Les Soeurs de la Visitation Convent Site [114 Richmond Rd] | 6x3f & 1x4f | Proposed

[J.OT13]

As a new developer has purchased the Soeurs de la Visitation Convent, I've decided to create a new thread. For the original Ashcroft proposal + Q West, see the old thread here: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=178158&page=30&highlight=visitation

DevApps is up. Documents should be posted tomorrow. Here's the info we have so far.

Description : project consists of 6 new stacked townhomes blocks of 126 units and a four storey lowrise apartment building of 47 units parking provided by two underground parking garages.

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D02-02-26-0027/details

[rocketphish]

Concorde Properties is proposing a development featuring six (6) back-to-back, stacked, three (3) storey townhouse buildings ranging from 18 to 24 units per building located generally in the southern portion of the subject lands. In the northern portion of the property, the existing heritage building is proposed to have its western half removed to accommodate a four (4) storey, 47-unit apartment building. The remaining heritage building is to be renovated to accommodate office and at-grade commercial uses.

The proposed development features an internal road that will accommodate three (3) surface parking spaces in the northeast corner while leading to below grade parking that will be located beneath the low-rise apartment building and the block of stacked townhouses that are situated in the western portion of the property. The renovated heritage building will retain its existing inner courtyard area as well as the aforementioned, tree-lined “Nun’s Walk” along the eastern edge of the property which will formally connect to the Byron Linear Pathway to the south.

In total, the proposed development is proposed to include 173 residential units, including 31 1-BR, 136 2-BR, and 6 3-BR units. There will be a total of 125 residential and 27 visitor parking spaces.

Existing and new trees are proposed within the development and the abutting property lines, establishing a continuous green ribbon within the development that will compliment the mature tree canopy that is planned for retention within the “Nun’s Walk”. Additional landscaping is proposed within the interior courtyard, contributing to a pleasant microclimate and pedestrian-friendly environment for residents and office tenants.


Architect: Project1 Studio


Development application:
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-26-0036/details


Location:




Siteplan:




Renderings:

[rumple-stilts]

Pack 'em and stack 'em! Looks very sardine-like.
Very sad to see the western half of the heritage building complex, including the chapel, get taken out for a four floor box.

[Mille Sabords]

It could be rescued if they used a more heritage look for those new buildings. The flat roofs and boxy design clash too much.

[kwoldtimer]

The outlier is the heritage structure, not the new proposal.

[J.OT13]

Not sure how I feel about this one. It's a lot of plain modern buildings. I would prefer putting everything in four of the mid-rise building away from the convent to fully preserve it. If the stacked townhomes are essential, then a more traditional style, maybe red brick so the stone convent can stand out, with gabled roofs.

I despise these modern flat roofed infills when gabled roofs fit in far better into existing neighbourhoods. I assume flat roofs are easier to build, but gables are probably better in the long run.

End of the day, better to have half the building preserved than none of it.

[golfguy9]

Concorde has some pretty nice infills in Westboro. This would be bigger than anything they've ever done, hopefully it's executed well.

[rocketphish]

Townhouses proposed as part of partial demolition plan for Westboro convent site

By Charlie Senack, OBJ
April 29, 2026

A new development proposal has been filed for the long-vacant former Sisters of the Visitation convent property in Westboro — the latest chapter in a redevelopment effort that has stretched nearly two decades. According to a planning application now under review at city hall, Ottawa-based Concorde Properties is seeking zoning changes to allow new residential development on portions of the site at 114 Richmond Rd., while preserving the historic convent building as part of a future adaptive reuse project. Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper said in a recent ward newsletter that he sees the proposal as a “pragmatic path forward.” “The proposal by Concorde Properties would demolish roughly half of the existing convent building, restore the remaining portion, and see the construction of six stacked townhouse structures containing 126 units, along with a four-storey low-rise apartment building with 47 units,” wrote Leiper. “There would be 152 parking spots built in underground parking garages, accessed from Leighton Terrace.” It’s Leiper’s understanding that the restored convent space would be used as an office by Concorde Properties.

The application marks an early step in what will likely be a complex process tied to both heritage protections and the site’s unusual planning history. The convent complex — known locally as The Elms — dates back to the mid-19th century.

In 1865, a stone house was built on the site and later lived in by James Skead, a well-known senator and lumberman who helped shape Westboro. Then, in 1910, a cloistered order of nuns moved in and built the monastery connected to the house.

According to Heritage Ottawa, it ”followed a medieval plan with a monastic church in the northwest corner, designed in a French Classical style with Gothic Revival interior and an attached cloister court.” Inside was a chapel and an infirmary, palliative care suite, office for the Mother Superior, refectory, kitchen, bedrooms for the sisters and workrooms. The building is protected under the Ontario Heritage Act and cannot be demolished, though its future use has remained uncertain for years.

The property was purchased by Ashcroft Homes in 2009 as part of a broader redevelopment vision for the lands surrounding the convent. While several mid-rise residential buildings were eventually constructed along Richmond Road, the historic convent itself has remained vacant and is deteriorating. Last year, court filings showed the developer had entered receivership after falling behind on loan payments and accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars in property tax arrears. In total, $723,567 of tax arrears built up on the property, and another roughly $140,000 was owed to a contractor.

City officials have previously raised concerns about the structural condition of the building, which has cracks in its foundation that prompted orders for engineering assessments and stabilization work.

Planning documents filed with the city outline requested zoning amendments to enable additional residential development on the site’s south parcel, alongside continued efforts to integrate the heritage convent building into a future mixed-use concept. Leiper said residents will have opportunities to review the plans as they move through the municipal approval process. Because the convent building itself is a designated heritage structure, any alterations or additions will also require approval through the city’s heritage review process — something that has shaped earlier versions of redevelopment proposals for the site. Leiper said he hopes his council colleagues will support the new development, noting that another tall tower is not proposed.

“The convent is a treasure in our neighbourhood, but has sat vacant and decaying for fifteen years. As councillors, including myself, have noted for years, cities in Ontario have very few powers to force owners to maintain heritage properties,” said Leiper. “The portion of the convent that Concorde is proposing to restore and put to use would preserve an important part of Westboro’s history.”

https://obj.ca/townhouses-proposed-as-part-of-partial-demolition-plan-for-westboro-convent-site/

[rumple-stilts]

"The building is protected under the Ontario Heritage Act and cannot be demolished" and Leiper says, "The convent is a treasure in our neighbourhood, but has sat vacant and decaying for fifteen years. As councillors, including myself, have noted for years, cities in Ontario have very few powers to force owners to maintain heritage properties”.
So I guess Leiper is ready to roll-over and not pressure the new owner to respect the heritage designation, saving, and integrating at least the 120 year old church? This entire project was initially approved on the basis of retaining the heritage buildings.

[Ottawacurious]

Leiper hosting open house on 13th, a couple days after comments are due on devapos (he does point that out)

Convent site re-zoning application
The full application is now online for the former convent site at 114 Richmond. The new owner is proposing a partial and significant demolition of the existing convent building, and a dense low-rise development on the remainder of the property. I'm hosting an online information session on May 13 at 7 pm. That will be held on Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89513678322 with passcode 050147. I've posted my look at the application here.

[J.OT13]

• Video Link

[Ottawacurious]

Listened to a bunch of it. Highlights.
All rentals. Likely starting on double stacked townhouses first. Likely late 2027 but more likely early 2028. Entire project takes 2 yrs to build. All wood construction.

The half depth underground parking was also interesting. It's only about 6' underground. They don't expect to hit bedrock at that level. Then the will build a 1 floor townhouse that has a front yard and back yard. Then a 2 story town house ontop. They are aiming for families. The underground garages (one under three of the townhouses) will have three access points to walk into. One entrance exit for cars shared by the 'tower' (turn left vs turn right). Only one level of parking for either garage.

Far too many ppl concerned about the elm trees. Construction company vows to plant mature trees for whatever must be removed. They want to maintain the nuns walk and ensure the public use it.

Didn't hear anyone raise concern about demolishing the chapel. They are hoping for the remaining convent to be restaurant or café. The remainder being converted office space.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

Listened to a bunch of it. Highlights.
All rentals. Likely starting on double stacked townhouses first. Likely late 2027 but more likely early 2028. Entire project takes 2 yrs to build. All wood construction.

The half depth underground parking was also interesting. It's only about 6' underground. They don't expect to hit bedrock at that level. Then the will build a 1 floor townhouse that has a front yard and back yard. Then a 2 story town house ontop. They are aiming for families. The underground garages (one under three of the townhouses) will have three access points to walk into. One entrance exit for cars shared by the 'tower' (turn left vs turn right). Only one level of parking for either garage.

Far too many ppl concerned about the elm trees. Construction company vows to plant mature trees for whatever must be removed. They want to maintain the nuns walk and ensure the public use it.

Didn't hear anyone raise concern about demolishing the chapel. They are hoping for the remaining convent to be restaurant or café. The remainder being converted office space.

Disappointed no one was concerned about the loss of the chapel honestly.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

Listened to a bunch of it. Highlights.
All rentals. Likely starting on double stacked townhouses first. Likely late 2027 but more likely early 2028. Entire project takes 2 yrs to build. All wood construction.

The half depth underground parking was also interesting. It's only about 6' underground. They don't expect to hit bedrock at that level. Then the will build a 1 floor townhouse that has a front yard and back yard. Then a 2 story town house ontop. They are aiming for families. The underground garages (one under three of the townhouses) will have three access points to walk into. One entrance exit for cars shared by the 'tower' (turn left vs turn right). Only one level of parking for either garage.

Far too many ppl concerned about the elm trees. Construction company vows to plant mature trees for whatever must be removed. They want to maintain the nuns walk and ensure the public use it.

Didn't hear anyone raise concern about demolishing the chapel. They are hoping for the remaining convent to be restaurant or café. The remainder being converted office space.

Watched the presentation part and better understand what you were saying. The semi buried parking is an interesting way of doing it, keeping costs low and making for a unique project.

I like the one drive lane that ends at the parking entrances at the very edge of the site. Mostly pedestrian otherwise. Larger units, many of them with doors to the outside.

I would preferred more traditional architecture and maybe red brick so the Convent can stand out. And of course, wish they kept the entire convent. I do appreacaite the "ghost walls" to mark where the chapel was.

Happy to hear the convent's main level will be used as restaurant space. Hope they maintian as much of the interior heritage as possible.

[OTownandDown]

The perennial question: "Is it still heritage if it needs to be demolished and rebuilt to match?" and also "Isn't the heritage the inside part?" or is this just NIMBYism so that *less development* will show up in people's back yard? Or a more fun question: What happens if there's an earthquake and people on their nice condo balconies get squished?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

The perennial question: "Is it still heritage if it needs to be demolished and rebuilt to match?" and also "Isn't the heritage the inside part?" or is this just NIMBYism so that *less development* will show up in people's back yard? Or a more fun question: What happens if there's an earthquake and people on their nice condo balconies get squished?

It's not getting demolished and rebuilt. They are just demolishing one wing and restoring the oldest part.

NIMBYism would be not wanting new development here. Sometimes I wonder if people nowadays think heritage is exclusively a NIMBY tactic (outside Parliament and nearby pre-war Government buildings).

Personally, I'm happy to see new development, but not at the expense of heritage.

[OTownandDown]

If you go to the site, you'll be struck by how bad this place is, structurally.

Its not a function of deterioration through neglect, as far as I could see, I think it's poor initial construction and failed foundations causing extreme cracking and out-of-plane walls. Not a surprise, and comparable to other catholic residential/education constructions from the era.

My point is, if you want to save the western half of the heritage property, it's much like Sussex, the entire structure needs to be demolished to the foundations, and rebuilt 'to match'. In that way its a Disney version of itself, something people can sigh and say 'oh isn't that nice' but it's not the original. (Kind of like Simons/Rideau, which is the best example of the method, and something to be proud of for CF, because they did a great job and it was worthwhile).

I'm all for heritage in the right place, but we'll need to accept the fact that for this building, it's not actually the original, just a carbon copy so people can feel good. And if it's done for the sake of anti-development, it seems wasteful, because a restaurant/cafe/random commercial development tucked back there isn't really going to recoup the funds required for a full heritage rebuild, it's damn expensive.

Personally, I really liked the original plan with the stepped tower. Its a shame the NIMBY's and the City d*cked around so much (and there's the bankruptcy issue too, I guess lol)

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It's not getting demolished and rebuilt. They are just demolishing one wing and restoring the oldest part.

NIMBYism would be not wanting new development here. Sometimes I wonder if people nowadays think heritage is exclusively a NIMBY tactic (outside Parliament and nearby pre-war Government buildings).

Personally, I'm happy to see new development, but not at the expense of heritage.

[J.OT13]

Ogilvy on Rideau is a bit ironic since the structure was actually in fine shape. They could have saved it easily, but I suspect the "need" for parking was their main reasoning for demolishing, with layout coming in as a secondary motive.

I hope they are able to save the actual building. I won't be as enthused about the development if they need to rebuild. I'm generally against modern replicas of heritage buildings, but a replica using original materials could be worthwhile to a certain extent as a memory of what the site used to be.

I don't think any of it is NIMBYism. The convent is a small part of the entire project.

The previous design was oversized compared to the convent. I didn't mind the buildings farther out being that scale, but the one by the convent should have been smaller in scale. I don't remember if this was approved or not, but I don't think it was rejected by the City. Ashcroft made the choice to abandon the convent and let it rot, and they weren't in a position to build up the rest of the site.

[OTownandDown]

The chapel wing is definitely not salvageable in it's current state. Three walls will need to be dismantled and rebuilt. Once a masonry wall like that becomes out of plumb, cracked, or bowed, there's no 'salvaging'. The only 'repair' is to take it apart and re-stack the stones vertically.

For Ogilvie, I'm sure the back-up wall, steel ties, and bedding mortars were all in very poor condition after sitting for decades with no maintenance. Again, to 'Salvage' something in that state requires carefully removing and rebuilding. At least they removed it all, cleaned what they could, and rebuilt it to actually match.

To me, the history is on the inside anyways. Once the inside is stripped, drywalled, and painted white, the history is gone. Other than people feeling a sense of nostalgic comfort just looking at a building as they walk by, and sighing about the good old days. Neighbourhood character is a construct. We just need to be able to dictate better what we actually want.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Ogilvy on Rideau is a bit ironic since the structure was actually in fine shape. They could have saved it easily, but I suspect the "need" for parking was their main reasoning for demolishing, with layout coming in as a secondary motive.

I hope they are able to save the actual building. I won't be as enthused about the development if they need to rebuild. I'm generally against modern replicas of heritage buildings, but a replica using original materials could be worthwhile to a certain extent as a memory of what the site used to be.

I don't think any of it is NIMBYism. The convent is a small part of the entire project.

The previous design was oversized compared to the convent. I didn't mind the buildings farther out being that scale, but the one by the convent should have been smaller in scale. I don't remember if this was approved or not, but I don't think it was rejected by the City. Ashcroft made the choice to abandon the convent and let it rot, and they weren't in a position to build up the rest of the site.