Ottawa "Gives Up"

[AnarchoSocialist]

I am not defending Friends of the O-Train, but, the blame seems to be unfairly falling heavily on them.

One point that is worth making is how often does "The City of Ottawa", not the NCC, gets to think big? No other city in Canada has an agency like this that plays a role in planning so much of the city without much input along the way from the citizens themselves. The outcome is disappointing but having watched most of the process from start to finish it is obvious that the city doesn't get too work on large projects like this very often. The process had problems throughout it all, not just the end. The final outcome with changes and new ideas being volleyed around seems less too do with one groups interest trying to sabotage or get their way, but just inexperience and ignorance of planning a large project.

The project had flaws, not every proposed project results in a positive outcome, life goes on, and the city will try again and hopefully learn from their experiences.

 

[Hydrogen]

The former chair of the Museum of Science and Technology wanted to hire Frank Gehry to build a new museum, and I think that those islands would be a perfect site along with a restoration of the existing buildings there.

If I'm thinking of the islands that you may be thinking of, I believe there is a First Nations claim to them.

The Museum of Science and Technology wanted some $800 million for a new museum. They should have known this was a non-starter - Gehry or no Gehry.

David Jeanes was mystifying during the whole O-Train ordeal. It would be tough to find a more pro-transit individual spouting more anti-transit invective about that project. Sean Trans characterization of Friends of the O-Train as "hobbyists" is accurate. They should have a just a touch more imagination to think that this project was not about them.

 

[adma]

Such clever and wity architectural criticism. That line really made me laugh

Hey, btw/the "shaped roof" and the Daly Building thing and a few other things, falls plainly into the John Geiger school of armchair amateur architectural journalism...

 

[unimaginative2]

The Daly Building looks pretty good to me.

 

[Pep'rJack]

^ It looks fairly pleasing in that photo, but believe me, it was a real eyesore - a decrepit, graceless hulk. You could look right through it on bright sunny days, kinda like some o' the abandoned towers in Detroit. I clearly recall the surprisingly dramatic effect demolishing that thing had on the area - vistas opened up, light poured in, etc. It may have been worth saving for some variety of historical/preservation reasons, but it sucked, frankly. No loss.

Btw, everything else you've said about Ottawa is spot-on, imo (I grew up there).

 

[Hydrogen]

Just out of curiosity, Pep'rJack, how do you feel about what has replaced the Daly building?

 

[adma]

^ It may have been worth saving for some variety of historical/preservation reasons, but it sucked, frankly. No loss.

Ottawa's premier Chicago Style building.. Don't be flippant about said "variety of historical/preservation reasons".

Also, don't confuse wretched neglect with lack of merit--remember that had the cards turned in the Daly's favour, it likely would have been restored *back* into the "fairly pleasing" specimen seen in that photo...

 

[Pep'rJack]

how do you feel about what has replaced the Daly building?

Haven't been to Ottawa in years, so I can't say - I suspect I'd not be pleased, though, being one who felt that the lot should remain a square/parkette type thing.

Don't be flippant about said "variety of historical/preservation reasons".

Sí, Jefe.

Not that I was being flippant to begin with, just acknowledging that the building likely had some significant historical architectural value.

don't confuse wretched neglect with lack of merit

I'm not - if either of us is guilty of such a thing, it's you. It was both "decrepit" in condition and a "graceless hulk" by nature. I'm only too aware that it's nearly impossible for you to grasp the concept that a structure may be notable within an architectural style while also being unfortunately butt-ugly, but here's as good an example as any, I guess. Whatever its historical 'cred', the thing did suck - the photo above doesn't capture its hideousness. Really, ask almost anyone who personally endured its depressing and poorly located presence - it is *not* missed by many, other than those who tend to see buildings as effectively abstract intellectual/academic manifestations rather than as functional entities people actually have to live with, or those who just love anything that happens to be pre-war.

Plus, I seriously doubt it was salvageable, anyway - it didn't even have any floors left inside (hence see-through). At best, it would've been a facade-job, and the remaining facade was no hell, really.

 

[adma]

I'm not - if either of us is guilty of such a thing, it's you. It was both "decrepit" in condition and a "graceless hulk" by nature. I'm only too aware that it's nearly impossible for you to grasp the concept that a structure may be notable within an architectural style while also being unfortunately butt-ugly, but here's as good an example as any, I guess. Whatever its historical 'cred', the thing did suck - the photo above doesn't capture its hideousness. Really, ask almost anyone who personally endured its depressing and poorly located presence - it is *not* missed by many, other than those who tend to see buildings as effectively abstract intellectual/academic manifestations rather than as functional entities people actually have to live with, or those who just love anything that happens to be pre-war.

Plus, I seriously doubt it was salvageable, anyway - it didn't even have any floors left inside (hence see-through). At best, it would've been a facade-job, and the remaining facade was no hell, really.

Ah, and I remember its latter-day state, too. But the problem is that you're *not* judging it by "the photo above". You're judging it by the state you remember it in.

And think of this as being not only the way it used to be, but the way it could have been once again, following restoration (yes, maybe a "facade job" out of necessity; but, still.) What you're seeing there is the template.

I've yet to hear a cogent argument, at least one that's neither excessively snobbish nor excessively amateurish, that the building in that photograph is fatally "butt-ugly" or "graceless hulk" or "no hell, really". And quite honestly: virtually everyone who's anyone in the historical/heritage field in Canada would (at least quietly) dismiss your architectural judgment in an instant. Sorry, kiddo, but from that standpoint, the deck's stacked against, er, message-boarding amateurs you, unless you mean to stickhandle some kind of armchair-heritage-populist Common Sense Revolution equivalent.

Now, that's regarding the raw facts of architectural judgment (and, credit due, maybe your clearest point is about its being "poorly located"--though that's in part the end result of long-term planning in the expectation it'd be urban-renewed away). As far as its final state goes: well, consider how decrepitude can bring out the "graceless hulk" in anything. Like, for example, Toronto's most tragic and epigramattic architectural loss of the 1970s, 999 Queen...

 

[Pep'rJack]

Feh. Pretty weak, dude - where are the threats to sever my genitalia, or something? And only oblique suggestions of Cletus-ness and ignorance? Come on - if you're gonna tussle, at least roll up yer sleeves n' tie up yer boots. Who needs adma-lite? Gimme both barrels like I know ya wanna, old man!

I've yet to hear a cogent argument, at least one that's neither excessively snobbish nor excessively amateurish, that the building in that photograph is fatally "butt-ugly" or "graceless hulk" or "no hell, really". And quite honestly: virtually everyone who's anyone in the historical/heritage field in Canada would (at least quietly) dismiss your architectural judgment in an instant. Sorry, kiddo, but from that standpoint, the deck's stacked against, er, message-boarding amateurs you, unless you mean to stickhandle some kind of armchair-heritage-populist Common Sense Revolution equivalent. Now, that's regarding the raw facts of architectural judgment...

Note to Hydrogen...

Lesson #2: Clip the above for future reference - you'll predictably and inevitably run into a rote repetition of precisely this in response to literally any comparable subject. Endless confusion between subjectivity/objectivity, failure to distinguish between opinion/"facts", immediate default to condescending I'm-an-expert-you're-a-bumpkin kind o' shit whenever aesthetic disagreements arise, loads of unintentional irony ("excessively snobbish"), etc.
.

 

[Hydrogen]

^Most "illustrative!"

Merci for the heads up (re: Lesson #2).




I guess I won't be asking Mr. adma what he thinks of the structure that has replaced the Daly Building. The link he posted is a little out date in terms of what is there now.

 

[adma]

Feh. Pretty weak, dude - where are the threats to sever my genitalia, or something? And only oblique suggestions of Cletus-ness and ignorance? Come on - if you're gonna tussle, at least roll up yer sleeves n' tie up yer boots. Who needs adma-lite? Gimme both barrels like I know ya wanna, old man!

Well, here's *one* barrel...

 

[adma]

Ah, Pep'rJack. Champion of urbanist Stuckism...

 

[Pep'rJack]

LOL. Better, but still not vicious or cryptic enough to fully satisfy my personal adma preferences.

 

[dowlingm]

not enough sushi? I've had very good sushi in Ottawa. Good vietnamese too.