2026 Scott Street | 128.7m | 41s | Colonnade Bridgeport | Hobin Architecture

I would like to formerly apologise for my doubting that they would continue to dumb down the design. I was wrong. (Though this is still not a bad design, its a painful reminder of what could have been!)
 
And there you have it! Further simplification until the tower resembles almost nothing like the original proposal and has lost most of its unique, high quality defining features... So sad. And the city is patting themselves on the back that this now looks so plain and boring now... Sad as this was one of the projects I had the most hope for.
 
Why bother proposing a really cool feature if it will just be axed during the value engineering phase? This seems to be a very common practice, at least in Ottawa, proposing something really great and ending with some mediocre to straight up bad. Save everyone time, money and disappointment by proposing the base model.

I think Relevé, other than the height adjustment, is the only project built as initially conceptualized.
 
At the very least, this is still a good project for Ottawa if built with this final plan. I'm only worried now about the precast masonry façade ending up a precast concrete one like the Marriot on Rideau by the time final bean counting is done. That would be a very Ottawa thing to do last minute.
 
What's most frustrating I think, is example like this where it's not necessarily a developer who is doing a last minute bait-and-switch during construction to save costs, but mostly revisions that had to be made or were proposed by the city & review panels by arbitrary comments and feedback from nearby residents.

Seems like the city has the power to recommend dumbing down the design & quality of builds but rarely recommends or dictates improvements... Sad one way street
 
I believe this was the last UDRP review comments. Based on this, it was their idea to remove the bridge, but keep the cantilevered glass boxes, so I don't think we can blame them for the latest change.

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.

2023 | City of Ottawa

ottawa.ca ottawa.ca
 
This project is going to the Committee of Adjustment on August 21 for permission to reduce the size and scale of the 2nd floor pedestrian bridge. Original design proposed a 4 storey bridge; it is now proposed to be a one-storey bridge. “Given the uncertainty of market demands and the resolution to phase a development of this nature, it became no longer viable to create a four storey bridge feature. However, the desire to create two distinct amenity packages to be shared amongst residents and users of both buildings remains present.”

I actually liked the original proposal and supported mind the height. But now, the towers look like 2 stumps connected by tiny bridge that is purely functional and which from a design perspective looks like an afterthought. I am not a fan anymore.
tower.jpg
 
What an atrocity. There needs to be a case study on this and changes made to the review board etc.

I would really like to have the design board provide a secondary review - I’m sure they have good intentions but after seeing the impacts of their recommendations throughout the evolution of the project you’d hope they’d have the professionalism to say it did not evolve as expected once the cumulative recommendations were merged into a new design. One off comments/subjective design opinions on individual building components are not useless, but they don’t necessarily (or typically) always interact well together.

Would be great to hear my old neighbour in Hintonburg, and representative city councillor, Jeff Leiper, comment on this. Even if this isn’t redesign, surely we can’t keep the same process in place and expect better results.

Is there a single redeeming feature left? Well done bureaucrats. Bonuses and guaranteed annual raises for everyone involved.

Ottawa.
 
Last edited:
Some higher quality renderings. Sure it's disappointing that we lost the wicked cool 4 floor amenity areas, and those were even presented if they were never a real possibility, but the updated proposal is still high quality and better than the majority of projects in Ottawa.

1723226604559.png

1723226610386.png
 
If they adhere to quality materials it will still be nice. But certainly not better, as per always we have watered it down and taken away all of the most unique features.

I get that “for Ottawa” it’s still a nice building. Let’s say “B+” grade, but we could have had an “A”. Just so happens we usually downgrade from B to C.

The point is that the design committee and architecture panel and city council are not having the desired effects. Something needs to change. I’m simply pointing out how much more apparent it is when we see them butcher an extremely well crafted proposal. As opposed to our usual numbness to their diluting of B grades to C.

I will still be very happy to see these rise. Especially if the materials are still upkept to standard. Hopefully the target audience didn’t change with the updates, as the material quality will certainly be value engineered if so.

The height and the Crowns are the most redeeming features other than the quality* materials if they show up. The design of the podium and building mass are pretty close matches to numerous buildings built in the last decade in Ottawa.

The small OC transpo still tunnel bridge,10 feet off the ground is tacky and a clear and literal afterthought. Thank you design team - great work. If they aspire to redesign as a more cohesive and artistic bridge link it could nudge this building back into “landmark” territory. But why would Collonade go back through design phase once more.
 
Ok yes, we did lose the amenities and it was nice. But this is still a good project and still is better than a lot that came through before it. We are starting to get to a point where the city has higher standards for projects, and this one could be much worse. It's not as amazing as the original proposal, but it's still a good one. As long as it goes up like this, it will be enjoyable to view.
 
From Jeff Leiper’s latest newsletter:

  • At the former Granite Club, the developer will be in front of the Committee asking for a variance to move and change the proposed bridge between the two towers from a four-storey connection higher up on the building to a single-storey connection at the second floor. They're within their rights, or course, to ask for the variance and the Committee of Adjustment is hands-off to city councillors, but I'll still express my disappointment at the change. I liked that architectural feature. I thought it would add a little panache to the evolving skyline there which has thus far, with the exception of the Metropole's distinct contribution, been pretty quotidien. I know builders are struggling to make the finances work and the economics of tall towers are wrapped up in the efficiency of repeating formworks, but that bridge would have been an interesting feature. City staff have expressed no concerns with the application in their own report: the variance clearly satisfies the four tests that guide the Committee.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top