The Fugitive Slave Chapel, Thames Street

An extremely important part of London history is threatened. Aboutown Transportation wants to level 275 Thames Street to make - you guessed it - a parking lot. Aboutown's Jim Donnelly says the building, which they own, is beyond saving.

This isn't your average old wreck though. It was the first chapel built by London's black community, mainly fugitive slaves who arrived via the Underground Railroad. It was originally named the African Methodist Episcopal Church and was later renamed the British Methodist Episcopal Church.

Abolitionist John Brown probably spoke here in 1858, appealing for funds to fight slavery in the United States. In all probability, Brown's plan was to form a black military company which would join other black fighting units from Ontario to bring about his proposed abolitionist revolution. The following year, his raid on Harpers Ferry acted as a catalyst in bringing about the American Civil War.

Eventually, London's black community founded another church on Grey Street and 275 Thames Street became a residence. In August 1986, an historic plaque was placed on the building by the London Public Library Board. The plaque has since gone missing and it's thought that former owners took it with them when they moved.

Londoners, and Canadians in general, should be proud of Canada's role as sanctuary for fugitive slaves during the years before the Civil War.  This is not a building to be lost. Somehow, a solution must be found.

Update, September 2015: Well, they did it. In November 2014 the very determined folks at The Fugitive Slave Chapel Preservation Project moved the old building to sit beside its daughter church at 432 Grey Street. Now the real challenge begins as the committee raises funds to restore the building. See here for more details.

Update, October 2015: Architect John Rutledge of Blyth has been hired by the FSCPP to restore the building for museum purposes. If all goes well, this will turn into one of London's best examples of adaptive reuse.

Update, January 2021: All did not go well. The committee fell apart and the project stalled. Conflicting rumours about whose "fault" this is. Meanwhile, the building sits, wrapped in plastic and controversy, awaiting refurbishment. 

Beautiful Blackfriars

London's oldest bridge has spanned the Thames since 1875. Built by the Wrought Iron Bridge Company of Canton, Ohio, it was actually a kit, put together on site by Isaac Crouse. Now well past its intended life span, the bridge is still connecting Blackfriars and Ridout streets.

Local residents are getting used to the almost annual round of repairs. The bridge is currently closed since sections of its wooden deck are peeling off. The repair work will take about a month. Then, just as folks get used to the bridge being open again, it'll be shut down this summer to assess the condition of its steelwork.

Two suggestions have been put forward to help preserve the old bridge. The first is to make it one-way only. Like you can use it to drive to downtown but not back. Possibly a no-brainer considering it's only one lane wide anyway. When you pull up to Blackfriars Bridge do you stop, go ahead, or only continue if the vehicle coming the other way isn't bigger than you?

The other idea is to make it a pedestrian bridge. Though weather may be the main reason for deterioration of the wooden deck, we can be fairly certain vehicles also damage the surface. As a pedestrian bridge, Blackfriars would be an interesting asset to the Thames River Parkway, that pathway system along the river that connects so many neighbourhoods.

Is the bridge worth saving? Of course, for a great many reasons. According to Nancy Tausky in Historical Sketches of London: from site to city, quoting industrial archaeologist Christopher Andreae, Blackfriars is the oldest metal bridge in North America still open to vehicles. Furthermore, it's a good example of bowstring construction. The bridge has been a source of inspiration to numerous local artists and photographers. Walking across it gives one a rural feel in the middle of a city.

Even Government has figured it out. The bridge was designated by the City of London in 1992. It's also on the provincial Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Bridge List.

Probably one of the reasons the bridge has survived so long has been due to its fairly low volume of traffic. It's time to cut the traffic off altogether.

Update, March 18, 2013 - The bridge has re-opened this past week. A detailed inspection has been recommended by City Hall for $300,000.

Update, February 1, 2016 - City Hall is now proposing to repair the bridge so that it will support vehicle traffic going eastbound only - the cost - $4.6 million. Better idea: let's keep the bridge for pedestrian and bicycle use only.

Update, February 2018: The bridge is gone, moved to an off-site location for a $7.9 million  "refurbishment." Watch for its return late in 2018. Meanwhile, its former location on the Thames River looks eerily empty without it. 

Update, December 1, 2018: The grand re-opening celebration was held, complete with parade. Still open to vehicular traffic after its rebuilding though, and now paved.

A Winter Garden

For many years, drivers hurtling past the intersection of Wonderland and Riverside would notice an empty house on the southwest corner next to McKillop Park. Abandoned because it was on a flood plain next to the Thames River, many would have called it an eyesore in need of demolition.

Yet its foundation was built of lovely stones the original owner collected from the nearby river. One would be hard pressed to find such workmanship and style in many houses built today.

In 2012, an interesting form of adaptive reuse took place. The best part of the structure, the stone foundation, was made into a garden by London Home Builders' Association. The Cancer Surivors Garden opened officially on June 3, 2012 and, as this picture shows, is a pleasant, attractive place even in winter. It's certainly an improvement over the five-storey office building Sifton wanted to build in 2007.

There's a metaphor here, of course. Cancer survivors are in a sense rebuilding their lives on the same foundations. They build their lives back up, stone by stone, just as this long-ago mason built his home. His craftsmanship lives on in this unusual tribute.

Thanks to the London Home Builders' Association for information.

 

Update: On February 19, 2015, I was pleased to present the London Home Builders' Association an award at the ACO-HLF 8th Annual Heritage Awards. Thanks again for this creative way of preserving our built heritage.

Tea at Eldon

On January 21, Eldon House held a Community Round Table in which patrons could offer suggestions to staff on how to make the house museum even better. The minders of London's oldest home were looking for advice on how to present their artifacts and grounds to make Eldon House an even more meaningful experience than it already is. They were also quite happy to receive suggestions for future fundraising endeavours. All this ties in with the recent "divorce" from Museum London, since, as of January 1, Eldon House is under its own governance with complete control of its collections. The Round Table was well-attended by visitors who jotted down lots of ideas and handed them to staff. Then we had cookies and tea, served up in true Eldon House style.

It reminds me of another forum I heard about, called "Envison: Help define a new mission for Museum London" held on April 2, 2011. The coordinators of the Museum London workshop  asked participants such questions as, "Who should be served?" and "What should be the primary goal?" I didn't make it to the M.L. event but I'm assured that their staff received several clear suggestions from members of the heritage community as to goals. Like more of London's material culture needs to be on display. And the city really needs an historical museum separate from the art gallery.

I wonder what Museum London did with those suggestions? My guess is they filed them away with their historical artifacts in the basement. Many of us interested in London's history could still make quite a few suggestions to the "Museum," like:

• Create a permanent historical display on the founding and growth of London, not just occasional exhibits on specific themes.
• Allow some of the stored artifacts to see the light of day.
• Encourage more history-related programming.

But it seems the real goal of Museum London was to make it look like they wanted community input. They'll continue to be an art gallery calling themselves a museum, while a real museum down the street, Eldon House, provides interesting history-related programming for its patrons.  

Adaptive Reuse

It's always nice to present another heritage preservation success story. For years derelict, this cute little house at 24 York Street is  now the home of Decorating Resource Studio. Built c. 1870 the two-storey brick structure has a sympathetic new addition at the rear and retains some decoration on its bargeboard. It's a Priority 2 on London's Heritage Inventory and described as the vernacular style. Just an example of what can be done with an older building when you have access to a little cash and good taste.

Let It Go

Next week another request for demolition goes before Planning Committee. Labatt's wants to tear down an office building they own at 75 Bathurst Street in order to create more parking. The office was built about 1950.

Already, admirers of 20th-century buildings are getting themselves worked up. Apparently this is a Priority 1 on London's Heritage Inventory. Who'd have thought? Turns out the structure was once used by Silverwoods Dairy and is a prime example of International Style architecture.

This raises a number of questions:

• Is the International Style really a style or just a replacement for style? Ever since it was created it's been criticized as stark, sterile and just plain boring.
• Aren't there enough examples of the International Style internationally?
• In a city that can't bring itself to save something really sweet like  Locust Mount, is anyone at City Hall going to listen if we try to convince them they need to save this?
• If heritage conservationists try to save every single building, aren't our pleas for conservation taken less seriously?
• Who's going to renovate this for some other use? And why would Labatt's sell it to them?

Frankly, the only good reason to save this building would be the general principle of reusing all structures instead of tossing more construction materials into landfill sites. That's not likely to convince Planning Committee. Let this one go.

Update, November 27: Planning Committee has OK'd demolition.

Location Location Location 2

In the age-old battle between individual and collective rights there's seldom a clear winner.

Take the battle over 591 Maitland Street for example. On the one side, a homeowner's right to do as she pleases with her own house, including tear it down and start afresh. On the other hand, the community's right to protect our shared built heritage from destruction.

A lot of nonsense has been spouted by both sides in this debate. Members of the Woodfield Community Association are being portrayed as elite impractical snobs trying to force a young couple to live in a shack. Heritage conservationists, on the other hand, talk as though this cookie-cutter home built in 1884 actually has great architectural merit somewhere under its aluminum siding. It doesn't. Even Yours Truly, Roaming Heritage Reporter, hasn't trudged over to Maitland Street to snap a pic. It's not worth braving the cold November wind.

Nevertheless, there's a good reason why this building shouldn't be demolished. It's in the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District which makes it a designated building under the Ontario Heritage Act. Of course it can still be torn down with the permission of City Council. Several buildings have been torn down in West Woodfield already. But this case is grabbing lots of media attention. Many Londoners are watching the media with bated breath for the next thrilling installment of the War In West Woodfield.

This case could set a precedent. Once it's been established that it's acceptable to tear down a house in an HCD, developers (or their children) can tear down another. And another. And another. And next thing you know it's not an HCD anymore. Demolitions have defeated the purpose.

So let's train potential buyers to research an older home before buying it. Get them to take along a checklist that includes questions like:

• Is this house too small for my growing family?
• Are the cracks in the foundation widening as I watch?
• Will a strong wind blow it down?
• Is it in a Heritage Conservation District?
• If I decided to demolish it will the neighbourhood become a heritage combat zone?

If the answers to the above questions are "Yes," consider buying a house in White Oaks.