ACO North Waterloo Region

A series of talks sponsored by ACO’s North Waterloo Region Branch is living proof of the merits of Architectural Conservancy Ontario (ACO)’s campaign for provincial funding to turn heritage into housing.

Each talk focuses on a Waterloo Region heritage building adaptively repurposed as housing — deeply affordable housing in two of the three examples. Only one of the buildings is a designated heritage landmark, a requirement ACO recommends for a proposed provincial grant program, in the hopes it will encourage more protection of our valuable — and very useful — heritage resources.

The first talk, by historical researcher Sandra Parks was held on March 27.  It focused on the 1913 Greb Shoe Factory building.  After 43 years as a shoe factory, 21 years as an Electrohome factory and 23 years as J.C. Snyder Furniture Factory, the sturdy brick building became a Lofts on Mansion containing 54 condo units in 2005.

The second talk at 7 pm on Thursday April 24, featured Graham Cubitt and Linda Nydam.  They presented on their experience managing Indwell’s transformation of heritage and older buildings to meet contemporary needs.  A special focus was on the conversion of St. Mark’s and St. Peter’s Evangelical Lutheran churches in Kitchener.  The talk was held at St. Mark’s Place which contain 43 units of deeply affordable housing for previously homeless or precariously housed individuals. A daily meal as well health and social services are also provided ath St. Mark’s Place.  The rental costs are very low and residents pay almost nothing for utilities because the building is so energy efficient.

The third talk in the series by Joe Mancini of The Working Centre will focus on the adaptive reuse of the 1927 Mitchell Button Factory building at 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener.  The building will offer 44 units of affordable housing along with medical, counselling and other services.   The St. John’s Kitchen will be resumed from a temporary location to a new building next to the affordable housing in the renovated heritage building.

The public is invited to the third talk which takes place in the Community Room at St. The St. Matthew’s Church at  54 Benton St. Kitchener.  Access the Community Room is from the parking area off Benton and the Queen LRT stop.

**************

This year’s ACO campaign addresses the housing crisis and how buildings we value – through thoughtful adaptive reuse and careful renovation – can provide needed housing units. The campaign also focuses on using Canadian resources – labour and materials – to provide for a more sustainable future. A Canada First approach!

ACO is asking the Government of Ontario to provide heritage grants so that heritage will be preserved and at the same provide for the needs of at risk members of our community for housing.

Memo to:      Heritage Planning Staff delegation@kitchener.ca

From:           Architectural Conservancy of Ontario North Waterloo Region Branch

Date:            January 7, 2024

Subject:        Heritage Kitchener Agenda for January 9, 2024, Item 4.3 Growing Together – Heritage Implementation Measures, DSD-2024-009

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario North Waterloo Branch (ACONWR) has a long history of supporting heritage building conservation going back to 1980 locally and 1933 provincially. The ACO advocates for the retention, refurbishing and reuse of the province’s cultural heritage architecture and places of natural beauty. Our purpose in making this submission is to ask:

• How HCD policies intended to preserve heritage can be maintained when SGA2 and SGA3 zoning policies are proposed within them, allowing to 12 and 25 storey buildings; and
• How to preserve HCD heritage when they are surrounded by SGA4 zoning that allows unlimited height.

We supported the development of heritage conservation districts (HCDs) in Kitchener and we are hopeful that the integrity of these districts will be maintained for the many benefits that they provide.  Of course, there will be changes in these districts over time.  Most HCDs have provisions for the possibility of development within them.  In a number of cases provincially, HCDs have undergone development that does not conform to the policies that were intended to preserve them.

We appreciate there is an urgent need for more housing and that the increased density should be made where rapid transit is present. The City of Kitchener’s Growing Together Plan recognizes the need and it also states that the policies of the HCDs on either side of the downtown (Civic Centre HCD and Victoria Park HCD) will be maintained.

When the Secondary Plan was discussed some four years ago, we submitted a 14-page memo outlining what changes should be made (ACONWR submission to the City of Kitchener Planning Division regarding Proposed Secondary Plans & their effect on Heritage Conservation Districts, Established Neighbourhoods & Individually Designated [Part IV] Properties, May 20, 2020).  In that memo we made a number of suggestions.  The Ontario Heritage Act gives municipalities the responsibility to identify, evaluate and conserve resources that have lasting cultural heritage value or interest in their community. HCDs offer a way to protect, over the long term, areas that have important and/or identifiable historic and architectural resources. The ability to designate HCDs is provided under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Further guidance regarding HCD evaluation and designation is provided by the City of Kitchener Official Plan (12.C.1.13 to 12.C.1.16).

HCDs are created after much consultation with area residents and with expertise from City planning staff and paid consultants. The boundaries are carefully and thoughtfully delineated in order to preserve our built heritage and provide stability for an area deemed worth protecting and conserving, often one thought to be under threat in future.

When proposals come forward that could destroy the very thing that HCDs were meant to protect, residents have good reason to wonder about the future of their neighbourhood, with the result of introducing instability into the HCD. Property owners inside HCDs are restricted in the renovations they are allowed to make.  Detailed plans often come before the Heritage Kitchener Advisory Committee for approval.  They are required to conform to the HCD policies and they hired consultants at considerable personal expense.  Having modern builds that do not conform to these policies is a double standard that creates conflict, where rules apply strictly when you are a heritage property owner, but if a developer wants to build a modern condo inside the HCD, heritage policies are sometimes disregarded.

The Growing Together proposal significantly impacts heritage resources that enhance our economy through the economic benefits of tourism and by reducing conflict when proposals are brought forward.  It is important that zoning regulations complement the heritage requirements of a district plan, so that property owners and developers can feel confident in the predictability of future decision-making regarding land-use matters.

Uncertainty occurs when zoning increases the intensification of an area, heritage buildings are neglected and later demolished with taller buildings taking their place. Demolition itself puts neighbouring properties at risk, creating a domino effect, reaching well beyond the boundaries of redeveloped properties.

The Victoria Park HCD and Development

We are aware that the Victoria Park HCD Plan identifies the Queen Street South area as one which is designated for higher density and that new buildings may be expected. The Plan also states that “It is important that new buildings conserve and enhance the historic character of the Area. With innovative design, a compatible and exciting integration of new and old can be achieved” (City of Kitchener, 1995 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Park Plan, p. 66). The Plan provides a heritage appropriate example of a 7-storey building at 290 Queen, not yet built in 1995. Features deemed appropriate are: 1) street trees to soften the impact of the new building; 2) low street façade to integrate with old residences; gables that mirror the historic architecture of the neighbourhood (not constructed when built); and 3) balconies which animate the building and street (also not built).  When the building was completed, the surface treatment was red brick that did complement many heritage buildings in the HCD.

The section of the HCD Plan on New Building outlines 14 key policies to be followed along Queen Street in the Victoria Park HCD. Two of these are noteworthy in given the Growing Together proposal to have tall buildings inside the HCD:

Density: Every effort shall be made to blend new high rise buildings with neighbouring low rise residences.  This could include varied building heights and elevations and the breaking up of building mass.

Height: Design treatments to lessen the perception of height in new high rise development shall be considered, such as façade setback, mansard roofs, gables and varying building finishes and textures. (Victoria Park Heritage District Plan, p. 68).

In the next section, we outline some recent changes in the Victoria Park HCD.  Not all have conformed to the policies that are designed to preserve the heritage of the conservation district.

51 and 53 David Street

Two properties at 51 and 53 David Street became derelict over time from a lack of care by the property owner, who subsequently tore them down. While a 12-storey building was initially proposed by the developer, heritage concerns were voiced, resulting in a 6 storey building (The Record, “Developer ordered to fix up or demolish derelict David Street homes”, January 30, 2014).

242 Queen Street South

When there was a fire at 242 Queen Street South that housed ROOF (Reaching Our Outdoor Friends), the policies of the HCD were carefully followed and a new building was proposed following the VPHCD Plan:

“The Victoria Park HCD Plan contains specific policies that direct the development of properties with new buildings. It specifically addresses Queen Street South on this subject and includes the following statement: …a main goal is to ensure that new development enhance the historic and civic character of Queen Street South. This will be achieved in large part through appropriate urban design such that the building style, profile, massing and materials complement the special historic character of Queen Street South” (City of Kitchener, Heritage Permit Application 200007 v- 1- 242 Queen Street South Proposed Construction of New Building, DTS 07-051).

Subsequent development made the excellent heritage preservation of 242 Queen Street South meaningless.

256 and 262 Queen Street South

Despite 242 Queen Street South being rebuilt in 2007 with the HCD policies in place, when a development at the neighbouring properties was proposed next to it, a compromise was made to preserve significant heritage buildings at 256 and 262 Queen Street South and build an 11-storey high rise behind them. At the time, there were representations residents of Victoria Park about the lack of attention to HCD policies.  ACONWR President Marg Rowell spoke at both the Heritage Kitchener and City Council meetings regarding the proposed demolitions of heritage houses at 242-262 Queen Street South in the VPHCD.  She stated:

Heritage Districts are created after much consultation with area residents and with the expertise from city planning staff and a paid consultant. The boundaries are carefully and thoughtfully delineated in order to provide for the preservation of the built architecture and stability for an area deemed worth protecting and conserving. When proposals come forward that involve the demolition of some of the historic built fabric of a district you are, in effect, eating away at the very thing that the district plans were meant to protect (ACONWR 2018, ACO Newsletter, Fall, p. 7).

The position of the ACO North Waterloo Region Branch is to avoid demolition in HCDs and preserve the heritage character that the HCD was designed to protect. The Plan is following important policies that “heritage shall be preserved” at provincial, regional and municipal laws and bylaws that heritage shall be preserved.  The proposed zoning by Growing Together to allows even higher builds is not consistent with the Victoria Park HCD Plan, as outlined in the section on New Building, p. 66ff.

HCD Policy and Growing Together

Should the SGA2 and SGA3 zoning be allowed in the HCD, developers will continually propose increased density inside the HCDs in the downtown area. They may want to see the demolition of existing heritage buildings rather than follow HCD policies. A recent demolition at 178 Queen is a case in point. A significant heritage property that was occupied by businesses as recently as 2016 became vacant, was boarded up and sold about 2018 and demolished in 2023. The properties on either side are at risk, particularly Bullas Glass at 16 Joseph which has been vacant since at least 2005.

Residents of the HCD and heritage advocates will ask how the Growing Together proposals are consistent with heritage policies.  This tension would be decreased if the zoning provisions inside HCDs was aligned with Growing Together.

The ACONWR proposes most strongly that the proposal for SG2 and SG3 zoning that allows up to 8-storey and 25-storeys has no place within an HCD.  These zoning categories are grossly inconsistent with HCD policies.  If SG2 and SG3 are not allowed, the heritage district would be less at risk, the community would be afforded more harmony, planners and Council would be freed of the need to address such difficult decisions, and developers would know where they stand. Zoning regulations must be aligned with HCD Plans and their heritage requirements. Planning staff must ensure that SG2 and SG3 zoning not be within HCDs so that the heritage character of HCDs be preserved.

Zoning Adjacent to the HCDs

The ACONWR also believes that the Growing Together plan for unlimited height (SGA4) has an impact on the HCD.  We realize that the Victoria Park and Civic Centre HCDs are almost entirely within the MTSA spheres.  The Planning Act indicates that in the event of a conflict between a heritage conservation district plan and a municipal by-law that affects the designated district, the plan prevails to the extent of the conflict.  While zoning bylaws may designate certain properties for higher intensification, if this contravenes the District Plan provisions, the Ontario Heritage Act indicates that the HCD plan prevails.

The ACONWR suggests that buildings of unlimited height on the North side of Joseph between Linden and Queen will compromise the heritage value of the entire HCD.  We propose that zoning regulations bordering Heritage Conservation District Plans should have greater setback, step back and height restrictions.  In short, a building with no height restriction on the edge of an HCD has a negative effect on the low rise buildings inside the HCD. Restricting that height would help preserve the heritage district character.  A current example of how that can be accomplished may be seen on the zoning in the Manulife Parking lot bounded by Francis/Water and Charles/Joseph. On the Joseph Street side of that area extending about 50 metres, is a special provision, 104R:

Notwithstanding Section 16A.2 of this by-law, within the lands zoned D-5 on Schedules 84 and 85 of Appendix “A”, described as Lots 124 to 130 inclusive, Registered Plan 375, the maximum building height shall be 10 metres.  (By-law 92-232, S.9) (Amended By-law 2003-163, S.53, [d])

If this type of zoning were applied all along Joseph Street adjacent to the HCD, a more appropriate transition to the low-rise residential area in the HCD would be accomplished.  A few years ago, a development proposal was “floated” for the block and included lower building heights along the Joseph Street side, but there was nothing further done with the preliminary planning.  If that provision were applied around the Victoria Park and Civic Centre HCDs, heritage value would be more fully preserved.  In short, the City of Kitchener is at great risk of seeing the HCDs in the downtown core shrink over time with inappropriate development within and adjacent to them and are compromised by buildings of unlimited height adjacent to and inside them. Clear guidelines within and around these HCDs are needed.  A recent study by the Ontario ACO on heritage conservation districts makes that important point on the economic and cultural benefits of clear rules for heritage conservation:

HCDs promote revitalization and stabilization of areas, which create more certainty and which, in turn, encourage investment. Investors prefer to put their funds to work where there is long term stability. Investors shy away from sketchy areas in decline — unless they buy properties for a bargain when the area is undervalued and gamble on the area improving.  Establishing an HCD in a declining area is a potential way to reverse the decline (Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, Benefits of a Heritage Conservation District, p. 2).

Respectfully submitted,

Marg Rowell, President

Gail Pool, Communications Coordinator

ACO North Waterloo Branch

Today marks the passage of Bill 23, which will affect municipalities and the heritage of our province.  There have been many criticisms and it is likely that people do not want to read any more.  Just in case you are not in that category, below is a letter that went to selected MPs and the Environmental Registry.

__________________

Dear MPs,

Bill 23 is flawed at a tremendous cost to the ways of life of people in this province.

In a sense, this bill has so much against it that it is hard to know where to begin.  It affects the environment, in particular the Greenbelt.  It affects the ability of conservation authorities to ensure that housing is safe from flooding and that animals can live outside urban areas.  It affects the ability of municipal governments to make decisions about the character of their communities.  It affects the rights of citizens to comment on legislation and bylaws.  It affects the heritage of our communities.

I want to focus on the latter.

Schedule 6 should be deleted from Bill 23.  It has made a mess of heritage conservation efforts by dozens of municipalities in the province.  Each municipal government has spent thousands of hours with staff and community volunteers assessing the heritage values of thousands of properties.

Having listed properties eliminated after two years would make all that work pointless.  The legislation should abandon the two-year time limit for listing heritage properties and the five-year wait until they can be listed again.  Re-listing after five years is unlikely to happen.  If a property is considered to have heritage value, no staff would list it since it only has a two-year timeframe.  Instead, it would be added to the designated list for greater protection.  The changes to the listed property regulation would have more of an impact on developers’ plans to build new housing.

This bill would give the minister the ability to change any municipal property owned by the province.  An order in council could be put in place to opt out of standards and guidelines if property is required for transit, housing, health/long-term care, and other infrastructure. Ontario Place could be converted into long term care.  Heritage standards and guidelines would be null and void and allow for the demolition of current designated provincially owned buildings.

In my region of Waterloo, we have hundreds of beautiful, relevant heritage homes that are a part of the affordable housing strategy and beautiful landscapes.  My street, with many heritage buildings, is in an older district.  Families from China, Vietnam, Syria, Africa and the Caribbean have lived and thrived here.  Rents in these century-old houses are low and the families live in a community surrounded by trees, a park and a lake.  We are a thriving community.  Heritage buildings provide a sense of place and an understanding of our past.

Heritage cultural landscapes have been identified by several municipalities in our region and we are richer for knowing about them.  No Indigenous landscapes have been identified.  We have almost no knowledge of the Indigenous heritage of our region, in part because we have not taken seriously the rights of Indigenous people.  The criteria for designation will not include contextual value, i.e, what is “important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or is a landmark” (Ontario Regulation 9/06).  Indigenous heritage is not in buildings because they no longer exist, and so heritage value must be about the contextual value.  Indigenous people view their heritage in terms of the land, the water, the animals and plants in them, not the built structures.  The legislation therefore makes it impossible to designate Indigenous cultural heritage landscape.  In short, Indigenous heritage has been devalued with this legislation.

With this legislation, we are wiping out the past.  To quote a famous book:

“Do you realize that the past, starting from yesterday, has been actually abolished? If it survives anywhere, it’s in a few solid objects with no words attached to them, like that lump of glass there…  Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right” (George Orwell, 1984).

We need to know about our past.  If immigrants arrive at our doors, what are we to tell them?  We may be able to house them, but they will know less about the community in which they are expected to live.  When we show them what a nice place they are coming to, do we show them high rise buildings? No.  We show them pictures of old buildings.  Just look at a calendar showing scenes of Ontario — old buildings, trees and parks.

Yours sincerely,

Gail R. Pool, PhD (he/him)

The 2022 election may be a critical one for heritage. Development in the region is growing at a rapid pace, putting heritage architecture and heritage landscapes at risk.

We asked all candidates in the region for their heritage platforms.  To help them with their answers, we provided some questions for them to consider, available at this link: Heritage Questions for Candidates.

The candidates responded and are listed below.  For your convenience, the heritage platforms are divided into municipalities and wards. Wards for which there was no response from any candidate are not listed.

Note: this is a work in progress and will be updated as candidates answer our questions…

Kitchener

Ward 3

Matthew Griffin

Ward 9

I am running for Councillor of Ward 4 in Wilmot Township.   I appreciate Castle Kilbride in Baden which has our Township offices.  I appreciate members from past Councils who had the future outlook to preserve and restore Castle Kilbride.  I am glad that Marie Voisin has restored the Imperial Hotel in downtown New Hamburg.

I think that our Councils should be working with Heritage Committees to help them with ongoing projects.  Whenever we can restore or maintain or preserve our heritage buildings it helps with our carbon footprints instead of tearing down and rebuilding.  There is a new project in New Hamburg with the purchase of the feed mill to turn it into a possible vendors market and affordable housing.

John Jordan

As an owner of a Heritage designated home in Wilmot Centre and a mix use building in the heritage zone of downtown New Hamburg, my answer to all of your questions is a resounding yes. My wife Kathie and I are very passionate about heritage buildings and the preservation of them due to their beauty, character and history.

A local project that we were close to in New Hamburg was the restoration of the Imperial Hotel in downtown New Hamburg. We had a part in it in helping find some of the items for the building as well as with some of the interior decor. The Imperial is now very much a prominent structure in downtown New Hamburg.

I’m not sure of further heritage opportunities in our community currently, but government incentives from all levels of government certainly will provide the boost needed to do the necessary work to preserve and/or bring back existing heritage buildings.

Woolwich

Mayor

 

 

 

 

Patrick Merlihan

1. Support for Municipal Heritage Committees.

Yes. I am currently co-chair of the Woolwich Heritage Committee.

I support the request to list non-designated properties on the Municipal Heritage Register.

2. Financial Incentives for Heritage Conservation.

Woolwich Township does not have the resources to commit money to rehabilitate private heritage properties. If there was an up-level government grant, I would support facilitating that funding to assist those who would rehab designated properties. We are currently using debentures to rehab a heritage bridge and there are many other infrastructure projects that are unfunded.

A would certainly consider a heritage tax refund for heritage properties. I’m not sure within our community if that would encourage properties to rehab heritage sites. Would be worth investigating further to weigh impact versus reward.

3. Modern Tools to Conserving Built Heritage.

Yes. I would encourage Council, through our Heritage Committee, to modernize how we protect heritage structures.

4. Heritage as an environmental priority for municipally-owned buildings.

Yes. Re-use of existing buildings is always a first-priority.

5. Examples of heritage engagement.

I am the co-chair of the Woolwich Heritage Committee since 2020. I have been active in recruiting members for the committee and have helped get projects back on track.

As a member of Council, I successfully advocated to the rest of Council to rehabilitate the heritage Peel St Bridge to a pedestrian crossing.

Examples of working with Heritage Community.

Chair of Woolwich Heritage Committee.

Successful Heritage Project:

A number of heritage designations, a ghost community sign project that will depend on Council budget to purchase signs. Committee is working on developing a car and walking heritage tours and working with economic development officer to promote initiatives.

What opportunities exist to better support heritage.

Funding for small municipalities to rehabilitate heritage structures needs to happen. Heritage is for everyone, and municipalities should get assistance to help preserve – there are so many unfunded infrastructure projects that low-use heritage projects are not prioritized.

More tools, resources and know-how to properly set up committees for success. Networking opportunities between municipalities would be a great resource as well.

Ward 1

Cheryle Baker

I’m responding to your Heritage Committee Program questionnaire today!

1) yes

2) yes

3) yes

4) yes

5) yes

6) yes

7) I don’t have any Heritage Engagement , except I have been on Heritage Tours, or just went Heritage exploring which had open houses or museums!

8) I think all your Heritage questions are a great place to start advocating items to be addressed

9) no experience working with Heritage Committee

10) in Elmira we see many successful Heritage Projects, when touring around, plus sometimes council makes a Heritage Preservation  decision, plus I hear about these from community conversations too!

11) Opportunities exists to better support Hertiage Preservation in our community, when we use service tools of education, information, awareness programs, Museums, such as local Heritage Tours, other creative ideas,  or social media tools on Heritage Conservation Preservation, Architecture Design,  in our  Elmira Community !

Dan Holt

1. Would you encourage Council to provide your Municipal Heritage Committee with the support and resources it needs to update these older designation bylaws, where required?

Yes, I would support the Council providing resources.

Would you encourage Council to support your Municipal Heritage Committee’s requests for listing non-designated properties on the Municipal Heritage Register?

Yes, we have a couple of dozen candidates at this time. 

2.  Would you encourage Council to ensure your Municipality has a heritage property grant program, or, if it already has one, to ensure that the grant levels are adequate?

Yes. Property owners are on the hook for evaluation by experts and I  would like to provide grant dollars for this. I’d like to explore some funding from the Maple Syrup Festival for this purpose.

Would you encourage Council to ensure your Municipality has a heritage property tax refund program and that the funding levels are adequate?

I would need to evaluate the impact on the budget in order to make a recommendation.

3.   Would you encourage Council to ensure your Municipality is using all the tools at its disposal to support the conservation of our built heritage resources?

Definitely since once it’s gone it’s gone.

4. Would you encourage your Council to give priority to the continuing use or adaptive re-use of existing buildings (identified as heritage or not) in their facility and capital planning; and where buildings are determined to be surplus to needs, use best efforts to dispose of the building/facility to other public or private sector owners for re-use or sensitive redevelopment?   Yes.

What are some examples of your heritage engagement thus far, and if elected, what are the first few local heritage issues you would like to address?

I would like to address the bridges currently in question…Middlebrook and the covered Kissing Bridge. 

 Have you had any experience working with/for your local Heritage Community? If so, explain.

I have attended an engineering presentation regarding the restoration of the covered Kissing Bridge. In addition, my wife Dr. Colleen Willard-Holt is on the Woolwich Heritage Committee.

Tell us about a successful heritage project in your community.

The restoration of the covered Kissing Bridge is currently being evaluated by the Regional Heritage Committee, the Woolwich Heritage Committee, external experts, and community members in a cooperative effort to bring about the best solution for restoration of the bridge.

What opportunities exist to better support heritage in your local community?

The new Urban Core Design Plan, recently approved by the Council, pays attention to heritage structures in the process of improving Elmira.

Ward 3

Bonnie Bryant

I agree with all your questions and my answer is yes to all of them.

I have been chair of the Woolwich Heritage Committee since it was created 8 years ago, and we are working towards updating our Municipal Registry.  We need to ensure we are adaptively reusing our heritage structures, and not tearing them down.  Heritage, tourism, and economic development should go hand in hand.

Nathan Cadeau

It is important to recognize and celebrate our roots. The best way to accomplish this is to protect the beauty our shared heritage spaces. However, I believe we need to find balance with these spaces that hinges on fiscal responsibility. We need community engagement, input, and support for these sites and we cannot allow these sites to simply become a burden to our community. If we designate them protected heritage sites, they must be well maintained to ensure public funds are not required for emergency restoration costs down the road.

As far as favourite sites are concerned, I’m biased towards the Elmira Public Library.

Regional Councillor

Chantal Huinick

• Support for Municipal Heritage Committees

With the passage of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1975, the responsibility for the conservation of our cultural heritage resources was given to municipalities. One of the key tools provided by the Act is the power to pass bylaws to formally designate properties for architectural, historical or contextual reasons. Changes to the Act in 2005 meant that many earlier bylaws were not written in such a way as to meet the development pressures heritage properties are under today. Would you encourage Council to provide your Municipal Heritage Committee with the support and resources it needs to update these older designation bylaws, where required?

I would support the updating of these older designation bylaws. 

I recognized that many historical structures were not built with accessibility in mind and I would hope that the committee works towards solutions that preserve historical integrity and promote accessibility for all. This can be achieved through the addition of ramps and/or elevators where appropriate or virtual tours where not possible. 

Those changes to the Ontario Heritage Act in 2005 allowed municipalities to List non- designated properties on the Municipal Heritage Register, previously just a record of designated properties. While these properties may be good candidates for future designation, listing provides limited protection to a property – a listed property owner must provide Council with 60 days’ notice of their intention to demolish the heritage building, rather than the Building Code Act’s 10 to 30 days’ notice. This provides municipal councils with time to make an informed decision. Would you encourage Council to support your Municipal Heritage Committee’s requests for listing non-designated properties on the Municipal Heritage Register?

Yes

• Financial Incentives for Heritage Conservation

Rehabilitation of our heritage resources enhances the unique character of local streets and neighbourhoods, attracting business, creative enterprise and tourism to our communities. The monies spent on this rehabilitation is usually spent locally, e.g., the repair of old windows by a local craftsperson rather than the purchase of new windows made elsewhere. Some local municipalities have a grant program to provide funds to designated heritage properties, e.g., repointing, repair of original windows, replication of front porch elements, reconstruction of a chimney, structural repairs, etc. Would you encourage Council to ensure your Municipality has a heritage property grant program, or, if it already has one, to ensure that the grant levels are adequate?

Yes

The Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to set up a heritage property tax refund program, under which owners of designated property may apply for an annual refund of up to 40% of their property taxes for municipal and school purposes. Would you encourage Council to ensure your Municipality has a heritage property tax refund program and that the funding levels are adequate?

The Region of Waterloo can only institute such a rebate if a city or a township had already instituted it. The Region cannot institute it unilaterally. As I am a Regional candidate, I would consider the Region looking into the rebate once a lower-tier municipality had instituted it.

• Modern Tools to Conserving our Built Heritage

Protection and financial incentives are important tools municipalities can use to support the conservation of our built heritage resources. And new tools are being developed or used in new ways, such as the recognition in official plans of cultural heritage landscapes, the use of holding provisions in zoning bylaws to ensure certain conditions are met before development approval is given, and the serious consideration of the recommendations of heritage impact assessments. Would you encourage Council to ensure your Municipality is using all the tools at its disposal to support the conservation of our built heritage resources?

Yes

• Heritage as an Environmental Priority for Municipally-Owned Buildings

The wise management of our existing public building stock has compelling societal and environmental benefits. Building renewal and re-use capitalizes on materials and energy already invested, reduces construction and demolition waste (20-30 percent of landfill is building waste) and builds resilience to climate change. Would you encourage your Council to give priority to the continuing use or adaptive re-use of existing buildings (identified as heritage or not) in their facility and capital planning; and where buildings are determined to be surplus to needs, use best efforts to dispose of the building/facility to other public or private sector owners for re-use or sensitive redevelopment?

Yes, for example, buildings that are designated as surplus might have the potential for conversion to affordable housing.

In addition, please consider these additional questions:

What are some examples of your heritage engagement thus far, and if elected, what are the first few local heritage issues you would like to address?

My engagement with heritage buildings has been limited due to issues with accessibility. I very much appreciate the way that Doon Heritage Crossroads has been adapted to meet the needs of people who use mobility devices. 

I would promote other heritage properties undertaking similar accessibility initiatives.

James Ball

Retaining the heritage and history of our community while it grows is a matter close to my heart. Heritage buildings allow us to see and feel our history come to life.

I appreciate any work that the ACO is willing to do to help update our communities bylaws to meet current legal standards, and ideally make them easy to maintain in the future.

For adding new properties to the heritage register, I would like to start looking to the future. As a community, I think we need to identify architecturally significant buildings from each era or decade, and find suitable uses for them.

I think a major failing for preservation was the loss of the Preston Hotel, which had sat for 30 years waiting for use. I think it was such a beautiful and iconic building, and would love to have found a way to have its structure, or even façade retained. I have decades of memories driving up King Street in Cambridge, towards Fountain Street, and seeing that hotel fill my view.

I believe that for historically significant properties, we need to be willing to provide incentives to retain them. Waterloo Region currently has a grant program in place, as well as a tax incentive. I don’t have a firm opinion on whether I think a tax incentive or grant system is my preference, but wouldn’t intend to change the status quo on these programs. Also, many properties that are worthy of preservation are commercial in nature, so ideally there would be an incentive provided to developers who are willing to help preserve commercial heritage properties.

I also like the idea of using zoning to preserve heritage properties. I would like to see small neighbourhoods designated, where many of the houses or buildings are of a particular style or era. If new development is built nearby, or if a property is demolished and rebuilt, the new structure should maintain the style and character of the other historic buildings in the neighbourhood. For single detached homes, traditional blueprints and materials could be used for the exterior, while the interior could be built to suit.

I think adaptive re-use of buildings definitely reduces landfill use, and also helps to ensure that heritage buildings are preserved. I believe buildings should be a part of living history, where they are used and enjoyed by future generations, so that the past can be appreciated every day. I’m grateful to be working at Canon Medical, which is in the old Legion building on Regina St. While some of the Legion’s charms (and smokiness of the basement club house) are now gone, I’m reminded of childhood memories of post office Christmas parties, and family reunions held there. Though, working in a place I spent so much of my childhood makes me sometimes feel like I haven’t gotten very far in life 

The main heritage projects I’ve been involved with in my life are through my wife’s work as an archaeologist. One of my favourite events she brought me to was a talk presented by Holly Martelle regarding “The Ward” in Toronto, where stories of normal families from that era were brought to life. Hearing stories like this from Toronto make me want to ensure our region’s stories are shared and celebrated as well.

I can think of a few successful heritage preservation projects in our community. I feel like the @lex project on Alexandra Avenue in Waterloo was a great way to preserve an old school. Many original architectural elements were retained, especially the outside of the building. Though my preference is usually to retain old and beautiful schools to be used as schools where they have more public access, I think that this is a good example of where a developer who cares about a building can do great work, and should be given some tax incentives to help them offset increased costs or lost opportunity.

Region of Waterloo Chair

Brendon Da Costa

 

I actually had the pleasure recently of sitting in at an event at the Trinity Anglican Church in Cambridge, and interestingly enough, I was speaking with a councillor just outside in the parking lot about the deep-seeded history of Waterloo Region and the buildings here.

This particular church is quite old, and the architecture and beauty is remarkable inside and out – the conversation sparked because of the juxtaposition to one of the large apartment complexes visible right behind the church. It demonstrated a considerable difference in aesthetic.

I personally see no harm in supporting the heritage of Waterloo Region and enhancing bylaws to come into play that allows more ample time for deeper consideration of how to manage these properties.

I further see no harm in proposing the utilization of grants, especially when the funds are spent to support local economies and businesses – this includes the suggested property tax deduction in a Region that touts some of the highest taxes in the land.

I also fully support the continued re-use and adaptability of existing structures – specifically as it relates to cost saving. Being able to maintain the beautiful history of Waterloo Region while bringing these historic landmarks into the 21st century is certainly something that should be entertained.

Register here Indigenous Archaeology in the Waterloo Region

ACO-North Waterloo Region branch asked KW Urban Sketchers to record their impressions of 16-20 Queen St N as it is today, to help raise awareness before demolition and inalterable changes occur to this important part of our history.  Watercolour artist and teacher Candice Leyland provided this lovely studio image.  Check out her beautiful watercolour below.  16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener in 2021

Note: The views expressed below are my own.

Gail R. Pool

I got involved in heritage restoration because I had retired and had the opportunity to fix up a 100-year-old house and needed information on how to do so properly.  The previous owner had photos of the house and so it was a great opportunity to do it right. I was able to do the work with advice from various heritage practitioners and groups.

However, as an advocate for social justice, it seemed that there were many buildings going up near me that did not serve the working people of our city.  So, while I advocated for heritage preservation, it was difficult to hear people say that heritage conservation was contrary to housing needs.  So, when the Social Development Centre of Waterloo Region conducted a study of social displacement, it was clear that many of the properties also involved the demolition of heritage properties.  Some people have suggested that heritage preservation got in the way of affordable housing.  So, the question is:  does heritage conflict with our responsibility to provide housing?  Does it conflict with our need to have more density in the urban area and preserve farmland?

The short answer is No. Heritage advocacy does not conflict with affordable housing. Some have said that high rise buildings provide housing.  True, but for whom? When heritage is demolished for a highrise, it does not lead to any additional affordable housing.  There are jurisdictions where affordability is a condition before development is approved.  In many jurisdictions, a certain percentage of any new builds must be a certain percentage below market value. Fortunately, the City of Kitchener is planning on making affordability more of a reality to people on a lower income.

In reflecting on the question of heritage vs affordability, there have been a number of developments where affordable housing was lost.  The lowrise heritage buildings on Mill Street housed as many as 20 households.  Yet, when the developer wanted to build a 12 storey building, they did not intend to provide affordable housing until they were challenged by the neighbours and heritage advocates.  The home of Jacob Baetz, an important figure in Kitchener’s history was lost.  He built as many as fifty homes a year in the early part of the 20^th century.  He built the old Kitchener market, St Andrews Presbyterian Church, St. Matthews Presbyterian and the Victoria Public School.  Although he is a member of the Regional Hall of Fame, we do not even have a street named after him.  The home he build on Mill street could have been incorporated into the development but the developers refused.  In fact, that development now will provide much need town houses for families who cannot afford a detached home.  Even though heritage was lost, the current development is preferable to the condo units initially proposed.

There is another issue that concerns me, however.  That is the idea that heritage does not mean very much to the wider community.  In trying to preserve heritage, I am seen as being someone who hangs on to the past and anti modern.  Many people think that heritage advocates are elites who feel that the past overrides the housing needs of today and the future. In short, heritage advocates are elitist.

When I think about it, it seems that if anybody is elitist, it is those behind the real estate investment trusts (REITS).  REITS frequently demolish heritage in the name of more housing and even affordable housing but what do they really provide?  Other elites buy condos and do not live in them.  Rather, they rent the condos out at a cost which is profitable for them. The city has no mechanism to enforce low-cost units nor can it require a development be rentals rather than condos.  The very idea of an affordable condo is a false one.  The very cheapest one-bedroom unit of about 600 square feet costs $300,000 and then there are monthly condo fees and taxes that put these developments out of the reach of low-income people.  I am not sure that a person on minimum wage could even afford the fees and taxes, much less the cost of the initial investment.

But let me address the question in another way. Heritage can and has in the past work hand in hand with affordable living in this city.  Here are some examples.

1) The Registry Theatre on Frederick Street, originally the region’s registry office, was converted over a number of years and now is a venue for live events attractive to a wide variety of audiences that include plays, dance, folk music, jazz and community events.  Prices are low for events, often at $20 per ticket.  The Registry Theatre is available for children’s groups, presentations, conferences, recitals, literary readings and anything else for $350 per night. There are few venues which provide a space like the Registry Theatre for such a small amount.

2) The Victoria Public School was at risk of demolition in the 1980s.  Many people were opposed to the demolition because it had quality architecture but also because they had memories of attending school.  There were interventions from prominent politicians as well as mass demonstrations to oppose the demolition.  It was built in   1910 and opened as a school. The City of Kitchener bought the building in 1989 and renovated it, also adding new buildings on the site to create 116 affordable rental units. Many original interior elements were retained, including the stairwells and terrazzo floors. The heritage exterior has survived largely intact, from the foundations to the original slate roofs.

3) St Mark’s Lutheran Church at 825 King Street near Grand River Hospital is an example that deserves praise for combining significant heritage architecture with affordable housing.  In that case, the charity Indwell plans to work within the building’s footprint by adding several floors above the church hall to create 40 rental units. The sanctuary, a spectacular space with significant architectural value, is to be repurposed as community space, something that is not present in the immediate area.  A community space at this location is much needed for local arts and cultural events, a drop-in space or anything else that residents may wish to have.

Investors can still make money and preserve heritage. Allied Properties Real Estate Investment Trust owns the Lang Tannery and has kept that building intact and have improved it.  A number of tenants, including startup companies at Communitech, now occupy downtown spaces to do their innovative work.  The same real estate trust owns the Google building on Breithaupt, which has a modern portion and a large older section.  Allied Real Estate Investment Trust also owns the former Interior Hardwood Company factory – one of the first brick-and-beam factory conversions in downtown Kitchener factory at Victoria and Joseph.  All of these buildings are on Kitchener’s municipal heritage register.  These are multimillion-dollar investments and the buildings have been modified so they can be used by companies to create new technologies that create wealth for our community… and taxes for keeping our community a good place to live.  In short, heritage, innovation and a dynamic economy can co-exist.  It is not a choice between the past and the present and allowing a good mix will serve us well into the future.

The Architectural Conservancy Ontario (ACO) North Waterloo Region branch would like to share a few thoughts on the development proposal for 22 Weber Street West in Kitchener.

Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD) are created after much consultation with area residents, plus expertise from City planning staff and paid consultants.  Boundaries are carefully and thoughtfully delineated to preserve our built heritage and provide stability for an area deemed worth protecting, often one thought to be under threat in future.

The Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD is of significant cultural heritage value given the heritage attributes found within its architecture, streetscape and historical associations.  The designation of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood as a HCD was meant to protect and preserve the heritage assets and character that exist in the area.

The Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan provides clear direction for new construction, including new buildings on Weber Street West.  The Plan indicates that potential infill or redevelopment along Weber could have a negative impact on the heritage character of the area if not undertaken in a sensitive manner, particularly as this street contains nearly half of the oldest buildings in the District.

The Plan states one of its goals is to provide policies and design guidelines to ensure new development and alterations are sensitive to the heritage attributes and details of the District.

Policies include, maintaining residential streetscape character through the use of appropriate built form, materials, roof pitches and architectural design. Where redevelopment is proposed on vacant or underutilized sites, new development shall be sensitive to and compatible with adjacent heritage resources on the street with respect to height, massing, built form and materials.

Design Guidelines provide assistance in the review and evaluation of proposals for new buildings to ensure that new development is compatible with the adjacent context. These include the requirement to match setback, footprint, size and massing patterns of the neighbourhood, particularly to the immediately adjacent neighbors; and the use of materials, colours and traditional details that represent the texture and palette of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood.

When proposals come forward that could destroy the very thing that Districts were meant to protect, area residents have good reason to wonder about the future of their neighbourhood.  It has the result of introducing instability into an area.  This negatively affects neighbouring properties, creating a domino effect, reaching well beyond the boundaries of the redeveloped property.

ACO believes the development proposal for 22 Weber Street West will have a negative impact on the heritage character of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District; it will not be sensitive to nor compatible with adjacent heritage resources; and it does not attempt to match setback, footprint, size and massing patterns of the neighbourhood, particularly to the immediately adjacent neighbors, nor use materials, colours and traditional details that represent the texture and palette of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood.

Thank you for your consideration,

Marg Rowell

President, ACONWR