Over the last two weeks in this column we have considered NOTL’s new heritage conservation district plan — specifically sections 6 and 7 that speak to policies effecting “contributing” and “non-contributing” properties respectively.
As the final installment in this series, let’s indulge in some commentary.
Up front, if you open the link to the plan (available on the Town of NOTL’s website, notl.com, by searching “Old Town Heritage Conservation District Plan” in the search bar and clicking the link “Phase 2: Plan Report”), please do not be dismayed by the size of the document.
Now, while I’m certainly not suggesting that you shouldn’t read the entire plan if such is your inclination, for most people, the meat of the plan’s policies and guidelines are located in the 15 pages of section 6 devoted to contributing properties, the six pages of section 7 related to non-contributing properties, then section 9.1 and 9.2 (three pages) which outline heritage permit requirements and exemptions for properties in the new district.
Further, if you own a contributing property — all which can be found in appendix E (“Statements of Contribution”) listed alphabetically by street name and number — you may wish to refer to the contents of appendix F wherein you will find a brief description of each contributing property and the reasons underwriting its definition as such.
At this juncture, allow me to state that the architectural styles utilized in the plan are woefully inadequate, often not accurate and do not follow the best scholarly definitions of Ontario’s architectural styles.
For example, “picturesque” is not an architectural style. Instead, it is a broad descriptor applied to architectural styles and designs influenced by the precepts of a late-18th and early-19th-century Romantic philosophical movement that rejected the harsh industrialization of England’s urban landscapes in favour of integration with nature and our intuitive human emotive response to harmony.
In fact, the “picturesque” was primarily focused on landscape design, not built forms, however, it was almost inevitable that its philosophical embrace by English upper crust society would have a significant impact on architecture which, in turn, would cross the pond into Canada.
Quoting from Janet Wright’s “Architecture of the Picturesque in Canada” report published by Parks Canada in 1984: “Picturesque does not refer to an architectural style but to an aesthetic point of view.”
Then, we come to the Regency style which the plan limits to only one — the Regency cottage — of its various forms and expressions. This oversight results in the authors pushing the other Regency designs incorrectly into other categories.
Consider the dwelling at 240 Centre St., correctly a cubic-form Regency expression inspired by the 1819 Upper Canada Assembly building (hailed at the time as a Regency masterpiece), but which has been labelled Georgian. Or, St. Mark’s Rectory, which is classified as Italianate in the plan but, like Sir John A. MacDonald’s Bellevue in Kingston, is actually a Regency Tuscan villa.
Completely ignored is the Arts & Crafts style and, I would note, Old Town has several excellent examples (including 133 Regent St. which the plan shows as an example of Edwardian on page 57) gracing its streets.
Why does this matter?
Well, as the policies and guidelines contained within the plan suggest, if you plan to do any work on your contributing property, that undertaking should be informed by the building’s architectural style to ensure that any alterations are compatible and in-keeping with its contributing attributes.
Moreover, the finished result will look better if the alterations are in harmony with the original design precepts.
For those considering work on their contributing property, I’d recommend that you consult Robert Mikel’s book “Ontario House Styles” published by James Lorimer & Company.
While it is certainly not on the exhaustive scholarly level of McAlester’s Field Guide to American Houses, it’s an easy read, full of informative photography and, in my opinion, the best (most accurate) reference on Ontario’s architectural styles that I have reviewed to date.
Moving on, let’s kick apart some of the language used in the plan.
What does “physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the heritage property” actually mean?
Taken out of order, “subordinate to” is a descriptor that defines any new addition, out building or infill dwelling as secondary to the existing streetscape and/or contributing buildings.
This can be accomplished through lower roof peak heights, set-back from the built heritage facade and various other design considerations.
“Distinguishable from the heritage property” is a somewhat loose term which generally speaks to the ability of experts to discern the historical construction from new construction.
And, “physically and visually compatible with” speaks directly to seamlessly merging new construction with built heritage provided it conforms to the aforementioned subordinate and distinguishable provisions.
At this juncture I would draw your attention to the addition on the Hiscott House at 78 Prideaux S., which fulfils all three stated criteria.
As an end note, allow me to observe that neither the Shaw’s proposed Royal George intervention on Queen & Victoria or the garage addition proposed for the Crysler-Burroughs House at 187 Queen St. conform to the provisions of the original heritage district guidelines nor to the newly adopted plan.
Aren’t politically motivated exemptions wonderful?
Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.
