A Walk Through West Woodfield

Back in 2021 I decided to go for a walk in west Woodfield. No particular reason why, other than that, if you like old buildings, Woodfield is one of the best places to be. I took pictures that day but forgot about them for a while and just recently found them. So here's a few pics of buildings in west Woodfield, one of London's most interesting neighbourhoods, historically and architecturally. 

The Woodfield area was named after the home of Anglican Bishop Benjamin Cronyn (1802-71), an attractive residence torn down in the 1960s. The neighbourhood was founded in mid-nineteenth century and had a wide social cross-section from the beginning. The result is a wide variety of house styles and sizes from mansion to cottage. 

504 Waterloo: Older London homes have a distinctive asset in the infilling of their gables with diversely patterned wood. This late Victorian, built about 1894, is one of those. Note the console-like extensions framing the gable and the stone arch over the window. 

496 Waterloo - One of the loveliest Queen Anne homes in the city - at least until what the Fire Department called a "substantial" blaze in its attic in 2023. Glad I took a photo before the fire. As you can see from these photos, the trim was once white. Although renovated, this 1893 house still has its nice arched windows on the south side and tower, a lovely corner verandah, and a cute balcony in the attic storey on the left. 

 

484 Waterloo: I'm also fond of the house below, now converted into offices. While the windows are replacements (there weren't panes of glass this size ca. 1875-80 when the home was built) at least we still have the beautiful verandah, the matching columns above and below, the mouldings above the windows, and the paired brackets under the wide overhang of the hipped roof. The second floor balcony has been enclosed as a sleeping porch. It has a door, so at one time one could step out onto a balcony, the balustrade of which has been removed. 

455 Waterloo: I do love a tower and this home is almost all tower. Bonus: a deep cornice with bas-relief ornamentation. Would have looked even better when it was first built in the Edwardian era, without the highrise in the background. 

469 and 471 Waterloo: Two buildings here. First, note 469 Waterloo on the left. Allan Komenda and Valerii Oleksiienko won a London Heritage Award in 2020 for the restoration of this Italianate home. Next door is the gorgeous early 20th-century home built for cigar manufacturer R. D. McDonald, now occupied by Global Warranty. Note the ornate roof line and south wall gable with a Palladian window variation. At front is a curved two-storey bay with curved glass windows and stone window headings in an interesting pattern. Neo-Classical design is seen in details like the pediment, columns with Corinthian-style capitals, and matching smaller columns supporting the second-floor porch. This Edwardian-era mansion, designed by London architect John Moore, makes the decent-sized Italianate from a couple of decades earlier look small.

477 Waterloo: OK, so foliage makes this Regency style cottage a little difficult to see. But you can make out the most interesting parts: the Doric-style columns, gently curved porch roof, and - best of all - a triple-arched London Doorway. This ca. 1878 home was designed by another London architect, William Robinson, for the crockery importer Nathaniel Reid. Later members of the Carling and Gibbons family lived here. 

483 Colborne: Another nice house here but the best part is the stone insert under the upper window on the north side. Do you see the foliage face looking at you? It appears to be a variation of the Green Man, a sort of forest god representing the birth-death-rebirth cycle of the natural year.

484 Colborne: Ignore the newer roof and updated balcony railing and focus on the unusual cornice on this Italianate. Nice verandah too. 

504 Colborne: The house built for Alexander McBride ca. 1872 isn't quite as unchanged as I'd like it to be. It has newer windows, for example. But it also has some interesting original features, like a  cornice extended at the corners, a broken pediment with a bull's eye window, a slightly projecting central bay, and brick quoins. The stone headings over the arched windows and door are a nice touch. And yes, that is another London Doorway. 

518 Dufferin: Just a lovely 1 1/2 storey residence built 1876. Nice bargeboard in the gable and stained glass transoms over the windows and door.  

22 Peter: One of the loveliest homes in Woodfield, still covered in clapboard and possessing an arched window in its gable. Note the blue plaque to the right of the door, meaning this beautiful property is designated by the City of London. Built ca. 1870, this looks like the typical Ontario farmhouse. But it wasn't built for a farmer; the first occupant was Oran Benson, a melodeon maker.  

23 Peter: I described 23 Peter years ago as a textbook example of Italianate. Still there. Dreamy.

518 Queens: Wow. This is different. But then it's at the corner of Queens Avenue, where many wealthy people built their mansions in the 1800s. The mansard-roofed Second Empire style was never popular in London and was always more popular in the US than Canada. But this 1874 residence, converted into a retirement home, was just the thing for oil millionaire James Duffield, who of course wanted to show off his good taste. Notice the variety of mouldings over the windows: curved stone on the first and second floors and elliptical or pedimental over the dormers. 

534 Queens: Another Second Empire, much changed from when it was a private residence. But note the fish scale pattern on the slate roof.

533 Queens: The Bullen house, ca. 1875, has updated windows but I've seen worse. What's interesting about this place is how tall it appears, the steeply-pitched roof adding to its vertical look. 

513 Queens: A lovely Queen Anne ca. 1887. Yellow brick with red brick trim. Deep cornice. Fancy gable. And, Holy Smoke, what a massive chimney. I guess that verandah was added later, since it cuts right through a window on the side. And that's a door at top left, so there must once have been a balcony. 

Dundas Street Centre United Church: Built 1896 in the Romanesque Revival style. 

410, 408 and 400 Queens: A nice Edwardian streetscape, designed by John Moore in the red brick that had become popular by early 20th century. At one time you would have been able to look between these buildings and catch a glimpse of the gorgeous Mocha Temple behind them. Unfortunately, someone had the idea of adding a Tudoresque bridge thingy between the buildings, blocking the view. Oh well, you can walk around the corner to see the M.T. if you want to. 

496 Colborne: Nice 1 1/2 storey Victorian. Note the attractive arched windows and all those paired brackets under the wide overhang. 

South side of the same building. More brackets, including baby versions on the projecting bay window. 

380 Queens: An enormous Edwardian mansion, complete with Palladian window up in the gable. 

360 Queens: Wow. Romanesque Revival here with those heavy arches. Gorgeous tower. More Palladian windows up in the gables. 

What's also nice to see is the plaque out front, identifying the former owner, Charles W. Leonard, as well as the current tenants:

St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church: Designed by architect William Robinson and built in 1869 in the Gothic tradition. An inspirational spire, imposing entrance, high stone foundation with arched window openings, and interesting brick work under the eaves make this one of London's most attractive churches.

And there's its manse right next door, built only a few years later. Looks neoclassical with that bas relief in the pediment. Nice mouldings over the windows, including that rounded one in the centre.  

Whew, what a long walk.

How NOT to Renovate an Old Building

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:

What's wrong with paint, anyway? Like, nice porch, but paint it white:

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, some will like this update, but 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. A lot of people have no taste.

5. 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, Present, 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.