|
Relocation of the Horticulture building, a property designated
under part iv of the ontario heritage act (By-law 8-1994) DÉPLACEMENT DU BÂTIMENT DE
L'HORTICULTURE, PROPRIÉTÉ DÉSIGNÉE AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR
LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO (RÈGLEMENT 8-1994) |
Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED
That Council sitting as Committee of the
Whole recommend that Council reject the staff recommendations.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory
Committee recommend that Council sitting as Committee of the Whole recommend
that Council approve:
1.
the
relocation of the Horticulture Building according to plans prepared by BBB
Architects, Barry J. Hobin Architects and Cannon Design (Document 3);
2.
that, in
accordance with the Recommendations contained in the Heritage Impact Assessment
Report, the approval be subject to:
a.
A
Conservation Strategy to support future public use of the relocated
Horticulture Building as determined through the Programming Plan being
developed for the Urban Park including Aberdeen Square, the Aberdeen Pavilion
and the Horticulture Building;
b.
A detailed
plan for works for the proposed relocation; and
c.
A and B
being prepared to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth
Management; and
3. repeal of By-law 8-1994 designating the
Horticulture Building under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act and enact a new designation By-law under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act once the building
has been relocated and rehabilitated as set out in the Conservation Strategy to
be developed for its new use.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for
consideration of this application under the Ontario
Heritage Act will expire on December 29, 2010.)
(Note: Approval to Relocate/Demolish this
property under the Ontario Heritage Act
must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building
permit.)
RECOMMANDATION MODIFIÉE DU COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LE
PATRIMOINE BÂTI D’OTTAWA
Que le Conseil siégeant en comité plénier recommande à son tour au Conseil de rejeter les recommandations du personnel.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU PERSONNEL
Que le Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti
d’Ottawa recommande au Conseil siégeant en comité plénier de recommander à son
tour au Conseil d’approuver :
1.
le déplacement du Bâtiment de l’horticulture
selon les plans établis par les cabinets BBB Architects, Barry J. Hobin
Architects et Cannon Design (Document 3);
2.
que, conformément aux
recommandations contenues dans le rapport d’évaluation des impacts sur le
patrimoine, l’approbation soit soumise à :
a.
une stratégie de conservation soutenant
l’utilisation publique du bâtiment de l’horticulture une fois qu’il aura été
déplacé, en fonction du Plan de programmation en voie d’élaboration pour le parc
urbain, comprenant la place Aberdeen, le pavillon Aberdeen et le Bâtiment de
l’horticulture;
b.
un plan des travaux détaillé pour la
réinstallation projetée;
c.
la réalisation de a. et de b. à la
satisfaction du directeur général du Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de
la croissance; et
3. la
révocation du Règlement 8-1994 désignant le Bâtiment de l’horticulture aux
termes de la partie IV de la Loi sur le
patrimoine de l’Ontario et l’adoption d’un nouveau règlement de désignation
aux termes de la partie IV de la Loi sur
le patrimoine de l’Ontario une fois que le bâtiment aura été déplacé et
rénové de la façon prévue dans la stratégie de conservation devant être
élaborée en vue de sa nouvelle utilisation.
(Nota : Le délai réglementaire de 90 jours d'examen de cette demande,
exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le
patrimoine de l'Ontario, prendra fin le 29 décembre 2010.)
(Nota : L'approbation de la demande de déplacement/démolition aux termes
de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l'Ontario ne
signifie pas pour autant qu'elle satisfait aux conditions de délivrance d'un
permis de construire.)
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager, Infrastructure Services and
Community Sustainability report dated 18 October 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0193).
2.
Ottawa
Built Heritage Advisory Committee Extract of Draft Minutes of 4 November
2010.
Report
to/Rapport au:
Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti
d’Ottawa
and / et
Committee of the Whole
Comité plénier
and Council / et au Conseil
18 October 2010 / 18 octobre 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, Services
d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource
: John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire
intérimaire, Development Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets
d'aménagement-Services urbains, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de
la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 13866
John Smit@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory
Committee recommend that Council sitting as Committee of the Whole recommend
that Council approve:
3.
The
relocation of the Horticulture Building according to plans prepared by BBB
Architects, Barry J. Hobin Architects and Cannon Design, (Document 3),
4.
That, in
accordance with the Recommendations contained in the Heritage Impact Assessment
Report, the approval be subject to:
a.
A
Conservation Strategy to support future public use of the relocated
Horticulture Building as determined through the Programming Plan being
developed for the Urban Park including Aberdeen Square, the Aberdeen Pavilion
and the Horticulture Building;
b.
A detailed
plan for works for the proposed relocation; and
c.
A and B
being prepared to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth
Management.
3. Repeal of By-law 8-1994 designating the
Horticulture Building under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act and enact a new designation By-law under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act once the building
has been relocated and rehabilitated as set out in the Conservation Strategy to
be developed for its new use.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this
application under the Ontario Heritage
Act will expire on December 29, 2010.)
(Note: Approval to Relocate/Demolish this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be
construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
Que
le Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti d’Ottawa
recommande au Conseil siégeant en comité plénier de recommander à son tour au
Conseil d’approuver :
3.
le déplacement du Bâtiment de l’horticulture
selon les plans établis par les cabinets BBB Architects, Barry J. Hobin
Architects et Cannon Design (Document 3);
4.
que, conformément aux
recommandations contenues dans le rapport d’évaluation des impacts sur le
patrimoine, l’approbation soit soumise à :
d.
Une stratégie de conservation soutenant
l’utilisation publique du bâtiment de l’horticulture une fois qu’il aura été
déplacé, en fonction du Plan de programmation en voie d’élaboration pour le
parc urbain, comprenant la place Aberdeen, le pavillon Aberdeen et le Bâtiment
de l’horticulture;
e.
Un plan des travaux détaillé pour la
réinstallation projetée;
f.
La réalisation de a. et de b. à la
satisfaction du directeur général du Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de
la croissance.
3. la
révocation du Règlement 8-1994 désignant le Bâtiment de l’horticulture aux
termes de la partie IV de la Loi sur le
patrimoine de l’Ontario et l’adoption d’un nouveau règlement de désignation
aux termes de la partie IV de la Loi sur
le patrimoine de l’Ontario une fois que le bâtiment aura été déplacé et
rénové de la façon prévue dans la stratégie de conservation devant être
élaborée en vue de sa nouvelle utilisation.
(Nota : Le délai
réglementaire de 90 jours d'examen de cette demande, exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l'Ontario,
prendra fin le 29 décembre 2010.)
(Nota : L'approbation
de la demande de déplacement/démolition aux termes de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l'Ontario ne signifie pas pour autant
qu'elle satisfait aux conditions de délivrance d'un permis de construire.)
BACKGROUND
This report has been prepared in order to permit the relocation of the
Horticulture Building, a property designated in 1994 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The OHA
requires that all relocations/ demolitions be approved by City Council
after consultation with the municipality’s municipal heritage committee, in
this case the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC).
The Horticulture Building
was designed by Francis C. Sullivan; an Ottawa
architect associated with Frank Lloyd Wright, and was constructed in
1914. It is a
rare example of an exhibition hall and an excellent Canadian interpretation of
the Prairie Style. The building historically had a
public use focus, having been designed to provide space for curling in winter and
exhibitions and public assemblies in the summer.
The building consists of a two-storey front portion providing an
entrance to an exhibition hall with a clear span roof supported on steel
columns encased in projecting masonry pillars with recessed walls forming bays
with a symmetrical fenestration pattern. The two sections of the building exhibit
very distinct architectural expressions.
The character-defining physical elements of the Horticulture Building
that contribute to its heritage value include:
• Flat roofed entrance
pavilion that forms the front façade;
• Overhanging roof eaves on
the entrance pavilion;
• Corner piers;
• Structural system providing
uninterrupted interior volume to the exhibition space;
• Grouping of upper floor
vertical casement windows with geometric patterns;
• Stepped foundation;
• The sensitive integration
of the exhibition hall with the front pavilion;
• Brick walls accentuated
with select artificial stone trimming, stucco panels and wood banding along the
roof; and
• A remaining element of a
complex of exhibition buildings historically located at Lansdowne Park (beside
the Rideau Canal) and adjacent to the Aberdeen Pavilion.
Historically there were 11 assembly halls of various sizes located at
Lansdowne Park. Today, the Horticulture
Building and the Aberdeen Pavilion (also a designated heritage building and a national
historic site) provide a glimpse into the historical exhibition hall building
fabric that has characterized Lansdowne Park over the years. The Horticulture
Building and the Aberdeen Pavilion are key elements of the overall revitalization
program approved by Council for Lansdowne on June 28, 2010. Both will be retained as City owned public buildings
to accommodate public focused programming and uses. In this regard, the
Horticulture Building and Aberdeen Pavilion are not only significant for their
architectural merit but also for their historical uses for public focused
events and public assembly spaces as well as their role in reflecting the
history of Lansdowne, a key principle underpinning the revitalization program.
The Horticulture Building, although less grand than the Aberdeen
Pavilion, has a scale and a unique front foyer that makes it an important
heritage defining element for Lansdowne from both a physical and functional
perspective.
Integrity and Present Condition:
The building remains as constructed in 1914, with the exception of some
partitions which were added to the front entrance section and door openings in
the east and west side walls of the exhibition hall. The building has been used for the last 20
years as a storage building by the City and the Central Canada Exhibition and
has not been accessible to the public. Since its designation in 1994, very
little maintenance has been undertaken on the structure. The building is in a mixed condition. While structurally sound, it has many
deteriorated elements as noted below:
·
Deteriorated
bricks and cement render at the base of the building and in other scattered
locations:
·
Deteriorated
wood roof decking in the exhibition hall;
·
Deteriorated
soffits and fascia;
·
Deteriorated
interior finishes – metal lath and plaster;
·
Damaged
doors and windows; and
·
Deteriorated
fascia and roof structure overhanging the front portion of the building.
As part of the Lansdowne Revitalization, the Horticulture Building is
proposed to be moved as one piece from its current location west of the
Aberdeen Pavilion to a mirror image east of the Aberdeen Pavilion. The relocated building would define the
eastern extent of an open square area (Aberdeen Square) to be designed to
provide a permanent home to the Ottawa Farmers’ Market. The Horticulture Building at this location
along with the Aberdeen Pavilion, Queen Elizabeth Driveway (QED) corridor and
the Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site and renovated stadium complex would
frame the urban park area to provide a historical reflection of Lansdowne. The
building, with its re-oriented position in relation to the urban park and
As noted, the relocation of the building is intended to be undertaken
through a single move of the entire structure.
Once relocated and once determinations are made for the programming of
the building, the heritage defining elements of the building are to be restored
and the rear assembly hall portion renovated to provide for the adaptive re-use
of the building to accommodate a new public-focused use.
To provide for the proposed relocation, formal Council approval is
required pursuant to the provisions of the Ontario
Heritage Act. Council on June 28,
2010, approved direction to have the relocation of the Horticulture Building,
following its consideration by the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee,
considered by Committee of the Whole in place of Planning and Environment
Committee when consideration is given by Committee of the Whole to the related
Stage 1 Site Plan for the Lansdowne revitalization project. The relocation then would be considered by
Council.
DISCUSSION
City Council in establishing the Lansdowne Strategic Design Review and Advisory Panel (DRP) mandated the Panel to develop overall guiding principles for the revitalization of Lansdowne. The guiding principles that have been endorsed by Council are focused on having the revitalization of Lansdowne focused on the site’s historical context and function; the activities and events that Lansdowne has hosted over the years; the people who have been associated with the place; and, its buildings and features. These guiding principles, grounded in the history of the place, provide specific direction for the overall site, taking into consideration the history of place and providing for the integration of new development and the treatment of existing resources including historic buildings, landscape and site features that remain at Lansdowne and/or adjacent properties into a development program that reflects its history.
The Significance of
Commonwealth Historic Resources Management Limited (CHRML) was retained by the City to provide ongoing advice and direction related to heritage and to ensure that the heritage considerations underpinning the guiding principles would serve as the foundation for determining the development program. The specific works undertaken by CHRML include:
·
Preparing a chronology of the history and evolution of Lansdowne Park
(completed);
·
Determining the Cultural
Significance and Heritage Values associated with Lansdowne Park (completed);
·
Assessing options related to
the role of the Horticulture Building in the revitalization plan and
identifying the preferred option which has been determined to be relocation of
the building on site to give it
prominence and providing for a public use focus (completed);
·
Assessing the technical feasibility
of moving the Horticulture Building (completed);
·
Undertaking a Heritage
Impact Assessment to support required heritage approvals (completed);
·
Preparing a Conservation
Plan for heritage resources in Lansdowne Park and specifically for the Horticulture
Building (ongoing);
·
Liaison with Heritage
Agencies (ongoing);
·
Preparing an Interpretive
Strategy and Plan (ongoing).
The work completed to date has been documented in the
following reports that have previously been provided to Council:
·
Heritage Brief documenting
the chronology and history of Lansdowne
·
Heritage Code for Lansdowne
( Document 4)
·
Heritage Impact Assessment
Report (Document 5 which is on file with the City Clerk)
Through their work, CHRML determined that Lansdowne exists today as a significant and distinct cultural heritage landscape. The site chronicles the diverse personalities, interests and economic sensibilities of a thriving Canadian city from the early stages of establishing itself as Canada’s National Capital as it evolved into the 21st century.
Lansdowne Park has played a significant role as a regional centrepiece, in shaping the surrounding neighbourhood, as a development impetus for Bank Street, as an early terminus to Elgin Street and as a major node along a greenway system linked by water (the Rideau Canal) and the Queen Elizabeth Driveway (QED). The overall pattern of planned landscape and evolved features provides a clear, legible framework, distinguishable from the surrounding urban grid.
Although neglected, the built
elements of landscape and buildings on the grounds were designed, constructed
and/or modified over 150 years to meet the community’s aspirations in commerce,
agricultural and industrial exposition, sports and community assembly. Over
time, and in response to demands and changing needs,
The campaign in the 1990s to preserve the Aberdeen Pavilion was a dramatic exception to the downgrading and neglect at Lansdowne. The Lansdowne Revitalization Initiative is a second pivotal step in the City’s vision to dramatically reverse the trend of neglect and deterioration. By re-establishing Lansdowne as a dynamic urban place that is grounded in and showcases its history, the initiative will position the site for today and for the future as a distinct cultural heritage landscape that will continue its tradition as a significant public place.
Context for the Heritage Code
To provide more specific
direction for the Lansdowne revitalization to ensure that the development
program and interventions would reflect the history of the site, CHMRL developed
a Heritage Code (Document 4). The Code sets
out an overarching heritage direction and more specific directions for
introducing new development into the fabric of Lansdowne and for heritage
interventions including the one key heritage element intervention that was
contemplated by the Guiding Principles and the Urban Park Design Competition
related to the
The Guiding Principles developed by the Lansdowne Strategic Design Review and Advisory Panel provided for decisions on the Horticulture Building, (retention vs. in-situ) to be based on an analysis of history of place, context and heritage objectives. Both the OSEG design team (Hobin, Brisbin, Cannon – HBC) and the five Urban Park Design teams responding to the Urban Park Design Competition Request for Proposal in the winter of 2009 were directed to pursue both options and make a determination on the most appropriate option based on an assessment of how each would support telling the story of the history of place and provide for the optimum integration of the urban park with the urban mixed use area.
Through the assessments undertaken by the HBC team in consultation with CHRML, a determination was made that the relocation of the Horticulture Building would be most respectful of the building and be the best solution for its conservation in a revitalized Lansdowne. In this regard, it was concluded that the relocation would work in a compelling way to achieve the overall revitalization objectives for Lansdowne set out in the Guiding Principles and Overarching Heritage Code and re-establish Lansdowne as a dynamic urban place reflective of its history and spirit of place.
The following summarizes the basis for this determination:
Retention in-situ would result in:
· The building being located amongst the new mixed-use development needed to meet the program objectives for a dynamic urban mixed-use precinct requiring extensive upgrading;
· The building losing its pavilion character and ability to be animated on all sides;
· The building becoming overshadowed and its prominence diminished as a result of the new development;
· Only a portion of the facade being highly visible as a defining element of the building;
· The use of the building becoming more focused on supporting the commercial elements of the mixed-use development and losing its function as a public building; and
· The important character defining relationship of the building with the Aberdeen Pavilion as two public buildings forming a shared forecourt being significantly changed as a result of the new development program.
Relocation to a location east of the Aberdeen Pavilion that mirrors its current location would result in:
- The building retaining its pavilion character with potential to be animated and activated on all its sides;
- The building, together with the Aberdeen Pavilion, and Rideau Canal defining the edge of the urban park and placing the urban park in a historical context;
- The Aberdeen Pavilion, Horticulture Building and the Stadium Complex creating a backdrop stage for a dynamic public place that provides for a compelling reflection of the history of Lansdowne Park;
- Re-establishing a unique urban square in front of both the Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture Building allowing the two buildings to continue to speak to each other in a location where the legibility and visual prominence of that historical relationship is significantly enhanced;
- The building remaining a public building that would be positioned to be used in a way that reflects its public nature and historical use and namesake by possibly accommodating uses associated with the Farmers’ Market;
- The building standing proud as its own building that would become a highly visible element for Lansdowne with its re-orientation to the Canal; and
- The building supporting having Lansdowne refocused to embrace and be integrated with the canal environment.
To be consistent with the Heritage Code and the determinations made in assessing the options for the Horticulture Building, CHRML identified the following as requirements that would need to be met in having this building relocated:
- Prior to relocation, the heritage fabric of the building must be fully documented;
- Prior to its relocation an assessment of the building’s structural integrity must be undertaken and documented;
- The building must be relocated to the east of the Aberdeen Pavilion in a way the mirrors its current location west of the Pavilion;
- Every effort must be made to move the building in one piece to ensure the integrity of the heritage fabric of the building is retained;
- The front portion of the Horticulture Building is to be restored to its original condition;
- Interventions to accommodate new uses and to provide pass through and access are to be developed as part of a conservation strategy respectful of the building fabric and character defining features;
- The relocated building must accommodate uses that are public in nature and that will relate to the urban park area and/or the Farmers Market; and
- As part of the buildings conservation, every effort must be made to retain the original volume and exhibition qualities of the interior.
The Planning and Growth Management Department has given full consideration to the assessments made related to the proposal for relocating the Horticulture Building and has concluded that the relocation, subject to the requirements noted by CHRML, represents the best option for having the Horticulture Building integrated into the overall development program for Lansdowne. The Department agrees that the importance of the building is not only in its physical fabric but also in its use and agrees that the relocated building will provide the prominence and stature necessary to support its true conservation not only as a physical heritage structure but as an important public exhibition style building accommodating public focused uses. In this way, the building will best reflect the historical role of the building at Lansdowne to contribute to reflecting the site’s history and sense of place.
Official Plan Considerations
Applicable
preservation standards and guidelines, such as Parks Canada’s “Standards and
Guidelines” (adopted by City Council in 2008), do not recommend removing or relocating historic buildings on
a site, as such actions are generally seen to be a solution of last recourse.
This is also reflected in the
Official Plan in Section 4.6.1 which sets out policies related to heritage buildings
and areas. Policy 1 requires, where a structure designated under the Ontario Heritage Act is to be altered,
partially demolished, demolished or relocated, the approval of City Council,
after consultation with its Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
(now the Ottawa Built Heritage and Advisory Committee) and requires that a
cultural heritage impact statement be conducted by a qualified professional
with expertise in cultural heritage resources.
For proposals where relocation is proposed, the City requires that the
cultural heritage impact statement demonstrate that relocation is the only way
to conserve the resource and provides for the City to consider this option
provided that:
- The building is retained on
site, but moved to another part of the property for integration into the
new development, or, if that is not possible;
- The building is relocated to
a site appropriate to its cultural heritage value outside the proposed
development or property.
The relocation of the Horticulture Building as directed by the Official Plan has been assessed in the Heritage Impact Assessment Report (HIA) with regard to Site Value, Context Value and Integrity Value. The Department has reviewed the HIA and finds the study has been prepared giving consideration to Lansdowne as a cultural heritage landscape. The Department agrees that this approach is warranted for the Lansdowne site and agrees with the conclusions of the study in particular as it relates to the impact assessment related to the relocation of the Horticulture Building. The complete HIA is included as Document 5.
Following is a summary of the findings of the HIA along with the Departments’ assessment of these relative to the three noted value attributes.
Site value: Disruption
of collective civic memory of a site and sense of place.
The
HIA highlights that Lansdowne Park has evolved and undergone a series of
radical changes over time to respond to various demands and changing needs. In
the last 30 years, these changes included restricted access, the removal of
buildings and the down-grading of the environment for parking resulting in
diminishing the cultural heritage value of the site and having Lansdowne becoming
disconnected from the local and larger community. The HIA indicates that one of
the most unfortunate consequences of these changes is the separation of the
historical relationship between Lansdowne and the Rideau Canal/QED corridor.
The
HIA also highlights that the Horticulture Building itself
has lost its stature as a public use building and has been left to physically
deteriorate. For the last 20 years, the
building has served as a storage building by the City and the Central Canada
Exhibition with very little maintenance since being designated in 1994.
To reverse this trend and have the building re-established as a heritage feature of the site with a public use focus, and consistent with the directions set out in the Official Plan, the HIA supports the relocation of the building as proposed to another location on the site that has the same relationship with the Aberdeen Pavilion as the current location. Relocation will allow the building to stand proud and be a focus for Lansdowne by having a strong relationship with the urban park and farmers’ square to support a more pubic type use. Retention in situ in the context of the revitalization program would result in the building being surrounded by the new mixed use area where its future vocation would more likely be for a retail type use.
The HIA concluded, and the Department agrees, that given the years of neglect and loss of access, that the proposed move will result in very little disruption of civic memory. The building will remain on site and will be repositioned to a mirror image from its current location relative to its physical relationship to the Aberdeen Pavilion. This will retain the way these two heritage buildings relate to each and will provide a physical and visual prominence to the Horticulture Building towards re-establishing a ‘sense of place’. Also, the Department is of the view that it is not just the retention of the building itself such that it will have prominence on the site that is critical to its conservation, but it is equally important that it be positioned so that it will accommodate more public type uses that reflect the history of both the building and the place. The Department agrees with the HIA that this is best achieved by having the building located where its context has a strong public use focus as will be provided by the urban park and the farmers’ square.
Context value: Modification of development pattern at the existing site with resultant
change of distinct character and texture.
The
proposal to relocate the Horticulture Building is focused not only on
conserving the physical resource but on having it remain as a building that has
a public use focus and to have the building positioned such that it will
contribute to reflecting the history of Lansdowne. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
undertaken by CHRML, consistent with accepted preservation
standards and guidelines and directions set out in the Official Plan, noted
that the relocation of a heritage structure should be
considered as the option of last resort and is generally not considered as appropriate.
The Department agrees with this as a general notion but also notes that other
considerations need to be given as contemplated under the Official Plan in
determining the best solution to heritage conservation given specific
conditions, circumstances and opportunities.
For the Lansdowne revitalization, the HIA report identified that the
beneficial merits of the project and the historic site context warrant careful
consideration of the relative positive outcomes for the rehabilitation and
preservation of the designated Horticulture Building.
In response to the overall directions established for the Lansdowne
revitalization by the Design Review Panel and CHRML, the following were taken
into consideration by the City’s private sector partners and by the Department
in making the decision to recommend to Council that the building be relocated:
• The building will be
retained in its entirety with its pavilion character and the potential to be
animated and activated on all its sides;
• The building will maintain
its structural integrity;
• The Aberdeen Pavilion,
Horticulture Building and the Stadium Complex and the new South Stands will
serve to create a backdrop stage for a dynamic public place and provides for a
reflection of the history of Lansdowne Park in a context defined by the Rideau
Canal;
• The location will provide
for re-establishing a unique urban square in front of both the Aberdeen
Pavilion and Horticulture Building allowing the two buildings to continue to
speak to each other in a location where the legibility and visual prominence of
that relationship can be interpreted;
• The building would be
positioned to remain a public building to be used in a way that reflects its
public nature and historical use and potential to accommodate uses associated
with the Farmers’ Market;
• The three dimensional form
would remain entirely intact with the building standing proud as its own building that would
become a highly visible element for Lansdowne with its re-orientation to the
Canal; and
• The building would be
conserved in a manner in which the character defining attributes would be
readily viewed and appreciated by the public, something that is not possible if
it is left in place and surrounded by new development.
Overall, as highlighted in the HIA, the relocation of the Horticulture
Building meets objectives that would preserve and reinforce the property’s
cultural, historic and contextual significance.
Retaining the building in
its current location, while respecting the principle of retaining heritage
buildings in situ misses a significant opportunity to have the history of place
reflected around a dynamic new urban park that will become the focus for the
revitalized Lansdowne in reflecting its history of place with its reintegration
with two of the city’s most significant heritage defining elements – the QED
corridor and the Rideau Canal.
Integrity value: Movement of a structure, if not well considered, could result in
physical endangerment of the resource.
The proposal is to move the building as one unit laterally to the east a distance of some 120 metres. The move would take place within the site across a level field of asphalt to the north of the Aberdeen Pavilion. The building would be set on a new foundation on top of a concrete slab above a yet to be constructed below-grade parking garage. Based on the assessment of CDS Mover’s (the firm that the City is planning to retain to move the building), the relocation of the Horticulture Building, as a single unit, can be carried out with minimal damage to the building fabric. The steps being taken to protect the building and execute its relocation are discussed in more detail in the Conservation Strategy set out in Chapter 6 of the HIA (Document 5).
The Department agrees with the Conservation Strategy set out in the HIA and is comfortable with the expertise of the firm to be retained to execute the move. In the past the City has entrusted CDS Movers to relocate the March House (a designated historic property). Their approach to dealing with an historic building is respectful and ensures a high rate of success.
Taking into consideration the three attributes for assessing cultural value (site, context and integrity), the Department is of the view that the policies set out in the Official Plan related to conserving heritage buildings and in particular, the considerations relevant to considering relocation, are fully satisfied.
Ontario Heritage Trust Easement
Agreement and Views
The new location for the Horticulture Building will result in it being partially on the Part 2 Easement lands defined in the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) Easement Agreement applying to Lansdowne. The relocated building however, will have no impact on the protected view lines set out for the Part 2 lands. The City notes that there is a requirement for the City to consult with the OHT for any works on the Part 2 Easement lands and to obtain OHT approval for the design of any new buildings. The Horticulture Building is not a new building. Consequently, there are no building design plans for which OHT approval is required.
With respect to consultation, the City has had ongoing discussions with the OHT since April 2010 related to the Lansdowne Partnership Plan including the possible relocation of the Horticulture Building. The City has highlighted that the proposed relocation will be addressed by City Council in full accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act.
In addition to not impacting the view
protections in place under the OHT Easement for the Aberdeen Pavilion, the
relocated Horticulture building will also provide for significantly enhancing
views to this building. The view to the north end of the Horticulture Building from
Holmwood Avenue, although shifted will be maintained and views of the building from the QED
and canal will be dramatic and will reinforce the sense of place as a character
defining element set out in the reasons for designation. Views of the
Horticulture Building from Bank Street will serve as a terminus to Lansdowne
Way through the urban mixed use area.
Details of Relocation
As noted above, the proposal is to move the building as one unit
laterally to the east a distance of some 120 metres and have it set on a new
foundation on top of a concrete slab above a proposed below-grade parking
garage that will serve the revitalized Lansdowne. Assessments undertaken to date have confirmed
that the proposed relocation can be carried out with minimal damage to the
building fabric. The steps being taken to protect the building and execute its
relocation are discussed in more detail in the Conservation Strategy set out in
Chapter 6 of HIA. The following
highlights the key elements of the relocation works:
·
The
building will be lifted off of its concrete footings after the exterior walls
have been excavated to the level of the concrete footings and the interior
concrete slabs have been removed;
·
Structural
reinforcing (steel and concrete block) will be installed in the windows to stabilize the exterior walls;
·
Overhanging
roof structures on the entrance hall will be stabilized;
·
The
deteriorated condition of the roof sheathing and decking on the exhibition hall
will necessitate some structural bracing of the roof trusses so that the roof
acts as a diaphragm during the move (per the Structural Report by Adjeleian
Allen Rubeli Ltd.);
·
The
main impact to the heritage fabric will be at the base of the brick walls where
they sit on the concrete foundations and footings (the stepped plinths at the
foundations which are formed of molded bricks and rendered with concrete will
be the most heavily impacted); and
·
The
stepped exterior brick pilasters on the exhibition hall will be dismantled at
the base of the wall so that the walls can be sandwiched between structural
steel.
The detailed methodology for moving the building will be developed by CHRML
and the mover. The least intrusive manner to place the main steel beams that
will support the steel suspending the base of the walls will be reviewed. The
moving contractor will provide shop drawings showing the placement of the
steel, at which time a clearer understanding of the impact of the move on the building
fabric will be delineated in detail, and mitigation strategies developed. Preliminary assessments have determined that impacts
would be minimal.
The move will be divided into two phases. The first phase is focused on the planning for
the details of the move, undertaking the move and having the building set on its
new foundation. The second phase is the
development of a conservation and rehabilitation plan for the building’s future
use.
As
part of this submission, the Department is recommending that approval to
relocate the Horticulture Building be conditional on the foregoing works being
completed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Growth
Management. As noted in the HIA, while
work has been undertaken to confirm the ability to relocate the building and to
determine the approach for affecting the move, details of this work including the
framing design, supports required for the building as it is moved, and the
works required for undertaking the move (i.e. building of a steel track
system) must still be completed. This
work would commence following Council approval of the proposed relocation. Also, while the HIA provides an overview of
the focus for the conservation and rehabilitation plan to bring the relocated building
back to full functionality to support the uses determined through the
programming plan to be developed by PFS, the details of this work have not yet
been determined. This work will be
required prior to the move taking place to ensure that the appropriate infrastructure
is in place to support the building’s future use.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
Adjacent property owners have been notified by letter of the
application and the dates of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee and
Committee of the Whole meetings.
The Glebe Community Association, the Ottawa South Community Association
and the Ottawa East Community Association were informed of the project by mail.
Heritage Ottawa is aware of the project.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
The Ward Councillor is aware of the proposal
to relocate the Horticulture Building and has been advised of the initiation of
the formal process under the Ontario
Heritage Act for Council consideration of the proposal. The Ward Councillor
has publically indicated his opposition to the proposed relocation throughout
the LPP process.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
The legal issues associated with the relocation of the Horticulture Building were the subject of the staff response to Council Inquiry 27-10, listed on the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda of September 14, 2010 and the Council agenda of September 22, 2010 and attached as Document 6 to this report.
In summary, as the relocated Horticulture Building is to be moved to Part 2 (Reference Plan 4R-11612) of the heritage easement held by the Ontario Heritage Foundation, there is an obligation to consult with the Ontario Heritage Trust. However, it is the opinion of Legal Services and the City’s external legal advisor that the City does not require the Trust’s consent to relocate the Horticulture Building within Part 2.
With respect to the Ontario Heritage Act, only the owner of the building has the ability to appeal a decision to alter a building designated under Part IV, such as the Horticulture Building. In this case, as the Horticulture Building is owned by the City of Ottawa, the ability to appeal a Council approval of a permission to alter would not apply.
However, any person may however object to a decision of Council to repeal or enact a designation by-law. Council is required to provide Notice of an Intention to repeal or enact a designation by-law. In the event an objection is filed to the repealing of the designation by-law, the matter is to be referred to the Conservation Review Board (“Board”). The Board shall hold a hearing and consider the matter and provide a report back to Council. Once in receipt of the report, Council may either proceed with the repealing of the by-law or abandon its intent to repeal the by-law.
The same process (of providing Notice of Intention, the ability of any person to object and a report from the Board) will have to be followed to implement Recommendation 2 after the Horticulture Building is moved should approval be given to the relocation of the building.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
Objective F 2: Respect the
existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of existing hard
services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established
communities.
The City wants to protect the qualities and characteristics that define what is unique and special about each community while accommodating new growth.
Review applications as part of the development and infrastructure approval process for neighbourhood compatibility and the preservation of unique identities of our communities and villages.
Objective E 8: Operationalize the
Ottawa 20/20 Arts & Heritage Plan.
2.1.2 Identify and Protect Archaeological and Built Heritage Resources,
Streetscapes, Public and Symbolic Civic Places and Cultural Landscapes.
2.1.2.2 The City will preserve distinct built heritage, streetscapes and cultural heritage landscapes that serve as landmarks and symbols of local identity in both urban and rural districts, as outlined in the Official Plan.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Funds for the relocation of the Horticulture Building are contained in the Lansdowne Partnership Plan Implementation Phase 2-4 capital project as approved by Council on June 28, 2010.
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
This application was completed
within the 90-day time period prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Statement of Reason for Designation
Document 3 Site Plan showing new and proposed locations
Document 4 Heritage Code for Lansdowne
Document 5 Statement of Cultural Values and Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by Commonwealth Historic Resources Management Limited, on file with the City Clerk and available electronically at
Document 6 Council Inquiry 27-10, “Ontario Heritage Trust, Heritage Easement Agreement for the Aberdeen Pavilion
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the Realty Services, Real Estate Partnership and Development Office, City of Ottawa, and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street East, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of Council’s decision.
Planning and Growth Management staff shall provide Notice of Intention to Repeal By‑law 8‑1994. When the Horticulture Building is relocated, Planning and Growth Management staff shall provide Notice of Intention to Designate the new site. The City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legal Services shall draft the required by-laws
STATEMENT OF REASON FOR
DESIGNATION DOCUMENT
2
Horticulture Building
By-law 8-1994
The Horticulture Building is of historical and architectural value to the City. Built in 1914, it is one of eight permanent exhibition halls built for the Central Canada Exhibition at Lansdowne Park. Established in 1888, the Annual Exhibition is the oldest continuously operating agricultural fair in Canada. The Horticulture Building has been a critical part of the exhibition for more than 70 years, doubling its function during the winter as a public skating rink. Designed by Francis C. Sullivan, an Ottawa architect associated with Frank Lloyd Wright, the Horticulture Building is an excellent Canadian interpretation of the Prairie Style. As one of Canada's earliest expressions of modernism, it significantly contributes to the history of Canadian architecture.
The front portion of the building, which contains two storeys, retains a remarkable amount of its original Prairie style interior design. The second floor contains a major room in the centre, with clerestory windows above, and flanking rooms on either side, all with original interior detailing. There is also a second floor balcony overlooking the main hall to the rear.
The one storey additions on the east side are not of architectural or historical merit and are excluded from the designation.
Heritage Code for the Place
- The entire site orientation will be turned to re-interpret and focus on the historic relationship to the Driveway and the Canal rather than Bank Street with an urban park being the centerpiece of the redefined public realm to showcase the site as a historic place and re-establish its historical connections to its urban context and in particular to embrace the historic Rideau Canal, QED, Abernathy House and the Bank Street Bridge as heritage defining elements for Lansdowne.
- All elements of the Lansdowne revitalization, to the extent practicable, need to work together towards reflecting and showcasing the ‘sense of place’.
- All elements of the Lansdowne revitalization, to the extent practicable, need to recognize the opportunities for interpreting Lansdowne as an integral, historic public place along the Canal/QED corridor.
- All elements of the Lansdowne revitalization, to the extent practicable need to recognize Parks Canada’s role in protecting the cultural resource and landscape features of the Rideau Canal by encouraging the upgrading of neighbouring properties.
- The grounds and parkland, as well as the stadium, will be accessible to the public providing a very strong public realm and pedestrian orientation reminiscent of the historical accessibility and public realm experience that the site provided to users over the years when it was an important gathering place for exhibitions, multiple events and activities.
- An interpretive strategy is to be developed to provide for a variety of interpretive experiences throughout the revitalized Lansdowne that are engaging, memorable to visitors and will aid Lansdowne in achieving its place as an attractive, exciting, vibrant destination.
- The interpretation should place emphasis on the ‘spirit of the place’. The idea of Lansdowne as a meeting place, an agora for the entire Ottawa valley. It will identify specific installation locations throughout the site and recommend interpretation methods & media
- The existing exhibition buildings and facilities will continue to function with an emphasis on public uses that support ongoing public access and are to be elements along with the Canal and QED that provide for a reflection of history of place and contribute to telling the story of the site’s history.
- Decisions and directions pursued related to interventions for the site’s heritage elements and for adjustments to heritage easements are to be informed by the history of Lansdowne as a public place that over the years has served as a stage for public activities, events and gatherings.
Code
for introduction of new facilities into the Historic Environment
- New design, to the extent possible and practicable, is to incorporate the marquee character, pavilions style, activated on all sides, which historically characterized Lansdowne Park buildings.
- New buildings adjacent to the Horticulture and Aberdeen pavilion are to respect the pavilion nature of these buildings and be low profile (maximum effective height of three stories).
- New development adjacent to the historic pavilions will be designed in a way that exhibits design features that are compatible with the historic pavilions while also providing for a contrast to enhance the legibility of the historic buildings and their character defining features.
- New design, to the extent possible and practicable, is to take inspiration from historic precedence, incorporating forms and material which are sensitive to Lansdowne and Ottawa.
Code for Heritage Interventions
Context for Ontario Heritage
Trust Easement
Heritage easements were established as a component of the Aberdeen Pavilion the restoration to reflect conditions and characteristics in place at Lansdowne at that time. They define two parts of the property: Part 1 right-of-way extending from Bank Street to the Aberdeen Pavilion and around it; and Part 2 establishing viewsheds from the QED to the Aberdeen Pavilion. The agreement stipulates that any new structures placed in the easement require design review and approval by OHT.
- Whereas the 1992 easement focused specifically on the Aberdeen Pavilion; with the current revitalization of the entire site and recognition of Lansdowne as a cultural landscape there is a need to take a holistic approach addressing both the design and the programming of the entire site.
- With the revitalization, there will be new elements located in the easements necessitating OHT review to determine how the intent of the protections sought through the easements can be accommodated with a new set of conditions and characteristics.
- With revitalization there is a need to work with OHT, providing them with information necessary to understand the development intent and where necessary modify the easements and/or development plans to satisfy any concerns.
Aberdeen Pavilion
The Guiding principles given the significance of the Aberdeen as both a municipally designated heritage building and National Historic Site provides for this building to be retained in situ and be used in a way that will provide year round public access.
- Heritage approvals are required from the City of Ottawa, Parks Canada, and the Ontario Heritage Trust for potential new uses in the Aberdeen Pavilion.
- As well as the viewsheds and restriction in the right of way, the elements that must be respected and specifically noted in the OHT easement include: floors, walls, windows and window surrounds, ventilation system, underside of roof, and exposed steel trust.
- New design should recognize the Aberdeen Pavilion as a visual landmark ‘eye catcher’ and focus of views from not only the Canal/QED corridor but also internally from most parts of Lansdowne.
Horticulture Building
The Horticulture Building is a locally designated building under Part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
- Character defining elements as set out in the reasons for designation will be respected as part of the restoration and revitalization program. These are limited to the exterior and include:
•
Flat
roofed pavilion that forms the front façade
•
Overhanging
roof eaves
• Corner piers, grouping of upper floor vertical casement windows with geometric patterns
• Stepped foundation
• Walls accentuated with stone trimming, stucco panels, and wood banding along the roof
• Location within the complex of exhibition buildings located at Lansdowne Park (beside the Rideau Canal and adjacent to the Aberdeen Pavilion)
STATEMENT OF CULTURAL VALUES AND
HERITAGE
IMPACT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT 5
Prepared by Commonwealth Historic Resources Management Limited
On file with the City Clerk and available electronically at
|
Council Member Inquiry/Motion
Form Demande de renseignements
d’un membre du Conseil /Formulaire de motion |
||
|
From/Exp. : Councillor Doucet |
Date : |
File/Dossier : 27-10 |
|
To/Dest. : City Clerk and Solicitor |
||
|
Subject/Objet : Ontario Heritage Trust Heritage Easement Agreement for the
Aberdeen Pavilion
|
||
|
Inquiry/Demande
de renseignements Motion The purpose of this inquiry is to request that the City Clerk and Solicitor provide a legal opinion to Council regarding the Ontario Heritage Trust Heritage Easement Agreement (Ontario Heritage Act, section 22) for the Aberdeen Pavilion at Lansdowne Park. What is the Ontario Heritage Trust's legal position on the City's plans to relocate the Horticulture Building to the northeastern side of the Aberdeen Pavilion, as described in the Lansdowne Partnership Plan Implementation Report? The proposed location is protected as a view corridor in the Heritage Easement Agreement. Can the Ontario Heritage Trust prevent the relocation of the Horticulture Building to the northeastern side of the Aberdeen Pavilion? If so, on what grounds? If not, on what grounds? What are the potential and real consequences for the City should it decide not to respect the Ontario Heritage Trust Heritage Easement Agreement? What are the financial and legal consequences for the City should it decide to impinge upon the Aberdeen Pavilion easement?
|
||
|
Response/Réponse Response to be listed on the
Planning and Environment Committee Agenda of August 24, 2010 and the Council
Agenda of September 14, 2010. |
||
The position held by the Ontario
Heritage Trust (“OHT”), formerly known as the Ontario Heritage Foundation, on
the proposal to relocate the Horticulture Building to the northeastern side of
the Aberdeen Pavilion as described in the Lansdowne Partnership Plan
Implementation Report, is not consistent with that formulated by City staff in
conjunction with the City’s external legal advisor, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
(“BLG”).
Briefly, the OHT stated in a letter to the City Manager, dated May
21, 2010, that, in part, “…the relocation of the Horticultural [sic] building
is contrary to the…easement agreement, the Ontario
Heritage Act…the Planning Act and
cannot be considered as heritage conservation.”
Further, the OHT also indicated that it would be seeking a conservation
easement agreement on the building to secure its long term protection “(in situ and in toto)”. A copy of that
letter can be found as an attachment to this response.
Easement
Agreement
The
Easement Agreement between the City of Ottawa and the Ontario Heritage
Foundation, (now the Ontario Heritage Trust), dated January 15, 1996, covers
both the Aberdeen Pavilion Building and the approach to the building from
Bank Street (Part 1 on Plan 4R-11612) as well as a large parcel of land to the
east and south of the Aberdeen Pavilion building (Part 2 on Plan 4R-11612)
visible from the Queen Elizabeth Driveway.
The Easement Agreement is intended to "conserve the aesthetic and
scenic character and condition of the property (all of Parts 1 and 2 on Plan
4R-11612) as well as the Aberdeen Pavilion (referred to in the agreement as the
“Building”). Part 1 is not relevant to
this opinion as it pertains solely to the site line corridor off of Bank
Street, looking easterly to the western façade of the Pavilion.
The
Part 2 lands are relevant to this opinion (see attached plan entitled: “Sketch
of Lansdowne Park Indicating Protected Sight-Lines of the Building From the
Driveway” attached as Appendix “D” to the Agreement, but note that the
footprints are of buildings that no longer exist along the Queen Elizabeth
Driveway) and by Paragraph 1.10 of the Easement Agreement that provides that
the City shall be permitted to "carry out any activities on the Lands to
the south and east of the Building provided that such activities and any
structures or buildings erected as a result thereof (a) are compatible with the
architectural design and the conservation of the Building; (b) respect and
enhance those sightlines of the Building from the Driveway adjacent to the
Rideau Canal which site lines are shown on Appendix "D" to the
Easement Agreement."
The
proposed relocation of the Horticulture Building to the northeastern side of
the Aberdeen Pavilion is therefore permissible based on the geographic requirement
in the above provision as set out in the above referenced Sketch. Notwithstanding that the contextual
relationship between the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture Building would
change with its relocation, since the Horticulture Building is currently
located on site and is also a designated heritage structure it arguably is
compatible with the ‘architectural design and conservation’ of the Pavilion.
In the
event that the City wishes to rely on Paragraph 1.10, the City "shall,
during the development or design of such structures or buildings, consult in writing with
the Foundation with regard to the requirements contained in Subparagraph
1.10(a) and (b)". All design drawings are to be completed in
consultation with the OHT, however, this provision does not require the City to
obtain the consent of the OHT.
Should
the City fail to meet its obligations under the Easement Agreement to
consult, the OHT could, pursuant to Paragraph 3.0, enter the property and
remedy any perceived breach at the City's expense. In practical terms, this could mean that the
OHT might pursue legal action to ask a court to restrain the proposed
relocation of the Horticulture Building.
In
light of the above, I am of the opinion that the City has an
obligation to consult in writing with the OHT with respect to the proposed
relocation of the Horticulture Building, However, that obligation does not
extend so far as to require the City to obtain the consent of the OHT to the
proposed relocation.
Ontario Heritage Act
In 1994, the City of
Ottawa passed By-law No. 8-94 designating
the Horticulture Building as a building of architectural and
historical value. A review of the Schedule to the
By-law suggests that the heritage designation applies only to the
building footprint and its exterior.
Since the City is the owner of the Horticulture Building, pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, it has the sole authority to consider and approve its alteration, including its relocation. The Section states as follows:
Alteration of property
33. (1) No owner of property designated under
section 29 shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if
the alteration is likely to affect the property’s heritage attributes, as set
out in the description of the property’s heritage attributes that was required
to be served and registered under subsection 29 (6) or (14), as the case
may be, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality in which
the property is situate and receives consent in writing to the alteration.
Consequently, the OHT
has no legal authority under the Act
to require the City to obtain OHT approval for any applications related to the
Horticulture Building. Furthermore, the Ontario
Heritage Act does not preclude the ability to pursue alterations, including
relocation and even demolition of municipally designated heritage structures,
but rather requires that formal consideration and approval of such proposals be
given by Council. Any decision by
Council can only be appealed to the Conservation Review Board (“CRB”) by the
owner of the building, which in this case, is the City. In any event, the
authority of the CRB is limited to providing a recommendation to Council with
council having the ability to reject or accept any recommendation of the CRB.
Planning Act
The Planning Act is not relevant to this
particular issue as the Ontario Heritage
Act deals specifically with heritage matters. The only point of relevance to the Planning Act is in the context of
Section 3 dealing with the requirement for municipalities in its planning decisions
to ensure such decisions are compatible with the Provincial Policy Statement
(“PPS”). In this regard, the PPS 2005 in
Section 2.6 states:
2.6.1 Significant
built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall
be conserved.
2.6.2 Development
and site alteration shall only be permitted on lands containing archaeological
resources or areas of archaeological potential if the significant
archaeological resources have been conserved by removal and documentation,
or by preservation on site. Where significant archaeological resources must
be preserved on site, only development and site alteration which
maintain the heritage integrity of the site may be permitted.
2.6.3
Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent
lands to protected heritage property where the proposed development
and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated
that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will
be conserved.
Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may
be required in order to conserve the heritage attributes of the protected
heritage property affected by the adjacent development or site
alteration.
The PPS also sets out a
definition for the term conserved which states:
Conserved: means the identification, protection, use and/or
management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that
their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be
addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment.
As such, to be
consistent with the PPS, Council, in giving consideration to a proposal
involving a municipally designated heritage structure, is required to have
before it a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. Such a document will be part of what is
before Council when it considers the application to relocate the Horticulture
Building under their authority as set out by Section 33(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Having regard to all of
the above, providing the City follows the provisions of the Easement Agreement
as set out and, further, approves the relocation of the Horticulture Building
under the Ontario Heritage Act, it is
permissible for it to relocate the Building and to comply with the provisions
of the Easement Agreement. Furthermore,
while the OHT has indicated its view that the relocation is contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act and the Planning Act, this view is not supported
in law as the Ontario Heritage Act
gives authority for the approval of alterations, including relocation and even
demolition of municipally-designated heritage buildings to Council. The relevance of the Planning Act is limited only to Section 3 and the PPS which is a
policy statement that is required to be read in total and provides that
conservation of heritage resources can be addressed through a conservation plan
or heritage impact assessment.
Consequently, there would be minimal, if any, legal or financial
consequences for the City.
|
Ottawa built heritage Advisory
Committee Draft
Minutes extract 47 4 november 2010 |
|
Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine
bâti d’ottawa ébauche
de l’extrait du Procès-verbal
47 - le 4 novembre 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Relocation
of the Horticulture building, a property designated under part iv of the ontario heritage act (By-law 8-1994)
DÉPLACEMENT DU BÂTIMENT DE L'HORTICULTURE, PROPRIÉTÉ
DÉSIGNÉE AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO
(RÈGLEMENT 8-1994)
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0193 Capital (17)
John Smit, Manager, Development Review (Urban) and
John Stewart, Commonwealth Historic
Resource Management Limited
provided a PowerPoint presentation that touched on the following topics:
·
historical details about the Horticulture
Building and Lansdowne Park itself
·
details concerning the current physical state of
the building
·
overarching direction and guiding principles of
the Lansdowne revitalization and Lansdowne Partnership Plan
·
the integrated site plan
·
an assessment of leaving the building in-situ
versus relocating it
·
Official Plan considerations with respect to
relocation of the building
·
the Statement of Cultural Values & Heritage
Impact Assessment
·
consideration
of impact of the move on the cultural value
·
site,
context and integrity value
·
relocation
methodology
·
conclusion
and staff recommendation
A copy of
the presentation is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor’s branch
pursuant the City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.
Questions
and concerns raised by members included the following:
·
an
implication by staff that the relocation of the building is a foregone
conclusion
·
no
consideration has been given to developing a plan that works around the
heritage buildings as they are currently located on the site
·
an
unwillingness of Council to put heritage as the primary focus for the site
·
the
heritage consultant was brought in too late in the process for his input to
have any impact
·
failure
to get the support of the Ontario Heritage Trust or to comply with their
recommendations
·
delayed
release of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and lack of evidence in the HIA
to demonstrate that all solutions were assessed to determine that relocation is
the only viable option
·
whether
the City’s previous neglect of the building, and thus its current physical
state, played a role in the proposal to relocate it
·
whether
the developer’s need for parking is the primary reason for relocation
·
whether
all of the heritage-related consultations have been just a paper exercise in a
fait accompli process.
In
response to some of the aforementioned concerns, staff provided the following
remarks:
·
Council
has yet to make the final decision on the relocation of the Horticulture
Building. CDS Movers has been retained
in the event that Council does approve the relocation, and a conservation plan
will be developed to provide for the adaptive re-use of the building as a
public use building.
·
Heritage
has been a major consideration in the development of the site plan and the
current proposal is a culmination of efforts to respect the heritage of the
site while allowing for the planned uses.
If the Horticulture Building were retained in its current location, it
would be engulfed by the larger (proposed) buildings, would become part of the
commercial development instead of public space, and could not be animated on
all sides.
·
The City
consulted with the Ontario Heritage Trust as required for works on the
Part 2 Easement lands, but as the Horticulture Building is not a new building,
the City is not obligated to get the Trust’s approval for its design.
·
The previous neglect of the Horticulture
Building was not an impetus for the proposed relocation other than a commitment
to preserve and restore it.
·
The only way to accommodate the desired parking
on the site is to lift the Horticulture Building so parking can be constructed
below ground in that location; that played a major role in the recommendation
to relocate it so as to avoid moving it off its base to a temporary location
and then back on again when parking is completed.
·
The release of the HIA was delayed because it
was held up in the office of the Ontario Heritage Trust for review and comment
prior to its discharge to the public.
John
Martin, Coordinator, Lansdowne
Park Conservancy advised that the Conservancy would soon be submitting a
heritage-based bid under the procurement rules of the City of Ottawa. He said the Conservancy’s plan would be
revenue positive and the overall cost would be no more than the bid currently
being considered. Both options being
proposed by the Conservancy would preserve all heritage buildings and enhances
their uses in their current locations. Their plan would see the park remain 100 %
public and be self sustainable.
Information about the Conservancy’s proposal can be found at http://www.lpc-cpl.ca/index.html. Mr. Martin pointed out that under the City’s
procurement by-law and the Ottawa Option, soul-sourced bids, such as that of
the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), must be contrasted against an
alternative.
When
asked about presenting this proposal at such a late stage in the process,
especially during a period of ‘lame duck’ Council, Mr. Martin replied that a lame duck Council can only approve items over
$50,000 that have been budgeted for already, and since the final integrated
OSEG proposal has not been presented to Council yet they could not have
budgeted for it. He said the
Conservancy’s bid would be submitted in time for Council to consider it
alongside OSEG’s.
Joan Bard Miller, Heritage Chair, Glebe Community Association asked that OBHAC advise against the relocation of the Horticulture Building. She said that heritage designation should be equated with protection and moving the building threatens its fabric and existence. She questioned how sure staff are that the building is sound enough to survive this proposed move instead of leading to unintentional demolition. She remarked that the building was designated because it is significant and it is wrong to threaten its fabric and historic context by attempting to move it to make way for parking and retail. She pointed out there is a lot of shopping in Ottawa but there are not a lot of exhibition grounds and designated Frank Lloyd Wright inspired buildings.
Ms. Bard Miller noted that other cities find creative solutions to reinvigorate historic areas by rehabilitating and reusing buildings in-situ, such as the Distillery District in Toronto. She questioned the City’s reasoning to invest millions in relocating the Horticulture Building rather than just restoring it in situ and ensuring that future development around it is compatible.
She felt that the decision to move the building was made a long time ago, noting that during the Urban Park design competition the City directed the design teams to plan for a relocated Horticulture Building. She questioned why the designers of both the urban park and the mixed-use areas were not asked to find creative solutions that respect heritage. She commented that national and international heritage standards clearly indicate that moving the Horticulture Building is not in keeping with heritage conservation principles, which include those outlined in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, developed by Parks Canada and adopted by the City of Ottawa.
Ms. Bard Miller concluded that failing to protect the designation on such a high profile and City-owned site sets a dangerous precedent for heritage throughout the City, sending a message that heritage is secondary and only needs to be respected if it is convenient. She suggested it will be a promotion for facadism. A copy of Ms. Bard Miller’s presentation is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor’s branch pursuant the City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.
David Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa did not support the relocation of the
Horticulture Building, a property that he reminded is designated under Part IV
of the Ontario Heritage Act. He noted that the City of Ottawa is the owner
of the property, the applicant for its relocation and the legal body which
approves or rejects the application.
Mr. Flemming remarked that the building, despite its heritage
designation, has been irresponsibly ignored by the City for over 20 years, and for
the past two years it has continued to be abandoned, but this time to the
demands of a private developer. He said
that ever since the City entered into negotiations with the Ottawa Sports &
Entertainment Group (OSEG), and nearly two years before the City requested a
heritage impact assessment for the site, the developer has consistently sought
either the demolition of all or part of the Horticulture Building and/or its
relocation. He added that the City’s
tacit approval for the relocation of the building was made clear earlier this
year when the bidders for the development of the Urban Park were told not to submit proposals that would include
retention of the Horticulture Building in its original location. He pointed out this decision was taken at
least six months before the preparation of the Statement of Cultural Values and Heritage Impact Assessment for the
site. He noted despite this direction,
the winning bidder still recommended that the building be preserved on its
original location.
Furthermore, he suggested that the writ to the heritage consultant appears
to have been based on the premise that the Horticulture Building needs to be
moved rather than the normal procedure of providing the best advice for the
protection of a heritage property. He
pointed out that even the staff report notes that “the relocation of a heritage
structure should be considered as the option of last resort and is generally
not considered as appropriate.” According
to widely accepted national and international standards and guidelines for the
preservation of historic buildings, relocation should only be considered when a
building is in physical danger from causes such as erosion or other
environmental reasons. Mr. Flemming
remarked that the inconvenience of its location to a private developer who
wants to build a parking garage and offer more retail outlets does not come
close to being a credible reason for moving a heritage building. He questioned the risk being proposed, noting
the report acknowledges that: “Movement of a structure, if not well considered,
could result in physical endangerment of the resource.”
Mr. Flemming noted the report argues that if the building were to
remain in its current location it would have to be used for a commercial
purpose, and he questioned what would be wrong with that. He said there are excellent, even
award-winning examples of heritage buildings across the country and around the
world that have been re-adapted, respecting their heritage integrity and value,
for commercial purposes. He averred that
the claim that relocating the building “would be a compelling way to preserve
the building and re-establish it as a dynamic urban place grounded in, and
reflecting its history” is spurious because this would hold true – and more so
– if it were left in its current location.
Mr. Flemming also referred to pages 60-61 of the Statement of Cultural Values wherein the author refers to a number
of comparables that were taken into consideration in making the decision to
move the building. Mr. Flemming pointed
out that none of the examples were buildings that had already been designated
under the Ontario Heritage Act, none of the buildings (except for
March House) were owned by a municipality or other level of government, and
none were as large or massive as the Horticulture Building. Even in the case of March House it was
designated following the relocation, which was a condition of its designation.
In
closing, he urged OBHAC not to recommend the action proposed in the staff
report and to send to City Council a strong recommendation for the preservation
of the Horticulture Building in situ as a vibrant component of a revitalized
Lansdowne Park. A copy of
Mr. Flemming’s comments in entirety is held on file.
Nancy Oakley, a Masters student in the heritage conservation program at
Carleton University, spoke to the impact of the proposed plan on the existing
heritage resources of the site.
Ms.
Oakley asserted that relocation is not a design option. She pointed out that the Standards and
Guidelines adopted by the City, along with many other respected conservation
tenets, calls on its subscribers to conserve through minimal intervention. In the range of conservation methods,
relocation is one of the last options, something to resort to when all other
less-intrusive methods to conserve have failed. She said that having followed these design
plans since they were first proposed it is clear to her that the developers had
planned for the relocation of the Horticulture Building from the start. She contended that a designated heritage
structure should not be stripped of its designation, jacked up and moved simply
because it can be.
Ms.
Oakley suggested the reasons given in the report for relocation of the
Horticulture Building are not sufficient and the proposed location does not
respect the building. The Horticulture
Building as it currently stands maintains a prominent position and a 96-year
relationship with the Aberdeen Pavilion. In its new location, the current plan would
see a commercial building constructed right beside it, which, she stated, would
actually prevent it from being animated on all sides and would diminish its
prominence. She asserted that the
purpose of relocation is not to maintain the heritage value of the Horticulture
Building, but to make room for a movie theatre and condos.
She
questioned the integrity and objectivity of the Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment, noting the report states it was undertaken to “support required
heritage approvals”, one of which is the relocation of the Horticulture Building. She did not see how this tool is of any use
other than to justify the goals of those who commission it- in this case, the
developers wishing to relocate the Horticulture Building. She questioned whether any Heritage Impact Assessments commissioned
by the City or private interests have come out against their proposed development,
to the benefit of heritage. She felt this
project has served to highlight flaws with heritage assessment reporting, and
hoped the City would take advantage of this new finding to address these
gaps.
Ms.
Oakley proposed that a dangerous precedent is being set in terms of the de-designation
and relocation of the Horticulture Building, in the context of the larger plan
of development for Lansdowne. She said
it opens up all public spaces to developers with plans to revitalize them and
calls into question the credibility of the City as caretaker and manager of our
heritage resources. She remarked that
the spirit of conservation and the City’s duty of stewardship for our heritage
have not been met by these plans. Furthermore, there is huge potential for a
conflict of interest in projects like these, where the City is both the owner
of the designated heritage building and a partner in a development plan. She recognized the City cannot neglect its
duty as steward of the Horticulture Building, nor can it ignore the need to
revitalize the ailing civic space. She
asserted it is therefore vitally important that the City maintain public trust
and clearly demonstrate respect for its position as caretaker and protector of
the Horticulture Building, neither of which they accomplish by neglecting to
maintain it for decades and pretending this relocation will benefit its
heritage value.
She
thought that the money proposed to be invested in heritage on this project
would be best spent on a design that respects the existing heritage on
site. She urged OBHAC to send a strong
message to the City Council to remind them of their responsibilities as
stewards of our heritage, and of their duties to uphold public trust. She commented that whether Lansdowne will be
remembered as another case of heritage lost, or a successful integration of the
new and the old, is up to them. A copy
of Ms. Oakley’s comments in their entirety is held on file.
Brian Tansey, representing the Old Ottawa South
Community Association indicated the group’s opposition to the relocation of the
Horticulture Building, suggesting that though there may be commercial reasons
for it, it is disrespectful to the building and its heritage value to attempt
to move it from the site where it was constructed almost 100 years ago. He feared there is also danger to the
structure, suggesting it may not be known whether the building can be moved
successfully without serious damage until it is too late.
He
referenced Old Ottawa South’s experience with heritage buildings, noting their community
center was retained and renovated to suit the community’s needs after a
vigorous debate in the community about whether to demolish or move the center
to another location. He pointed out there
are only two heritage structures at Lansdowne Park and suggested they be
retained in their current positions.
Expressing
his personal opinion, Mr. Tansey suggested this entire process has been done in
bad faith and OBHAC is caught in the middle of it. He said Council made a decision that heritage
preservation would not be the driving factor of the revitalisation of Lansdowne
and told staff to make it work; likewise, the heritage consultant was held to
the same direction. He asked OBHAC not
to give up on their fight to protect the heritage buildings in question.
George Ole proposed the Horticulture Building should be retained in its
current location, suggesting it is wasted money to move it. He referenced Lansdowne’s history as a
vibrant place filled with music, including concerts by the Governor General’s
Foot Guards band as well as other touring bands. He commented that music is a culture of
Ottawa that attracts people and he suggested the City should bring music back
to Lansdowne Park. He proposed that the
Horticulture Building would be a natural fit for a concert hall, adding that
putting the arts in such a central location would attract new families and
revitalize the area.
The committee received the following correspondence on this issue:
- Letter of opposition dated October 25, 2010 from Bryn Askew (91 Holmwood)
- Letter of opposition dated November 1, 2010 from Cybèle Vlamis (113 Holmwood)
- Letter of Opposition dated November 3, 2010 from Sean Fraser, Manager, Acquisitions and Conservation Services, Heritage Programs and Operations Branch, Ontario Heritage Trust, as well as a copy of the Trust’s letter to the Planning and Environment Committee on September 14, 2010 with respect to the Rezoning of Lansdowne Park.
Member Sahni
pointed out this issue has undergone debate for the past two years and that
OBHAC has passed previous motions asking Council to respect the heritage
designation and value of the building and keep it in-situ. He felt the City is pandering to the
developer to accomodate his needs for parking and retail space and he suggested
there could be a plan that works with the heritage buildings in their current
locations. He recommended that OBHAC
reject the staff recommendation.
Some
members indicated conflicting opinions on the proposed relocation, stating, for
example, that the building is not functioning well in its present location and
that there could be great benefit to moving it as suggested to better tie in
with the plans for the site. Other
members wholeheartedly disagreed with relocation, citing concerns about the
repeal and subsequent re-enactment of designation, and about the risks
associated with moving a building that has been somewhat neglected. After considerable discussion, the committee
agreed to vote in keeping with its previous position on this matter - to reject
staff’s proposal.
Moved by
Virendra Sahni:
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that
Council sitting as Committee of the Whole recommend that Council reject the
following staff recommendation:
1.
The
relocation of the Horticulture Building according to plans prepared by BBB
Architects, Barry J. Hobin Architects and Cannon Design, (Document 3),
2.
That, in
accordance with the Recommendations contained in the Heritage Impact Assessment
Report, the approval be subject to:
a.
a
Conservation Strategy to support future public use of the relocated
Horticulture Building as determined through the Programming Plan being
developed for the Urban Park including Aberdeen Square, the Aberdeen Pavilion
and the Horticulture Building;
b.
a detailed
plan for works for the proposed relocation; and
c.
a. and b.
being prepared to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth
Management.
3. Repeal
of By-law 8-1994 designating the Horticulture Building under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and enact a new
designation By-law under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act once the building has been relocated and rehabilitated as set
out in the Conservation Strategy to be developed for its new use.
(Note:
The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the
Ontario Heritage Act will expire on December 29, 2010.)
(Note:
Approval to Relocate/Demolish this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must
not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building
permit.)