As a growing community Centretown could have it all – one that balances heritage buildings with modern infrastructure, shaped by even skylines, vibrant communities and projects that respect nearby neighbourhoods. To achieve this delicate balance, Centretown, like many areas across the city, depend on community design plans to uphold this ideal.
Yet city council seems disinterested in upholding the community’s design plan, mesmerized instead by the stunning displays of architecture presented by developer after developer.
In what has been framed as an early adaptation of the rules, city council approved the construction of a 23-storey condominium tower at 203 Catherine St. on the corner of Bank Street, despite the fact the project adds 17 storeys and sidesteps the current community design plan.
A community design plan translates the principles and policies of the city’s official plan to the community level. It is created by the city through public consultation with residents, landowners and local businesses and is supposed to be the “backbone” of any significant change in a community, according to the city’s website.
Community design plans are essentially the heart and soul of any community. It’s what makes a community unique, brings residents together and fosters its growth.
Without community design plans Ottawa risks becoming just another urban jungle characterized by congestion and fragmented communities.
In an effort to deflect criticism for circumventing the rules, councillors defended their decision by arguing the yet-to-be-approved draft design plan includes the necessary changes that would permit the construction of a 23-storey building along the Catherine Street corridor.
While the need for development is both necessary and inevitable, the cavalier manner in which the decision was made underscores a disturbing trend at city council that on more than one occasion has relegated a community design plan as a mere secondary concern.
The assumption by councillors that the draft plan will be approved not only sets a precedent for other developers to come forward with proposals that do not respect the established rules but also creates a dangerous situation in which an unofficial document leads development.
Imagine what would happen if people started building extensions to their homes under the assumption that the permit they applied for would be approved – the result would be mishmash of buildings and a fragmented community.
Not to mention illegal.
In fact, the frequency with which city council continues to favour developers’ wishes over residents’ concerns seems to be an ingrained attitude at city hall.
We only need to remember the controversial approval in 2010 of two condo towers at 125 Hickory St., just west of Little Italy, to remind ourselves of city council’s disregard for the Civic Hospital neighbourhood’s community design plan.
Or better yet, the controversial approval to build a condo tower at the site of a former Westboro convent, despite strong opposition from area residents.
Fortunately for Centretown, Coun. Diane Holmes recognizes such obvious infringements of the rules, even though council tries to dismiss her concerns, as Mayor Jim Watson did when he cut her off after running over her allotted speaking time.
To add further insult to injury, councillors seem intent on allowing developers to run roughshod over residents’ concerns by blindly accepting the conclusions of questionable cultural heritage impact statements from developers, which are used to analyze a development project when it has the potential to adversely affect a designated heritage resource.
According to critics, this is because cultural heritage impact statements lack a standard set of guidelines and are completed by a consultant who is paid by the proponent of the proposal.
It, therefore, should come as little surprise that council accepted the Catherine Street condo project despite the fact the development will demolish an existing heritage building and detract from Centretown’s heritage conservation district skyline, according to Robertson Martin Architects, the company which conducted the cultural heritage impact statement.
“The problem is city council has never adopted a set of guidelines on how to prepare a cultural heritage impact statement,” Herb Stovel, co-ordinator of Carleton University’s heritage program and an internationally renowned heritage conservation expert, said in an interview last year.
“Without a clear and authoritative policy for the application of this tool, it is difficult to measure the intentions of those involved,” he said.
In fact, city heritage staff admitted during a meeting in September 2008 that a cultural heritage impact statement has never found a development project to have a negative impact on a designated heritage resource.
Sally Coutts, a city heritage planner, refused to verify this during a recent interview but did admit that a cultural heritage impact statement has never stopped a development from going forward.
Instead she argued that it is strictly a tool to provide advice to city staff and councillors about the impact a development project may have on a heritage resource.
Ironically, a cultural heritage impact statement is not designed to stop development but rather provide city staff and council with genuine “advice” rather than a stamp of approval.
Clearly, this would seem to suggest there is a conflict of interest between consultants and developers, yet city council prefers to turn a blind eye and pretend that cultural heritage impact statements are objective.
Unfortunately, city council’s disregard for community planning and heritage preservation is likely to continue as it continues to brush aside policies designed to help ensure Ottawa does not just become a city of buildings and condo towers, but also a city of thriving communities and neighbourhoods.