Alayne McGregor
The six-unit affordable apartment building at 142 Nepean Street will be torn down to build a parking lot.
On August 31, Ottawa City Council voted 13-11 to allow demolition of the building and force tenants to move, over the strong objections of local councillor Catherine McKenney, and despite councillors’ questions as to why no other parking was suitable. The discussion came down to the right to parking versus to the right to housing.
McKenney pleaded with fellow councillors to preserve the building. “The precedent that this sets could lead us down a path where we are removing ‘missing middle’ housing, affordable market housing, in order to provide more parking, anywhere in this city.”
A complicated three-lot deal
142 Nepean is part of a complicated deal to allow the building of a new large apartment building nearby. Developers Glenview Homes and Taggart Management want use the land at 142, 144, and 148 Nepean for a 30-spot surface-level parking lot.
That lot would then replace the parking lot at 108 Nepean now used by a nearby office building at 190 O’Connor Street. On the 108 Nepean parking lot, Glenview and Taggart will build a new 27-storey, 300-unit mixed-use tower with 25 units of market-affordable housing. That project was approved by city council.
“These reports should have never been linked,” McKenney said.
“The tower will not proceed unless we have control of our parking next door”
Glenview president Mark Shabinsky had told the city’s Planning Committee that Glenview’s office building must have control of “its own parking destiny,” and was not willing to rent spots in other lots instead of using 142-8 Nepean. “The tower will not proceed unless we have control of our parking next door. It’s not a threat, it’s simply a commercial reality that we are dealing with.”
“Being asked to play chicken”
Councillor Keith Egli said that, by linking the two projects, Council was “almost being asked to play chicken. We’re waiting to see who blinks first on this and I’m not all that interested in blinking today.
“I cannot fathom that there is no other way to achieve these parking spots and that the whole development would be pushed aside and not carried forward over the minor amount of parking spots.”
Current 142 Nepean tenant Lionel Njeukam had said his two-bedroom apartment was affordable at $1200/month. McKenney noted that market rent in Ottawa for a two-bedroom apartment is now well over $2,000.
“What we don’t have enough of is this type of housing – affordable market rental for individuals, for families. These small buildings are scattered across our city What we do have a lot of is parking. Excess parking, in what is a housing emergency that we’re living through. We have over 2,000 people last night sleeping in a shelter or outside in this city. We’ve got hundreds of families, children, living in motels. For every unit of social housing that we build in this city, we lose at least seven in the private market.”
Thousands of parking spaces not used in a two-block radius: McKenney
McKenney counted hundreds of parking spaces not being used within a two-block radius of 190 O’Connor. “There are other parking opportunities, not rights – unlike the right to housing, you don’t really have a right to parking.”
“So if we allow ourselves to be held hostage here with an applicant who says I won’t build this unless you allow us to take down this, where does it end? Where do we say no?”
Search for alternatives didn’t include underground lots
The Planning Committee had given city staff and the developer time over the summer to find other parking but none was found to the developers’ satisfaction. Taggart’s Derek Howe told the committee on August 25 that they had looked at several surface lots from Laurier to “past Somerset” and one to two blocks east and west of O’Connor. Assuming that parking would be allowed at 144 and 148 Nepean, Howe said that would accommodate up to 15 vehicles, leaving 15 spots to be found.
The current lot at 108 Nepean gives tenants their own dedicated stalls, rather than sharing spaces. Howe said when they looked for five to 10-year leases for exclusive dedicated parking in downtown surface lots, “the resounding answer is largely no. They are all contemplating some form of redevelopment and they are all reserving their rights.”
Could they purchase another lot? Howe said several lots close by have already been submitted for redevelopment as high rises. Others were priced higher than 142 Nepean. “There are not any available lots for sale of a similar size in close proximity to the office building with similar economic terms as the proposed lots at 142-8 Nepean.”
He said the agreement between Glenview and Taggart would not allow the office tenants at 190 O’Connor to park in the new building when it is built.
When asked by Councillor Mathieu Fleury if they had investigated the underground lots at Place Bell or World Exchange, Howe said they had not. “A stall in a below-grade structure would be significantly more expensive than a surface parking lot, so there is a material impact in terms of both proximity to the existing office building and an increase in parking costs to the landlord, which is not something that we were looking to enter into.”
Fleury noted that the Chateau Laurier had successfully signed long-term parking leases with the National Arts Centre for dedicated parking spaces. Councillor Jeff Leiper noted that exclusive parking in parking garages for commercial tenants “is not new. It’s not out of the ordinary. I just don’t see any signs of serious work in trying to find parking for a couple of dozen vehicles.”
“Breach of their right to enjoy parking across the street”
Howe argued that relocating the parking for tenants at 190 O’Connor would break their lease contract and “constitute a breach of their right to enjoy parking across the street.”
“In this time of COVID we’re trying to maintain a sense of stability and calmness as it relates to tenants coming back to this office building. Simply asking them to relocate from a walk across the street to several blocks away, while it may not seem significant to the members of this panel today, it is a significant concern for some of these tenants. That is one of the reasons they entered into leases in this building, precisely because they have parking available to them across the street. So it is not as easy as just saying, ‘Would you like to move five blocks up the street and park?’ ”
Extra protections for tenants
The fight to preserve the building did gain the tenants some extra protections. They were offered what Howe said was a better deal than the developers had ever offered before:
- a comparable unit in a building less than 100m away with the same number of bedrooms;
- no increase from their current rent for five years;
- a parking spot at the new building if they currently had one;
- payment of all reasonable moving expenses; and
- first right of refusal in one of the affordable units in the new building at 108 Nepean once it’s built.
This was further sweetened at council to either a) the promise that the rent in their replacement unit would continue to be subject to the rent increase guideline limit under the Residential Tenancies Act, with no balloon payment; or b) a lump sum of $15,000.
Howe said two of the four tenants in the building had already accepted these terms.
Mayor Jim Watson argued for demolition on the basis that it allowed another new residential building to go forward. “I’ve never seen a more generous agreement that will allow these individuals to remain at the same level of rent for a number of years … if anyone else comes and takes over this file there’s no commitment at all for those tenants.”
“Grotesque and unethical”: ACORN
The tenants at 142 Nepean had been supported by ACORN, the organization of low- to moderate-income families, which held several rallies to publicize their cause. ACORN member Bill Ewanick told Planning Committee on August 25 that it was “grotesque and unethical to be taking families out of a perfectly fine building to build more housing for vehicles, especially downtown near light rail stations and tons of other parking. Our city and our staff should not be part of the drive to push marginalized people into precarious housing and homelessness.”
Natalie Appleyard, who also spoke for ACORN at the meeting, said the developers’ offer was generous compared to what was legally required, but that was only because legal requirements don’t go far enough in honouring the right to housing. She noted that rents based on a percentage of market rents are not actually affordable for many low-income people, as opposed to rent geared to income.
City staff to investigate rental replacement by-law, tenant protections
ACORN also pointed out that, in June, two city committees directed city staff to study the creation of a rental replacement by-law that would prohibit the demolition or conversion of residential and rental housing of six or more units without their being replaced, unless special permission is granted.
The study will also consider tenant protections such as
- Providing tenants temporary accommodations or a rental top up
- Providing tenants the right of first refusal to the new units at the same rent they were paying previously and with the same number of bedrooms
- Assistance with actual moving costs
It’s not clear when 142 Nepean will be demolished. City staff said that a clause in the approval says demolition is not permitted until construction has started at 108 Nepean.
See previous BUZZ stories: