscaping onsite.  

• While there is general support for the overall aesthetic, the Panel also recommends simplifying the façade and considering a base-middle-top model for the building facing Cyrville Road. 

Site Layout / Site Plan 

• The proximity of the eastern wing of Building A to the eastern lot line is a concern. A minimum 5.5 metre interior side yard setback from the eastern property line should be considered. The proposed 3 metre eastern interior side yard setback is too tight. Consider that the abutting property owner to the east could replicate this layout, resulting in only a 6-meter separation distance between adjacent buildings for potentially a considerable length. Consider also that the inside corner unit in this location is problematic in layout and will get very little natural light. To address this issue, the Panel recommends eliminating this eastern wing and re-distributing some density elsewhere within the development. Building A can then be an “L” shape (or “hockey-stick” shape). The density can be redistributed with the following options:  

• Go higher in the wood frame construction of Building A (above the 6-storeys currently proposed). Consider an 8-storey wood frame construction for Building A in the shape of a hockey-stick. 

• Increase the tower floor plate size of the Tower for Building B. This could allow for 10 or 11 suites per floor instead of 8. There is the option to also increase the number of storeys in Building B. 

• Option to do a mix of the above two options.  

• The proximity of the fire route on the western edge of the site to the western arm of Building A is a concern. The lack of a buffer between the fire route and unit entrances is problematic and makes for undesirable living environment. People living in these units will open their door directly onto a fire route. There is concern this will also be a maintenance problem and raise accessibility and safety concerns for the entirety of the development. Landscape buffering is needed to separate the façade and the fire route.  

• The central courtyard, and certain interior units, will see little sun. Revisions should be made to the Site Plan and building layout to increase the size of the interior courtyard and provide better access to light and soft landscaping to create a better living environment. 

• There is concern that the important south-east corner of the site and building is dominated by a parking ramp and a transformer pad. This layout does not create a positive relationship between the building and the street. Consider the future context and what the project can give back to the neighbourhood at-grade. This is one of the most dynamic corners on site and it should alternatively animate the street and help establish the future streetscape of the area. 

• Consider a different vehicular site access configuration to improve site layout. Having the only vehicular access via the fire route from Cyrville Road may not be conducive to a well functioning access or pick-up/drop-off area for the tower.  

• Consider removing the surface parking that lines the eastern property line.  

Connectivity 

• Greater consideration and thought should be given to how this development connects to its surrounding context/neighbourhood. Consider how all of the people moving into this development will access transit and amenities that they require. Following this, provide these pedestrian and vehicular connections clearly on the plan.  

• Multi-Use Pathway (MUP) 

• Aim to perceive and use the MUP as an opportunity to enhance this project. 

• Consider providing a pathway connection between the MUP on-site to the MUP east of the site.  

• Consider expanding the MUP to intuitively lead people to a ‘destination’ area along this route.  

• Consider where people using this MUP can access greenspace/nature.  

• Consider how people outside of this site will use this MUP and how this property can contribute to the neighbourhood with this MUP amenity. 

• Consider how the vehicular circulation onsite can be best arranged; reconsider the at-grade parking and drop-off area.  

• The drop-off area should be designed and integrated into the site layout so that it feels as though it is a part of the landscape design.  

• The drop-off should serve both buildings 

• Consider the use of pavers to make the drop-off multi-functional. 

• Consider incorporating retail along Cyrville Road. This commercial use can positively shape how this site and the community will develop and relate to each other.  

Architectural Expression and Materiality 

• Simplify the architectural expression on both buildings, particularly on the façade facing Cyrville Road.  

• Aim higher than a hardy-board material for the project. A more durable material should be considered. 

• Building A 

• Simplify the façade by keeping the boxes and framing elements to just moments within the building façade that are associated with program changes or important views (rather than incorporated throughout the entire façade). 

• Breaking up the façade along Cyrville is important to ensure adequate pacing and address the significant length of this façade.   

• Use the formula of “base-middle-top” to help to guide the architecture of the façade facing Cyrville Road.  

• Consider using the inside corner units in Building A for storage (such as stroller storage) as opposed to a residential unit because these units will get very little natural light. 

• Raise the floor-to-floor height of the ground floor of Building A. Currently, it is the same height as other floors, and it currently appears compressed and less welcoming that it would be if it was taller. The taller floor-to-floor height at-grade benefits the architectural expression and also provides more flexibility in terms of uses, such as providing retail opportunities.  

• Re-consider the location of the lobby. 

• Building B (tower) 

• Provide clear definition of the main entrance for Building B.  

• Building B appears to be floating in asphalt. Consider altering the landscaping and site layout to address this. More landscaping would also be more consistent with a “west-coast vibe” that this development currently exhibits.  

• Two alternative massing proposals were suggested: 

• A Panel Member suggested: Remove the east wing from the mid-rise building, move the tower to the south-west corner of the mid-rise building (stack Building B on top of Building A) and open up the remainder of the site as open space / landscaped area.  

• A Panel Member suggested: Construct two towers with the remainder of the site given over to landscaping.  

Landscaping, Amenity Area, and Sustainability 

• Building multi-residential at this scale is inherently a sustainable way to build housing and the Panel thanks the applicant for considering this “missing middle” and rising to the challenge of building more density in this form at this location.  

• The Panel recommends increasing the amount of open space, soft landscaping, landscape buffers, tree planting, and amenity area on-site. Landscape buffers are particularly needed to separate the building façade and fire lane, as well as between the building facades and the driving lanes/parking areas. 

• The landscape plan is not consistent with the renderings provided. The renderings are not fully representative of the landscape design. Furthermore, consider how to successfully achieve the tree planting over the parking garage as shown on the plans (this may be difficult and unrealistic).   

• A sustainability-oriented Landscape Architect is important to have on this project in order to ensure that the stated sustainability goals are actually achieved. Their focus can be on issues such as safety, CEPTED, lighting, streetscape, energy, and liveability. Having a sustainable development can benefit the operations of a long-term purpose-built rental building.  

• Consider reducing the amount of parking. The proposed amount of parking to be provided does not reflect the site’s proximity to the LRT.  

2. The Ottawa Hospital Phases 3 & 4: Central Utility Plant and Main Hospital Building (930 Carling Avenue and 520 Preston Street) | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | The Ottawa Hospital; HDR; GBA Group; Parsons 

The Ottawa Hospital Phases 3 & 4: Central Utility Plant and Main Hospital Building (930 Carling Avenue and 520 Preston Street) | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | The Ottawa Hospital; HDR; GBA Group; Parsons 

Summary 

• The Panel appreciates the considerable amount of work done on this project to date. The renderings provided within the Experimental Farm context are helpful to relate the project to the broader landscape. 

• There is broad support for the natural landscaping approach taken to mitigate the visual impact of the Central Utility Plant / Road E and parking lot. 

• Recommendations related to improving the façade treatment include extending vertical architectural elements over the mechanical floor level to minimize the horizontal   band-effect as well as addressing the amount and use of aluminium materiality throughout.   

• While there is support for the changes to the main entrance and arrival, there is also concern with the loss of pedestrian space and a sense that there should be more work done to establish a sense of ‘arrival’ in this area.   

Architectural Expression and Materiality 

• The overall façade is sophisticated in that folding of the aluminum panels within the aluminum façade appears to bring movement to the surface. However, there is concern with the predominance of aluminum, given the context and orientation of the building. There is also concern that the aluminum material will not weather as gracefully as other materials. To address this, explore: 

• More variation and texturing in materiality in the façade 

• Introducing a warmer, more organic, or noble material. A warmer material or aluminum colour could work better with the naturalistic landscape, rather than a cold metallic colour.  

• Consider ways to down-play the pronounced horizontal effect of the mechanical ‘band layer’ floor. To address this, explore:  

• Giving more attention to the architectural details throughout the façade.  

• Extending the vertical architectural elements over the mechanical floor level to mitigate it’s horizontal banding effect. It is currently a flat aluminum band; once this is re-evaluated, it may create a ripple effect in the architectural response on the rest of the building façade.  

• Consider recessing this band within the façade. The horizontal band currently appears to be flush with the rest of the façade, with an exaggerated sill above. The playful metal expression should be most prominent element of the façade.  

• Consider a continuous height. There appears to be varied height of this band depending on the elevation. The south elevation (p.47) illustrates the band as very prominent at the back of the building.  

• Explore how the base of the building is perceived and relates to the band. Consider how the band fits in the overall make-up of the way the building presents as a base-middle-top structure.  

• Consider incorporating more architectural elements from the historic Sir John Carling Building, such as cornice details or something with rhythm to it  

• Provide the necessary detail in the colouration of vertical elements.  

• In summary, efforts should be made to tone down this band element by introducing vertical elements, maintaining a specific height, and setting it back from the façade.  

• The Panel appreciates the applicant’s consultation with the First Nations in establishing the Land and Sky concept in the architecture.  

• Explore a stronger architectural treatment at the corners / wing endpoints of the building. Consider how the corners of the building provide breaks and intersect and how they align with both the podium level and intersect with the mechanical floor.  

• Provide a quieter architectural expression at the top of the building. Currently, the architecture feels busier towards the top, according to some panel members,  due to the single storey expression above the double storey expression. Consider a two-storey expression as the building throughout the facade. A strict datum does not need to be adhered to and the smaller bar can afford to be bracketed by the two-storey expression in the lower storey wing.  

• Consider having the two long wings read as two connected buildings, rather than two long wings at the same height.  

Arrival Area 

• Explore providing a stronger, defined sense of arrival to the main entrance. Currently, the pastoral-feel/naturalized landscape approach is applied to the entire site. This is in keeping with the surrounding arboretum; however, this approach needs to shift and evolve at the point of entry into the building. To address this: 

• Identify how best to reflect/address the enormous scale of the entire development in the scale of the entryway. Consider how the scale of the arrival area relates to the public realm and the public nature of this arrival space. Identify the pinch points in this arrival area, including the location of doors.  

• Identify and address how people will arrive in the space differently (driving, transit, walking, cycling). Currently the cycling infrastructure is not to scale with the scale of the building.  

• Provide a balance of pedestrian and vehicular needs. While there is certainly a need for some surface parking and vehicular drop-off area, this should be balanced with a larger at-grade plaza/pedestrian space.  

• Offer a level of formality brought to this front entrance. It should be distinct from the surrounding naturalistic landscaping approach to the surrounding context.  

• Consider providing a grand allee with a more fully developed landscape design. 

• Consider that the round-about should lead toward a destination, rather than feel like a continuous circular element. 

• Consider the significance of how lighting may impact this arrival area.  

• Consider incorporating the ‘healing’ aspect of the function of this building in how the building presents itself initially to people. This healing element could also be tied into the landscape design such that the arrival area presents itself as a healing place for nature as well as people.  

Landscaping and Buffering 

• The Panel supports the use of natural landscape features to mitigate views to the Central Utility Plant / Road E and parking lot and buffer the visual impact of this development on the surrounding experimental farm. 

• The grading and scale of the visual buffering the landscape features provide is helpful in managing the visual and vehicular impacts of this development on the surrounding area.  

• Explore acoustic buffering, particularly on the north side of the building and around the loading dock. This will help to further mitigate the sounds of the development on the surrounding area. 

• Develop the landscape design in the main plaza further. The Panel is skeptical that there is enough soil depth in the main plaza to support the substantial amount of trees illustrated.  

• Along with a planting plan, establish landscape principles that will aid in the development of landscape design narrative. A more rigorous analysis of the landscape is required to ensure that the landscape design captures what this property, within its broader context, represents. The principles should include both the composition as well as the species and relate to the surrounding context.  

• For the arrival area, consider that when one arrives at the main entrance one should feel like the hospital is part of the experimental farm, rather than arriving at a generic hospital void of the arboretum context.    

• Consider the long-term impact of incorporating sustainable design through landscape and architectural treatment. By integrating nature as much as possible in the design, through green roofs, bird-friendly design, use of pollinators, etc. the development could contribute positively to nature and people alike.