Although it has happened many times and in many places during the past, U.S. President Donald Trump has provided the opportunity for a new generation to bear witness that, if a falsehood is told often enough, with enough conviction, by a figure of authority, there are people who will come to assume it is the truth.

And, as the new fiction is passed from person to person, more and more people come to believe it as fact — and thus, an urban myth is created.

The Oxford Dictionary defines a myth as “a widely held but false belief or idea.” The Cambridge Dictionary defines an urban myth as “a story or statement that is not true but is often repeated, and believed by many to be true.”

Myths permeate our society, recently widely spread, abetted and profligated by social media influencers and platforms, adversely affecting many facets of that social construct.

As a simple example, let’s consider a few of the myths that surround the heritage designation of a property. 

Myth 1: “It is more expensive to insure a designated property than a non-designated property.”

This is false. In a statement to the Kingston Whig Standard’s reporter, Elliot Ferguson in his Feb. 10 article, “Heritage designations shouldn’t affect insurance rate, industry says,” the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Gaming (the ministry responsible for heritage in this province) declared, “Insurance premiums should not go up because of heritage designation.”

This was echoed by Brett Weltman, spokesperson for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in the same article, who stated, “Insurance companies consider a lot of details when setting insurance rates, but said heritage designations are not among them.”

Reality is that it is the age of the building, electrical, plumbing, HVAC systems, etc., not designation that may impact your premiums.

So, if you own an historic home (more than 100 years old) — designated or not — and have a challenge with your insurance premiums, simply provide proof to your insurer that your home’s “mechanicals” are up to code (no knob and tube wiring for example) and you will likely find relief.

Myth 2: “Heritage designation reduces the resale value of a property offered for sale on the open market.”

This is a fallacy — a myth often perpetuated by developers who are mentally locked into a standardized 20th-century redevelopment model (such as Rainer Hummel’s assertion vis-à-vis 187 Queen St. voiced at minute 22:40 of last year’s May 1 municipal heritage committee meeting) and one which has been conclusively disproven.

There are over two decades of studies which have examined this issue – largest of which was Robert Shipley’s “Heritage Designation and Property Values: Is there an Effect?” published in 2000, which analyzed over 3,000 residential properties in 24 municipalities across Ontario and concluded heritage designations did not negatively impact the sale price of these properties.

Studies authored by Shipley, Kayla Jonas and Jason Kovacs in 2011 and Kovacs in 2018 both concluded that the values of properties located in heritage districts perform better in the marketplace than those in surrounding (but non-designated) areas.

In 2023, Rebecca Correia, Otto (Wenhao) Liao, Isaac Kinley, Sarah Lashley, Tanzir Rahman Khan and Evan Gravely at McMaster University published a research study titled “Investigating the Impact of Heritage Property Designation on Real Estate Value” for the city of Hamilton’s planning and economic development department — you can find the study here: macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/28406.

This very thorough study examined the sales values achieved by properties over nearly 40 years. The authors concluded that heritage-designated properties “were associated with a positive increase in sale value” and resulted in “an increase in sale price of residential properties.”

In the face of the evidence based on unequivocal data — that is, the actual positive sale values achieved by designated properties compared to non-designated properties time and time again — any argument to the contrary must simply be dismissed as an urban myth.

Myth 3: “If I designate my property, any future alteration to the building will be subject to municipal oversight that will not only limit my options but will certainly come at a higher cost.”

This is a knotty one to unravel, since in a small part it is true. To make alterations to a heritage-designated building, the property owner must apply for a heritage permit and the application is subject to review by the town’s heritage planners and municipal heritage committee.

Simply, this process is in place to ensure the proposed alteration(s) do not adversely impact the building’s heritage values.

Aside from protecting a property’s historic assets, this review can also work to ensure that the building’s market value (resale price) is maintained or enhanced.

Consider the data presented on page 21 of the McMaster study, which identifies that preservation of the original exterior building materials (wood, brick, stone, stucco, etc.) notably increases the sale price of a designated property, whereas the application of vinyl or aluminum siding (etc.) markedly decreases that sale price.

Moreover, preservation does not necessarily come at a higher cost.

In a 19th-century house, period-correct single-pane wood windows are not only more aesthetically pleasing than double-paned vinyl units, but when combined with interior storms, they deliver equivalent R-value at a significantly lower price.

While there are other myths, I’m out of race track for this week.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.