Dear editor:

Regarding the Chapman House on the Niagara River Parkway, people who own or purchase heritage buildings are expected to maintain them for future generations to enjoy. None of these owners, when learning of deficiencies, should consider tearing the building down without first looking at all of the possible solutions to the problems.

Any building important enough to be considered for a heritage designation should be preserved and the owner knew the house was on the heritage registry when he bought it.

If there are problems (although in this case, no specific evidence was provided), solutions can be found by experts knowledgeable in restorative measures for any deficiencies in the foundations, the envelope or the floor structure.

One of the consultants suggested that the floor structure was unsafe. The reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) system was studied by the province and Infrastructure Ontario, which simply recommended inspection of the planks every three years, unless they showed signs of deteriorating, which I don’t think was mentioned in the consultant’s reports.

If the owner preferred to address the issue now, structural members can be added to provide additional support for the slabs.

Restoration of the house will probably cost a lot less than its demolition and the construction of a new house. I think that the owner should be encouraged to find ways to solve any problems with the house not just to identify them and pretend that they’re insurmountable.

All heritage property owners are responsible for finding ways to preserve their buildings, not to find reasons to demolish them.

Wayne Murray
NOTL