March 2012
FINAL REPORT
"Phoenix Rising": A Background and Vision Report for 15 King Street Bracebridge, Ontario
Submitted to: Cheryl Kelley Director of Economic Development Town of Bracebridge 1000 Taylor Court Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1R6
Report Number: 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) Distribution:
REPORT 2 copies - Town of Bracebridge 1 e-copy - Town of Bracebridge 1 CD - Town of Bracebridge 2 copies - Golder Associates "PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Executive Summary
This Background and Vision Report has been written to provide the necessary background information to assist with the determination of a preferred option (or options) for the future of 15 King Street in Bracebridge, Ontario. It presents an understanding of key attributes of the property, including its built heritage resources (including “Woodchester Villa”, its museum collection, its natural heritage resources, and a review of the current governance model and applicable legislation.1 This was contextualized by presenting a history of octagon houses, the Bird Family, and through a market analysis. As well, the market context for redevelopment of the site and a review of the public policy environment in Bracebridge is contained in the document. This process also revealed issues with the current governance of the site, particularly concerning the ownership of the museum collection, and indicated that some further deterioration has occurred since the 2010 Assessment undertaken by First Dimension Engineering. The process included stakeholder consultation through onsite sessions, email correspondence, and telephone interviews.
Stakeholder consultation revealed that while those consulted recognized the values of the site, there was a clear recognition that this understanding was not widespread within the community. Their descriptions of the site emphasised the lack of care and maintenance applied to the Villa, but recognized that the site as a whole was a considerable asset to the community, and that there were some very distinctive and important elements to the site. The Chapel Gallery was identified as a positive attribute, as was the site’s location. The site was seen as a unique location, with a special story, with Woodchester Villa being a very distinct building and focal point. The stakeholders all wanted to see the site as a useful and integrated component of the community.
Drawing upon the background findings, an initial vision statement was developed to guide the consideration of the options. The vision statement developed is as follows:
The 15 King Street property, consisting of Woodchester Villa, the Chapel Gallery, and the surrounding parkland, will be a revitalized community resource used by a variety of community groups and members. Situated in a redesigned park with vistas and signage, a restored Woodchester Villa that includes some historical exhibits and other community uses possibly supported by small scale commercial uses and which will be augmented by the Chapel Gallery.
From this statement, three options were developed by the team that ranged from “least commercialized” to “most commercialized”. The least commercialized option envisages essentially using the property as a park and event area for the community in the short term, and treating the Villa as an “artifact”. At the other end of the spectrum, the “most commercialized” option sees the Villa being restored and used for some commercial purpose. In the middle lies a semi-commercialized option that would use (rent) some of the building for office space (likely for community groups, but possibly for service businesses paying a market rent). Other parts of the building floor could be used as museum or exhibit space; either a museum on Bracebridge history, or the story of the Bird family. The option is also available for a small scale commercial use, such as a tea room. This option generates some revenue for the municipality, yet keeps at least part of the structure open to the general public.
1 “Woodchester Villa” is not the name the Bird Family used for the property. The family called the property Woodchester. The “Villa” was added in the late 1970s by either the Rotary Club or the Bracebridge Historical Society. However, the name “Woodchester Villa” is used in this report as it is the name currently used for the property.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) i
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
The next report will focus on the preferred option. However, no matter what option is chosen for further analysis, several recommendations have been developed for the municipality. These are as follows:
1) Based upon the conditions of the Ontario Heritage Trust Easement Agreements, the repair work on Woodchester Villa must be undertaken no matter what option is chosen;
2) As the nature and composition of the cement and the stucco is not known, it should be determined prior to the installation of any new materials or moisture barrier;
3) The following items should be discussed with the Ontario Heritage Trust: whether or not the Chapel Gallery is included in the easement agreement; what changes are considered appropriate for the interior given the significant alterations noted in several areas; what level of detail is required for project specifications, if the existing list of heritage elements is still applicable or appropriate, if archaeology is going to be required before work begins; and, if the proposed removal of original material is considered appropriate;
4) The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be reviewed to ensure that any of the proposed works meet the standards within this document;
5) The date and details of the dissolution of the Bracebridge Historical Society should be ascertained in order to ensure that there are no questions concerning the ownership of the collection;
6) The collection records and inventory should be reviewed to determine that all items have a record of donation or purchase. In the absence of either record, prior to undertaking any action on an item, ownership should be determined either through follow-up with the original donator/seller or through legal notice;
7) It is recommended that due to the present state of the collection, it should be assessed by a conservator. This is especially necessary as items will likely need to be moved prior to the renovation work on the building. This conservator should provide a priority action list of next steps, including (but not limited to) a work plan for necessary conservation of artifacts, helping to identify what items the Town may wish to retain and which items the Town should de-accession, and helping to develop policies for the collection;
8) Prior to the 2012 tourism season, a concerted effort should be undertaken to ensure that the community is aware the site is closed, and to ensure that all tourist publications clearly indicate this fact;
9) A communication plan should be developed to advise people what is going on with the 15 King Street, the schedule for any proposed works, and important next steps;
10) The Town should develop and adopt policies that reflect the provincial requirements for conservation standards, collections standards, and physical plant standards for museum collections without delay;
11) The Letter of Understanding between the Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc. and the Town of Bracebridge governing the terms of use of the Chapel Gallery should be revisited by both parties to see if it is still applicable after a preferred option is chosen;
12) It may be useful for the municipality to acquire a guide for housekeeping in historic house museums, such as the National Trust publication Housekeeping for Historic Homes and House Museums by Melissa Heaver;
13) A site specific maintenance plan should be developed for 15 King Street;
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) ii
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
14) A Designated Substances Review should be carried out on Woodchester Villa, if one has not already been carried out; and,
15) The Accessibility recommendations of Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be reviewed in more detail once a specific option is chosen.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) iii
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
PROJECT PERSONNEL Proponent Contact Cheryl Kelley and Kim Ball, Town of Bracebridge
Project Manager Marcus Létourneau, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist Marcus Létourneau, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
TCI Management Consultants Jon Linton, CMC
Ecoplans Ltd Shannon Baker, OALA, CSLA, CAHP
Erin Eldridge, BLA, OALA Associate, CAHP Intern
Report Production Marcus Létourneau, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
Graphics Production Paul McDowell
Senior Review Hugh Daechsel, MA
Administration Lois Breadner
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) iv
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2.0 REPORT PURPOSE ...... 4
3.0 PROPERTY OVERVIEW ...... 5
3.1 Woodchester Villa ...... 5
3.1.1 Octagon Houses ...... 5
3.1.2 The Bird Family ...... 7
3.1.3 Woodchester Villa ...... 13
3.2 The Chapel Gallery ...... 25
3.3 Other Structures ...... 25
4.0 EXISTING SITUATION ...... 32
4.1 Occupancy Load ...... 32
4.2 Planning Framework ...... 32
4.3 Cultural Heritage Management ...... 35
4.3.1 OHT Easement ...... 35
4.3.2 Ontario Heritage Act Designation ...... 38
4.3.3 Museum Collection ...... 38
4.3.4 Museum Operations ...... 47
4.4 Built Heritage ...... 50
4.5 Landscape Site Inventory ...... 61
4.5.1 Site Context ...... 61
4.5.2 Site Access (Entrances) ...... 62
4.5.2.1 Pedestrian Access ...... 62
4.5.2.2 Vehicular Access ...... 62
4.5.3 Vehicular Circulation ...... 62
4.5.3.1 Parking ...... 62
4.5.4 Pedestrian Circulation ...... 63
4.5.4.1 Pathways ...... 63
4.5.4.2 Footpaths ...... 63
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) v
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4.5.4.3 Trails ...... 64
4.5.5 Signage ...... 66
4.5.5.1 Interpretive Signage ...... 66
4.5.5.2 Commemorative Signage ...... 66
4.5.5.3 Wayfinding Signage ...... 66
4.5.5.4 Informational Signage ...... 67
4.5.6 Lighting ...... 67
4.5.7 Boundary Delineation ...... 67
4.5.7.1 Fencing ...... 67
4.5.8 Views ...... 67
4.5.9 Topography and Vegetation ...... 67
4.6 Landscape Site Analysis ...... 69
4.6.1 Zone A ...... 69
4.6.2 Zone B ...... 69
4.6.3 Zone C ...... 69
4.6.4 Zone D ...... 69
4.6.5 Zone E ...... 69
5.0 MARKET ANALYSIS ...... 72
6.0 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...... 85
7.0 VISION ...... 94
8.0 OPTIONS ...... 95
9.0 CONCLUSION ...... 97
10.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT ...... 100
11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES ...... 101
CLOSURE ...... 105
TABLES Table 1: Topography and Vegetative Character of Each Zone Delineated Onsite ...... 68 Table 2: Uses Permitted in the Floodplain Zones ...... 70 Table 3: Recent Population Counts and Projections for Bracebridge and District of Muskoka and Ontario ...... 72 Table 4: Preliminary Counts from 2006 Census ...... 73
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) vi
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Table 5: Demographic Characteristics, Bracebridge and Muskoka, 2006 ...... 74 Table 6: Occupational Structure of Bracebridge Relative to Muskoka District and Ontario, 2006 ...... 75 Table 7: Industrial Structure of Bracebridge, District, and Ontario, 2006 ...... 76 Table 8: Tourism Trends in RTO 12 (figures in thousands of visitors) ...... 77 Table 9: Tourism Expenditure Trends in RTO 12 (figures in thousands of dollars) ...... 78 Table 10: Key Dimensions Describing Tourist Characteristics and Behaviours ...... 79 Table 11: Total Tourist Expenditure By Category, Average Tourist Expenditure/Party ...... 80 Table 12: Spectrum of Potential Development Options for Woodchester Villa and Site ...... 96
FIGURES Figure 1: Site location...... 2 Figure 2: Site plan for 15 King Street, Bracebridge Ontario...... 3 Figure 3: Known previous buildings onsite...... 31 Figure 4: Lands covered by the Ontario Heritage Trust Easement...... 37
PLATES Plate 1: The current appearance of Woodchester Villa. 2012...... 4 Plate 2: Fowler’s House at Fishkill, New York (Fowler and Stern, 1973)...... 7 Plate 3: Southfield Mill House: Home of the Bird family in England (Visitouk.com (N.D.))...... 8 Plate 4: Early View of the Bird Woollen Mill (Petry, 1999: 49)...... 9 Plate 5: The Bird Woollen Mill in 1903 (Bracebridge Council, 1903 (2012))...... 9 Plate 6: Equipment in the Bird Woollen Mill (Petry, 1999: 50)...... 10 Plate 7: Letterhead from the Bird Woollen Mill featuring the rooster and the hen (Thompson, 1999: 178)...... 10 Plate 8: The Bird Mill Complex (Thompson, 1999: 176.1)...... 11 Plate 9: The Bird Family, Circa 1910 (Boyer, 1982)...... 13 Plate 10: The Villa with the veranda in place (Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc.)...... 14 Plate 11: Exposed core of the northeast wall on Woodchester Villa...... 15 Plate 12: Stairs to the third floor...... 15 Plate 13: Detail of the main entrance door...... 16 Plate 14: Entrance on the northwest wall...... 17 Plate 15: Pre-1900 image looking toward Bracebridge Falls. Woodchester Villa is visible at the top right corner of the image (Petry, 1999: 73)...... 17 Plate 16: Detail from Plate 8 showing Woodchester Villa (Petry, 1999: 73)...... 18
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) vii
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 17: Another pre-1900 image showing Woodchester Villa. Note the road to the house is located further up the hill behind the Victoria Hotel (Source: Kenneth Veitch)...... 18 Plate 18: Image showing Woodchester Villa’s early appearance (Petry, 1999: 98)...... 19 Plate 20: 1978 Restoration drawings showing basement and first floor (Town of Bracebridge)...... 21 Plate 21: 1978 Restoration drawings showing second and third floor (Town of Bracebridge)...... 22 Plate 22: 1978 Restoration drawings showing roof and side profile (Town of Bracebridge)...... 23 Plate 23: 1978 Restoration drawings showing exterior profiles (Town of Bracebridge)...... 24 Plate 24: The Old Presbyterian Church (Petry, 1999, 235)...... 25 Plate 25: The Old Presbyterian Church (Boyer, 1975: 3)...... 26 Plate 26: The Chapel Gallery, 2012...... 26 Plate 27: The interior of the Chapel Gallery, 2012...... 27 Plate 28: Restoration plans for the Chapel Gallery 1978 (Town of Bracebridge)...... 28 Plate 29: Exterior restoration plans for the Chapel Gallery 1978 (Town of Bracebridge)...... 29 Plate 30: c. 1900 View of the Victoria Hotel and the Bird Mill (Petry, 1999, 180)...... 30 Plate 31: Early view of Woodchester Villa. Note what appears to be a staircase/walkway on the right-hand side of the image (Petry, 1999:98)...... 30 Plate 32: Detail from the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan (Town of Bracebridge, 2005, Schedule A)...... 32 Plate 33: Section from the Town of Bracebridge Zoning By-law (Town of Bracebridge, 2008)...... 33 Plate 34: Spalling material and moisture affecting artifacts in the restored kitchen in the basement...... 39 Plate 35: Fragile paper materials and books are left in the open and are unsecured. Interpretation is non-existent to limited...... 40 Plate 36: Fragile artifacts are readily accessible in many rooms and exposed to both light and environmental damage...... 41 Plate 37: Stored artifacts in attic do not seem organized and in some places are suffering damage...... 42 Plate 38: A hoosier in the restored kitchen has suffered significant damage...... 43 Plate 39: A painting in the basement is damaged by what appears to be mould...... 44 Plate 40: The house suffers from a lack of housekeeping and both dust and cobwebs are readily apparent...... 45 Plate 41: Rodent control powder is spread around the floor on the basement area...... 46 Plate 42: Old food containers present in the basement...... 46 Plate 43: Fragile textiles are suffering light, environmental, and pest damage...... 47 Plate 44: Current tourist brochure showing Woodchester Villa as one of the sites for visitors (Museums of Muskoka, 2011)...... 48 Plate 45: Contemporary Display at the Canadian War Museum...... 50 Plate 46: Contemporary Display at the Waterloo Regional Museum...... 50 Plate 47: Mould growth in the basement...... 53 Plate 48: Spalling of the walls has occurred in a number of places...... 54
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) viii
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 49: The exposed core of the concrete wall and the spalling stucco material...... 55 Plate 50: Spalling on the brick chimney...... 56 Plate 51: The plastic covering does not adequately cover the damaged area on the northeast wall...... 57 Plate 52: Loose pieces of wood can be found on the enclosed entrance porch...... 58 Plate 53: Rotting wood can be readily seen on the enclosed entrance porch...... 58 Plate 54: A broken window that has not been repaired. The glass had not been cleaned up and can be found among the artifacts...... 59 Plate 55: Roof access hatch needs repair...... 60 Plate 56: Path entrance on Muskoka Road...... 62 Plate 57: Existing parking lot...... 62 Plate 58: View of Woodchester Villa prior to the loss of the porch...... 63 Plate 59: Walking path...... 63 Plate 60: Historic Walking Trail...... 65 Plate 61: Interpretive signage near existing path entrance on Muskoka Road...... 66 Plate 62: Ontario Heritage Trust Plaque...... 66 Plate 63: Existing wayfinding sign...... 66 Plate 64: Signage at the Trail entrance on Muskoka Road...... 67 Plate 65: Existing fencing along the eastern boundary...... 67 Plate 66: Floodplain mapping (Town of Bracebridge)...... 71
APPENDICES APPENDIX A Photo Inventory of Rooms in Woodchester Villa APPENDIX B Ontario Heritage Trust Alteration Application Package APPENDIX C Standards for Community Museums in Ontario (Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport) APPENDIX D Info Sheet on General Handling and Moving APPENDIX E Maintenance Plans (English Heritage) APPENDIX F Woodchester Villa Visioning and Opportunities Study – Site Inventory APPENDIX G Woodchester Villa Visioning and Opportunities Study – Site Context APPENDIX H Woodchester Villa Visioning and Opportunities Study – Site Analysis
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) ix
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX I Heritage Building Maintenance Manual (CD Insert)
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) x
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
1.0 INTRODUCTION This project involves a systematic analysis of 15 King Street, a property in the Town of Bracebridge which includes Woodchester Villa, Chapel Gallery, and an open space area (Figure 1, pg. 2 and Figure 2, pg. 3). Woodchester Villa, a rare octagonal house constructed in 1882, is strategically placed on a ridge that overlooks the falls at Bracebridge. One of the largest octagonal houses in Ontario, it has been called the classic example of its style in the province. Located on the Muskoka River and not far from the intersection of the historic Muskoka Road and Manitoba Street, the property is protected by a Heritage Easement held by the Ontario Heritage Trust and by a Part IV Ontario Heritage Act designation. The Villa is currently closed and is under repair. The property also contains the Chapel Gallery. Opened in September 1989, and housed in a replica of the first Presbyterian Church in Bracebridge, the Chapel Gallery hosts exhibitions of art and craft by members of Muskoka Arts & Crafts Inc. and other local and provincial artists. Prior to 1989, the Chapel Gallery was used as an exhibit space for the museum. The property, once clear, is now predominantly treed and is no longer visible from the historic downtown. It was once the site of large public events, such as the Woodchester Centennial in 1982, which included a visit from RMS Segwun.
The Corporation of the Town of Bracebridge has determined that action must be taken on this site. In particular, while recognizing the important role that Woodchester Villa and the surrounding property has played in the history of Bracebridge, the municipality is also faced with the fiscal realities of managing a complex site that combines green space with a historic house museum and a gallery. To this end, the Town of Bracebridge engaged the services of Golder Associates Ltd., TCI Management Consultants, and Ecoplans Ltd. to prepare A Vision and Opportunities Study for 15 King Street. The team has employed an integrated cultural heritage management (ICHM) framework for this project. ICHM is a multidisciplinary approach that employs a wide variety of skill sets and considerations combined with a broader understanding of cultural heritage (including its legislative and planning context). This includes an understanding of the management and financial processes which are necessary to properly plan for the future of a site. This approach reflects the concept of change management by ensuring that heritage values and resources are protected during the process of change while tying the project to other municipal objectives and initiatives such as downtown revitalization, parks planning, economic development, land use planning, cultural planning, tourism planning, community rebranding, and municipal public works. It also reflects a realistic approach to site management that focuses on what is practical and feasible and reflects the value of the community in which it is located.
The project has been divided into two distinct, but interrelated phases: a Background and Vision Report, and an Opportunities and Recommendations Report. This report is focused on the findings of the First Phase: the Background and Vision Report. A subsequent report will present a discussion of the Opportunities and Recommendations for the site.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 1
- -
E N D M A A L RO A E - R N D N A LI A C D K I E R T E I O - C - - K O D R S B A L A R O C H IC S S E N - T H B D R O O A E R R N E E - N L T S A E N L ST L E E NE W R LI R K K O O SITE A R D I S ® K E W
G A I VE R B RI B S D N S LA E UG D R DO D OA O R R I A V R D LO E AY M T
A N
I T W O I L B S A O -
N - S - T S - R - F P E A I E L N - - - T L E G S S
LEN R T - -
O R S D A E
O T D E ALE E- U RE T T D ST H A D RO AR D M IDD A O L O N D R LS RIVE C AL R K B - O L 1 R Y A 1 O - T D A ST Y A E A RO D 18 W G 1 - W R AD BU A RO H ER KOK G AS MUS I FR H R O T E C E K R T S S B TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE ILL O D - R
O
U
G
H
R O A
D 1 D 1 T T RIVE N Y O A SA M N W TA U S A H E V G ILLA - B I GE H ROAD E V
0005-01-KeyPlan.mxd - - DRI
E N O - T - S -
- E - -
CL C - E - - -
-
- - -
E C CL E S S T T O M A N O G E D R E R R
C IV OW O E A - C - D H R R - R OA I CH D - V O EA E B - - A KA D KO - - S - MU - - - - -
LEGEND 1.5 0 1.5
PROPERTY BOUNDARY BUILDING SCALE 1:50,000 KILOMETRES al Sciences\12-1126-0005 SV Woodchester Villa Bracebridge\Spatial IM\mxd\12-1126- Bracebridge\Spatial Villa SV Woodchester Sciences\12-1126-0005 al RAILWAY WATERBODY PROJECT HIGHWAY WETLAND WOODCHESTER VILLA MAJOR ROAD VEGETATION BRACEBRIDGE LOCAL ROAD TITLE NOTE THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING KEY PLAN GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT # 12-1126-0005 REFERENCE PROJECT NO.12-1126-0005 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0.0 BASE DATA - CANVEC PROVIDED BY HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, DESIGN PJM 16 MAR. 2012 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GIS PJM 16 MAR. 2012 PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17 CHECK ML 23 APR. 2012 FIGURE 1 Ottawa, Ontario REVIEW HD 23 APR. 2012 N:\Active\2012\1126 - Environmental Environmental - and Cultur N:\Active\2012\1126 ®
2 T AR P 1 T BRACEBRIDGE AR WOODCHESTER FALLS P VILLA
1 T O L 1 M T US O NEW K L O CHURCH K 2 A R T O O A L D
3 T O L
T. G S KIN
LEGEND 20020406010
PROPERTY BOUNDARY VEGETATED AREA SCALE 1:2,000 METERS BUILDINGS WATER PARCELS PROJECT PATHS O N-SITE WOODCHESTER VILLA ROADS ON-SITE TITLE NOTE THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT # 12-1126-0005 GENERAL SITE PLAN REFERENCE MAPPING FEATURES DIGITIZED FROM THE SERVICE SITE PLAN CREATED BY PROJECT No. 12-1126-0005 NOT TO SCALE REV. 0.0 MACLENNAN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, NOVEMBER 5TH, 1979 DESIGN PJM 20 MAR. 2012 BING MAPS AERIAL, (C) 2010 MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ITS DATA SUPPLIERS GIS PJM 20 MAR. 2012 PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17 CHECK ML 23 APR. 2012 FIGURE: 2 Ottawa, Ontario HD 23 APR. 2012
G:\Golder_MapTemplates\2008_Templates\GOLDER_17x11_Portrait_Generic.mxd REVIEW "PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
2.0 REPORT PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to present an understanding of key attributes of the property; identify some of the challenges and opportunities for the site; outline the findings from the public consultation process; and to offer a vision which will guide the subsequent discussion of some possible options for reinvigorating the site. Key to this project is the clear understanding of the complexity of the property, as well as articulating the strategic direction envisioned by the key stakeholders. These include a presentation of a site history, a discussion of the present situation, a review of the current market trends, a presentation of the findings of the consultation process, the creation of a Vision Statement to guide the subsequent report, and a discussion of three possible options for the site.
Plate 1: The current appearance of Woodchester Villa. 2012.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 4
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
3.0 PROPERTY OVERVIEW The following section will provide information on the property focusing on Woodchester Villa and the Chapel Gallery. It will also include a discussion of Octagon Houses and the Bird Family. 3.1 Woodchester Villa 3.1.1 Octagon Houses The use of the octagon in building design has a long tradition. The eight-sided Tower of the Winds, also known as the Horologion, was built by the ancient Greeks in Athens in the First Century BCE (Rempel, 1980, 290). The octagon was used by the Romans and was employed for the Baptistery of Constantine built in 430 CE, which resulted in its use for other baptisteries, chapter houses, libraries, and throughout gothic architecture (Rempel, 1980, 290). In North America, the Dutch created an octagonal trading post in Trenton, New Jersey in the 1630s, and some New Netherlands churches were built in an octagonal shape for better acoustics and seating (Martin, 2005).
However, it was Orson Squire Fowler (1809-1887) who was responsible for the widespread use of the octagon as a building style during the mid-nineteenth century. Known primarily as a phrenologist, Fowler also was the author of a treatise on the utility of concrete (also known as the “gravel wall”) and the octagon as an ideal form for housing. Entitled The Octagon House: A Home For All, or A New, Cheap, Convenient, and Superior Mode of Building and published in 1848, this was followed by at least five additional editions in eight years which were entitled A Home For All or the Gravel Wall and the Octagon Mode of Building (Kalman, 1995: 611). This work promoted the octagonal form across the United States, and from the 1850s to the 1870s, it was a widely used architectural model. It was also widely emulated by the authors of pattern books who quoted Fowler and even developed their own designs (Fowler and Stern, 1973: V; Creese, 1946: 89). Fowler seems to acknowledge in his book that the octagon was employed in other structures by his statement that he was the first to apply the octagon to domestic structures (Creese, 1946: 90). Fowler promoted the octagonal house for both utilitarian (it was said to be cheaper to build and enclose more space) and aesthetic reasons (Martin, 2005; Kalman, 1995). He believed it also could be adapted to a variety of scales, and could be either grand or modest in design (Martin, 2005).
Fowler’s work promoted the use of concrete as a building material, and presented a number of innovative concepts in housing design. Using his home at Fishkill, New York as a model, Fowler discussed the use of the gravel wall (concrete) as a building material and outlined his use of central heating, pipes and heaters for hot and cold running water, indoor flush toilets, a roof cistern to collect rain water, natural gas lighting, a water filtration system, a gravity-fed water system; speaking tubes for inter-communication between the various rooms; and dumbwaiters (Martin, 2005). Construction on Fowler’s house started in 1847 and it was completed in 1858; but it failed to survive beyond 1897 when the concrete walls began to disintegrate and it was demolished as unfit for human habitation and a threat to the visitors who sought to view “Fowler’s Folly” (Rempel, 1980: 194; Cresse, 1946: 100). While Fowler’s ideas worked reasonably well in larger homes, it was not always effective in smaller buildings. As Rempel states, “It can be safely asserted that in all octagonal houses the plan becomes laboured, awkward, and even ‘pokey’ in places” (Rempel, 1980: 299).
A key aspect about Fowler’s concept that is often neglected is that the octagon house was conceived as part of a larger landscape. Fowler stated that it was not enough to merely build the house, it needed to be carefully placed.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 5
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
A Good Building Spot is also necessary, and one applied to the proposed type of house. The same money will often build a far better house on one site than on another. A superb building spot was one of the three motives which induced me to build where I did–the other two being good water, and an excellent fruit locality.
As to what constitutes a good building spot, ‘many men have many minds.’ Some prefer valleys, streams, and lawns; others water scenery, elevations, and slightly prospects; but I confess partiality for the later. Give me a beautiful landscape and an elevated site. This also guarantees a fresh dry atmosphere, in place of valley fogs and miasmas...(Fowler, 1853: 14-15).
Fowler also believed that the main house should be supported by ancillary structures including a greenhouse and flower pit. His book featured his perspective on shade trees, shrubbery and fruit trees. He recommended the main house be surrounded by fruit trees, finding “forest trees” as incompatible with his concept of landscape design. He also listed a series of fruits which he had planted on his property. These included: strawberries; black raspberries; red raspberries; blackberries; blue and whortle berries; cherries; apricots; plums; peaches; pears; and, apples (Fowler, 1853: 140-146). These natural features were considered by Fowler to be integral to the design of octagon houses, and many of them were used in Woodchester Villa.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 6
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 2: Fowler’s House at Fishkill, New York (Fowler and Stern, 1973). 3.1.2 The Bird Family The Bird Family is intimately linked with the history of 15 King Street and the Town of Bracebridge. From 1872, when Henry James Bird arrived in Bracebridge, the Bird Family has been a key figure in the development of Bracebridge industry and energy, Bracebridge politics, and community service. Henry James Bird was born at Southfield Mill House in Woodchester in 1842 (Boyer, 1982) (Plate 3, pg. 8). Built in the 1580s and added to over the next two centuries, the Southfield Mill House is a three-storey gabled house of Cotswold stone that was home to wealthy clothiers including the Bird family, which has been traced to John Byrde of Walden, Essex; born circa 1430, died June 1494 (Bird, Com. 2012). The family owned three weaving mills including Churches' Mill, which in 1838 was being worked by Richard Woodwark and Oliver Bird in conjunction with Southfields Mill and New Mill. By 1863, the firm was owned by Oliver Bird, and was known as Bird & Bubb in 1870 (Herbert et al, 1976). In 1838, the Bird Family also had one of the largest farms in the district; Bird's Hill farm on the Atcombe estate comprised 100 acres, two-thirds of which were considered arable (Herbert et al, 1976).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 7
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 3: Southfield Mill House: Home of the Bird family in England (Visitouk.com (N.D.)). Henry James Bird (born January 3, 1842, in Woodchester (near Stroud), Gloucester, England; died January 7, 1936, in Bracebridge), emigrated to Canada in 1867 (Boyer, 1982). Some of his family remained in England, including his brother William Bird, who was a surgeon in York (Eng-North-Yorks-L Archives, 2004). Henry Bird purchased his first mill in 1869 in Glen Allen, Ontario, but the mill was flooded in 1870 and 1871. Arriving in Bracebridge in 1872, Henry Bird built a mill on the north side of the Bracebridge Falls. A three-storey building (30 feet by 30 feet), the mill also served as the Bird Family home until Woodchester Villa was built in 1882 (Boyer, 1982) (Plate 4, pg. 9). This mill was expanded in 1888, 1902, and 1911 (Smith, N.D.) (Plates 5-8, pp. 9-11).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 8
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 4: Early View of the Bird Woollen Mill (Petry, 1999: 49).
Plate 5: The Bird Woollen Mill in 1903 (Bracebridge Council, 1903 (2012)).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 9
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 6: Equipment in the Bird Woollen Mill (Petry, 1999: 50).
Plate 7: Letterhead from the Bird Woollen Mill featuring the rooster and the hen (Thompson, 1999: 178).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 10
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 8: The Bird Mill Complex (Thompson, 1999: 176.1).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 11
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
In 1873, Henry Bird suffered the loss of his wife, daughter, and son from tuberculosis (Lundell, 2003: 125). Later the same year, he married Mary Matilda Ney (born March 27, 1847 in Peel Township, Wellington County, Ontario; died 1912 in Bracebridge) from Glen Allen, who was a friend of his first wife. Together, they had seven children including Henry James Bird Junior (born March 2, 1874; died 1949); Robert Oliver Bird (born September 7, 1875; died February 3, 1963 in Edmonton, AB); William Lister Bird born April 15, 1878; died 1962; Thomas Ney Bird (born December 13, 1880; died 1958); Margaret Elizabeth Bird (December 31, 1883; died May, 1973); Catherine (Kit) Bird (born April 11, 1886; died 1974); and Mary (May) Matilda Bird (November 17, 1889; died 1976) (Plate 9, pg. 13) (Bird, Com. 2012).
The Bird Mill was primarily used for carding, spinning, and weaving local wool. Henry Bird was involved in the promotion of the region as appropriate for sheep herding and assisted local settlers with establishing their own flocks (Boyer, 1982). Henry was also involved in the promotion of piped water for domestic use and firefighting in the 1880s, the establishment of the municipal electrical system in 1894, use of the telephone (which he used between his mill and Woodchester Villa prior to the development of a local phone system), and the local Mechanics Institute (which was a voluntary association for working men seeking self-improvement through education and which had evening lectures, lending libraries and periodical reading rooms) (Boyer, 1982; Gaffield, 2012). Woodchester Villa also featured an early vacuum cleaner, sewing machine, and electric stove, and the family had both an early gas-powered launch and phonograph (Lundell, 2003: 125-126). This echoed the interests of his father, who in 1836 patented designs for improvements to mill equipment (The Mechanics' Magazine, 1836: 303). The mill produced a wide range of cloth, including the Bird Blankets; mackinaw (a water- resistant material) for jackets and pants and which was favoured by loggers and surveyors; and material for military uniforms and blankets during World War One. However, during World War Two the mill did not receive any orders and Smith argues that this lack of orders, combined with the development of synthetics and changing technology, contributed to the decline of the mill (Lundell, 2003; Petry, 1999; Smith, N.D.). The mill, which employed approximately 60 people, closed in 1954 (Thompson, 1999; Smith, N.D.).
Henry Bird sought to ensure that his children were well educated. Three of his sons attended Upper Canada College. In the 1890s, his son, Henry Bird Junior, was send to England for two years of training at Yorkshire College in Leeds, England. In 1904, he sent his son Robert Oliver Bird to Philadelphia for a course in textile manufacturing. William Lister Bird was sent to a general electric engineering course at Peterborough, Ontario. All of the Bird daughters were educated at St. Margaret’s in Toronto.
The Bird children were heavily involved in the community. Henry James Bird Junior held high offices in the Masonic Order and the Rotary Club; he was on the committee of the Canadian Club in Bracebridge; was one of the officers of a local hockey club and was its treasurer in 1907; was a member of the Bracebridge Water, Light and Power Commission; and was mayor from 1922–1924. Thomas Ney Bird was a member of the Bracebridge Board of Education, the Bracebridge Rotary Club, the Curling and Lawn Bowling Clubs; and was a Town Councillor in 1904. Margaret Bird was elected the president of a ladies’ sport club in 1926. Catherine Bird was a founding member of the Clef Club, and remained a member for over 60 years. Family members still reside within the community, and six generations maintain an association with the town. During the First World War, Mary (May) Matilda Bird served as an Army/Red Cross nurse in Russia and Egypt, while Margaret Elizabeth Bird and Catherine (Kit) Bird ran a Bird Woollen Mill-sponsored hospitality house in England for Canadian men serving in the War (Bird, Personal Communication. 2012) [Bird, Com. 2012 hereafter].
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 12
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 9: The Bird Family, Circa 1910 (Boyer, 1982). 3.1.3 Woodchester Villa Built in 1882 by Henry James Bird, Woodchester Villa is a late example of an octagon house built based on Fowler’s work. It has been identified as the preeminent example of the type in Ontario (Rempel, 1980). Named for Henry James Bird’s home parish in England (Woodchester), the house was also known as “Bird Grove” and the “Bird House” as Henry Bird is reported to state he built it to “keep my Birds’ in”; this play on words was also reflected in his trademark which featured a rooster and hen (Boyer, 1982). As noted, the Bird family only called the house Woodchester; the “Villa” was added to the site in the late 1970s. In addition to having eight sides, the home featured many of the elements identified by Fowler in his work, including: the dumbwaiter system (which in Woodchester was emphasized by its use of two shafts for the dumbwaiter and a counterweight); Fowler’s methods of ventilation; voice tubes; the horizontal separation of the domestic and social areas; central heating; a veranda which surrounded the house; and the choice to a specific site (Plate 10, p. 14). A copy of Fowler’s book was part of the library of the house until the 1970s. Although when initially built the house did not include indoor plumbing, this was added at a later date (Boyer, 1982). The home also featured electricity and had one of the earliest telephones in Bracebridge. The house features the use of concrete for its walls. While the foundation is constructed of regularly course local stone, the walls are a mix of small stones and concrete. While previous descriptions have indicated the walls were possibly constructed like the foundation, the current damage to the northeast wall has exposed its core materials (Plate 11, pg. 15). This conclusion is supported by the findings of the First Dimension Engineering report, which indicates that the walls are 16-inch poured concrete (First Dimension Engineering, 2010).
The house consists of three storeys plus a full basement. The basement was originally used for domestic purposes, and the kitchen was historically located in this space; during the 1979 restoration, the remnants of the basement kitchen were reconstructed. The first floor was primarily designed as a social space, and includes a library, dining room, washroom, hearth room, and parlour. The hearth room was significantly altered during the
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 13
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
1978 renovations when a later kitchen was removed and the stairs to the basement were moved to a previous location. The second and third floors were the domestic areas and included a number of bedrooms. There were washrooms on the second floor and possibly one on the third floor prior to restoration. Two rooms on the second floor are dedicated to museum office space. The third floor gives access to the observation deck on the roof. The only natural light to the third floor is from two dormer windows which face southeast and southwest. Both the third floor and the roof are accessible by narrow stairs (Plate 12, pg.15). Including the restored kitchen, all of the rooms on the first floor, and a number of rooms on the second floor are protected by an Ontario Heritage Trust Easement.
Plate 10: The Villa with the veranda in place (Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc.).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 14
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 11: Exposed core of the northeast wall on Woodchester Villa.
Plate 12: Stairs to the third floor.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 15
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
The four walls that face the cardinal directions (north, south, east, and west) are 16-feet wide, and the other walls are 14-feet wide. The larger walls feature twinned double-hung sash windows, while the smaller walls feature a single double-hung sash window. The exception to this are the southeast and northwest walls on the ground floor, both of which feature doors; the main entrance door is located on the southeast wall and is surrounded by sidelights and a transom filled with coloured glass, while the northeast entrance has a single double-hung sash window on either side (Plates 13-14, pp.16-17). The interior walls are constructed either of concrete or stud framing and light timber joisting; the flooring is sawn; and the roofing is light timber with rafters (MacLennan, 1978). The interior walls are either lath and plaster with simple wood trim accents or have been replaced by fire rated drywall in 1979. Some of the wood was repaired or replaced during the 1979 renovations. The octagon was used as a thematic design element throughout the house, and was used for such elements as newel posts, the chimney and flues, the veranda posts and supports, and on the house’s flagpole.
Plate 13: Detail of the main entrance door.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 16
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 14: Entrance on the northwest wall. The property consisted originally of a 100-acre parcel, which Henry Bird subdivided into building lots along what is now known as Woodchester Avenue and was registered as Muskoka Plan M3. The home dominated the landscape above the falls and the town. As early photos demonstrate, it was a landmark (Plates 15-18, pp. 17- 19). It was also deliberately located on a sloping lot not only above the falls, but close to the Muskoka Road, an important early colonization route. The Bird Family lived in the home from its construction until it was sold and it still represents a key part of their family history. It was also used by the family, for a short time, to generate some additional income. After the death of Henry James Bird in 1936, as there was no clear direction as to the disposition of his estate, Margaret and Catherine “had a few selected paying guests” to help pay the costs upkeep on Woodchester (Bird, Com. 2012).
Plate 15: Pre-1900 image looking toward Bracebridge Falls. Woodchester Villa is visible at the top right corner of the image (Petry, 1999: 73).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 17
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 16: Detail from Plate 8 showing Woodchester Villa (Petry, 1999: 73).
Plate 17: Another pre-1900 image showing Woodchester Villa. Note the road to the house is located further up the hill behind the Victoria Hotel (Source: Kenneth Veitch).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 18
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 18: Image showing Woodchester Villa’s early appearance (Petry, 1999: 98). In 1978, the Bird Family sold the house to the Bracebridge Rotary Club. The intent of the Rotary Club was to transform the house into a public historic site. At this time, Bracebridge was the only major community in Muskoka without its own community museum (Drew, 1980: 5). A key condition of this project was that a historical society be established and be charged with the management of the site. Under the auspices of the Bracebridge Rotary Club, a restoration of the property took place that included significant changes to the church building (which would later become the Chapel Gallery) and changes to Woodchester Villa. In Woodchester Villa, changes included: removal and replacement of existing wallpaper; the repairing of walls and ceilings; the removal of a kitchen in what is now known as the Hearth Room; the relocation of stairs to the basement; replacing the basement floor with a concrete floor; the replacement of lath and plaster walls in some areas with fire rated drywall; re-hanging, replacing, or changing the swing on several doors; the removal of a bathroom on the second floor; and the replacement of the roofing.
The work also included changes to the veranda design. While the architects working on the project proposed horizontal railings similar to what existed prior to the renovation, the final design featured railings with spindles. The veranda also featured new stairs to both the main entrance and the Hearth Room entrance. The restoration drawings show the third floor was meant to be used as an apartment, but it is currently used for storage (Plates 19-22, pp. 21-24).
The museum was donated to the Town of Bracebridge once the restoration was complete. The transfer occurred on March 13, 1980. The Museum formally opened on June 22, 1980. Heather Coupland, a former Councillor, argues that while the Town publically stated they were pleased with the gift, the subsequent amount of financial support from the Town proved to be problematic for its operations (Coupland, 1991: 1). However, Andy Nelan, former Town Treasurer, indicates that Bracebridge Council, like many communities, was challenged to balance different financial priorities (Nelan, Personal Comunication. 2012) [hereafter Nelan, Com 2012]. Part of the
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 19
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
agreement at this time was that the Historical Society was to furnish and manage the museum. However, as Coupland argues, the Historical Society operations of the site proved problematic (Coupland, 1991).
Starting in 1979, much of the existing museum collection was introduced into the Villa. This collection came from two sources. Some of this collection was donated by a former Muskoka resident, W. Alvin Kayes. Many of these items were said to be collected from Muskoka, but the collection was assembled in Cobourg (Boyer, 1982). Other artifacts were purchased by a sub-committee to replace as closely as possible the furniture that was used by the Bird family within the house. However, many artifacts on display have no direct association with the house or the Bird Family, and the nature of the Muskoka association is not always clear. Appendix A provides images of each of the rooms within Woodchester Villa.
In 1985, Council began appointing a representative to the Historical Society’s board of directors in response to the Society’s concern about Council’s apparent lack of interest (Coupland, 1991: 2). In 1990, the Historical Society entered into an agreement with Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc. to share the services of a curator. By 1992, it was evident there were issues concerning the future of the Historical Society and there were concerns about insufficient staffing (Anthony, 1992; Freer, 1992; Rickard, 1992; Coupland, 1991). It was in 1992 that Commonwealth Heritage Resources was commissioned to prepare a heritage conservation strategy for the site. The covered porch in front of the main entrance was rebuilt approximately 15 years ago based on the designs of Peter Bird (Bird, Com. 2012; Nelan, Com. 2012). While programs such as the Strawberry Social were popular, and brought people to the site, by the late 2000s, attendance at the museum was poor, averaging 100-200 people per year, and the site suffered the effects of vandalism (Nelan, Com. 2012). On or about December 16, 2009, the second story veranda surrounding Woodchester Villa collapsed (First Dimension Engineering, 2010). An engineering assessment of the site was commissioned in 2010, and was completed by First Dimension Engineering. In 2012 a RFP was issued to undertake this visioning exercise of the site. Since the collapse of the veranda in 2009, the museum has been closed.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 20
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
3.2 The Chapel Gallery The Chapel Gallery is housed within a replica of the First Presbyterian Church built within Bracebridge. Initially built c. 1865, the Old Presbyterian Church was used by both the Presbyterian and Methodist congregations. The building was not well built, and the Methodists preferred to meet at the local Orange Hall (Petry, 1999; Boyer, 1975). A new church was built in 1872. The former church building was re-used for storage and as a garage for Woodchester Villa (Plates 23-24, pp. 25-26). The current structure dates from 1979, and was initially designed as an exhibit gallery for the museum (Plates 25-26, pp. 26-27). The building may integrate some historical materials (such as the framing from the original church, doors, and windows as illustrated on the restoration drawings) but was essentially a new building. It was also moved north from its original location (Figure 3, pg. 31). The new building featured a concrete foundation and wood clapboard siding. An addition housing stairs and washrooms was added to the north side of the building. A vestibule was added at the south end of the building at this time (Plates 27-28, pp. 28-29). The maintenance for this building is shared by Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc. and the Town of Bracebridge. 3.3 Other Structures There were several other small structures on the property at various times. These included a carport, a wash line podium, and a stable. These were located northwest of the house in the area of the gardens (Bird, Com. 2012) (Figure 3, pg. 31). There may also have been some structures related to the Victoria Hotel and what appears to be a staircase to the Villa (Plates 29-30, pg. 30).
Plate 23: The Old Presbyterian Church (Petry, 1999, 235).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 25
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 24: The Old Presbyterian Church (Boyer, 1975: 3).
Plate 25: The Chapel Gallery, 2012.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 26
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 26: The interior of the Chapel Gallery, 2012.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 27
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 29: c. 1900 View of the Victoria Hotel and the Bird Mill (Petry, 1999, 180).
Plate 30: Early view of Woodchester Villa. Note what appears to be a staircase/walkway on the right- hand side of the image (Petry, 1999:98).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 30
®
BRACEBRIDGE 2 1 T FRAME CARPORT FALLS T R R A A P OLD P CLOTHESLINE PLATFORM
1 T WOODCHESTER O L VILLA 1 M T US O K L O NEW KA 2 CHURCH R T O O AD L
3 T O L OLD CHURCH . ST KING
NOTE WHILE A STABLE EXISTED ON THE PROPERTY NEAR THE LOCATION OF THE CARPORT AND THE CLOTHING PLATFORM, ITS EXACT LOCATION IS NOT KNOWN. IN ADDITION, THE LOCATION OF ANY STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE VICTORIA HOTEL OR THE WOODEN STAIRCASE ARE ALSO UNKNOWN.
LEGEND 20020406010
BUILDINGS ROADS ON-SITE SCALE 1:2,000 METERS BUILDINGS REMOVED VEGETATED AREA PROPERTY BOUNDARY WATER PROJECT PARCELS WOODCHESTER VILLA
TITLE NOTE THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING PREVIOUS BUILDINGS ON SITE GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT # 12-1126-0005 REFERENCE PROJECT No. 12-1126-0005 NOT TO SCALE REV. 0.0 PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND BUILDINGS DIGITIZED FROM PLAN 35R-5552, SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT DESIGN PJM 20 MAR. 2012 BING MAPS AERIAL, (C) 2010 MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ITS DATA SUPPLIERS GIS PJM 20 MAR. 2012 PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17 CHECK ML 23 APR. 2012 FIGURE: 3 Ottawa, Ontario HD 23 APR. 2012
G:\Golder_MapTemplates\2008_Templates\GOLDER_17x11_Portrait_Generic.mxd REVIEW "PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4.0 EXISTING SITUATION 4.1 Occupancy Load The Town of Bracebridge Chief Building Official has determined that the following occupancy is permitted within Woodchester Villa. 28 people on the main and upper floor; 14 people in the basement; 9 people in the attic; 2 people in the “cage” (rooftop lookout); and, 18 people on the deck. This number of people will help to determine what activities may be permissible. 4.2 Planning Framework Any option would need to take into account the existing Planning Framework. What follows is not a planning review or assessment, but an indication of the Official Plan land use designation and the zoning. This information is important as whichever option is chosen will need to either reflect the existing zoning/OP or a case will have to be made for planning amendments.
Within the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan the property is identified as having both Environmental Protection and Residential designations (Plate 31, pg. 32).
Plate 31: Detail from the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan (Town of Bracebridge, 2005, Schedule A).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 32
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
The property is zoned Environmental Protection One Zone (Plate 32, pg. 33).
Plate 32: Section from the Town of Bracebridge Zoning By-law (Town of Bracebridge, 2008). The applicable zoning policies are as follows.
Environmental Protection Zone
3.8 No person shall use any land or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any uses in the Environmental Protection Zones except in accordance with the following:
Permitted Uses
3.8.1 The following uses are permitted in the Environmental Protection Zone.
PERMITTED USE EP1 EP2 Env. Protection One Env. Protection Two Existing Buildings or Structures * * Structures for Flood or Erosion * * Control Zone
Standards
3.8.2 The following provisions apply to the EP Zone:
3.8.2.1 No new structural development shall be permitted in any EP1 or EP2 Zone except that Accessory Shoreline Structures may be permitted in any EP1 zone subject to the provisions of Section 4.4. (Policies of Section 4.4 apply to residential lots with adjacent frontage on a navigable waterway).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 33
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
3.8.2.2 Additions, alterations, or the reconstruction of an existing structure may be permitted within the building footprint that existed at the time of passing of this By-law. The provisions of the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act will also need to be considered. As Jester and Park note, “historically, most buildings and landscapes were not designed to be readily accessible for people with disabilities” (Jester and Park, 1993). However, provincial accessibility standards have been created or are being created for Ontario. To date, standards for Customer Service, Transportation, Employment, and Information and Communications have been developed. Work is still ongoing for the Accessibility Standard for the Built Environment. This standard will have the greatest implication for cultural heritage resources. These will have implications for new signage and new works on the site. However, at present, there is no clear guidance concerning the appropriate intersection between the Ontario Heritage Act and the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act concerning how cultural historic resources should be addressed. In this absence, it is recommended to use the national guidelines as outlined in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. As the document states: Providing people of all ages, interests and abilities with access to historic places is highly desirable and a frequently mandated social goal. Generally, the solutions that best balance accessibility needs with heritage value are those that enhance the use and appreciation of an historic place for everyone. Work should be carefully planned and undertaken so that impact on an historic place’s heritage value and character defining elements is minimized: the objective is to provide the highest level of access with the lowest level of impact. To determine the most appropriate solutions, accessibility and conservation specialists, and users, should be consulted early in the planning process (Parks Canada, 2011). The recommendations include (but are not limited to) the following: 1) Respecting the landform when locating new accessibility related features. For example, introducing a gently sloped walkway instead of a constructed ramp with handrails;
2) Finding solutions to meet accessibility requirements that are compatible with a built feature. For example, introducing a gently sloped walkway instead of a constructed ramp with handrails in a manner that does not detract from the built feature;
3) Finding solutions to meet accessibility requirements that are compatible with the exterior form of the historic building. For example, introducing a gently sloped walkway instead of a constructed ramp with handrails in front of an historic building;
4) Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility issues with the least impact on the character defining elements and overall heritage value of the historic building;
5) Respecting the interior arrangement of the building when locating new accessibility-related features, such as ramps and lifts;
6) Locating public functions strategically to limit changes to the building. For example, providing new functions for the public on the ground floor or in areas already served by exits;
7) Exploring all options for modifications to existing entrances, porches and balconies to meet accessibility requirements prior to considering removal or replacement; and,
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 34
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
8) Exploring all options for modifications to existing interior features, prior to considering removal or replacement (Parks Canada, 2011).
Applying these and the additional recommendations from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada to a project is dependent upon the type of proposed intervention. Therefore, the Accessibility recommendations of Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be reviewed in more detail once a specific option is chosen. The National Parks Service also provides some guidance on how to make accessibility modifications. It recommends a three-stop process that includes the following:
1) Reviewing the historical significance of the property and identifying the character defining features;
2) Assessing the property’s existing and required level of accessibility; and,
3) Evaluating accessibility options within a heritage conservation context (Jester and Park, 1993).
Ultimately, the aim should be to examine how to integrated accessibility solutions while not compromising either significant heritage attributes or the overall character of the property. 4.3 Cultural Heritage Management 4.3.1 OHT Easement Approximately 1/3 of 15 King Street is protected by an Ontario Heritage Trust Easement (Figure 4, pg. 37). An Ontario Heritage Trust easement is a voluntary legal agreement established to ensure the appropriate conservation and management of significant heritage resources in Ontario. Many easements were established as condition of provincial funding. Ontario Heritage Trust easements are considered to be one of the most powerful conservation tools available because they: Provide provincial recognition of the heritage value of a property; Identify a heritage building's historical significance and the architectural details and features that comprise the property's unique heritage character; Raise awareness of good conservation practices; and, Ensure that good stewardship practices continue to each subsequent owner (Ontario Heritage Trust, 2012).
Under an Ontario Heritage Trust Easement, decisions concerning the future of the property that could affect the identified character defining elements (CDEs) must be reviewed and approved by the Trust. The nature of the easement agreement for 15 King Street is quite detailed. It includes both the exterior of Woodchester Villa, and interior elements (such the wood trim and room arrangement), along with a portion of the grounds including sections of the pathway from Muskoka Road. The terms of the agreement require the owner to maintain the property in good repair, and to ensure that the site is properly maintained. It also requires Ontario Heritage Trust approval for any demolition, construction, alteration, remodelling, or any other thing or act which would materially affect the appearance or construction of the character defining elements (CDEs) of the property. The application and information sheet has been attached as Appendix B as is the Statement of Significance prepared by the Ontario Heritage Trust.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 35
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
In general, demolition is not allowed unless the property is damaged beyond repair; even in this instance, it is the Trust that makes the final determination if it is beyond repair. In general, all works must, in some way, serve to enhance the CDEs and must conform to heritage conservation best practice. The Ontario Heritage Trust has adopted the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, and it is against this standard which all applications will be measured. The municipality and any contractors should be aware of the requirements within this document. In addition, the Ontario Heritage Trust may require archaeology in support of an application where soil disturbance is expected.
In the case of Woodchester Villa, several questions remain which require consultation with the Trust. For example, the easement agreement is not clear on whether or not the Chapel Gallery is included in the agreement. In addition, because the nature of the 1978 renovations has now been determined to be more extensive than previously thought in some places, the implications of these renovations on the terms of the easement should be discussed in more detail. Lastly, because any plan would require soil disturbance, it needs to be clarified if archaeology will be required before work begins. The potential options as well as the proposed work plan will need to be discussed with the Trust to determine if any of them are inappropriate.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 36
®
2 T 1 AR BRACEBRIDGE T P AR FALLS P WOODCHESTER VILLA
1 T O L 1 M T US O NEW K L O CHURCH KA 2 R T O O A L D
3 T O L OLD CHURCH . ST KING
LEGEND 20020406010
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PARCELS SCALE 1:2,000 METERS EASMENT BOUNDARY VEGETATED AREA ROADS ON-SITE WATER PROJECT BUILDINGS REMOVED WOODCHESTER VILLA BUILDINGS TITLE NOTE THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING EASEMENT LANDS GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT # 12-1126-0005 REFERENCE PROJECT No. 12-1126-0005 NOT TO SCALE REV. 0.0 PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND BUILDINGS DIGITIZED FROM PLAN 35R-5552, SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT DESIGN PJM 20 MAR. 2012 BING MAPS AERIAL, (C) 2010 MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ITS DATA SUPPLIERS GIS PJM 20 MAR. 2012 PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17 CHECK ML 23 APR. 2012 FIGURE: 4 Ottawa, Ontario HD 23 APR. 2012
G:\Golder_MapTemplates\2008_Templates\GOLDER_17x11_Portrait_Generic.mxd REVIEW "PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4.3.2 Ontario Heritage Act Designation Part of 15 King Street is designated under Part IV (Individual designation) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property was designated under the Town of Bracebridge By-law 78-53 and was rescinded in part by By-law 82-64 (to remove some property from the overall site). Under this by-law the Reasons for Designation for the site are as follows:
The house named Woodchester in Bracebridge was built in 1882 for Henry James Bird and was named after his family’s Elizabethan manor in Yorkshire.
It is considered to be a classic example in Ontario or [sic] Orson Squire Fowler’s octagonal plan and had several unique architectural features for its time, including central ventilating shaft and dumbwaiter, water pressure tanks, inside plumbing, speaking tubes, and observation galleries.
Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council or a specifically assigned delegate (approved in writing) must approve any proposed works on an Ontario Heritage Act Part IV property where there may be an impact on the identified heritage attributes. This approval must be given with an express acknowledgment of the Ontario Heritage Act requirements in order for it to be in effect. 4.3.3 Museum Collection One of the key issues identified is a lack a clarity concerning the ownership and responsibility of the Museum Collection. As identified in the June 7, 1978 Letters Patent for the Bracebridge Historical Society, upon the dissolution of the Society, all assets would transfer to the Town of Bracebridge (Clause 6 (3)). As the Society dissolved in 2006/2007, it appears the collection is the responsibility of the Town of Bracebridge. However, there are some unresolved issues:
1) The date and details of the dissolution of the Bracebridge Historical Society should be ascertained in order to ensure that there are no questions concerning the ownership of the collection; and,
2) The collection records and inventory should be reviewed to determine that all items have a record of donation or purchase. In the absence of either record, prior to undertaking any action on an item, ownership should be determined either through follow-up with the original donator/seller or through legal notice.
While a Letter of Understanding exists between the Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc. and the Town of Bracebridge, concerning the use of the Chapel Gallery, this document should be reconsidered. Since 2001, the Museum Manager position has been funded through an exchange of services for Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc.’s costs for running and maintaining the Chapel Gallery (in other words, the Town allows the use of the Chapel Gallery by MAC in return for MAC providing Museum Manager Services, with no exchange of funds). Additional funding has been limited for the actual management of the collection. This arrangement is insufficient for the management of a resource such as Woodchester Villa. Indeed, there seems to be ambiguity concerning who is responsible for the care of the collection; the Letter of Understanding does not expressly state that the Museum Manager would care for the collection (as the position is dedicated to the day-to-day operations and office management) and there are no provisions concerning the responsibility for the costs associated with proper care and maintenance. This agreement should be revisited by both parties to see if it is still applicable after a preferred option is chosen.
Further, the collection is now at the point where items have been damaged. These have occurred for a variety of reasons, including sun damage, pest damage, moisture, mould, improper storage, and lack of security.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 38
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plates 33-42 (pp. 39-47) show some of the common issues. There are also many valuable objects on display which should be removed to a more secure location. It is recommended that due to the present state of the collection, it should be assessed by a conservator. This is especially necessary as items will likely need to be moved prior to the renovation work on the building. This conservator should provide a priority action list of next steps including (but not limited to) a work plan for necessary conservation of artifacts, helping to identify what items the Town may wish to retain and which items the Town should de-accession, and helping to develop policies for the collection.
Plate 33: Spalling material and moisture affecting artifacts in the restored kitchen in the basement.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 39
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 34: Fragile paper materials and books are left in the open and are unsecured. Interpretation is non- existent to limited.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 40
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 35: Fragile artifacts are readily accessible in many rooms and exposed to both light and environmental damage.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 41
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 36: Stored artifacts in attic do not seem organized and in some places are suffering damage.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 42
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 37: A hoosier in the restored kitchen has suffered significant damage.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 43
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 38: A painting in the basement is damaged by what appears to be mould.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 44
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 39: The house suffers from a lack of housekeeping and both dust and cobwebs are readily apparent.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 45
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 40: Rodent control powder is spread around the floor on the basement area.
Plate 41: Old food containers present in the basement.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 46
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 42: Fragile textiles are suffering light, environmental, and pest damage. 4.3.4 Museum Operations The museum is currently closed, and has been since the porch collapsed in 2009. However, numerous local tourist publications still list the site as being open. During Doors Open 2010, there was not clear communication that the site was closed, and over 100 people were turned away from the site. Prior to the 2012 peak tourism season, a concerted effort should be undertaken to ensure that the community is aware the site is closed, and to ensure that all tourist publications clearly indicate this fact (Plate 43, pg. 48). A communication plan should be developed to advise people what is going on with the site, the schedule for any proposed works, and important next steps.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 47
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 43: Current tourist brochure showing Woodchester Villa as one of the sites for visitors (Museums of Muskoka, 2011). The policy and operations framework for the museum is also lacking. While the Bracebridge Historical Society had policies for collections management, acquisitions, and had a mission and objectives, no evidence could be found that the Council of the Town of Bracebridge had formally adopted these policies or a mission/vision statement for the site. Due to new Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport requirements, the formal adoption of policies is required in order to be eligible for provincial museum funding. Indeed, the Ministry has established 10 standards which must be met in the following areas:
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 48
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Governance Standard; Finance Standard; Collections Standard; Exhibition Standard; Interpretation and Education Standard; Research Standard; Conservation Standard; Physical Plant Standard; Community Standard; and, Human Resources Standard. Appendix C provides the complete Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport document Standards for Community Museums in Ontario. While it is recognized that the future of the site may not include a museum, the fact nonetheless remains that the Town is still responsible for the existing collection (pending determination of ownership and the date of the dissolution of the Bracebridge Historical Society). Therefore, to demonstrate that the Town is acting as a steward for the public good, policies concerning the conservation standard, collections standard, and physical plant standard should be developed and adopted without delay.
Once a preferred option is determined, the management of the site should be considered to recommend where the responsibility for the collection should lie. If a museum option is considered, a new education policy should be developed to outline exhibit design and means of communication. Historic house museums that fail to change their exhibits periodically will fail to attract repeat visitors. The current arrangement of Woodchester Villa dates to the opening of the museum, and in both appearance and content it is dated. As Alderson and Low state, “only when the essential meaning of the site and of the people and events associated with it is communicated to the visitor can we truly say that we have met our responsibility [for proper interpretation]” (Alderson and Low, 1996, 7). Most contemporary exhibits are focusing less on the objects per se, and more on the stories that relate to those objects (Plates 44-45, pg. 50). In addition, new signage and wayfinding materials would be needed both inside the urban core and near Highway 11.
However, because of both the upcoming work on the structure and potentially because of the requirement to update any exhibits or displays, many of the objects in the collection will need to be cleaned and/or moved. This should be undertaken in accordance with museum conservation best practice. Some general information about moving has been attached as Appendix D. It may be useful for the municipality to acquire a guide for housekeeping in historic house museums, such as the National Trust publication Housekeeping for Historic Homes and House Museums by Melissa Heaver, to provide some guidance on the process.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 49
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 44: Contemporary Display at the Canadian War Museum.
Plate 45: Contemporary Display at the Waterloo Regional Museum. 4.4 Built Heritage 15 King Street is protected under the Ontario Heritage Act and via an Ontario Heritage Trust Easement. Based on these documents, Historicplaces.ca has prepared comprehensive lists of the character defining elements of the site. A character defining element can be understood as the materials, forms, location, spatial
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 50
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings that contribute to the cultural heritage value of a cultural heritage resource, which must be retained to conserve its cultural heritage value.
Character defining elements that contribute to the heritage value of Woodchester Villa, as outlined by the Ontario Heritage Trust, include the following.
Exterior features that contribute to the architectural value of Woodchester Villa include:
. 2-storey octagonal (8-sided) plan with a partially exposed basement;
. Exposed, coursed, Muskoka granite foundation;
. “Gravel wall” concrete construction of the exterior walls comprising gravel, stones, and large rocks;
. Stucco clad exterior above the foundation;
. Dormer windows on the southwest and northwest elevations;
. Segmental arched 2/2 wood sash windows and 2/2 wood storm with wood sills;
. Octagonal features including encircling 2-storey wood verandas with bracketed supports, rooftop lookout with open balustrade, central chimney and rooftop flagpole;
. Sun porch: fully enclosed by windows, main double wooden entrance doors, two side doors that lead to the veranda, all doors have transoms above;
. Raised rear (northeast) door;
. Cedar shingle roof; and,
. Wood fascia.
Interior features that contribute to the architectural value of Woodchester Villa include:
. Room configuration and separation of the interior;
. Narrow central passageway of the first and second storey;
. Central heating and fresh air ventilation shafts with decorative iron covers located throughout the house;
. Basement to attic dumbwaiter with counterweight shaft;
. Dumbwaiter doors in the basement, dining room, passageways, master bedroom;
. Corner closets/built in cupboards located throughout the house;
. Simple woodwork of the first floor: crown moulding, chair rail, high baseboards, 5-panelled doors separating rooms, window and doors surrounds;
. 2-toned stained wood floor on the first storey and white pine, paint grained flooring on the second;
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 51
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
. Main entrance (enclosed with the sun porch addition) with half-glass door, sidelights and transom lights;
. Entrance hall featuring arched door surround (emulates three sides of an octagon) and five doors leading to the library, dining room, passageway, parlour, and period water closet;
. Open, turned staircase with geometric patterned, cut-out balusters, octagonal newel posts, brass newel lamp with octagonal globe, the octagonal stair rail, and tongue-and-groove wainscoting with half-octagonal rail;
. Library built-in desk with drop-lead front;
. Original water closet beneath the main staircase;
. Hearth Hall featuring entrance door flanked by two windows, simple staircase leading to the basement, Arts and Crafts inspired fireplace (ceramic tile, cast iron insert, wood mantel);
. Historic door bell;
. 2nd storey hallway with built in bench;
. Bedroom woodwork: high baseboards, crown molding, picture rail, simple wood window frames, 5- panelled doors with ventilating glass transom above, built in storage closets;
. Separate dressing room with closet of the master bedroom;
. Basement kitchen with elaborate tin ceiling; large enamel sink, white pine board flooring, battened doors; and,
. Basement’s internal walls of “gravel wall”, concrete construction.
Context:
. Location overlooking the Muskoka River;
. Set upon an elevated site;
. View from the 2nd floor west facing bedroom windows towards downtown Bracebridge (the former location of Bird’s woolen mill);
. View from 2nd floor west facing bedroom windows of the Muskoka River;
. Original driveway extending from Muskoka Road to the Villa; and,
. Location of the Chapel Gallery to the south of Woodchester Villa.
These are the elements which should be protected through the process of change on the site. However, as discussed, some of these elements were replaced in 1979. A conversation should occur with the Ontario Heritage Trust about the interpretation of the Ontario Heritage Trust easement related to these replaced elements as well as if this list of elements needs to be revised.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 52
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
The Comprehensive Condition Evaluation and Preliminary Restoration Plan for Woodchester Villa prepared by First Dimension Engineering and dated October 10, 2010, provides a good overview of the current state of the Woodchester Villa building. The purpose of this section will not be to duplicate the findings of this report, but to highlight additional areas of concern which were not raised or which have developed in the interim since the report was prepared:
1) The concrete spalling has continued to occur, as has the apparent mould growth. Both are having a negative impact on the museum collections, and could constitute a health and safety issue (Plates 46-47, pp. 53-54).
Plate 46: Mould growth in the basement.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 53
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 47: Spalling of the walls has occurred in a number of places.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 54
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
2) The method for the removal of the deck has resulted in accelerated spalling of the stucco exterior both over the concrete core and over the brick chimney. In addition, the iron bolts for the deck are not exposed and may be difficult to repair (Plates 48-49, pp. 55-56). Further, the nature and composition of the cement and the stucco is not known, and should be determined prior to the installation of any new materials or moisture barriers.
Plate 48: The exposed core of the concrete wall and the spalling stucco material.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 55
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 49: Spalling on the brick chimney.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 56
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
3) The damage on the northwest side of the building has exposed the concrete core of the building to elements, and is currently insufficiently protected to prevent its continuing deterioration (Plate 50, pg. 57).
Plate 50: The plastic covering does not adequately cover the damaged area on the northeast wall.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 57
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4) The enclosed front porch has rotted in several places, and pieces of wood remain only partially attached (Plates 51-52, pg. 58).
Plate 51: Loose pieces of wood can be found on the enclosed entrance porch.
Plate 52: Rotting wood can be readily seen on the enclosed entrance porch.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 58
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
5) A window in the larder has been broken and covered with plywood. It is not properly sealed and there is broken glass on the floor and artifacts (Plate 53, pg. 59).
Plate 53: A broken window that has not been repaired. The glass had not been cleaned up and can be found among the artifacts.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 59
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
6) The access hatch appears to be allowing air and water into the attic (Plate 54, pg.60).
Plate 54: Roof access hatch needs repair. In reviewing the proposed scope of work prepared by First Dimension Engineering, it should be noted that heritage best practice is for minimal intervention when addressing original materials. In several places, recommendations have been made for removal and reconstruction (such as chimneys and the wooden window sills). The removal of original material should be avoided if possible. This approach should be discussed with the Ontario Heritage Trust to ensure that it is considered appropriate and necessary. In addition, the specifications within the 2010 Assessment are likely not sufficient for the purposes of the Ontario Heritage Trust, and more detailed specifications may need to be provided as part of the Ontario Heritage Trust application.
In addition, there does not appear to be any maintenance plan in place for the property. From the information received, it appears that maintenance is addressed in a reactive way. Many of the current issues with Woodchester Villa also appear to be the result of deferred maintenance. No matter what option is chosen, the Town will have an obligation to undertake routine maintenance on the site. To facilitate this process, it is recommended that a site specific maintenance plan be developed. A maintenance plan would help to lower
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 60
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
maintenance costs and to ensure that potential issues are caught early. A proactive approach to addressing maintenance will help to ensure that issues are addressed early and regularly. A sample maintenance plan from English Heritage has been attached as Appendix E, and a document on maintenance plans from the Government of Manitoba has also been attached on CD as Appendix I.
As a result of issues identified both in the First Dimension Engineering report, and from the site visit carried out in support of this project, the Town should immediately undertake a Designated Substances Review, if one has not already been carried out. The potential health and safety issues related to mould, dust, vermin, and moisture need to be examined to ensure that the work environment is safe both for the Town’s contractors and staff. 4.5 Landscape Site Inventory An inventory of the natural and cultural heritage resources, as they pertain to the landscape, was undertaken to gain a better understanding of the existing conditions of the site and to identify key features for conservation. As noted in Section 4.4 (Built Heritage), character defining elements that contribute to the heritage value of Woodchester Villa, as outlined on Historicplaces.ca, include its: Location overlooking the Muskoka River; Frontage on Muskoka Road which forms its original approach; and, Original driveway extending from Muskoka Road to the Villa. Careful consideration will be given to maintaining and enhancing these features, where feasible, throughout the visioning process.
The Site Inventory has identified key aspects of the site and their current condition. Figures for the landscape Site Inventory and Site Context have been attached as Appendix F and Appendix G respectively. 4.5.1 Site Context The Woodchester Villa property is located on a prominent slope just beyond the Town of Bracebridge’s downtown core. The property is bordered by the Muskoka River to the west, residential properties associated with Bird Lane to the north, with King and Edward Street to the east, and with Muskoka Road to the south.
The site is a point of interest on the Town’s Historic Walkway and is a significant piece of the historical narrative of Bracebridge and the prominent Bird Family who were integral in the town’s development.
The site contains within it two primary structures; Woodchester Villa and The Chapel Gallery. A small ancillary building associated with the gallery is also found onsite, to the rear of the chapel. The eastern portion of the property, also referred to as Bird Grove Park, contains a woodlot of primarily mature White Pine (Pinus strobus).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 61
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4.5.2 Site Access (Entrances) 4.5.2.1 Pedestrian Access There are a number of pedestrian access points throughout the property. These include entries from Bird Lane, Entrance Drive, and King Street. Access is limited to these egress points due to the sloping topography of the site and the surrounding residential properties.
The Bird Lane entry point is via a narrow gravel trail and users must traverse through The Grove to reach the Villa. There is no signage at this entrance to denote the presence of Woodchester or the gallery.
Access from Entrance Drive is also along a trail, which is part of the Plate 55: Path entrance on Town’s Historic Walkway. Signage denoting the Villa and gallery can Muskoka Road. be found on the opposite side of the road, on the back of the interpretive signage which faces the Historic Walkway. There is no
entry signage at the pedestrian access point to the property.
Pedestrian access to the Chapel Gallery and Woodchester Villa from King Street is via the parking lot. 4.5.2.2 Vehicular Access Public vehicular access to the site is via the parking lot accessed from King Street. Service vehicles are able to access the site from the trail off of Entrance Drive and along the granular-surfaced pathway from the parking area to the Villa. 4.5.3 Vehicular Circulation 4.5.3.1 Parking
Onsite parking exists within the southern portion of the property. Accessed from King Street, the lot accommodates approximately six vehicles; the lot (empty) could likely accommodate one school or tour bus, however manoeuvrability and turnaround would be problematic.
The parking lot has a granular surface and is bordered by a wood privacy fence along the western property line and a split rail fence along the eastern property line.
Pedestrian access to the Chapel Gallery and Woodchester Villa from Plate 56: Existing parking lot. King Street is via the parking lot. The lot is the only direct vehicle access to the property.
The lot is maintained throughout the winter; snow is stored onsite in the northwest corner of the lot, adjacent to a landscaped area. Due to the storage, the amount of parking space is seasonally reduced by one to two spaces.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 62
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4.5.4 Pedestrian Circulation 4.5.4.1 Pathways A number of trails and pathways exist throughout the site, linking the gallery and Villa together and connecting to the larger trail network.
Pathways around the Chapel Gallery and Woodchester have granular surfacing (granite dust) and are approximately 1.5m in width. The pathways around Woodchester are edged with concrete curbs.
Washouts and rutting have been identified as ongoing drainage issues along these pathways.
The pathway to the Villa is plowed through the winter.
Plate 57: View of Woodchester Villa prior to the loss of the porch. 4.5.4.2 Footpaths A footpath traverses the eastern side of the property, through The Grove, connecting the Villa to Bird Lane. The path is approximately 1.0m in width and is not surfaced, except where it is adjacent to the residential properties on Bird Lane; here the trail has a granular surface and wooden curbs set flush with grade.
This trail is also marked with a Muskoka Trails Council blaze, town trail signage, as well as handmade signage not associated with the municipality or trails council, which indicates the location of the trail.
Plate 58: Walking path. The footpath is used through four seasons, mainly by local residents as a “shortcut” to properties along Bird Lane.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 63
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4.5.4.3 Trails The site connects to Entrance Drive/Muskoka Road via a pedestrian trail which extends from the Villa at the top of the hill, down a significant grade change to Entrance Drive. This trail is marked with blazes for the Trans Canada Trail as well as the Muskoka Trails Council. The trail is approximately 3 m wide and has a granular surface. Washouts and rutting have been identified as ongoing drainage issues along these pathways.
The trail is used through four seasons, mainly as a “shortcut” by local residents to properties along King Street and Bird Lane.
Plate 59: Trail marker. The trail follows the line of the old driveway to the Villa and is perhaps one of the only tangible heritage landscape features left within the landscape that could be associated with H.J. Bird Senior. The trail is part of the Town’s Historic Walkway, which traverses a number of historic sites along the Muskoka River, many of which were associated with the Bird family.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 64
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 59: Historic Walking Trail.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 65
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4.5.5 Signage 4.5.5.1 Interpretive Signage A number of interpretive signs are associated with the Historic Walkway. One of the signs is located at the bottom of the Entrance Drive Trail. The sign contains information and an image of “The Old Town”. A map of the Bracebridge Bay Walking Trail (Historical Walkway) is also included on the sign and contains the locations of historical plaques found throughout the area.
The trail continues across Entrance Drive. Here, another interpretive sign has been placed; this one contains images and narratives regarding Woodchester Villa and the nearby water Pumping Station. Plate 60: Interpretive signage near existing path entrance on Muskoka Road. 4.5.5.2 Commemorative Signage The Woodchester Villa property contains an Ontario Heritage Trust Plaque. The Ontario Heritage Trust’s commemoration “blue and gold plaques” program honours people, places and events that have helped shape our history and highlight subjects of provincial significance.
Plate 61: Ontario Heritage Trust Plaque. 4.5.5.3 Wayfinding Signage Wayfinding signage onsite is limited to the Trans Canada and Muskoka Trails Council blazes.
The Chapel Gallery has recently installed a number of small, but highly visible wayfinding street signs throughout Bracebridge, geared to vehicular traffic. In some instances, museum signs for Woodchester are also attached to these, though they are dated and are not as noticeable as their counterpart.
Plate 62: Existing wayfinding sign. There is limited signage at a pedestrian level directly associated with Woodchester. Signs at trail and street intersections for the Historic
Walkway are present, but do not specifically denote their connection to the 15 King Street property, save for the kiosk located at Entrance Drive.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 66
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4.5.5.4 Informational Signage The property and trails contain a number of information signs comprising the museum signage, which denote hours of operation, and regulatory signage which include Service Vehicles Only, Stoop and Scoop, and No Motorized Vehicle signage.
Plate 63: Signage at the Trail entrance on Muskoka Road. 4.5.6 Lighting Site lighting is limited to a floodlight located to the west of the Villa.
A decorative street light standard can be found at the trail access from Entrance Drive. 4.5.7 Boundary Delineation 4.5.7.1 Fencing The parking lot is the area that is primarily bordered by fencing with a wood privacy fence along the western perimeter and a split rail fence extending along the eastern edge. These are both associated with the adjacent residential properties.
A low wood board fence can be found along the footpath, where it meets Bird Lane. The fence extends the length of the adjacent residential property.
There is no visible demarcation of the remaining property boundaries. Plate 64: Existing fencing along the eastern boundary. 4.5.8 Views Views from the site to the downtown and river are precluded by the relatively dense vegetation found along the northwestern slope of the property.
When approaching from the parking area off King Street, the Chapel Gallery and the existing vegetation create a framed view of the Villa. Views approaching from the trail to Bird Lane are somewhat blocked due to the existing vegetation.
Views to the Villa are precluded by the relatively dense vegetation found along the north-western slope of the property. 4.5.9 Topography and Vegetation Table 1 outlines the topography and vegetative character of each of the zones that have been delineated onsite.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 67
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Table 1: Topography and Vegetative Character of Each Zone Delineated Onsite Topography Vegetation Character The area of the site adjacent to the Muskoka River has been delineated as Zone A is a mix of small, immature coniferous Zone A for the purposes of the Site and deciduous trees. The area has primarily Zone A Inventory. This area is generally flat in open character, especially in areas directly topography. The Regulatory Floodline for adjacent to the water line. the Muskoka River runs through this zone.
The northern area of the site adjacent to the Muskoka River has been delineated Zone B canopy is dominated by mature white as Zone B for the purposes of the Site pine (Pinus strobus) interspersed with mid-size Zone B Inventory. This area has relatively steep deciduous tree species. The canopy is relatively slopes, with shallow ravines running from dense with very little midstorey. the top of the slope to the river.
The southern area of the site adjacent to Zone C canopy is a mixture of deciduous and the Muskoka River has been delineated coniferous tree species including white pine, as Zone C for the purposes of the Site Manitoba maple (Acer negundo), Basswood Inventory. This area has steep slopes (Tilia cordata), and maple (Acer sp.), oak from the Villa down to the river. The trail (Quercus sp.), and poplar (Populus sp.) species. Zone C (from Entrance Drive) that runs through The vegetation is also a mixture of ages, with a this zone has been cut into the side of the few mature white pine interspersed with copses of slope to limit its steepness; the slope of immature basswood. Because of the varying age the trail is continuous and relatively even of the vegetation, the midstorey is much more to the top of the hill. prominent in this area than in the other zones. The eastern area of the site adjacent to the residential area has been delineated as Zone D canopy is dominated by mature white Zone D for the purposes of the Site pine (Pinus strobus) interspersed with mid-size Zone D Inventory. This area has relatively deciduous tree species. The canopy is relatively undulating topography with the overall slope dense with very little midstorey. of the area rising to the east and south. There are no significant slopes in this zone, Zone E is the only area on the property which with the area around the gallery and Villa contains built structures – The Chapel Gallery and gently sloping towards the river. Woodchester Villa. This area is the most open in terms of the canopy cover. The area around the Villa has a few deciduous specimen trees dotted around the lawn area. The eastern edge of the Zone E parking lot is bordered by mature coniferous vegetation while the western border. Trees of note in this area include a grouping of mature red oaks (Quercus rubra) found to the rear of the chapel as well as a large, mature white pine is located at the southwest corner of the gallery.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 68
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
4.6 Landscape Site Analysis Based on the Site Inventory, the Site Analysis has identified areas in which change and development might occur, as well as the various policies that will guide future enhancements of various areas of the site. The accompanying figures showing the landscape Site Analysis has been attached as Appendix H. 4.6.1 Zone A Zone A is a generally flat area with limited mature woody vegetation. These conditions provide a good opportunity for the development. Any development must adhere to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 2006-120 and amended by By-law 2008-081. The proximity to the river, however, may limit development opportunities based on regulations with and adjacent to a floodplain. The Muskoka River is zoned as Floodplain Zone F1. Per the by-law, no new structures can be erected within the F1 Zone.
This area of the site is also intersected by the Regulatory Floodline, which would influence the form and location of development in this zone. 4.6.2 Zone B Zone B is less suited to development due to the steep slopes and mature vegetation which exists in this area. This area is governed by the Mary Speers Agreement which states that the land shall be maintained by the Town of Bracebridge to be enjoyed by its citizens as a park. The area governed by the Mary Speers Agreement is currently under legal review, and will be considered within the next report. 4.6.3 Zone C Zone C has particularly steep slopes from the Villa to the river, which precludes any significant site development. The moderately dense vegetation obstructs views to the river and downtown both at the top of the slope and along the trail.
Zone C presents opportunities for an enhanced pedestrian gateway feature at Entrance Drive as well as trail enhancement as it relates to accessibility. There is also a significant opportunity to selectively open views to the downtown and river, and conversely from the downtown to the Villa, which would have the benefit of increasing visual connectivity and providing users with greater scenic amenity.
Portions of Zone C are governed by the Ontario Heritage Trust easement and subsequently any alterations to the landscape must be in keeping with the heritage character of the property and be sensitive to the built and cultural heritage landscape. 4.6.4 Zone D Zone D is dominated by mature coniferous trees, mixed with deciduous trees of varying ages and sizes. Based on the consultation findings, there is limited desire and necessity for significant development within this area. This area is also governed by the Mary Speers Agreement which states that the land shall be maintained by the Town of Bracebridge to be enjoyed by its citizens as a park. The area governed by the Mary Speers Agreement is currently under legal review, and will be considered within the next report.
Enhanced trail treatments and creating accessible trails are feasible within this zone. 4.6.5 Zone E Zone E presents the greatest area for site enhancement based on the existing topographic and vegetative
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 69
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
conditions. This zone also contains the two main buildings on the property; the Chapel Gallery and Woodchester Villa, which provide points of interest as well as serve as scenic amenities within the landscape. Presently the nucleus of the site, a number of opportunities exist in terms of interpretive elements and enhanced landscaping. Such elements would be in keeping with the preferred option for the site.
This zone is governed by the Ontario Heritage Trust Easement and the property is also designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Table 2 outlines the uses that are permitted in the Floodplain Zones: Table 2: Uses Permitted in the Floodplain Zones PERMITTED USE F1 Floodway Phase 1 New Structure Existing Buildings or Structures * Boat Ports * Floating Docks * Structures for Flood or Erosion Control *
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 70
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Plate 65: Floodplain mapping (Town of Bracebridge).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 71
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
5.0 MARKET ANALYSIS In this section the team has reviewed the overall market context for the revitalization of Woodchester Villa, considering relevant trends in both the resident and tourist markets in Bracebridge, and identifying the relevant implications for the property. Finally, the team will review similar facilities and operations in other communities that illustrate various issues and opportunities that should be considered in the present situation. 1. Bracebridge Market Context Permanent Resident Population The most recent (2011) Census population, household and dwelling count data for Bracebridge and Muskoka District records only very slight growth for the District of Muskoka overall (less than 1%) and outright population decrease for Bracebridge and the Townships of Georgian Bay, Muskoka Lakes and Lake of Bays2. This surprising population growth trend reported by Statistics Canada is quite counter to other local and statistics relating to housing starts and economic growth and development, as well as the projections for population growth developed by the District. Local and District officials were expecting quite different population growth figures and are dubious as to the veracity of the counts derived from the Census. As a result, the Town of Bracebridge and the District of Muskoka are in active discussions with Statistics Canada with the aim of understanding how these differences arose and with a view to developing more detailed and accurate counts. Until some resolution of these issues, the only Census data that will be used in this assessment is that relating to the 2001–2006 Census.
The table below shows 2001 and 2006 Census data, as well as the population growth projections for the District. Table 3: Recent Population Counts and Projections for Bracebridge and District of Muskoka and Ontario Bracebridge DM of Muskoka Province of Ontario Population Projection, 2031 23,785 82,465 n/a (from District of Muskoka) Projected Annual Growth 1.69% 1.45% 12,851,821 Rate, 2006 - 2011 Population in 2006 15,652 57,563 12,160,282 Population in 2001 13,751 53,106 11,410,046 Annual Population Growth, 2.62% 1.62% 1.28% 2001 – 2006
Source: Statistics Canada, 2011 and 2006 Census of Canada.
As the table shows, Bracebridge grew at a rate slightly higher than that of the District overall, over the 2001 to 2006 period. The population growth projections are for essentially a continuation of that trend, albeit at a slightly lower rate than over the 2001–2006 period. The population growth projection implies an increase of approximately 325 persons per year in the permanent resident population of the municipality. Seasonal Population The preliminary counts available from the 2006 Census also provide data pertaining to the number of permanent and seasonal dwellings in the municipality. These recent figures are shown below.
2 At the time of writing (April 2011) only population, dwelling count and household data from the 2011 Census of Canada has been released.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 72
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Table 4: Preliminary Counts from 2006 Census Bracebridge DM of Muskoka Province of Ontario Permanent Dwellings, 2006 6,231 23,151 4,554,251 Seasonal Dwellings, 2006 2,337 21,483 418,618 Total Dwellings, 2006 8,568 44,634 4,972,869 % Dwellings Seasonal, 2006 27.28% 48.13% 8.42%
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Canada
As the chart shows, the percentage of seasonal residents in Bracebridge is significant: over one-quarter of all residences. For the District overall, the percentage is even higher, approaching 50%. Not surprisingly, both of these are considerably higher than the percentage of seasonal residences across the province overall.
Seasonal residents are not counted in with the permanent residential population. According to a recent estimate, the seasonal population of Bracebridge is estimated at just over 7,000. When added to the permanent population of 15,400, this makes for a local resident market of approximately 22,000 in the peak season.
The population of the overall District as well increases in the peak summer season. Because the average household size for a seasonal residence is actually higher than for a permanent residence, the population of the District is estimated to more than double in the peak summer season, to an estimated 136,000. Student Population Both Georgian College and Nipissing University have established campuses in Bracebridge. There are approximately 300 Georgian students and 500 Nipissing students. While many of them are residents of Bracebridge and surrounding communities, some represent an influx of new temporary residents to the community and add to its resident market size. Nipissing University, for example, has just recently opened a 53- bed residence facility in the community. This student population in Bracebridge is expected to grow in future. Demographic Characteristics Bracebridge and Muskoka also exhibit some interesting demographic characteristics, compared to the province overall.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 73
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Table 5: Demographic Characteristics, Bracebridge and Muskoka, 2006 Province of Bracebridge DM of Muskoka Ontario % of population age 19 or under 22.8% 21.7% 25.0% % of population age 65 or older 15.5% 19.8% 13.6% Median population age (years) 44.5 45.3 39.0 Median household Income (2005) $59,193 $52,970 $60,455 % of population age 15+ having 14.8% 13.7% 20.4% university certificate, diploma or degree Mother tongue English 93.8% 93.0% 68.4% Mother tongue French 1.2% 1.4% 4.1% Mother tongue other language 5.0% 5.6% 27.2% % of population first generation in 10.3% 10.3% 34.0% Canada (age 15+) % of population visible minority 1.4% 1.5% 22.8% Mobility status: lived at same address 5 62.0% 64.0% 58.6% years ago (age 5+) Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Canada
As shown, Bracebridge has a somewhat older age skew to its overall population base, with a lower proportion of younger-aged population, and a larger percentage of older population. This is also seen in the older median population age in both Bracebridge and Muskoka (with the slight population decrease seen in recent years, this may be even more of a factor today than it was in 2006).
Like the District, Bracebridge also has somewhat lower education levels than the province overall.
In terms of ethnicity and culture, Bracebridge like Muskoka District overall, is markedly different from the province, with much higher levels of English as a mother tongue, and much lower levels of immigration (shown by a first generation population percentage less than a third that of the province overall) and visible minority population. As well, the population base appears to be less mobile, with somewhat higher proportions of the populations in both Bracebridge and Muskoka living at the same address as they did five years ago. Economic Characteristics The table below shows the occupational structure of Bracebridge relative to Muskoka District and the province overall. The Town (and District) has a higher percentage of those working in management occupations than the province, as well as in health care and sales/service occupations. This would seem to indicate that Bracebridge’s economy could be characterized, in part, by being a service centre for a larger regional population, and with a considerable number of small owner-occupied businesses (hence the higher proportion of management occupations) in the mix. This “service centre” orientation also extends to the somewhat higher proportion of occupations in trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 74
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Occupational Structure of Bracebridge Table 6: Occupational Structure of Bracebridge Relative to Muskoka District and Ontario, 2006 DM of Province of Bracebridge Muskoka Ontario Management Occupations 12.3% 12.3% 10.3% Business, finance and administration 12.9 % 13.1% 18.6% occupations Natural and applied sciences and related 5.1% 3.9% 7.0% occupations Health occupations 6.0% 5.2% 5.3% Occupations in social science, education, 7.4% 6.2% 8.4% government service and religion Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport 2.5% 2.6% 3.1% Sales and service occupations 28.1% 27.0% 23.5% Trades, transport and equipment operators and 18.4% 20.5% 14.1% related occupations Occupations unique to primary industry 2.5% 3.5% 2.5% Occupations unique to processing, 4.7% 5.4% 7.2% manufacturing and utilities
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Canada
This overall occupational structure is mirrored to some extent in an examination of the industrial structure for the Town. As the chart below shows, Bracebridge has a very high proportion of its overall workforce in construction industries, as does the District overall (relative to the province). Retail trade and “other services” as well are substantially higher than the provincial average, underscoring the service centre role of the Town (and District). Of particular note is the higher proportion of “educational service” in the Town (relative to the District, and it is interesting that it is even higher than the provincial ratio). This speaks to the growing educational role being played by the Town (which is now likely even larger in percentage terms, given the increased educational presence of the two post-secondary institutions since the 2006 Census).
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 75
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Industrial Structure of Bracebridge Table 7: Industrial Structure of Bracebridge, District, and Ontario, 2006 Bracebridge DM of Muskoka Province of Ontario Agriculture and other 1.7% 2.1% 2.9% resource-based industries Construction 13.3% 13.9% 5.9% Manufacturing 9.2% 9.9% 13.9% Wholesale trade 1.8% 2.2% 4.7% Retail trade 14.1% 15.5% 11.1% Finance and real estate 4.6% 4.5% 6.8% Health care and social 9.2% 9.0% 9.4% services Educational services 6.9% 5.0% 6.7% Business services 15.8% 14.8% 19.7% Other services 23.4% 22.8% 18.7%
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Canada
Note: In terms of recent economic trends, it is felt that to some extent Bracebridge was shielded from the worst of the effects of the post-2008 recession as a result of the 2010 GB summit in Muskoka, which had some salutary effect in the period prior to and during the event. For example, 1,000 security personnel were stationed in the Town for the better part of a year, which provided some significant injection into the local economy over the 2009–2010 period. This may have had a lingering positive effect as well on local businesses, for example, the Town’s building statistics for 2010 showed a record number for investment in small business (all of this as well, calls into some question the recent Census figures from Statistics Canada, as previously mentioned.) Implications for Woodchester Villa The implications of the foregoing for Woodchester Villa could include the following: The apparent recent decline in Bracebridge’s growth rate (subject to confirmation from Statistics Canada, as previously discussed) elevates the importance and significance of recent initiatives oriented towards community growth (e.g. the Community Adjustment Plan, and the various initiatives that flow from that: the branding work currently being undertaken, the development of a Community Improvement Policy for the Town, the feasibility study for a performing arts school, and this present study). All of these will position the Town favourably as a desirable place in which to live and invest, offering a high quality of life for residents and visitors alike; Given the high concentration of those in the construction industry in Bracebridge, the restoration of Woodchester Villa could be a showpiece demonstrating the excellence of local workmanship and the pride that the community takes in local projects; The fact that the population base of Bracebridge is more ”traditional” than in other areas of the province (i.e. less mobile, more homogenous in terms of ethnicity) coupled with the fact that the population base is aging, could imply increasing interest in the history and heritage of the local community, or which Woodchester Villa and its site are an integral part; and,
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 76
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
The older age structure of the population base could also imply increased volunteer resources being available for programming and related activities at the site. Tourism Trends Tourism Numbers Bracebridge is part of Regional Tourism Organization 12 (RTO12), one of 13 such regional tourism organizations in the province. RTO 12 encompasses the Districts of Parry Sound and Muskoka, the Almaguin Highlands region and Algonquin Park. Clearly Bracebridge comprises just a small part of this region, but it is one of the significant tourism destination focal points within it.
The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport collects tourism data for the region. While reliable tourism information does not exist on as “granular” a scale as for individual municipalities, there is useful data that pertains to the entire RTO region. The trends and tourism characteristics seen across this region are likely largely true of Bracebridge as well. This data is relevant to Woodchester Villa as tourism could constitute a key opportunity area for the revitalized property.
Overall tourism visitation trends across the RTO region are shown in the chart below. Tourism Trends in RTO 12 (figures in thousands of visitors). Table 8: Tourism Trends in RTO 12 (figures in thousands of visitors) 2006 2007 2008 2009 Growth, 2006 - 1009 Same-Day Visitors 777 696 952 950 22.27% Overnight Tourists 2,749 2,704 2,526 2,665 -3.06% Total 3,526 3,401 3,478 3,615 2.52%
Source: Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Sport and Recreation.
As the table shows, total tourist visits across the RTO have grown slightly over the 2006-2009 period, from 3.5 million to 3.6 million (this is the most recent data available). However, the composition of these visits has changed significantly. In 2006, 78% of all visits were overnight visits; by 2009 this had dropped to 74% of all visits. In fact, the total number of overnight visits to the RTO had declined by 84,000 visits. What accounted for the absolute growth rate overall was a significant increase in same-day trips, by 173,000 visits. Anecdotal information from the industry suggests that over 2010 and 2011 this pattern has continued.
This situation is of concern as it is the overnight stays that generate the most economic benefit to an area. Same-day visitors are far less likely to purchase accommodation (obviously), meals (often bringing a picnic lunch with them for the day), and souvenirs than are overnight visitors.
This is clearly shown in the table below, showing total tourism expenditure in excess of half a billion dollars throughout RTO 12:
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 77
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Tourism Expenditure Trends in RTO 12 (figures in thousands of dollars) Table 9: Tourism Expenditure Trends in RTO 12 (figures in thousands of dollars) 2006 2007 2008 2009 Growth, 2006–2009 Same Day Visitors $45,837 $44,952 $97,953 $70,697 54.24% Overnight Tourists $513,178 $524,698 $563,833 $515,888 0.53% Total $559,015 $569,650 $661,806 $586,586 4.93%
Source: Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Sport and Recreation.
As the table shows, same-day expenditure has grown significantly over the period, peaking in 2009, which was more than double the same-day expenditure of the two years previous, before dropping to just over $70 million. Overnight expenditure was essentially static over the period, aside from a small spike in 2008.
There are a number of factors responsible for this. As the economic uncertainty worsens, households tend to take shorter vacations closer to home (what some call “stay-cations”). The proximity of the RTO 12 region to the GTA marketplace may have been responsible to some extent for the growth in same day trips. Other factors depressing tourism generally, especially longer trips are the increasing cost of travel and border crossing requirements (particularly an issue for the US market where only an estimated 25% of residents hold passports which are needed for re-entry into the USA).
These issues will continue to plague the tourism market in Ontario. As well, tourism destination areas in the province are becoming increasingly competitive with one another, especially in southern Ontario as each tries to compete for a share of the lucrative same-day GTA marketplace. Tourism Characteristics The RTO data also contains much useful information relating to the characteristics of tourist visitors. Again, while this information pertains to the entire RTO 12 region, much of the profile data would apply equally to tourists in Bracebridge. Some of the key dimensions describing tourist characteristics and behaviours are shown below:
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 78
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Table 10: Key Dimensions Describing Tourist Characteristics and Behaviours GTA Regions 54.8% County of Simcoe 10.3% Origins of all tourists Elsewhere in Ontario 31.7% (2009) Elsewhere in Canada 0.3% USA 2.1% Foreign/International 0.8% Pleasure 75.5% Visiting Friends and/or Relatives 20.6% Purpose of Trip Business 1.4% Other 2.5% First Quarter (Jan-Mar) 9.6% Second Quarter (Apr-Jun) 25.7% Time of Visit Third Quarter (Jul-Sep) 50.8% Fourth Quarter (Oct-Dec) 13.7% Festivals/Fairs 2.5% Cultural Performances 2.2% Museums/Art Galleries 5.1% Zoos/Aquariums 1.2% Sports Events 2.0% Casinos 0.9% Trip Activities (percentage of visitors mentioning as Theme Parks 1.5% something they did while on National or Provincial Nature Parks 13.3% their trip) Visiting Historic Sites 6.2% Boating 62.4% Golfing 6.3% Fishing 20.5% Hunting 1.3% Downhill Skiing/Snowboarding 3.3% Age 14 or less 0.5% 15-24 9.5% 25-34 14.0% Age of Travellers 35-44 18.7% 45-54 25.7% 55-64 18.6% 65 or over 12.5% Roofed Commercial 20.7% Type of Accommodation Camping/Trailer Park 12.3% (% of total person nights) Private Home/Cottage/Cabin 62.8% Other 4.1%
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 79
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Several items are of note in this tourist profile: Most visitors to the area come from relatively close by: nearly 2/3 of all visitors are from immediately south of the area (Simcoe County and the GTA); only 5% come from outside Ontario; Three-quarters of all visitors are coming to the region for pleasure purposes; most of the rest are visiting friends and relatives; Spring and summer are the peak times, with over three-quarters of all visitors; and, Not surprisingly, water activities (primarily boating and fishing) are activities in which many tourists engage (62% boating and 20% fishing); however, for attractions such as Woodchester Villa, it is noteworthy that 6.2 % of visitors mention “visiting historic sites” as a major reason for visiting, and 5.1% mention “visiting museums and art galleries” as a key reason.
The RTO data also contains estimates of tourist expenditure throughout the RTO (again, for 2009). The table below shows total tourist expenditure by category, as well as average tourist expenditure per party. Table 11: Total Tourist Expenditure By Category, Average Tourist Expenditure/Party Total Tourist % of Total Expenditure Tourism Expenditure Category Expenditure Tourist per Tourist ($000) Expenditure Party Transport (Total) $118,671 20.2% $112 Public Transport $5,144 0.9% $5 Vehicle Rental $8,234 1.4% $8 Vehicle Operations $103,461 17.6% $97 Local Transport $1,832 0.3% $2 Accommodation $134,425 22.9% $126 Food & Beverage (Total) $246,837 42.1% $232 Food & Beverage at Stores $132,442 22.6% $125 Food & Beverage at $114,395 19.5% $108 Restaurants/Bars Recreation/Culture (Total) $42,582 7.3% $40 Recreation $32,197 5.5% $30 Culture $10,384 1.8% $10 Retail/Other (Total) $44,069 7.5% $41 Clothing $30,239 5.2% $28 Other Retail $13,830 2.4% $13 Total Visitor Spending $586,584 100.0% $552
Implications for Woodchester Villa The implications of the foregoing for Woodchester Villa could include the following: There would appear to be on the order of some 216,000 visitors to the RTO 12 area who are interested in visiting historic sites (i.e. 6.2% of the 3.5 million tourist visitors to RTO12). Given that the bulk of the tourist
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 80
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
market lies to the south, and that Bracebridge in the southern end of the RTO area, this would appear to be a market opportunity. Similarly, the 5.1% of tourists indicating interest in “visiting a museum or art gallery” would indicate a market opportunity of some 184,000. Should a museum operation or interpretation of the historic significance of the Villa be an option to pursue, there could be some opportunity there; Pleasure tourism is the major purpose for visiting in the region, and nearly 20% of all tourism expenditure is made in restaurants. There are two implications to this: the first being that a restaurant operation in a historically significant establishment such as Woodchester Villa could make a truly unique and memorable dining experience. A second implication could be that there are packaging operations between a restored Villa operation (as an historic house or museum) and local restaurants and inns; If the restored Villa operation is to appeal primarily to tourists, consideration should be given to opening only at those peak times when the majority of tourist visitors are around. This would likely imply a summer season operation with some extension into the spring and fall shoulder season, i.e. the late part of the spring and the early part of the fall; and, Only a third of tourist visitors to the RTO stay in commercial roofed accommodation or campgrounds, suggesting that a marketing campaign or promotion aimed primarily at this market might have only limited success. Equally or more effective might be an awareness campaign aimed at local permanent and seasonal residents.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 81
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
2. Municipal Policy Context The restoration of Woodchester Villa is being undertaken within the context of a number of other municipal initiatives that are in process or have recently been completed. These include: Branding Initiative (ongoing): Bracebridge is in the process of reinventing its brand identity. A new “brand promise” for the municipality has been developed:
Bracebridge is the steward of the Cottage Country Brand and is teaching the world the power of living the Muskoka lifestyle in its spirit, the arts, food, home, and recreation.
The Learning Capital of Muskoka ▪ The Arts ▪ Cottage Country Cuisine ▪ Muskoka Lifestyle
These are all hands-on experiences.
This will eventually lead to the development of visual and collateral materials. Woodchester Villa could be a visual embodiment of this brand promise by being a focal point for the arts (as is the Chapel Gallery already) and exemplifying how early settlers lived their own “cottage life” (i.e. the Bird family). Woodchester could become a point for the convergence of spirit, arts, food, home, and recreation (i.e. the larger site). Conceivably, the Woodchester outline or profile (i.e. of the building) could become an iconic image for Bracebridge, indicating uniqueness, innovation, arts, and respect for history, among others. In addition, given that the recent branding efforts for the community are focused on attracting more visitors to Bracebridge through providing hands-on experiences for visitors, a restored Villa could play a role in any larger community strategies that are developed around this new brand: Community Improvement Plan (ongoing): Bracebridge is also in the midst of developing a Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for the municipality. This project envisages an updated CIP being used as a tool to facilitate economic development and restoration either through direct municipal action or by the Town providing incentives to the private sector for such redevelopment. The study is identifying key areas and zones throughout the community where economic development or revitalization is to be encouraged. Clearly the identification of the subject site here as such a zone could enhance the redevelopment possibilities, especially under several of the commercialization possibilities being considered; Performing Arts School (ongoing): Bracebridge is undertaking a feasibility study into a School of the Performing Arts, possibly in consortium with Nipissing University of Georgian College. While it is not immediately apparent how a revitalized Woodchester Villa might fit into these plans, there are perhaps some possibilities to consider (use of space in the Villa for offices; possible use of the Villa and grounds for productions; and possible use of students for animated interpretation); Official Plan Update (ongoing): The Town of Bracebridge is in the process of updating its 2005 Official Plan. A series of workshops have been undertaken and a rural and waterfront issues report developed. It is expected that the new OP will be broadly supportive of the park environment and related uses of the site and the Villa, but the immediate implications for the revitalization of Woodchester are unclear. The new OP is expected to be ready some time in 2012;
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 82
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Long-Term Capital Plan (2011): This document sets out the long-term capital plan for the Town of Bracebrige. It allocated $500,000 in 2011 for capital improvements to the foundation of Woodchester Villa, but nothing in future years (any such capital allocations will presumably be as a result of the recommendation flowing from the present study); Convention Hotel Feasibility Study (2011): In June of 2011, the consulting firm of PKF completed a study into the feasibility of a convention hotel in the Bracebridge marketplace. While the specific viability and timing of a larger facility was questioned by the study, some additional accommodation demand in the community was demonstrated. This is a useful finding from the perspective of some of the possible uses of the Villa (as an upscale B&B or boutique hotel); Community-Based Strategic Plan (2008): This is the overall strategic plan for the municipality; Community Adjustment Plan (2008): This is the economic development strategy for Bracebridge, which sets the economic development agenda for the overall community, and from which many of the specific initiatives discussed above follow. This strategy identified key economic focus sectors for economic development efforts in the community, and identified ways and means through which these sectors could be effectively promoted and developed. These sectors were:
. Construction;
. Geo-tech/green energy;
. Educational services;
. Health care;
. Niche manufacturing; and,
. Tourism/culture.
Woodchester Villa’s redevelopment could fit into several of these strategic areas. Obviously many of the uses proposed would fit into the tourism and culture area, but there are other potential fits as well. A spa or wellness clinic would clearly mesh with the healthcare sector focus. The restoration project itself could be a demonstration of the construction skills of the community, especially if local contractors and skills were used. Finally, if the upper floors were to be used as office space, educational or environmental service organizations could occupy the space. Transit Study (2008): This study reviewed the feasibility of a public transit service in Bracebridge. Three routes were proposed, effectively linking the downtown with the rest of the community: Route A to the north, Route B to the east (to Cedar Lane); and Route C to the south (along Ecclestone Dr.). While none of these proposed routes would directly serve the Woodchester Villa site (in the sense of going right by the site) all would make the downtown overall more accessible and would thus access the site that way. In addition were demand and utilization of the site ever to change to the point where public transit was warranted, Route C could be reconfigured to provide such service.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 83
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
3. Benchmarking Comparisons Part of the next report will contain a review of the operations of selected other house museums in Ontario. The purpose of this review will be; a) to obtain data that will be useful in forecasting the market and financial performance of the selected option; b) to learn any operating “rules of thumb” that may be useful in the implementation of any “museum-related” option that may be considered here; and c) to explore the advantages and disadvantages of any management and governance options that might be contemplated. For example, Parkwood National Historic Site (the home of Col. Sam McLaughlin in Oshawa) is run separately by a self- financing not-for-profit foundation with no municipal involvement or funding. The Norman Bethune home in Gravenhurst is owned and operated by Parks Canada. Several other house museums (e.g. Lucy Maud Montgomery Manse in Uxbridge) are operated municipally. This benchmarking task should reveal some very helpful information in this regard.
At present, this benchmarking exercise is still underway and complete results not yet obtained (there was a slowdown over the March Break period in obtaining the required data). It is expected that the full results and implications of the benchmarking will be folded into the next report.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 84
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
6.0 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION The following is a summary of the responses received from the stakeholder consultation sessions held on February 23, 2012, at the Chapel Gallery and augmented by comments received via email correspondence.
1) What is your earliest positive memory or association with the Woodchester Villa property?
. Seeing the site as part of starting a new job;
. Rene M. Caisse;
. Strawberry Social;
. Hiking up the hill;
. Visiting the birds;
. Children playing on site;
. Doors Open;
. Didn’t know it was here/first time visiting; and,
. Walking through “The Grove”.
2) If the site could talk and answer one question about itself for you, what would your question be?
. “Would you like to stay standing?”;
. “What was your connection to the logging industry, Bracebridge industry, and the Bird family?”;
. “Why would someone build an octagonal building?”;
. “What is special about an octagonal building?”;
. “What is the most interesting thing about you?”;
. “Who were your important visitors?”;
. “Where is the joy?”;
. “Where you watching the town or was the town watching you?”;
. “Is the oil tank leaking?”; and,
. “Why were you built the way you were?”
3) If the Villa were a person, who would it be and why?
. Henry Bird;
. A sea captain;
. Elizabeth Taylor – “Faded grandeur and needs a facelift”;
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 85
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
. A regal person;
. The head housekeeper;
. Horatio Nelson;
. Winston Churchill; and,
. John George Diefenbaker – distinctive; formidable.
4) Ten years from now, if there is a headline in the Bracebridge Examiner about the site, what do you hope it would be?
. “Cultural Hub Celebrated 10th Anniversary”;
. “The Phoenix Arises”;
. “100s Gather at Site”;
. “Must See Location Opens for Season”;
. “Bird Park Extended”;
. “Woodchester Key to Heritage District”;
. “Restoration Project Complete”;
. “1000s Visit Last Year”; and,
. “Another Successful Event at Woodchester”.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 86
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
5) What words would you use to describe the Woodchester property today? What words would you like associated with it in the future?
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 87
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
We also received additional comments that indicated that the site should also be considered invaluable.
6) Name three things you think make the site unique. Building and its unique design; Location; Technology employed in construction; Size; Historical significance/history/date of construction; Historic designations; Elevation; Ties to local industry; Proximity to water;
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 88
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Linkages (existing and potential); The Gallery; Few communities have the same type of assets; Its location in the pine setting overlooking historic Manitoba Street; and, The part it plays in the Bracebridge Bay Park, one of the nicest and peaceful waterfall recreation features in all Muskoka.
7) What do you think the community likes most about the site? Parks; Trees; History; and, Gallery. 8) What change(s) do you think would enhance the site? A developed site plan for future use and enhancement; Building restoration; Earth art; Enhanced education about the site’s significance; Enhanced views/vistas; Gardens; Gazebo; Improved/additional signage - interpretive, wayfinding; Improved access/gateways; Improved drainage; Improved facilities; Improved lighting; Installation views; Integration into the schools; Landscaping; Needs to be put as part of a larger context;
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 89
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Parking; Parks; Partnerships; Pathways; Programming; Stories; The house is accessible; Repair the old driveway; Lighting; It could be tied in more with the Bracebridge Bay Park/Falls recreation area and promoted properly; and, The museum aspect should be maintained, with more emphasis on general artifacts of Bracebridge history and less on the Bird family occupation of the building and a more developed program of Bracebridge History that could be presented on site.
9) Name three things about the site you don’t like: “Hard-to-Find”; Parking; Poor approach; “Overgrown/neglected nature”; “Hard to get to”; Signage; Directions; Lack of people; The neglected site/lack of maintenance/poor condition of house and garden; The steep topography; Access; Loss of views/vista/poor visibility to and from the site; The lack of attention to the surrounding property, including the pathway through Birds Grove to Front St.; The lack of promotion of such a great asset; and,
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 90
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
The property deserves more attention than it is getting from Council. It is an asset that most every other municipality would love to have, especially with it being part of Bracebridge Bay Park.
10) What do you think the community dislikes most about the site? It is mostly considered “off-the radar”; There has been little public outcry since at closure of the museum; and, Putting money into the site with no clear purpose/money pit. 11) Do you think the community knows enough about the site? No! 12) What pressures exist on or near the site? Need to check existing zoning – currently EP1; Financial – traditionally limited funds have been put into the site; Downtown maintenance; Parking; Management process are not clear; and, It needs to be a benefit to the community. 13) If you could change only one thing about the site, what would it be? The site development; Parking; Enhance the park; Open up the park land; Building; Walking trail; Develop partnerships; Entrance/approach to property; Restore/improve the Villa; and, Remove the houses at the bottom of the hill. 14) What opportunities and uses do you think would be appropriate for this site? Archives;
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 91
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Revitalized museum; Community facility; Park; Some supporting commercial/retail (but not the focus); Offices; Meeting space; Small classrooms; Tea Room; Family events; Small scale theatre (training or presentations – storytelling); Music venue; Picnic grounds; Better linkages; Nature trails; Archives; Chapel Gallery expansion; Museum setting of town artifacts along with some rooms set to reflect the 1880s; Location to host and cater functions and events in conjunction with Chapel Gallery; MAC Spring and Fall art show both inside and outside; Workshop Space; Seminar Space; and, Expanded garden setting for weddings. 15) What types would be inappropriate? Most commercial uses; Condos; Loud music; Big events; Fires;
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 92
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Sporting/”Rough housing” activities; Hotel; Letting this building deteriorate further or demolished; and, The land be sold out of public ownership.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 93
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
7.0 VISION Building on the findings of the consultation and site assessment process, the following initial vision statement has been developed. The purpose of this vision statement is to guide the identification and the analysis of the options being considered. However, once a specific option is chosen, this vision should be revisited, and be refocused to reflect the final option. To this end, the initial Vision statement for 15 King Street is as follows:
The 15 King Street Property, consisting of Woodchester Villa, the Chapel Gallery, and the surrounding parkland, will be a revitalized community resource used by a variety of community groups and members. Situated in a redesigned park with vistas and signage, a restored Woodchester Villa that includes some historical exhibits and other community uses possibly supported by small scale commercial uses and which will be augmented by the Chapel Gallery.
This vision reflects the feedback received that the open space component is an integral part of the property, but suffers from a lack of design, the loss of vistas to-and-from the downtown and signage (both interpretive and way finding). It also identified that the primary use of the property should be as a community facility that is appreciated and used by community members. However, while the focus of the property should be on community uses, this does not preclude small-scale commercial uses that would support the site (such as a tea room). From the review of the site, the presence of the Chapel Gallery is seen as a positive attribute that should be preserved. The Chapel Gallery brings people to the property and staff currently provides a physical presence on the site. One of the challenges identified is how to better connect the Gallery with the rest of the site and there currently seems to be a disconnect between the two. It is recognized that currently community members are neither aware nor appreciative of the site. However, the vision seeks to bring people back to the property and promote a meaningful appreciation of it as a valuable community resource.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 94
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
8.0 OPTIONS In this section the team presents various options with respect to the future of Woodchester Villa. These are outlined in the accompanying chart. It is important to note at this point that these options have not been “market tested”; they are simply conceptual scenarios posed to outline the full spectrum of possibilities with respect to the use of the site.
First, the team developed a continuum of options ranging from “least commercialized” to “most commercialized”. The least commercialized option envisages essentially using the property as a park and event area for the community in the short term, and treating the Villa as an “artifact”. This would involve stabilizing the interior and exterior of the structure, and placing interpretive signage on the site explaining various aspects of the history of the site and structure. In this short-term period, no use for the Villa (other than being interpreted as an artifact) would be envisaged. In the longer term, after a successful community fundraising campaign to restore the Villa as a museum and historic site, the Villa would be refurbished. This scenario minimizes the cost and risk to the municipality in the short term, yet preserves the Villa structure for some longer-term community role.
On the other end of the spectrum, the “most commercialized” option sees the Villa being restored and used for some commercial purpose. There are various options: restaurant, upscale B&B, commercial art gallery, artist or studio space, for example. This option is likely the most expensive, but could conceivably be done with some private sector partner. While it could be the most advantageous financially to the community, it could also preclude the Villa from being open generally to the public (for example, a spa operation would seek to be semi- private, as would a B&B – not generally open to or accessible by the general public).
In the middle lies a semi-commercialized option that would use (rent) some of the building for office space (likely for community groups, but possibly for service businesses paying a market rent). Other parts of the building floor could be used as museum or exhibit space; either a museum on Bracebridge history, or the story of the Bird family. The option is also available for a small-scale commercial use, such as a tea room. This option generates some revenue for the municipality, yet keeps at least part of the structure open to the general public.
The accompanying chart outlines these scenarios in terms of the philosophy, rationale and basic approach of each.
Next the chart outlines what could happen with each of the four key physical components of the site. These are: 1) the site; 2) the Villa; 3) the collection (currently housed inside the Villa); and 4) the Chapel Gallery. Each of the three options along the spectrum discussed earlier presents different implications with respect to each of these components, and these are outlined in the chart.
Finally, the chart discusses alternative management options that must be considered regarding each of the options. The topics touched upon here include site management; capital and operating costs; marketing considerations; and risk management. The points made here are not meant to be definitive, but rather to illustrate the sorts of considerations involved.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 95
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Table 12: Spectrum of Potential Development Options for Woodchester Villa and Site Least Commercialized Most Commercialized Option 1: Site Development with Villa Sealed as Artifact Option 2: Site Development with Villa for Community Use Option 3: Site Commercialization Philosophy Optimize use of site, at minimal cost and risk to the Town Optimize use of site and buildings for community benefit Maximize economic benefits to the Town through appropriate and sensitive development Rationale for site improvements as outlined in Option A. Regarding the Villa, several interviewees (1) Most interviewees and stakeholders want to see improvements to the utilization of the site - a Some interviewees were very concerned about the potential for site and Villa to become a ‘money pit’, and wanted to see historic wanted to see community use, as well as some sort of restoration of the museum/educational Rationale relative minority mention improvements to the Villa itself; (2) the improvements to the Villa are likely to restoration of the site and Villa with in a commercial framework that would offset some or all of the costs of operation (and possibly function. The museum function, however, needs to be more focused on a narrative that is significant be very expensive before significant increase in use is realized. restoration). Partnerships with private sector interests should be explored in examining the feasibility of these options. to the community, rather than being merely ‘another historic house’. Consider development plan in two phases. Phase 1 (the foreseeable future) envisages developing Site improvements as undertake in Option A proceed. The Villa is restored to a stable and safe the grounds for community use, and stabilizing and sealing the Villa. A future Phase 2 would restore condition where use by community groups such as service clubs, not-for-profit organizations, etc, is The development of the site and the restoration of the Villa are undertaken with the intention of commercial use of some sort. Basic Approach the Villa as a museum or heritage house, after a successful community fundraising campaign to facilitated. A refocused museum or historical displays, examining historic themes related to restore the Villa. Phase 2 may be a decade or more away. Bracebridge, will be integrated into the building. Physical Components of the Development Plan The site is developed for more intensive community use as a passive park and focal point. Visual connections between the Town and Villa are enhanced through selective thinning and pruning of vegetation to re-establish historical viewsheds. Pedestrian approaches improved through Component 1: enhanced gateway treatments from Entrance Drive and King Street in order to establish a greater As in Option A; exterior interpretive elements could be tailored to suit interior uses. Parking and Site development is undertaken in concert with the notion of commercial use of the Villa, which may require greater attention to The Site presence and visibility of the Villa from `street level`. Improvements to pathways, such as new universal accessibility to be reviewed to ensure requirements are met. parking, universal accessibility, etc. Site could still be developed as a passive park, as in Option A, depending on proposed use. surfacing, to allow for universal accessibility. Opportunity to create enhanced trail connections between Bird Lane and the Villa. Introduction of interpretive elements around the Villa, such as signage, installed to help generate interest and appreciation for the property. Villa would be renovated by Town for community use purposes. An interpretive exhibit or ‘Town The Villa is stabilized and sealed for eventual future use in a second phase of development. External Villa would be renovated to accommodate potential commercial uses. Uses to be explored would include: restaurant; upscale B&B; museum’ would be put into the building, but the building would also be used by community Component 2: repairs and improvements are made to the Villa which is then interpreted on the site as an artifact. artist studio space with gift shop/commercial gallery on ground floor or in Chapel Gallery; unique commercial office space; etc. organizations, not-for-profit groups and possibly municipal functions. The option is open for a small The Villa Legal requirements, stemming from the Ontario Heritage Trust heritage easement, will need to be Private sector assistance in renovation would be solicited, possibly through RFP process. Legal requirements, stemming from the scale commercial use such as a tea room. Legal requirements, stemming from the Ontario Heritage met. No public access to the Villa is enabled until Phase 2. Ontario Heritage Trust heritage easement, will need to be met. Trust heritage easement, will need to be met. The ownership of the collection is determined. The collection is assessed. Items useful to the Town Component 3: are conserved and stored for use in a future Town museum or equivalent. Other items are de- As in Option A As in Option A The Collection accessioned according to standard museum procedures and ethics. Component 4: Chapel Status quo - continues to be used by MAC. As in Option A As in Option A, unless the space were needed to augment or facilitate commercial use of the Villa. Gallery Management Components of the Development Plan
Site Management New protocols and management structures are established to govern the buildings and the site. As in Option A As in Option A Annual budgeting is developed. A strategic plan is developed to address the collection. Capital Costs Lowest of the three options. Site development costs would be incurred, plus costs to fix exterior and Probably somewhere between Options 1 and 3. Capital costs would be as in Option 1, bur including Probably highest overall level of capital costs. However, depending upon negotiations with commercial user(s), some portion of ‘seal’ Villa. costs of interior renovations and improvements in Villa. capital costs could be recovered or offset. Operating Costs Phase 1 would incur a net cost (investment) to the Town, but result in greater appreciation and Greater costs (than in Option 1) would be incurred, but this would be offset by: 1) some payback Likely lower costs than in Option 2, plus a greater opportunity for financial return. utilization of the site. In Phase 2, Town investment could be leveraged through fundraising potential from community groups and organizations using space; 2) greater overall utilization of the contributions. Villa; and 3) greater profile for the Town as a result of promotion of the Museum and Chapel Gallery (and potential resulting economic impact). Marketing Marketing is focused upon awareness-building for primarily the local resident community. Marketing is focused upon promoting the Museum and Chapel Gallery to visitors markets as well as Marketing is for the site is focused upon building awareness for primarily the local resident community. Private operators leasing awareness-building for the local resident community. portions of the Villa for business purposes would undertake their own marketing and promotion activities. The Town may participate and cooperate with these as it sees fit.
Overview of Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Better utilization and appreciation of an underutilized community asset (i.e. the park) Better utilization and appreciation of underutilized community assets (i.e. the park) and the Villa) Some potential for revenue generation for Town Larger potential market for Chapel Gallery (i.e. more users of site may be drawn into Gallery) Greater potential market for Chapel Gallery Enables additional commercial activity in community (i.e. business opportunities for entrepreneurs)
Mitigation of risk associated with premature community use of the Villa Potential for greater interpretation of the Villa, Bird family, and other Bracebridge historic themes (than Option 1) Least cost of the Options Opportunity to create office / storage space for community use Greater exposure of the Villa opportunity to the public – perhaps greater interest and opportunity for community fundraising Greater opportunity to tell (to a limited extent) the history of Bracebridge, the Villa and Bird family Disadvantages Greater cost that current status quo Likely significantly greater costs than Option 1 Possibly less scope for community access to Villa than Option 1 or Option 2 Increased ongoing maintenance associated with park enhancements Increased ongoing maintenance associated with park enhancements Possible disruption to MAC / Chapel Gallery operation (if space needed for commercial use) Closing the Villa will mean it is no longer available for community enjoyment or use Official Plan and Zoning by-law changes may be required (depending on the uses) Official Plan and Zoning by-law changes will likely be required Likely there will be community resistance to large scale commercialization based on feedback from the stakeholder consultation There may be a need for retrofitting which would not be possible under the current Ontario Heritage Trust Easement. These three options will be considered in consultation with the municipality.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 96
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
9.0 CONCLUSION This Background and Vision Report has been written to provide the necessary background information to assist with the determination of a preferred option (or options) for the future of 15 King Street in Bracebridge, Ontario. It presents an understanding of key attributes of the property, including its built heritage resources, its museum collection, its natural heritage resources, and a review of the current governance model and applicable legislation. This was contextualized by presenting a history of octagon houses, the Bird Family, and through a market analysis. As well, the market context for redevelopment of the site and a review of the public policy environment in Bracebridge is contained in the document. This process also revealed issues with the current governance of the site, particularly concerning the ownership of the museum collection, and indicated that some further deterioration has occurred since the 2010 Built Heritage Assessment. The process included stakeholder consultation through onsite sessions, email correspondence, and telephone interviews.
Stakeholder consultation revealed that while those consulted recognized the values of the site, there was a clear recognition that this understanding was not widespread within the community. Their descriptions of the site emphasized the lack of care and maintenance applied to the Villa, but recognized that the site as a whole was a considerable asset to the community, and that there were some very distinctive and important elements to the site. The Chapel Gallery was identified as a positive attribute, as was the site’s location. The site was seen as a unique location, with a special story, with Woodchester Villa being a very distinct building and focal point. The stakeholders all wanted to see the site as a useful and integrated component of the community.
Drawing upon the background findings, an initial vision statement was developed to guide the consideration of the options. The vision statement developed is as follows:
The 15 King Street property, consisting of Woodchester Villa, the Chapel Gallery, and the surrounding parkland, will be a revitalized community resource used by a variety of community groups and members. Situated in a redesigned park with vistas and signage, a restored Woodchester Villa that includes some historical exhibits and other community uses possibly supported by small scale commercial uses and which will be augmented by the Chapel Gallery.
From this statement, three options were developed by the team that ranged from “least commercialized” to “most commercialized”. The least commercialized option envisages essentially using the property as a park and event area for the community in the short term, and treating the Villa as an “artifact”. At the other end of the spectrum, the “most commercialized” option sees the Villa being restored and used for some commercial purpose. In the middle lies a semi-commercialized option that would use (rent) some of the building for office space (likely for community groups, but possibly for service businesses paying a market rent). Other parts of the building floor could be used as museum or exhibit space; either a museum on Bracebridge history, or the story of the Bird family. The option is also available for a small scale commercial use, such as a tea room. This option generates some revenue for the municipality, yet keeps at least part of the structure open to the general public.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 97
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
The next report will focus on the preferred option. However, no matter what option is chosen for further analysis, several recommendations have been developed for the municipality. These are as follows:
1) Based upon the conditions of the Ontario Heritage Trust Easement Agreements, the repair work on Woodchester Villa must be undertaken no matter what option is chosen;
2) As the nature and composition of the cement and the stucco is not known, it should be determined prior to the installation of any new materials or moisture barrier;
3) The following items should be discussed with the Ontario Heritage Trust: whether or not the Chapel Gallery is included in the easement agreement; what changes are considered appropriate for the interior given the significant alterations noted in several areas; what level of detail is required for project specifications, if the existing list of heritage elements is still applicable or appropriate, if archaeology is going to be required before work begins; and, if the proposed removal of original material is considered appropriate;
4) The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be reviewed to ensure that any of the proposed works meet the standards within this document;
5) The date and details of the dissolution of the Bracebridge Historical Society should be ascertained in order to ensure that there are no questions concerning the ownership of the collection;
6) The collection records and inventory should be reviewed to determine that all items have a record of donation or purchase. In the absence of either record, prior to undertaking any action on an item, ownership should be determined either through follow-up with the original donator/seller or through legal notice;
7) It is recommended that due to the present state of the collection, it should be assessed by a conservator. This is especially necessary as items will likely need to be moved prior to the renovation work on the building. This conservator should provide a priority action list of next steps, including (but not limited to) a work plan for necessary conservation of artifacts, helping to identify what items the Town may wish to retain and which items the Town should de-accession, and helping to develop policies for the collection;
8) Prior to the 2012 tourism season, a concerted effort should be undertaken to ensure that the community is aware the site is closed, and to ensure that all tourist publications clearly indicate this fact;
9) A communication plan should be developed to advise people what is going on with the 15 King Street, the schedule for any proposed works, and important next steps;
10) The Town should develop and adopt policies that reflect the provincial requirements for conservation standards, collections standards, and physical plant standards for museum collections without delay;
11) The Letter of Understanding between the Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc. and the Town of Bracebridge governing the terms of use of the Chapel Gallery should be revisited by both parties to see if it is still applicable after a preferred option is chosen;
12) It may be useful for the municipality to acquire a guide for housekeeping in historic house museums, such as the National Trust publication Housekeeping for Historic Homes and House Museums by Melissa Heaver;
13) A site specific maintenance plan should be developed for 15 King Street;
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 98
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
14) A Designated Substances Review should be carried out on Woodchester Villa, if one has not already been carried out; and,
15) The Accessibility recommendations of Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be reviewed in more detail once a specific option is chosen.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 99
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
10.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, developments and purpose described to Golder by The Town of Bracebridge. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of The Town of Bracebridge. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder’s express written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of The Town of Bracebridge, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an approved user for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only The Town of Bracebridge and approved users to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Town of Bracebridge and approved users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder. Golder acknowledges the electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore of The Town of Bracebridge cannot rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder’s report or other work products.
Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of The Town of Bracebridge in the design of the specific project.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 100
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Alderson, William and Shirley Low. 1996. Interpretation of Historic Sites. 2nd Ed. Revised. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Anthony, Ken. February 24, 1992. Memoradum: Bracebridge Historical Society – Where do we go from here? Manuscript.
Boyer, Robert. 1982. A Pictorial History of Woodchester Villa, Bracebridge, Ontario. Bracebridge: Muskoka Graphics. 1975. A Good Town Grew Here: The Story of Bracebridge Ontario. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette Press.
Bracebridge Council. 1903 (2012 Reprint). Bracebridge and its Water Powers. Bracebridge: Bracebridge Council.
Coupland, Heather. 1991. Creation of Woodchester Villa. Manuscript.
Corporation of the Town of Bracebridge 2008. Comprehensive Zoning By-Law. Bracebridge, Town of Bracebridge. 2005. Official Plan. Bracebridge, Town of Bracebridge.
Creese, Walter. June 1946 “Fowler and the Domestic Octagon.” The Art Bulletin. Vol. 28. No. 2.: 89-102.
Drew, Wayland. June 22, 1980. “Woodchester: What Made it Happen.” Special Supplement to the Herald-Gazette. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette.
Eng-North-Yorks-L Archives. 2004. Births/Marriages. Archiver.rootsweb.anmcestry.com. Accessed March 9, 2012.
English Heritage. 2004. Maintenance Plans. London: English Heritage.
First Dimension Engineering. October 2010. Woodchester Villa Historical Building: Comprehensive Condition Evaluation and Preliminary Restoration Plan. Barrie: First Dimension Engineering
Fowler, O.S. 1853. A Home for All or The Gravel Wall and Octagon Mode of Building. New York: Samuel R Wells.
Fowler, O.S. and M. Stern. 1973. The Octagon House: A Home for All. New York: Dover Publications.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 101
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Freer, Elene. February 7, 1992. Memorandum: Woodchester Villa and the role and function of the Bracebridge Historical Society. Manuscript.
Gaffield, Chad. 2012. “Mechanics’ Institutes.” The Canadian Encyclopaedia. www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca. Accessed March 9, 2012.
Government of Manitoba. N.D. Heritage Building Maintenance Manual. Winnipeg: Government of Manitoba.
Heaver, Melissa. 2000. Housekeeping for Historic Homes and House Museums. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Herbert N M et al. 1976. A History of the County of Gloucester: Volume 11: Bisley and Longtree Hundreds. Online. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=19161 Date accessed: 8 March 2012
HistoricPlaces.ca 2012. Woodchester Villa. Online. HistoricPlaces.ca. Accessed March 9, 2012.
Jester, Thomas and Sharon Park. 1993. Preservation Briefs #32: Making Historic Properties Accessible. Washington: National Park Service
Kalman, Harold. 1995. A History of Canadian Architecture. Vol. 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Lundell, Liz. 2003. Old Muskoka: Century Cottages & Summer Estates. Erin: Boston Mills Press.
Martin, Eric. 1999. Improving Access to Heritage Buildings. Canberra City: Australian Heritage Commission.
Martin, John. 2005. Saints, Sinners, and Reformers. www.crookedlakereview.com/books/saints_sinners/martin12.html. Accessed March 9, 2012.
The Mechanics' magazine. 1836. ‘List of English Patents Granted between the 24th of June and 27th July, 1836.” The Mechanics' Magazine. Vol. 25.
Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. 2000. Standards for Community Museums in Ontario. Toronto: Queen’s Printer.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 102
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Parks Canada et al. 2010. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.
Petry, Bob. 1999. Bracebridge: An Early Settlement in Muskoka. Bracebridge: Bob Petry.
Rempel, Jon. 1980. Building with Wood. Revised Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rickard, Peter. 10 March 1992. Memorandum: Bracebridge Historical Society – Ken Anthony Memo. Manuscript.
Smith, Gail. N.D. Bird’s Woollen Mill. Manuscript.
Thomson, Nancy. (Ed.) 1999. A Good Town Continues: Bracebridge 1915-1999. Bracebridge: Town of Bracebridge.
Visitoruk.com N.D. Stround, Glouchestershire. www.visitoruk.com, Accessed March 9, 2012.
Legal Documents and Applicable Legislation Ontario Heritage Act Planning Act Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act. Ontario Building Code Ontario Fire Code Access for Ontarians with Disabilities By-law No. 78-53 (Rescinded in part by By-law 1982-64). (Corporation of the Town of Bracebridge). A By-law to Designate the Property Known Municipally as 45 Muskoka Road [Now 15 King Street] as Being of Historic of Architectural Interest. June 28, 1978. Easement Agreement Between the Corporation of the Town of Bracebridge and the Ontario Heritage Foundation. (Dated October 1, 1980.) Letter of Understanding between the Town of Bracebridge and Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc. For the Management of the Woodchester Villa Museum and Cost Sharing of the Maintenance for the Chapel Gallery. June 11, 2008. Letters Patent: Bracebridge Historical Society. 7 June, 1978.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 103
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Consultation Session Attendees Session 1: Barb McMurray (Councillor); Cheryl Kelley (Director of Economic Development); Lori McDonald (Municipal Clerk); Ron Walton (Municipal Engineer); John Sisson (CAO); Carol Wakefield (Treasurer); and, Kim Horrigan (Director of Development Services). Session 2: Tracy Larkman (Administrative Coordinator, Bracebridge Business Improvement Area); John Crawley (General Manager, Bracebridge Chamber of Commerce); Scott Young (Councillor); Mark Quemby (Councillor); and, Steve Clement (Councillor). Session 3: Elene Freer (Executive Director, Muskoka Arts and Crafts Inc.); Barry Hartford (MAC Board Member); and, Mary Ruth Newell (MAC Board Member). Telephone Interviews/Additional Questionnaires Received: Peter Bird; Don Coates; Liam Cragg; Nancy Cox-Godfrey; Andy Nelan; and, Ken C. Veitch.
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 104
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
CLOSURE We trust that this report meets your current needs. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact the undersigned.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.
Marcus Létourneau, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Hugh Daechsel, MA Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist Senior Archaeologist/Principal
ML/HJD/lb n:\active\2012\1126 - environmental and cultural sciences\12-1126-0005 sv woodchester villa bracebridge\final report\12-1126-0005 background and vision report_15 king st_final report.docx
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 105
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX A Photo Inventory of Rooms in Woodchester Villa
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
APPENDIX A Woodchester Villa Room Photographs
This appendix provides images of each room within Woodchester Villa to provide a sense of the current use of each room.
Other Floor Photo Room Current Use information
OHT B Kitchen Exhibit Area Easement Protected
Stairs rebuilt B Hall and Stairs Access in 1979
March 2012 Project No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 1/9
APPENDIX A Woodchester Villa Room Photographs
B Exhibit Area Exhibit Area New area
B Staff Kitchen Staff area New Area
Electrical B Services Room
March 2012 Project No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 2/9
APPENDIX A Woodchester Villa Room Photographs
OHT B Lard er Exhibit Area Easement Protected
OHT 1 Libra ry Exhibit Area Easement Protected
OHT 1 Dining Room Exhibit Area Easement Protected
March 2012 Project No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 3/9
APPENDIX A Woodchester Villa Room Photographs
OHT 1 Parlou r Exhibit Area Easement Protected
OHT 1 Front Hall Exhibit Area Easement Protected
OHT 1 Porch Exhibit Area Easement Protected
March 2012 Project No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 4/9
APPENDIX A Woodchester Villa Room Photographs
OHT Easement protected, 1 Hearth Room Exhibit Area but heavily modified in 1979
OHT 1 Bathroom Exhibit Area Easement Protected
OHT 2 Hall Exhibit Area Easement Protected
March 2012 Project No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 5/9
APPENDIX A Woodchester Villa Room Photographs
OHT 2 Bedroom 1 Exhibit Area Easement Protected
OHT 2 Bedroom 2 Exhibit Area Easement Protected
OHT Master 2 Exhibit Area Easement Bedroom Protected
March 2012 Project No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 6/9
APPENDIX A Woodchester Villa Room Photographs
OHT Easement Dressing protected, 2 Exhibit Area Room but heavily modified in 1979
Museum 2 Storage Operations
Office and Museum 2 Staff Operations Washroom
March 2012 Project No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 7/9
APPENDIX A Woodchester Villa Room Photographs
Stairs to Third 2 Access Floor
3 Bedro om Storage
3 Bedro om Storage
March 2012 Project No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 8/9
APPENDIX A Woodchester Villa Room Photographs
3 Stairs to Roof Access
March 2012 Project No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1) 9/9
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX B Ontario Heritage Trust Alteration Application Package
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
10 Adelaide St East Toronto Ontario M5C 1J3
Telephone : 416 325-5000 Fascimile : 416 325-5071 www.heritagetrust.on.ca Heritage Conservation Easement Property Alteration Request Form Explanation and Guidelines Before proceeding with any activity or action that may affect an easement property (e.g. legal, physical or aesthetic) owners should consult the easement agreement and discuss the matter with the Ontario Heritage Trust’s (herinafter refered to as the “Trust”) Easement Program Coordinator to determine if Trust approval is required. The Trust also views that approvals or pre-approvals are possible only to the degree and level of detail provided by the owner. The Trust can be reached at 416-325-5000.
Good conservation planning and practice requires a full and complete understanding of the impact of proposed alterations on the heritage elements/features of the property. Methods and materials for implementation are also required as part of an approval request. The purpose of the approval process is not to prohibit change but to ensure that it is carefully managed with sound conservation principles in mind. This is the core purpose of the easement .The Trust’s decisions are based upon its mandate as stipulated in Part II of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter O.18, the Trust’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties, the Trust’s handbook Well Preserved (Mark Fram), Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and international charters, standards and principles.
The intention of the alteration request form is to provide the Trust with adequate information so that staff can clearly understand the specific details of any proposed alterations. Applicants should provide information on any possible alternative approach they have considered. Please note that alteration requests should be submitted as early as possible, preferably in the preliminary stages of your project.
The Trust’s role is to provide support and technical conservation advice, and to enforce the legal obligations of the easement. Although each agreement is different, most allow 60 days from receiving a complete, written alteration request for the Trust to respond, however, the responses are typically much faster than this. If the application is incomplete, or the Trust requires further information or documentation to interpret the request, the 60-day period will start when these are provided. The record will also be used to evaluate whether a given project has been completed as per the written approval issued by the Trust.
An Alteration Completion Form and Report will be required at the end of the project. This form will allow the Trust to track the work completed on site and will provide important archival information for the future, and also allows the owner to more easily track the approval process. Please note that a report or record of repair will be required upon completion of the project and should be compiled from the outset. Refer to the Alteration Completion Form and Guidelines for further information.
After obtaining written approval to proceed, please inform the Trust of any changes to the scope of the project that may be required as work progresses on site and unanticipated conditions are uncovered.
The primary purpose of the easement is the conservation of the heritage elements/features. Part of this is achieved through the alteration request process. Some easement agreements allow for normal repairs that do not require Trust approval. In these situations, and to ensure the work you propose falls into this category, consult the agreement and discuss the matter with Trust staff before you proceed. Page 1 of 4 Application Guide 1. Owner Information This information is needed to verify the legal property owner’s details. Provide a mailing address, as well as a daytime phone number.
2. Agent acting on behalf of Owner (if any) If an agent has been or will be hired to assist with your project, fill in the name of the company, the agents name, and their contact information.
3. Property Information This refers to the easement property on which work is to be carries out. Provide the easement property’s common name (e.g. Dundern Castle, Ruthven Estate, City Hall), and the address.
4. Project Classification Specify the nature of work that is to be performed on the property, and check all that apply.
New Construction – Includes any new buildings, additions, or structures. The application should also in- clude the materials to be used, and any technical drawings or photographs related to the new structure or addition.
Alterations – Includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb any of the heritage elements/features as de- scribed in the easement. The application should also include drawings of the proposed alterations, and any photographs of the area(s) in which modifications are to be carried out.
Repairs – Includes any work carried out on the property to repair or restore its interior, exterior, and any other physical repairs or restorations (plumbing, lighting, finishes, etc) effecting the features protected by the easement. Describe the current condition of what is to be repaired, and include any photographs or other documentation. Restoration will require evidence of research to corroborate the proposal.
Landscaping – Includes any physical alteration of the property (landscape) as defined in the easement agreement. This includes the re-planting, removal, destruction, or cutting of trees, shrubs, or other vegeta- tion except as may be necessary for the prevention or treatment of disease or good husbandry. Drawings should be provided to include the alterations that are proposed, and the materials to be used. An arborists report will be needed for tree removal.
Signage or Graphics – Includes any addition of new graphics, wayfinding, signs, or the alteration of existing graphics or signage. A drawing of the sign(s) with a description of the materials, the means of attachment, and the proposed location should be included with the application.
Lighting - Includes the installation or addition of any new lighting fixtures, or the alteration or modification of any existing light fixtures.
Demolition – Includes the destruction of any heritage features as defined in the easement agreement, and any buildings or structures on the property. Please include photographs of the structure or feature to be demolished, and describe the reason for removal.
Mechanical/Electical - Includes the addition, alteration or renewal of an exisiting or new mechanical/elec- trical system (includes HVAC). An expert in these systems should be consulted and calculations done to ensure the new or altered system will not negatively impact the heritage elements/features. Page 2 of 4 5. Pre-Application Advice If you have received advice from Trust staff regarding this property and any proposed alteration, please specify the nature of the advice. If possible, include the name of the Trust staff who assisted you. If you have not yet contacted the Trust, it is recommended that you do so before completing the application to receive information and advice regarding your application to make the process more efficient. Our office can be reached at 416-325-5000, where you will be directed to our Easement Program Coordinator.
6. Project Details Check the boxes of the features that are to be affected by the alterations, and describe the work that is to be performed on them. Attach a seperate page for details if more room is required. 7. Project Reasoning Discuss the reason for carrying out the work on the property. Include a description of how the work will impact the heritage characteristics of the property. For major proposals, a conservation plan and/or heritage impact assessment may be required before the Trust can consider your proposal. Please consult the Trust for further advice and information.
8. Consultants and Contractors If you have appointed other parties to assist you with your proposed project, please indicate this here. Pro- vide the name of the companies, the main contact person, and contact details. Resumes and lists of previous projects may be required.
9. Proposed Schedule Estimate the dates between which the work will be carried out.
10. Additional Material In order for the Trust to fully understand the nature of the work and the impact it will have on the heritage elements/features, additional material should be included. Specifications must be provided; include materials and workmanship. Separate drawing showing the existing condition and the proposed alteration should also be provided.
Site Plan – Include for any new construction, additions, or changes to the landscape.
Floor Plan – Include for any new interior construction, alteration or proposed demolition.
Elevations – Include for any landscaping or new exterior and/or interior construction, alteration or demolition.
Photographs – Include for any project images of the existing condition and area of work.
Condition Reports – Include for any project, but specifically if there are renovations or repairs to be carried out on the building envelope or structure.
*If drawings are not available and a consultant is not being used the trust may be able to provide a template plan/drawing of your property for marking up.
Page 3 of 4 10b. Compliance Full compliance with the easement agreement is expected from the easement owner at the time of submission of this application. Any outstanding building maintenance issues not related to the approval request itself should have been addressed and the property should generally be in a good state of repair. Proof of insurance submission should be up to date. Trust staff will indicate if the property is in a good state of repair and if an updated copy of insurance has been submitted to the Trust.
11. Applications Checklist Complete the checklist to ensure that you have filled in all parts of the form and included all information and materials as necessary.
12. Declaration The owner must sign the declaration, and any agents acting on behalf of the owner must sign as well. Please read the terms and conditions associated with this application, and fill in the date.
Submission of the Alteration Request
After the form is completed and all additional materials attached, please mail to:
Attention: Easement Program Coordinator Ontario Heritage Trust 10 Adelaide Street East Toronto, Ontario M5C 1J3 Canada
Email: [email protected]
Or fax to: 416-325-5071
Processing of requests may require research, site visits and/or considerable consultation so owners are advised to involve the Trust as early as possible in order to minimize delays.
If you have any questions or comments before or after submitting your form, call 416-325-5000.
Date prepared : May 2008 Page 4 of 4 10 Adelaide St East Toronto Ontario M5C 1J3
Telephone : 416 325-5000 Fascimile : 416 325-5071 www.heritagetrust.on.ca Heritage Conservation Easement Property (Office Use only) Alteration Request Form Application Reference # Complete the information and attach all necessary documentation to your alteration Date Received request application. The accuracy and completeness of this form is the responsibility OHT Property of the applicant. Failure to complete the form may result in delays. 1. Owner Information
Title First Name Last Name
Address Street and Number Town/City Province Postal Code
Phone Cellular Number Number Area Code Ext. # Area Code
2. Agent acting on behalf of Owner (if any)
Company Name Agent Name Address Street and Number Town/City Province Postal Code
Phone Cellular Number Number Area Code Ext. # Area Code
3. Property Information
Property Name
Address Town/City Postal Code
4. Project Classification
Please indicate the type of action you wish to perform on your property (check all that apply).
Interior Exterior
New Construction Alteration Repairs/Maintenance Landscaping/Excavating
Signage or Graphics Lighting Demolition/Removal Refinishing /Repainting Mechanical/Electrical Other
Page 1 of 4 5. Pre-Application Advice
Did you receive any advice from the Ontario Heritage Trust prior to filling out this application? Yes No
If yes, please complete as much as possible below. This will help us to process your application more efficiently.
Trust Staff Date Advised: Day Month Year
Details of advice received:
6. Project Details Please indicate the affected features/elements and describe the proposed work to be performed on them.
Walls
Roof
Ceiling
Chimney
Doors
Windows
Floors
Lighting
Signage
Landscaping
______Other
______Other
Page 2 of 4 7. Project Reasoning Please describe the reason for the alteration:
8. Consultants and Contractors
If the work is to be performed by a consultant or contractor, please provide their contact information below.
Architect Name Organization Phone
Engineer Name Organization Phone
General Contractor Name Organization Phone
Consultant Name Organization Phone
Other Name Organization Phone
9. Proposed Schedule
Estimate the project start and completion dates
Start date: Completion date: Day Month Year Day Month Year
10. Additional Material
Please select which documents will be included in this application. The more supporting documents are included, the more efficient the application process will be.
Site Plan(s) Elevations Photographs Floor Plan(s) Specifications Condition reports Conservation Plan / Heritage ______Impact Assessment Other
10b. Compliance (section to be completed by Trust staff) Please indicate whether the property is currently in compliance with the easement agreement. (For Office use only)
Property in a good state of repair: Yes Updated copy of insurance has Yes No been received by the Trust: No
Page 3 of 4 11. Application Checklist
Please make sure you have filled out all parts of the form and included all required material before submitting your application. Have you: Completed your full address Classified the type of work Proposed a timeline in which and property information? you wish to perform on your the project is estimated to be property? completed? Provided contact information Indicated the nature and Included additional mate- of any other parties involved reasoning of the work to be rials as necessary? in the project? performed on specific parts of the building?
12. Declaration
I/we hereby apply for alternation approval as described in this form and the accompanying plans/drawings and additional infor- mation. The Trust expects that the easement owner is in full compliance with the easement agreement at the time of submis- sion. Any building maintenance issues not related to the approval request itself should have been addressed and the property should generally be in a good state of repair. The Trust also expects the owner’s proof of insurance submission to be up to date.
Signed - Owner(s) Date Name Day Month Year
Signed - Agent(s) Date (if any) Name Day Month Year
Please note - this application is for OHT approval only. It does not cover matters of other applicable law. It is the applicants responsibility to ad- dress any requirements under the Planning Act or Building Code Act, public as well as environmental safety and other bylaws or regulation. The property may also be designated by your local Municipality under the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990, C.O.18). We advise you to contact the municipality in order to secure any local approvals.
Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.O.18, sect.7, and will be used to evaluate proposed projects for approval. The information will be held in our files and may be subject to a freedom of information request. For further information, please contact the Executive Coordinator, Ontario Heritage Trust, 10 Adelaide Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1J3, 416- 314-4903.
Date Prepared: May 2008 Page 4 of 4 Statement of Significance Woodchester Villa
Description of Historic Place
Woodchester Villa is located at 15 King Street in the Town of Bracebridge overlooking the Muskoka River. The two-storey plus attic and basement stucco building is designed in the Octagonal style and was constructed in 1882. The exterior, select areas of the interior and scenic character of the 2.2 hectare (5.4 acre) property are protected by an Ontario Heritage Trust conservation easement. The property is also designated by the Town of Bracebridge as having cultural heritage value and interest under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (Bylaw 78-53). An Ontario Heritage Trust plaque is also located on the property to commemorate the provincial significance of Woodchester Villa.
Heritage Value
Historic Value: Woodchester Villa is historically significant for its association with Henry J. Bird (1842-1936), an important woolen manufacturer and civic leader in Bracebridge. In 1872, Bird relocated his woolen mill to Bracebridge from Peel Township due to the persistent flooding at the site of his Peel mill and because of the ample water power resources of the Muskoka River. Bird’s mill became one of the town’s most prominent industrial facilities. In operation until 1953, the Bird Woolen Mill became well-known for its water resistant, mackinaw cloth, which was popular with lumberjacks. The mill also produced great quantities of blankets for the Muskoka tourist trade, and was a major supplier of wool cloth for military purposes in the First World War. Apart from his successful business, Bird was prominent in civic affairs, serving as a town councilor six times between 1878 and 1907. He was also a leading advocate for the development of water and electrical utilities in Bracebridge. Bird was deeply interested in technological and scientific advancements which may have influenced his design of Woodchester Villa. The Villa was based upon the principles advocated by American phrenologist Orson Squires Fowler (1809-1887) in his book The Octagon House: A Home for All (1849), extolling the health-enhancing benefits and efficiency of octagonal construction. Bird named his home Woodchester Villa after the English village in Gloustershire where he was born. Woodchester Villa was occupied by the Bird family until 1975 when it was purchased by the Rotary Club of Bracebridge and underwent substantial restoration. After its restoration, ownership of Woodchester Villa was transferred to the Town of Bracebridge which operates it as a house museum.
1/4 Architectural Value: Woodchester Villa is an example of the Octagonal architectural style, rarely found in Ontario. Construction of octagon buildings reached its peak in Ontario in the second half of the 19th century – and even then, there were only a small number of octagonal houses constructed during this time. Woodchester Villa is also one of the largest of the octagonal houses built in Ontario and as it has undergone very few structure changes, the original plan is clearly evident. Woodchester Villa incorporated not only the eight sided plan suggested in Fowler’s book, but a large number of his other innovative ideas in the buildings exterior construction. Most significant was the adoption of Fowler’s idea to use ‘gravel wall’ construction - an early form of poured concrete - as the construction material for the exterior walls above the foundation and for those in the basement’s interior. Woodchester Villa is one of Ontario’s earliest surviving examples of unreinforced concrete construction with sixteen inch thick, poured concrete walls clad in stucco on the upper walls. The foundation is of exposed, coursed, Muskoka granite.
The octagonal motif was used throughout the exterior in the encircling 2-storey wood verandahs, rooftop lookout, central chimney and flag pole. Woodchester Villa also features 2/2 wood sash windows with wood sills, and dormer windows on the southwest and northwest elevations. The sun porch was added ca. 1910 with its large windows providing a view to the Muskoka River. The sun porch has three access doors – central French doors, and two side doors leading to the verandah, all with a transom window above. The main half-glass entrance door from the sun porch into the entrance hall of Woodchester Villa features a glass transom and sidelights.
Included in the interior design of Woodchester Villa were Fowler’s suggestions for the installation of a central heating system, fresh air ventilation shafts, ‘speaking tubes’ between floors, attic cisterns, indoor plumbing and water closet, vertical transportation (dumbwaiter) and a plan for cross- ventilation in the sleeping quarters using interior transom lights. The counterweight shaft dumbwaiter extends from basement to attic with square wood doors located in the dining room, 1st and 2nd floor passage way, master bedroom and basement kitchen.
Simple woodwork is featured throughout the house including crown moulding, chair rail, high baseboards, 5-paneled doors separating rooms, and window and doors surrounds. The floors in the first storey of Woodchester Villa are 2-toned stained wood floors, while the second storey has white pine, paint grained flooring. The turned staircase features geometric patterned, cut-out balusters, octagonal newel posts, brass newel lamp with octagonal globe, octagonal stair rail, and tongue-and-groove wainscoting with half-octagonal rail. Built in storage closets are located in several rooms and are a rarity in at 19th century home. The basement features a kitchen with a pressed tin ceiling, and a window that overlooks the Muskoka River.
Contextual Value: Woodchester Villa is set upon an elevated site with a commanding view of the Muskoka River. Historically, the Woodchester Villa property had a clear view towards downtown Bracebridge and the site of Bird’s former milling operation. Corresponding to its intention as a health-enhancing design, this elevated, 2.2-hectare site serves to catch the breezes, and offers excellent ventilation and light to the villa. Hugging the side of the hill from Muskoka Road to the villa, the original driveway survives as a dramatic and picturesque approach. The house was built along Muskoka Road, an important colonization road built through much of the district. This road was the principal street, but is no longer open to vehicles due to its steepness. The Chapel Gallery is a modern reconstruction of the former Presbyterian Church once located on the Woodchester Villa property once used by Bird as a carriage shed and wool storage.
2/4 Character Defining Elements
Exterior features that contribute to the architectural value of Woodchester Villa include:
• 2-storey octagonal (8-sided) plan with a partially exposed basement • Exposed, coursed, Muskoka granite foundation • ‘Gravel wall’ concrete construction of the exterior walls comprising gravel, stones and large rocks • Stucco clad exterior above the foundation • Dormer windows on the southwest and northwest elevations • Segmental arched 2/2 wood sash windows and 2/2 wood storm with wood sills • Octagonal features including encircling 2-storey wood verandahs with bracketed supports, rooftop lookout with open balustrade, central chimney and rooftop flagpole • Sun Porch: fully enclosed by windows, main double wooden entrance doors, two side doors that lead to the verandah, all doors have transoms above • Raised rear (northeast) door • Cedar shingle roof • Wood fascia
Interior features that contribute to the architectural value of Woodchester Villa include:
• Room configuration and separation of the interior • Narrow central passageway of the first and second storey • Central heating and fresh air ventilation shafts with decorative iron covers located throughout the house • Basement to attic dumbwaiter with counterweight shaft • Dumbwaiter doors in the basement, dining room, passageways, master bedroom • Corner closets/built in cupboards located throughout the house • Simple woodwork of the first floor: crown moulding, chair rail, high baseboards, 5-paneled doors separating rooms, window and doors surrounds • 2-toned stained wood floor on the first storey and white pine, paint grained flooring on the second • Main entrance (enclosed with the sun porch addition) with half-glass door, sidelights and transom lights • Entrance hall featuring arched door surround (emulates three sides of an octagon) and five doors leading to the library, dining room, passageway, parlour, and period water closet • Open, turned staircase with geometric patterned, cut-out balusters, octagonal newel posts, brass newel lamp with octagonal globe, the octagonal stair rail, and tongue-and-groove wainscoting with half-octagonal rail • Library built-in desk with drop-lead front • Original water closet beneath the main staircase • Hearth Hall featuring entrance door flanked by two windows, simple staircase leading to the basement, Arts and Crafts inspired fireplace (ceramic tile, cast iron insert, wood mantel) • Historic door bell • 2nd storey hallway with built in bench • Bedroom woodwork: high baseboards, crown molding, picture rail, simple wood window frames, 5-paneled doors with ventilating glass transom above, built in storage closets • Separate dressing room with closet of the master bedroom
3/4 • Basement kitchen with elaborate tin ceiling; large enamel sink, white pine board flooring, battened doors • Basement’s internal walls of ‘gravel wall’, concrete construction
Context: • Location overlooking the Muskoka River • Set upon an elevated site • View from the 2nd floor west facing bedroom windows towards downtown Bracebridge (the former location of Bird’s woolen mill) • View from 2nd floor west facing bedroom windows of the Muskoka River • Original driveway extending from Muskoka Road to the Villa • Location of the Chapel Gallery to the south of Woodchester Villa
Revised April 2012
Ontario Heritage Trust Toronto, ON 4/4T 416-325-5000 www.heritagetrust.on.ca 10 Adelaide Street East M5C 1J3 F 416-325-5071 [email protected] "PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX C Standards for Community Museums in Ontario (Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport)
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 1 of 12
Home Culture Museums Standards for community museums in Ontario (August 2000) • Introduction <#introduction> • Governance Standard <#governance> • Finance Standard <#finance> • Collections Standard <#collections> • Exhibition Standard <#exhibition> • Interpretation and Education Standard <#interpretation> • Research Standard <#research2> • Conservation Standard <#conservation> • Physical Plant Standard <#physical> • Community Standard <#community> • Human Resources Standard <#human> • Glossary and References <#glossary>
Introduction The Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation is pleased to introduce a new, revised edition of the Standards for Community Museums in Ontario. In 1981, the original document was created in response to the museum community's need for basic museological standards. Standards were set out for six core areas of museum operations: research, collections records management, staff training, exhibition, interpretation and education, and conservation. For many years these standards played an important role in improving the professionalism of museums throughout Ontario.1 <#a1> Eventually it became clear that the standards required updating. Museums have developed new and expanded knowledge and responsibilities. In addition, many core museum functions - including important ones such as governance and collecting -- were not covered by the six original standards. The museum community expressed a desire for updated standards that would both reflect current museum practice and provide a more comprehensive picture of museum functions. The ministry embarked on a revision of the Standards for Community Museums in Ontario. In order to ensure that the new standards would meet the needs of the museum community, the ministry invited comments and suggestions from individual museums, the Ontario Museum Association and the Ontario Historical Society. The ten standards in the following pages represent the minimum requirements for the operation of a good community museum. Regardless of a museum's size or scope, whether it is in a new building or a heritage structure, or whether it is a seasonal or year-round operation, there are certain functions, responsibilities, and activities common to all. These are the areas highlighted by the standards, all of which are of equal importance.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 2 of 12
All of the original standards have been incorporated into the new document. Some remain as individual standards (Research, Exhibition, Interpretation and Education, and Conservation) while others have been incorporated into new, broader categories (Staff Training is found under Human Resources, and Collection Records Management under Collections). New sections are Governance, Finance, Physical Plant and Community. The implementation of museum standards is challenging. To assist museums in meeting the revised standards, the ministry will continue to provide advisory services, resource materials and museological information pertinent to the standards. Museum standards must continue to evolve as museums find new ways to serve their communities and fulfil their mandate. In due course, revision of this edition of standards will be necessary to reflect these changes. The province has a fundamental commitment to the preservation and presentation of the material culture of Ontario, through the community museums of the province. In achieving these new standards, Ontario's museums will continue along the path to excellence and remain an asset to the communities they serve. Governance standard Objective of the Governance Standard Good governance and demonstrated public accountability are necessary for the museum to operate as a viable not-for-profit organisation. The museum is governed by a publicly accountable body that follows a clearly defined mission and goals, and maintains openness in its decisions and operations. Requirements 1. The museum is governed by a publicly accountable body. 2. The museum is established by a written document(s) which includes: a. The authority for the museum b. The museum's statement of purpose and objectives c. Provisions for the dissolution of the museum's assets and liabilities should it cease to operate.
3. The museum's governing body is established by a written document which outlines: a. Its composition and structure, including selection of members and terms of office b. Its obligation to ethical behaviour and the avoidance of conflict of interest, as a body and as individuals c. Its obligation to meet municipal, provincial and federal legislative requirements that have an impact on its decisions or activities d. Its responsibilities and duties, including: i. Recruiting, supervising and evaluating the museum's curator or director (i.e. the museum's chief manager)2 <#a2> ii. Formulating the museum's statement of purpose iii. Formulating written policy governing operations and defining programs iv. Securing funding necessary to carry out the museum's programs v. Preparing or approving an annual budget and monitoring it to ensure public accountability vi. Ensuring that the purposes for which the museum exists are being fulfilled vii. Ensuring that the collection is being cared for under proper condition
4. The museum's governing body meets regularly and as often as necessary to conduct its business effectively. The meetings follow a written agenda and a written record is kept of all discussions and decisions.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 3 of 12
5. The museum's operation and administration meets municipal, provincial and federal legislative requirements that have a bearing on its operations and activities. 6. The museum and its staff demonstrate a commitment to ethical behaviour as an institution and as individuals. 7. The museum's operations and activities are directed by short and long-term written plans (e.g. business plan, strategic plan, visioning plan or master plan) approved by the governing body and containing goals and objectives relevant to the museum's statement of purpose.
Finance standard Objective of the Finance Standard The museum demonstrates that it is a fiscally responsible public institution. The governing body and the museum follow predetermined policies and procedures to achieve this. Requirements 1. The governing body carries out its responsibility to secure funding necessary for the operation and maintenance of the museum and its activities, and for capital projects. 2. The museum demonstrates a commitment to ethical behaviour in the pursuit of funding. 3. The museum seeks diverse sources of funding, both public and private. 4. Financial resources related to the museum's operation and administration are allocated and controlled through an annual budget approved by the governing body. 5. The museum makes public an annual financial report.
Collections standard Objective of the Collections Standard The artifacts in the museum's collection are a tangible representation of the community's heritage, and to retain their informational and historical value they must be properly cared for and documented. The museum will demonstrate its stewardship and facilitate access to collections and the information they hold by maintaining a well organized, managed and documented collection. Requirements 1. The museum has a written collection development policy stating that it will: a. Ensure that the scope of collection is consistent with the museum's statement of purpose b. Establish priorities for collection development c. Demonstrate a commitment to ethical behaviour in collection development (e.g. repatriation, human remains) d. Meet municipal, provincial and federal legislative requirements that have an impact on collecting activities (e.g. illicit materials)
2. The museum has a written collections management policy stating that it will: a. Ensure appropriate procedures and documentation for the acquisition, use and deaccessioning of artifacts in the collection b. Ensure appropriate procedures and documentation for incoming and outgoing loans c. Ensure appropriate procedures for the management of collections records d. Demonstrate a commitment to conservation standards in the labelling, care and handling of artifacts e. Distinguish between artifacts in a research (or study) collection and artifacts in an education (or hands-on) collection f. Meet municipal, provincial and federal legislative requirements that have an impact on collections management and documentation (e.g. firearms, hazardous materials).
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 4 of 12
3. The museum assigns the duties of a registrar to an appropriately trained staff member and provides adequate time, workspace and funding for collections management activities. 4. The museum uses an effective collection documentation system, which may be paper-based, electronic, or a combination. The system will include a standardized numbering system, an accession register, a master catalogue file, and signed donor and loan forms. 5. The museum keeps a periodically updated paper or electronic copy of the collection records off- site in a secure location. 6. The museum's collection records are current.
Exhibition standard Objective of the Exhibition Standard The museum's exhibits provide an important link between the community and its heritage. In the planning and presentation of exhibitions, the museum will strive for accuracy of information, relevance to the community, effective communication, opportunities for learning, and the safe display of artifacts. Requirements 1. The museum has a written exhibition policy stating that it will: a. Ensure that the themes and number of exhibits are consistent with the museum's statement of purpose and the needs and interests of the communities it serves b. Demonstrate a commitment to accuracy and objectivity in exhibit presentation c. Demonstrate a commitment to ethical behaviour in exhibit presentation d. Meet conservation standards in exhibit design, materials and use of artifacts e. Meet municipal, provincial and federal legislative requirements that have an impact on exhibit presentation (e.g. safety codes, copyright, disability legislation).
2. All exhibits are consistent with the museum's exhibition policy. 3. The museum has an exhibition schedule comprising a mix of permanent and temporary exhibits. 4. The museum ensures the relevance, accuracy and effective communication of each exhibit by: a. Establishing clearly defined objectives and evaluating exhibits against their objectives b. Using appropriate expertise, including staff, volunteers, community groups, or consultants c. Carrying out sufficient research.
5. The museum ensures that all staff (including volunteers) involved in the planning, preparation and installation of exhibits have the necessary skills and training. 6. The museum ensures that exhibits are safe for visitors and staff by: a. Placing hazardous materials in display cases b. Adequately supporting, securing or providing barriers against heavy objects or moving parts that could cause injury c. Training staff in the safe operation of exhibits (e.g. machinery) d. Meeting legislated requirements in the handling and display of firearms.
7. The museum endeavours to ensure that exhibits are accessible and capable of being used and enjoyed by visitors of all ages and abilities. 8. The museum ensures that exhibits effectively promote learning and enjoyment through: a. Providing a variety of interpretation methods to meet a range of visitor needs b. Regularly replacing artifacts in permanent exhibits with other examples from storage, to refresh the exhibits for the community's enjoyment as well as for conservation purposes.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 5 of 12
9. A portion of the museum's budget is allocated annually for exhibit development, design, construction, maintenance and evaluation expenses. 0. The museum ensures that exhibit preparation activities that are harmful to artifacts are carried out in a workshop that is isolated from collection areas (i.e. display and storage). Such activities would include those that produce dust, excessive heat or vibrations, and those that involve the use of aerosols and solvents (e.g. paints and varnishes).
Interpretation and education standard Objective of the Interpretation and Education Standard Interpretation and education programs provide an opportunity for the community to interact more closely with the museum's collections and information. They also complement other sources of learning in the community, both formal and informal. Through its education programs, the museum reaches audiences of all ages, interests and abilities, and serves as a resource for its communities. Requirements 1. The museum has a written interpretation and education policy stating that it will: a. Ensure that the themes, content and formats of interpretation and education programs are consistent with the museum's statement of purpose and meet the needs and interests of the communities it serves b. Establish priorities for the development of interpretation and education programs c. Ensure that responsibility for interpretation and education programming is delegated to appropriately trained staff d. Demonstrate a commitment to accuracy and objectivity in interpretation and education programs e. Demonstrate a commitment to ethical behaviour in interpretation and education programs f. Demonstrate a commitment to meet conservation standards in use of artifacts g. Meet municipal, provincial and federal legislative requirements that have an impact on interpretation and education programs (e.g. copyright, disability legislation).
2. The museum has an interpretation and education program comprising a mix of school programs, public programs, and special events: a. All interpretation and education programs are consistent with the museum's statement of purpose and meet the needs and interests of the communities it serves b. All interpretation and education programs promote learning and enjoyment.
3. The museum ensures the relevance, accuracy and effective communication of its interpretation and education programs by: a. Establishing clearly defined and measurable learning objectives and outcomes, and undertaking a process of program evaluation b. Using appropriate expertise, including staff, volunteers, community groups, or consultants c. Carrying out research.
4. The museum ensures that all staff involved in the development and delivery of interpretation and education programs have the appropriate skills and training. 5. The museum provides sufficient space and a safe and secure environment for interpretation and education programs. 6. A portion of the museum's budget is allocated annually for interpretation and education program expenses.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 6 of 12
Research standard Objective of the Research Standard Research is an ongoing activity in the museum. Through well-researched exhibits, interpretation, publications and educational programming the museum continually adds to the knowledge, self- discovery and enjoyment of the community. In addition to accommodating staff researchers, the museum has a responsibility to assist outside researchers. Requirements 1. The museum has a written research policy stating that it will: a. Demonstrate a commitment to the pursuit of research by staff and outside researchers b. Ensure that the scope of research is consistent with the museum's statement of purpose c. Establish priorities for research activities d. Demonstrate a commitment to accuracy and objectivity in the results of research e. Demonstrate a commitment to ethical behaviour in research (e.g. confidentiality of records, ownership of information) f. Meet municipal, provincial and federal legislative requirements that have an impact on research activities and products (e.g. copyright legislation).
2. The museum has a research program that is consistent with its statement of purpose, and reflects the needs of its communities, site, collections and public programs. 3. Time is scheduled for staff to carry out the museum's research program. 4. A portion of the museum's budget is allocated annually for research expenses such as reference material, photocopying and staff travel. 5. The museum provides a clean, well-lit, separate space for staff and external researchers to carry out research. 6. The museum ensures that researchers who have access to the collection have training in handling artifacts.
Conservation standard Objective of the Conservation Standard The museum has a responsibility to protect and preserve the collection entrusted to its care, so that future generations will have the opportunity to enjoy and learn from it. The museum will demonstrate its stewardship of the collection by following procedures that ensure the long-term preservation of the collection. Requirements 1. The museum has a written conservation policy that sets out how it will: a. Demonstrate its understanding of the distinction between preventive care and conservation treatment b. Demonstrate its commitment to the preventive conservation of the collection c. Establish priorities for making decisions regarding conservation treatment d. Ensure that responsibility for collections care is delegated to appropriately trained staff e. Demonstrate a commitment to consult with and be guided by the advice of qualified experts in conservation f. Demonstrate a commitment to ethical behaviour in the care of collections g. Meet municipal, provincial and federal legislative requirements that have an impact on the conservation of collections.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 7 of 12
2. The museum demonstrates a commitment to protecting the collection through proper care and handling by: a. Implementing a program of staff instruction in the safe handling of artifacts b. Ensuring that artifacts are durable enough to withstand their proposed use (for example, displays, interpretation, loans, hands-on activities) c. Implementing safe packing, unpacking, and transportation procedures.
3. The museum provides one or more separate spaces for the storage of the collection. These areas will be: a. Used for collection storage only b. Large enough to store existing artifacts without crowding and to accommodate projected future acquisitions c. Organized by type of object or material (for example, textiles, metals, wood) d. Kept clean through the implementation of a regular housekeeping schedule performed by staff or volunteers with the necessary training e. Kept dark except when staff are present f. Restricted to access only by curator or designate(s) g. Equipped with suitable and safe shelves, cabinets and artifact supports.
4. The museum maintains the safety and preservation of artifacts on exhibit by: a. Ensuring that cases and floor spaces are large enough to hold artifacts without crowding or distortion b. Ensuring that artifacts on display are adequately supported with safe materials c. Using display materials (such as case materials, backgrounds, adhesives, labels) that are not harmful to artifacts d. Ensuring that exhibits are kept clean and maintained by staff trained in the handling of artifacts e. Ensuring that light-sensitive artifacts are displayed only for short periods of time f. Implementing a program of regular inspections of artifacts on exhibit to check for losses and damage.
5. The museum ensures the security of the collection by the following measures: a. Protecting artifacts from water damage b. Protecting artifacts from theft and vandalism, including restricting access to artifacts c. The establishment of written standard procedures to deal with emergencies and disasters, and training of all staff in these procedures.
6. The museum provides an appropriate environment for artifacts in all storage and exhibit areas by: a. Reducing visible light levels to accepted standards3 <#a3> b. Removing all ultraviolet radiation c. Maintaining relative humidity and temperature levels within an appropriate range for museum artifacts4 <#a4> d. Reducing dust and pollution through a combination of physical plant (e.g. use of vestibule, appropriate air filtration) and preventive procedures (e.g. use of door mats, no smoking rules) e. Implementing a regular cleaning and maintenance schedule performed by staff or volunteers with the necessary training f. Implementing preventive pest management procedures, including regular inspections for pests in the museum and inspection of all incoming collection and non-collection material
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 8 of 12
g. Implementing a program of regular checking and recording of environmental conditions, with follow up procedures to correct deficiencies.
7. The museum ensures that conservation treatment procedures will not damage artifacts and are carried out in accordance with professional standards of practice by: a. Ensuring that individuals treating artifacts have an appropriate level of training in conservation b. Ensuring that all conservation treatments are properly documented and the documentation is retained on file c. Ensuring that conservation treatment carried out in the museum takes place in a separate space that is appropriately equipped and ventilated according to health and safety standards.
Physical plant standard Objective of the Physical Plant Standard The museum's buildings and grounds must provide a safe and functional environment for visitors, staff, the collection and associated activities. The achievement of this objective will be balanced with the need to preserve the integrity of heritage buildings as artifacts themselves, as well as archaeological resources present on the property. Requirements 1. The design and layout of the museum's building(s) and grounds: a. Accommodate the physical and functional needs of its users, staff, collections and activities b. Are appropriate to the museum's statement of purpose, and to its community role and image.
2. The museum meets its obligation to federal, provincial and municipal requirements that apply to physical safety of staff, visitors and property. 3. The museum ensures that each of its buildings meets environmental norms appropriate to its functions.5 <#a5> 4. The museum ensures the security of its users, staff, collections and information by: a. Identifying potential threats (for example, personal threat, fire, water or vandalism) b. Taking steps to minimize the level of individual risks (e.g. by installing sufficient security lighting) c. Developing written procedures to respond to threats, emergencies and disasters d. Training staff (including volunteers) to implement emergency and disaster response procedures e. Establishing a system of periodic testing and assessment of the effectiveness of emergency procedures f. Ensuring that any preventive or security systems installed are assessed for their potential impact on collections and the museum's character and functions.
5. The museum has a written maintenance manual that sets out how it will: a. Conduct regularly scheduled inspections and maintenance of building(s) and grounds b. Set priorities and schedules for ongoing repairs and capital upgrades c. Ensure that health and safety codes are met in the maintenance and repair of the physical plant d. Conduct daily, weekly and monthly housekeeping routines.
6. The museum strives to be environmentally responsible in its use of energy and materials, including the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 9 of 12
7. A museum located in a heritage building, on a historic site, or on grounds containing an archaeological site maintains the historical integrity of these resources in its use, maintenance, repair and modification, and follows conservation standards and procedures. 8. Museum buildings that are open on a seasonal basis -- and in which artifacts are located - are monitored for temperature and humidity, and measures are taken to decrease the risk of environmental damage during the off-season.
Community standard Objective of the Community Standard A community's heritage is part of its identity. As a steward of the community's heritage, the museum is actively engaged in the community and responsive to its needs. The museum is accessible and relevant, and draws support from its community. Requirements 1. The museum has a written policy that defines its relationship with the community, and that will: a. Ensure that it performs its role as a steward of the collection b. Ensure that it provides services and programs consistent with its statement of purpose that meet the needs and interests of the community c. Endeavour to allow all sectors of the community to participate in the museum's decisions, goals and directions that may affect them or reflect on them d. Include members of the community in museum activities e. Identify and pursue appropriate community partnerships f. Endeavour to provide equality of access to information about the museum's collections, services and programs through adequate promotion g. Endeavour to provide equal access to all members of the community, both physically and intellectually, to the museum's collections, information, services and programs.
2. The museum has regular, posted, and advertised hours, during which it is open to the public, and which meet the needs of the community. A museum that is not open for long periods due to staffing considerations or weather will assess the needs of the community and make its services available by appointment and/or outreach activities.
4. The museum has a volunteer program to encourage community participation in its activities, which should include: a. Identification and development of volunteer opportunities b. Procedures for recruitment of volunteers c. Matching the needs and interests of volunteers to those of the museum d. Provision of appropriate training and supervision for volunteers e. Provision of a safe and secure working environment for volunteers f. Volunteer evaluation g. Public and private recognition of volunteers' contributions.
Human resources standard Objective of the Human Resources Standard A museum's ability to fulfil its purpose depends to a large degree on the professionalism and capabilities of its staff.6 <#a6> The museum is better able to meet its mandate and carry out its activities by recruiting qualified staff and providing ongoing training opportunities. As an employer, the museum is concerned with the safety, security, well being and continued motivation of the people working for it.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 10 of 12
Requirements 1. The museum has a written human resources management policy stating that it will: a. Ensure that staff responsible for administering the museum and its collections have appropriate professional training b. Ensure that all museum activities are carried out by appropriately trained staff c. Ensure that each staff member has a written job description d. Ensure that human resource management, including recruitment, performance assessment, and termination is conducted in an ethical manner and is consistent with accepted practice and applicable legislation e. Ensure that staff are provided with information on health and safety hazards in the workplace and are trained in their management or mitigation f. Ensure that at least one person on staff has current First Aid training g. Endeavour to provide equal access to the workplace by staff of all abilities h. Ensure that staff are familiar with and adhere to a museological code of ethics i. Meet municipal, provincial and federal legislative requirements relating to people in the workplace.
2. The museum has a written staff training policy that sets out how it will: a. Assist staff to maintain or upgrade their skills b. Set priorities for staff training c. Determine appropriate levels of support (financial, time) for individual staff training d. Ensure the development of an ongoing in-house training program (for staff and volunteers) and its delivery by qualified persons e. Provide staff with access to professional development opportunities and interchange with museum colleagues, including communication with other museums in the region f. Ensure the development and regular delivery of an orientation program for members of the governing body.
3. A portion of the museum's budget is allocated annually for: a. Development, delivery and assessment of an in-house training program b. Staff access to professional development (seminars, workshops, conferences) c. Purchase and maintenance of a collection of current reference material.
Glossary The following glossary refers to terms used by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in the document Standards for Community Museums in Ontario and is intended only to assist readers of this document. Definitions and descriptions from other sources have been included to enhance the reader's understanding of these terms. A publicly accountable body The museum describes, in an annual report or some other publicly available format, its system of organizational governance and stewardship. "Accountability is the requirement to explain and accept responsibility for carrying out an assigned mandate in light of agreed upon expectations. It is particularly important in situations that involve public trust." Building on Strength: Improving Governance and Accountability in Canada's Voluntary Sector "Voluntary sector organizations are accountable to clients, members, volunteers, staff, partners, donors, funders, governments and the general public. At a minimum, they are accountable for establishing appropriate missions and policy priorities; setting goals to measure how well
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 11 of 12
objectives are met; sound management of funds received; effective organizational governance; and outcomes." Building on Strength: Improving Governance and Accountability in Canada's Voluntary Sector The authority for the museum In the case of municipal museums, the establishment of the museum in the form of a by-law. In the case of not-for-profit corporations, the letters patent for the museum and the proof of incorporation. In all cases, the museum's legal ownership of the collection must be established in writing. "Each museum should have a written constitution or other document setting out clearly its legal status and permanent, non-profit nature . . ." ICOM Code of Professional Ethics "Every museum requires a written mandate, which may take the form of a constitution with by- laws, an act, a municipal charter, etc.; this public document establishes its legal, non-profit status and purpose, and its objectives." CMA Ethics Guidelines The museum's governing body An appointed or elected body that is responsible only for the operation of the museum, such as a Board of Directors, a Management Committee, or an Advisory Committee. This body cannot have a mandate that includes other municipal entities (e.g. libraries, tourist offices, or recreation centres). Please refer to Changing Times Bulletins nos. 5 and 6 for guidelines regarding municipal museums. "The superior authority concerned with the policy, finance and administration of the museum." ICOM Code of Professional Ethics "The governing body of a museum may be an elected or appointed Board of Trustees or Directors, or a Management or Advisory Board or Committee of municipal officials. Whatever its formation, it is the legal entity that is accountable to the public and to the museum community for the policy, financing and administration of the museum." CMA Ethics Guidelines Ethical behaviour A commonly accepted standard of behaviour for board members, staff and volunteers, outlined in publications such as the Canadian Museums Association's CMA Ethics Guidelines and the International Council of Museum's ICOM Code of Professional Ethics. "Ethics are based upon the underlying values of honesty, fairness, respect, excellence and accountability which the larger community applies to the rational evaluation of moral issues. Since the application of such values change over time, museum ethics must reflect an ongoing dialogue between the museum community and the society it serves." CMA Ethics Guidelines Community The community served by the museum. This can be a community distinguished by geographic boundaries (e.g. Lambton County), by common interest (e.g. Museum of Textiles), or by ethnicity (e.g. Ukrainian Museum of Canada). A museum may also serve a number of different communities (e.g. special interest and local community). Appropriate research space A designated space where staff and outside researchers may sit at a desk or table to consult reference books, archival material, and other documents. The space should be neither in the exhibit area - where it might interfere with public enjoyment of displays - nor in collection storage. The space should be well lit, and large enough to accommodate one or two researchers and their papers.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 Standards for community museums in Ontario Page 12 of 12
References Canadian Museums Association
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/museums/museums_standards.shtml 3/12/2012 "PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX D Info Sheet on General Handling and Moving
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX E Maintenance Plans (English Heritage)
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES
MAINTENANCE PLANS
This leaflet tells you how to prepare a schedule for the planned maintenance of your historic building, monument or designed landscape. Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES
You should read this leaflet in association with the guidance notes.
Modest spending on regular maintenance can reduce the need for costly repairs, protect the fabric of your building, monument or designed landscape and save you money in the longer term.Although maintenance costs themselves do not qualify for a grant, preparing appropriate and cost-effective long-term maintenance plans may be a condition of our grant offer.
Under the Grants for Historic Buildings, Monuments and Designed Landscapes scheme, if you are applying for a grant for project development work we may require you to prepare a costed maintenance plan as part of your development work. If you are applying for a grant for repairs to standing structures, buried remains, designed landscapes or the public realm, you must include a costed maintenance plan with your application. Once your repair project has been completed, you will need to put the agreed maintenance plan into practice and to submit an annual return to us certifying that you have met this requirement.
The aim of this leaflet is to help you and your professional adviser to prepare a costed maintenance plan which satisfies the conditions of our grant scheme. It refers specifically to standing structures, but your professional adviser should apply the same principles when preparing a maintenance plan for buried remains or designed landscapes.
For further advice about whether you need to prepare a costed maintenance plan, please contact your English Heritage regional office.
2 Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES
What is maintenance? Why you need a Maintenance is the routine work which is maintenance plan necessary to protect the fabric of a Regular maintenance is the best way to building, monument or designed ensure the continued preservation and landscape.When carried out on a future use of a building, monument or planned basis, maintenance helps to designed landscape. Such work is part of prevent the types of failure which occur the day-to-day responsibility of all owners predictably within the life of a building, and occupiers. monument or designed landscape. Maintenance is most effective when Maintenance falls into three main carried out regularly, on a planned cycle. categories: Not only should planned maintenance extend the life and preserve the inspection to assess condition, appearance of your building, monument report any problems and decide or designed landscape, but it is most whether repair or other work is beneficial in conservation terms because necessary; less historic fabric is lost in regular, specific tasks, such as testing building minimal and small-scale work than in services and clearing debris from disruptive and extensive repairs. gutters; and Good maintenance needs the regular investment of small amounts of time minor repairs, such as fixing slipped and money, but the cost of preparing slates, replacing broken glass and and carrying out a planned maintenance making temporary ‘flashband’ repairs programme should be far less than to leadwork. the costs resulting from a series of unplanned major repairs, and will help Maintenance differs from repair, which is you plan your future financial work carried out to put right defects, commitments and fundraising needs. significant decay or damage, and work to return a building to a good condition on a long-term basis.You should not include repairs in your maintenance plan.
3 Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES
Identifying the Frequency maintenance tasks Decide how often each maintenance task should be carried out. Frequency may Your costed maintenance plan, which depend on the condition of each building must be prepared by your professional element, and could be: adviser, should contain the following information: occasional, such as inspecting roof areas and rainwater goods during or Building element after stormy weather; You should identify each element of the building, including: regular, for tasks carried out at least once a year, such as clearing rainwater roofs; goods every six months;
rainwater disposal system, both cyclical, for tasks carried out less above and below ground; than once a year, such as testing the electrical installation every five years. external walls, including doors and windows;
internal structure;
building services.
Maintenance task List the maintenance tasks (inspection, specific tasks and minor repairs) which are to be carried out to each element of the building.
Responsibility Identify who is responsible for carrying out each maintenance task. Categories could include:
building contractors;
specialists, such as electrical contractors, engineers or steeplejacks; or
unskilled or voluntary workers.
4 Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES
Writing your Although it is not a condition of the grant maintenance plan contract, it is also desirable for a suitably qualified and experienced professional To convert this information into a ten- adviser to undertake a condition survey year maintenance plan you should of your building, monument or designed allocate each of the regular tasks to an landscape every five years.This condition appropriate month (or months) of the survey will be a good way of year, taking into account who will be demonstrating how effective your carrying out the task. For example: maintenance plan has been.
If you employ a building contractor to To help you plan your future financial clear the gutters every six months, this commitments and fundraising needs, your task should be carried out in spring professional adviser should obtain realistic and autumn, after the fall of blossom estimates for the cost of implementing and leaves. Other tasks which your your maintenance plan over ten or fifteen building contractor carries out, such as years.You will need to bear in mind that inspecting and carrying out minor realistic costs will have to take into repairs to roof coverings, could be account safe working practices and means done at the same time. of access. You may find it helpful to present your If unskilled or voluntary workers maintenance plan in the form of a table, as check the building for signs of beetle shown on pages 6–11. Please regard this activity in May, then other non-skilled as an example rather than a template, as internal inspections, such as checking the contents and format of your internal structure for signs of maintenance plan should be tailored to structural movement, could also be the particular needs of your building, carried out in May. monument or designed landscape. The Church of England’s Church Care website www.churchcare.co.uk includes a Calendar of Care, which gives useful advice to those responsible for most types of building. The cyclical tasks should be programmed over a period of fifteen years if you are seeking a grant of £200,000 or more, and ten years in all other cases, starting from the date of our final grant payment.This means that when calculating the year when your maintenance plan should start, you will need to allow time for the completion of your project development work and the main repair contract.
5 Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES cost £ equency Annual J F M A M J J A S O N D year ii. annually illed/ i. after stormy – ponsibility Fr ontractor annually £ contractor twice per £ Res eport any loss eport any voluntary weather nspect roof areas from the ground and the ground from areas nspect roof unsk accessible high pointshigh accessible and r Inspect bedding and jointing between ridge and jointing between Inspect bedding contr actor annually £ tiles. as necessary. Re-bed and repoint temporary to splits and holes.Make repairs year or damage to the roof coverings. or damage to the roof back clips, mortar good fillets). make and cladding temporary to cracks and splits. Make repairs year and vertical cladding slates and tiles. Replace to match. and flashings (e.g. dress weatherings.repairs minor Make Ref Building element Maintenance task Maintenance element Ref Building 1.1 Roofs 1.1.1 generally Roof areas I 1.1.3 Sheet metal roofs Inspect condition of panels, joints and clips.1.1.4 contractor Ridge tiles twice per 1.1.5 Lead weatherings £ Inspect condition of lead flashings and 1.1.6 Asphalt roofs c and upstands. Inspect condition of flat areas 1.1.2 Slate and tile roofs cracked, Inspect for displaced and broken contractor twice per £ 1. Occasional and regular tasks
6 Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES cost £ rmy rmy equency Annual J F M A M J J A S O N D ii. annually and summer killed/ monthly, _ ponsibility Fr contractor twice per £ Res year from silt and debris and that water water silt and debris that from year or soakaway. to mains sewerage discharges freely Repair or replace any cracked sections. cracked any Repair or replace year loss or damage. weather overflows are clear.Rod if necessary. are Check that overflows secure. are stainless steel guards year channeldrainage joints. sealant. Seal with appropriate twice per free all gullies and gratings are year year generally and accessible high points report any voluntary sto channel and debris. voluntary spring Ref Building element Maintenance task Maintenance element Ref Building disposal 1.2 Rainwater 1.2.1goods Rainwater the ground from Inspect rainwater goods un skilled/1.2.2 i. during/after Rainwater goods – of debris and ensure Clear rainwater goods 1.2.3 Rainwater goods cracks and leaks. for Inspect rainwater goods 1.2.4 contractor drainage Perimeter twice per Clear drainage channel of vegetation £ 1.2.5 drainage Perimeter uns per cracks and open contractor Inspect drainage channel for twice 1.2.6 £ ground Below Open up inspection chambers. Check that contractor twice per £
7 Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES cost £ equency Annual J F M A M J J A S O N D nually £ nually ii. annually year illed/ i.after stormy _ illed/ _ annually ntractor twice per £ ponsibility Fr oluntary co contractor an Res re ties ties re unskilled/ annually _ eport damage any voluntary weather ect external walls from the ground and the ground ect external walls from unsk eck trees and large shrubs.eck trees Reportdead any unsk to the building or below-ground drainage. to the building or below-ground accessible high pointshigh accessible and r and signs of movement. minor repairs to glazing. minor repairs Inspect windows and make essential and make Inspect windows louvres etc.louvres obstruction. from free are nesting starts. before bird-proof Do not disturb bats. year Voluntary problems.and report any Clear condensation drainage channels and holes. voluntary and lubricate as necessary. Check security of locks. voluntary year close to walls branches and signs of ill health, damage or root v generally copings and parapets 1.3.1 External walls Insp 1.3.2 External walls,1.3.3 vegetation, any Remove ivy etc. Ventilation 1.3.4 screens Bird grilles, that ventilation Ensure air bricks, contractor Check that tower, are 1.3.5 and windows roofs twice per Windows unski lled/ _ annually £ 1.3.6 Leaded light windows cames, lead Inspect putty, wi and glass 1.3.7 Doors and windows Check operation of hinges, bolts and locks unskilled/ twice per 1.3.8 and large trees Foliage Ch _ Ref Building element Maintenance task Maintenance element Ref Building walls 1.3 External
8 Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES cost £ equency Annual J F M A M J J A S O N D ii. annually weather illed/ _ annually ponsibility Fr voluntary dry days unskilled/ on monthly _ Res upolas, and report on any voluntary ers and c nspect internal structure and fabric including nspect internal structure unsk signs of structural movement or of damp, signs of structural movement and dry rot. fungal growth evidence of roof or gutter leaks. of roof evidence below for signs of active beetle infestation. signs of active for below dust. wood Report beetles or fresh any voluntary of vermin, and remove. using poison Avoid roosting. when bats are voluntary Ventilate the building. Ventilate generally particularlygutters. below Report on any and fabric voluntary sto rmy timb roof 1.4.1 Internal spaces and internal spaces, voids Inspect roof structure I 1.4.2 Internal un skilled/ during/after _ 1.4.3 Exposed woodwork and surfaces Inspect exposed woodwork uns killed/1.4.4 _ annually Roof and floor voids and floor voids, Check roof signs inspect for unskilled/ annually1.4.5 Generally _ Ref Building element Maintenance task Maintenance element Ref Building structure 1.4 Internal
9 Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES cost £ £ lly £ equency Annual J F M A M J J A S O N D led/ annually _ oved annuallyoved £ ode of ponsibility Fr Practice engineer voluntary specialist annua engineer Res Ensure that all exposed water tanks,Ensure water unskil protected pipes and heating are against frost. voluntary the service schedule. C Qualified engineer to service alarm. and all connections fastenings. equipment installation system including spikes, tapes, earth rods conductor rods spikes, tapes, earth including installation system hearing aid system faults. and report any 1.5 Building services 1.5 Building Ref Building element Maintenance task Maintenance element Ref Building 1.6 tasks occasional and regular cost for annual Total 1.5.1 Lightning protection inspect the lightning conductor Visually lightning1.5.2 Heating system annually Service the heating system and update £ 1.5.3 Water Appr 1.5.4 Induction loop Inspect general condition and connections1.5.5 fighting Fire u nskilled/ _ annually 1.5.6 Service extinguishers. fire Burglar alarm system inspect wir ing. system and visually Test specialist £ annually
10 Grants for HISTORIC BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES
£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £
£
£ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ost Frequency Frequency C 7 years7 7 years £ £ 7 years £ 5 years £ Contracting or Electrical Contractors Association. contractor contractor contractor portable electrical equipment, Inspection Council for with currentin accordance IEE regulations. Electrical Installation Inspect upper levels of tower.Inspect upper levels steeplejack frames installations installations, including all with Nati onal registered 2.4 cyclical tasks for cost per year Total 2.3 Building services Ref Building element Maintenance task Maintenance element Responsibility Ref Building 2.1 Rainwater disposal 2.2 External walls 2.1.1 Rainwater goods goods Repaint. 2.1.1 Rainwater 2.1.2 Timber fascia boards Repaint. 2.2.2 Doors and window Repaint. 2.2.1 Tower 2.3.1 Wiring and electrical Inspect all wiring and electrical electrical contractor 4 years £ 2. Cyclical tasks
11 Published August 2004 Copyright © English Heritage 2004 Product Code 50973 Printed on Revive Uncoated, a UK-made 100% recycled grade using 80% post-consumer waste. "PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX F Woodchester Villa Visioning and Opportunities Study – Site Inventory
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX G Woodchester Villa Visioning and Opportunities Study – Site Context
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX H Woodchester Villa Visioning and Opportunities Study – Site Analysis
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
APPENDIX I Heritage Building Maintenance Manual (CD Insert)
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
"PHOENIX RISING": A BACKGROUND AND VISION REPORT FOR 15 KING STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO
March 2012 Report No. 12-1126-0005 (Report 1)
Golder Associates Ltd. 496 Discovery Avenue, Unit 9 Kingston, Ontario, K7K 7E9 Canada T: +1 (613) 542 0029