HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2016, 3:21 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,845
The City is constantly approving the demolition of buildings that have way more value than this. Don't get me wrong, I'm against demolishing a row of these small early 20th century homes, but this one's alone and in bad shape.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2016, 12:43 AM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
The City is constantly approving the demolition of buildings that have way more value than this. Don't get me wrong, I'm against demolishing a row of these small early 20th century homes, but this one's alone and in bad shape.
There's a certain charm this building has that, if properly renovated, could turn it into a nice commercial building. More information would be needed about the building's state, but if we are to believe the City's engineer that says it's reparable, it shouldn't be torn down. There would be too many loopholes that could allow buildings in heritage district or that are designated such (or neither but can be recognized as important) to be demolished due to neglect or fire. Eventually we lose what is characteristic of older parts of the city that we won't ever get back, and will instead end up with some newer building that, while hopefully decent, isn't as good or interesting.

While this one on its own is nothing special, restoration and renovation, as well as adaptive reuse of older buildings could see historical preservation tied to expand buildings and uses in an area that could benefit from that type of development (that Toronto understands : Hariri Pontarini and 362 Richmond.

I admit I'm still miffed about the Medical Arts Building...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2016, 10:43 PM
mykl mykl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
The City is constantly approving the demolition of buildings that have way more value than this. Don't get me wrong, I'm against demolishing a row of these small early 20th century homes, but this one's alone and in bad shape.
With the most recent outcry regarding Somerset House, and the creation of a new heritage task force, the city might actually be doing its job now? Possibly?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2016, 1:17 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,845
I want to see consistency in this City. Why are we saving buildings like this or the Richmond Road gas station but demolishing others like the Ogilvy or the buildings on the block of Laurier/Friel. I want to see protection the mid-century suburban neighborhoods from poorly integrated infills and McMansions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2016, 11:44 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
Developer fighting to demolish ramshackle Centretown house

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 4, 2016 | Last Updated: November 4, 2016 7:09 AM EDT




An old red brick house on O’Connor Street is falling to pieces and the owner is shocked the city wants to save it.

City council’s built-heritage subcommittee has voted to refuse an application from Gemstone Developments to raze the decrepit house at 234 O’Connor St., just north of Somerset Street West, because members of the panel believe the building is salvageable.

The house, whose oldest parts date back between 1879 and 1901, embodies the city’s challenge of promoting urban renewal while maintaining cues to its history.

Gemstone vice-president Josh Zaret pulled open a slice of plywood securing an entrance to the house Thursday morning, releasing the musty air from inside.

The previous owner gutted the house down to the wooden wall supports and frame. The second floor and rafters are charred from a fire.

Outside, pieces of brick crumbled as Zaret gently brushed a wall with his finger. The bricks have been painted over, in some cases to conceal graffiti because a high-power pressure washer could destroy them.

“There really is not practical solution to reuse that brick,” Zaret said.

Some bricks are simply sitting loose in the middle of a wall. The rear walls bows. There’s a vertical crack running up the rear wall from the foundation to the roof.

The planning committee on Tuesday will be asked to confirm the built-heritage subcommittee’s recommendation before making its own recommendation to council. Gemstone says it’s prepared to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if it doesn’t get demolition approval from council.

The company wants to tear down the building and put in a temporary park until it’s ready to build a larger residential development, which would include the neighbouring parking lot it also owns. Market demand will drive the timeline for that project, the company says.

The old house was damaged in a fire in 2006 and it’s been sitting vacant since then.

Gemstone bought the building in September 2015 with the intention of establishing its head office. That was before the company knew the full extent of the damage.

(Today, Gemstone is finishing off another heritage restoration at 252 Argyle Ave. It’s home to the company’s new office.)

For Gemstone, the urgency at 234 O’Connor St. comes down to money. Why sink $400,000 into fixing the place if, in the company’s mind, the building needs to come down?

“One more winter here and you’re into some real significant safety issues,” according to Neil Zaret, Gemstone’s president. “From visit to visit, it appears to be getting worse. I’m very serious.”

He defended Gemstone’s decision to buy the ramshackle building last year.

The company knew it was buying a property in the Centretown heritage conservation district. It came up with a 10-year plan for the house with the goal of integrating it into a larger development, but the damage is too severe to make it financially viable, Neil said.

“We didn’t know the extent,” he said, adding that the city didn’t have any work orders on the property when the company did its due diligence.

“We would not have bought this building if the city had issued its outstanding work orders.”

The city started issuing work orders after Gemstone bought it.

Gemstone believes it has all the evidence it needs for demolition, including assessments from heritage and engineering experts. In November 2015, a city fire protection engineer said the Ottawa Fire Services supports demolition.

The city’s engineering consultant says the building is repairable. City staff don’t think a temporary park is a good use for the land.

Coun. Catherine McKenney, who represents the ward and sits on the built-heritage subcommittee, doesn’t want to lose the house.

“I think we need the owners to think outside the box,” McKenney said, adding that tearing down the building would mean the city endorses demolition by neglect.

“We can’t send the message that that will be tolerated,” McKenney said.

Coun. Jan Harder, chair of council’s planning committee, likes Gemstone’s work on heritage properties. She believes there’s a viable middle ground, which could include keeping the front facade of the house in a redevelopment of the property.

“I have every confidence there will be a whole different discussion” at the planning committee meeting, Harder said.

Neil Zaret knows the city has been clamping down on owners of eyesore properties, especially those in heritage areas, but doesn’t think it’s fair to paint them all with the same brush.

“You can’t tell me there isn’t uniqueness to every different building,” Neil Zaret said. “Forget painting the developers in one category. You can’t paint every building in the same category.”

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ntretown-house
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2016, 6:31 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
How did these Ottawa heritage buildings fare on their expansions?
With the Chateau Laurier’s owners saying there's growing acceptance of their expansion plans, Metro looks at three previous expansions in Ottawa.

By: Adam Kveton, Metro
Published on Thu Dec 08 2016




With the Chateau Laurier’s owners saying there is growing acceptance of their expansion design plans for the national historic site, Metro is highlighting three previous expansions to Ottawa’s heritage buildings. We break down the plusses and minuses with the help of David Jeanes, president of Heritage Ottawa.





Canadian Museum of Nature

National historic site. Built 1910. Renovations/expansion began in 2004.

POSITIVES
  • Glass tower occupies same height as historic tower, and is now widely accepted
  • Modern additions to rear of building do not detract from stonework
  • Stonework shell of building maintained
  • Many changes made to accommodate Nature Museum’s needs
  • Seen as successful

NEGATIVES
  • Historic tower above main entrance removed
  • New tower meant to make architectural statement rather than blend in, and was controversial
  • Historic theatre completely removed
  • Interior gutted





Lord Elgin Hotel

Built in 1940s. Expansion completed 2004. Built by same architecture firm as Chateau Laurier, and made similar expansion, said Jeanes.

POSITIVES
  • Additions designed to blend in with hotel’s original style, and only change in colour of stone shows new portions
  • Additions provide modern amenities and larger windows, but don’t attempt to make architectural statement
  • Seen as successful

NEGATIVE
  • Original covered entrance to hotel replaced





Christ Church Cathedral site

First service held in 1833. A designated heritage building. Additions/development began in 2012, expected to be finished in 2017.

POSITIVES
  • Extensive consultation with community associations
  • Additions made to financially support church’s work
  • Main buildings of historical importance preserved
  • Cathedral got new lobby, hall and other space due to additions
  • Green spaces preserved
  • Seen as successful

NEGATIVES
  • Modern tower and condos built immediately beside cathedral
  • A hall, which some felt had heritage value, was removed
  • Condo tower height increased from first plan
  • Underground parking for church remains to be completed


http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/...xpansions.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2016, 9:22 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,845
In the case of the Victoria Memorial Building, original tower removed can't really be considered "negative" because it was done in 1915 when the tower was sinking (and at the time only 10 years old, so not heritage). Gutting the interior is a sensitive issue since they had to do it for the earthquake proofing. Removing the theater is something I have a bit more of an issue with.

Lord Elgin, like I said may times before, is an obvious knock-off and doesn't add anything in terms of architectural interest. IMO, two glass wings would have been better. Arguably better than what's proposed at the Château.

Christ Church Cathedral, the historic portion is left untouched. Not a fan of the podium portion of the new tower. I think it looks cheap, but the tower itself adds to the skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2017, 1:12 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
Planning committee decides Centretown house doesn't need saving

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: April 11, 2017 | Last Updated: April 11, 2017 11:53 AM EDT


An old, fire-damaged house in the Centretown heritage conservation district shouldn’t be saved, the planning committee decided Tuesday.

The committee went against the built-heritage subcommittee’s recommendation to refuse the demolition, instead backing a plan by Gemstone Developments to raze the boarded-up house at 234 O’Connor St. and install a temporary park.

Councillors complained about the city’s lack of attention to house after it was destroyed by fire in 2006. The city has only recently become more vigilant about property standards at vacant buildings, but it’s too late for the house at 234 O’Connor St.

The house sat there decaying until Gemstone scooped it up in 2015 and only then did the company realize the extent of the damage, which led to its request for demolition.

Gemstone also owns the neighbouring parking lot property at Somerset and O’Connor streets. The company aspires to redevelop both properties together.

The house on O’Connor dates back more than 130 years.

Two structural assessments on the building had different findings. One recommended demolition, while the other recommended restoration.

City staff and advocacy group Heritage Ottawa back the restoration, but only two members of the planning committee, Jeff Leiper and Tobi Nussbaum, voted to save the building.

The other committee members agreed that the crumbling house has little heritage value left and gave Gemstone the green light to demolish it.

If council ratifies the committee’s decision on April 26, Gemstone will work with the city on a park design for the property.

The park might not last long, though. The planning committee wants a replacement building substantially completed within five years

Somerset Coun. Catherine McKenney, who doesn’t sit on the planning committee, called for councillors to protect the building. She’s frustrated by a depletion of heritage elements in Centretown.

“There’s always a reason why we have to chip away at the heritage attributes in our neighbourhoods,” McKenney bemoaned, referring to another controversial heritage property around the corner at Somerset and Bank streets.

The Somerset House, which has been in limbo for nearly 10 years and is owned by TKS Holdings, has a new proposed design that will be on the built-heritage subcommittee’s agenda Thursday.

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...nt-need-saving
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2017, 11:31 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
Sparks fly at planning committee over city's heritage register: This 'was just pro-forma bulls—'

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: April 26, 2017 | Last Updated: April 26, 2017 4:48 PM EDT


When Diane Cameron received a letter in the mail saying her Lowertown home was going to be added to the city’s heritage register, she highlighted the date when the matter would be before the planning committee and made plans in her busy schedule to attend Tuesday’s meeting.

The single mother of three children under five years old and an executive in the federal public service had to move meetings, take time off work and make alternate arrangements for child care just to get her five minutes as a public delegation.

But because the item was fourth on the committee’s agenda, immediately after a controversial application to demolish a home in Rockcliffe Park that drew 10 speakers, Cameron, the only person signed up to speak to her item, had to wait.

When her name was finally called more than two-and-a-half hours later, Cameron began to explain why her red-brick semi-detached home on York Street should be carved out of the proposal because, in her mind, it is neither unique nor reflects the character of her neighbourhood, which is home to a significant amount of public housing built within the last 50 years.

She stopped after about a minute when she noticed planning committee chairwoman Jan Harder was whispering to a staff member at her side.

“Excuse me, Madame chairperson, I think I’ve waited long enough for your attention,” Cameron said.

“Actually, I was asking a question in your favour,” Harder replied. “That is how things happen around here actually.”

“It may be what you’re used to, but where I come from and where the majority of Canadians come from, when you’re invited to speak to an audience, you expect that audience to listen,” Cameron said.

Harder, frowning, shot back: “Thank you for the kind observations and recommendations. Do continue, please.”

Cameron pressed her case, criticizing how the city consulted residents about the change. The single public information meeting held at city hall — not in Lowertown or Sandy Hill where the affected properties are located — drew fewer than 70 people, according to the official sign-in.

“I understand very well the challenges of public consultations, but if you don’t make it easy for people to be heard in a respectful and welcoming forum, then you must not assume that silence gives consent,” she said.

At issue is the planning department’s desire to add 237 properties to the heritage register, including 130 in Lowertown and 107 in Sandy Hill.

The heritage register includes properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, as well as others that don’t have that particular designation but have been added by city council because of their “cultural heritage value,” according to a report prepared by researchers Ashley Kotarba and David Maloney.

The register is not to be considered a “stepping stone” to heritage designation as buildings included on it may not meet the criteria for individual designation, the report says.

There are no limitations on homeowners if they want to renovate a home once it’s been added to the registry, Cameron was told. But if she wants to demolish the house, which she bought in 2011, she’d have to give the city 60-days notice.

Kanata South Coun. Allan Hubley tried to help by quickly devising a motion to remove Cameron’s property from heritage inventory list, but it failed on a 4-4 tie.

Harder then asked staff to explain to Cameron how she might go about writing the city to request removal from the registry and moved on to the next item.

Afterward, Cameron said the committee’s treatment of her was “shockingly disrespectful and disingenuous.”

Her effort to get her property removed from the register, she said, wasn’t given any serious consideration by committee members, two of whom had either left by then or stepped out when her matter came up.

“Clearly, the decision was (made) before I got here today. The letter telling me this was my opportunity to speak was just pro-forma bulls—,” Cameron said. “Had there been a general interest in consulting the community, I don’t imagine this letter would have been the first time I would have heard about this.”

Harder, the committee chairwoman, says she must make the rules “fair and balanced” — everyone has five minutes to speak and must wait for their agenda item to be called, even if it means sitting around for awhile.

Ottawa consults the public “more than most municipalities,” she said, and residents should be treated with respect when they appear before committee.

“I go out of my way and try very hard to do that, even when I’m treated with disrespect,” she said.

mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ro-forma-bulls
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2017, 10:26 AM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
[B]Sparks fly at planning committee over city's heritage register: This 'was just pro-forma bulls—'

She stopped after about a minute when she noticed planning committee chairwoman Jan Harder was whispering to a staff member at her side.

“Excuse me, Madame chairperson, I think I’ve waited long enough for your attention,” Cameron said.

“Actually, I was asking a question in your favour,” Harder replied. “That is how things happen around here actually.”

Afterward, Cameron said the committee’s treatment of her was “shockingly disrespectful and disingenuous.”

Her effort to get her property removed from the register, she said, wasn’t given any serious consideration by committee members, two of whom had either left by then or stepped out when her matter came up.

“Clearly, the decision was (made) before I got here today. The letter telling me this was my opportunity to speak was just pro-forma bulls—,” Cameron said.
I can totally understand the frustrations of the homeowner. Planning Committee members duck in and out, chat with other members, senior staff and it would tick me off if they all weren't listening to my presentation.

It would be nice if the members could see it through the publics eyes who often have to make arrangements related to work, homecare, etc in order to attend a meeting that has no defined end time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted May 1, 2017, 3:52 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet View Post
I can totally understand the frustrations of the homeowner. Planning Committee members duck in and out, chat with other members, senior staff and it would tick me off if they all weren't listening to my presentation.

It would be nice if the members could see it through the publics eyes who often have to make arrangements related to work, homecare, etc in order to attend a meeting that has no defined end time.
The whole process probably needs a rethink - it can be exhausting to sit through dozens of presentations for councillors, staff, and the public as well - and people expect on the fly answers to questions and motions - those come from conversation. It's bad enough that everyone looks like they're ignoring you as they read the committee docs on screens as well.

Not sure what the solution would be, but what we have doesn't work well for anyone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted May 24, 2017, 4:49 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
City Hall to vote on demolishing heritage building
Council will vote Wednesday on whether to approve an application to demolish 270 Buchan Road, in the Rockliffe Park Heritage Conservation District


By: Alex Abdelwahab, Metro
Published on Tue May 23 2017




Ottawa City Council will vote Wednesday on whether to approve an application to demolish a heritage building in the Rockliffe Park Heritage Conservation District.

The house at 270 Buchan Road was built in 1940 and designated part of the conservation district in 1997.

According to the city’s report, it is a Grade I building, meaning it “cannot be demolished except in extraordinary circumstances.”

The property owner, Richcraft Homes, wants to tear it down to build “a residence satisfying contemporary lifestyle needs.”

City staff previously recommended Council refuse the request.

The Built Heritage Sub-Committee also recommended its refusal, while the Planning Committee has recommended Council approve it.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/...-building.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted May 24, 2017, 5:38 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
City Hall to vote on demolishing heritage building
Council will vote Wednesday on whether to approve an application to demolish 270 Buchan Road, in the Rockliffe Park Heritage Conservation District


By: Alex Abdelwahab, Metro
Published on Tue May 23 2017




Ottawa City Council will vote Wednesday on whether to approve an application to demolish a heritage building in the Rockliffe Park Heritage Conservation District.

The house at 270 Buchan Road was built in 1940 and designated part of the conservation district in 1997.

According to the city’s report, it is a Grade I building, meaning it “cannot be demolished except in extraordinary circumstances.”

The property owner, Richcraft Homes, wants to tear it down to build “a residence satisfying contemporary lifestyle needs.”

City staff previously recommended Council refuse the request.

The Built Heritage Sub-Committee also recommended its refusal, while the Planning Committee has recommended Council approve it.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/...-building.html
Doesn't look very heritage worthy to me from that photo. That said why have these rules if building a contemporary home qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted May 24, 2017, 5:49 PM
HighwayStar's Avatar
HighwayStar HighwayStar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: PHX (by way of YOW)
Posts: 1,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
Doesn't look very heritage worthy to me from that photo. That said why have these rules if building a contemporary home qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance.
So what happens now? Richcraft will replace all the trees with stone or grass which only has to be mowed once a week.

It will then sit empty for the next decade.

WooHoo... heritage
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted May 24, 2017, 7:41 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighwayStar View Post
So what happens now? Richcraft will replace all the trees with stone or grass which only has to be mowed once a week.

It will then sit empty for the next decade.

WooHoo... heritage
I think the city charging Lauzon for support structures sent a message that their are consequences to demolition by neglect. It won't eliminate it but it at least changes the calculus.

In this case they may resell it rather than sit on it for 10 years. There are people who would renovate it. The market value of these heritage houses is lower than a knock down and now buyers know you may be held to the rules. This will lower further the market value but also make a renovation more economical for a future buyer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted May 24, 2017, 10:57 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
In close vote, city council says 'no' to Rockcliffe Park heritage demo

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: May 24, 2017 | Last Updated: May 24, 2017 5:05 PM EDT




The year-old plan that protects Rockcliffe Park’s heritage buildings passed its first test on Wednesday when city council rejected an application to demolish a home to make way for a new one.

The house at 270 Buchan Rd. is one of roughly 800 buildings in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District. Designed by the architectural firm Hazelgrove and Mills, it was included on Rockcliffe’s pre-amalgamation inventory of heritage resources in the former village. It was also assessed as a Grade 1 building within the heritage conservation district plan council unanimously approved in March 2016.

Demolition of such buildings, the plan says, will only be permitted in extraordinary circumstances, such as fire, flooding or some other disaster.

Council’s built-heritage committee upheld the staff position that Richcraft Homes’ application for demolition should be refused. That was subsequently overturned at an April 25 planning committee meeting.

But on Wednesday, council said “no” to demolition and voted to uphold the initial staff recommendation to reject Richcraft’s application by a vote of 13-10.

Upholding the plan was crucial, said Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Tobi Nussbaum, who chairs the heritage committee. “Had council allowed the demolition, we would have been sending the wrong message about the city and council’s commitment to heritage,” he said.

Mayor Jim Watson’s agreed. “I think we stood up for the community,” he said. “We stood up for the heritage district that we all voted for unanimously a year ago.”

Richcraft is appealing both the demolition application and the Rockcliffe Park heritage conservation district plan to the Ontario Municipal Board. A hearing is scheduled for September.

Senior company officials attended Wednesday’s council meeting, but Kevin Yemm, vice-president of land development, declined to comment on council’s decision.

According to the city’s lobbyist registry, Yemm met with a dozen city councillors between March 27 and April 24, including all but one member of the planning committee.

Richcraft and individuals closely associated with the company also donated thousands of dollars to municipal candidates in the 2014 election.

<snip>

mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-heritage-demo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted May 29, 2017, 3:50 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
In close vote, city council says 'no' to Rockcliffe Park heritage demo

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: May 24, 2017 | Last Updated: May 24, 2017 5:05 PM EDT






<snip>

mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-heritage-demo
By coincidence I was parked in front of this house on the weekend and as this second photo shows a bit better than the first photo it is a nice looking house that has a lot of street presence. Actually surprised Richcraft wants to build on this lot as it doesn't have a lot of privacy (for Rockcliffe) and it seems like there is a lot of value in the current structure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2017, 1:18 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
231 Cobourg Street today:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.42982...7i13312!8i6656


Quote:
Demolition opponents want to save Lester B. Pearson's pre-PM home

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: July 2, 2017 | Last Updated: July 2, 2017 6:52 PM EDT


Eliane Major remembers her brothers helping Lester B. Pearson push his car out of the snowy driveway of 231 Cobourg St. in the 1950s, when her family lived next door to the future prime minister.

Pearson’s wife, Maryon, would be standing at the door of the Sandy Hill home, warning him he was going to have a heart attack trying to muscle the car onto the road.

“My dad used to talk about him all the time,” Major said.

“The thing that strikes me is (Pearson’s) bow tie. He always wore a bow tie. And his wife, Maryon, had a very distinct style of hat. He was very polite.”

Major said there’s no doubt Pearson lived at that red-brick building at the corner of Wilbrod and Cobourg streets, even if there’s no plaque celebrating the building’s famous occupant.

But consultants who work for the current owner of the property, the Uganda High Commission, see no mention of Pearson in the city’s heritage records as it prepares plans to demolish the building.

The high commission wants to build a three-storey accessible building to become its new consulate. The new design borrows architecture features of the current building, such as the red brick and flat roof, but the third storey would have a lighter limestone exterior. A green rooftop would be landscaped with a pathway and decks.

The high commission bought the building in 1985 and operated its office there until 2014. The diplomatic mission is now in a leased office on Sparks Street.

The Action Sandy Hill community association has alerted Mayor Jim Watson and Coun. Tobi Nussbaum, the chair of the built heritage subcommittee, about the development application. In a letter last April, community association president Chad Rollins asked the politicians to “correct this oversight” of omitting Pearson from the property’s heritage impact document on file at the city.

Volunteers found evidence in a Pearson biography and in an Ottawa Directory that showed 231 Cobourg St. was his home address between 1955 and 1958.

Maryon E. Pearson is listed as the grantee in a May 1954 transaction on the property, according to the land registry file.

What is known for certain is Pearson lived around the corner, on Augusta Street, between 1947 and 1954. He moved into Stornoway when he became leader of the official opposition in 1958.

Pearson’s apparent Cobourg Street connection would fit the gap in the timeline.

In that period of Pearson’s career, in 1957, he won the Nobel Peace Prize, potentially placing even more importance on his Cobourg Street residence.

The building is in a conservation district and subject to the city’s heritage protection rules.

But consultants hired by the high commission argue the building and location are largely unremarkable.

For one, it’s not even the original building for the plot of land.

According to the high commission’s heritage consultant, the building was constructed around 1945 and it replaced a pitched-roof structure that dated back to 1912.

The building is in rough shape, too.

After Action Sandy Hill toured the structure in April, it noted the “appalling state of repair” and was prepared to consider demolition, until the Pearson connection surfaced.

The exterior brick is cracking and there’s mold everywhere. The high commission vacated the building in 2014 for health and safety reasons. Structural repairs alone would cost more than $1.5 million, not including electrical and mechanical upgrades and the removal of hazardous materials, according to one report in the development application package.

“Overall, we are of the opinion that this is a marginal building in terms of contributing to the district’s heritage character,” Robert Martin, the high commission’s heritage consultant, writes in his analysis included with the development application.

Even if Pearson lived in the building for a short time, there is nothing to suggest the building played a factor in his accomplishments, Martin writes. The Pearson name attached to the property doesn’t significantly boost its heritage score, he says.

Martin also wrote to Rollins, the Action Sandy Hill president, when the community group started voicing opposition to demolition.

“Simply the fact that Mr. Pearson may have lived here for a period does not necessarily endow the building with importance, any more than if a notable figure stayed at a hotel or cottage and so on,” Martin wrote.

Advocacy group Heritage Ottawa is reviewing the development application but has not yet commented.

The deadline for feedback to the city is July 10. The preliminary timetable has council’s planning committee considering the application in September.



The city’s senior heritage planner, Sally Coutts, said the city acknowledges that Pearson lived at 231 Coburg St. while he was an MP and secretary of state of external affairs, even though the city’s own consultants didn’t mention the connection as part of a conservation district study in 2010.

Major said it’s time for an 11th-hour push to save the building before the city begins putting together a recommendation on the high commission’s development application.

“It’s only when you reach a certain time in your life when you appreciate a certain culture. There’s a value to preserve and it’s part of our heritage,” Major said.

“In light of Canada Day, we have to reflect a little bit.”

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ns-pre-pm-home
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2017, 1:30 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,660
Unless Parks Canada or another organization wants to buy it and turn it into a museum then I don't see the value of trying to preserve every random house that somebody famous happened to live in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2017, 1:37 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Unless Parks Canada or another organization wants to buy it and turn it into a museum then I don't see the value of trying to preserve every random house that somebody famous happened to live in.
Agreed. My aunt/uncle/cousin owned a house in the UK from about 1983-2002 that was where Ernest Rutherford lodged when he was a student. In the 1800's the house had been a school for young girls to learn cooking, cleaning, housekeeping limited formal education for parents who had money. Not a plaque or preservation order to speak of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:39 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.