Report
to/Rapport au :
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur la
conservation de l'architecture locale
and /
et
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
18 April 2006 / le 18 avril 2006
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager/
Directeur municipal adjoint,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager
Planning and Infrastructure
Approvals/Approbation des demandes d’aménagement et d’infrastructure
(613) 580-2424 x13242, grant.lindsay@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN
THE BANK STREET HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
DEMANDE
DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE LA
RUE BANK |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council refuse the application for new construction at 119-121, 125, 127 Bank
Street and 215 Slater Street, received on April 4, 2006.
(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act
must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of the building
permit.)
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité consultatif sur la conservation
de l’architecture locale recommande au Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement de recommander à son tour au Conseil de refuser la demande de
nouvelle construction aux 119-121, 125 et 127, rue Bank ainsi qu’au 215, rue
Slater, reçue le 4 avril 2006.
(Nota : L’approbation de modification de la propriété aux termes de la
Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario ne signifie pas qu’elle satisfait aux
critères de délivrance d’un permis de construire.)
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
Recommendation - 27 April 2006
Contrary to the departmental recommendation,
LACAC recommends approval of the proposed revised design.
BACKGROUND
This report
has been prepared to allow for the construction of a new office building at the
above address, which is included within the boundaries of the Bank Street
Heritage Conservation District, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage
Act (By-law 175-2000). The Ontario Heritage Act requires that new construction
in a heritage conservation district be approved by City Council before a
heritage permit and a building permit can be issued. (see Document 1).
The proposal for the Telus building involves the demolition of four buildings; 119-121 Bank Street, 125 Bank Street, 127 Bank Street and 215 Slater Street. City Council approved the demolition of these buildings under the Ontario Heritage Act on March 8, 2006. At that meeting, City Council also approved the construction of a new building on the site with part of 119‑121 Bank Street restored and incorporated into the new design. This report has been prepared in response to a new application submitted by the applicant that slightly alters the original design.
ANALYSIS
The new
application for construction on the site is essentially the same as previously
approved, however, the historic mansard roof element to be removed and
reinstated at 119-121 Bank Street is not included in this version (please refer
to Document 2). When the original plans were presented at the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) meeting of February 8,
the discussion focussed on whether or not the reinstatement of the roof element
was heritage preservation and whether its retention enhanced or detracted from
the rest of the building and from the streetscape. In its discussion, LACAC considered the comments of the Downtown
Ottawa Urban Design (DOUDS) team on the proposal. The comments, included here
as Document 3, did not support the
removal and reinstatement of the historic roof element stating that:
The panel is of the view that the gesture to heritage conservation
shown in the project weakens the urban design of the project while not making a
significant contribution to the maintenance of the City's heritage.
After the meeting, given
that LACAC did not establish a recommendation, and the opinion of the DOUDs
team, the applicant submitted the current application for the building. The restoration architect for this project
included the reasons for the re-submission in a document included as Document
4. In summary, the architect states:
This is not a major redesign, but rather an evolution from the previous
design. We have taken the time to do
these revisions and refinements because the previous design was not embraced by
either of the City’s design review committees [LACAC and the DOUDS]. It is our belief that the current revisions
reflect a broader consensus on how to best marry the past, present and future
of this prominent site.
The new plans show the
building to be essentially the same as the previously-approved structure but
instead of a two storey projecting bay with a mansard roof, the current version
has a two storey projecting bay that features the same fenestration pattern and
materials as the rest the building and sloping windows above the sign band.
The Planning and Growth
Management Department does not support the new submission. The Department
believes that the mansard roof is a meaningful fragment from Bank Street's past
and ought to be preserved in the context of the Bank Street Heritage
Conservation District. The Department believes the previously approved removal
and reinstatement of the historic mansard roof
and the setbacks of a the new building will make a positive contribution
to the character of Bank Street immediately north of Slater Street, and the
eight-storey curtain wall structure, with its clean contemporary design and new
storefronts will animate the corner of Bank and Slater Streets. This position
is consistent with the staff recommendation on the previous application
approved by Council on 08 March 2006.
CONSULTATION
Adjacent property owners and residential tenants were notified by letter of the date of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and Planning and Environment Committee meetings and were provided with comment sheets to be returned to LACAC.
The
Councillor is aware of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Councillor
Holmes reviewed the initial plans for the project and her comments were:
"On the matter of the retention of the mansard
roof, I have some problems with this approach to preservation."
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 2 Elevations
Document 3 Comments, Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Team
Document 4 Comments, Julian Smith, Architect
DISPOSITION
The Corporate Services Department, Council and Committee Services Branch, to notify the applicant/ agent Richard Chmiel (Richard Chmiel, Architect and Associates, 109 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5N5) and the Ontario Heritage Trust ) 10 Adelaide Street, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of City Council's consent for demolition and new construction.
Heritage Response
The panel is of the view that the
gesture to heritage conservation shown in the project weaken the urban design
of the project while not making a significant contribution to the maintenance
of the City's heritage. The unfortunate reality is that the scale of the
heritage buildings is too small to be translated into the new scheme, and the
saving of small portion takes them too far out of context to maintain their
credible use. The panel finds that reuse of the portion of mansard roof on Bank
St. and the introduction of the frame structure on Slater distracts from the development
of improved grade conditions.
Deletion of the heritage elements
of the project would shift the emphasis on the Bank St. elevation away from the
second floor line, to the ground floor expression and the fourth floor line,
which is the roofline of the northern portion of the block and to some degree
the block immediately to the south. This more accurately represents the
development of the street facade. The rhythm of the punched openings at the
ground floor facades of the buildings to the immediate north is suggested as an
appropriate element for repetition. The treatment of the upper floor facades of
the same buildings is also of interest and to some degree is reflected in the
Slater St. facade treatment.
The panel recommends that the
comments provided above be addressed by LACAC in their review of the project
design and in their recommendations to Council for this project. The panel
further recommends that the City, through the site plan approval process
address the comments of the panel that relate specifically to site development
matters, most notably the streetscape and roof top terraces.
Respectfully Submitted.
DOUDS Review Team:
Robert Matthews
David Leinster
Stephen Pope
Julian Smith & Associates,
Architects
206 James Street, Ottawa, ON K1R 5M7
Tel: (613) 234-3338
Fax: (613) 234-7778
julian@juliansmitharchitects.ca
Statement: Burkholder Building
Richard Chmiel Architect &
Associates have worked closely with the developer, Toth Equity Limited, with
City of Ottawa heritage staff, and with heritage consultant Julian Smith &
Associates, to develop an appropriate and sensitive design for the Telus
Building project at 199 Slater Street.
We had initially developed two possible approaches to the heritage of
the Burkholder Building, identified in previous studies as the one element on
the site worthy of attention.
The first option was to remove,
repair and reinstate the mansard roof element of the Burkholder Building, the
one surviving fragment of the original building with heritage interest. The other option was to reinterpret the
two-storey façade of this heritage property in a contemporary idiom, respecting
the urban design heritage but accepting the fact that most of the original
façade had been lost.
In consultation with the heritage
staff at the City, we developed the first option in our design presentations to
the Design Review Panel and to the Local Architectural Conservation
Committee. Both those committees seemed
to agree that the resulting heritage element was not strong enough to warrant
inclusion in the overall scope of the project.
The Design Review Panel recommended against it; the LACAC Committee was
divided and made no recommendation.
The following is the comment of
the Design Review Panel:
The gesture to heritage
conservation shown in the project weakens the urban design of the project while
not making a significant contribution to the maintenance of the City’s
heritage. The unfortunate reality is that
the scale of the heritage buildings is too small to be translated into the new
scheme, and the saving of small portions takes them too far out of context to
maintain their credible use.
The LACAC did not support the
project as submitted, nor did they propose an alternative. Among other comments were those comparing the
approach to “a bit of Disneyland”.
In view of these responses, the
owner and the consultants have modified the design to move it closer to the
second option. Rather than reinstating
a fragment of the original building, the façade with its mansard roof has been
reinterpreted within the overall design. The revised proposal has the following
features:
·
The design element is distinct from the main massing of
the building, and located on the site of the original building
·
The design repeats the two-storey, three-bay pattern of
the original façade and the arrangement of ground floor retail and upper level
offices – these are the key elements of the urban design history of this site
·
The original mansard roof design is referenced in the
idea of a sloped element above a vertical element. The bell-shaped profile of the original mansard roof is further
referenced in the projecting vane at the base of the sloped elements
·
The glazing divisions in the three bays reflect the
proportions of the original historic elements, with two narrower panels
flanking a wider central panel
Even with these clear references
to the history of the site, the design element is closely integrated into the
overall contemporary design vocabulary of the project. It speaks to the history of the site without
making an artificial pastiche.
This is not a major redesign, but
rather an evolution from the previous design.
We have taken the time to do these revisions and refinements because the
previous design was not embraced by either of the City’s design review
committees. It is our belief that the
current revisions reflect a broader consensus on how to best marry the past,
present and future of this prominent site.