The Byron Barn Blunder

William Griffiths' barn as drawn by Louis Taylor in Nancy Tausky's Historical Sketches of London:
From Site to City. Broadview Press, 1993. 

For those of you who didn't follow the saga of the "Byron Barn" at 247 Halls Mill Road, a brief recap: Neighbours first became concerned about its condition in September of 2019 when metal sheeting was removed and the roof partially collapsed. The City of London issued a "make safe" order, requiring the owner to either repair the barn, fence it off, or seek a demolition request. Turns out the owner did have a demolition permit dating to 2008. But those permits expire after a year and he didn't act on time.

In January 2020, after activism from London's heritage preservationists, City Council voted 12-3 to designate the structure (Mayor Ed Holder and Councilors Paul Van Meerbergen and Michael Van Holst were opposed). Such designations take effect immediately. The owner called the designation "complete stupidity." 

Two days later, on January 30, 2020, the owner bulldozed the barn.

City Hall then launched an investigation. There were two illegalities: First, the barn was demolished without a permit, which goes against the Ontario Building Code. Second, since it was heritage designated, the demolition defied the Ontario Heritage Act, meaning the building should not have been demolished or significantly altered without the municipality's permission. City bylaw officers charged the owner under both acts.

The property owner recently pleaded guilty and has been charged $2,000.

Byron - in fact, London - has been polarized. The issue: Can someone do whatever he wants with his own property or should he have to comply with the desires of the broader community? 

At any rate, there are a few lessons to be learned here by heritage preservationists:

1.We're not doing a great job of educating folks about architecture. The fact that this was no ordinary barn was missed by the media and most online commentators. As an example, see this blog post in support of the owner, showing a picture of a random barn ruin at top. That is not what Griffiths' barn looked like. Heritage preservationists aren't interested in trying to save the average rural ruin.

In fact, William Griffiths' 19th-century structure was a lot more stylish than the average Ontario barn. It was built as a combination of coach house, barn and warehouse for his woolen mill. Note the decorative treatment of its centre section, the focal point of the long front. The round-headed window was recessed within a projecting gable. Below, another projection containing the main doors (originally solid) was covered with a hipped roof that reflected the dimensions of the gable above. There was a cute ventilator on the ridge. And there was once some symmetry, as indicated by the two ground floor windows equidistant from the main door. The other openings, probably later additions, have masked the former balance. 

2. As noted in the linked blog post, to many people heritage designations appear arbitrary. That's because preservationists are often attempting to designate at the last minute, after they learn that a property is in danger of demolition. In fact, certain buildings should automatically receive designation based on their age, style or rarity. It should not be random or subjective. 

3. Heritage law is still reliant on owners actually desiring to protect sites. Which means that unwanted older buildings are usually just neglected until they fall apart. Once a building falls into ruin, it's hard to convince people it has value. In order to prevent this, we need municipal ordinances requiring property owners to properly maintain buildings.

4. The barn decision sets a precedent for further destruction of heritage properties, since owners now know just how little they may pay upon pleading guilty. Not much of a deterrent for those with deep pockets. 

Until these issues are resolved, we can expect the Byron Blunder to happen again and again.