1.0 Introduction Page 3 Table 1 Page 7 2.0 Richmond Streetscape Page 9 2.1 Ridout Restoration Page 11 2.2 Talbot North Page 13 2.3 East Woodfield Page lS 2.4 West Woodfield Page 17 2.5 Lorne Avenue Page 19 2.6 Wortley Village Page 21 2.7 Marley Place Page 23 2.8 Elmwood Page 25 2.9 Stanley-Seoher Page 27 2.10 Hellmuth-St. James Page 29 2.11 Grosvenor-St. George Page 31 2.12 Petersville Page 33 2.13 Pond Mills Page 35 3.0 Appendix 1 Page 37 PHOTO CREDITS Photographs on pages 15, 16,19, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35 were taken by Mark Gladysz at the City of London Photographs on pages 21, 23, 24, 29 were taken by Lois Marshall Photographs on pages 9, I0,11,12,13 were taken by Ross Breadner Photographs on pages 17 and 22 were supplied by the Regional Collection at the Univerity of Western Ontario Printed on recycled paper 1 Heritage Places: A Description of Structures Buildings, ruins, and engneering works such as bridges; Potential Heritage Conservation Areas in the City of London Sites Archaeoloffzcal sites, battlegrounds, quarries, earth science sites such as rock formations, and life science sites such as rare he purpose of this guideline document is to species habitats; highlight areas of outstanding historical, architectural and natural character in the City Areas Streetscapes, neighbourhoods, gardens, lakes, rivers and other of London. The intent is to identify candidate natural, scenic, and cultural landscapes. areas for potential heritage conservation area or district status through the implementation of Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Heritage Places seeks to define a policy position within the context of development of a policy framework to guide the creaYzon of heritage districts current thinking as expressed in the Ontario Heritage Policy Review and areas is an important aspect of this guideline document. (OHPR), the Commission on Planning and Development Reform (Sewell Commission), and the Growth and Settlement Policy Guidelines as follows: 1.1 Background The Oty of London has declared its first Heritage Conservation Area - East Two definitions from the Sewell Commission are useful in indicating the Woodfield. Interest by local community associations, groups of property range of heritage resources addressed in this document: owners and heritage groups in implementing heritage district status for selected areas of the City necessitates a policy direcgon for such activity. Built Heritage - a building, structure, monument or installation (or group of Such a guideline document was anticipated in the City of London Official them), or remains, associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, Plan and provided for in Section 19.2.2. (k). economic or military history. Sec~on 13.3 of the Official Plan provides guidance for the implementation Cultura! resource - may include archaeo!og~cal or built heritage resources of Heritage Conservation Districts. This information can be found in and structural remains of historical and contextual value, as well as Appen&~c 1 of this document. human-made rural, village and urban districts, or landscapes and tree lines of Nstoric or scenic interest. Heritage Places is intended to provide a bridge between conservation and redevelopment objectives. Therefore, an important aspect of the document 1,2.1 The new role for municipalities is to harmonize Official Plan statements, zoning designa~ns, and urban Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act recommend municipalities be gven a design recommendations with heritage goals and objectives. To this end, comprehensive mandate for identifying, preserving, interpreting and using reference will be made to many city documents including the Official Plan their heritage. This broad mandate could include developing overall (approved 1991), the Comprehensive Zoning By-law (approved 1992) the municipal heritage conservation policies, heritage resource planning and Downtown Design Study (approved 1991) and area studies where heritage resource management. One key area is incorporating heritage applicable. Additional activity related to this harmonization such as conservation objectives, policies, and measures in the OfficialPlan and other rezonmg, official plan amendments etc. may ensue where necessary. planning processes and documents of the municipality. Heritage Places identifies the most important potential conservation The Sewell Commission echoes this recommendation stating that lower tier areas. There are other potential sites that may prove to be important municipalities may address the character of the community including in the future. Examples of other sites might include Piccadilly Street, heritage, streetscape and physical design in their Official Plans. Halls Mills Road, The Coves, Centretown, Lambeth, and KiIworth. Two important new initiatives which may affect municipalities are the 1.2 Rationale Municipal Register of Heritage Places and Heritage Impact Statements. It is The proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act recommend recommended that a local municipality should be able to establish an municipalities be given a comprehensive mandate to reinforce the identity official registry of places and objects of heritage interest, including heritage of their constituent communities. Cultural i&ntity is seen to be a critical districts and areas. Where a place has been included on the register, the factor in maintaining stability within our dynamic and charting society. le(*slation should require that municipal authorities have regard for its This concern about identity has become a central feature of the proposed conservation in the exercise of planning powers, the undertaking of public changes to the Act. This document will address how to define, protect, and works and the expenditure of public monies. In the case where a enhance the iden~ty, experiential qualities and heritage resources of those development proposal may have an impact on heritage features a local places which over time have come to define and symbolize the character municipality should be able to require the proponent to provide a heritage and distinctiveness of London, Ontario. impact statement. This document restricts itself to the implementation of a district Heritage Places can be seen as a first step in addressing the new role in conservation model to fourteen geographic locations within the Oty of conserva~on at the municipal level. It provides a policy framework for London. This document is concerned only with immovable heritage areas which may be selected for inclusion in a Municipal Register as well as resources in these locations. Immovable heritage is defined as land or land- indicating areas which may be subject to Heritage Impact Statements. based resources such as buildings and natural areas, that are fixed in specific locations. Examples of immovable heritage include: 1.2.2 Conservation as a Planning Model The Commission on Planning and Development Reform clearly addresses Conservation in this document is seen as a planning model to achieve the issue of Conservation. Conservation underlies all of the Commission’s certain goals. Conservation is defined by OHPR as a comprehensive goals: conservation of farmland, natural areas, cultural and historical process that identifies elements of a community’s heritage and mobilizes features, water and energy are prominently featured. These goals them to shape identity and guide development. Conservation strate~es for encourage recycling, intensification, mixed-use zoning to reduce immovable heritage must therefore focus on channelling or encoura~ng commuting, and attention to urban design. Within this context designation economic forces toward heritage positive development, the type of of a Conservation District should be viewed more as a planning tool like development, for example, that capitalizes on a heritage building and zoning rather than development restrictions. The Growth and Settlement integrates it into a new use for the site. Such strateff~es would involve a Policy Guidelines state that land use planning must contribute to the combination of environmental and land-use planning tools and economic protection of the natural and cultural heritage environment. inducements, such as tax measures, grants or loans. The SeweIl Commission, the Growth and Settlement Guidelines and The purpose of the conservation district model is to recommend goals and Ontario’s Policy Statement on Land Use Planning for Housing advocate objectives for specific geographic areas so as to better coordinate the host of refocusing of development within existing urban areas. Re-urbanization or individual development and maintenance efforts occurring in these locations intensification could become a conservation issue unless conservation of in order to achieve a balance of conservation and redevelopment activity. existing structures is seen to be an important feature in the redevelopment process. The proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act are intended to further integrate heritage and land-use planning. Heritage planning in this context The Sewell Commission recommends policies and de~isions regarding could be defined as a much finer level of planning for selected buildings and infrastructure and development that will respect and conserve significant areas. For example, The Planning Act makes little provision for reviewing landscapes, vistas, ridge lines, areas of natural beauty, cultural and design issues, whereas The Ontario Heritage Act does allow for direct and historical patterns, built heritage and cultural