|
1. application
for demolition and new construction in the rockcliffe park heritage
conservation district at 187 lansdowne road DEMANDE DE DÉMOLITION DE
L’IMMEUBLE EXISTANT ET DE CONSTRUCTION D’UN NOUVEL IMMEUBLE AU 187, CHEMIN
lansdowne, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK |
Committee recommendationS as amended
That Council reject the application
to demolish the building located at 187 Lansdowne Road and reject the
amended application for new construction based on revised plans submitted by
Julian Jacobs Architect on March 8, 2012 and included as revised Document
6.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for
consideration of this application under the Ontario
Heritage Act will expire on April 15, 2012)
(Note: Approval to Alter this property
under the Ontario Heritage Act must
not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building
permit.)
RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité
Que le Conseil rejette la
demande de démolition de l’immeuble situé au 187, chemin Lansdowne, et rejette
la demande modifiée de construction d’un nouvel immeuble en fonction des plans
révisés soumis par le cabinet Julian Jacobs Architects le 8 mars 2012
et ci-joints comme le document 6 révisé.
(Nota : Le délai réglementaire de 90 jours d’examen de cette
demande, exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le
patrimoine de l’Ontario, prendra fin le 15 avril 2012.)
Nota : L’approbation de la demande de modification aux termes de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario ne
signifie pas pour autant qu’elle satisfait aux conditions de délivrance d’un
permis de construire.)
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Planning and Infrastructure (formerly Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability), dated 22 February 2012 (ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0049).
2.
Extract of Minutes 16 and draft Minutes 17, Ottawa
Built Heritage Advisory Committee meetings of 16 February and 1 March 2012
3.
Extract of Minutes, Planning Committee meeting of 13
March 2012.
4.
Revised
Cultural Heritage Impact Statement dated 6 March 2012
5.
Revised
plans submitted by Julian Jacobs Architect on March 8, 2012.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti
d’Ottawa
and / et
Planning
Committee
Comité
de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
22 February 2012 / le 22 février 2012
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, Services
d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : John Smit,
Manager/Gestionnaire,
Development Review-Urban
Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Planning
and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 13866
john.smit@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council
refuse the application to demolish the building located at 187 Lansdowne Road
and refuse the amended application for new construction based on revised plans
submitted by Julian Jacobs Architect on February 21, 2012 and included as
Document 6.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this
application under the Ontario Heritage
Act will expire on April 15, 2012)
(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements
for the issuance of a building permit.)
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
(Nota : Le délai réglementaire de 90 jours d’examen de cette
demande, exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le
patrimoine de l’Ontario, prendra fin le 15 avril, 2012.)
Nota : L’approbation de la demande de modification aux termes de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario ne
signifie pas pour autant qu’elle satisfait aux conditions de délivrance d’un
permis de construire.)
BACKGROUND
187 Lansdowne Road is a one
storey bungalow, built in 1964 for Bertram and Blanche Loeb in the Rockcliffe
Park neighbourhood (Document 1). The former village of Rockcliffe Park was designated
as a heritage conservation district (HCD) in 1997 under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
This report has been prepared because demolition and new construction in heritage conservation districts requires the approval of City Council.
This report was originally reviewed by the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) at its meeting of February 16, 2012. At that meeting the applicant presented revised plans for the proposed new building at 187 Lansdowne Road. Given the short time frame, OBHAC decided to defer its decision to the March 1, 2012 meeting of the committee. This decision was made to allow for appropriate review by the committee, staff and the community while maintaining the 90 day timeline prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act.
DISCUSSION
The Rockcliffe Park HCD was
designated for its cultural heritage value as an early planned residential
community laid out by Thomas Keefer in 1864. The
Village of Rockcliffe Park was designated because of:
· the significance of its original design intentions
· the continuity in its evolution
· the richness of its current urban condition
· its relationship with its wide setting
·
the importance of its historical associations
The picturesque nature of the village and its landscape character also contribute significantly to the cultural heritage value.
The Statement of Heritage Character (Document 3) notes that today the “Village of Rockcliffe Park is a distinctive community of private homes and related institutional properties within a park setting.”
The Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study contains guidelines for the management of change in the district. The following guideline relates to the application for demolition of the existing building:
- Any application to demolish an existing
building should be reviewed, with consideration of its historical and
architectural significance, its contribution to the streetscape, and the
appropriateness of the proposed development. Demolition should be
recommended for approval only where the existing building is of little
significance and the proposed redevelopment is sympathetic to the
surrounding environment.
The complete Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study was
previously distributed to all Ottawa Built
Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) members
and is on file with the OBHAC Co-ordinator (Document 8).
The house located at 187
Lansdowne Road was built in 1964 for Bertram and Blanche Loeb. The house is a
long, low-profile, bungalow with a shallow side-gabled roof, wide overhanging eaves
and exposed rafter tails. The front
entrance features a large portico, supported by tapered split boulder pillars. There is a large split boulder chimney north
of the main entrance. The rear of the building features an extensive band of
glazing with awning windows overlooking a sunken garden. The building features
a large projecting wing at the rear housing an indoor swimming pool, and a
small courtyard is formed by the main house, the connection and the rear wing.
The building is clad in a combination of cedar siding, split boulders and
stucco. The large concrete and metal
fence was erected by the Embassy of the Republic of Iraq in 1979 and has compromised
the building’s contribution to the streetscape (Document 2).
The design of the building is attributed to Montreal architect Fred
Lebensold, who was most well known for his theatre designs and as a member of
the renowned Montreal architectural firm ARCOP.
Lebensold won Massey Medals for his designs of the Queen Elizabeth
Theatre in Vancouver (1958), the Place des Arts in Montreal (1968) and for his
design of the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, completed in 1970. Bertram Loeb,
like other prominent local businessmen, was involved with the efforts behind
the construction of the NAC and probably got to know Lebensold during that
process. While no architectural drawings
exist to confirm Lebensold’s involvement in the design of the building, members
of the Loeb family (including original owner Blanche Loeb and her daughter
Naomi) have asserted that Lebensold was the architect for the house and that landscape
architect Donald Graham was involved in the landscape after the house was
built. The building permit drawings held at the City of Ottawa were submitted
by Rene Goulet Construction Limited; however it is not uncommon for the
building permit drawings to be submitted by a construction company rather than
the architect. There are minor differences between the drawings and the
building as built.
The house at 187 Lansdowne Road is associated with Bertram and Blanche
Loeb, a prominent family in Rockcliffe Park and in Ottawa. Bertram Loeb
purchased the first Independent Grocers Alliance (IGA) franchise in Canada and
became the head of the family’s grocery store chain.
The Loeb family became well-known philanthropists in Ottawa funding
significant projects at Carleton University and the Ottawa Hospital. The Loeb
family owned the house from 1964-1979 when it was sold to the Republic of Iraq.
Additional information about 187
Lansdowne Road is attached in the Heritage Survey and Evaluation Form (Document
4).
When the former Village of Rockcliffe Park was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, a
building-by-building evaluation was not undertaken. In order to provide clearer
direction for the management of the district, the Planning and Growth
Management Department has been working on an ongoing project since mid-2009 to
evaluate each building in the HCD. Research has been conducted on each building
and a committee of volunteers including a member of heritage staff and local
residents are completing the evaluation and scoring of each property according
to the City’s Handbook for the Evaluation of Heritage Buildings and Areas.”
Once all of the properties have been evaluated the committee will allocate
categories (1-4) to different ranges in score.
The evaluation committee evaluated the property at 187 Lansdowne Road
and assigned it a score of 60.65/100 (Document 4). This score will likely make
the building a Category 3 building in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation
District. The Handbook for Evaluating Heritage Buildings and Areas defines Category
3 buildings in an HCD as “important components of the district and contribute
to the district's overall heritage identity. Outside of a heritage district
these buildings have limited significance.” The Loeb House at 187 Lansdowne
Road is an example of the post World War II development of Rockcliffe Park, and
is one of a number of architect-designed houses constructed in Rockcliffe as
many larger estates were subdivided and sold in the 1950s and 60s. It is a good
example of a later building and landscape that is sympathetic to the picturesque
village nature of Rockcliffe Park.
Section 4.6.1 of the Official Plan requires that a Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) be submitted “when a development has the potential to adversely affect any designated heritage resource.” Staff determined that the demolition of 187 Lansdowne Road had the potential to adversely impact the character of the Village of Rockcliffe Park. The applicant has submitted a CHIS (revised as of February 21, 2012) that addresses the impacts of both the demolition of the existing building and the construction of the new building (excerpts at Document 7). The CHIS finds that the demolition of the existing house would not have a significant impact on the value of the Rockcliffe Park HCD. Furthermore, it finds that, “the proposed house is also compatible with the existing streetscape in its height dimensions, function and presentation.” The CHIS also addresses the viability of rehabilitation as per Section 4.6.1 (5) of the Official Plan:
“Where an owner of a designated heritage property applies for approval
to demolish the property, the City will require a cultural heritage impact
statement that, in addition to the regular requirements, will demonstrate that
the rehabilitation and reuse of the property is not viable. The City may
consider acquisition of the property where it determines that it is in the
public interest to do so, and the property is considered to be of sufficient
cultural heritage value to the community. [Amendment #76, August 04, 2010]”
The CHIS considers this policy from a perspective of the viability of this building as an official residence for the Ambassador of Iraq. The CHIS concludes that the building is not considered a viable building for the Ambassador of Iraq. However, the intent of this policy is to assess the physical viability of the rehabilitation and reuse of the building. The complete original CHIS (submitted January 2012) and the revised CHIS (submitted February 21, 2012) are held on file with the OBHAC coordinator.
The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association, in addition to their comments included in the Consultation section of this report, has provided historical information, written by Rockcliffe historian Martha Edmond related to the history of this property. This information is included as Document 9.
187 Lansdowne Road is an architecturally and historically significant
building in Rockcliffe Park. The existing fence compromises the building’s
contribution to the streetscape. Removal of the fence would greatly improve the
visibility of this significant building and its contribution to the Rockcliffe
Park HCD. For these reasons, the Department recommends refusal of the
application to demolish.
The proposed replacement building would serve as a residence for the
Ambassador of the Republic of Iraq. The applicant initially submitted plans on
January 17, 2012 for a three storey, flat roofed building featuring
architectural details reflecting Arabic motifs (Document 5). At the OBHAC
meeting of February 16, the applicant presented revised drawings for a two-storey
flat‑roofed building clad in buff-coloured brick and stucco with wood
trim and architectural details reflecting Arabic motifs. Given the short
timeframe, OBHAC deferred a decision on the item to its meeting of March 1,
2012. The amended proposal is attached
as Document 10. As the Department is
recommending refusal of the application to demolish, the application for new
construction is also recommended for refusal.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no rural implications associated with the report recommendations.
CONSULTATION
Neighbours within 30 metres of the property were notified of the original application by letter and offered the opportunity to make written or oral representations. Heritage Ottawa and the Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association were also notified. The revised application was circulated to the Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association, neighbours within 30m of the property and Heritage Ottawa. As there was not sufficient time to gather and incorporate comments on the revised plan, the aforementioned parties were advised to send comments to the OBHAC Coordinator and/or make oral representation at the March 1 meeting.
Following are the Development Review Subcommittee of the Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association comments on the initial proposal:
“We have reviewed the application in terms of
the Buildings section of the heritage conservation district’s Management
Guidelines.
We are adamantly opposed to demolition of the
existing excellent building that has graced its street for half a century. The guideline on demolition in this heritage
district is:
“Any application to demolish an existing
building should be reviewed, with consideration of its historical and
architectural significance, its contribution to its streetscape, and the
appropriateness of the proposed redevelopment.
Demolition should be recommended for approval only where the existing
building is of little significance and the proposed redevelopment is
sympathetic to the surrounding environment.”
We have reviewed the historical and
architectural significance of the existing house. It was built in 1964-65 for Bertram Loeb,
developer and head of the IGA grocery chain in Canada. Mr. Loeb was a prominent Ottawa businessman
and philanthropist. He and his family
lived in the house from 1965 to 1979.
The house is an excellent example of 1960s architecture made with
high-quality materials. It is very
important to retain good examples from each building period in Rockcliffe
because the heritage district developed gradually over 150 years, encompassing
many different styles.
The house is a rare residential design by the
noted Montreal architect Fred Lebensold, the designer of the National Arts
Centre and other important Canadian buildings.
Further details on Loeb and Lebensold are in the attached note by Martha
Edmond.
For demolition to be recommended, the house
would have to be determined to be “of little significance”. On the contrary, we find that it has strong
historical and architectural significance.
The existing house also makes a valuable
contribution to its streetscape. The low
bungalow form matches two of its neighbours and is particularly appropriate for
its site because it stands on higher ground than houses to the north and
west
We do not find that “the proposed
redevelopment is sympathetic to the surrounding environment”. The design has an institutional rather than a
domestic feel. It would fit more
comfortably on a public space such as Sussex Drive than on the informal
small-scale residential streets of Rockcliffe Park. Rather than being sympathetic to Lansdowne
Road, it would stand out as a conspicuous oddity. Because it is on high ground, overlooking
houses to the north on Mariposa and to the west on Lakeview, the great height
and mass of the proposed house would dominate the landscape in that sector.
We have also reviewed the guidelines for new
construction:
“Any application to construct a new building
or addition should be reviewed, with consideration of its potential to enhance
the heritage character of the Village.
New construction should be recommended for approval only where the
siting, form, materials and detailing are sympathetic to the surrounding
natural and cultural environment.
New buildings and additions should be of their
own time, but should also harmonize with the existing cultural landscape.
They should be sited and designed so as to
retain the existing topography. The use
of natural materials should be encouraged.”
In our judgement, the proposed new building
does not have “potential to enhance the heritage character of the
Village.” In fact, its incongruous
design and large mass would detract from the heritage character. And its design would not “harmonize with the
existing cultural landscape”.
In conclusion, the existing house has
substantial historical and architectural significance and so must not be
demolished, and the proposed replacement would not be sympathetic to the
surrounding environment.”
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR
Councillor Clark is aware of the application and supports the staff recommendation.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:
Under Part V, Section 42(4) of the Ontario
Heritage Act, within 90 days after the notice of receipt is served on the
applicant, Council may grant the permit with or without terms and conditions or
give notice that Council is refusing the application. The applicant may appeal
to the Ontario Municipal Board where terms/conditions are set or where the
application is refused. If an appeal is brought before the Ontario Municipal Board,
it is estimated that a hearing will take approximately two days and internal
Staff resources will be utilized.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no risk management implications associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications. Should an appeal occur, staff will defend Council’s position.
ACCESSIBILITY IMPACT
There are no accessibility implications associated with the report recommendations.
TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct technical implications associated with this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
Long-Term Sustainability Goals : Culture and Identity : Health & Quality of Life
C1 Contribute to the improvement of quality of life
C3 Provide a compelling vibrant destination
ES3 Reduce environmental impact
GP3 Make sustainable choices
HC4 Improve arts and heritage
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
This application was completed
within the 90-day time period prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Current Conditions
Document 3 Statement of Heritage Character Rockcliffe Park
Document 4 Heritage Survey and Evaluation Form
Document 5 Original Submission Elevations and Landscape Plan
Document 6 Revised plans for new construction at 187 Lansdowne Road submitted February 21, 2012
Document 7 Excerpts from the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (revised as of February 21, 2012
Document 8 Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District
Study (on file with the OBHAC
Co-ordinator (Document
8).
Document 9 Submission from RPRA- The Bertram Loeb House, 187 Lansdowne Road, Rockcliffe Park
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the property owner, the applicant and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street East, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of Council’s decision.
Main entrance with canopy Rear Facade and sunken garden
i) Description
The Village of Rockcliffe Park is a planned residential community first laid out in 1864 by Thomas Keefer. It was created as a partial subdivision of the large estate belonging to his father-in-law, Thomas McKay. Development occurred slowly, but in 1908 a Police Village was created, and by 1926 the Village of Rockcliffe Park had been incorporated. The boundaries established in 1908 have remained intact, and the present Village of Rockcliffe Park is a distinctive community of private homes and related institutional properties within a park setting, still true to the spirit of Keefer’s original vision.
ii.) Reasons for Designation:
The Village of Rockcliffe Park is proposed for designation as a heritage district because of:
- The significance of its original design intentions;
- The continuity in its evolution;
- The richness of its current urban condition;
- Its relationship with its wide setting, and
- The importance of its historical associations.
iii.) Original Design Intentions
The Village of Rockcliffe Park is a rare and significant approach to estate layout and landscape design adapted in Canada from 18th Century English precedents. McKay had adopted this approach in his initial development of the estate, and the original McKay villa and grounds survive as Rideau Hall, the estate of the Governor General of Canada, on the western boundary of the village. When, in 1864, Keefer advertised his Park and Villa lots for private residences, he focused on the picturesque qualities of the scenery, and the importance of curving roads, extensive plantings, and naturalistic settings as key features in any future development. Lots were sold as components of the larger Estate, implying a cohesive landscape approach- purchasers were enjoined from erected anything that would be “inconsistent with the maintenance of the Estate as a park for private residences.” Tree planning on road fronts was an immediate requirement on purchase, and commercial and industrial uses were explicitly banned. This type of ‘suburban’ or borderland development is also a reflection of a particularly North American response to rapid industrialization and urbanization in the 19th Century, with its emphasis on healthy living in a rural or country setting.
iv.) Continuity in Evolution
The Village of Rockcliffe Park today is a remarkably consistent reflection of the ideas set out by Keefer. Although development of the residential lots has taken place very gradually, the ideas of Estate management, of smaller lots as part of a larger whole, of picturesque design, of residential focus, have survived as controlling aspects of the Village’s form and character.
This has been in part somewhat fortuitous and unconscious- the cumulative effect of precedent and example. The early estates such as the MacKay villa and Rockcliffe were followed quickly by Birkenfels and Crichton Lodge, which in turn inspired smaller estates on Buena Vista, Mariposa, and Acacia and later Crescent Road. These types of properties continue to establish a Rockcliffe image, which is continually translated by architects and designers into individual variations on the theme. The strong landscape setting is able to embrace a rich diversity of lot and building sizes and configurations.
However, the continuity has also been provided by an active effort by overseers and residents. In the early years, Thomas Keefer and his associates developed special arrangements to control public and private initiatives as Trustees of the MacKay Estate. Later this effort feel to the overseers of the Police Village and then the councillors of the incorporated Village. Considerable energy has been spent by every successive generation to manage development and change, through formal and informal reviews and by a variety of by-laws, planning directives, and special designations. In most communities such initiatives have focused on economic development and minimum property standards; in Rockcliffe there is an extraordinary effort to maintain the scenic qualities, the park setting, the natural features and plantings, the careful informality of streets and services. This continuity of vision is very rare in a community where development has occurred on such a relatively large scale over such a long time period.
v) Current urban condition:
The Village of Rockcliffe Park has combined public and private initiatives to create an unusually rich urban landscape. The deliberately curved roads, without curbs or sidewalks, and the careful planting of the public spaces and corridors, together with the careful siting and strong landscaping of the individual properties, create the apparently casual and informal style so integral to the picturesque tradition. The preservation and enhancement of topographical features including the lake and pond, the dramatic Ottawa River shoreline, the internal ridges and slopes, and the various outcroppings, has reinforced the design intentions. The architectural design of the residences and associated institutional facilities is similarly deliberate and careful, but in the casual elegance and asymmetry of the various English country revival styles which predominate throughout the Village. The generosity of space around the homes, and the flowing of this space from one property to the next by continuous planting rather than hard fence lines, has maintained the estate qualities and park setting envisioned by Keefer. This informal elegance has been a consistent theme throughout the long process of development from the mid-19th Century to the present. There are relatively few examples of the strict neo-classicism that would suggest a more geometric ordering of the landscape.
There is also a set of community practices, intangible rituals that are both public and private, which continue to make sense of this environment- individual and collective outdoor activities, pedestrian and vehicular movement, areas of congregation and encounter, areas of dispersal and isolation. The urban landscape is also sustained by a variety of ongoing planning regulations, reflected most particularly in the current Official Plan and related zoning by-law.
vi.) Relationship with its wider setting:
The Village of Rockcliffe Park has an important and integral association with its larger setting, as a result of patterns of historical development. With the Rideau Hall estate there is a symbiosis that dates back to Keefer’s original vision of the village set within the larger grounds of this original villa.
With Rockcliffe Park, there is a deliberate relationship again defined by Keefer, who saw the park as a natural extension and highlighting of the village’s picturesque setting. This relationship was further strengthened with the expansion of the park to the east, and with the addition of the Rockeries. Beechwood Cemetery has also served as a compatible landscape boundary to the southeast from the earliest period of settlement through to the present. These various border areas create important gateways to the village, and help establish its particular character. The views to and from the Ottawa River, the Beechwood escarpment, and the other park areas are integral to the picturesque quality of the Village. These extensions also form an integral part of the Village’s environmental ecosystem. It is unusual to have the internal character of a neighbourhood so strongly reinforced by adjacent land uses; it once again reflects the foresight of the original planners.
vii.) Historical Associations
The most important historical associations of the village as a whole are with the MacKay/Keefer family, major players in the economic, social, cultural and political development of Ottawa. The village today is a testament to the ideas and initiatives of various key members of this extended family, and their influence in shaping this key piece of Canadian landscape. Additional associations have occurred more randomly throughout the history of the village, as people of regional, national, and international significance have resided here and made this community their home base. Such associations are in some ways more private than public, and are an aspect of the village that is preserved more in the intangible continuities and oral traditions of village life than in the stones and mortar of monuments and plaques.
There are also specific associations with individuals who, whatever their prominence elsewhere, have made special contributions within the Village at a public and private level. These people have been part of an unusual form of self-governance, which has blurred the lines between formal and informal participation in the affairs of the Village.
HERITAGE SURVEY AND
EVALUATION FORM
|
||||||||
|
Municipal
Address |
187
Lansdowne Road |
Building
or Property Name |
042260046 042260049 |
|||||
|
Legal
Description |
PLAN M46 LOT 197 PT LOT 198;PT LOT 209 PT LOT 210
PT LOT;219 TO 225 PT |
Lot |
|
Block |
|
Plan |
|
|
|
Date
of Original Lot Development |
|
Date
of current structure |
1964 |
|||||
|
Additions
|
1979:
Concrete fence and gate 1983: Accessory Building |
Original
owner |
Bertram
and Blanche Loeb |
|||||
|
|
||||||||
Garden / Landscape /
Environment
|
Prepared
by: Brittney Bos / Heather Perrault/ Lesley Collins/ Sally Coutts |
|||||||
|
Month/Year: August 2010/ July 2011/ January 2012 |
||||||||
|
Heritage Conservation District name |
Rockcliffe
Park |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Character of Existing Streetscape |
||||||||
|
This
section of Rockcliffe was mainly developed in the post WWII period. Before
that time it was characterized as low lying wet land adjacent to McKay Lake.
For the most part, the buildings in this section date from the mid 20th
century and thus relate to one another in terms of their planning. Unlike
most of the neighbourhood, the streets are contained within a secluded basin
and, therefore, are primarily inward-looking with few outward views (except
those that back onto the lake). The seclusion of this section is enhanced by
the number of sheltered crescents connected to Juliana only by footpaths. Lansdowne
Road is divided into north and south sections connected only by a footpath.
It runs adjacent to the west shore of McKay Lake and thus properties along
this road are situated in close proximity to this body of water. The south
portion of this street is the only connecting thoroughfare in this section,
enhanced by the closure of Juliana at Beechwood. There are no sidewalks or
curbs along the entire length and thus pedestrians and cars share the same
roadway. This secluded street is enhanced by the narrow roadway and frontage
trees that define most of the properties. Aside from mature tree plantings,
the street is characterized by its open space. Most properties feature a
variety of open lawns dotted with trees and modest gardens. |
||||||||
|
Character
of Existing Property |
||||||||
|
This property is unlike the rest of Lansdowne Road and Rockcliffe
Park. This is a generously sized property which is entirely enclosed by a
concrete and steel fence surrounded by trees and shrubs. A driveway,
interrupted by a steel gate, extends from Lansdowne Road to the property. |
||||||||
|
Contribution
of Property to Heritage Environs |
||||||||
|
Landscape
/ Open Space: The landscape features of this property are enclosed and
overwhelmed by the fence which is atypical and out of character of the
village-like setting of Rockcliffe. Architecture
/ Built Space: The architectural features of the residence are hidden by the
fence. |
||||||||
|
Landmark
Status |
||||||||
|
The property is
shielded from the street by a tall fence and several trees. |
||||||||
|
Summary
/ Comments on Environmental Significance |
|
|
This property is
unique but is inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood as it is
surrounded by a locked fence. |
|
History |
Prepared
by: Brittney Bos / Heather Perrault/ Lesley Collins |
|
Month/Year: August 2010/ July 2011/January 2012 |
|
|
Date
of Current Building(s) |
1964 |
|
Trends |
|
|
In
the early to mid 20th century, there was an influx of families to
Rockcliffe Park as a result of higher-density development and crowding in
downtown Ottawa. With its scenic
location and relative isolation from the city, the Village of Rockcliffe Park
became a fashionable neighbourhood, perceived to be a more healthy and
peaceful residential environment. The
postwar development of suburbs was coupled with the expansion of the
automobile industry and increased prevalence of cars as the primary means of
transportation. As such, these suburbs and the architecture of the buildings
within them were organized around the increasing cultural reliance on
automobiles. This house is one of a number of architect-designed houses
constructed as larger estates were sub-divided and sold in the 1950s and 1960s. During
the 1930s, foreign governments began to acquire property in Rockcliffe. This
slowed down during the Second World War; however, in the following decades
this accelerated as increasing numbers of countries entered into diplomatic
relations with Canada. Though in recent years several governments have
commissioned purpose built residences, the majority of diplomatic residences
are, as they have been in the past, in what were originally large private
family homes which are no longer suited as private residences. |
|
|
Events |
|
|
In
1979, the Iraqi government constructed a large wall surrounding the property.
This occurred prior to the enactment of bylaws in the Village which prevented
fences of this scale. Residents in the neighbourhood were outraged with the
construction as it was out of character with the informal village-like
setting for which Rockcliffe was known. Rockcliffe subsequently passed a
bylaw preventing future fences of that height. |
|
|
Persons / Institutions |
|
|
This residence was designed by Montreal architect
Fred Lebensold, best known for his design of the National Arts Centre.
Originally the landscaped wooded lot was carefully preserved by landscape
architect Donald Graham. 1964-1979: Bertram and Blanche Loeb: Bertram Loeb
was a founder of the IGA stores and a prominent local philanthropist. 1979: Ambassor of Iraq |
|
|
Summary / Comments on Historical Significance |
|
|
The historical significance of this property is due
to its age, constructed in 1964, its role in the residential development of
Lansdowne and this area of Rockcliffe Park, as well as its associations with
Fred Lebensold, Bertram Loeb, as well as its role as a diplomatic residence
for Iraq. |
|
|
Historical Sources |
|
|
City of Ottawa File Rockcliffe LACAC file Edmond, Martha. Rockcliffe
Park: A History of the Village. Ottawa : The Friends of the Village of
Rockcliffe Park Foundation, 2005. Village of Rockcliffe Park
Heritage Conservation District Study, 1997. Village of Rockcliffe Park
LACAC Survey of Houses, 1988 Carver, Humphrey. The Cultural Landscape of Rockcliffe Park Village. Village of
Rockcliffe Park, 1985. Might’s Directory of the City of Ottawa Walking in the Village of Rockcliffe. Rockcliffe
Park: Village of Rockcliffe Park LACAC, 1982. “Rockcliffe Can’t Stop Wall” Ottawa Citizen July 10
1979 http://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=288yAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TO4FAAAAIBAJ&dq=187-lansdowne&pg=2642%2C3790607 |
|
Architecture |
Prepared
by: Brittney Bos / Heather Perrault/ Lesley Collins |
|
Month/Year:
August 2010/ July 2011/January 2012 |
|
|
Architectural
Design (plan, storeys, roof, windows, style, material, details, etc) |
|
|
The
house is a long, low-profile one storey ranch house with a low pitch side
gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafters. The house has a
central entranceway, with a wide, single unglazed paneled door, flanked by
wide, asymmetrical sidelights with vertical louvers. The eaves above the entrance extend to form
a portico supported by thick, tapered split bounder pillars. Just north of
the entranceway is a broad split boulder chimney. North
of the doorway, there is a row of windows set into the upper third of the
wall, alternating between square fixed windows and awning windows stacked two
high. At ground level, cement window wells surround the rectangular basement
windows with metal grates. A projection is located north of the windows,
containing the double car garage and a vestibule projection, with a north
facing single door accessing the garage wing. On the vestibule there are two
small arched windows on each the east and west elevation, with metal grating
on the front. On the south side of the house there are two groupings of
windows- one just south of the entrance and the other on the south end of the
facade- separated by a segment of split boulder wall. The window groupings
are composed of fixed rectangular windows above awning windows. In the split
boulder wall there is a single rectangular fixed window. The house is clad in
split boulders, vertical red cedar boards, and has concrete foundations. There
is a large projecting wing at the rear of the house that houses an indoor
swimming pool and is, clad in vertical red cedar and smooth stucco. This wing
features extensive glazing and there is a small courtyard formed by this
wing, the connection to the main house and the main wing of the house. The
rear elevation of the main wing of the house features extensive glazing
overlooking the property at the rear. The windows are a combination of
rectangular and square fixed and awning windows. |
|
|
Architectural
Style |
|
|
187
Lansdowne Road is an excellent example of the Modernist Ranch style bungalow.
The building features many of the typical elements of this style including
the low profile, rectangular floor plan, overhanging eaves, extensive glazing
and cladding in natural materials. |
|
|
Designer
/ Builder / Architect / Landscape Architect |
|
|
Fred Lebensold : The design of the
building is attributed to Montreal architect Fred Lebensold, who is well
known as a theatre designer. Lebensold won Massey Medals for his designs of
the Queen Elizabeth Theatre in Vancouver (1958), the Place des Arts in
Montreal (1968) and for his design of the National Arts Centre in Ottawa,
completed in 1970. He was born in Warsaw, Poland in 1917 and studied
architecture in London, England. Lebensold immigrated to Canada in 1949 and
was an associate professor of architecture at McGill University from
1949-1955. The original owner of the building was involved with the efforts
behind the construction of the NAC and probably got to know Lebensold during
that process. Rene Goulet Construction. There are permit drawings
signed by Goulet in the building file that do not match the structure as
built. It is not uncommon to have permit drawings and as-built structures
differ, or to have drawings by a contractor when a design is attributed to an
architect. Source:
“Fred David Lebensold” The Canadian Encyclopedia Online. Historica Foundation
of Canada. 2011. www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com Email;
Naomi Loeb to Alexander Macklin, 4 January 2012 Former
Village of Rockcliffe LACAC File; Interview with Blanche Loeb |
|
|
Architectural
Integrity |
|
|
There
are minor variations between the building permit plans by Goulet and the
existing structure: the garage is east facing rather than south facing, and
there are additional small windows on the facade. It is not known whether
these were later changes, or whether the design was modified prior to
construction. The majority of the front facade closely resembles the original
plan. |
|
|
Outbuildings |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Summary
/ Comments on Architectural Significance |
|||||
|
This
building is an example of mid 20th century development in
Rockcliffe. It is architecturally related to similar buildings constructed
during this time period throughout the neighbourhood. It is an excellent
example of modernist suburban housing associated with a well-known Canadian
architect, Fred Lebensold. |
|||||
|
PHASE
TWO EVALUATION |
|||||
|
ENVIRONMENT
CATEGORY |
E |
G |
F |
P |
SCORE |
|
1. Character of Existing Streetscape |
|
x |
|
|
20/30 |
|
2. Character of Existing Property |
|
|
x |
|
10/30 |
|
3.
Contribution to Heritage Environs |
|
|
|
x |
0/30 |
|
4.
Landmark Status |
|
|
x |
|
3/10 |
|
Environment
total |
|
|
|
|
33
/100 |
HISTORY |
E |
G |
F |
P |
SCORE |
|
1. Construction Date |
|
|
x |
|
11/35 |
|
2. Trends |
|
x |
|
|
23/35 |
|
3. Events/ Persons/Institutions |
|
x |
|
|
20/30 |
|
History total |
|
|
|
|
/100 |
|
ARCHITECTURE
CATEGORY |
E |
G |
F |
P |
SCORE |
|
1. Design |
x |
|
|
|
40/40 |
|
2. Style |
x |
|
|
|
25/25 |
|
3. Designer/Builder |
x |
|
|
|
10/10 |
|
4. Architectural Integrity |
x |
|
|
|
25/25 |
|
Architecture
total |
|
|
|
|
100
/100 |
|
RANGES |
EXCELLENT |
GOOD |
GOOD |
FAIR |
POOR |
|
|
Pre-1908 |
1908 to 1925 |
1926 to 1948 |
1949 to 1972 |
After
1972 |
|
Category |
Phase
Two Score, Heritage District |
|
Environment |
33 x 45% = 14.85 |
|
History |
54 x 20% = 10.8 |
|
Architecture |
100 x 35% = 35 |
|
Phase
Two Total Score |
60.65 /100 |
|
PHASE TWO EVALUATION SUMMARY |
||||
|
Phase
Two Score |
Above |
to |
to |
Below |
|
Group |
|
|
|
|
SITE
PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT
5
REVISED
PLANS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT DOCUMENT 6
187 LANSDOWNE ROAD
SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 21, 2012
REVISED CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT DOCUMENT 7
About this document
The Embassy of the Republic of Iraq has applied to build a new residence for its Ambassador at 187 Lansdowne Road South. The application includes the demolition of the existing house constructed in 1964 for Bertram Loeb, a prominent local businessman. The development will meet all planning requirements for the residence of the chief of a foreign mission in the community of Rockcliffe, although approval for a reduction in the rear-yard setback may be required.[1]
The Subject Property is located within the former Village of Rockcliffe
Park, which is now part of the City by amalgamation in 2001. In 1997,
Rockcliffe Park was designated as a Heritage Conservation District pursuant to
Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Subject Property is located within the HCD. The OHA was amended in April
2005 to provide municipalities with more powers to preserve heritage assets.
Subsection 42(1) of the OHA provides that in an HCD, no person shall “erect, demolish or remove any building or
structure on the property” without a permit issued by the Municipality.
Consistent with the OHA, a Cultural Heritage Impact Statement is required by the City of Ottawa under the Official Plan (s. 4.6.1) for heritage applications in the District, normally for demolitions or major developments to existing properties. The application may or may not involve other planning issues. The Statement provides an independent opinion on heritage issues. The Consultant for this Study, Julie Harris[2], Contentworks Inc., was included on a list of suggested consultants provided by the City to applicants.
The two inter-related issues addressed in this Statement are the historic and architectural significance of the existing house and the impact that the new house would have on the cultural heritage value of the District. Guidelines and recommendations concerning demolition and new construction are included in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study, which is the primary document that guides heritage assessments in the District. The Study contemplates that demolitions will occur and that new buildings will be erected in the District. In keeping with the heritage legislation at the time, the Village of Rockcliffe Park chose to use language that encouraged negotiation as a means to resolving conflict about demolitions, renovations and additions in the District.
The Consultant concludes that the demolition and new construction are consistent with the guidelines of the District Study. As stated by Humphrey Carver in 1985, “It is certainly one of the qualities of the Village, to be able to digest an occasional architectural stranger.”[3]
Part A:
Proposed Demolition
1.0 History and Architecture
The house located at 187 Lansdowne Road South is part of an irregular shaped lot[4] on Lansdowne Road. The property is located in the former village of Rockcliffe Park and in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District.[5] The lot is approximately 90 metres wide by 50 metres deep. Residential properties are located all sides of the property. The current owner (the Government of the Republic of Iraq) is applying to demolish the existing structures on the property and build a new residence, fence and security shelter.
The property includes: a large, one-storey bungalow residence; an enclosed swimming pool attached to the house; and a guard house, gate and fence . The residence and pool were constructed in 1964; the guard house, gate and fence date from 1979. The footprint of the one-storey house is 680 square metres, including the pool and garage.
The existing house was built for the family of the prominent business owner and philanthropist Bertram Loeb by Rene Goulet Construction Limited. The construction firm had worked in the Ottawa area since at least 1951 when it advertised the sale of one of its houses.[6]
To date, no evidence has shown
that the Lobe house was built to architectural plans or specifications provided
by a licensed architect. Loeb worked with two architects – one in 1963 and the
other in 1964 – on designs for the family’s home. In 1963 he engaged Sam
Gitterman, a well-known Ottawa architect, to prepare drawings and
specifications for a two-storey house.[7]
Members of both the Gitterman and Loeb families[8]
recall that Loeb decided not to go forward with the building and to engage
architect Fred Lebensold[9]
as discussed in more detail below. The earliest written reference to Lebensold
as “architect” is found on a survey form completed by M. [Margot] Gualtieri for
the Rockcliffe LACAC two years after the sale of the house by Mrs. Loeb. The
LACAC form, as archived in the files of the Rockcliffe Park Community
Association, acknowledges a conversation with Blanche Loeb as the source of
information that Fred Lebensold was the “architect” and Donald Graham the
“landscape architect”. Based on
this information, City of Ottawa staff concluded that “This residence was
designed by Montreal architect Fred Lebensold, well known for his design of the
National Arts Centre and various modern works in Canada. Originally the
landscaped wooded lot was carefully preserved by landscape architect Donald
Graham”.[10]
As discussed below, however, evidence is inconclusive about the level of
Lebensold’s involvement. The scope of Graham’s[11]
involvement appears to have been the modernist sunken garden in the backyard,
not the whole landscape.
Based on materials collected by the City and by residents of Rockcliffe, Loeb’s family and others have recounted that Lebensold was approached by Bertram Loeb to design his residence. No other evidence has been uncovered about whether Lebensold provided advice, a sketch or full architectural services. The only drawings of the Loeb residence that date from the construction period are a full set of architectural drawings (elevations, plans and structural) signed by Rene Goulet Construction Limited for a “Proposed Residence for Mr. and Mrs. Loeb, Lansdowne Rd., Rockcliffe”. The signature block includes the initials “RG” in the “Designed by” block. It is particularly curious that the plans on file at the City are not signed by Lebensold. Partners in the firm Affleck, Desbarats, Dimakopoulos, Lebensold and Sise Architects designed houses for their own practices separately from the firm’s work in this period.[12] Without drawings, especially when drawings signed by someone else exist in the City of Ottawa files, Lebensold cannot be attributed with any certainty as the “architect”. On the basis of available evidence, it also impossible to determine the relative importance of the roles played by the designer, builder and client in the final product.
The Loeb family lived in the house for 15 years before Blanche Loeb sold it to the government of Republic of Iraq for use as an ambassador’s residence. It served as the Ambassador’s residence until 2003 (at the time of the invasion of Iraq). Since then, it has been vacant. The property continues to be surrounded by an intrusive and unsightly concrete and metal fence installed in 1979 that was vigorously opposed by local residents. Poor maintenance of the grounds and house (including leaving windows open) has left the property in generally poor condition.
The set of plans on file at the City of Ottawa in the Heritage Planning files indicate that various changes were made to the design before construction.[13] Most of the changes are noted on the plans. As built, the house conforms to the mid-century American bungalow tradition in its horizontal massing, natural materials, low-pitched roof and wide over-hanging eaves associated with the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright, in particular. By the 1960s, however, architect-designed houses of the style generally featured larger windows, fewer embellishments and a greater emphasis on broad strokes of simpler materials, such as smooth-faced brick, than the design of the Loeb house.
In many respects, including materials and finishes, it is possible to conclude that cost[14] may have been a factor in the design and construction of the Loeb house. Examples of possible changes in the construction to lower costs include the use of an asphalt shingle roof rather than covering the roof in cedar shakes, vinyl trim, oak parquet flooring, use of painted plywood rather than hardwood exterior trim, exposed concrete block foundation at the entrance and changes to opening and the shape of the pool’s roof. In general, all differences between the drawings and the as-built structure relate to opportunities to reduce cost and. Other features of the house that affect the quality of the architecture include the awkward connection between the passerelle and the pool structure, the choice of windows in the passerelle, and the stonework, which lacks depth and gives the appearance of manufactured angel stone, rather than real stone.
The heritage values and attributes of the district are set out in a Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study (RPHCDS) prepared in October 1997.[15] The RPHCDS was accompanied by a Heritage Inventory listing individual properties that were determined, at the time of the study, to contribute to the district’s heritage value. It should be noted that the property at 187 Lansdowne is not listed in the inventory and is not included in the Category A buildings of the RPHCD, as assigned by the City of Ottawa.
A plot plan for the property drawn by Rene Goulet Construction in 1964 shows all of the outlines of the landscape features that are visible today or were extant at the time of the changes made to the landscape and fencing in 1979.
The location of the property on a slight rise at the top of the street near a corner gives it a prominence that it might not have in another location. In effect, however, the house and its immediate landscaping (minus the 1979 perimeter fencing) blend easily into the eclectic mix of 20th-century houses along Lansdowne Road and its adjacent block.At present, however, the property is dominated by its unsightly concrete and metal fence and by poorly maintained hedges and trees.
2.0 Impact of the Demolition
Consistent with the demolition guideline for the RPHCD, two points are addressed in this section about the impact of the demolition of 187 Lansdowne Road: its combined historical and architectural significance, and its contribution to the streetscape. A fuller discussion of the impact of the demolition (which blends the criteria of design, architecture, environment and replacement) is included at the end of Part B. A brief discussion about a fuller set of heritage issues is included in Part C.
RPHCDS Demolition Guideline
· Demolition of an existing building should be approved only where the existing building is of little historical and architectural significance, and the proposed redevelopment is sympathetic to the surrounding environment
When considering the Study as a whole, it appears that the concept of “environment” also includes the contribution of the building to the streetscape, which is also addressed here.
In the context of history, the house was built in 1964 for a prominent local family led by Bertram and Blanche Loeb. They lived in the house for 14 years. They were among many families in the District who made notable local, regional or national contributions.
The architectural design carries less significance than its historical association as the home of Bertram Loeb. The house is a straightforward interpretation of modern bungalow design (as built and as shown in the drawings) that lacks elements that would be expected of good designs of its period and style, such as more carefully crafted finishes and more attention paid to the quality and textures of materials. It is not listed as a contributing resource in the Heritage Inventory that initially accompanied the district study[16] and it is not mentioned in the RPHCDS. It is not included among the Level 1 buildings on the HCD map produced by the City of Ottawa. Neither the Walking in the Village of Rockcliffe Park booklet printed by LACAC nor The Cultural Landscape of Rockcliffe Park Village by Humphrey Carver make reference about the quality of the house design.[17]
The existing building “does not make a major contribution to the streetscape” for the following reasons:
· Even without the current concrete and metal fence, vegetation surrounds the property to the extent that the house is subservient to its landscape elements.
· The house with its immediate landscaping (minus the 1979 perimeter fencing) blends easily into the eclectic mix of 20th-century houses along Lansdowne Road and on nearby and adjacent lots.
· At present, the property is dominated by its unsightly concrete and metal fence and by poorly maintained hedges and trees.
In sum, to “make a major contribution to the streetscape” the house itself would need to be a focal point of the streetscape or part of a set of houses sharing characteristics, such as setbacks, materials, scale, massing and height that define the streetscape. The house at 187 Lansdowne does not fit into either group. It fits into the category of one of the many small “residential estates in a park-like setting”[18] that help establish the dominant architectural narrative of Rockcliffe Park.
Heritage Value of the RPHCD
The demolition can also be considered within the context of the five categories of heritage values assigned to the district:
- Significance of its original design intentions;
2. Continuity in its evolution;
3. Richness of its current urban condition;
4. Its relationship with its wider setting; and
5. Importance of its historical associations.
Due to its date of construction and its consistency with the residential function of the HCD, the demolition of the existing house at 186 Lansdowne would have no impact on the value of its original design intentions and its relationship to the wider setting of the district. However, the demolition would reduce the richness of the current urban condition of the district, which is due, in part, to its evolution over almost 150 years as the location of substantial homes of important economic and political leaders, as well as ambassadors. As an extant example of 1960s construction, the existing house contributes to this urban tableau. The demolition of the existing house would also have a moderate affect the historical associations of the district because it is associated with Bertram Loeb, a prominent local business man who was a notable philanthropist in the region. Many other houses in the District would remain that have an association with other notable individuals.
City of Ottawa Heritage Evaluation
The City of Ottawa has evaluated the house using a scoring system developed for the RPHCD. The house received an overall score of 60.65, including full points in the Architectural Category. The Heritage Planner has explained that “While the category ranges have not yet been set, a score of 60.65/100 will probably make this building a Category 3 or contributing building within the HCD.”[19] The City of Ottawa Handbook for Evaluating Heritage Buildings and Areas (1985) states that Category 3 buildings in a heritage conservation district are to be considered “important components of the district and contribute to the district's overall heritage identity.” “The demolition of buildings in Categories 1-3 will generally be refused by the City.” [20]
While the author concurs with the City’s scoring of the building’s Environment and History, the scores for Architecture are high. As discussed in the report, the house is an American bungalow with embellishments that were more commonly found in the previous decades. Attributes that should lead to a lower score include: legacy elements in its design, such as the faux brackets; the exposure of concrete block; the dark and poorly detailed entrance, which is generally an important focal point in bungalow design; use of asphalt shingles, rather than cedar, for the roof covering; the poorly articulated transition from the passerelle to the pool; deviations from original drawing, such as the replacement of multiple windows with larger single units; the use of a flat roof on the pool; the reduction in the level of detailing on some elevations when compared to the drawings; the change in the location of the garage entrance; and the puncturing of one of the primary stone facings with a window on the façade.
The house is suffering from an oil leak in the basement[21] and the interior of some rooms have been exposed to moisture and freezing due to improper maintenance.
A lower score is more appropriate and would likely take the building below Category 3. The City of Ottawa has provided no rationale for its score.
Viability of
Rehabilitation and Reuse of the Property
Proposals to demolish a building or erect a new building within an HCD require the consent of City Council after consultation with the City of Ottawa’s Built Heritage Advisory Committee. Policy 6 in Section 4.6.1 asks that the CHIS “demonstrate that the rehabilitation and reuse of the property is not viable” if an application is submitted to demolish a “property”. The policy is unclear about whether the opinion is to be limited to the needs of the property owner, or whether it is intended to be addressed in an abstract way about all possible uses. In the abstract, almost all properties meeting minimum health and safety concerns can be reused so it is assumed here that the intention is to be related to a permitted use desired by the applicant. As a result, the issues that are addressed concerning rehabilitation and reuse are limited to the use of the property as diplomatic premises specifically by the Republic of Iraq. The licensed architect hired by the property owner has identified several issues that greatly limit the rehabilitation and reuse of the existing residence. [22] Based on the knowledge of the Consultant (historian and heritage specialist, without architectural or engineering training), these issues appear to be valid. They are:
- The wood-frame
construction and entrances of the existing structure do not meet the
security requirements of the mission.
- Expansion of the
house to accommodate the requirements of the Ambassador – private home,
offices, guest accommodation, vehicles, staff – would require the addition
of a second storey which would greatly change the appearance of what is
now a straight-forward bungalow.
- The addition of a
second storey could not be accomplished without diminishing the overall
architectural integrity and aesthetic quality of the resulting building.
- The
existing house may have been suitable for a family in the 1960s and 70s,
but its ceiling heights, orientation away from natural light, floor-load
capacity, quality of finishes and multiple room divisions do not meet
requirements for an ambassador’s residence.
As addressed above in this Statement, it is the opinion of the
Consultant that adapting the existing house as a diplomatic residence for
numerous countries, including the Republic of Iraq, would make it necessary to
retain a tall fence of heavy construction. Some other diplomatic residences in
Ottawa, such as the Egyptian ambassador’s house, are located on deep properties
that reduce the impact of security measures from street views, or are located
on sites with fewer exposed elevations, such as a Israeli ambassador’s
residence that backs on to the lake. Neither the dignity of the mission nor the
streetscape are served by severe fencing around the Iraqi property.
Part B: Proposed New House
1.0 Description
A new house, perimeter fencing and guard house will be designed by Julian Jacobs Architects, a firm that has won numerous awards, including a Governor General’s Award (Toronto). His early professional career began with several years as an architect with ARCOP working on projects in Ottawa and Montréal.
The proposed development retains the existing lot size and density. Its siting, form, materials and detailing are sympathetic to the surrounding natural and cultural environment, which features an eclectic collection of residences of various ages, heights, materials and styles. The new development fully integrates security features into a design that is intended to meet all current planning requirements (perhaps with a requirement for a minor variance) for the house, fence, and width of driveway, as well as its use as a foreign mission residence and office.[23] The landscape plan will protect existing trees and increase the vegetation along the perimeter of the property.[24]
The plan features five main components: the house, the driveway, the pool and terrace area lawns, perimeter fencing and a guard house. The house is set in the middle of the property, occupying approximately two-thirds of the foot print of the existing house.[25] An attached garage is set back from the main elevation in line with the main driveway entrance. The semi-circular drive, with separate entry and exit gates, includes a branch leading to the garage. A porte-cochere extends from the main entrance of the house across a drop-off in front of the house. The pool and terrace area are located on the south side of the house at rear grade. Lawns and trees cover the rest of the property, which will be surrounded by 2-metre perimeter fencing. The fencing at the front of the property, along Lansdowne Road, will be partially transparent to allow views of the house. [26] A guard house will be located with the perimeter near the entry gate.
The new two-storey house features a flat roof. The structure is to be clad in ochre or buff brick. Secondary materials may include stucco/EIFS in cream or ivory, and stone or stone-looking pre-cast for cornices, window sills and lintels. Wood would be used for detailing and doors; the balconies will feature clear guardrails. Clear glass will be used for the windows.
The house and will be a large, modern residence with a judicious selection of elements drawn from Islamic sources. The main elevation is symmetrical with a central entrance and porte-cochere. The architect has added a gently concave curve to the front wall which meets the setback of the second storey at its apex. Islamic elements include: a central bronze frieze with iconography to be drawn from Iraq antiquity; the semi-circular entrance with a fixed, screened transom; the general proportions that hint at gracious rooms that can be flexibly organized into more personal spaces; exterior materials that mimic the construction of Islamic clay-brick buildings; the use of a small dome set above the second story of the main façade; and the pattern of archways created by the main entrance and blind arcading along the main elevations.
The quality of the design is enhanced by the use of a careful blending of stucco, stone or brick and wood. The generous use of wood in the treatment of the bay windows of the main elevations softens the design and helps establish the structure as a residence.
One of the strengths of the design is the use of a new landscape plan to organize the property in a manner that will facilitate a less obtrusive approach to security and address internal circulation in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of a modern Ambassador’s residence. In addition, security measures will be integrated into the whole building program, and the garage will be set back from the street.
2.0 Impact of the New Building
The following guidelines from the RPHCDS are relevant in the discussion of the new construction:
· New construction should be approved only where siting, form, materials and detailing are sympathetic to the surrounding natural and cultural environment. Buildings in the district are sited to take advantage of the natural features and topography of the area and allow for gradual transition from public to private space through related landscaping. They often exhibit irregular massing and eclectic revival styles which are part of a picturesque tradition. There is a rich palette of materials, with a preponderance of stone, stucco, and wood over brick.
· New buildings and additions should be of their own time, but should also harmonize with the existing cultural landscape. They should be sited and designed so as to retain the existing topography. The use of natural materials should be encouraged.
· Existing trees, shrubs and other plantings should be protected and enhanced through appropriate maintenance, protection and replacement.
· New buildings, fences and other landscape features, or alterations and additions to existing buildings and features, should be designed and sited so as to protect and enhance significant qualities of the existing landscape
It should also be noted that the Rockcliffe Park Historic District Study and various books and articles about Rockcliffe Park acknowledge the importance of residences of heads of foreign missions in contributing to the significance of the district. They lend prestige to the District, continue the function of older grand homes and introduce new architectural vocabularies into the District.
The new construction is a positive development in establish Rockcliffe’s role as Ottawa pre-eminent site for residences of ambassadors. The proposed design of the house and ancillary structures follows the management guidelines for the district in that their siting, form, materials and detailing are sympathetic to the surrounding natural and cultural environment. The proposed development retains the existing lot size and density. The new house will have a smaller footprint than the existing building. The landscape design will retain existing trees and add to the plantings on the property. The integration of security features into a cohesive design for the residence, guard house and grounds will improve the visual appearance of the streetscape.
While the proposed house is not part of the picturesque tradition found in some parts of the HCD, it is certainly within the vocabulary of modern homes that existed before designation and were acknowledged as contributing to the District’s value. As recommended in the district study, the design of the new house is “of its own time” but harmonizes with its setting in its domestic scale and presentation, and generous use of brick and wood. The proposed house is also compatible with the existing streetscape in its height, dimensions, function and presentation.
Part C:
Summary of Heritage Issues
Preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of houses and landscapes are the preferred options for the Heritage Conservation District. Many challenges are known to exist in converting the extant house into a residence for an Ambassador in 21st-century Ottawa. An addition to the building to separate family and official functions would either take up more room on an already crowded lot or alter the existing one-storey design significantly with the intrusion of a second storey.[27] Replacement and enhancement of the security features, such as fencing, gates and a guardhouse, could also further limit the amount of buildable space on the property.
The early history of the village is outside the scope of the values associated with this house and property. While the house has historical associations of value to the District due to its ownership by the Loebs, the existing house is only of moderate architectural significance. Houses existing at the time of the District’s designation that could be cited as better examples of modern architecture include, among others, the Firestone House (demolished), the Hart Massey House and the Loeb House at 225 Minto Place.
Based on the RPHCDS itself, it is clear that the initial planning principles and history of the village, the landscape qualities of the District and its strongly residential function are primary heritage values. The new Ambassador’s Residence will have positive impacts on the two latter values, especially with the planned integration of security features into the design of the site and the house from the outset.
SUBMISSION FROM RPRA DOCUMENT 9
187 Lansdowne was constructed in 1964-65 for
Bertram Loeb, a successful Canadian businessman and head of the IGA grocery
empire in Canada. The house is a rare
surviving example of a residential commission undertaken by the Montreal
architect, Fred Lebensold,[i] and was designed as a personal commission for
his friend, “Bert” Loeb.[ii] It is noteworthy in being one of a handful
of residential commissions undertaken by Lebensold anywhere in Canada.
It was built at the height of Bertram Loeb’s
business career as the Canadian head of an international grocery chain, the
Independent Grocer’s Association (IGA).
Inspired by a group of independent grocers in the United States, Loeb
brought the IGA franchise concept to Canada. The franchise quickly spread
across the country and by 1952 embraced 34 stores, with $3.5-million in sales.
The house also has direct links to the
creation of Ottawa’s National Arts Centre.
Fred Lebensold was a founding member of the architectural firm known as
ARCOP, which was chosen in 1964 to design the National Arts Centre, intended to
be a major centennial project for Canada and spearheaded by Hamilton Southam. The
Loeb house was designed at the same time that Lebensold was embroiled in
working out the plans for the new arts centre. He was the lead architect on the
project, which brought him to Ottawa on a regular basis. The two men met when Loeb was chair of the
Operations Advisory Committee, working under Hamilton Southam.
The Loeb house can be viewed as an extension
of Lebensold’s primary role in Ottawa in overseeing the completed design work
for the arts centre. ARCOP had designed the Confederation Centre in
Charlottetown and was working on Montreal’s Place des Arts and the Queen
Elizabeth Theatre in Vancouver. The firm’s “clever design partners” were viewed
as “doing some of the best public projects in Canada.”[iii] Despite his hectic schedule, Lebensold was
able to find time to design the Loeb residence.
A gifted theatre designer, he was an expert in modern architecture and
at the cutting edge of new design in the 1960s. The house remains an excellent
example of his design skills.
Bertram Loeb initially approached Sam
Gitterman, a local Ottawa architect, to work up a design for a new residence in
1963, but no doubt impressed with Lebensold’s design skills turned to him for
the final commission.[iv] The result was a masterful contemporary
design in stone and stained wood that was typical of many architect-designed
houses of the 1950s and 1960s. They featured low-pitched roofs with broad,
front-facing gables, and wide eave overhangs. The contrasting wall materials
often included various combinations of wood, stone, and brick wall cladding. Here,
Lebensold employed top-quality building materials of grey stone and stained
wood for the exterior and quartzite floors, Italians ceramics, and inlaid
mahogany wood for the interior. Included, also, were “state of the art”
features such as air conditioning, an indoor swimming pool, as well as
reinforced steel roof beams. The house
was sited on a wooded lot originally forming part of the adjacent John Graham
property on Lansdowne Road, and this natural setting was cleverly preserved
under the direction of landscape architect Donald Graham.
187 Lansdowne was built by Rene Goulet General
Contracting, a small Ottawa firm responsible for, among other things, the
construction of the Chez Lucien Hotel in the Byward Market for Lucien LeBlond.[v] It has been incorrectly alleged that Rene
Goulet was the architect or designer of the Loeb house.
It is inconceivable that a
wealthy family of the stature of the Loebs would engage anyone less than a
first-rank architect to design their home, least of all a construction company
lacking professionally-certified design qualifications. (It is equally
inconceivable that the Loebs would forfeit their entitlement to recourse for design
error under an architect’s professional liability insurance by retaining a
non-professional designer.)
The house is strongly associated with the Loebs, who occupied the house from 1965 to 1979. Their home was a gathering point for various cultural and philanthropic events. Meetings were held here to foster the causes of Blanche Loeb, who served as board member of the Ottawa Symphony Orchestra, the American Youth Symphony, and the Ottawa Music Club. Bertram Loeb was a noted philanthropist and in 1965 donated $500,000 to Carleton University for a new arts and humanities building, which now bears his name. Later he would lead a fundraising drive for the Civic Hospital that raised $14 million for the Loeb Research Institute. The residence itself housed an impressive collection of art and sculpture.
Bertram and Blanche Loeb sold their house to the Government of Iraq in
1979. The selling price was more than $600,000, a remarkable sum for the day
and one that attracted the attention of local newspapers. It was, as noted in
the Ottawa Citizen, the second
highest price ever paid for a house in Ottawa, next to the purchase of 540
Acacia Avenue by the South Korean embassy for $880,000.[vi] This provides some indication of how
exceptional the Loeb house was perceived to be, even at that date.
The house has strong historical links through
its associations with one member of Ottawa’s important Loeb family, and its
architectural merits are apparent. It is one of the best surviving examples of
1960s architecture in Rockcliffe, and is the only example of Lebensold’s residential
work outside of Montreal (other than his own residence). Few of these “personal” commissions
survive. One noted example, the Harry
Cohen house at 100 Summit Circle in Westmount (1957), has been demolished;
another designed for Edward Bronfman at 67 Forden Crescent in Westmount is
still extant. The Loeb house stands as a
reminder of two important Canadian figures and as a personal link to an
extraordinary chapter in the cultural development of Ottawa.
Martha Edmond, Ottawa
January 23, 2012