“It’s telling that MacKay-Lyons, whose main body of work is unabashedly contemporary, adheres strictly to this sense of place as derived from understanding its existing (or historic) vernacular materials, building culture and forms,” writes Brian Marshall.
“These core principles are neglected, ignored or improperly applied by far too many practicing architects and results in poor designs which, if constructed, assault the public’s senses with inferior built architecture,” writes Brian Marshall.
“We are being asked to accept the partial destruction of the Queen-Picton heritage district’s place identity on the very questionable altar of a cultural institution’s ask,” writes Brian Marshall.
“Properly executed, the restoration of this vital and unique piece of heritage will stand as a lasting legacy bequeathed to all Canadians,” writes Brian Marshall of the restoration of the David Secord House.
“As citizens, we have only two formal venues through which we can express our opinion. The first is our vote, once every four years. The second is through our voice,” writes Brian Marshall.
“Bluntly, the solutions here are many and varied — all a matter of sympathetic architectural design with delicate treatment of form, massing, scale and materiality, focused on blending in versus standing out,” writes Brian Marshall.
“Far too often a ghost facade prioritizes a superficial appearance over functional reality,” writes Brian Marshall of the new proposal for the Royal George Theatre.
“Sometimes the negative ‘press of events’ can lead us to believe that there are no ‘wins’ to celebrate. But, au contraire, there are,” writes Brian Marshall.
“There is an extremely disturbing trend in this province directed at marginalizing, diminishing or outright destruction of our shared history, built heritage and cultural landscapes,” writes Brian Marshall.
“The more public input that is provided at this juncture, the more likely it is that staff — principally Fiona Main, senior policy planner — will be able to meet their published timeline,” writes Brian Marshall, in the first of a series of columns analyzing the town’s latest official plan draft.
“In the event this report has not been completed — which would be odd given that we’re eight months into 2025 — the question then becomes why would staff be proceeding with this application in the absence of any form of validation of the applicant’s claims?” writes Brian Marshall.
in many jurisdictions, the sheer volume of important heritage assets which potentially stood to be lost was such that only a small fraction could be protected via Part IV designation.
“For the sake of the heritage district, town residents and the Shaw, I hope they succeed in tabling a design that will work,” writes Brian Marshall of the upcoming Royal George Theatre renovation.
“Change within the heritage district is one thing, but the wholesale flouting of the heritage district guidelines — specifically designed to preserve its ‘special character’ — is a horse of a different colour,” writes Brian Marshall.
The proponents of the Royal George Theatre redesign “are slavishly following the flawed protocols of the Venice Charter to produce a design which, in the view of several architects of my acquaintance, is utterly inappropriate within the context of the Queen–Picton historic district,” writes Brian Marshall.
“This application risks undermining the district’s founding principles by demolishing three 19th-century buildings and significantly altering the streetscapes of both Queen and Victoria streets,” writes Brian Marshall.
“Building more of the same type of homes faster will do nothing but add to the current glut on the market of properties that a significant segment of our society simply cannot afford or, in other cases, do not want,” writes Brian Marshall.
“I support the Shaw’s overture for redevelopment of the Royal George. However, it must be done sympathetically, within context and not at the expense of the Part V heritage district,” writes Brian Marshall.
“Good design costs no more than bad design, but bad design will scar a street, neighbourhood and community for decades,” writes Brian Marshall.
The clear-cutting of a forest in Virgil this year to make way for development is “only a single, relatively small, local example of the potential devastation which could, and likely will, be visited upon the landscape of this province should the Ford government’s Bill 5 be passed into law,” writes Brian Marshall.
“The scale, massing and, as mentioned earlier, the height of the proposed design are acceptable, particularly given the break-up of the building’s faces into smaller staggered elements,” writes Brian Marshall.
Brian Marshall details the introduction of Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, introduced this spring, which, Marshall writes, contains provisions around development and home construction that are helpful, and others that present serious concerns.
Describing the newly introduced Bill 5, Brian Marshall writes, “Quite simply, the proposed legislation seeks to gut environmental protection, continuing Ford’s earlier assaults in 2020 and 2022.”
“Any review panel composed of members from outside the municipality will lack “skin in the game” and a personal understanding of the history, built character and design vision necessary to ensure their recommendations are not simply an academic expression unaligned with the wishes and desires of the established community,” writes Brian Marshall.
“It is a fundamental mistake for a municipality to assume that urban planners and urban designers are interchangeable. A city or town must draw upon the expertise of both professions to successfully realize urban development that serves the needs of its residents,” writes Brian Marshall.
© All Rights Reserved, Niagara Now.
