Cohere Centre (former EY Centre) | Completed - Page 6

KHOOLE · #**101** Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 7:53 PM**

" there is no particular need for the facility to be close to restaurants, bars, tourist attractions, etc. like a convention centre "

I don't get your point!

Isn't the purpose of an exposition centre or convention centre (whatever!) to feed the "restaurants, bars, tourist attractions, etc" as well as hotel and related tourist enterprises?

Why is the City of Ottawa subsidizing this exposition centre if there is no payback to the city coffers as well as jobs and higher income for the taxpayers across town?

Poor planning or poor judgment?

umbria27 · #**102** Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by acottawa

Honestly, I don't see a lot of advantage to having it downtown (although perhaps closer to downtown might have been better). As far as I can tell, this thing caters to local residents going to travelling sales/shows, so there is no particular need for the facility to be close to restaurants, bars, tourist attractions, etc. like a convention centre catering to our of town visitors.

Aren't the advantages of having trade shows downtown the same as those of having a stadium downtown:
-accessible by transit
-promotes knock-on economic activity in restaurants, bars etc. - why wouldn't you go for dinner after the car show or home show?
-proximity to hotels for show staff
-synergies with other facilities such as the Convention Centre for hosting larger events

kevinbottawa · #**103** Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 8:16 PM**

It's not odd to have this kind of event space near the airport. I only know about Toronto and they have both the Toronto Congress Centre and the International Centre, which is also operated by Shenkman, just outside the airport. Perhaps it made sense to them based on their years of experience with the International Centre.

LeadingEdgeBoomer · #**104** Posted **Feb 16, 2012, 8:50 PM**

Already considering expansion of the CE Center--

Quote:

CE Center President Worried about NCC’s Proposal to Ban New Developments on Federal Land

Anna Drahovzal with Kristi Soble
Thursday, February 16, 2012

The President of the CE Center says the newly opened trade show space is doing so well, it may expand.

Though it's only been open for six weeks, Kevin McCrann says they're booking up and attracting events that are using the space as a "blank slate".

From gymnastics competitions to concert circuits that used to bypass Ottawa, McCrann says the CE Center is filling up.

It's at a 40 percent occupancy rate, the target is 55 percent. He says it bodes well for the future.

"We have a 5-year option on additional land. If we keep going and business keeps going and the economy keeps rolling it's very much in our plans to expand. The building is built to allow expansion."

What doesn't bode well though, he says, is the NCC's proposal to prevent any future development on federal land surrounding the Center.

"That's insanity. That's not good for our city. This development should be a catalyst for more development out there."

He says the Center itself will flourish without further development, but to leave it as it is would be a missed opportunity.

McCrann says he will be discussing the issue with the NCC

[/QUOTE]

S-Man · #**105** Posted **Feb 16, 2012, 9:04 PM**

Go, NCC! Way to stop people from ruining money-generating empty green space!

adam-machiavelli · #**106** Posted **Feb 16, 2012, 10:54 PM**

Correction: Way to ruin people developing ecologically-sensitive green space. If the CE Centre wants to expand, it should move into town. Oh and it should have public access to water.

kevinbottawa · #**107** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 2:45 AM**

I thought this land was under the jurisdiction of the airport authority. When they were first going to build the CE Centre the NCC wanted to put their two cents in and the airport authority had to put them in their place. The NCC should have no say about what happens within the airport lands even if its the greenbelt. The airport authority has a mandate from the federal government. Too much overlapping jurisdictions.

TransitZilla · #**108** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 4:03 AM**

Uh-oh... from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/02/15/ottawa-ce-centre-drinking-fountains.html

Do the LEED standards really not include anything relating to drinking water?!

Quote:

No free drinking water at CE Centre
CBC News Posted: Feb 16, 2012 6:12 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 16, 2012

People attending events at Ottawa's new trade show centre may find there is no cheap way to satisfy their thirst, as the building does not have a single drinking fountain.

The CE Centre near the Ottawa airport was built through a public-private partnership with the city contributing about $8.5 million to the project.

But unlike most city facilities, there are no drinking fountains. Water is sold in vending machines at the CE Centre, at a cost of $3 for a 500 millilitre bottle.

Even those who bring an empty bottle to fill up in the bathroom are out of luck. The taps are automated and dispense lukewarm water.

Kevin McCrann, the centre's president, said he only realized there were no drinking fountains when he moved in.

Fountains 'slipped through the cracks'
"When you're designing a building and building a building, there's probably a million things that go into it, and a water fountain is not a code issue," said McCrann.

"I think it's just something that slipped through the cracks."

McCrann said the facility is a green one and well on its way to attaining a LEED Silver certification for environmental sustainability. He said they might consider installing drinking fountains but it is not at the top of their agenda.

"It's something we'll look at probably adding to the building, it's not a major thing to do that," he said.

The city contracted McCrann's employer, the Shenkman Corporation, to build and operate the facility. The chairwoman of the city's environment committee, Coun. Maria McRae, did not respond to several requests for an interview.

In an email, a city spokesperson deferred comment to the CE Centre's operator.

waterloowarrior · #**109** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 10:13 PM**

18 March 2012 aerial by southfacing @ flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23575605@N08/6848952710/in/photostream

KHOOLE · #**110** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 3:20 AM**

At least, it's a functional building but that's about all we can say about it.
Has a public water fountain been installed yet?

kevinbottawa · #**111** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 2:46 PM**

They still haven't put up the "CE Centre" signage on the building like in the renderings; maybe they've decided against it. I think it would make the building look a lot better.

Uhuniau · #**112** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 3:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

At least, it's a functional building but that's about all we can say about it.

I don't think you can even say that.

How the hell did this site plan ever get approved in the first place? Does the official plan crapola about transit priority mean a goddamn thing?

Dado · #**113** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I don't think you can even say that.

How the hell did this site plan ever get approved in the first place? Does the official plan crapola about transit priority mean a goddamn thing?

I don't know... read the effing thread?

The CEC is an ancillary project to the Lansdowne project. Not only did this thing get approved, City Council even put up some money for it. Since it is within 600 m of an existing rapid transit stop, even though it is quite inconvenient to use, it probably passed the nominal transit test.

Troll · #**114** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

18 March 2012 aerial by southfacing @ flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23575605@N08/6848952710/in/photostream

haha, christ that's horrible. it was such a nicely wooded area too.

S-Man · #**115** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 6:45 PM**

Agreed, but the facade looks better from ground level (line of sight also means you see less parking lot

)

Heard the other day there will 7-day bus service directly to the site (bus leaves from Greenboro station, can't remember the number)

lrt's friend · #**116** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 12:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

Agreed, but the facade looks better from ground level (line of sight also means you see less parking lot

)

Heard the other day there will 7-day bus service directly to the site (bus leaves from Greenboro station, can't remember the number)

Yeah, Route 147 only runs hourly and doesn't run at all during certain hours. The 97 runs very close by but there is no easy way to get to the existing bus stop. Why doesn't the city get off it's *ss and build a proper pedestrian access to the 97 bus stop?

TransitZilla · #**117** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 1:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yeah, Route 147 only runs hourly and doesn't run at all during certain hours. The 97 runs very close by but there is no easy way to get to the existing bus stop. Why doesn't the city get off it's *ss and build a proper pedestrian access to the 97 bus stop?

This should be done this spring. The Site Plan approval required pedestrian connections to both the southbound and northbound 97 bus stops on the Airport Parkway. For access to the northbound stop, they will be building a Switchback ramp up the embankment near the hotel.

Personally I think the city should have required completion of these things before the building opened... But it will get done.

Uhuniau · #**118** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 1:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dado

I don't know... read the effing thread?

The CEC is an ancillary project to the Lansdowne project. Not only did this thing get approved, City Council even put up some money for it. Since it is within 600 m of an existing rapid transit stop, even though it is quite inconvenient to use, it probably passed the nominal transit test.

There you go: some "nominal" transit test instead of a real-world one, and one rooted in the pretty, if meaningless, words of the transit plan.

Instead we get this crap.

We ALWAYS get this crap.

Uhuniau · #**119** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 1:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yeah, Route 147 only runs hourly and doesn't run at all during certain hours. The 97 runs very close by but there is no easy way to get to the existing bus stop. Why doesn't the city get off it's *ss and build a proper pedestrian access to the 97 bus stop?

Why didn't the developers orient the building so that it was better placed for access by the existing route on the existing stop? Instead, it's all Welcome To My Parking Lot.

Parkers can park anywhere. You can bring the building to the transit, but, nope - at expense to transit riders elsewhere, who'll end up cross-subsidizing the service, they're gonna bring transit to the stupid, ugly, badly-planned, building.

Honest to friggin' pete.

phil235 · #**120** Posted **Mar 27, 2012, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why didn't the developers orient the building so that it was better placed for access by the existing route on the existing stop? Instead, it's all Welcome To My Parking Lot.

Parkers can park anywhere. You can bring the building to the transit, but, nope - at expense to transit riders elsewhere, who'll end up cross-subsidizing the service, they're gonna bring transit to the stupid, ugly, badly-planned, building.

Honest to friggin' pete.

I think those complaining about the architecture of this place might have slightly unrealistic expectations. As trade show centres near airports go, the CE Centre isn't half bad.

That said, I agree with the comments about transit. Why couldn't they have brought the building out to the street/parkway to better accommodate transit users? It seems so simple to put the big parking lot behing, yet it rarely seems to happen.