The Things People Do To Old Buildings

I used to think it was nice to see people fixing up older buildings. Nowadays I'm not so sure. Increasingly I see inappropriate alterations to heritage structures.

In my own neighbourhood, for example, I see large rear extensions that make the original homes look like they were tacked on at the front. Ideally the height and bulk of new additions should be smaller than the existing building. But for some people, Bigger Is Better, making me wonder why they didn't just buy a larger home to begin with.

Other folks who need space build upwards, adding to the height of an existing building. But even the smallest change to a roofline can alter the overall character tremendously. This is not really the best combination of old and new:

Bridges and connections between buildings should join at existing openings, preferably doorways or windows. Not like this: 

Some people aren't team players. If you owned the end unit, would you be a rugged individualist and paint your shutters black instead of blue? Terrace housing looks more attractive when all units look the same. If you don't agree, buy a detached home.

I'm conflicted about solar panels. While they're a great idea, it's taking me a while to get used to them on older homes:

Metal roofs are wonderful. Just ask any metal roof salesman. He'll tell you it's "the last roof you'll ever need." It won't catch fire, it will lower your insurance premiums, and it will reflect the sun's rays to keep your home cooler. 

Of course, the roof of a building is an important part of its aesthetics, defining its style and period. Ideally, an older roof should be replaced with one in the same material, colour and design. If that's not possible, owners should find something that alters the character as little as possible. 

I can't say a metal roof adds to the charm of this older home with gingerbread:

New porches and balconies nowadays are in rustic natural wood. To me the modern rustic look is great on a cottage in Muskoka but looks incongruous on an older home in the city.

I'm aware that wood is expensive and rarely of the same quality our ancestors had in large quantities. And it's difficult to get replacement turned wood or gingerbread these days, although heritage practitioners should at least be consulted for up to date woodwork replacements. And as I've mentioned elsewhere even vinyl can look  appropriate. And what ever happened to paint?

But I suspect the rustic look is trendy. Everybody needs to do it cause it's the latest thing. 

While a bit is not bad ...

 ... too much on an older building is weird:

The biggest changes, though, are to windows. The Home Efficiency Rebate allows for new windows that are supposed to make homes greener. I'm all for "green" but some windows just look wrong in an older building. Either a) more appropriate windows aren't available b) they're too expensive for many building owners or c) people just don't realize how odd their replacement windows look.

The stately Italianate below, like many older buildings, has window replacements. The problem is that  large panes like this weren't available when the house was built ca. 1880s. Some may believe this building has a fresh, up-to-the-minute look, but I find the replacement single panes out of place. 

I remember when the stately building below was symmetrical. Unfortunately, someone had the idea of inserting a new bay window. While it no doubt brightens the interior, the old balanced look is gone. Also, note the new cheap-looking door frame and doors that don't match.  Done on the cheap. 

Sash windows are being replaced with casements. A sash window usually consists of a wooden frame with two panes in it. Each pane is roughly half the size of the opening with a slight overlap, one window behind the other. The window can be opened by raising the bottom part, which will slide vertically in channels in the outer frame.

Casement windows are built with hinges so that the sections open outwards like doors. The vast majority of new windows are casements, which may provider a wider view and better ventilation. But they seldom look right in an older home.

Below are two East London homes built about the same time, judging by the similar sizing and details. The home on the right has a new casement-style window upstairs. Again, while some will like this update, it seems inappropriate to "purists" like me. 

Older windows often had muntins, strips of wood or metal separating and holding panes of glass:

Some people have added fake muntins. Here they're crooked to boot:

How about new windows and a wooden deck?

Some folks modernize old homes to the point where they no longer look old. If you want a new house, why not buy one? I know, people like the ambiance of older neighbourhoods. But must they update their homes to death?

A porthole? Ahoy mateys!

Sometimes only the general shape indicates the bones of an older home underneath: 

Ditto. New roof, new siding, new porch, new windows ... 

This older home was red brick. Now it has a new white surface, new metal roof, new windows, new skylight, new garage door, and new entrance. One assumes the inside is similarly "updated." They might as well have torn it down and started over.

Behind this weird new commercial front lies an older cottage.

Finally, there are the people with no aesthetic sense whatsoever:

What's disheartening is that so many people think they're improving an old place when they're actually decreasing its historic and architectural value, not to mention ruining its charm.

As I see it, there are five main problems:

1. Appropriate building restoration materials are expensive or unavailable.

2. Many people think the appearance of old buildings is improved by modernization.

3. Most people don't know anything about architecture.

4. And a lots of them have no taste.

5. What we call "heritage" is out of style. 

Seriously, everything in this world is "in" for a while,  then "out" for a  time. Then, after a few years or decades, it comes back "in." Apparently my aesthetic principles are out. It's getting to the point where I like ruins. I love this poignant pioneer homestead east of London on land scheduled for development:

I also like nice  wooden sashes, even if they do need of a coat of paint. Bonus: stained glass keyhole. 

No, not even I want to save that topsy-turvy garage. But the derelict home, definitely:

What a cute unspoiled cottage. Just needs new front steps painted a nice cream colour.

The scene below is typical of so many older buildings in London. Either a fire or general neglect has left this building boarded up and uninhabitable:

But if any of these buildings are "rescued," what will they look like?

Victoria Park, Past and Future

Beautiful Victoria Park, downtown London's playground. What a long history it has. What changes it's seen. What events it's witnessed.

Card printed by Raphael Tuck & Sons, nd.

It started, of course, as London's Military Reserve. But when the British regimental occupation officially ended in 1869, the young city was left with a hole in its centre. Instead of  filling it, the City Hall of the day sensibly left it as a playground. Governor General The Earl of Dufferin christened it Victoria Park while visiting in August 1874. 

In 1878, a landscape gardener from the U.S. named Miller* published his proposed layout of the park. Probably soon afterward, formal landscaping began. In 1879, one of the early park's loveliest features was added: a three-tiered, 17-ft. high fountain created by Paul Peel's father, John R. Peel. Its top featured a statue of Cupid.

A 1908 postcard (Valentine & Sons) features the Victoria Park fountain on the left. Note horse and buggy driving through at right. The park was open to vehicles until 1951.

A pity about that fountain. In about 1939, it was replaced by the boring circular piece below:

Victor Aziz, nd. 

In 1964, the entire fountain was demolished. Pity. 

But there's always been lots of other things to look at in the park. Often they were military. In 1860, through the efforts of Major James Shanly, two Russian guns captured in Crimea arrived in London by the Grand Trunk Railway. Years later, they were installed in Victoria Park where they remain. 

Valentine & Sons postcard ca. 1917.

Other military reminders are the Boer War Memorial, added in 1908, and the Cenotaph in 1934. 

Cenotaph. Victor Aziz, London, nd.

The First Hussars' tank, Holy Roller, one of many that landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, was added in 1956 on the 100th anniversary of the unit. It was recently refurbished.

Portions of the park were used for sporting events, even before it was a park. An 1867 baseball game took place between members of the Forest City Base Ball Club on the Cricket Square, the southern portion of what's now the park. The afternoon game was played in the presence of a large number of spectators. 

But there was a reason it was called the Cricket Square; it was often used for that game. On September 8-9, 1872, several thousand people, many arriving by train, attended a match between the Gentlemen Eleven Cricketeers of England and 22 selected Ontario players. While the day was proclaimed a holiday so working people could see the match, a 12-ft. fence was built around the field to prevent people seeing it for free.  Meanies. 

The park was used for all kinds of outdoor events besides sports. In 1882, 7,000 people came out to see a demonstration of electric lights hanging from poles. That crowd would be amazed by the Holiday Season light display held every year since 1958. 

And what a convenient place to meet celebrities! More than 5,000 people came out to honour Londoner George "Mooney" Gibson, catcher of the 1909 world champion Pittsburgh baseball team, when he came home that October. 

Not to mention Royalty. The Prince of Wales, later King Edward VIII, was greeted in the park by 20,000 Londoners when he visited in October 1919. His niece, Queen Elizabeth II, was greeted by another large crowd when she visited us on June 28, 1973. 

In recent years the park has hosted various festivals and concerts. Home County was first held in the park in 1974, Rib Fest in 1987, and Sunfest in 1995. Everyone from the Royal Canadian Big Band Festival to April Wine have played the bandstand. 

The Architecture

The park being a central part of the city, it was surrounded by magnificent buildings. One was London Life, now Canada Life, built in the Beaux-Arts style on the south side in 1928. 

The Post Card Greeting Co. Ltd., Toronto, ca. 1932.

Many grand homes surrounded the park on the north and east sides, since wealthy people liked to be in the heart of things. Mooney Gibson had a nice place at 252 Central on the north side. The west side was - and still is - dominated by St. Peter's. 

In later years, homes on the east side were demolished to build our 1971 City Hall and London's failed attempt at a civic square to the north. Centennial Hall, a pathetic mid-century stab at combining a concert hall with an event space, is just to the north of that.  George Mooney's home on the north side was torn down by Farhi Holdings Corp. in about 2004, despite its importance as part of the heritage streetscape on the north side. 

Central Avenue, with hole where the Gibson house was located.

For years now Londoners have debated the future of the park's periphery. Including me. We seem to be split into two armed camps:

First, there are the people who think development anywhere is better than more suburban sprawl onto farmland. It will be wonderful to have people living downtown. The park will be frequented more because there will be lots of people living nearby. And we need housing badly.

Second, there are the people who think the look of the park will be spoiled. Tall buildings will block the sun. Developers, today's meanies, don't care if Londoners live in a concrete jungle. City Hall does whatever the developers want. 

It occurs to me that both sides may be right. We do need housing downtown but the surface parking lots are the best place to build. Even the city knows this now. Victoria Park could have been left alone, its remaining heritage left untouched. 

But for better or worse, the Victoria Park Secondary Plan is now in effect. Another chapter in Victoria Park's history is about to begin. When future generations of Londoners visit their downtown park, will they thank us? Or blame us? 

Building heights allowed under the revised January 2024 version of the Victoria Park Secondary Plan: 

• Minimum of three storeys, maximum of 35 storeys south of Dufferin Avenue.
• Minimum of two storeys, maximum of 30 storeys on the city hall property and west side of park near Kent Street.
• Maximum of 25 storeys on select parcels to the east and west sides of the park.
• Minimum of two storeys, maximum of 16 storeys on the park’s northwest corner, at Richmond Street and Central Avenue.
• Maximum of 17 storeys at the northeast corner of Wolfe and Wellington streets.

*Either William or Charles, depending on the source.

Redevelopment Fit For a Princess

 

Domus Developments would like to renovate 300 and 306 Princess Avenue, above, into nine-unit apartment buildings. Each old home would be divided into six one-bedroom apartments while proposed rear additions would contain three more two-bedroom units. Since rezoning would be necessary for the rear units to be built, the proposal will go before London City Council's Planning Department in March. 

Being part of the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, these houses are designated under part of the Ontario Heritage Act. A heritage alteration permit will be necessary before a building permit is issued. From this article, it sounds like city staff are supportive and the project will likely go ahead.

300, on the left, is a stately Queen Anne with Romanesque stone arches over the doors and windows and a wonderful central tower that's reminiscent of Italianate. In other words, its style is eclectic. It was built ca. 1893 for James R. Shuttleworth, a prominent fruit wholesale merchant. Shuttleworth was president of the Children's Aid Society of London in the 1890s. 

 Bottle from J. Tune & Son          

306 is less spectacular but has decorative wood trim and a lovely wrap-around porch. It was built in 1906 for Charles Henry Tune of J. Tune & Sons Soda Water Works, a London company established about 1882 on Clarence St. north of York. A couple of years later the company moved to the south side of York between Richmond and Talbot. It employed about eight hands and shipped soda water as far west as Windsor and as far east as the Ingersoll and Woodstock area. The J. in the company title was Charles' father, James. Eventually the Tunes became London Soda Water Works. At left is a bottle from my personal collection, dating to the J. Tune & Son days. 

As someone who used to live nearby, I've long been concerned about the deteriorating state of these architectural and historic gems. According to the linked article, Domus President Michael Mescia loves these buildings and wants to preserve them as they are. I'm glad to hear that.

I'm a little concerned, though, when I look at the artist renderings. Scroll down through the article and have a look. I know they're only drawings but I think I'm seeing replacement single-pane windows which wouldn't have existed at the time the homes were built. And 300 looks like a new grey excrescence will supplant the current  second-storey woodwork. What will the end result look like?

I admit I have a bee in my bonnet about windows. So many otherwise wonderful heritage renovations have replacement windows that look entirely inappropriate. I know it's difficult to add modern innovations while maintaining historic charm. And those moving into the future apartments will demand "mod cons." But there are so many older buildings in London with startlingly unsuitable windows. I find myself groaning inwardly as I stroll the city streets. 

So I'm happy to learn about this project but not without reservations. I hope the end result will look like something the Shuttleworths and Tunes would approve of. Or at least recognize.