An opponent’s sign points toward the controversial condo development.
Tensions are rising over the proposed renewal of a prime Centretown property with neighbours strongly opposing plans to construct three luxury condominiums at 112 Queen Elizabeth Driveway.
Dan Turner, who lives next to the property, says that the current proposal violates city zoning bylaws, and that neighbours are prepared to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if plans for the infill are approved.
Alan Bateman, owner of Prestwick Building Corp., who bought the property last year, placed a sign on the lawn facing Queen Elizabeth Driveway advertising the sale of the three condominiums. This is to determine “if there was any market for them,” he says.
“We wanted to make sure we had a project that the market would [like] … to see if we have enough interest from the general public,” says Bateman. “There’s no point in me spending a lot of time and energy on this project unless I know that I can sell it.”
Currently, the condominiums are priced at about $1.3 million apiece. Each features three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and three parking spaces. The total area is approximately 750 square meters, according to Bateman.
In response to the advertisement for the proposal, neighbours Turner and Mike Taylor have also erected a sign. It reads: “For Sale at 112: One Monstrous Myth. Unlawful design, location. No city approval yet… they wouldn’t, would they?”
They are concerned about the loss of light and views of the canal from surrounding properties as a result of the infill. The 80-year-old duplex currently occupying the controversial property is to be demolished under the plan to make room for the modern, much larger, three-and-a-half-storey building.
“Our houses would lose about $100,000 in property value, because you can’t see the canal,” says Turner.
He went on to call the proposed building a “monstrosity.”
To the east of Bateman’s property is Rosenthal House, a heritage home built in 1906. Both overlook the Rideau Canal, recently named a UNESCO World Heritage Site in recognition of the early 19th-century engineering feat. According to Turner, the proposal also violates bylaws outlined in the city's Official Plan that apply specifically to building adjacent to heritage properties.
However, Bateman says that his project would promote growth in the neighbourhood by bringing in new homeowners.
“If there is no growth in these existing neighbourhoods, they end up withering and dying,” he says. “I have never had a project that decreased values of neighbouring properties. The same would be true here.”
He adds that while the infill would reduce the view of the canal from units to the west and north, it does not exceed height restrictions and would not affect the heritage home.
“Intensification is a buzz word that everybody gets stuck on,” says Bateman. “Zoning over the years has been revised to provide for slightly larger footprints on these lots than what there used to be.”
All parties agree that size, rather than architecture is the issue.
“I would like to see [developers] pull back so they don’t dwarf the heritage house, so they don’t completely block my view of the canal,” says Turner. “You can mix modern with old. You can’t do it by crushing old.”
“If the building is designed with sensitivity, with attention to detail that makes it fit into context, then there’s nothing wrong with it,” says Alain Miguelez, manager of inner urban development review at the City of Ottawa.
“If you want to do a modern building, you want to pay attention to the elements and vocabulary of the building as to how it relates to the street and … its neighbours.”
At this time, Bateman has no plans to apply to the Committee of Adjustment for approval of the structure as he is still assessing the market for this project.
“Infill in established old neighbourhoods is always tough,” says Miguelez. “It’s easy to get a controversy if the insertion is not sensitive to what’s around. We have to talk about how that can happen a little better.”