The debate over infill housing in Ottawa often hits the letters page of the Ottawa Citizen. I appreciated reading this one on Monday Nov. the 19th.
Ottawa Citizen
In Montreal, the city government is stepping up to protect the homes that define the character of mature neighbourhoods — not just the mansions, but also the smaller, distinctive homes of working people. Meanwhile, just up the road in Ottawa, character homes are routinely being demolished while the city steps back and watches.
In Montreal, city council is enacting new zoning bylaws to preserve neighbourhood character. But here in Ottawa, existing zoning bylaws are routinely emasculated as developers, with the co-operation (dare we say “collusion”?) of city planners and the committee of adjustment, request multiple so-called “minor” variances that are routinely granted.
The result: a huge deviation from the zoning bylaw and the lot-by-lot destruction of neighbourhood character.
In Montreal, older neighbourhoods are valued as being important to the character of the city and to its history. In Ottawa, frustrated and angry residents watch as their neighbourhoods are transformed from period homes and buildings framed by stately trees and gardens to a densely packed series of oversized packing crates where all the mature trees are clear-cut and lots denuded of other vegetation and replaced by concrete and interlock.
In Montreal, there seems to be a strategy to preserve neighbourhoods as part of the heritage of the city. But here in Ottawa, there seems to be an unwritten and unspoken strategy to intensify neighbourhoods, using minor variances like shotguns to blow the zoning bylaws to smithereens.
Don’t get us wrong. We are in favour of intensification. But not at the cost of all the other attributes that contribute to a livable city. And not to line the pockets of developers who clearly have no investment in the preservation of neighbourhood character or built heritage of Ottawa, and no intention of being good neighbours.
Think about it. Max Finkelstein and Connie Downes, Ottawa
So I sat down the next day and sent this one in as a response. That was on Tuesday. I didn't know it then, but that was the day that the city granted the demolition permit for #79 Kenora. My letter to the editor didn't appear until Saturday the 24th, after my last post.
Stop wrecking traditional neighbourhoods
Re: Letter, Ottawa could learn a lot from Montreal, Nov. 19.
Thanks to Max Finkelstein and Connie Downes for their excellent letter. It’s not just Montreal that has the good sense to preserve the character of traditional neighbourhoods. London, England and St. Augustine, Florida are among many cities that also enforce strict guidelines when any changes to buildings in established areas are proposed.
It’s insulting when people destroy our area houses. These folks want our neighbourhood, but none of our houses are good enough for them. If you want to build a modern box-like structure, if you want a lot with no trees, yard or garden, if you want to live on top of your neighbours, then do that in the suburbs.
I’m sick and tired of the wanton destruction of perfectly fine homes. I’m tired of waking up to the noise of construction as excavators dig, and load houses into dump trucks to clog our landfills. I’m tired of walking around my Kitchissippi neighbourhood and seeing new hole after new hole, where houses once stood. It’s an environmental sin, based on nothing but greed on the part of developers and the city. There is absolutely no vision of our neighbourhood’s past or future.
Does it do any good to voice our opinions? Will the course of action change? Even if it doesn't, I think it's important that the folks at city hall know that we are not pleased.
