Hyatt House [110 York St] | 60m | 17f | U/C

[J.OT13]

Hope this one and Hampton Inn are rejected.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

They also tore into Trinity Station pretty heavily (a bit further down the page).

Are UDRP's recommendations binding in any way?

Non-binding, but informs staff comments/recommendations

[UrbOttawa]

Hilton + Andaz addition

Photo by me (kinda)

Well amalgamating these renders was incredibly easy considering the architects for the Hilton took literally just took the andaz addition rendering and added their building. Hopefully we'll get much better revisions for both - but I won't hold my breath.

Cross posted in the Ugly Canada thread

[J.OT13]

Why do they hate Ottawa?

[AuxTown]

How is it acceptable for something like this in one of the most prominent, historic, and tourist-centric areas of our city? It's like architects spend so much time and effort on their Calgary proposals and for Ottawa they just wipe their ass on their drafting table and submit that to the city. I guess it's part of the price we pay for so many height restrictions; these buildings just aren't worth the money that their taller counterparts in other cities are worth.

[waterloowarrior]

Appealed to LPAT
https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL190492

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

How is it acceptable for something like this in one of the most prominent, historic, and tourist-centric areas of our city? It's like architects spend so much time and effort on their Calgary proposals and for Ottawa they just wipe their ass on their drafting table and submit that to the city. I guess it's part of the price we pay for so many height restrictions; these buildings just aren't worth the money that their taller counterparts in other cities are worth.

I am all for more height as most people on here naturally are. In this location it is not really appropriate. Regardless more height would not have changed this design. They see a market niche for a modern but affordable hotel room in the city so are coming with the Hampton Inn brand which is one of their cheapest brands. They will absolutely crush the Marriott which offers horrible rooms at crazy high prices because of its location and chain status. Nobody staying there cares what it looks like so only we can force them to make a good design.

[waterloowarrior]

Recommended for refusal
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...al&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1578954101

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=397420

[J.OT13]

The developer is not a campaign contributor to the current members of the Watson Club therefore, recommended for refusal?

Don't get me wrong, it's a terrible project, but so are the Claridge proposals on the same block. An obvious case of double standards.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Recommended for refusal
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...al&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1578954101

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=397420

City planning staff recommend council refuse hotel proposal in ByWard Market

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: January 13, 2020

City planners have sent a rare refusal recommendation to council’s planning committee, arguing that a proposed 17-storey hotel wouldn’t be compatible with an area of the ByWard Market.

Bayview Ottawa Holdings filed a development application 2018 for a hotel at 116 York St., east of Dalhousie Street, hoping to open the 224-room hotel under the Hampton Inn brand.

In a report published Monday ahead of a planning committee meeting on Jan. 23, the planning department tells councillors they should refuse the application because the scale of the hotel wouldn’t fit with the surrounding neighbourhood.

It’s rare to see staff recommending council refuse a development application in a report to the planning committee. By the time reports get to the planning committee, there has usually been enough time for the developer, planning staff and the councillor to hammer out an acceptable path forward.

While a hotel is a permitted use for the property, the developer wants zoning bylaw amendments to the rules protecting heritage, building height and loading space provisions.

Planning staff think it would be a bad idea to allow those amendments for the location of the proposed development.

The city’s urban design guidelines suggest highrise buildings should be on lots of at least 1,800 square metres, but the developer’s proposal would build a hotel on a 1,016-square-metre lot. Plus, the development wouldn’t meet the minimum setbacks from other towers planned in future projects, the report says.

“This potential condition will have direct quality of life impacts for pedestrians and for residents on adjacent properties, with no access to light at the rear or sides and create issues of air flow and adverse wind conditions,” the report says.

Planners also don’t like that there would be a wide loading and parking garage entrance off York Street since the street is eyed as an important pedestrian route.

The city planning report criticizes the scale, massing and height for not working well with neighbouring properties and heritage buildings.

The proposed hotel would require a heritage application because the property would be in a heritage conservation district, but the city hasn’t received a heritage application. According to the report, city heritage staff already agree that the proposed hotel isn’t compatible with the heritage district.

Sameer Gulamani, vice-president and counsel for Bayview, said the company believes there’s a need for more hotel rooms in the area.

“We chose this site because we really love the ByWard Market,” Gualmani said in an interview, adding that the company is trying to do a project that’s “sensitive” to the community.

“We intend to contribute and add to the market and not take anything away from the heritage nature of that market.”

The decision will likely be out of council’s hands.

The developer has already filed an appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal since council didn’t make a decision on the application within the legislated timeline. Council needs to record a position, anyway.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...l-refuse-hotel-proposal-in-byward-market

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The developer is not a campaign contributor to the current members of the Watson Club therefore, recommended for refusal?

Don't get me wrong, it's a terrible project, but so are the Claridge proposals on the same block. An obvious case of double standards.

It is quite rare for an application to get a refusal recommendation from Planning since they usually try and work with the owner to come to some resolution so that Planning Committee is done and dusted in 2 minutes. However this owner appealed to LPAT I gather due to the timeline to get to this point so probably the Planning Department has little sympathy.

[Harley613]

“We chose this site because we really love the ByWard Market,” Gualmani said in an interview, adding that the company is trying to do a project that’s “sensitive” to the community.

“We intend to contribute and add to the market and not take anything away from the heritage nature of that market.”

This guy is either an expert in Doublespeak, an idiot, or a comedian.

[Uhuniau]

I do not understand the hate for this project.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I do not understand the hate for this project.

Motel grade architecture, cheap materials, same massing and even uglier twin to the universally loathed Andaz directly next door, lot line to lot line construction with inadequate setbacks and street interaction, another big and cheap looking building in the historical heart of a G7 capital...shall I go on?

[McKellarDweller]

As under-designed and under-built for its area as Andaz is, it at least would look decent and fit in out in a Kanata office park / asphalt acreage suburbia.

The only place the side elevations of this Hampton Inn would be appropriate is directly next to an airport.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I do not understand the hate for this project.

We cannot turn the market into a sea of high rises. This will destroy the charm of the market area, which has always been low rise. High rises need to be on the periphery with special thought to make sure the market area is not in shadows.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot turn the market into a sea of high rises. This will destroy the charm of the market area, which has always been low rise. High rises need to be on the periphery with special thought to make sure the market area is not in shadows.

The building next door hasn't resulted in the mythical Ottawa permanent shade; why would this one?

I thought it filled the gap nicely. Oh well. Score another one for The Usual Reasons, I guess.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Motel grade architecture, cheap materials, same massing and even uglier twin to the universally loathed Andaz directly next door, lot line to lot line construction with inadequate setbacks and street interaction, another big and cheap looking building in the historical heart of a G7 capital...shall I go on?

By what measure is the Andaz "universally loathed"?

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

By what measure is the Andaz "universally loathed"?

Well if you are about to tell me you find merit in that building that would be the first time I have heard such a thing since the day it was built. Even people who don't care about buildings have complained about this one in my presence many times since it was built. It was a classic Claridge bait and switch project where they advertised a fancy glassy box but the actual building ended up being cheap paneling and lowest bidder materials. The building has no setbacks or street interaction whatsoever, it just rises a few feet from the street in one uninterrupted mass of gaudy paneling and ugly glazing. It has an even more monolithic presence in the market than the abomination it replaced. I can't see a single redeeming quality in this project aside from having a lot of hotel rooms in a good part of the city, which seems to be the only criteria the builder and operator had aside from spending as little as possible.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Well if you are about to tell me you find merit in that building that would be the first time I have heard such a thing since the day it was built. Even people who don't care about buildings have complained about this one in my presence many times since it was built. It was a classic Claridge bait and switch project where they advertised a fancy glassy box but the actual building ended up being cheap paneling

I really, really, really do not get this board's obsession with siding.

The building has no setbacks

GOOD!

or street interaction whatsoever,

Other than (checks notes) a hotel entrance, which generates lots of foot traffic, and a fully-transparent street front, sure, I guess.

I can't see a single redeeming quality in this project aside from having a lot of hotel rooms in a good part of the city, which seems to be the only criteria the builder and operator had aside from spending as little as possible.

I don't see any of those goals as being morally objectionable.

I really don't get it.