Lowertown heritage buildings approved for demolition by committee

Article content

The city’s built heritage subcommittee has reluctantly approved the demolition of three houses in heritage Lowertown — under the proviso that if and when they are rebuilt, the replacements will “consider the artistic expression of the existing buildings and the contribution they made to the streetscape.”

At issue are three adjacent buildings: 227-229, 231-233 and 235-237 St. Patrick St. between Dalhousie Street and Parent Avenue.

Article content

Located in the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District, all three have additions to the rear and have all been altered over time. They contribute to the “early working-class residential character of Lowertown,” according to a report to the committee.

The buildings are currently vacant, but were recently occupied. There have been complaints to bylaw about garbage, rats, break-ins and concerns about the potential for fires.

Janet Thompson Mar, who lives on Guigues Street behind the buildings, said there has been extreme social disorder in recent years.

On one occasion last fall, she looked outside her back window and saw police with guns aimed at the building during an apparent drug bust. There were times she and the neighbours could not use their outdoor spaces because of hypodermic needles, human waste, trash and the rats the trash attracted. Neighbours saw people crawling through trash, and beating each other with baseball bats.

“It was something that was outside of our control to do anything but report,” she said.

But the clincher for the fate of the three buildings was a heritage engineer’s report commissioned by the city that found that all three are in poor to very poor condition. The report had a particularly dire warning about 227-229 St. Patrick, which has buckling exterior walls indicating early onset structural collapse.

Article content

Article content

“This structure is now past saving, and in fact may pose a danger to the unsuspecting public if permitted to weather another winter season,” said the report. 

Heritage advocates said the demolition will leave a big hole in the heritage fabric of the neighbourhood. And they fear it will lead to more demolitions.

“You are witnessing the gradual end of the Lowertown and Byward Market Heritage Conservation districts,” said resident Marc Aubin, the author of books about Lowertown.

“Despite years of efforts by heritage advocates and the Lowertown community, the City of Ottawa and local developers have figured out a way to wipe us out. This latest attempt will leave a huge crater in a district that is already in a precarious situation.”

The decision to approve demolition came amid calls for greater enforcement of the responsibilities of landowners in heritage districts.

The Lowertown Community Association said it has watched the deterioration of the three buildings on St. Patrick Street with concern. One of its heritage committee members described the buildings as “the poster children for demolition by neglect.”  

Article content

Warren Waters, the vice-president of the Lowertown Community Association, said it’s no exaggeration to conclude that the loss of three more buildings raises questions about the district’s long-term viability.

“On a case-by-case basis, some Built Heritage Committee members may not see these demolitions as a great loss, but these cases come up every year,” Waters said in a letter to the committee.

“When visitors come to Ottawa, they’re looking to experience the history of this place. Unfortunately, more and more of that history is disappearing because of the inadequacy of the means, will and effort to preserve it.”

Last January, given the magnitude of the social problems at the property, the city offered to hire a heritage engineer to conduct a review of the condition of the properties to offer independent opinion on the condition of these buildings. In April 2024, the chief building officer received an application to demolish all three buildings under the Building Code Act.

To go ahead with the demolition, the chief building officer has determined that three items were required: approval or exemption under the Demolition Control By-law as no replacement buildings have been proposed, utility clearances and permission under the Ontario Heritage Act to demolish.

Article content

An application to demolish the three buildings under the Ontario Heritage Act was submitted Aug. 6. The required application fees were not included as part of the application submission, said a report to the committee, which noted that discussions between the city and the applicant have included the prospect of civil litigation.

“In order to reach a resolution with respect to this file, it has been agreed that a motion would be put before council that would waive the fees for the application for a Heritage Permit.”

Somerset Coun. Ariel Troster, a member of the committee, said she didn’t like the precedent the decision to demolish would set.

“It allows bad actors to let properties decay and be financially rewarded to do so by not paying the demolition permit.”

City heritage staff have recommended that the owner of the property, Brian Dagenais, enter into an agreement to ensure that the vacant lots are cleared, filled, landscaped appropriately and maintained according to the property standards bylaw until replacement buildings are constructed.

Dagenais offered the Citizen a tour of the three buildings last March. He had purchased the buildings in late 2019, with the intention of demolishing them and redeveloping the 13 rental units into 24 new units and expressed concern about the possibility of a fire or a collapse and frustration at his inability to get a demolition permit.  

Article content

Dagenais declined to comment Tuesday, but said he would comment after city council makes a decision on Sept. 18.

Thompson Mar does not feel that Dagenais has been a “bad actor.”

“In hindsight, did he make a mistake buying those properties? I think, yes, he probably did,” she said.

“He has done his best to mitigate things for all of us in the neighbourhood. But there’s only so much he can do to address the problem here.”

Some heritage advocates say they place equal blame on building owners and the city.

Interventions by city officials in this case were not sufficiently aggressive nor effective, said Waters.

Bylaw enforcement has been woefully inadequate and ineffective in preserving heritage properties, he said. This may be partly because bylaw officers usually only observe the exterior condition of heritage buildings.

The Lowertown Community Association called for urgent changes to the city’s authority to prevent the demolition of other heritage buildings that are falling into disrepair.

“Other neglectful property owners and would-be developers are no doubt looking on with considerable interest at how the city will address this situation,” said Waters, who argued that the city needs “better carrots and better sticks.”

Article content

Heritage Ottawa has proposed an emergency heritage preservation protocol for rapid response and cooperation from officials, as well as community involvement, for example. The volunteer organization has also recommended that when owners are unwilling or unable to comply with the city’s work orders, the city should have the legal ability to do the work and charge the cost back as a lien on the property.

“The threat of having a lien or easement on the property for recouping the cost of such work would also act as a deterrent to property owners who allow their properties to deteriorate,” noted Waters.

Josiah Frith, who owns a heritage house on Guigues Street, said the issue now is what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again. One measure might include forgiving some property tax to ensure that properties are maintained.

Another measure might be to ensure that heritage properties are inspected when they change hands — and to make sure owners know their responsibilities. Dagenais either got no advice or bad advice when he bought the St. Patrick buildings, said Frith.

“These are special structures and they need special owners who hold this as a priority.”

Thompson Mar argues that owners of heritage properties should be eligible for larger grants.

“What we’re doing now doesn’t seem to be working,” she said. “You can’t just designate something heritage and then, magically, it’s maintained.”

Article content