London Buildings: Art Deco & Art Moderne

London, Ontario isn't blessed with a lot of either Art Deco or Art Moderne. Either a lack of private funds or architectural conservatism prevented Londoners from going for these styles in their heyday. Now their rarity makes what we do have more significant. But, thanks to redevelopment and neglect, London will have even fewer of these buildings in the future. 

Art Deco takes its name from the Exposition des arts decoratifs held in Paris in 1925. The name was eventually applied to furniture, jewelry and a host of other objects that found an immediate audience among the wealthy who could afford them. Oddly, although most people at the time couldn't pay for high fashion, interior designers or personal architects, Art Deco became the style most identified with the Jazz Age.

In architecture, Art Deco consists of plain boxes with towers and projections above the roofline. These buildings are very plain. Decoration consists of geometric mouldings and other details in terra cotta or stone relief. 

Dominion Public Building on a postcard.*

London's best example is usually considered to be the Dominion Public Building on Richmond Street, with its multiple corners, angular shape, and mouldings. Officially opening on September 26, 1936, it was, along with the Huron & Erie Building, one of the tallest structures in London at the time.  Though most of it is only six storeys, its most recognizable feature is the tower on its east end. Built of smooth Queenston limestone, it's basically an early skyscraper with a long extension. 

Although there was a lack of private funds, the 1930s saw much government funding. The reason was the Public Works Construction Act of 1934, an attempt to invigorate Canada's failing economy through public works projects. The City of London received $1.5 million to construct this building, which housed the post office among other federal offices. It was designed by Chief Public Works Architect Thomas W. Fuller, with assistance from London architects John MacLeod Watt, Victor J. Blackwell, and Roy O. Moore. It was built by workers in need of employment. 

Another well-known edifice of the time period is the Elsie Perrin Williams Memorial Library on Queens Avenue.  Most of us call it the "old Central Library."

The building was constructed in 1939-40 using funds left to the city by wealthy Londoner Elsie Perrin Williams. Engraved along the top of the front facade, you'll see the mouthful "London Public Library Elsie Perrin Williams Memorial Art Gallery and Museum." It was an unusual library for its time, incorporating an auditorium, art gallery, separate children's room, and outdoor reading garden, as well as aisles and aisles of books. In other words, it offered a variety of educational opportunities for London's citizens. It was designed by London architects Thornton McBride, and L. Gordon Bridgman, with advice from Chief Librarian Richard Crouch, for whom an east end library branch is named. 

The new library built of Queenston limestone showed classical Greek influence with a projecting main entrance, Greek figures, and a mask of Socrates over the double doors. Note the large transom which had the affect of making the doorway look twice as tall. 

A lot of us have happy memories of this building going back decades. Here many of us borrowed our books, admired art, researched school projects, and looked up our family histories. So it's annoying to see it empty and deteriorating, despite having been designated by the city in 2001 for its historical and architectural value. Unfortunately, the current owner of this edifice, Farhi Landholdings, specializes in empty, deteriorating buildings. Elsie must be turning over in her grave.  

Another major Art Deco building in the city's core is the Huron and Erie building, constructed on the northeast corner of Dundas and Clarence. Designed by Victor J. Blackwell, the nine-storey structure was begun in September 1930. Like the Dominion Public Building, the project provided employment for many workmen in the Great Depression. At the time of completion in June 1931 it dominated London's skyline and remained the city's tallest building until the 1960s. Floodlit at night, it was topped by a revolving searchlight visible for 50 miles (80.5 km). 

This building is still home to a TD-Canada Trust branch. Those of us who do our banking here are treated to the sight of Italian marble walls and splendid antique elevator doors. Everything looks strong and sturdy, just as a bank should. 

Above the tall street-level windows there's a string of carved panels showing Canadians working in a variety of professions from coast to coast. Unfortunately, they aren't easy to see and many will miss them as they walk by:

Yet another downtown Deco is the 1938 Bell Telephone building on the southwest corner of Dufferin and Clarence. More Queenston limestone here. Originally only two storeys, the building housed offices and dial equipment, but many Londoners also ran in to pay their phone bills. 

London doesn't have many Art Deco homes. But here's an example, perched on a Victoria Street hill:

Then there's Art Moderne. While it has a different name, it's really a sub-style of Deco that emerged in the USA in the '30s. It emphasized horizontality with flat roofs, bands of windows, rounded corners, and a lack of symmetry. Why "Moderne?" Likely because its streamlined look showed a disdain for any of history's architectural styles. It was very twentieth century. 

In all likelihood our best example is 16 Wellington Road, soon to be demolished to make way for Bus Rapid Transit construction.** Built in spring 1946 as a printing plant, it was known as Art Novelty Co. Owner Robert Dobbyn designed and built it himself. Note its curved entrance way and the translucent glass blocks that were another hallmark of the Moderne style. Its industrial look was quite innovative for London, Ontario in the '40s:

Interestingly, the above building may live on - virtually - using 3D technology. London-based firm SkyDeploy has been hired by the city to use drone technology to digitally document some of the buildings to be demolished. While the project looks interesting, a) we don't know if the public will have access to these models, and b) it would be better to preserve the buildings. 

Another Moderne building is at Wellington and Bathurst. Built in 1949, it has the horizontal look, curved corner, and bands of windows associated with the style. 

Then there's the Berkley Apartments, built at 350 Dufferin ca. 1950. The decorative brickwork may be Art Deco but the rounded corners and uninterrupted flat roof are associated with Art Moderne:

*Postcards from the author's collection.

** Demolished as of June 27, 2024.

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.

Wright Lithographing in the "Good Old Days"

London Life employees pose before company headquarters ca. 1920. The building became
Wright Lithographing. (From the writer's collection.)

For the record, I don't really believe in the "good old days." The folks in the photo had spent years fighting a world war and a flu pandemic.  But these were definitely better days for the office building behind them. I'll even bet the clock worked. It was 5:00. Quitting time. But there were still a few minutes to pose for a company photo before heading home.

The building now known as Wright Lithographing was built for Sanitary Dairy in 1902 but bought by London Life in 1906 to become the company's head office. When the insurance company built its new headquarters at Wellington and Dufferin in 1927, the Wright family took over the building. It's been known as Wright Lithographing ever since. 

Nowadays though, it's not looking too good. Farhi Holdings has recently returned the old clock and lettering, removed a few years back due to vandalism. But it's still empty and boarded:

November 2021

Farhi Holdings bought the building in 2007. It's listed on the company website as available for lease but how much effort has the company made to find a tenant in the past 16 years? 

Well, in an interview earlier this year, Mr. Farhi mentions he sent the city an affordable housing proposal for the building. London apparently turned it down, stating other sites could contain more units. Apparently Farhi also had a letter of interest from a financial institution but the deal fell through. No other interest since 2007? Seems like it might be time to sell. 

The vandalism problem might go away if the building was occupied. If anyone lived or worked in it, they'd be keeping an eye out for vandals. Folks are vigilant about a building in which they have a vested interest. And in 2009, the company tore down a rear addition to make more parking space. So parking shouldn't be a big problem, either. 

Of course, one of the reasons for the high vacancy rate downtown was the vacancy tax break that owners of empty commercial buildings received up to 2019. That rebate was originally intended to assist property owners who were having trouble finding tenants during economic recessions. But it also created an incentive for landlords to leave buildings empty. 

But there are rumblings of new ideas to lower London's downtown vacancy rate, including a vacancy tax and land expropriation. The purpose is to "disincentivize" land speculation. 

And that's exactly what's going on with the Wright building, among others - land speculation. Farhi buys properties as an investment, with no specific plans for them, and holds them for future demolition and land reuse or a profitable resale. After being vacant for 16 years, I fear the future for Wright Lithographing is the former. 

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.

      

The London Free Press building: Adaptive Reuse?

The London Free Press building at 369 York Street is going to be renovated as Venture London, a small business and innovation hub that will support start-ups. Farhi Holdings, the current owner of the building, will partner with TechAlliance, the London Small Business Centre and the London Institute to develop the multi-million dollar renovation. The building may open as early as this year with amenities such as an indoor event space, rooftop patio, and catering facility.

According to Shmuel Farhi in a Free Press article this project will help make London's downtown "a world-class, vibrant core." I'm not sure about world-class, but reusing the Free Press building is a step in the right direct for many reasons:

1. Reusing a building conserves natural resources, since it minimizes the need for new materials. If we recycle pop cans, why not buildings? Adaptive reuse is an important aspect of the green movement. 

2. Adaptive reuse is often more economical than starting fresh. While the final bill for this project is unknowable at this point, renovation is likely cheaper than if the partners were to build from scratch. 

3. The project may help revitalize this rather uninspiring section of York Street near the railroad tracks. I often walk about downtown but, at the moment, this area doesn't have much to recommend it for a stroll.

4. The Free Press building was constructed in 1965 when the newspaper needed more space than was available at their previous Richmond and Queens location. As a mid-twentieth century building, 369 York Street has never struck me as one of London's most attractive. The refurbishment may actually make the structure more inviting. 

5. Preserving the Free Press building saves the memories of many current and former Free Press employees, who may have been saddened if their former haunt had sat empty, gradually falling down, and possibly being demolished. 

5. Finally, if successful, this renovation sets an example for future adaptive reuse projects in London. Now we just have to find new uses for Wright Lithographing, the old Central Library on Queens Avenue, closed churches, surplus schools ...

Update, March 2021: Three years later, the Free Press building is empty and unused, just like the Wright building and old Central Library.  All under the same ownership. Surprise. 

Update, May 2023: Now Farhi Landholdings intends to demolish the building. So much for adaptive reuse. While not a favourite of mine, this building created memories for many Londoners. 

Final Update, January 2024: Demolition underway. Hope this spot won't be another one of London's "temporary" parking lots. RIP. 

Snagged a photo while waiting for a train at the CNR crossing on Colborne. 

Heritage in the Core

London's Planning and Environment Committee has received  a demolition request for 199 Queens Ave., an attractive Italianate with a large ugly addition. The owner, Farhi Holdings, apparently has plans for the site. Note the building is a Priority 2 structure on London's Inventory of Heritage Resources and is located within the proposed Downtown Heritage Conservation District. Built about 1880, the structure is within walking distance of the Grand Theatre and other downtown attractions. It would make a nice setting for a classy restaurant or boutique hotel. 

Anyone concerned about this should attend the public participation meeting on the second floor of City Hall, at 7:30 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012. While Planning Committee may decide to permit demolition, partial demolition, or refuse demolition altogether, a good showing from the heritage community might tip the scale in our favour.

Update, September 25, 2012: Planning Committee has delayed a decision on this building's future for 45 days while Mr. Farihi and city staff look for a way to incorporate the old building into the proposed new highrise. Kudos to committee members for attempting to save parts of the building rather than automatically granting a demolition permit. However, if incorporating the old structure into the new one means another absurdity such as the hanging of the Talbot Block on the outside of the JLC, it might be better to demolish it. Our cultural legacy should not appear incongruous and silly.

Update, October 15, 2012: Permission has been granted to demolish the building.

Update, September 16, 2018: The site of the Hiscox house was one of the stops on the Paved Paradise walking tour, hosted by ACO London and LondonFuse at Doors Open. At right, actors Jenn Marino and Jeremy Hewitson portray Grace "Fan-Fan" Blackburn and George Hiscox. The tour Highlighted how many London landmarks have been turned into parking lots over the years. 

Update, June 2021: Farhi Holdings has applied to renew the surface parking lot for another three years. So much for building anything on the site.

A Sign of the Times

At last London City Hall plans to clamp down on "Farhi" signs. It's about time. I've been wondering for months why it was necessary for a big-time downtown landlord to let us know just how much of the city centre he owns by way of giant banners on all his properties. Sure Mr. Farhi has the right to advertise. It's just that a) many Londoners already suspect he owns nearly everything, b) he could use a little more subtlety, and c) his signs don't exactly add to the charisma of heritage buildings like Wright Lithographing. Interestingly, the banners contravene a city bylaw, but politicians have preferred looking the other way to taking on someone as apparently big and daunting as Mr. F. Trouble is, every way you look downtown there's a Farhi sign and they're getting harder to disregard.

Good News For Dundas Streetscape?

For once downtown London has some semi-positive heritage news. Two side-by-side historic gems that came close to a date with the wrecker's ball have been returned to their former glory - sort of. At least the exteriors of the Capitol Theatre and the Bowles Building have made a comeback. And rare as it is for either a developer or City Hall to be interested in heritage preservation, the $4 million bill has actually been paid by Shmuel Farhi and the City of London. In 2010, the buildings will house London's planning department, in theory a great example of adaptive reuse that will bring white-collar workers to the heart of downtown. Well that's a good idea - city staff should be confronted with the near-emptiness of Dundas Street on a daily basis. Maybe they'll feel the urge to do something about our wasteland main street.

Unfortunately, it's not the entire Capitol Theatre that's being preserved, just its front. In 2008 an architect determined the facade was worth saving for its ornate stonework. The old theatre itself, including its mirrored lobby, had already been demolished to make way for yet another rear-of-Dundas parking lot in 2006.

So we have an example of what's been called "facadism" - demolishing a building but leaving its facade. London has jumped on the facadism bandwagon in recent years - witness the Delta London Armouries and the old Talbot streetscape clinging to the JLC. This practice may be seen as a new compromise between property developers and preservationists - but the so-called preservation is only superficial and the buildings only mock-historic. The Armouries and the Talbot bricks now have a "stuck-on" effect, since taller buildings have been constructed behind them without any setback. And the contrast between the modern and Victorian styles is so great that the effect belittles the new architecture as well as the old.

Some world cities, like Paris and Melbourne, have actively discouraged facadism. I know, this isn't Paris. But if the Capitol/Bowles preservation is the way the wagon's going, it might be better for London to jump off.

 

Update - September 2012: As it turned out, not even the original facade was preserved. What we see now is a completely new front made to look like the original. The facade was deemed to be past the point where it could be saved. 

Update - May 2016 - In London's latest example of facadism, check out what used to be Kingsmill's.