People have their say on proposed addition to Château Laurier
Report on more than 1,750 comments shows majority is not happy with it
On the matter of the proposed addition to Ottawa’s most famous hotel, the people have spoken. Loudly.
Between Feb. 14 and March 15, the city collected more than 1,750 public comments on the Château Laurier expansion. It also collected feedback by email and phone, but a report released this week summarizes only comments submitted through an online feedback form.
This is the first time the city’s planning department has put in such an effort for a privatelyowned building subject to a development application.
The hotel’s owner, Larco Investments Ltd., wants to remove the parking garage at the north end of the site and construct an addition containing 218 hotel suites intended for long-term stays, an interior courtyard and five levels of underground parking.
Larco is not seeking a zoning change, but requires city approval of its site plan and also a minor variance from the committee of adjustment.
The first three questions asked people about how the proposed addition will look from the Alexandra Bridge, Major’s Hill Park and Confederation Square. Here are some of the replies: “Either the addition should look like it’s part of the original building, or it should look completely different. This doesn’t go far enough in either direction.”
“The new addition should try to open up the hotel to Major’s Hill Park. Currently and in this design, the hotel turns its back on the park with no interplay between the two.”
“The plans will ruin an iconic view. The proposed addition looks like a boxy monstrosity from most views …. Ruining the view by allowing this modern addition would be a crime.”
“Although the proposed addition shares the historic building’s colour palette, it is still too visually distracting to be compatible. The original edifice artfully employs symmetry and repeating patterns to splendid effect. The pleasant balance of the original design is ruined by the deliberate irregularities of the addition haphazardly tacked on one end.”
“This is going to ruin all the scenic photographs people come to take of the canal and a beautiful building.”
Then there was a question of whether the proposed addition is physically and visually compatible with the historic building. Sample replies:
“It doesn’t have the same feel at all. It is too boxlike. It doesn’t feel fairy-tale-like enough. The angles are too stark …. It doesn’t look timeless like the historic building. It looks like it will be out of date in a matter of years. It is too plain to sit next to or be attached to such a majestic and famous building.”
“I actually love the contrast between the historic building and the addition (I’m also a fan of the addition to the (Royal Ontario Museum)!); it’s very different, but complementary, and looks like it’ll tie in well with the entrance (to the government building that used to be the photography museum) visible in the bridge on Wellington Street side.”
“You’ve taken a block of glass that doesn’t tie in to the original building, and super-glued it on the side.”
“Using the same materials does little to make the addition mesh with the original building. This is just as ugly as if they covered it in vinyl siding because it is so visually different from the original structure.”
To the question of whether the proposed addition has a lower or less important position to the historic building (which the city later admitted was a confusing one), sample replies included:
“The owners have been very respectful of the historical significance of the Château and provided a modern addition that is very aligned to the character of the old.”
“I don’t really understand the question. Physically, any modern addition is inappropriate. The historic nature of the building is more important than any addition. The historic building should not be interfered with.”
In the final question, people were asked if the proposed addition fits well with its surroundings:
“It fits neither with the original building nor with the landscape. It has no sense of place while the original responds to the romantic landscape.”
“It is respectful of its surroundings by being a simple, elegant modern design.”
“The new addition stands out from its surroundings — in a bad way.”
Respondents were also given an opportunity to provide other comments, which they did:
“Why would anyone propose a modern extension on a historic building?”
“Modern architecture has no place in that location and just comes across as strange.”
“The architecture of the addition is terrible, it blocks key vistas and distracts from the original building. It has no redeeming qualities.”
“I believe this elegant beautiful building should remain an iconic landmark, and not become an eyesore with such a modern add-on.”
In the coming months, city planners will provide feedback to the developer, who will prepare a reply (which may include revising some of the previously submitted plans).
The urban design review panel’s formal review is expected to occur over the summer.
A public meeting and heritage application submissions are expected in the fall.