More than bricks and mortar

Earlier this month, my two-year term as president of the London Region branch of Architectural Conservancy Ontario (or ACO London for short) came to an end, and I felt it would be worthwhile to reflect on that time.  ACO is a non-for-profit organization with 25 branches across the province with a mission to "preserve Ontario's architectural and environmental heritage by helping communities and owners preserve buildings and structures of architectural merit, and places of natural beauty or interest".

During my tenure as president of ACO London, I learned a lot about our city beyond just architecture:  history; land-use planning; culture; urban revitalization. Buildings (old and new) are more than just bricks and mortar—they are a major thread in our cultural fabric.  The growth of our city tells the story of its people, and if we choose to thoughtlessly bulldoze "old buildings" for the sake of "progress" to build new structures in their place, then we will become disconnected from our past and permanently lose that part of our culture.  There are also the environmental and economic impacts of simply tearing down a building - the greenest brick is the one already in the wall!

London is rich with built heritage, and in general most people have an affinity for buildings with unique or interesting architecture.  Those who become members of ACO are typically those with a particular interest in heritage conservation, and end up speaking on behalf of buildings that can't fight for themselves.

One of the biggest losses during the past two years was that of Camden Terrace. A true architectural gem, and a rare example of Victorian row-houses, this complex on Talbot Street was left for years to rot: it's called "demolition by neglect" and unfortunately it tends to be effective in persuading cities to allow a building to be torn down instead of being restored. Cities such as London need to take a hard look at by-laws pertaining to vacant properties, but that's for another blog.

Camden Terrace in 1987.  (Photo courtesy of the City of London planning department.)

The loss of this building—the property is currently an empty lot full of broken iconic London yellow brick—really stung.  What's worse is that the promise to build 30+ storeys on the land right away was not kept, and the viability of the project is still in question.  Camden Terrace will serve for a long time as an example of urban planning gone wrong.

Camden Terrace on April 22, 2018.

Buildings of all ages give that tangible connection to distinguishable periods in our history, and by no means are meant to be placed under glass to never change for the rest of time.  Heritage conservation is about maintaining streetscapes while allowing for additions and new construction.  Doing the latter in conjunction with an old building is the most sustainable method of introducing a new building: reducing waste going to the landfill; retaining important cultural inventory; and better payback on the final building by way of more demand for units (even if it costs a little more up front).

One highlight of recent note is the acceptance to incorporate two historical barns into a new subdivision on the city's northern border.  After advocacy from ACO London and others, the developer worked the clay-tile barns into the plans for the new subdivision.  They will be re-purposed likely for commercial use and will give a unique flavour to a new neighbourhood.

One of the barns at 660 Sunningdale Road East. (Photo from The London Free Press.)

Of course, there was much to celebrate during my two years as president.  2016 was the 50th anniversary year for the London Region branch, founded in July 1966 by four dedicated Londoners who wanted to see the Ridout Street complex saved from demolition.  50 years later, those buildings still stand and are in full use, currently as a private school.  It was an enormous honour to have served during this important milestone in our branch's history.

Receiving a certificate of congratulations on the branch's 50th anniversary from the office of London North Centre's Member of Parliament.

2017 was the sesquicentennial of Canada's confederation, a year filled with reflection on our nation's past.  Our branch was very active in promoting the history of our city that one experiences through its buildings, and as a society we must continue to value those connections as London continues to grow.

I look forward to serving another two years with ACO London as past-president.  The work is never done when you're an advocate for something as vital as the shared cultural resource we call built heritage.

It's not how dense you make it...

All right, everyone, now say it with me!  "It's not how dense you make it; it's how you make it dense."

Good.  Now with that out of the way, let's explore how we can have exciting new buildings in our city that have a positive effect on existing architecture, and more specifically heritage buildings.

By integrating heritage buildings into the design of new builds from the get-go as a foundation for the new construction, a city keeps its character while allowing for higher density.  Responsible and forward-thinking land owners will maintain the buildings on their properties right up until the time of construction, and throughout, in order to preserve the integrity of the existing structures.

Camden Terrace in 1988.  Photo courtesy of the estate of Lois Marshall. 

Lately in London, we have had quite the opposite, from the demolition of 505/507/511 Talbot Street to make way for another uninspired concrete monolith (think of the hideous Renaissance towers on Ridout Street North between King Street and York Street) to the pending destruction of 175/179/181 King Street (although thankfully 183 King Street will remain) for another 30-storey tower.

Now don't get me wrong: we need a proper mix of high-rises, mid-rises, and low-rises in the downtown.  New buildings are always going to be required to regenerate and grow a city.  Making them the right density in the right locations builds a city inwards and upwards, which is what is needed instead of outwards and sprawling.  Urban infill is a good thing and a necessity; however, it has to be done with consideration for the existing built environment and adaptive reuse in the forefront, not as an afterthought.

Camden Terrace (479 to 489 Talbot Street) is under threat of complete demolition.
These row houses have a significant and rare form and style, designed by the renowned London architect Samuel Peters (click for short video on Peters and Camden Terrace).  This brilliant gem in our downtown core tells the story of how our city grew and evolved, and warrants a respectful integration with this infill development.  Instead, the developer prefers to tear the building down to make way for a 9-storey mixed commercial/residential building as the first phase, with plans for two towers (also mixed use) on the north (29 storeys) and south (38 storeys) as the second phase.  Plans also show a three-storey parking garage in the back.

I am a fan of the mixed use: it is ideal for a city where we want people to work and play all within walking distance of their home, which has huge benefits economically, socially, and environmentally.  The design of the nine-storey first phase can easily integrate the entirety of the original row houses, with appropriate modifications to permit the desired entranceway as proposed in the designs.

Camden Terrace in 1987.  Photo courtesy the City of London planning department.

The London Plan aspires for no more aboveground parking, and rightly so:  parking in the inner core start to disappear with driverless cars and rapid transit, and therefore the people who are living and working downtown are less likely to own a vehicle.  The proposal has four levels of underground parking and three levels of aboveground.  In reality, the aboveground parking will become obsolete in the very near future and would be better use of space to expand the nine-storey construction: this keeps the nine-storey portion virtually unchanged (or potentially larger) and allows room for Camden Terrace to remain. Talk about win-win! The investment for the developer and the city will be huge if all phases are built: don't we want this done right for ourselves and for future generations?

Adaptive reuse has become prominent recently with the Cornerstone Building, the London Roundhouse, The Cube, and many more.  Not only does it maintain a city's character, it is also easier on the environment by not sending tonnes upon tonnes of building materials into an already-strained landfill site.  

Camden Terrace must be given designation and maintained in situ, as any needed changes to the buildings can be considered through a heritage alteration permit.  In fact, the London Roundhouse remains in place and will have a tower built behind it: why can't we do the same here?

Heritage needs to have a voice at the table, and be included from the beginning of projects impacting our shared historical buildings.  A mature city values its heritage.  Other mid-sized cities in Ontario have been willing and able to push the creative inclusion of heritage buildings into new developments of various size:  isn't London good enough to have the same?  Shouldn't we demand better for ourselves?