Have you visited the corner of Delater and Ball streets recently?

I must confess that, over the last couple of months, it had not been in my Old Town wanderings — not until a few days ago, when a few residents strongly suggested a “check it out” might be in order.

Shock might be the least of the emotions I experienced as a result of that visit.

Rising on that corner is a new infill development: A 21st-century modern design that dwarfs the shouldering cottage bungalows both down and opposite on Delater, while being completely out of context with the historic residential buildings on Ball Street.

Now, to be completely clear, I do not have any issues with the design itself — in fact, it’s quite a nice expression of the 21st-century modern architectural style.

However, this building is almost a textbook case demonstrating that even good architecture, when built in the wrong place, diminishes both its own qualities and the neighbouring streetscapes.

This columnist has spoken to sympathetic design in past Lake Report articles (e.g. “Arch-i-text: Real-life examples of ‘sympathetic design’ in communities,” April 13, 2023), that is, the importance of creating architecture which is contextually appropriate to the neighbourhood and streetscape based on the following criteria: Character, scale, form, siting, materials, colours and detailing.

Bluntly, good sympathetic design adds to the character of a neighbourhood while contextually inappropriate architecture has exactly the opposite effect.

And, for those who wonder, “How could permission have been granted to build something like this in that location?” 

The answer is pretty straightforward. Niagara-on-the-Lake’s zoning bylaws do not generally address design, except in the heritage conservation district or where the proposed design might adversely impact a designated heritage asset; therefore, the town has no legislative oversight or tools to prevent such an occurrence.

The single opportunity within the town’s existing processes to provide some sort of oversight vis-à-vis appropriate architecture would normally rest within the mandate of the urban design committee.

Unfortunately, that committee has been sidelined by the lord mayor — an action taken, I assume, because its invaluable recommendations slow down and/or interfere with the majority of this council’s four-square support of all developer initiatives, no matter how inappropriate those may be and community character be damned.

To understand NOTL’s existing processes a bit better, let’s consider zoning on a general basis.

Although there are several different types of zoning, for simplicity, we will focus on the three that are most commonly used in North America.

Single-use zoning, also referred to as “Euclidean” zoning, is predicated on the idea that separate uses — residential, commercial, industrial, etc. — are mutually incompatible and a jurisdiction must segregate its development lands into single-use zones.

This type of zoning is the dominant system used in both Canada and the United States, and a system that has led to the typical expression of most North American cities, which have a dense urban core surrounded by lower-density residential, commercial and industrial zones.

In the mid-20th century, the writings of Jane Jacobs advocated for “mixed-use” urban development — the integration of different building types and uses, whether residential or commercial, old or new. This diversity of buildings, residences, businesses and other non-residential uses, was necessary to create a vital community.

When combined with an increasing concern about urban sprawl, her position not only underwrote the New Urbanism movement but also fueled the development of mixed-use zoning.

In short, the combination of residential, commercial, office and public uses into a single geographic area allows for mixed-use within a single building (typically a vertical tower or skyscraper), or across multiple geographically associated buildings.

Typically, both single-use and mixed-use zoning are supported by bylaws which focus entirely on regulations/proscriptions related to the specific use and the building(s) size, coverage, height, positioning, etc., on a given property.

Which brings us to the third and most recently developed type of zoning, “form-based,” which revolves around the theory that long-term urban health of an area or municipality is heavily dependent on ensuring that buildings “fit into” their surroundings as opposed to the uses occupying the building. This is practically reinforced by observable history, which shows that building use will commonly change and evolve over time.

Note that while form-based codes de-emphasize controlling building uses, they do in fact regulate incompatible uses such as heavy industry by falling back on single-use zoning for the same.

The controls (or bylaws) applied in form-based zoning will include, for example: Building shapes and forms; the location of parking and building locations on the lot (i.e. in front or set back); the treatment of frontages particularly related to how the building meets the street, for example, a porch, stoop, or shopfront; building entryway locations and ground floor windows; and façade articulation or design to match or create a preferred character for the area.

Niagara-on-the-Lake’s zoning bylaws contain virtually no elements of form-based zoning.

As a final note related to zoning systems, most jurisdictions employ a “hybrid” system — typically a judicious combination of single use, mixed use and form-based systems — that allows for the alignment of zoning criteria in accordance with stated municipal objectives relative to development (see the Town of Pelham’s “comprehensive” zoning bylaw) augmented by negotiated site-specific bylaws approved by the municipality.

Perhaps one of the best recent practices related to municipal zoning is the “illustrated” bylaw. Essentially, this type of bylaw undertakes the extensive use of illustrations to remove ambiguity or uncertainty from the interpretation of bylaw provisions. A great innovation.

So, when all is said and done, let’s get with the times NOTL and create a current, state-of-the-art zoning bylaw.

In the meantime, for goodness’ sake, reinstate the urban design committee.

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