anal ysis | analyse

S eocial L arning, Feedback Loops, and Public Spheres Implementing a Values-based Management Model in Heritage Conservation

SottBrc ar ett is senior preservation officer > Scott Barrett for the Preservation Services, Department of and Patrice Dutil Planning, City of . The views presented here should not be perceived as representing those of the City of Toronto. ow do jurisdictions choose what build- Patrice Dutil is professor in the Department Hings to preserve? Since its beginnings, of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson the Canadian heritage conservation move- ment had been primarily guided by an University. He was a member of the City of approach that prized architecture, origin- Toronto Preservation Board from 2007 to 2010. ality of materials, and the stylistic purity of design. In recent years, however, theorists and professionals have changed evaluation and conservation techniques by broad- ening the range of cultural heritage val- ues. They have added a number of “public good” concerns as measures of desirabil- ity such as historical importance, scientific and cultural significance, context, and place. These considerations had long been understood, but were generally applied by methods that gave them less weight and significance than architectural values.1 The impact was that fewer historic resources were deemed worthy of state protection, a reality that inevitably triggered a “regime” politics of its own.2

This article breaks new ground in explor- ing how a values-based approach has been applied and explores some of the difficulties in implementing the values- based management model. It focuses on the application of Regulation 9/06 (under the Ontario Heritage Act’s Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest) in the Heritage Conservation Program of the City of Toronto, but its les- sons could be applied universally. It does so in three ways. First, it contrasts past and new evaluation models. Secondly, as participant-observers in the process, the authors explore three illustrative case studies. Through them, the positions of the preservation staff, the property owners, and the decisions of the Preservation Board are examined. The case studies were FG I . 1.  irst Unitarian Church, Toronto, Ontario. | Patrice Dutil, 2012.

JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012 > 17-26 17 Scott Barrett and Patrice Dutil > analysis | analyse

drawn from the 2008-2009 sitting of the to appointed Board members as well as to Significant in regard to cultural heritage Board because they revealed the tensions elected officials. Not least, the process [...] means “resources that are valued for in applying the criteria of a values-based also created the potential for a new era the important contribution they make to our heritage management system: of “social learning” as precedents were understanding of the history of a place, an set to apply the new and enlarged mean- event or a people.” (p. 40) • designation issue: ing of cultural heritage value. The Toronto Cultural heritage landscape means “a First Unitarian Congregation Church, Preservation Board—at the time composed defined geographical area of heritage sig- of three members of the City Council and • conservation issue: nificance which has been modified by human seven community representatives chosen 3 Old George Place, activities and is valued by a community. It through a competitive process—were chal- involved a grouping(s) of individual herit- • values in districts issue: lenged to strike a balance between the age features such as structures, spaces, Munroe Park Avenue. impulse for historic preservation under archaeological site and natural elements, the wider definitions, while balancing the which together form a significant type of Finally, the evidence presented by these needs for redevelopment, including the heritage form, distinctive from that of its cases sheds light on the unpredictability adaptation of historic properties for tour- constituent elements of parts. Examples may of the new policy environment born by the ist or urban revitalization.4 include […] heritage conservation districts expansion of values that necessarily chal- designated under the Ontario Heritage lenge society to move beyond architecture There is no doubt that cultural heritage val- Act.” (p. 33) in measuring the desirability of preserving ues have been applied in past assessments heritage resources. The analysis draws on of heritage resources in Canada, but always Conserved means the identification, pro- submissions to the Toronto Preservation in competition with architectural values tection, use and/or management of cultural Board presented by property owners, staff that weighed more heavily in decision- heritage […] in such a way that their herit- reports and deliberations of the Board to making. Moreover, each value was applied age values, attributes and integrity are show how new “values” were applied in only if good or significant architecture retained. This may be addressed through a making critical decisions. was first deemed worthy of preservation. conservation plan or heritage impact assess- Discussion on heritage values arose only ment. (p. 33) In Ontario, the advent of the new regula- when architecture values were deemed tion framework in 20063 created an oppor- insufficient to warrant designation. The This significant shift in definitions pre- tunity to test the heritage values of the practice of “scoring” heritage resources sented an important challenge to policy- community and to see them contested on their architecture inevitably created an makers and decision-makers in terms of and debated through a policy feedback inventory of protected buildings that did explaining the new approach to cultural process that combined bureaucratic exper- not necessarily reflect community choice. heritage values to stakeholders and in tise, public participation, and an appeals implementing them. The new cultural process through municipal councils. This In 2005, the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) was environment created new tensions as critical change in the process of determin- amended to improve municipal ability to properties not deemed to be “heritage ing cultural heritage importance allowed protect heritage properties and to encom- worthy” based on traditional norms could singular values to stand as sufficient in pass broader heritage values through the henceforth be listed or outright “desig- order to warrant legal protection of a adoption of Ontario Regulation 9/06. As a nated” for their heritage value (both heritage resource, without the support or result, properties could be protected for listing and designation could be used to precondition of architectural values. This reasons that reflected a community’s asso- protect cultural heritage value or interest). shift in focus not also promised to test how ciative and contextual values, in addition cultural heritage values were determined, to the traditional architectural values. To The City of Toronto was hardly alone in but how those values could inform society assist in this, section 2.6.1 of the Provincial wrestling with this new phase of historic regarding the protection and conservation Policy Statement 2005 stipulated that preservation. The OHA allowed any munici- of heritage resources. The change also “Significant built heritage resources and pality to designate a property if it met one enlarged the public sphere of dialogue on significant cultural heritage landscapes or more of the following criteria: if they the issue of preservation by promoting a shall be conserved.” The definition of the were rare, unique, or representative or more sophisticated policy “feedback loop” italicized terms emphasized: early example of a style, type, expression,

18 JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012 Scott Barrett and Patrice Dutil > analysis | analyse

material, or construction method; if they and its national committees.5 These dec- criteria for determining cultural herit- displayed a high degree of craftsmanship larations were endorsed by numerous age values, such as architectural history, or artistic merit, or if they demonstrated government departments and agencies cultural history, and context, it has been a high degree of technical or scientific around the world, including Canada, and tested in how these values have been achievement. Most importantly, the OHA have underpinned heritage legislation, applied. For instance, in the Vancouver also permitted municipalities to declare regulations, and guidelines adopted at the model, criteria that were evaluated to that properties had historical value or national, provincial, municipal, and local be present in quantities noted as “excel- associative value if they had direct asso- levels. In other words, although none of lent,” “very good,” “good,” or “average” ciations with a theme, event, belief, per- the cultural heritage value criteria repre- and each category were assigned a score, son, activity, organization, or institution sented entirely new departures for the as follows: that was significant to a community or profession of heritage conservation, the if they yielded, or had the potential to importance of the regulated criteria was • architectural history: yield, information that contributed to an heightened by the fact that each was indi- maximum score 40, understanding of a community or cul- vidually sufficient to warrant designation • cultural history: maximum score 35, ture. Properties could also be designated under the OHA. All the same, it challenged if they demonstrated or reflected the work the evaluation models that mostly relied • context: maximum score 25. or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, on an accumulation of points under similar designer, or theorist who was significant categories to justify government involve- This model of weightings emphasized a to a community. ment in the protection of a historical focus of cultural heritage value or interest property. Under this approach, a singular on architectural history, giving a heavier Finally, municipalities were granted the historical property rarely accumulated a influence over its subsequent conservation right to declare property as historically sufficient score to warrant designation as than any of the other criteria. Once scored significant if they had “contextual value,” a result of a single, highly compelling cul- in this system, potential heritage resour- in that they were important in defining, tural heritage value. The new evaluation ces were assigned a cumulative score, as maintaining, or supporting the character model had the potential to allow proper- follows: of an area or if they were physically, func- ties to be protected for their associative, tionally, visually, or historically linked to its historical, or contextual value without • houses and apartments: surroundings, or if they were a landmark. necessarily having any design or architec- 60-100 = A, 40-59 = B, 20-39 =C The Toronto City Council adopted Parks tural value. Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the • institutions, churches, schools, Conservation of Historic Places in Canada The prevalent model of heritage evalua- commercial and industrial buildings: (henceforth referred to as “Standards and tion system that provided a clear and 70-100 = A, 55-74=B, 30-54=C Guidelines”) in March 2008 as the official understandable basis for decision-making document for the planning, stewardship, was based on evaluation criteria and meth- These weightings have made it very dif- and conservation approach of all listed odology originally designed by Harold ficult for a heritage resource with little and designated heritage resources within Kalman.6 However, as the understanding architectural value or significance to obtain the city. This document identified cultural and application of the scored evaluation an “A” or even a “B” rating. The emphasis heritage values that could guide decisions model developed over time, it became on architectural value in the evaluation in the stewardship of the materials and evident that some criteria needed to be of heritage resources has challenged the attributes of heritage resources. elevated so that they could be sufficient flowering of values-based evaluation sys- to warrant the protection of a heritage tems, where each and every value has been C ore Principles of Values- resource, regardless of the presence of deemed to be individually significant. Centred Preservation other heritage values, particularly archi- tectural values. The City of Vancouver has Although Ontario Regulation 9/06 allo- The OHA borrowed its stipulations of value retained that model, showing how certain cated values to the evaluation of heritage from the Venice, Burra, Washington, and elements of the grading of cultural herit- resources that were very similar to those Appleton charters of the International age values could be problematic. Although employed by the City of Vancouver (and Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) the system has included wide-ranging by many other municipalities, including

JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012 19 Scott Barrett and Patrice Dutil > analysis | analyse

the City of Toronto), it prefaced its criteria Three cases considered by the Toronto than the other eight churches. The design by emphasizing that “A property may be Preservation Board in 2008-2009 dem- was of a more modern era, with its distinct- designated under section 29 of the Act if it onstrated how the values were applied ive north façade dating only from 1993. meets one or more of the following criteria differently. The stakeholders in one case for determining whether it is of cultural successfully contested the values-based The First Unitarian Church (fig. 1) was heritage value or interest.”7 approach; in a second case they com- considered to have design value as a well- promised with it, and in the final case crafted example of Modern design applied This shift toward values-based evalua- embraced it. The case studies bring to to a religious building. The church fea- tion and conservation models has been light the difficulties in applying the values- tured detailing by metalsmith Don Stuart informed by recent scholarship in identi- based approach, but also its potential as and a monumental stained-glass window fying and applying values in the process an effective tool in “social learning” and entitled “Radiance, Reflection, Revelation” of evaluating heritage resources. Randall as a policy “feedback loop” in arriving at by artist Sarah Hall. The latter project— Mason identified three principles at the decisions that will meet what economists one of the largest single commissions core of a values-centred preservation have called a “double public good” that for stained glass in the Toronto area— practice: incorporates a “social heritage value with had been nominated for the Ontario private satisfaction derived from preserved Art Council’s Jean A. Chalmers Award • the participation of various stake- historic resources.”10 for creativity and excellence in the arts.11 holders, ranging from politicians to There were other features of the build- community organizations along with L isting the First Unitarian ing’s unique styling that made it worthy preservation practitioners, in the Congregation Church of preservation: researching and preservation plan- ning of a site; In September 2008, the City of Toronto’s • the scale, massing and form of the Preservation staff recommended that the asymmetrical plan, which rises one • the acknowledgement of the mani- City Council include on its list of heritage extended storey under a flat roofline fold values of a place, all of which buildings a group of nine church prop- with coping; are valid and meaningful; and erties in the St. Clair Avenue West area • the stone, brick and glass cladding • the understanding that “culture [is] a (between and Dufferin and trim; process not a set of things with fixed Street). The addition of the properties on

meaning” and is, therefore, subject the City’s heritage inventory would enable • the principal (north) façade, which to change over time and to a given staff to monitor any changes to the sites conceals the bulk of the building to 8 situation. and encourage the retention of heritage the rear (south), and features stone attributes. Eight of the churches were built band courses on the walls flanking Mason stressed that the values-based at the turn of the century and, while very the offset tower; approach was not meant to replace the different from each other, shared recog- previous emphasis on the conservation nizably “historic” features. Certainly, their • the distinctive tower that rises in and management of historic fabric, which architecture belonged to a past era, they tiers and incorporates an oversized may conflict with contemporary values had long associations with the neighbour- multi-paned stained-glass window such as profit and recreational use, but hood and had, for the most part, been with a triangular top; instead enabled “a truly holistic handling conceived by architects who had realized • the main entrance, which is placed of a site’s values and [brought] to bear many beautiful buildings in the city. The at the base of the tower in a flat- tools for dealing with the values and Toronto Preservation Board agreed with headed surround; their conflicts rationally as well as pol- the judgment of the City staff, and passed itically.”9 A values-based approach also a motion to advise the City Council to list • the fenestration on the north façade, allowed for sites with intangible values, all the buildings on the heritage inventory. with full-height rectangular window but no standing structures (for example, openings with multi-paned windows the location at which important events in Located at 175 St. Clair Avenue West, the on the left (east), and similar open- a community occurred) to be examined First Unitarian building was different. It ings reduced in size on the west for heritage planning. was built in the early 1950s, much later (right) side.

20 JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012 Scott Barrett and Patrice Dutil > analysis | analyse

The building, like the other eight, also had The listing of the first eight churches was The eight churches had been fixtures in associative value. The origins of the con- uncontested by their communities. (One their neighbourhood for almost a century, gregation date to the seventeenth century congregation, the United Church, did not with recognizably distinct architectural when the church was founded in the United dispute the cultural heritage values related features. Their associative history was States according to the principles of individ- to the listing and subsequent designation incontestable, and their congregations ual freedom of belief, use of reason in reli- of Deer Park United, but did momentar- largely welcomed the recognition of the gion, and liberal social action. The Toronto ily challenge the listing and designation City. First Unitarian Church leaders, how- congregation was organized in 1846, fol- out of concern about its legal impact.) ever, had made a convincing case that the lowed in 1854 by the opening of a church The First Unitarian Church’s representa- City staff had gone too far in applying a on . Identified as the earliest tives, however, appeared before the broad range of cultural heritage values. religious body in Toronto to recognize the Preservation Board in December 2008 and Following a long discussion of the values at equal rights of women, the congregation’s opposed the listing.13 They challenged the play, the Preservation Board (in a split deci- membership in the late 1800s included City’s perception of value. In their view the sion) advised the City Council not to list Emily Stowe, the first practicing female building was relatively new, therefore not the First Unitarian Church on its inventory physician in the city. In 1950, members of “historic” by definition. The First Unitarian of heritage buildings. It was a case where the congregation founded the Elizabeth Fry Church also argued that while the links the community’s interpretation of values Society, which continues to assist women of their community to the past were evi- was carried. It trumped the views of the prisoners during incarceration and follow- dent, the accomplishments listed as asso- professional staff and convinced a majority ing release. Among the causes advocated ciative to a building actually belonged to of the Preservation Board members. by the First Unitarian Church during its long a former property of the congregation history in Toronto were the abolition of the in downtown Toronto. Finally, they chal- 3 Old George Place death penalty, nuclear disarmament, native lenged the architectural pedigree of the issues, gay and lesbian rights, assistance for structure: the work of the Browns had The First Unitarian Church’s challenge the homeless, and numerous other activ- all but disappeared from public view. In to the notion that a “Modern” structure ities supporting social change. other words, there was no justification for should be protected against demolition the building to be included on the city’s found a similar echo in the case of a home The original building and its addition were registry of historic buildings.14 For the rep- in North Rosedale, a luxurious neighbour- executed by the Toronto architectural resentatives of the First Unitarian Church, hood of Toronto. North Rosedale had been partnership of Bruce Brown and Brisley the edifice did not tell the “story” the designated as a Heritage Conservation Architects and the successor firm of Brown Toronto staff discerned. Aside from being District (HCD), thereby empowering the Beck and Ross Architects (now known as an institution of importance to the local city to protect the structures and character BB&R Architect Inc.). Founded in 1891 by community, the associative values was not of all the structures in the neighbourhood. the important Toronto architect J. Francis tied to the modern building, the work of The owners of 3 Old George Place had Brown, the practice evolved to include the original architects had, for all intents hired eminent architects to bring changes three generations of the Brown family and and purposes, been lost, and while the to the home and applied to the City for partnerships with other leading designers. building did have striking features, it was permission to execute them. In so doing, While the firm originally gained promin- not of “historic” importance. they contested the City’s interpretation ence with its industrial buildings after the of what alterations were acceptable to a Great Fire of 1904 that destroyed significant The case of the First Unitarian Church illus- relatively new building. portions of the downtown core of Toronto, trated vividly the application of new values church projects became its mainstay. In the to the task of heritage preservation. The The property had been designated by the early 1950s, BB&R introduced contempor- issue pitted members of the community City Council in 2004 as part of the North ary designs to its religious commissions, against City staff, leaving the Preservation Rosedale Heritage Conservation District including the noted McMaster Divinity Board with the delicate task of weighing (NRHCD) under Part V of the Ontario College and Chapel (1958) in Hamilton. the two interpretations. In the end, the Heritage Act and was identified as a Contextually, with its unique design and Preservation Board compared the First “Category A” building. Within the NRHCD embellishments, the First Unitarian Church Unitarian Church with the other eight reli- Plan, Category A buildings held the high- could easily be considered a landmark.12 gious buildings and drew sharp contrasts. est level of importance: they had national

JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012 21 Scott Barrett and Patrice Dutil > analysis | analyse

garage was the most visible feature on the property and was set in front of the house with its rear wall facing the street. The driveway looped around the garage to provide a private drop off at the front entrance. The garage was connected to the main entrance of the house by a straight open-sided canopy. The main house was designed with a “T” shaped plan with the stem of the “T” projecting dramatically over a ravine, affording beautiful views from large glazed areas. Originally the house was designed to be one storey at the front, with the base- ment floor at the ravine level below.16

The prominent garage was one storey and clad it its original materials: coursed light grey brick surmounted by a horizontal pebbled precast concrete band. This clad- ding carried around the house, setting FG I . 2. 3 Old George Place, Toronto, Ontario. | City of Toronto, 2008. a strong contrast to the sloping ravine site and reflecting the original structure or provincial heritage significance. (Also, modernism which allows only understated design. Some of the cladding has been under Section 42 of the OHA, owners must and subtle expressions of individuality. removed or damaged by recent renova- obtain a permit from the municipality to Rather than willful flamboyant display, tions. Beyond the garage was the private alter a designated property in a HCD. good architecture presents a discrete realm of the main house, almost invisible If Council fails to give a decision to the anonymous public face.” That feature, from the street. Only a very small portion owner within 90 days from the receipt of however, was not unanimously appreci- of the main house wall was visible to the a complete application for alteration, the ated. The building was considered by west of the garage. The front door was permit is deemed to be granted. Should many of its neighbours to be hostile and not visible and remained hidden behind the Council refuse, however, the owner unattractive; even City Preservation staff the garage. An earlier photograph shows could appeal the decision to the Ontario acknowledged that it was colloquially that the garage itself was once partially Municipal Board.) referred to as “the bunker.”15 hidden by large pine trees.17

The home was designed by prominent 3 Old George Place, designed as a bach- Old George Place, a cul-de-sac featuring Canadian architect John B. Parkin and elor’s home, was completed in 1965. four homes, was one of the last developed stood as an iconic example of the 1960s It was built for J. Douglas Crashley, an areas in North Rosedale and provided a modernist movement in Canada (fig. 2). accomplished Toronto entrepreneur unique “place.” The street was opened in The property had made a significant con- and philanthropist, president of the Art the 1960s and offered a unique modernist tribution to the unique streetscape char- Gallery of Ontario (1972-1974) and mem- heritage character and value to the eyes of acter of this part of the NRHCD ravine ber of the Order of Canada. The dwelling the NRHCD. The houses were all completed lands (indeed, a photo of 3 Old George was characterized by the use of modern in a Modern or post-Modern architectural Place was used to illustrate typical fea- materials and building techniques as well style (as defined in the NRHCD Plan). tures of the “Dominion Modern” style in as a clear orthogonal massing. The prop- The houses were also all designed with the NRHCD plan). The description stated erty presented a private, discrete face to their primary façade facing the ravine. that “Dominion Modern refers to a strand the street that has been characteristic Conversely, the street façade reinforced of orthodox Canadian International style of the “Dominion Modern” style. The the private character of this street,

22 JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012 Scott Barrett and Patrice Dutil > analysis | analyse

displaying garages, landscaping walls, and would no longer appear to be separate, spatial organization and views into a largely blank walls to the local pedestrian. and it would enclose the original entrance property and which also recommended Directly adjacent, on the east side of the inside the house. A third two-storey against removing or radically changing the property, stood 4 Old George Place, “the block to the west would contain the new entrances of heritage buildings.20 Fraser House” designated under Part IV of entrance area set in front of the house the OHA in 1991. Built in 1968, the house and back slightly from the garage, com- The input of the North Rosedale Ratepayers was designed by architect Ron Thom. It pletely covering the visible portion of the Association Heritage Committee, which was also situated over the ravine, set into a existing front façade, extend west of the has served as the heritage advisory com- hillside away from the street to emphasize original plane of the house and radically mittee for the district, was also sought. the natural setting. These two adjacent alter the entrance which had been private The Committee indicated that while modernist houses reinforced each other’s and hidden. The entrance would thus be some aspects of the alterations could be design with their private, understated visible and much closer to the street. acceptable, the new proposal advanced character and architecture that recedes by the owners was not supportive of the into the natural landscape.18 The applicant also proposed a second, streetscape or architectural character of glazed storey to the garage, altering the property. City Preservation staff thus The new owners of 3 Old George wished the low massing. The effect would be to concluded that the proposed addition to build an addition that would cover the make it an integral part of the proposed would radically alter the existing signifi- front of the house and connect to the new house. More space would also be cant Old George Place streetscape with its garage at the front of the property. One added over the back of the house with unique modernist heritage character and storey would also be added above the an expanded second storey. This additional value in the NRHCD. The discrete charac- garage. The approximately 6523-square- space would not be visible from the street. ter of the street would also be affected foot original structure would thus gain City staff considered approving the addi- by the addition of a new front entrance another 1980 square feet. The applicant tion of a full second storey to the main facing the street. The spatial organiza- proposed to re-clad the buildings to make house but balked at the request for more tion of the streetscape would be altered them energy efficient. The plans allowed additions on the front of the house. The by the insertion of a much larger, taller a second storey to be added to the house, combination, it was feared, would ruin volume closer to the street, which would which was to be set back from the original the heritage character of the property add glazed areas directly overlooking the wall plane and clad in glass to differentiate and the streetscape. The proposal to put a street replacing the discrete elevation that from, but complement, the original forms large addition on the front of the building had been low, horizontal, partially hidden, and materials.19 The City Preservation staff would have major impacts on the heritage and receding into nature.21 agreed to the changes and issued a herit- character of the property. It would com- age permit in early 2007 to allow some pletely obscure the visible front façade, Moreover, the scale and nature of the alterations to the property. increase dramatically the massing of the proposed alterations were not considered front of the house, and alter the spatial appropriate by the staff and were con- In 2008, the applicant made a new character of the front of the property by sidered damaging to the heritage char- proposal for another 2613 square feet, pushing the taller portions forward. It acter of the property and streetscape increasing the original surface by 4593 would also add mass to the garage and of Old George Place. City staff recom- square feet (the new area combined in replace the hidden entrance with a new mended that the Preservation Board the two proposals would represent a 70% visible front entrance. permit the application only if amended increase over the original). The revised to be consistent with the NRHCD Plan as application proposed a large addition City staff, however, countered that this was well as the “Standards and Guidelines.” to the front of the house, in three rect- precisely what the character of the street The existing, stand-alone single-storey angular spaces. The “formal dining room” was not meant to be: “It was meant to be garage, it argued, should be maintained would be a smaller one-storey addition discrete and the existing entrance dem- to support the original intent of the John to the east set back from the garage and onstrates that distinctive heritage charac- Parkin design of a low profile front of would not be visible from the street. A ter.” Staff also turned to the “Standards this property and entrance to the house. second two-storey block would join the and Guidelines,” which specifically rec- The single storey would also maintain front façade to the garage so that it ommended against altering important the symmetry with the adjacent houses

JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012 23 Scott Barrett and Patrice Dutil > analysis | analyse

and preserve the Old George Place cul- The Board approved the application, but fronting on . Munro Park de-sac streetscape. Moreover, the second imposed a modification to the materials Avenue was named after George Munro storey would materially alter the original proposed in the second option. The deci- (1800?-1878) who acquired the land in design of this A-rated house and provide sion—unexpected for the applicant and 1847 (fig. 3). Munro was a successful for potentially objectionable increase in City staff—was one that was informed by Toronto businessman, a Toronto alderman activity at the front of the property and aesthetics rather than the cultural heritage and mayor, and a member of the provincial vastly intensified lighting on the cul-de- values of the property, as the Preservation legislature. sac. Similarly, it recommended that the Board set aside many concerns of the staff, two-storey addition on the west side of the views of neighbours, and the prefer- The Balmy Beach neighbourhood had long the current house should not be included ences of the applicant. The compromise been an area of interest for a potential in the final plans of the property. was one that could potentially change the HCD, although the area’s residents were all character of the street as well as the archi- but unified in their opinions on the merits The Preservation Board had a difficult tecture of the building. It was a case where or disadvantages of a HCD designation choice to make. The house in question the final decision formulated by members for their neighbourhood. Consequently, was held to be worthy of protection both of the Preservation Board highlighted the the area was subdivided into a number of on its architectural and historical merits “material value” of the preservation issue specific areas and polls were held in June and in light of guidelines for the Heritage over the “cultural heritage value.” 2004 in each to determine which neig- Conservation District. The new owners, bourhoods should advance to a HCD study. with the help of prestigious architects, T he Proposed Munro Park/East had also presented a compelling case that Beach Heritage Conservation As a result of that polling the Toronto would make the home more accommodat- District City Council passed a bylaw authoriz- ing to its owners and remove the “hostile” ing the study of various parts of Balmy façade it presented to the street. This was The proposal for the Munro Park / East Beach to determine whether all or parts a contest of values that had little to do Beach HCD showed how preservation val- should be designated by the Council as a with the original design or its proposed ues can change in a community. Munro Heritage Conservation District under the modifications. At the core of the debate Park Avenue is located in the “Beach” in Ontario Heritage Act. The areas author- were values about the original intents of East Toronto. It is a neighbourhood where ized for the HCD Study by the City Council the architect, and the impact these pre- other HCDs already exist and where resi- included Munro Park Avenue, but did not cedent-setting changes to 3 Old George dents have an appreciation of the cultural include Neville Park Boulevard. The HCD would create in a designated heritage heritage values of this section of the city. Plan would also be written to preserve conservation district. the character of the Balmy Beach area. Although it is referred to as the Munro The development of the guidelines and The architects for the owner presented the Park/East Beach, the area is larger than the character statement for each block Preservation Board with two options. The its name. The boundaries of the pro- would be part of the study process. first was a compromise that drew the addi- posed district range north of Lake Ontario, tions atop the garage and away from the south of Queen Street East, east of Silver Although the Province established criteria streetscape. The second was a scheme the Birch Avenue, and west of the R.C. Harris for the designation of individual buildings neighbourhood residents had opposed in Filtration Plan which is at the foot of under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage the past. The proposed single-storey addi- Victoria Park Avenue. More specifically, it Act (Regulation 9/06), it did not do the tion on the east of the current house in comprises all land between the rear lot- same for the identification of HCDs or both options posed no significant threat lines of properties fronting on the west the properties within them. In particular to the design of the entrance, the nature side of Munro Park Avenue and the east the contextual value of all buildings in a of the cul-de-sac and the character of the side of Neville Park Boulevard extending HCD could vary from district to district. For unusual streetscape of Old George Place, south to the Lake Ontario shoreline and example, in Toronto’s Cabbagetown area, and were therefore acceptable, but the north to the rear lot-lines of properties the importance of individual buildings second set of changes were the cause of fronting on Queen Street East. It includes arose from their contribution to a mid- to considerable debate among the members those properties facing Lake Ontario on late-Victorian streetscape. (The approach of the Preservation Board. Lake Front Road but excludes all properties allowed by the OHA for the designation

24 JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012 Scott Barrett and Patrice Dutil > analysis | analyse

of HCDs in four areas of Cabbagetown, Yorkville/Hazelton, two areas in Rosedale and Lyall Avenue, focused heritage con- servation on building exteriors that were visible from the street. An addition to the rear of a building, which was not visible from the street, would typically be per- mitted but only if it were not higher than the existing roof ridge. Similarly, paint col- ours on building exteriors visible from the street have not been considered to require a heritage permit.)

The process of forming a HCD has often been resident-driven, and citizens can change their minds. In 2005, at the request of the local Toronto Community Council, a new poll was conducted in the area. A letter from the local Councillor in June of that year indicated to Munro Park/ East Beach residents that the results of the FG MI . 3.  unro Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario. | Scott Barrett, 2012. vote did not favour a HCD study, and that none would be carried out.22 its initial development period (1910-1924) district be designated as a HCD by the City. Two years later, attitudes turned again and as retaining original or character- The Preservation Board referred the HCD when developers submitted a proposal defining features. Homes that had been study and Plan to City staff for review.24 for a five-storey apartment building to altered in a way which was sympathetic The Heritage Conservation Districts in be constructed on three lakefront lots at to the original character of the building, Toronto: Procedures, Policies and Terms the foot of Munro Park Avenue. By the or had been architecturally designed and of Reference, Munro Park Avenue and end of 2007, a movement for the preser- retained important original architectural Neville Park Boulevard were adopted by vation of Munro Park Avenue and Neville features, or had a built form and features the City of Toronto in March of 2012, which Park Boulevard had taken its first steps and that contributed to the characteristic of in effect recognized the area as a HCD. residents founded the Beach Lakefront the district, were also deemed acceptable. Neighbourhood Association Inc. (BLNA). Finally, buildings that had had a notable The change in attitude toward HCD desig- After much consideration, the leaders of resident or owner, or which had been built nation clearly demonstrated the dynamic the organization concluded that the best after 1924 but had sufficient cultural herit- nature of community-based cultural herit- strategy to protect the neighbourhood age value to merit designation on their age values. There once was little support from such development was to seek a HCD own in accordance with Regulation 9/06 for a HCD in the area because property designation. The BLNA conducted its own issued under the OHA, or which contrib- owners feared the impact of official desig- poll of area households, and its result dem- uted to the “character” of the district, nation on property rights and values. The onstrated that the majority of households would be included. The study concluded cultural heritage values of the community would support a Heritage Conservation that under such guidelines, heritage build- changed in the face of a tangible threat to District study.23 ings constituted almost 70% of the stock its built environment. It was a case where of principal buildings within the district. the community made a decision based on The BLNA then commissioned an examina- the cultural heritage values of its neigh- tion of the area and concluded that herit- In January 2009, the BLNA submitted bourhood, rather than on property rights age buildings within this district would its HCD study and plan to the Toronto or the architectural appeal of their indi- be defined as having been built during Preservation Board, with a request that the vidual properties alone.

JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012 25 Scott Barrett and Patrice Dutil > analysis | analyse

C onclusion N otes 7. [Emphasis added.] See Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act, op. cit.

Although the Ontario Heritage Act had 1. On values, see Navrud, Stale and Richard C. 8. The theoretical tension is explored by Mason, Ready (eds.), 2002, Valuing Cultural Heritage: Randall, 2006, “Theoretical and Practical long indicated that heritage resources Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques Arguments for Values‐Centered Preservation,” could be protected for their value or to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts, CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, interest (specifically not limiting the possi- Northhampton (MA), Edward Elgar; Sable, vol. 3, no. 2. He calls the traditional concern bility of protection to architectural values Karen A. and Robert W. Kling, 2001, “The the “curatorial impulse” and the demand for Double Public Good: A Conceptual Framework redevelopment the “urbanistic impulse.” See alone), the 2006 amendments changed for ‘Shared Experience’ Values Associated with also Lee, Antoinette J., 2004, “From Historic the methods by which properties were Heritage Conservation,” Journal of Cultural Architecture to Cultural Heritage: A Journey evaluated. For decades weighted evalua- Economics, vol. 25, p. 77-89. Many scholars, through Diversity, Identity, and Community,” tion systems were employed to recognize meanwhile, made inroads in studying the Future Anterior, fall 2004, p. 15-23; and Mason, economic impact of heritage conservation. Randall and Marta de la Torre, 2000, “Heritage associative, contextual, and historic val- The latest example is Noonan, Douglas S. and Conservation and Values in Globalizing ues, but not without the consideration of Douglas J. Krupka, 2010, “Determinants of Societies,” World Culture Report 2, Paris, architectural values. This custom deeply Historic and Cultural Landmark Designation: France, UNESCO; see also de la Torre, Assessing penetrated the practice of conservation, Why We Preserve What We Preserve,” Journal the Values of Cultural Heritage, op. cit. of Cultural Economics, vol. 34, p. 1-26. making the adoption of a true values- 9. Mason, id. : 34. 2. The notion of a heritage policy “regime” is based model difficult in municipal herit- 10. Sable and Kling : 77-89. borrowed from Newman, Harvey K., 2001, age planning. “Historic Preservation Policy and Regime 11. City of Toronto, City Planning Division. Report Politics in Atlanta,” Journal of Urban Affairs, (September 27, 2007) from the Director, Policy The application of values-centred preser- vol. 23, no. 1, p. 71-86. and Research, “Reasons for listing 175 St. Clair Avenue West.” vation approaches offers a special chal- 3. See Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the lenge in social learning. As the city—its Ontario Heritage Act: Criteria for Determining 12. Id. Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. public servants, its advisory bodies such 13. Richard Kirsh, the president of the Board of as the Preservation Board, its decision- 4. See Mason, Randall, 2002, “Assessing Values Trustees of the First Unitarian Congregation of Toronto, and David Finnegan, the archdiocese makers on the City Council and its cit- in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices,” In Marta de la Torre (ed.), of Toronto’s Director of Planning, Properties izens—has discovered “new” values Assessing the Value of Cultural Change, Los and Housing. associated with heritage that go beyond Angeles, J. Paul Getty Trust. For some dis- 14. City of Toronto, Toronto Preservation Board cussion of how “values” have been debated concerns for building aesthetics and age, Minutes, December 2008. adjustments will continue to take place by stakeholders, see Lowenthal, David, 1997, Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Industry 15. City of Toronto, City Planning Division, “Report in the public sphere. The three cases dis- and the Spoils of History, New York, The Free From the Director, Policy and Research, on cussed in this article demonstrated some Press; and Tung, Anthony, 2001, Preserving 3 Old George Place” (June 10, 2008). of the strains and difficulties as the City the World’s Great Cities: the Destruction 16. Id. of Toronto has moved from a “materials and Renewal of the Historic Metropolis, New York, Clarkson Potter. A good discussion of 17. Id. value” appreciation of historic buildings a Canadian example is Hall, Jennifer, 1999, 18. Id. : 4. to the new values-based management of “Consuming the Past at a Suburban Heritage 19. Id. properties and has moved research into a Site: Markham Heritage Estates, Ontario,” “politics” of heritage preservation where Canadian Geographer, vol. 43, no. 4, p. 433-455. 20. City of Toronto, City Planning Division. Report 3 Old George Place (September 3, 2008) from values are debated. More research into 5. ICOMOS, the International Council on the Director, Policy and Research. how these values are weighed in the full- Monuments and Sites, is an international organization of professionals engaged in 21. Id. ness of time will determine which values, the conservation and protection of monu- 22. City of Toronto, Department of Planning, Letter in the end, manage to dominate decision- ments and sites and is the principal advisor from Sandra Bussin (deputy mayor and City of to the United Nations Educational, Scientific making and establish how the “public Toronto Ward 32 councillor) to the residents of and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on such good” is defined in a public sphere that Munro Park Avenue, June 28, 2012. matters. is shaped by an unpredictable three-way 23. Report of the BLNA, 2007. 6. See Kalman, Harold, 1980, The Evaluation conversation between the bureaucracy, of Historic Buildings, Ottawa, Parks Canada. 24. City of Toronto, Toronto Preservation Board community members, and civic bodies Kalman, an unsung hero, should be credited Minutes, January 22, 2009. such as preservation boards. for his massive contribution to advancing the field of heritage preservation in Canada.

26 JSSAC | JSÉAC 37 > No 1 > 2012