Acorn

From the President's Pen: London Calling

I try to get this newsletter out on Tuesday mornings, but I was recovering from speaking to a full house at the London Branch's AGM. It has been one of the great pleasures of this job, getting out of the city and visiting branches all over the Province. Past President Catherine Nasmith said that she would be happy to continue doing them if I was too busy, but I never gave her a look-in.  Ian Gillespie of the London Free Pressinterviewed me before the meeting, and I have to say that it was one of the most pleasurable interviews I have done as President (since all of the others were over some heritage disaster). He certainly understood the message I was trying to say; my favourite part: "Alter argues that one of the best ways to cope with the problems posed by climate change is to focus less on "green gizmo" innovations and more on the common-sense design of old buildings.   We've been concentrating on the wrong things," he says. "For me, it all leads back to learning from our heritage buildings." Read it all in the London Free Press, and thanks to the London Branch for being such a gracious host and drumming up my biggest audience yet.

 

Eaton Centre: Renovation or Destruction?

When I was finishing architecture school, many of my contemporaries were spending months drawing the complex and wonderful tile patterns that formed the floor of the Eaton Centre, something that can be done in hours on modern computers but that took months then. Others were detailing the fabulous handrails that bent and curved and twisted, they were a marvel. Now they are all being ripped out; the mall owners want to "reinvigorate the retail experience".  Tye Farrow and Sharon Vanderkaay reflect on what is being lost in Built Heritage News:  Charles Eames, the eminent American designer wrote, "The details are not details - they make the product. It is, in the end, these details that give the product its life."   What made the design of Eaton Centre so powerful? It was the sum of many details, where each element, no matter how apparently insignificant, was carefully designed to complement other elements and contribute to the greater whole. For example, the railings were not standardized assemblies, but rather specifically designed as sculptural elements to harmonize with the steel space frame of the galleria overhead and to elegantly integrate with the floors and walls. Their perfect proportions emphasized the vertical thrust of the space and were complemented by floors of crystalline white terrazzo trimmed with warm-toned Welsh quarry tiles and pebbled aggregates. The tiles were carefully arranged to visually compress the expansive floors to a human scale. Those design details were intrinsic to Zeidler's creation and thereby to its overwhelming popularity and financial success.   They wonder,    Would citizens of Paris condone a facelift of the decorative grillwork of the Eiffel tower? Or replacement of their Art Nouveau subway entrances with an updated structure?   We should not have missed this one; The new stuff is generic and boring, like every other glassy mall in the world. The Eaton Centre wasdifferent, and special. It was copied everywhere, but nobody else put the care into the floors and handrails like this, anywhere. Tye concludes:   As a society we need to engage in a larger discussion regarding the essential elements of an enduring design. Increased visual literacy can help us bypass the "oops" step of performing unnecessary surgery that threatens the building's life.

 

The site of Upper Canada's First Parliament Buildings Is Important to All Canadians

ACO Manager Rollo Myers has been instrumental in the fight to save the Parliament Buildings site. He reports:   The return of the site of Upper Canada's first Parliament Buildings 1798 (Front & Berkeley) to public use has been sought since the mid-1990s. The archaeological dig in 2000 showed foundations and evidence of burnt floorboards dating to the American attack in 1813  which prompted the retaliatory attack on Washington in 1814 that saw the burning of the White House.  It's a site of importance to all Canadians.   There are three parcels involved:  one owned by the City; one by the Province; and one still in private ownership. Land-swap negotiations with the current owner, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ontario Heritage Trust appear stalled.   A concept has been developed at the community level based on a new opportunity that wasn't on the table before, involving city-owned land across the street. Local resident, architect Michael Kirkland, and advocates for appropriate recognition of the site, have a plan for what might come next - a relocated regional library, an interpretive centre and public open space.  Support from community groups and elected officials at all levels of government has been gratifying.   The owner, perhaps dismayed by the protracted negotiations, has filed an application for a 57-storey condo.    Returning the site to public ownership is the City's stated goal. It will require good will and cooperation to arrive at a satisfactory solution.  Hopefully in time for the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.   Read more: Chris Hume in The Star

 

Time is Almost Up For Students and Young Professionals to Answer Our Survey!

The ACO has been trying a number of initiatives to attract a new generation of heritage activists, and would prefer to do it without losing great swathes of historic buildings like we did last year. Kayla Jonas of the committee writes:   The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario would like to hear your opinions. We have created a survey to gauge the interest of youth (both students (up to age 26) and young professionals/artisans) in the organization. Your answers will be confidential and the survey will take approximately 5-10 minutes.    This week is the last week for responses to the survey; it will close at 10pm on Friday March 25th. Respond here!

 

A #Builtheritage Twitter Chat About Adaptive Reuse

Board member Kayla Jonas organized a wonderful tweetfest a few weeks ago; I asked her to explain and review:   At the beginning of March was the first ever #builtheritage Twitter chat.  It was hosted by myself (@jonaskayla) and two co-moderators from the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the U.S (@presconf and @@presnation).    For those of you not familiar, Twitter allows you to write messages in 140 characters. A twitter chat is a designated time for people to chat about a certain topic; a hashtag (for instance #builtheritage) means that you can see everyone else that is talking about that topic.    The topic of the first #builtheritage chat was Adaptive Reuse. During the hour that the chat lasted over 109 people participated from all over North America, from Texas to Miami, Washington, Toronto, London, Brantford and @lloydalter even joined us from a heritage trailer park in Florida!     This is just at sampling of the ideas that emerged; here is the fulltranscript of the chat, and I posted a recap on my blog.   I hope that this has inspired you to joining us on the next chat April 6that 4pm. Follow #builtheritage to participate.   [ed. note: I will be there!!!]

 

Heritage Resources Centre Workshop on Energy and Heritage Buildings

A spirited debate has been raging around whether older buildings are energy gluttons, costing huge amounts of money to heat, or whether they are the poster children for conservation. Vinyl window salesmen prowl the streets selling their wares on the promise of fuel bill savings and freedom from maintenance forever. Building contractors tell us that new buildings with LEED certificates of various colours will help us save the planet from global warming. This workshop addresses many of the myths and polemics with solid research evidence designed to clear the fog and assist homeowners, planners and building officials to make intelligent and informed decisions.    Dates: April 2nd & 3rd, 2011 Times: 10am - 4pm Location: REEP House, Kitchener (20 Mill Street)  FEES: The workshop fee for practicing plannersand other concerned citizens will be $225*.   View a PDF here

In a Nutshell....

While the editorial board of the National Post may complain about heritage, we can always count on Peter Kuitenbrouwer to defend it and write terrific articles, like he did with Demolition by Neglect. He complains about the rotting away of two of Toronto's most prominent buildings and gives the last word to Past President Catherine Nasmith: Cathy Nasmith, a prominent heritage architect in Toronto, notes that "enforcement on demolition by neglect tends to be complaint-driven." In that case, consider this my complaint.  More in the National Post.

 

Paul Oberman, Friend and Supporter of the ACO, Killed in Plane Crash

Paul was killed last night, while flying from Halifax to Quebec City.

It was an honour last fall to stand with Paul Oberman as the ACO gave him an award for his tireless work trying to save the hangars at Downsview Airport. In fact, whenever there was a heritage issue during my time as President, I would consult with Paul. He had a real vision of heritage, and spared no expense to do it right. His projects are the background for almost every heritage image of Toronto; I used to joke with him that if he had a nickel for every tourist postcard shot of the Flatiron Building, he would be a rich man. 

I last saw Paul when we appeared together on the Goldhawk TV show, discussing the Empress/ Edison hotel fire. Paul was full of ideas about how to make heritage economically viable, how to change the tax structure and create incentives. He was always full of ideas and suggestions, always willing to help, always willing to give advice. 

During the Downsview battle we talked and texted all day long, as he flew his plane from Ottawa to Florida to wherever he had to go to get to the decision-makers. It was so exciting, our early morning rendez-vous at Downsview to see if the equipment was moving, to plot our actions for the day. He was so full of energy and enthusiasm and knowledge; we had plans for changing the tax system for heritage, for taking all the knowledge that Woodcliffe had about heritage renovation and documenting it. I don't know how we will do this without him.

Paul recently wrote an article for Teknion's Design is Intelligence Made Visible. I will leave the last words to him: 

"Historic buildings integrating old and new are, for me, the lifeblood of a city. If we don't care about renewing our historic buildings, if we don't care about preserving them by finding new uses for them, what will we care about? How will we create a vibrant urban environment consisting of exciting and remarkable built forms if we turn our backs on the great achievements- and even the mere survivals- of our past? If we don't value our heritage, how will we create anything of value in the future? A desirable future, I submit, is tied to our past."  

National Post calls for End of Environmental and Heritage Protection in the name of "Property Rights"

The National Post has been one of the biggest media supporters of heritage in Ontario, often editorializing about it. But they lost it last week, looking at the issue of property rights in an editorial on Friday.:

"The absence of a constitutional protection for property rights -Canada is one of few industrialized countries without one -means that municipalities and provinces can run roughshod over property rights without fear of reprisal. They can impose Heritage Building designations, which prevent the redevelopment of buildings even when they are in a state of disrepair. They can declare land to be part of a greenbelt, and decimate both its potential uses and its value overnight. They can deny citizens building permits to modify their homes, even when they are disabled, on the grounds of cultural preservation. The list of potential -and real -abuses is long, and citizens have no Charter grounds on which to fight back."

Ah, the greenbelt, which so horribly calls farmland farmland, so egregiously prohibiting farmers from planting houses, a much more profitable crop. But of more significance to us is the horror of imposing Heritage Designations and prohibiting modifications on grounds of Cultural Preservation? Where do we start?

1) if only it were so, we wouldn't be having the problems that we do have across this province, of municipalities refusing to even list buildings, let alone impose heritage designations because of their belief in "property rights."

2) Why pick on heritage here, or a poor protected bird? Why can't I run an auto paint shop in my backyard, a tannery in my basement, or build twelve stories high? What right does the City have to restrict what I do on my property?

3) I challenge the Post to name one other country besides the United States with explicit property rights, and to explain why the United states has a) zoning b) heritage restrictions c) greenbelts e) environmental legislation restricting actions and uses; d) expropriation of private land for commercial purposes, confirmed by the Supreme Court in Kelo vs New London.

In fact nobody has these so-called "property rights," because even in the USA, people realize that there is a common societal good that is sometimes more important. If these guys don't like heritage or environmental regulations because they can't build subdivisions or kill endangered species, be honest about it.

The Greenest Building Is The One Already Standing.

 
Three years ago at the ACO conference in Collingwood, Donovan Rypkema described the green rating system, LEED, as "Lunatic Environmentalists Enthusiastically Demolishing".  He noted that "going green" was being used as an excuse and justification for destroying historic buildings and neighbourhoods. Here is an example: There was an interesting case at the OMB recently, where a homeowner in the Kingsway wanted to knock down a bungalow and build a 4248 square foot monster home. While it was not a heritage house, it was in character with the neighbourhood and the case has relevance to heritage, since it is such a common excuse. The applicant noted that the new house would be LEED certified, " and must maintain its 'green' features to be able to use this internationally recognized label".

M.C Denhez wrote the entertaining decision (PDF Here), emphasis mine:

"The Applicants' case opened with emphasis on LEED. The architect's letter called LEED "the best guarantee with regard to the quality"; and the Applicants' Planner told the Board that "environmental sustainability will be promoted". Those words demand consideration: history is riddled with instances where innovation was hamstrung by overly literal adherence to rules, and where environmentalism was poorly served by hidebound regulation.

The Board must be cautious, however, concerning "sustainability" and various trademarks for "green building" - not for fear of overextending the cause of environmental innovation but, on the contrary, of trivializing it. The Board takes notice that, with so many reported attempts by all and sundry to oversell environmental benefits (notably to expedite approvals), a new word was coined in North America - "greenwashing". It also applies to construction....

Does this project nonetheless deserve favourable treatment for "promoting environmental sustainability"? In a province where sending a plastic bag to landfill is considered environmentally problematic, the notion of turning entire buildings into landfill - in the name of environmental sustainability - would surprise at least some observers. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that such claims are no shortcut around the Planning Act."

As I like to say, the greenest building is the one already standing. LEED is not an excuse to demolish and build a monster home.