London Buildings: Double Houses

Midway between terrace housing and the detached home is the double house - that is, a house divided vertically by a common wall, designed for two families living side by side, each with their own entry. The double house was usually two storeys, the two sides usually, but not always, symmetrical if built at the same time. Seldom associated with a particular social class or architectural style, they were often built as rental units by landlords who lived elsewhere. The form probably stemmed from a desire for economy, since the shared wall meant a structure less expensive to build than two separate dwellings. 

A fine example is this Italianate double house located at 526-528 Waterloo Street. Built in 1874, it has the typical symmetry associated with double houses and fits in well with the surrounding mansions. 

Another attractive example is 80-82 Stanley Street, a colourful Victorian built ca. 1887.  At least one part is now an attractive apartment with nice hardwood floors and exposed brick walls. 

466-468 Queens Avenue is an example of a double house in which the two sides were built at different times. 468 (right portion) is the earlier part, its construction date unknown, while 466 was built about 1878. The doorways are original but that beautiful rounded stained glass window is an early replacement.

Not all double houses look as stylish as the above. Note this primitive structure on Ann Street:

Then there's 93-95 Dufferin, a double house in use as a commercial space since the 1980s. 93, the portion on the right, was built in about 1868 by Samuel Peters, Jr. (architect of Grosvenor Lodge) while 95 was added in the 1890s. The centre portion, associated with the original structure, was built in the 1880s. 93 shows Georgian influence, while 95 is more Italianate.    

It was Rygar Properties that first planned a mixed-use development for this site. Their plan was controversial since it involved the demolition of Camden Terrace on Talbot Street. The city allowed Rygar to demolish Camden provided they build a commemorative replica and incorporate 93-95 Dufferin into the new development.

Then Rygar sold to Old Oak Properties in 2019 and Old Oak applied to demolish the double house in early 2021. Heritage activists argued that the original agreement with Rygar should apply to the new landowner as well. City Council agreed and turned down the demolition request. Old Oak has now agreed to incorporate these buildings into their highrise development. 

So in May 2021 we have this going on:

It will be interesting to see how Old Oak incorporates the above double house into a development that includes a 40-storey skyscraper. 

A late 20th century double house in south London. Same idea ... but without charm.

No Skyscrapers at the Forks of the Thames

ACO London  was founded in July 1966, largely because of the threat to demolish these early commercial buildings on the west side of Ridout Street south of Eldon House. Nicknamed Bankers' Row, the streetscape is an excellent example of the architecture built in pre-Confederation era towns. Fortunately, John Labatt Ltd. paid to restore the buildings in the late '60s - early '70s and the Ridout Restoration has formed an integral part of London's historic heart ever since. Architectural enthusiasts considered these buildings safe, their future not in doubt. 

But then came Farhi Holdings Corp. with a plan to build a 40-storey "flagship and legacy" residential/commercial tower behind this row, incorporating the old buildings into the design. If you can't picture that, take a look here. 

So what's the problem? Heritage harpies should be happy, right? Isn't this a great compromise? The old buildings will be preserved and London will get more of the residential and commercial space city  planners deem necessary to revive our downtown core. 

Here are some concerns:

• This proposed tower and the one suggested by York Developments at 50 King Street may be a “slippery slope,” setting precedents for more towers to be built along the Thames, a Canadian Heritage River. When highrises crowd the waterfront, they detract from the ambiance of the river forks, Harris Park, walking path, and river view.
• Besides the Ridout Restoration, this part of Ridout Street contains:  Eldon House, London’s oldest house; Museum London, the city’s best-known gallery; the Old Courthouse, the city’s oldest building. Together, this streetscape constitutes the heart of London, an area we should be promoting to tourists. How could a modern highrise contribute to the ambiance?
• The proposed building and its podium are not in keeping with the style of the existing buildings, which constitute one of London's four National Historic Sites (the others are Banting House, the Old Courthouse and Wolseley Barracks). How can we preserve a capsule view of 19^th century Ontario with an unsympathetic contemporary development perched behind? 
• Before rezoning, the height of new construction here was limited to the height of the existing structures – three storeys. Should zoning changes or “bonusing” really allow buildings nearly ten times taller than what’s already there?
• The nearby park is a floodplain. The overflowing Thames has been known to cover Harris Park and its adjacent parking lot. How will the water impact a building on the park’s edge? According to this article, the Upper Thames Valley Conservation Authority has OK'd the development. But so many of us are used to seeing this.
• Will Bankers’ Row be able to withstand construction disturbances, including excavations and vibrations? We don't want this to happen. 
• Farhi's track record on preserving such buildings as the old Central Library and Wright Lithographing suggests his company may not be the best caregiver for the Ridout complex. There's already been a fire at number 435 and the building has not been fully restored. 
• Why build on this site at all? Surely there must be some other space Farhi can use for development. How about the the old Free Press building? Or the parking lot across the street?

     The issue goes before London's Planning & Environment Committee on May 31 and a great many Londoners, myself included, have written to PEC and the city, requesting them to turn down the rezoning application.

      Update: PEC has passed the motion for rezoning. Now it goes to full Council on June 15.                      

      Update: Council voted 12-2 in favour of rezoning. Most councilors believe this is a "win-win" situation, saving heritage yet promoting development. My prediction? Nothing will be built here and Bankers' Row will be gradually demolished by neglect. Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

      

100 Stanley Street: Make an offer to the City of London, Ontario. Fast.

Here it is. 100 Stanley Street at the corner of Wharncliffe Road South. A white brick Queen Anne house built about 1896, with a keyhole window on the main level and a rectangular oriel window on the second floor. The oriel has a small bracket detail above and rests on a decorated wooden sill. There's coloured glass in the windows. And there's lovely interior woodwork, such as a newel post shaped like a King chess piece.

Yes, it's a bit difficult to see, the garden having become a jungle. Some would even say the foliage obstructs views at the intersection.

Nancy Finlayson lived here for decades, about thirty years in total. Her home was designated by the city in 2010. It stands on Stanley Street, at one time the main road out of the city to Port Stanley. 

But in 2017 the public learned that the city was considering demolishing her home, expropriating the land to widen Wharncliffe Road and repair the nearby railroad overpass. The road widening was necessary, the city argued, to remove the traffic bottleneck, prevent congestion and collisions. 

But Feisty Nan fought The Plan. And she wasn't the only one. Others in the city raised petitions on her behalf and staged demonstrations on the corner. The city was starting to look bad. Who tosses an old lady out of her home just to widen a road?

In 2018 the City of London indicated it was not without sympathy (or realized it looked nasty) and stated they were willing to spend an extra half million dollars to move 100 Stanley to a lot on a nearby street,  admittedly an accommodation most cities wouldn't bother with. Relocating her home was a way to save it from the wrecking ball and keep it within its own historic neighbourhood. And it would only cost $500,000 to cover the bill to move the house about 100 metres. 

Yet when the city offered to move her lovely home to the corner of Wharncliffe and Evergreen, Nan argued it would take the house out of its context onto a bare, treeless lot. She insisted she wouldn't move.

In January 2020 London City Council voted to expropriate her land. As recently as June 2020, Nan said she wouldn't leave. Unfortunately, she was told she needed to get out by October 1. In September, the city reached a settlement with her, offering $500,000 for her home and land. Perhaps she realized she couldn't "beat City Hall." She has moved to a home in Blackfriars. 

Yet despite the sale of the land and house, the city continued to consider moving the home, probably due to pressure from conservation groups such as ACO London. But in early 2021, city engineers suddenly estimated the relocation cost at $900,000 - $1,100,000 and, at this point, some on City Council decided the cost was too much.

On March 23, City Council narrowly voted to demolish the building. (I haven't heard how much that will cost.) The road widening is expected to begin either later in 2021 or 2022. Total cost: $39 million. Of which the cost of moving 100 Stanley was merely a proverbial drop in the bucket. 

One could argue that the city put poor Nan through a nightmare. A lady in her late seventies, kicked out of the home she loved. Anyone with an ounce of sympathy would be on her side. And her house had numerous interesting features, being particularly well preserved. I was "House Captain" in 2009 when her home was included on ACO London's 36th Annual Geranium Heritage House Tour. I remember Nan saying of her home "I love you." If it was my place, I'd love it too. It was particularly well preserved. And now, what she'll remember for the rest of her life was her desperate fight to save it.

But if I'd been her, I'd have let the city move the house. Just think of the advantages: a safer, less busy location; a new basement; new landscaping; the lovely home itself saved for future generations. Londoners in the 2090s might have been able to see a well-preserved home from 200 years earlier. 

I know what some will say. She impeded progress. She's only an attention seeker. She got a great price for her home so why complain. There's lots of old houses so why care about this one. The intersection is a bottleneck and needs to be widened.  Certainly the comments about the former owner posted online have been cruel indeed. Apparently there are some very nasty people out there, posting anonymously at the end of internet news stories. 

But let's for a minute pretend we live in an Ideal Heritage World. In that world an infrastructure change wouldn't adversely affect cultural heritage resources. Our cultural heritage would  be preserved in situ, there would be no expropriation, no demolition of municipally designated properties. We wouldn't be widening roads to make room for more cars. We'd be trying to find ways to get  people out of their cars, via car pooling, public transportation, bicycles, walkways, better planned neighbourhoods, etc. 

We don't live in that world yet. So here's my suggestion. The City of London should sell 100 Stanley for $1 to anyone who can move it. And forget about that high price tag for moving. ACO London has received two estimates suggesting it wouldn't cost more than $500,000 to move the house. Seriously. And surely selling the home would cost the city less than demolition. 

Just contact the city fast. Before 100 Stanley becomes another victim of Progress. 

Move "People and the City"

 

It was meant as a tribute to the people of London, Ontario, from the original First Nations to the community leaders of later times. Created by artists Stuart Reid and Doreen Balabanoff, it was installed downtown on August 5, 1991. 

And the people of London have been deriding their "tribute" ever since.

Not that the monument itself isn't terrific. Each section features a different group of people eg. Early Settlement; Politics; Sports & Entertainment, etc. Individuals pictured inside those panels include Amelia Harris, John P. Robarts, and George "Mooney" Gibson, among others. 

The problem is where it was placed. How are people supposed to study the pictures without taking their lives in their hands, standing in the middle of Wellington Street? Was a monument with such detail really meant to be placed on a traffic median? Of course not. The artists intended viewers to be able to walk around it and look closely at the figures. The explanatory plaque is across the street on the sidewalk but no one standing before the plaque can properly see what it's describing. 

It also obstructs visibility at the intersection. When I'm facing north, waiting to make a left turn on to Queens Avenue, I always wonder if a southbound car is just behind the monument where I can't see it. If so, will the driver be able to stop in time or slam into me? How much easier it would be if this piece of public art was somewhere else.

And now the base is crumbling because the salt spread on the city streets in winter is destroying the limestone. But what they should really be doing is moving the monument to a new location. How about next to City Hall somewhere? Or even better, in Victoria Park or Harris Park, where visitors could walk around it? After all, if the "people" have their monument, they should at least be able to see it. 

Well, at least the city is repairing the base, June 2022.