Landscape Design
7 41
LADY GREY
OTT A RIV E WA R
MAISONNE UVE LAVAL MAISONNE UVE
RIDEAU CENTRE CENTRE RIDEAU
N LO B EL Y
SHAW CENTRE CENTRE SHAW
0 5 10
20
30
40
EA
UC
AN
50 m
AL
PSPC (Building) - PARKS CANADA (Land) SPAC (Édifice) - PARCS CANADA (Terrain) CITY OF OTTAWA VILLE D'OTTAWA
Geomatics Services / Services géomatiques
2017-05-25
PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA NCC LANDS TERRAINS DE LA CCN
HURD
S
MA N
Modified Transverse Mercator (MTM) Projection, zone 9 / Projection Mercator transverse modifiée (MTM), fuseau 9 | North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) / Système de référence nord-américain de 1983 (NAD83)
Y
E LE
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA CONFERENCE CENTRE / CENTRE DES CONFÉRENCES DU GOUVERNEMENT DU CANADA
RID
NN
41 7
EL B
O
LO N CO
NK
ECH
BA
R OU K LM AN GI FR D O LE MC
MA
SHARP
41 7
ER
OTTAWA
W AY
RIV
IT
MARION
N
NS
N RE
RA
A
TR A
L
ER RIV RTH U NO EA RIDE NG
E
NA
RD
CL
IÈ R
LY
CA
MA
SE LKIRK
LY DA D O BR
R BU UL GO EL AP CH N O LS NE
ER
WA ED NG KI ER LL WA
C
P OO
ER
D
G
AR
ER
SITE - ART EW L EMPLACEMENT ST WI E N LA
LIS
RT
IN
BE AL
DA
G EL
AN
ER AT
NT KE ON LY
PE NE
ON
SS BE
U EA
AL ING RE YL NT WA MO
CE
RIV
IE
IE NZ
N EE
Y BA
TT LE H OT D OA
BR
BO
QU
SL
GT
EN
ER
KE
KS
LIN
D RI
MB
AC
L WE
AR CL
R VANIE
CU
RK RG YO EO G
M
U AO UT E S O DL ID M
AIS
AR SP
CO
W
LI EL
N TO G N
US
X
E
Y VIM
T
SE
R
R IV IÈ
E ED
O LH
A
PARLIAMENT HILL COLLINE DU PARLEMENT DU PORTAG
EN
DR
S UE IG AY GU RR MU RK O Y
DA
AN
S SU
LEDUC EDDY
IE NZ
DE RI
AU
AL EX
ON LT
R PA
CHARLE VOIX PAP INEAU
BO
R CY
GATINEAU
LAURIE R
EUR
SAINT-ÉT IENNE
X SE
KE
S SU
C MA
SACRÉ-CO
FEDERAL HERITAGE BUILDINGS REVIEW OFFICE Review of Intervention Report DATE: October 13, 2016 PROPOSAL TITLE: Rehab: Landscape & Exterior Lighting 66% Construction Documents Initial Review
Follow-up to Review(s) Dated: Oct’13, Dec’14, Mar’15, Jul’15, Jan’16
IDENTIFICATION FHBRO File #: 88-028
Designation:
Classified
Recognized
National Historic Site of Canada (if applicable): Confederation Square National Historic Site Building/Asset Name: Government of Canada Conference Centre Street Address: Rideau Street City, Province: Ottawa, Ontario Custodial Department: PSPC PROPONENT Custodian Proponent: Thierry Montpetit Position/Title: Senior Director Department/Organization: PWGSC, Parliamentary Precinct Branch Address: 185 Sparks Street Tel.: 819-775-5731
Cell:
Fax:
Email: [email protected] Project Contact (if different from above): Misty Campbell Position/Title: Project Manager Department/Organization: PWGSC, Parliamentary Precinct Branch Address: 165 Sparks Street Tel.: 819-775-5509
Cell: 613-894-4358
Fax:
Email: [email protected] DEPARTMENTAL FHBRO REPRESENTATIVE Name: Donald Macdonald Position/Title: Project Manager Department/Organization: PWPB Address: 165 rue Sparks, 3rd Floor Tel.: 819-7757347
Cell:
Fax:
Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report
DOCUMENTATION / INFORMATION REVIEWED
GCC Rehabilitation, 66% Construction Drawing Package, by Diamond & Schmitt Architects Incorporated and KWC Architects Incorporated Architects in Joint Venture, (includes architectural site plan, landscape, electrical – exterior lighting, electrical – landscape), dated 2016/08/29.
GCC Rehabilitation, Exterior Building Lighting Specifications Sheet, issued for 66% Construction, by Light Emotion, 2016/08/29.
GCC Major Rehabilitation, by Diamond & Schmitt Architects Incorporated and KWC Architects Incorporated Architects in Joint Venture, (Select drawing package pages for Stair J: A720, A721, A722, A723; MEB interior details: A966; and three renderings of East Elevation), dated 2016/08/12.
Construction Documents for the loading dock wall (Drawing packages pages: A301; A307, A364 ad A365), 2016/06/24.
GCC Exterior Building Lighting Construction Documents – Progress, by Light Emotion, May 17, 2016.
Preliminary options for the cladding of the pre-manufactured security huts.
PROPOSAL The proposal is to rehabilitate the Government Conference Centre for interim use by the Senate of Canada and for long term use by the government as a conference centre.
This review, the seventh for the GCC Rehabilitation Project, is a staff-level review at the 66% Construction Stage. The current submission follows five previous formal reviews: the predesign stage (March 2013); the schematic design stage (December 2013); the early design development stage (March 2015); the interim design development stage (June 2015); the 99% design development stage (January 2016); as well as one staff-level review for the abatement and demolition (December 2014). The submission is in response to follow-up requests made by the FHBRO and the FHBC in the Letter of Decision on the Formal Intervention Review at 99% Design Development, dated February 24th, 2016.
The current submission focuses on the following aspects of the project, at the 66% Construction Phase: -
The landscape and exterior lighting design of the GCC Senate Rehabilitation project.
Page 2 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report Apart from additional information provided for material choices, the current submission does not reveal any noticeable changes to the progress of the east addition design from that presented to the FHBRO and the FHBC in January 2016. It is therefore important that additional information be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review as soon as it is available. This is summarized in more detail in the Recommendations section. RECOMMENDATIONS Please consider the following regarding the current submission package: 1. The surface treatment of the new loading dock wall is critical to ensuring its compatibility with the character of the historic place. More details depicting the intended surface treatment of the loading dock wall, including renderings, must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 2. Given the fact that the new security kiosks will be custom-designed by ‘others’, there is a risk that the kiosks may not be sufficiently compatible with the character of the historic place and too visually prominent on the site. Generally, the proposal to design cladding and rooflines to enhance visual compatibility is encouraged. The modified kiosk design must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 3. The design approach for the new perimeter security fence is generally compatible with the Beaux Arts character of the building and is therefore supported. Remaining details, such as the finish and colour of the fence are also important in assuring its visual compatibility; these details must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 4. The new perimeter fence design will define the aesthetic of the new contemporary landscape layer, therefore it is recommended that other new site elements, including the bollards, be visually consistent in character and well integrated into the landscape to avoid cluttering the historic place. The design of other new site elements must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 5. The design of the large vehicular gate proposed for the south edge of the loading dock remains unclear. Details on the design of this gate must be submitted for follow-up review. 6. As shown in the submitted documents, the design of the new guard rail along the south façade is inconsistent in character with the design of the proposed perimeter security fence. It is recommended that the design approach for the guardrail be revised to better fit with the overall character of the building and the new perimeter condition. The new design of the guardrail must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review.
Page 11 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report 7. It is not clear whether or not it is intended to lay the concrete paving units at the south end of the site in a circular pattern evocative of the former fountain. The Consultant is encouraged to further develop the design of the paving in a manner that better reflects the history of the site and the building’s use over time. The revised design for the paving units must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 8. The design details of the railings for the new large stairs on the northeast side of the building have not been provided. The design details for the railings must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 9. Generally, the proposed exterior building and landscape lighting, as proposed in the submission package, is compatible with the historic place as the fixtures are relatively small in size, simple in design and discrete in overall appearance. It is essential that the most visually compatible fixture types and the least damaging mounting and attachment methods be chosen to ensure that the building’s visual and physical integrity are protected. It is strongly suggested that all potential fixture types and attachment hardware be considered on site through a mock-up prior to purchase and installation. The FHBRO must attend lighting mock-ups to ensure that the fixtures are sufficiently compatible. 10. In terms of the desired effect of lighting on the building and in the landscape, generally the highlighting of features as presented in the rendering is compatible. However, the exterior building lighting has the potential to significantly impact the visual aspects of the building, the site, surrounding buildings and monuments. It is important that established hierarchies be respected through the lighting. Light levels must be determined through nighttime mock-ups. FHBRO must take part in the nighttime lighting mock-ups to ensure the compatibility of lighting levels. 11. The rationale for final design decisions of the feature stair must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 12. As presented in the submission package, the glazed balustrade of the main stair is sufficiently compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. Unless changes take place to this design, it does not need to be resubmitted. 13. So far, as depicted on the east elevation detail, the choice of materials for the east addition of the MEB is compatible with the heritage character of the building. The material choice and details of the base need to be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review.
Page 12 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report 14. It is important that the following information on the progress of the east addition design be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review as soon as it is available: a. New design options for the fence between the MEB and the GWR. b. Design options and selection criteria for the MEB penthouse, and a description of how the chosen design minimizes the horizontality of the vents and respects the Beaux Arts façade. Elevations of the penthouse from different vantage points must be submitted. c. The material choice for the base of the east addition. d. A summary of how the project team explored ways to refine the east addition’s design in order to improve its compatibility with the heritage character of the building. In particular, it is important to explain the design features employed to ensure overall fit of the new addition with the existing design vocabulary of the GCC. The latest design must be submitted, including details with dimensions. e. Explored options and selection criteria for the design of the entablature level. This should include information on how the design meets the visual compatibility issues outlined in the FHBRO letter, specifically how the options contribute towards a “balanced expression of vertical and horizontal elements”. f.
Clarification on the intended expression of the exposed stairs and lighting at the entablature level.
It is reccommended that the content of the February 24th, 2016 FHBRO letter at the 99% DD stage be carefully considered in its entirety with regard to expectations for elements requiring follow-up review at the construction documents stage. Some additional recommendations in the letter to those addressed above have not been addressed in the current submission and are critical to ensuring that the heritage values of the GCC are respected. These elements must be submitted to FHBRO for staff-level review at the Construction Documents stage as soon as they are available to ensure that adequate time is allowed for feedback and implementation of adjustments, as necessary: 15. Design decisions and details for the interior TB wall, which terminates the Beaux-Arts axial progression at the new Senate Chamber; this includes design information on the Senate Chamber’s doors. 16. Information on the chosen new home for the TB frieze. 17. The full palette of materials for the GWR, including samples of paint colours and further detailing of the connections between new and existing materials.
Page 13 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report 18. The colour palette for the interior of the Concourse. 19. Details on the design and intended placement of a dignified element marking the symbolic termination of the Beaux-Arts progression through the building, at the Senate Chamber. 20. The overall design of the spaces on the second, third and fourth floors, where original walls will be demolished and rebuilt, and some original features will be salvaged and reused. This should include renderings of the stair and elevator lobbies that terminate the hallways in the new east addition and a description of the design approach. 21. Design details and renderings of the balustrade within the Concourse. 22. The final interior lighting concept, including desired fixtures and renderings of light patterns and intensity.
We look forward to reviewing additional information as part of a follow-up review at the construction phase. Do not hesitate to contact us with any questions regarding this review.
Carolyn Bouffard Lima Conservation Architect 819-420-4945
Marie-Claude Quessy Conervation Landscape Architect 819-420-4956
Heritage Conservation Directorate National Capital Area Operations Sector Public Services and Procurement Canada 30 Victoria Street, 5th Floor, Suite 5A Gatineau (Québec) K1A 0M5 cc: Kristina Leaning (HCD Team Leader for ROIR) This Review has been prepared by PSPC – Heritage Conservation Directorate on behalf of the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office. Any requests for clarification on the content of this report, provision of further information or follow-up submissions should be directed to the FHBRO.
Page 14 of 14
Protected A
Protégé A
Excerpt of the Minutes of the
Extrait du procès-verbal du
Advisory Committee on Planning, Design and Realty
Comité consultatif de l’urbanisme, du design et de l’immobilier
Meeting of March 3 and 4, 2016
Séance des 3 et 4 mars 2016
2016-P02e - Government Conference Centre Rehabilitation Project, Final Design Development Stage (C)
2016-P02f - Projet de restauration du Centre de conférences du gouvernement – Phase de conception du design final (C)
Members received a presentation on the final design development stage for the Government Conference Centre rehabilitation project. They support the evolution of the concept. They offered the following comments:
Les membres reçoivent une présentation sur la phase de conception du design final pour le projet de restauration du Centre de conférences du gouvernement. Ils appuient l’évolution du concept. Ils offrent les conseils suivants :
The lighting scenario is supported.
On appuie le scenario d’éclairage.
However, there should be no approval without the use of natural stone on the exterior façades. The full life-cycle cost should be taken into consideration. The use of stone is more sustainable. Good quality precast would cost more than stone. Over time, with water infiltration and weather wear, precast would need replacing. The difference of performance and appearance will be obvious.
Cependant, on ne devrait pas accorder l’approbation sans l’utilisation de pierre naturelle sur les façades extérieures. On devrait prendre en compte les coûts sur l’ensemble du cycle de vie. L’utilisation de la pierre est plus durable. Du béton préfabriqué de bonne qualité coûterait plus que de la pierre. Avec le temps, avec les infiltrations d’eau et l’usure dues aux intempéries, le béton préfabriqué aura besoin d’être remplacé. La différence de performance et d’apparence sera évidente.
There were concerns about the appearance of the mechanical penthouses. Scale and proportions should be reconfigured. The details and finishing should be re-examined. The material palette should be considered, with a view toward reducing the visual impact of this component.
On a des préoccupations vis-à-vis de l’apparence des cabines de machinerie. On devrait reconfigurer l’échelle et les proportions. On devrait réétudier les détails et les revêtements. On devrait envisage la palette des matériaux en vue de réduire l’impact visuel de cet élément.
The security booth at the main entrance should be studied; could it be more symmetrical, and appear as a more symmetrical element in the space?
On devrait étudier le poste de sécurité de l’entrée principale; pourrait-il être plus symétrique, et apparaître comme un élément plus symétrique dans l’espace ?
The public art program should be contemplated, in order to complete the building.
On devrait considérer un programme d’art public, afin de compléter le bâtiment.
Committee Secretary Caroline Bied Secrétaire des comités
ACPDR / CCUDI
1/1
2016-03-03/04
CONFEDERATION BOULEVARD : SUSSEX / RIDEAU / COLONEL BY NODE URBAN DESIGN STRATEGY 2009 Peter J. Smith & Company Inc.
13
LADY GREY
OTT A RIV E WA R
MAISONNE UVE LAVAL MAISONNE UVE
RIDEAU CENTRE CENTRE RIDEAU
N LO B EL Y
SHAW CENTRE CENTRE SHAW
0 5 10
20
30
40
EA
UC
AN
50 m
AL
PSPC (Building) - PARKS CANADA (Land) SPAC (Édifice) - PARCS CANADA (Terrain) CITY OF OTTAWA VILLE D'OTTAWA
Geomatics Services / Services géomatiques
2017-05-25
PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA NCC LANDS TERRAINS DE LA CCN
HURD
S
MA N
Modified Transverse Mercator (MTM) Projection, zone 9 / Projection Mercator transverse modifiée (MTM), fuseau 9 | North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) / Système de référence nord-américain de 1983 (NAD83)
Y
E LE
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA CONFERENCE CENTRE / CENTRE DES CONFÉRENCES DU GOUVERNEMENT DU CANADA
RID
NN
41 7
EL B
O
LO N CO
NK
ECH
BA
R OU K LM AN GI FR D O LE MC
MA
SHARP
41 7
ER
OTTAWA
W AY
RIV
IT
MARION
N
NS
N RE
RA
A
TR A
L
ER RIV RTH U NO EA RIDE NG
E
NA
RD
CL
IÈ R
LY
CA
MA
SE LKIRK
LY DA D O BR
R BU UL GO EL AP CH N O LS NE
ER
WA ED NG KI ER LL WA
C
P OO
ER
D
G
AR
ER
SITE - ART EW L EMPLACEMENT ST WI E N LA
LIS
RT
IN
BE AL
DA
G EL
AN
ER AT
NT KE ON LY
PE NE
ON
SS BE
U EA
AL ING RE YL NT WA MO
CE
RIV
IE
IE NZ
N EE
Y BA
TT LE H OT D OA
BR
BO
QU
SL
GT
EN
ER
KE
KS
LIN
D RI
MB
AC
L WE
AR CL
R VANIE
CU
RK RG YO EO G
M
U AO UT E S O DL ID M
AIS
AR SP
CO
W
LI EL
N TO G N
US
X
E
Y VIM
T
SE
R
R IV IÈ
E ED
O LH
A
PARLIAMENT HILL COLLINE DU PARLEMENT DU PORTAG
EN
DR
S UE IG AY GU RR MU RK O Y
DA
AN
S SU
LEDUC EDDY
IE NZ
DE RI
AU
AL EX
ON LT
R PA
CHARLE VOIX PAP INEAU
BO
R CY
GATINEAU
LAURIE R
EUR
SAINT-ÉT IENNE
X SE
KE
S SU
C MA
SACRÉ-CO
FEDERAL HERITAGE BUILDINGS REVIEW OFFICE Review of Intervention Report DATE: October 13, 2016 PROPOSAL TITLE: Rehab: Landscape & Exterior Lighting 66% Construction Documents Initial Review
Follow-up to Review(s) Dated: Oct’13, Dec’14, Mar’15, Jul’15, Jan’16
IDENTIFICATION FHBRO File #: 88-028
Designation:
Classified
Recognized
National Historic Site of Canada (if applicable): Confederation Square National Historic Site Building/Asset Name: Government of Canada Conference Centre Street Address: Rideau Street City, Province: Ottawa, Ontario Custodial Department: PSPC PROPONENT Custodian Proponent: Thierry Montpetit Position/Title: Senior Director Department/Organization: PWGSC, Parliamentary Precinct Branch Address: 185 Sparks Street Tel.: 819-775-5731
Cell:
Fax:
Email: [email protected] Project Contact (if different from above): Misty Campbell Position/Title: Project Manager Department/Organization: PWGSC, Parliamentary Precinct Branch Address: 165 Sparks Street Tel.: 819-775-5509
Cell: 613-894-4358
Fax:
Email: [email protected] DEPARTMENTAL FHBRO REPRESENTATIVE Name: Donald Macdonald Position/Title: Project Manager Department/Organization: PWPB Address: 165 rue Sparks, 3rd Floor Tel.: 819-7757347
Cell:
Fax:
Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report
DOCUMENTATION / INFORMATION REVIEWED
GCC Rehabilitation, 66% Construction Drawing Package, by Diamond & Schmitt Architects Incorporated and KWC Architects Incorporated Architects in Joint Venture, (includes architectural site plan, landscape, electrical – exterior lighting, electrical – landscape), dated 2016/08/29.
GCC Rehabilitation, Exterior Building Lighting Specifications Sheet, issued for 66% Construction, by Light Emotion, 2016/08/29.
GCC Major Rehabilitation, by Diamond & Schmitt Architects Incorporated and KWC Architects Incorporated Architects in Joint Venture, (Select drawing package pages for Stair J: A720, A721, A722, A723; MEB interior details: A966; and three renderings of East Elevation), dated 2016/08/12.
Construction Documents for the loading dock wall (Drawing packages pages: A301; A307, A364 ad A365), 2016/06/24.
GCC Exterior Building Lighting Construction Documents – Progress, by Light Emotion, May 17, 2016.
Preliminary options for the cladding of the pre-manufactured security huts.
PROPOSAL The proposal is to rehabilitate the Government Conference Centre for interim use by the Senate of Canada and for long term use by the government as a conference centre.
This review, the seventh for the GCC Rehabilitation Project, is a staff-level review at the 66% Construction Stage. The current submission follows five previous formal reviews: the predesign stage (March 2013); the schematic design stage (December 2013); the early design development stage (March 2015); the interim design development stage (June 2015); the 99% design development stage (January 2016); as well as one staff-level review for the abatement and demolition (December 2014). The submission is in response to follow-up requests made by the FHBRO and the FHBC in the Letter of Decision on the Formal Intervention Review at 99% Design Development, dated February 24th, 2016.
The current submission focuses on the following aspects of the project, at the 66% Construction Phase: -
The landscape and exterior lighting design of the GCC Senate Rehabilitation project.
Page 2 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report Apart from additional information provided for material choices, the current submission does not reveal any noticeable changes to the progress of the east addition design from that presented to the FHBRO and the FHBC in January 2016. It is therefore important that additional information be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review as soon as it is available. This is summarized in more detail in the Recommendations section. RECOMMENDATIONS Please consider the following regarding the current submission package: 1. The surface treatment of the new loading dock wall is critical to ensuring its compatibility with the character of the historic place. More details depicting the intended surface treatment of the loading dock wall, including renderings, must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 2. Given the fact that the new security kiosks will be custom-designed by ‘others’, there is a risk that the kiosks may not be sufficiently compatible with the character of the historic place and too visually prominent on the site. Generally, the proposal to design cladding and rooflines to enhance visual compatibility is encouraged. The modified kiosk design must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 3. The design approach for the new perimeter security fence is generally compatible with the Beaux Arts character of the building and is therefore supported. Remaining details, such as the finish and colour of the fence are also important in assuring its visual compatibility; these details must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 4. The new perimeter fence design will define the aesthetic of the new contemporary landscape layer, therefore it is recommended that other new site elements, including the bollards, be visually consistent in character and well integrated into the landscape to avoid cluttering the historic place. The design of other new site elements must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 5. The design of the large vehicular gate proposed for the south edge of the loading dock remains unclear. Details on the design of this gate must be submitted for follow-up review. 6. As shown in the submitted documents, the design of the new guard rail along the south façade is inconsistent in character with the design of the proposed perimeter security fence. It is recommended that the design approach for the guardrail be revised to better fit with the overall character of the building and the new perimeter condition. The new design of the guardrail must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review.
Page 11 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report 7. It is not clear whether or not it is intended to lay the concrete paving units at the south end of the site in a circular pattern evocative of the former fountain. The Consultant is encouraged to further develop the design of the paving in a manner that better reflects the history of the site and the building’s use over time. The revised design for the paving units must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 8. The design details of the railings for the new large stairs on the northeast side of the building have not been provided. The design details for the railings must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 9. Generally, the proposed exterior building and landscape lighting, as proposed in the submission package, is compatible with the historic place as the fixtures are relatively small in size, simple in design and discrete in overall appearance. It is essential that the most visually compatible fixture types and the least damaging mounting and attachment methods be chosen to ensure that the building’s visual and physical integrity are protected. It is strongly suggested that all potential fixture types and attachment hardware be considered on site through a mock-up prior to purchase and installation. The FHBRO must attend lighting mock-ups to ensure that the fixtures are sufficiently compatible. 10. In terms of the desired effect of lighting on the building and in the landscape, generally the highlighting of features as presented in the rendering is compatible. However, the exterior building lighting has the potential to significantly impact the visual aspects of the building, the site, surrounding buildings and monuments. It is important that established hierarchies be respected through the lighting. Light levels must be determined through nighttime mock-ups. FHBRO must take part in the nighttime lighting mock-ups to ensure the compatibility of lighting levels. 11. The rationale for final design decisions of the feature stair must be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review. 12. As presented in the submission package, the glazed balustrade of the main stair is sufficiently compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. Unless changes take place to this design, it does not need to be resubmitted. 13. So far, as depicted on the east elevation detail, the choice of materials for the east addition of the MEB is compatible with the heritage character of the building. The material choice and details of the base need to be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review.
Page 12 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report 14. It is important that the following information on the progress of the east addition design be submitted to FHBRO for follow-up review as soon as it is available: a. New design options for the fence between the MEB and the GWR. b. Design options and selection criteria for the MEB penthouse, and a description of how the chosen design minimizes the horizontality of the vents and respects the Beaux Arts façade. Elevations of the penthouse from different vantage points must be submitted. c. The material choice for the base of the east addition. d. A summary of how the project team explored ways to refine the east addition’s design in order to improve its compatibility with the heritage character of the building. In particular, it is important to explain the design features employed to ensure overall fit of the new addition with the existing design vocabulary of the GCC. The latest design must be submitted, including details with dimensions. e. Explored options and selection criteria for the design of the entablature level. This should include information on how the design meets the visual compatibility issues outlined in the FHBRO letter, specifically how the options contribute towards a “balanced expression of vertical and horizontal elements”. f.
Clarification on the intended expression of the exposed stairs and lighting at the entablature level.
It is reccommended that the content of the February 24th, 2016 FHBRO letter at the 99% DD stage be carefully considered in its entirety with regard to expectations for elements requiring follow-up review at the construction documents stage. Some additional recommendations in the letter to those addressed above have not been addressed in the current submission and are critical to ensuring that the heritage values of the GCC are respected. These elements must be submitted to FHBRO for staff-level review at the Construction Documents stage as soon as they are available to ensure that adequate time is allowed for feedback and implementation of adjustments, as necessary: 15. Design decisions and details for the interior TB wall, which terminates the Beaux-Arts axial progression at the new Senate Chamber; this includes design information on the Senate Chamber’s doors. 16. Information on the chosen new home for the TB frieze. 17. The full palette of materials for the GWR, including samples of paint colours and further detailing of the connections between new and existing materials.
Page 13 of 14
FHBRO Review of Intervention Report 18. The colour palette for the interior of the Concourse. 19. Details on the design and intended placement of a dignified element marking the symbolic termination of the Beaux-Arts progression through the building, at the Senate Chamber. 20. The overall design of the spaces on the second, third and fourth floors, where original walls will be demolished and rebuilt, and some original features will be salvaged and reused. This should include renderings of the stair and elevator lobbies that terminate the hallways in the new east addition and a description of the design approach. 21. Design details and renderings of the balustrade within the Concourse. 22. The final interior lighting concept, including desired fixtures and renderings of light patterns and intensity.
We look forward to reviewing additional information as part of a follow-up review at the construction phase. Do not hesitate to contact us with any questions regarding this review.
Carolyn Bouffard Lima Conservation Architect 819-420-4945
Marie-Claude Quessy Conervation Landscape Architect 819-420-4956
Heritage Conservation Directorate National Capital Area Operations Sector Public Services and Procurement Canada 30 Victoria Street, 5th Floor, Suite 5A Gatineau (Québec) K1A 0M5 cc: Kristina Leaning (HCD Team Leader for ROIR) This Review has been prepared by PSPC – Heritage Conservation Directorate on behalf of the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office. Any requests for clarification on the content of this report, provision of further information or follow-up submissions should be directed to the FHBRO.
Page 14 of 14
Protected A
Protégé A
Excerpt of the Minutes of the
Extrait du procès-verbal du
Advisory Committee on Planning, Design and Realty
Comité consultatif de l’urbanisme, du design et de l’immobilier
Meeting of March 3 and 4, 2016
Séance des 3 et 4 mars 2016
2016-P02e - Government Conference Centre Rehabilitation Project, Final Design Development Stage (C)
2016-P02f - Projet de restauration du Centre de conférences du gouvernement – Phase de conception du design final (C)
Members received a presentation on the final design development stage for the Government Conference Centre rehabilitation project. They support the evolution of the concept. They offered the following comments:
Les membres reçoivent une présentation sur la phase de conception du design final pour le projet de restauration du Centre de conférences du gouvernement. Ils appuient l’évolution du concept. Ils offrent les conseils suivants :
The lighting scenario is supported.
On appuie le scenario d’éclairage.
However, there should be no approval without the use of natural stone on the exterior façades. The full life-cycle cost should be taken into consideration. The use of stone is more sustainable. Good quality precast would cost more than stone. Over time, with water infiltration and weather wear, precast would need replacing. The difference of performance and appearance will be obvious.
Cependant, on ne devrait pas accorder l’approbation sans l’utilisation de pierre naturelle sur les façades extérieures. On devrait prendre en compte les coûts sur l’ensemble du cycle de vie. L’utilisation de la pierre est plus durable. Du béton préfabriqué de bonne qualité coûterait plus que de la pierre. Avec le temps, avec les infiltrations d’eau et l’usure dues aux intempéries, le béton préfabriqué aura besoin d’être remplacé. La différence de performance et d’apparence sera évidente.
There were concerns about the appearance of the mechanical penthouses. Scale and proportions should be reconfigured. The details and finishing should be re-examined. The material palette should be considered, with a view toward reducing the visual impact of this component.
On a des préoccupations vis-à-vis de l’apparence des cabines de machinerie. On devrait reconfigurer l’échelle et les proportions. On devrait réétudier les détails et les revêtements. On devrait envisage la palette des matériaux en vue de réduire l’impact visuel de cet élément.
The security booth at the main entrance should be studied; could it be more symmetrical, and appear as a more symmetrical element in the space?
On devrait étudier le poste de sécurité de l’entrée principale; pourrait-il être plus symétrique, et apparaître comme un élément plus symétrique dans l’espace ?
The public art program should be contemplated, in order to complete the building.
On devrait considérer un programme d’art public, afin de compléter le bâtiment.
Committee Secretary Caroline Bied Secrétaire des comités
ACPDR / CCUDI
1/1
2016-03-03/04
CONFEDERATION BOULEVARD : SUSSEX / RIDEAU / COLONEL BY NODE URBAN DESIGN STRATEGY 2009 Peter J. Smith & Company Inc.
13
