Beyond the plaque: Champagne Bath 

By Nancy Miller Chenier

In 1987, the Champagne Bath at 321 King Edward Avenue was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The heritage plaque on this building  heralds the fact that the Champagne Bath is “a serious work of architecture, a significant social document, and a distinctive element in the King Edward Avenue streetscape.” This building continues to be all of these things and more to the community. 

Since opening to the public in 1924, this landmark heritage building has witnessed a century of human interaction. Other than W.E. Noffke, the prolific Ottawa architect, perhaps the most significant individual at the opening was Napoleon Champagne, then serving as mayor and the namesake of the building. Born in Lowertown, lawyer and career politician Champagne was apparently as “effervescent” as his name. 

People actually lived in the building for a time. The building layout included an apartment on the second floor for an onsite building superintendent. The first occupants in the 1920s were Leandre and Louisa Ricard and the last in the 1980s were Charles and Jeanne Bergeron.

Early patrons of the Champagne Bath perhaps justified the prime reason for locating this facility in Lowertown. Social reformers promoting the public bath facility often equated physical cleanliness with moral cleanliness and in the 1920s, many Lowertown homes did not have indoor plumbing. 

In response, the Champagne Bath services included both necessary items such as towels, bathing suits, and soap as well as complementary items such as hairbrushes and hair dryers.

The facility was designed with separate entrances and swim times for men and women. Early attendance figures suggest that men and boys greatly outnumbered the women and girls. In 1926, public debate over the propriety of men and women sharing the same pool was vigorous and extensive. Media reports suggested that the Roman Catholic church and French-Canadian societies were opposed to mixed swimming. After almost two years of discussion, mixed bathing was initially allowed one night a week at Champagne and then increased when it proved to be a revenue generator.  Stories in the Ottawa Citizen suggest that mixed swimming policies may have been variable until the 1960s.

Cleanliness was considered next to godliness and, over time, the Champagne Bath pool was frequented by people of all religious denominations. Individuals and groups from Lowertown’s large Jewish community were regulars. News reports in the 1930s indicated that the pool could be closed for repairs on Jewish holidays when these patrons would be occupied elsewhere in religious observances. In the 1950s, the Roman Catholic Grey Nuns also used the pool, initially requesting that no male instructors or lifeguards be present but continued their swims when the option was refused. Currently, the pool at the Champagne Fitness Centre can be used by churches that prefer baptism by full immersion for individuals seeking membership in their congregations.

The pool was open to multiple clubs as well as to public and separate schools. Swimming competitions were frequent as recreational sport increased in popularity. But despite the diverse use, the city was continually challenged by the financial cost of operating the facility. Within a decade, Champagne Bath faced its first threat when heating was viewed as too expensive. Proposals to close it were debated over subsequent decades and weighed against public arguments that the building’s value could not be measured monetarily. 

In the 1980s, the facility was seen as outdated and too costly to convert to a “leisure centre” that could attract more people. As well the city’s rationale pointed out the addition of the 1970s Lowertown pool a few blocks away on Cobourg Street. Pushback by the Friends of Champagne Bath resulted in renovations, completed in 1990, that included a saltwater pool, a sauna, an exercise area in the former caretaker space, and the addition of a ceramic mural by Mimi Cabri and Jill Elder.

The battle in the 1980s led to the effort to designate the building and to the statement on the plaque that “the loss of the Champagne Bath would greatly diminish (…) the otherwise undistinguished stretch of King Edward Avenue.” Now, more than a century after it opened, the building still stands as one of multiple heritage-designated landmarks on this otherwise undistinguished, divisive, and dangerous truck route.