Many heritage resources today are managed through the planning and development process at the municipal level. Planning documents, acting as guidelines for how, where and what development can occur, must effectively and responsibly consider heritage conservation issues. We have seen time and again how inadequate guidance in planning documents can result in a slow but steady loss (a ‘death from a thousand cuts’) of a neighbourhood’s heritage character. As several planning regulations are considered with each proposed development, it is equally important that the ‘heritage message’ of these documents is consistent, as ambiguity has also proven to be the bane of the responsible stewardship of our heritage resources.
The City has undertaken an update of the Secondary Plan (SP) for Centretown (in place since 1976) through the development of a Community Design Plan (CDP) to better articulate the future vision of the neighbourhood. A CDP is similar to a Secondary Plan and can be adopted as an official amendment to the Official Plan. A Toronto firm, Urban Strategies Inc., was hired to lead public consultations and put together the CDP. The first draft was released for public comment in June. After consultation with the local community association and City Councillor, Heritage Ottawa has submitted a position paper on the Plan’s heritage components. This article highlights some of our concerns.
There are significant differences in the approach to conserving
heritage in the existing Secondary Plan and the new CDP. The current SP is a remarkable planning document containing a strong, concise and progressive approach to heritage conservation. The importance of heritage is directly stated and also emphasized by the incorporation of heritage concerns throughout the document. The scope of what constitutes heritage is broad, being “heritage buildings are those which have significant architectural merit or are associated with historic persons or events... [and] areas which contain several buildings which, when considered together, have a unique architectural character or historical and cultural significance”. The current Secondary Plan balances heritage conservation with other objectives related to the maintenance and enhancement of Centretown’s residential character.
The proposed CDP departs from the existing SP in a number of ways. Most significantly, the definition of heritage is limited to only the “best” heritage resources, identified as the Category 1 and 2 buildings currently included on the Ottawa Heritage Reference List. Much of the historic fabric that contributes to Centretown’s character, like streetscapes, views, or parks, is not considered. The CDP thus artificially minimizes the contribution of heritage to Centretown’s character.
This arbitrary limitation is based on the current Heritage Reference List. Due to a lack of available resources a comprehensive update of the Reference List still remains on the City’s ‘to-do’ list, with the result that the Reference List does not accurately reflect the current heritage character of Ottawa’s neighbourhoods. To illustrate the point, I surveyed two streets in Centretown - about 100 buildings in total - against the Reference List. I discovered that eighteen buildings on the Reference List (including four listed as Category 1 and seven as Category 2) no longer exist. I also identified a dozen Listed buildings that could easily be considered for Category 2 or 3 status, and eleven historic buildings not included on the Reference List- but many of which could be considered for at least Category 2 or 3 status.
It is understood that Centretown will be intensified - both Jane Jacobian logic and economic rationale is to intensify the downtown urban core rather than further suburban sprawl. Yet development doesn’t have to mean 30-storey condo towers; intensification can also be met through rehabilitation, adaptive reuse and sensitive infill. While the main purpose of updating the CDP is to ‘up zone’ certain parts of Centretown to allow for new development, it should also continue the 35 plus year legacy of a strong, progressive and comprehensive approach to heritage conservation enshrined in the existing Secondary Plan.
As currently drafted the CDP weakens existing heritage regulations. Protection of Centretown’s significant heritage character is provided through the designation of two Heritage Conservation Districts (Centretown and Minto Park) and the Heritage Overlay. As noted in the Ottawa Zoning By-law, the Heritage Overlay is implemented “in order to encourage the retention of existing heritage buildings by offering zoning incentives to reuse the buildings and to limit the size and location of additions to preserve the heritage character of the original building”. In the draft CDP, the Overlay is instead described as “a series of restrictive zoning regulations” which is implemented to “restrict redevelopment of sites” and “can be a disincentive to actual improvements within the District and are preventing these heritage structures from being creatively re-used or adapted.” No justification or evidence to support this reasoning is given, leaving the statement out of place and unnecessarily critical.
Accepted practices in the field of heritage conservation are that heritage conservation activities are undertaken based on good, accurate information. Planners - especially those developing binding planning regulations - need to ensure their work is based on an informed methodology and research as there are wide-ranging consequences to their decisions. The limited consideration of heritage has the effect of not only ‘writing out’ heritage from the character of Centretown, but also from future planning decisions.
Without changes to the draft CDP, Centretown may very well see even more pitched battles between heritage and development in the coming years. Many other neighbourhoods in Ottawa are undergoing, or can expect to undergo an update of their Secondary Plans in the coming years. Heritage Ottawa, through its Heritage Keeper Program and other volunteers, will need to ensure that our heritage resources are given adequate consideration in the consultation process and especially in final planning documents. Our activities must be directed to both ‘fighting the alligators’ and ‘draining the swamp.”
Biographical Note: Nancy Oakley is a graduate student in Carleton University’s Heritage Conservation Program. She is also the Heritage Keeper Program Coordinator for Heritage Ottawa.
Photo – credit Nancy Oakley
423 Lisgar – not on the Heritage Reference List, but may have heritage value
The Ontario Heritage Toolkit are guides explaining the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, and the Historic Places Initiative. 
