By Dana Townsend
Many Centretown residents are still butting heads with Ashcroft Homes over a proposed nine-storey building at the corner of O’Connor and McLeod streets, despite proposed improvements made by heritage-friendly architect Barry Padolsky.
Padolsky, well-known in city redevelopment circles, was hired by Ashcroft after the developer’s request to change zoning bylaws to accommodate the nine-storey building was recommended for refusal by a city report in September because of strong opposition from the community.
Ashcroft asked that further discussion be halted until Padolsky had submitted the modified plan, which he presented to Centretown residents at a meeting in February.
If Ashcroft president David Choo was hoping to completely win over residents with the modified design, he failed.
“It’s still a massive building for this site,” said Brant Thompson, a nearby resident who attended the meeting.
“It is huge compared to anything adjacent to it.”
Ashcroft had originally proposed a 20-storey development on the site of the old Canadian National Institute for the Blind building, which was met with overwhelming public opposition.
Ashcroft then proposed a 13-storey building, before scaling back to nine-storeys, approximately 28m tall and still six floors above the 10.7m allowed by current zoning.
“It shouldn’t have taken all this to get to this point,” said Robert Smythe, chairman for planning and development of the Centretown Citizens Community Association.
Smythe was speaking of the past 12 months of public meetings that ended with Padolsky’s proposal.Although most of the residents at the meeting seemed to approve Padolsky’s design improvements, which included a more sculpted look to the building and greater detail, they still didn’t approve of the height.
“S.S.D.D.,” huffed one resident in exasperation at the meeting. “Same Stuff, Different Day.”
Residents had other concerns as well, such as the complex blocking sunlight on surrounding streets, increased traffic and whether the building would actually be built according to the new, improved design – but the overwhelming issue was still height.
When residents asked Padolsky if he was given the choice of whether to reduce the building’s height, the architect dodged the question and instead replied that he felt a nine-storey building was appropriate for the area.
“You have made no substantive changes to a plan rejected three times by this community,” said one resident, summing up the general feeling at the meeting.
There was disagreement over the extent of the opposition to the new plan. Choo said he didn’t feel there was overwhelming opposition to his company’s proposal.
“We’re hoping at the end of the day that this proposal is the compromise that allows us to move forward,” said Choo. When asked if he would consider cutting the building down further, the developer’s answer was an emphatic no.
Somerset Ward Coun. Elisabeth Arnold, however, said hat she thought there was still strong opposition to Ashcroft’s proposal.
“My hope is that we come to something we can all agree on …. (but) I’m not sure if we’re going to find agreement on the height issue,” said Arnold.
The developmental proposal went to the city’s planning committee, but has been referred back to city staff for further analysis.