The Ontario Government Demolishes by Neglect

A letter I sent today:

April 20, 2026

The Hon. Rob Flack, MPP Elgin-Middlesex-London

Re: Proposed demolition of former St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, 467 Sunset Drive

Dear Minster:

Recently Infrastructure Ontario has given notice that it intends to demolish all the buildings of the former St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. I am writing to state my objection to this destruction of our local heritage.

Please note the following:

 ·         These buildings, constructed of Queenston limestone, were designed by noted architect William Lyon Somerville (1886-1965) who also designed the original McMaster University buildings in Hamilton, restored historic forts such as Fort Henry and Fort George, and designed other hospitals such as St. Joseph’s in Brantford.

·         The complex is designed in Art Deco, the twentieth-century style that emerged between the First and Second World Wars. The sculpture on the buildings’ exterior is by Jacobine Jones (1897-1976) and represents examples of Ontario wildlife.

·         Shortly after completion, the buildings became No. 1 Technical Training School, used by the RCAF as part of the Commonwealth Air Training Program in World War II. Note that another facility under the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, that in Fingal, Elgin County, has been demolished.

·         These buildings are a provincial Heritage Property of Historical Significance and St. Thomas has designated some of the buildings under the Ontario Heritage Act.

  According to individuals interviewed by the media, the buildings are not reusable due to asbestos, lead paint, and mercury. No one wants tiny rooms and the concrete walls cannot be removed. Fire escapes and other modern safety features need to be added. I’m unclear as to whether these are “reasons” or “excuses” for demolition. I have asbestos in my own home, but it’s covered up and does no harm unless uncovered.

 I understand some may say the cost of preservation and renovation is too high. However, I have been unable to find any numbers online. Is the public to take Infrastructure Ontario’s word for it that refurbishment is unaffordable?  Has I.O. determined if there are local developers or contractors who see a way to repurpose these architectural and historically significant buildings? Is the government aware that demolition is also expensive? Will the building materials go into a nearby landfill? According to Carl Elefante, former president of the American Institute of Architects, “The greenest building is the one that already exists.”

My suggestion is as follows:

The nine designated buildings on the west of the site, especially the administration building, are the most historically significant and should be preserved. The interiors may be antiquated but it should be possible to keep the outer shell and redevelop the insides. Undesignated buildings may be demolished and the rest of the property developed.

The designated buildings could be repurposed by corporate offices, the local tourist board, a community centre for the housing development, and a museum about the history of psychiatric treatment. Part of the site could provide temporary shelters for the homeless and/or mentally ill, doctors’ offices, or urgent care. This would be in keeping with the site’s medical history. However, these are my ideas and I’m sure there are many others.

Please use your position as an MPP to allow for public consultation on this demolition and to determine local interest in refurbishment and repurposing.

Sincerely

Jennifer Grainger, London

Save Beth Emmanuel Church

2022 photo

 A letter sent to London City Clerk's office last week:

Notice of Objection

RE: Request by Trustees of the London Congregation of the British Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada to Repeal the Heritage Designating By-law for the Property at 430 Grey Street (Beth Emmanuel British Methodist Episcopal Church).

I wish to voice my objection to the repeal of the heritage designation for the Beth Emmanuel Church located at 430 Grey Street, London.

As a general rule, when the owners of a building apply to have its heritage designation removed, it is because they wish to demolish the building. The demolition of this church would be a mistake for the City of London.

First, Beth Emmanuel Church dates to ca. 1868 and is one of Canada’s oldest “black churches.” The building has been a place of worship for London’s black community since its construction. Some of its first congregants escaped from slavery in the United States via the Underground Railroad.  Many of us are proud of the role our region played in providing a haven for the victims of American slavery. To allow this building to be demolished implies a lack of respect for its founders.

Currently, Beth Emmanuel is leased by a congregation of primarily African ethnicity. Arguably, the church still has important ties to London’s black community, which is as worthy of consideration today as it was in the nineteenth century. The SoHo neighbourhood is growing rapidly, with multi-storey towers either built or in the planning stages, so it is likely this congregation will grow.

Beth Emmanuel is also one of the most important landmark buildings in SoHo. Since the original Fugitive Slave Chapel has been preserved at Fanshawe Pioneer Village, it would be appropriate for its sister church to be saved in situ. Not all heritage buildings require moving to make way for “progress.”

While not the most important consideration, I would also point out that Beth Emmanuel is one of London’s traditional yellow brick buildings in the Gothic Revival style. The building’s name in stained glass over the front door is a charming aspect of its appearance.

In summary, the removal of this heritage designation is likely to lead to the demolition of a significant London landmark. Allowing the flattening of Beth Emmanuel would be a massive failure of the City of London and a huge loss for Londoners of every background, culture, and tradition.  

Sincerely,

Jennifer Grainger, London, Ontario

Courthouse Concern

 

A  postcard printed by Middlesex County

The County of Middlesex will be moving out of the Old Courthouse at the end of 2026. After that, the fate of the old building is in limbo.

While that may sound dramatic, you have to remember that London's "castle" is now owned by York Developments. And that should make you nervous, considering what they did to Kent Brewery and what they intend to do here. What do they mean to do with our oldest, best building?

I have three main concerns:

1. York intends to build a 54-storey tower right next to this nearly 200-year-old beauty. The tower requires four storeys of underground parking extending to within 16 metres of the Old Courthouse. How will this impact an antique building? Will vibrations from the construction project destabilize it? 

2. This is a National Historic Site. But guess what? That designation has no legal force behind it, nothing to prevent it from being demolished or changed. While you might think a federal designation should carry some legal protection, that's not the case unless the site is actually owned by the federal government. And Canada is the only G7 country with no federal legislation to protect heritage sites. Fortunately, the building is protected by a 1981 conservation easement and Part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act. I hope that's enough.

3. Even if the Old Courthouse is preserved, what changes may be made to its appearance? Window replacement? A tower erupting from its middle? I know! How about a nightclub with flashing neon lights? Before you decide I'm being ridiculous, bear in mind that I did contact York Developments a few years back when I was ACO President, requesting their plans for the Old Courthouse. No response. And when there's no response, I figure it's because they know heritage activists won't like it.

One thing is for certain. If this London building doesn't matter, no London building matters.

Apparently a coaster, but I wouldn't set a drink on it.

Front cover of a flyer published in 1981 by the Corporation of the County of Middlesex.
Sketch by Vickie Wallace. 

A flyer outlining the program of a Thanksgiving 1974 festival, complete with a map of the site and floor plans of the Old Courthouse interior. 

A 1964 London-area phone book features our best-known landmark on the cover.

A break for Bud's building?

 

Cento Commercial Inc. has purchased what some of us old-timers still call the "Bud Gowan building" at 387 Clarence Street. Starting in November 2026, they say they'll convert the structure into 12 apartments upstairs with a commercial space on the main floor. The renovation will cost about $2 million, but Cento has apparently completed many projects around Ontario. There's a good chance they'll get it done.  

It's about time this building was fixed up. Way back in 2012, I reported on John Fyfe-Millar's attempt at rejuvenating the structure. In 2017, lawyer Ian Jonstone purchased the building, hoping to turn it into a boutique hotel. Neither project gathered steam. 

Built in 1892 as the Featherbone Corset Company, this yellow-brick Victorian once had a theatre next to it, which became an Arcade, which was torn down to become a parking lot. The result is a gaunt, free-standing tower that looks a bit lost without neighbours.

In the 1970s, the old factory was taken over by Bud Gowan, who operated one of London's premier antique stores there until 2012. Mr. Gowan added ornamental wooden spindles and a stained-glass church window to add a touch of class. Not to mention his iconic mural on the south side, which Cento plans to preserve:

Bud Gowan's iconic mural at 387 Clarence Street.

I wouldn't mind if they also preserved the "ghost sign" on the north side: 

The battle-scarred north side.

This is great stuff. Not only do we need housing, but, as I've said before, it makes perfect sense to recycle vacant buildings into residential units. If this works out, maybe Cento will renovate a few more! Let's keep our fingers crossed. Downtown could use a break.

Cottages, Gumdrops, and a Living Legend: My Winter Reading

What does a heritage blogger do all winter, when daytrips are cancelled, it's too cold for walking tours, and heritage houses are hidden behind snowbanks? She catches up on her reading, of course. Allow me to make a few literary recommendations:

Lynne D. DiStefano and Dan Schneider, The Ontario Cottage: Perfect of Its Kind. Vancouver: Figure 1, 2025. 200 pages.

The perfect book for those of us who admire those lovely Ontario cottages, explaining how the style originated, how the cottages were constructed, and what it's like to live in one. It even includes chapters on the typical hip roofs and occasional verandas. 

There are lots of cottage photos in this book, including some in colour. I'd like to see more pics from London, but when you're covering the entire province, I suppose you can't use many photos from each community. The authors have included some of our most historic and photogenic examples: Carfrae Cottage at 39 Carfrae Street, Nathaniel Reid Cottage at 477 Waterloo, and Templar Cottage at 607 Talbot Street. There are also some homes from the surrounding area, such as the beautiful Swiss Cottage in Aylmer, a gem I recognized from drives through that town.

Altogether, this is a fascinating book for admirers of Ontario's residential architecture. Let's get Lynne and Dan to tackle another style, like Queen Anne. 

Shannon Kyles, The Story of Ontario Architecture: What We Built and Why We Built It. Greensville: Author, 2025. 381 pages. 

First of all, Ms. Kyles needed an editor. When Foreword is spelled "Foreward," and there's a typo in the very first sentence, things aren't off to a good start. When, in addition, the index has an explanatory label stating that "the page numbering is skewed by 4 numbers after page 47 due to a technical glitch," I feel the author's pain. 

Nevertheless, Ms. Kyles, who taught the history of Ontario architecture at Mohawk College for over 30 years, has achieved an incredible feat: a portrayal of Ontario's buildings from First Nations to the twenty-first century, with numerous illustrations of each style. Everything is here, including Georgian, Gothic Revival, Italianate, Queen Anne, Second Empire, Beaux Arts, Art Deco, and Gumdrop. (Yes, Gumdrop. It's a thing.) She also covers mills, factories, and apartments. And she explains, much to my joy, that our buildings are "part of a trend, are part of a more cohesive picture, and are definitely worth the effort of saving" (p. ii). 

London's Central Cat Clinic, Museum London, "New" Court House, and Central Library are among the book's local illustrations, as are numerous older London houses. There are no addresses for the homes, which preserves owner privacy, but prevents me from visiting and admiring them myself. (Darn.) Interestingly, band-shell porches are described as veranda "circular areas." Is the author unfamiliar with "band-shell?" Is it a London term?

Finally, music to my ears: "Many studies prove that restored windows fitted with proper storms are as energy efficient as any new window, but most people are not aware of this ... New windows will need to be replaced every 10 to 30 years ... No part of new windows is recyclable. Why are we doing this?" (p. iv). Why indeed? 

With beautiful colour photos and commentary on every imaginable topic from an abacus tile to wooden sticks, Kyles' book may just be the new "bible" of Ontario architecture. Any mistakes can be fixed in a second edition, which the book deserves. Check out the author's website here.

Mike Baker, et al, Ed Phelps: Son, Brother, Historian & Friend. The Aylmer Express Limited, 2025. 124 pages. Note: This book has been printed in a limited edition. London Public Library may be your best option.

Numerous authors have contributed their memories of Edward Phelps (1939-2006) to this tribute volume.  I know many of the authors and have heard them talk about Ed. Since I never knew Ed myself, having arrived on the local history scene too late to meet him, this book has enlightened me. The London librarian and archivist was a legend in his own time.

In about 1971, Ed was appointed Librarian-in-Charge at the Regional Collection, D. B. Weldon Library, U.W.O. Until his retirement in 1994, Ed was relentless in searching for, buying, trading, selling, and donating historical material to the collection. Not only did he have a shrewd eye for historical materials worthy of archival preservation, but he was willing to haunt antique shows and flea markets, even plough through garbage, to find them. Contributor Theresa Regnier tells us he referred to his station wagon as "The Rolling Barn" since it was always full of "stuff" he'd picked up. John Lutman states Ed "was of the hunter-gatherer mode of archivist." 

By these methods, Ed rescued large portions of southwestern Ontario's history from flames, landfills, and more distant archives. Those of us who have researched local history in the Regional Collection (now Western Archives and Special Collections) have used the materials, although some have been transferred elsewhere since. I'm grateful to have had access to such a collection.

But Ed also helped dozens of area writers and historians, giving them work and breaks to start their careers. He founded Phelps Publishing Company to print books that might not have been produced otherwise, including a few on my own shelf. He reprinted numerous historical county atlases, allowing many people to own a copy who would never find - or be able to afford - one of the falling-apart originals. His contributions to Southwestern Ontario history are too many to list here.

Ed left varied impressions. Norman R. Ball remembers Ed as "a rebel, a reputation he cultivated." Gord Russell remembers receiving mail from Ed "on bizarre materials, including the lid of a KFC bucket, or Kellogg's Cereal box," affixed with the appropriate postage. "Ed truly cared about people," writes Steve Peters. According to Sheila Johnson, the parties at his home on Bruce Street were "epic, and attracted a wonderful mixture of folks united by their love of history." Herman Goodden remarks on Ed's slovenly appearance: "My publisher-to-be looked more like a down-at-the-heels plumber than a librarian." But there was a dark side. "His intelligence," writes Mr. Lutman, "was combined with a serious lack of judgement, which got him into trouble. He died an unfortunate death, which shocked us all." 

Thanks to this book, I know just what I missed out on by never meeting Ed. My own work, had he supervised it, would no doubt be better. Heck, he might have published it. I missed the parties, the scavenging expeditions, the garbage mail. But I now feel like I've met Ed Phelps. And I feel his loss.

Affordable Housing: Suggestions for a Responsible City

York Developments plans a 30-storey apartment building for the northeast corner of Ridout and Kent. Their development would replace the above 30-unit rental building at 550 Ridout Street North and three buildings on Kent Street that are over 120 years old. The latter apparently don't have enough architectural or historical significance to merit saving. London's City Council has passed the proposed development 11 to 4, with only Councillors Hopkins, Trosow, Rahman, and Ferreira voting against. Remember this at election time.

Those in favour of the development argue that it meets London's number one planning goal, to build high-density residential buildings downtown. I do support that goal, since we need to prevent urban sprawl and bring people back to the core.  

But there are numerous problems here, beyond the loss of the three older buildings. First, this is a poor fit for the neighbourhood and is sure to increase traffic on older, narrow streets. Call me a pessimist, but next thing you know, more housing will need to come down to widen our roads.

Second, the development runs counter to planning rules by exceeding the site's height and density limits. This spot is just outside the downtown planning district (literally across the street), where the tallest buildings are permitted. City staffers suggested an 18-storey building for this site, in agreement with the current zoning. In my opinion, an 18-storey tower here would still be in the wrong place, but at least at that height, the city wouldn't be breaking its own rules, and our city planners would be heeded.

Then there's the fact that the apartments at 550 Ridout constitute affordable housing. It now appears that low-income Londoners are being displaced for developer profit. Oh, and developer buddies on council can congratulate themselves on providing intensification.  This project is not housing policy; it's developer greed.

As a rebuttal (or PR move) to the affordable housing argument, York Developments stated it will either help the displaced tenants from 550 Ridout move or assist them in locating another apartment. Councillor David Ferreira responded, and I agree, that York should offer the tenants a spot in the new building for the same rent. (Except where do they go in the meantime?) And no matter what warm, fuzzy solution York suggests, the city doesn't have the power to enforce it. 

Three recommendations to prevent this from happening again:

1. As Councillor Skylar Franke points out, London needs a tenant assistance and relocation plan similar to that of Toronto. A responsible city helps displaced tenants move, if it can't prevent their displacement to begin with. We also need rent gap payments to cover higher rents if tenants can't find an affordable unit elsewhere. 

2. Council must heed city staff recommendations. When staff recommend refusing a zoning change because the proposed highrise is too tall and incompatible with adjacent heritage-listed buildings, City Council should vote no to the project. Otherwise, why do we have a planning department?

3. As I've explained before, we need to develop the downtown surface parking lots. While the city can't force the owners of the lots to sell, it could certainly pressure them. We also need to convert more of our vacant buildings into affordable housing, as I've pointed out here. 

Without the above, London appears uncaring, irresponsible, and governed by developers and their toadies. 

Come to Attic Books for London collectibles!

This post features collectibles from London's very own Attic Books. All these - and others - are available on our second floor.* Come upstairs, take a look, and say hello.

As early as about 1861, Daniel Simmons Perrin established a bakery on Hamilton Road.** By 1881, the firm of D. S. Perrin & Co. operated on the north side of Dundas between Ridout and Talbot. Later, in 1926, the company was bought by Canada Biscuit Company. Once upon a time, this tin was filled with delicious treats.

No London bottle collection would be complete without Labatt's. Arguably, the company is nearly as old as the city itself. It was in 1827 that John Balkwill built the first brewery in the new settlement, near the southwest corner of Simcoe and Richmond streets. The company went through a number of partnerships before John Kinder Labatt assumed full ownership in 1855. The rest is history.

In 1886, William Gorman, David Dyson, and Richard Eckert formed Gorman, Dyson and Co.'s Forest City Spice Mills on Talbot Street. Later, the firm became  Gorman, Eckert & Co. The company became Club House Foods in 1969.

The mug below is not an ancient artifact. I can remember eating at The Garage in the 1980s when I first arrived in London as a teenager. Who can forget the car in the dining room! The restaurant was located on King between Ridout and Talbot. 

Wishing Well drinks were produced by National Dry, Ltd., at 303-309 Richmond Street near Bathurst, from the 1930s to the 1970s. The water used to make beverages came from a spring near Komoka on the Thames River, hence "Wishing Well."*** 

Reverse side of the above, showing all W.W.'s tempting flavours:

Hmm. Not familiar with Woodlond Beverages. The name seems to be a combination of Woodstock and London. According to this, the company was located at 39 Metcalfe Street, Woodstock, in 1954.

This furrier was at 155 Central Avenue in the 1950s. I wonder why they used thermometers as promotional items? Perhaps when the outdoor temperature reached a certain point in spring, ladies knew it was time to store their furs?

Who wouldn't want a London Free Press ashtray? This souvenir dates to 1965, when the newspaper began operating from the York Street plant featured at centre. The building was demolished in 2024.

The top of a London Pure Milk Company bottle. The company, located at 561 Dundas, was known for its neon cow sign.

Miniature shoes in bone china were once all the rage. This one celebrates Dundas Centre Methodist Church, built in 1895 at Dundas and Maitland streets. In 1925, it became Dundas Centre United.

A dish from the swanky Hotel London that once stood on the southeast corner of Dundas and Wellington streets. The premier place for banquets and conferences for decades, it was demolished in 1972 to make way for the City Centre building.

An ashtray from "Z" Lunch at 244 Dundas Street. Named after the zig-zag track lighting on its ceiling. I kid you not.

Jackson The Cleaner, once located on the southeast corner of Richmond and Pall Mall, in a building now a restaurant. Even had a fleet of its own pick up and delivery vehicles; see here.

The Tecumseh House, once the largest hotel in British North America, opened on the southwest corner of York and Richmond on December 27, 1858. After accommodating everyone from travelling salesmen to the Prince of Wales, it ceased operations in 1929 when its rooms were outdated, and prohibition had shut down its bar.  This proud sponsor of the London Tecumsehs baseball team was demolished in 1930, but its tableware survives.

Once, even hospitals had their own charming crockery:

The example below came from a very specialized hospital, the "San." Today's young people, fortunately for them, may not know what a sanatorium was, but once, these tuberculosis treatment centres were everywhere. The Queen Alexandra Sanatorium, named after the consort of King Edward VII, opened on the west side of Sanatorium Road in April 1910. Renamed the Beck Memorial Sanatorium in 1949, it became the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute (CPRI) in 1960 and the Child and Parent Resource Institute in 1992.

It was on September 8, 1877, that John Smallman and Lemuel Ingram opened their dry goods store on Dundas between Richmond and Market Lane. By 1908, the business was so successful that it opened a new five-storey building on the site, the largest department store in southwestern Ontario. Fun fact: The first transatlantic phone call between London, Ontario, and London, England was on the morning of April 12, 1928, when Gordon Ingram of S&I chatted with his UK rep. 

The first Standard Drug store opened on the north side of Dundas between Clarence and Wellington in 1913. Later, a second location opened on the east side of Richmond between King and York. I had to look up "Aromatic Cascara." Turns out it's a laxative. Well, if you need one, there's still a bit of it in this old bottle. (Yuck.)

Attic now sells cameras, usually of the antique film variety. Many are usable, some will only make interesting conversation pieces. In the usable department (complete with photographer's reflection) is this Rollieflex 3.5 MX-EV camera, ca. 1954, with its original lens cap and case. Our camera expert, Maggie, works Wednesdays, and, yes, she also buys.

There are also old photos, although most are not of this vintage. This dapper young man from the 1860s was photographed by the ambrotype process, a cheaper version of the daguerreotype. While he and his photographer are unknown, the gutta-percha case states it was manufactured by Littlefield, Parsons, and Co. The decoration on the case's front is patriotically Civil War era American,  portraying a camp scene with a tent, U.S. flag, and cannon.

* The items run from $3 to $650.

** Much of the history in this post comes from Daniel J. Brock, Fragments From The Forks: London Ontario's Legacy. London & Middlesex Historical Society, 2011.

*** https://www.facebook.com/vintagelondon/photos/a.702942309832069/2792658390860440/?id=256233541169617