Heritage Properties of Ottawa & Gatineau

[HighwayStar]

great... another building to sit around and fall into dilapidated disrepair, at someone else's expense... while the "heritage committee" congratulate themselves on "saving" an old, crumbling building.

If the city has the power to make this declaration, THEN THE CITY SHOULD PURCHASE THE PROPERTY and maintain it as a museum (of course that would open another can of worms). But to have the power to saddle someone else with it's care and maintenance is, frankly, obscene... especially if the property has already been purchased.

There's been an awful lot of "heritage" type homes demolished in Westboro in the past decade... how is that justified? I think we should slap a full moratorium on any building > 50 years old.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

great... another building to sit around and fall into dilapidated disrepair, at someone else's expense... while the "heritage committee" congratulate themselves on "saving" an old, crumbling building.

If the city has the power to make this declaration, THEN THE CITY SHOULD PURCHASE THE PROPERTY and maintain it as a museum (of course that would open another can of worms). But to have the power to saddle someone else with it's care and maintenance is, frankly, obscene... especially if the property has already been purchased.

There's been an awful lot of "heritage" type homes demolished in Westboro in the past decade... how is that justified? I think we should slap a full moratorium on any building > 50 years old.

In Kingston, I believe they've blanket-listed basically all old brick and stone buildings.

We should adopt the rule that if a building is:
1) Built prior to 1945
2) Has an exterior facade of brick or stone (ie. to exclude buildings that are pre-war but have since been re-clad in siding such that they look suburban now--this is very common in lower income areas).
It should be automatically heritage protected.

[Urbanarchit]

*

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In Kingston, I believe they've blanket-listed basically all old brick and stone buildings.

We should adopt the rule that if a building is:
1) Built prior to 1945
2) Has an exterior facade of brick or stone (ie. to exclude buildings that are pre-war but have since been re-clad in siding such that they look suburban now--this is very common in lower income areas).
It should be automatically heritage protected.

Whether one agrees with this or not... at least it makes sense and a purchaser would know what they are getting into.

What yanks my chain here is the city Heritage sub-committee which applies 3 extremely subjective criteria, and seems to be able to occur at any stage of development... It would be nice for a purchaser to know what they are up against before signing on the dotted line...

[J.OT13]

ESSO is definitely the better choice for heritage protection. It may be a few years newer, but it integrates well into its surroundings as a high class service station. The RPM motorworks looks out of place in the neighborhood. It should not be protected IMO.

Which brings me to another point; they should put more heritage statuses on neighborhoods as a whole. It's not just about individual buildings, but the suroundings. Looking at these quaint post-war suburbs with solid brick bungalows and tree lined streets, those should have a heritage protection to prevent McMansions and stark-modern infills 3-4 times the height up to the lot lines.

An example of protecting one building that doesn't go with its surroundings would be the apartment building next to the old Delta. One small building on its little corner, out of place next to 12-18 floor towers (soon 23-27). That's not worth saving as it is, and always will be out of context.

The City should start a complete analysis and review of all the properties and neighborhoods of the City to protect the heritage buildings and areas.

[Urbanarchit]

*

[lrt's friend]

What I am seeing is the acceleration of demolition of old buildings around the city and the destruction of the character of neighbourhoods by inserting houses that are of substantially different than those surrounding them, whether it is infill or McMansions replacing modest houses. We have let this totally get out of hand where almost whole streets of houses are replaced.

The character of neighbourhoods should be respected whether old or new. Infill should have a similar style and use similar building materials. If the bulk of houses are brick, new houses should also be brick of similar colours. If the houses are bungalows, new houses should also be.

House renovations should require that the street façade remain similar. Additions should respect the general look of the area. We shouldn't allow renovations to turn into effectively a house replacement as a McMansion.

I just became aware that a 1850s stone house on Cyrville Road that belonged to a 19th century Gloucester Reeve was demolished to make way for ?????, likely some more suburban arterial garbage. Why not create incentives to integrate such historic structures into some intensified development?

A historic log house on south Bank Street was demolished for nothing.

The NCC is the worst culprit in demolishing historic structures throughout the Greenbelt in order to save money. Renting historic buildings that were once proudly owned before expropriation almost always leads to deterioration and demolition.

Maybe I sound like a hard line communist, but we seem to be losing more than we gain, at least in many cases.

Some areas which are clearly eye sores, such as St. Joseph Boulevard should allow major rebuilding but with a clear revised street plan and then stick to it.

I just drove by the old Billings home on Billings Avenue dating to the 1830s and was shocked to see part of it demolished in order to open up another lot. Why not take the original structure and modify it into a duplex with modern additions while preserving the old structure as much as possible. But maybe this is their intent to the degree possible. But much of the rest of Billings Avenue has been ruined by McMansions when this represents one of the historic districts of old Gloucester Township.

End Rant.

[Urbanarchit]

*

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by defishel

They're both great for different reasons, but they're also don't use their properties efficiently enough to be turned into something else. You'd have a lot of empty space on those two corners, not to mention how expensive it would be to clean up those two properties from decades of servicing cars.

Which neighbourhoods are you thinking? I'm not completely sure if it's a good idea to blanket-designate an entire neighbourhood, not unless every house on a street is worth keeping. Maybe there's a certain type of way the properties could be developed (similar laneways, all lawns with trees, etc.) to preserve the haecceity a bit, but sometimes you have houses that aren't that special. Maybe instead the Heritage Committee could do overtime and start identifying and designating many more properties as heritage that are worth keeping, and then create bylaws requiring certain properties that will be developed to conform in some way so it isn't a suburban McMansion. I always felt the house along Young are perfectly suited for replacement, but even they have a certain character as being among the first post-war housing for returning soldiers and their families, all are noticeably smaller than contemporary suburban houses that are usually larger than people need.

(This house on Reid was demolished last fall/ winter to make way for a larger house that, while not terrible, is oversized and doesn't fit much at all. I'll find a picture, but they tried to make it look "traditional" in a suburban sense, with a large two car garage that takes up half of the property). Maybe stricter bylaws on demolition should be devised so houses like the above aren't demolished?

Looking at your two examples, I would agree the Young houses are ripe for redevelopment. No character on that street. The house on Reid, however should have been saved for the sake of the surroundings.

I was thinking neighborhoods like these:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.47212...7i13312!8i6656

[Urbanarchit]

*

[J.OT13]

Your right that the one on Young do have a certain historic significance as the original post-war suburbs, giving us a glimpse of the simplicity of those days. I would agree that some neighborhoods of that era, maybe not young because of the Queensway, should be preserved.

And yes, the area I presented is something that has been repeated time and time again in the 50s, 60s and 70s. It's worth noting that quality went down over the years (all brick, floor board and plywood walls to cheap siding, and chip board for floors and walls), so the newer versions would be less significant. Another issue with full development of those areas is the wonky street layout you mentioned. High density on those streets could cause major issues. Those neighborhoods do have do have areas that could be densified without toughing the old sidle family homes. Here are some examples around the neighborhood I pointed out earlier;

Strip mall near the highway:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Gat...140956!6m1!1e1

Commercial Street on the Gatineau River:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Gat...140956!6m1!1e1

Commercial Street on the edge:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.48064...8i6656!6m1!1e1

And a recent "Trainyards" type screw up on the other side of the Track. It's right on a Rapibus Station, with highway access! That would have been a great place for a medium density neighborhood.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Gat...140956!6m1!1e1

[rocketphish]

City rejects changes to Confederation-era home
Infill would ‘obscure and dominate’ heritage building, staff say

By Emma Jackson
Ottawa East News, Aug 18, 2015



It’s back to the drawing board for a local architect after the city’s heritage committee rejected his plan to build three storeys of residential infill around a Confederation-era home in Sandy Hill.

The built heritage sub-committee – with support from staff, Heritage Ottawa and Action Sandy Hill – argued the eight-unit apartment plan would destroy the heritage character of the 146-year-old white stucco building, and potentially the street around it.

The house was built around 1869 and has been modified several times over the decades, adding a mansard roof and dormers in the 19th century, and a two-storey tower early in the 1900s. A Victorian-style porch and a flat-roof extension were added in the 1930s and ’40s.

But Robertson Martin Architects wanted to take those changes to a new level – three storeys, to be exact – by demolishing about half of the building, including the 1940s addition and a detached garage behind the home.

A new addition would have added a contemporary two-storey stone and stucco tower at the front, while a three-storey stucco addition would wrap behind the original building, heritage planner Lesley Collins said.

At the same time, the original building would get a makeover with all new windows and a brick veneer over its stucco and wood cladding.

The plan was too much for Collins, who recommended the committee reject the proposal on the grounds that the addition’s “height and massing overwhelm the character of the building” and obscure the mansard roof on the east side.

She was also concerned that replacing the windows with modern frames would take away from the building’s heritage character.

Collins said the developer worked with city staff before applying to determine what an appropriate addition might look like, but the two groups couldn’t meet in the middle.

“We had concerns with the massing and such a loss of the mansard roof along the east side of the building, which is unfortunately why we’re here in a position of refusal,” Collins told the committee.

The committee agreed the plan was inappropriate for one of the oldest streets in Ottawa, which is part of a small heritage conservation district on Daly Ave and a wider heritage character area for all of Sandy Hill, voting unanimously to refuse the proposal.

This was exactly the response that Chad Rollins, president of Action Sandy Hill, was looking for.

“We do not believe the proposed design showcases or enhances the heritage value of the existing building, but rather undermines it,” Rollins wrote in a submission to the committee.

He said the group does not oppose adaptive reuse on the property – the members recognize infill and intensification can complement the heritage character of the neighbourhood – but without serious changes the group couldn’t stand behind the project.

He said the major issues stem from the extent to which the original building would be obscured by the new addition.

The infill would cover up the mansard roof and dormers, and its imposing height would “overwhelm the somewhat squat heritage building,” Rollins wrote.

While Rollins said the group could potentially support three storeys in a new proposal, the third storey would have to be set back much further so the building’s mansard roof and dormers aren’t hidden.

He also wanted to see a larger front yard setback for the new addition – preferably just over 6.7 metres, where the current addition sits now – and protection for two large, mature trees out front. More complementary materials would also be necessary to make sure the infill suits the streetscape, Rollins said.

“While we understand that the new addition should not be a pastiche of an historic building and should be of its time, we believe that these goals can be accomplished while still selecting materials that are more sensitive to the context,” Rollins said.

At the committee meeting, architect Robert Martin offered “a different story” about the proposed development. He said modifications based on the community’s feedback would help the building blend into the streetscape.

But he argued the building was never classified as important built heritage anyway – when it was designated in 1994, it scored 35 out of 100, and was only considered important to the streetscape as background.

With that in mind, the architect’s work to keep the front of the building intact and return it to its original brick veneer serves the purpose of the heritage district, he argued.

Martin also raised a spectre of worse things to come if the proposal were not approved.

“The existing building is in very poor condition, so there’s a very real possibility of demolition,” he told the committee. Martin further argued that some flexibility should be considered for buildings that are in disrepair.

“I think we need to be realistic and reasonable about heroic efforts on very deteriorated buildings,” he said.

While the committee voted unanimously in favour of the staff recommendation, chairman Tobi Nussbaum encouraged the developer to come back again with a modified design, one that doesn’t dominate the heritage building quite so much.

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/n...tion-era-home/

[rocketphish]

Council endorses heritage designation for former gas station

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: September 9, 2015 | Last Updated: September 9, 2015 6:36 PM EDT



Ottawa councillors Wednesday unanimously endorsed a heritage designation for the former Champlain Oil gas station on the southwest corner of Island Park Drive and Richmond Road.

The cottage-like building was granted heritage status based on its architecture, location and historical value.

The structure served as a gas station while motor vehicles were in their growth period. Initially owned by Benzolene in 1934, the station was sold to Champlain Oil Products in 1937 for $1.

The company operated a chain of gas stations throughout Montreal and Ottawa during the 1930s and ’40s and was owned by former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s father, Charles Emile Trudeau.

The gas station was eventually sold and reborn as a used car lot before shutting its doors for good in August 2014.

Architecture trends at the time of the its construction in 1934 suggested that these gas stations should resemble their surroundings. With its steeply pitched gable roof, its round arched doors and windows, and twin chimneys, the building was designed to resemble what the heritage planners call an English cottage.

The heritage designation applies only to the building’s exterior and location, so the interior could be changed. If the owner wanted to move it within the lot, council approval would be required.

mpearson@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...er-gas-station

[MoreTrains]

Seriously? Im dissappointed, and Im looking at you Jeff Leiper! The building, sure, location not so much. Also, will the new owner have to change out those modern garage doors to something more 'heritage'?

[rocketphish]

There should be a provision in the Heritage Act that forces the City to A) compensate the landowner for the immediate drop in value of their site, or B) expropriate any new heritage site at pre-heritage value. If the City wants the heritage building, fine, but it should not be doing harm while doing so.

Individuals and corporations affected negatively by a government's free trade agreements can sue the government for damages. Should the same thing be allowed in heritage cases?

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

There should be a provision in the Heritage Act that forces the City to A) compensate the landowner for the immediate drop in value of their site, or B) expropriate any new heritage site at pre-heritage value. If the City wants the heritage building, fine, but it should not be doing harm while doing so.

Individuals and corporations affected negatively by a government's free trade agreements can sue the government for damages. Should the same thing be allowed in heritage cases?

Totally agree with your thoughts. I'm sure that if that was the case, the groups/people in favour of heritage designations may not be so enthusiastic.

What I find interesting is that they want to preserve a certain era in the City building phases, yet many of the buildings they want to preserve are not the original buildings on a property.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Totally agree with your thoughts. I'm sure that if that was the case, the groups/people in favour of heritage designations may not be so enthusiastic.

What I find interesting is that they want to preserve a certain era in the City building phases, yet many of the buildings they want to preserve are not the original buildings on a property.

Far too many buildings worthy of heritage status go without and either get demolished or fall into disrepair. There's an old wood and stone farmhouse in Reid Park that has sat empty for decades, and the city has decided that the building is in terrible condition, and so requires demolition. The farmhouse is one of the oldest in Ottawa and belonged to the Reid family back when the area was farmland. Adult High School is another example, which was built in 1967 as a Centennial project. It could be faced with demolition as the Gladstone CDP zoned mid-rise buildings along Preston and Gladstone with the park along the Queensway. Modernism rarely seems to be considered heritage-worthy.

I agree with Rocketphish. If the City wishes to designate something heritage they should be willing to compensate the owner or purchase the site and maintain it themselves. The City wouldn't be able to afford this though, and many heritage buildings would go undesignated and possibly be demolished.

[jleiper]

The doors are lost, obviously, but the rest of the exterior will need to be kept. The location might theoretically be an interesting discussion. Context is one of the key heritage attributes;:its location at that particular corner is meaningful to why it's heritage. I think everyone is open to moving it around on site so they can build up and around it. In theory, they could request to move it elsewhere in the city. Depending on the project, I'd be at least notionally open to the idea. I should say Main and Main have been good to deal with; all involved were appropriate and did what they had to do, but it was always a frank discussion and civil. I'm looking forward, now that the usual script has been followed through to its conclusion, to working with them on something that will work for their numbers and the community's clear desire to preserve this building.

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Seriously? Im dissappointed, and Im looking at you Jeff Leiper! The building, sure, location not so much. Also, will the new owner have to change out those modern garage doors to something more 'heritage'?

[rocketphish]

Fate of the Bradley/Craig heritage barn to be discussed Dec. 10

Joanne Laucius, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 9, 2015 | Last Updated: November 9, 2015 12:07 PM EST



Discussion on whether or not Richcraft can dismantle a heritage Stittsville-area barn and move it to Saunders Farm will wait until Dec. 10.

Ottawa’s built heritage subcommittee was to discuss the matter Monday morning, but deferred discussion until next month because Richcraft’s planning and design consultant FOTENN requested time to review city heritage planners’ recommendation that the red barn remain where it has stood on Hazeldean Road since 1873.

Richcraft had applied to dismantle the barn on the Bradley-Craig farm and move it to the Saunders Farm, an “agri-tourism” centre in Munster about 20 kilometres away. However, both planners and Heritage Ottawa pointed out that the barn, part of the Bradley family’s prosperous dairy farm, is part of the agricultural history of both Goulbourn and Ottawa. The farm was sold to Richcraft in 2006 and a heritage designation for the timber-framed barn and the brick Gothic revival farmhouse was part of granting redevelopment zoning for the surrounding land in 2010.

The farmhouse will remain at the site and be incorporated into the development. But in its application to move the barn, Richcraft said the barn didn’t fit into its plans. Richcraft wants to develop the land for box stores, and leaving the barn on the land was no longer feasible because the “surrounding context” had changed. There is already a big box store across the road, with plans for mix-used and residential development on the property.

David Jeanes, president of Heritage Ottawa, says the barn is solidly-framed, but it has been rapidly deteriorating. One of the doors to the hayloft have fallen off its hinges, he said. Other unused heritage barns have been prey to vandalism and arson, he said.

Although a bylaw protects designated heritage properties and there have been complaints about the condition of the barn, Jeanes does not now if the complaints have been investigated.

“Compared to pictures taken a year ago, the building have suffered in the past year,” he said. “It would be easy to let it collapse.”

Jeanes , who attended Monday’s meeting, argues that the barn is a landmark to anyone who drives down Hazeldean Road. “A lot of people value the heritage. It could be an ideal location for a farmers’ market.”

The city allows heritage buildings to be moved if there is no other option, but “there is no evidence that the applicant seriously considered other options,” city planners said in their report to the built heritage committee.

“Moving the barn to a farm-inspired tourist attraction will neither improve its heritage value, nor allow its history within the context of Goulbourn Township to be fully understood.”

In its submission, Heritage Ottawa said it was inappropriate to move the barn to Saunders Farm. Although more people could see it there, it would be out of the context of the original farm, said Jeanes.

Stittsville Coun. Shad Qadri supports relocating the barn, arguing that it would be well-maintained at Saunders Farm and pointing out that moving the March House provided a precedent.

“As it stands today, the barn appears to be falling apart and under the current city bylaws regarding heritage buildings, it does not require any improvements to the building to assist with the condition of the structure,” Qadri said in a statement.

After the built heritage sub-committee makes a decision on the matter, it will go to planning committee before it goes to city council.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...scussed-dec-10

[rocketphish]

Heritage?

Streetview:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/171...37fc77f8?hl=en

Lowertown Community Association blasts OCH plan to demolish heritage building

By Alex Robinson
Ottawa East News, Nov 02, 2015



An Ottawa Community Housing plan to demolish a heritage property on Bruyere Street is raising some eyebrows in Lowertown.

OCH presented a plan to residents at a meeting on Oct. 22 to knock down the house, at 171 Bruyere St., and build a parkette in its place.

Many residents said they did not need another park in the area as there is one nearby that is underutilized. They asked that if the building has to be demolished that a community garden be built in its place.

“There is lots of green space around here. It isn’t used to full capacity. Why do you want another parkette?” said Liz MacKenzie, the chairwoman of the Lowertown Community Association’s heritage committee.

“Most people said this is ridiculous. We don’t need another park.”

It’s believed the house was built sometime in the 1850s and was the home of the family of Thomas O’Connor and Mary Curry for more than a century until 1954. The O’Connor family were early Irish residents and were some of the first members of the St. Brigid Parish when it formed in 1889.

The building has heritage protection as it falls within the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District, but OCH disputes whether the structure itself is the original as they claim a fire in the early 20th century damaged the house and required it to be rebuilt.

OCH staff have said the vacant building needs to be demolished because it is costly to maintain and patrol. It would take $250,000 to renovate to the point that it would be habitable, according to OCH estimates.

It would also be complex for OCH to sell the property as it is zoned as part of a larger parcel of land that the agency owns. Severing that portion of the property could be a costly and lengthy process as its mortgage would also have to be renegotiated, OCH staff said.

“We don’t look at the parkette as a trade-off for the heritage value of the house. It is unwanted and the community wants something else,” MacKenzie said.

MacKenzie said she would like to see the building leased to another owner, who would be interested in restoring it under a leasehold agreement similar to ones the National Capital Commission has on downtown properties.

OCH is now looking at that as a possible option.

Stéphane Giguere, OCH’s CEO, has said the agency has not settled on any specific option yet, as it is still working through the feedback it got from the community at the meeting.

“Out of those options we want to go back to the consultation table to figure out the best solution for the community,” he said in an interview.

“We want to also recognize the heritage aspect of this property in Lowertown.”

OCH also assured residents that any money saved from demolishing the house would go towards housing in other places.

“We’re in the business of housing people and we want to make sure that whatever we spend goes into housing,” said Rideau-Vanier Coun. Mathieu Fleury, who serves as OCH chairman.

“Every dollar goes into significant investment to keep people housed.”

Even given the community association’s opposition to demolishing the building, MacKenzie lauded OCH for its community outreach. She also said the community association would like assurances that something will be built on the property before OCH gets the approvals to tear it down.

“If you do approve the demolition, don’t let them demolish it until they have a concrete plan for the property,” she said. “We don’t want a vacant gap in the streetscape there.”

The city’s built heritage sub-committee will consider whether to grant approval for OCH to demolish the house at a meeting on Nov. 9.

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/n...tage-building/