|
Rockcliffe
park newsletter
AVRIL 2008
Ashbury College Boy’s Dormitory – An Update
The College’s proposal for an ‘L-shaped’ building accommodating
50 boys was considered by Planning & Environment Committee (PEC)
on February 12th and City Council on February 27th. As initially
proposed, the building’s arms would be disposed along
Springfield and Maple Lane. It presented an imposing
institutional look to the entrance of the Village. That
arrangement also required the demolition of two buildings within
the Heritage Conservation District. The Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee’s (LACAC) – the City’s
legislated advisory body on heritage matters - had earlier
unanimously rejected the proposal to demolish. The LACAC
decision was strongly supported by the RPRA and the Lindenlea
Community Association. Heritage Ottawa also opposed demolition
of both houses.
Following the strong LACAC decision, Ashbury has agreed that an
alternative design, earlier rejected, would be acceptable to the
college, although neither building would be saved from
demolition. The alternative is essentially the original proposal
‘flipped’ 180 degrees so that only its ends, which house the
housemasters and their families, present themselves on
Springfield Avenue and Maple Lane. It is possible, with the
‘flipped’ design, to leave one of the buildings standing
although this has so far not received the college’s approval.
In the face of this controversy, heritage values versus
development rights, the Council debate was difficult and the
result ultimately inconclusive. The matter will be reconsidered
on March 26th. I have received many letters from advocates on
both sides. Supporters of the College’s position have been
particularly critical of my support for preserving the heritage
values at risk.
Like many of you, I do not claim any special expertise in
assessing the merits of a particular structure’s heritage value.
I have found it even more difficult to assess the contribution
of a structure to a Heritage Conservation District (HCD). My
lack of specialized knowledge in this area drives me to seek and
rely on the advice of those who do have greater expertise.
Experts and those having frequent occasion to gauge what
constitutes ‘heritage significance’ do exist in Ottawa. I have
chosen to listen carefully to LACAC (the Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee – a body created under
provincial statute for the purpose), to Heritage Ottawa, to
Professor H. Stovel (Heritage Conservation Programme, Canadian
Studies, Carleton University), and others. The test for allowing
a demolition within the Rockcliffe HCD is as follows:-
“Demolition should be recommended for approval only where the
existing building is of little significance …”. All of the
experts I have cited above agree that the properties along
Springfield (204, 212 & 224-now no longer threatened) are well
above this bar. For those interested, I have posted information
on the various aspects of this file, including the building
designs (original & flipped) and information on the heritage
factors, on the Rideau-Rockcliffe web site.
I have chosen to err on the side of caution and opted to follow
what I believe to be the best advice available. Moreover, I know
that Ashbury could build a residence on its grounds without
losing any of outdoor sports facilities and without the
community compromising the principles contained in the Heritage
Conservation District. Ashbury would be able to pursue the
economic viability that it seeks and the community would retain
its heritage elements. It sometimes happens that a difficult
choice must be made between mutually incompatible alternatives.
This is not such a case.
Since the Council non-decision at the end of February, I have
continued discussions with Ashbury and others. I hope that this
clarifies my efforts on this contentious dossier.
Princess Avenue Reconstruction
This long-awaited project will finally proceed this year. On
March 19th Transportation Committee dealt with the last elements
of the reconstruction for which agreement between City staff and
the community could not be reached. Resolution proved difficult
because of the narrowness of the corridor, the desire to provide
protection for the heritage fencing surrounding the grounds of
Government House and the wish to preserve the essential
character of the Heritage Conservation District. The NCC and
NECA both wanted to provide a pedestrian facility which would
complete the circuit of the Governor General’s residence and
offer greater security to the walkers in the area.
It has been decided to provide a stone-dust path along Princess
Avenue, curbing on both sides of the road will be of the
mountable (or inclined) variety, one of the legs of the
Princess-Lisgar ‘triangle’ will be closed to vehicles allowing
for more green space and the lighting standards will be those
appropriate to the Heritage Conservation District. I believe
that these dispositions mean that Princess will retain the look
and feel of ‘a country road’ that it has historically presented
and that the RPRA fought so hard to preserve.
The cooperation of the staff of the NCC and the City of Ottawa
should be recognized in arriving at this result.
Transparent Assessment of Interprovincial Crossings
During the recent round of consultations a question of the
weighting system arose. The question was reasonable. The answer
was very surprising. It appears that assigning weights will be
done only after all of the data has been collected. Only then is
the spread amongst all of the corridors, for a given criterion,
known. The experts believe that a small spread ought to be given
a small weighting because that criterion could contribute little
to distinguishing amongst the various corridor options.
If nothing changes, that is what will happen. This may be the
technically correct way of assigning weighting factors. The
major problem is that the ‘winning candidate corridor’ will be
the result of a rating system not known in advance. The eventual
recommendation will be exposed to the suggestion that it was the
result of manipulation through the weighting factors applied to
obtain a desired choice.
There is another facet of the rating system which should be
examined by the public. This is our ‘modern’ habit of reducing
criteria which are inherently descriptive in nature (e.g. impact
on communities, or the environment) to a number. Once all
criteria can be rendered numerical, ‘weighting factors’ can be
applied across the board and a mathematical crank turned. This
appears to make the evaluation process objective. Certain
criteria are ‘measurable’ in the sense that a number results -
capital costs or time (distance, fuel) saved for instance. I do
not believe that the other impacts mentioned above are
adequately dealt with by estimating the number of fish or
salamanders or even the number of residential units affected.
The consultations have so far not focussed on the corridor
rating system. The study should yield a recommendation that is
as objective as it is humanly possible to make it. More
important is that the process be transparent. It is already
known that the eventual recommendation will not please everyone.
The choice cannot be determined by warring petitions. Only
through a choice-making process that is fully transparent,
within a thorough EA study, will the largest public acceptance
be garnered.
Jacques Legendre
Councillor, Rideau-Rockcliffe
You can communicate with me at (please include a telephone
number):
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa ON K1P 1J1
Tel: 580-2483, Fax: 580-2523
E-mail:
jacques.legendre@ottawa.ca
Web Site:
www.rideau-rockcliffe.com
RETOUR
À L'INDEX
|
