Kent Brewery should be preserved

York Developments proposes to construct this highrise  at the southeast corner of St. George and Ann Streets. The building, in the shape of an H, would be as high as 22 storeys at its east end and cater mainly to students. The ground floor would contain commercial space and, supposedly, a craft brewery. 

Aside from the proposed development being the silliest-looking building ever designed - what's with the Tic Tac Toe theme? - there are many reasons not to build here, as indicated by City Planning Department:

1. The development does not conform to the 1989 Official Plan.

2.The development does not conform to the 2016 London Plan, due to the proposed density on the site. 

3.The development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement of 2020 which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations while conserving heritage resources.

4.The development is near a rail corridor (the CPR) and does not have enough mitigating measures to protect against a possible train derailment, let along everyday annoyances such as noise and vibrations. York has suggested a crash wall would be integrated into the building design ... somewhere. 

5.The development would mean the demolition or removal of structures on the city's heritage inventory. 

Let's take a closer look at the more important buildings on the site:

March 2021

197 Ann Street, the Kent Brewery, is on the city's register of Cultural Heritage Resources. One of the first breweries in London, it was built and originally operated by Marshall and Hammond. Later it was operated by John Hamilton from 1861 to 1887 and his son Joseph from 1887 to 1916 when it closed due to Prohibition. One of the oldest brewery buildings in Canada, it's also one of the oldest industrial structures in the neighbourhood. By the way, it was named after Kent, England, from where the brewery imported its hops.* Cool, eh?

March 2021

183 Ann Street, the Queen Anne style house next door, was the brewer's residence, making this a rare example of an early brewing site where both the brewery and the brewer's home remain. (The only other example in Canada is apparently Alexander Keith's in Halifax.) Yes, the Labatt and Carling families lived next to their breweries but those homes are gone. This house was built by Joseph Hamilton in 1893, replacing an earlier frame building on the site in which his father lived and died. This beautiful brick home is an indication of the brewery's success. 

March 2021

Tiny 179 Ann Street, also a Hamilton family home, is the next building to the west. Built before 1881, it was home to Joseph Hamilton from 1887 to 1890. A typical late 19th-century worker's cottage, it features a bay window on the east side.

Ann and St. George is not an HCD. And, as I've mentioned before, London City Council has been known to vote against Planning Department's recommendations. The City often touts the official plan but doesn't follow its rules. So the developer might be asked to merely retain facades. Or be given the go ahead to move the structures. Or to demolish them completely. 

But the structures don't appear in poor condition and still have apartments. Undoubtedly, 197 and 183 should be designated. They might be moved, but shouldn't be moved far, since they're still on their original site. And 197 might make a great craft brewery again, being a short distance from Richmond Row, Party Central. 

The preliminaries, including possible designation, begin tonight, April 25, when Planning and Environment Committee meets. Stay tuned. 

Update, April 26: Last evening PEC voted to grant a heritage designation to the former brewery buildings. And York Developments offered to relocate at least the main brewery building itself. 

According to this, two PEC councilors don't think heritage counts for much. Surprise. In the end, the committee voted to send York's application back to city staff. But the designation does mean York Developments will have to try harder to incorporate the buildings into their plans. 

* For more information on this and other local breweries, see Glen C. Phillips, On Tap: The Odyssey of Beer and Brewing in Victorian London-Middlesex. Sarnia: Cheshire Cat Press, 2000.

On The Road Again: Another Move For London's Fugitive Slave Chapel

I've written about London's Fugitive Slave Chapel here but to give readers a short recap: The tiny building shown on the right was built by London's fugitive slave community in about 1848, was threatened by demolition at its original location on Thames Street, and was moved in 2014 to its present location beside its daughter church at 432 Grey Street, SoHo. Despite the efforts of the Fugitive Slave Chapel Preservation Project, it's been decaying ever since.  

According to the BME Church of Canada, the restoration project stopped due to COVID, but that's not true. The project stopped long before the pandemic arrived. From the rumours I've heard, the real problems were financial issues and - whether it's polite to mention it or not - a personality clash among committee members. The project that began so well seemed destined to fail altogether.

Now the word is that the chapel will be gifted to Fanshawe Pioneer Village. Various community groups are hoping to raise $300,000 for the move, restoration to the building's mid-1800s appearance, and an education scheme about the building's history and the origins of London's black community. The addition of the chapel to FPV will add another dimension to its portrayal of local history. 

I'm a bit conflicted about the move, though. Arguably, the chapel belongs next to its daughter church. The people who built the chapel also built the church so the connection makes sense. Furthermore, in recent years I've sensed that many Londoners want to move any unwanted building, such as this one, out to Fanshawe, making the pioneer village a bit of a dumping ground. And usually without suggestions as to where funding for the move will come from.

The debate, as I see it, is whether our community should wholeheartedly embrace and promote the habit of relocating buildings for the convenience of today's needs, or leave them in situ. The chapel was first moved from Thames Street so its original site could become a parking lot. When a building is moved, does it not lose some of its authenticity? Is its cultural significance not at least partially bound to its setting? Perhaps a building should only be moved under exceptional circumstances. Moving costs money and risks damage to an already fragile structure.

But in this case, with the BME Church apparently uninterested in its preservation, to leave the chapel where it is means further deterioration and the risk of losing it altogether. This little building means a great deal to lots of people. At this point, moving it for the second time is the best that can be done. 

Those wishing to donate to this excellent cause may do so here.

My 10 Least Favourite London, Ontario Buildings

Ever since I listed my favourite London buildings here, I've been trying to decide what I'd put on a list of my least favourite. I've been thinking about it for years now, not because I can't find buildings I don't like, but because London has provided me with so many it's hard to choose. Often it's not a particular building I object to, so much as a style or trend which can be found in many cities in Ontario. 

Nevertheless, I have narrowed it down to the following:

1. Centennial Hall

Built in 1967 as London's premier concert hall and event space,  Centennial Hall is one of those multipurpose buildings that doesn't serve any purpose very well. Who enjoys sitting in the balcony at a concert, staring at the opposite side instead of the stage? Or sitting on the main floor at the rear, trying to see the show over the hundred heads in front of you? I've heard folks say it reminds them of their high school auditorium. Well, my high school auditorium was much better; it had a sloping floor and better acoustics. People often skip shows they'd like to see just because they're held here. They prefer to go to ...

2. Budweiser Gardens, formerly the JLC, formerly the Talbot Block

London tore down a Victorian block, built an arena and hung a replica of the original structure on the outside to please heritage preservationists. It doesn't. The effect is Disney-esque, only not as good. The opaque windows are your first clue it's a  façade. And if you remember the real Talbot Block, the imitation is laughable. Sure, it's a great sports and concert venue that London badly needed. But the city didn't need to insult our intelligence with the  pseudo-historic veneer. 

3. The "Towers of Spite"

Developer Arnon Kaplansky demolished bungalows on this site near Western University to replace them with student housing. Neither City Hall nor the neighbourhood association liked what he intended to build. So he had no choice but to build three towers with no visual appeal whatsoever. Right? I mean, what else could the poor guy do? 

4. Sir Adam Beck Manor Condominiums

The first house on the northeast corner of Richmond and Sydenham was "Elliston," built 1861-2 for Ellis Hyman, wealthy tannery owner. In 1902, Adam Beck bought the house, renovated it and renamed it "Headley" after his wife Lillian's parents' home in Surrey. 

Beck was the advocate of hydroelectricity who founded the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario. And founded the London Health Association, which grew into Victoria and University Hospitals. And became an M.P.P. for London. And a London mayor. And founded the Queen Alexandra Sanitorium, later the Beck Memorial Sanitorium, to treat tuberculosis. His home was one of London's great social centres. 

In 1988, the original Headley was demolished by Sifton and replaced by a replica which pays tribute to the original mansion the way the Bud Centre pays tribute to the Talbot Block. But why couldn't the original home have been preserved and renovated into posh condos like those in the tower Sifton built behind? Why would we want fake historic homes when we could have the real thing? Sir Adam deserved better than a replica.

5. 210 Dundas Street

Built in 1987 on the northwest corner of Dundas and Clarence, this three-storey structure with a mirrored exterior was once the home of Pathways Skills Development. Owned by Farhi Landholdings, it's now leased to the London Free Press. It's cold, uninviting, charmless, and incompatible with its surroundings. Make sure you're wearing sunglasses as you walk past to cut down the glare. 

6. New Homes in The 'Burbs

The soulless cookie cutter look shows no sign of abating as this new neighbourhood north of Fanshawe indicates. Charming and cosy these aren't. Mostly garage, the homes on this street are all about the automobile, as is the subdivision itself.  To get anywhere, you have to drive, since virtually nothing is within walking distance. But maybe 75 years from now, when the tree sticks have grown, these will be quaint, old-fashioned  homes on a tree-shaded street. Even if they're still in the middle of nowhere.

7. Any Unsympathetic Infill

I thought "infill" was going to mean developing unused land to add density and prevent urban sprawl. Instead, the term often applies to the demolition of  an existing building to erect something larger. The new structure often adversely affects smaller neighbouring buildings, dwarfing them and blocking their light. Some new structures just don't fit in. But perhaps that's the builders' purpose - they want to stand out from the crowd. Bigger is better, right? 

8. The "New" Courthouse

The 15-storey Ontario Court of Justice was built in 1974-76. Designed by London firm Stevens and Skinner in the Brutalist style, it's large but lacks charisma, to say the least. The term Brutalist comes from the term béton brut meaning "raw concrete" but there is something "brutal" about this structure at Ridout and Dundas. In fact, it could win a prize for London's most intimidating building. Is that the idea? To dissuade future criminals from breaking the law? All Hope Abandon Ye Who Enter Here. 

9. This Kind of Thing

Look, there's lots of tasteful ways to combine old and new. This isn't one of them.

10. Old Homes With Vinyl Windows

Two homes built at approximately the same time in a similar style. Not in an HCD. At left is a "handyman's special" while the home on the right has been updated with vinyl windows.

I know why, of course. The new windows are affordable, energy-efficient and bring more light into the sitting room. It's also difficult to find skilled tradesmen who can restore wooden windows. Depending on what you read, though, vinyl may be toxic and short-lived. Your vinyl window salesman won't tell you that. Nor will he point out how it destroys the character of an older home. Windows just didn't look like that when the house was built. 

Before replacing older windows, consider alternatives like weatherstripping, oiling or waxing the wood, replacing parts of the window only, a fresh coat of paint, or storm windows. 

A Few More Window Examples on Commercial Buildings:

Reno on Dundas. Great colour, wrong windows. 

Old store in north Middlesex. With updates.  

Clarence Street off Horton. Upper windows still typical of its era.