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.

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. 

Kent Brewery: An Un-hoppy Tale

York Developments proposes to construct a highrise at the southeast corner of St. George and Ann Streets. The building, shaped like an H, would be as high as 22 storeys at its east end and cater mainly to students. The ground floor would contain commercial space and, supposedly, a craft brewery. 

There are many reasons not to build here, as indicated by City Planning Department:

1. The development does not conform to the 1989 Official Plan.

2.The development does not conform to the 2016 London Plan, due to the proposed density on the site. 

3.The development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement of 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations while conserving heritage resources.

4.The development is near a rail corridor (the CPR) and does not have enough mitigating measures to protect against a possible train derailment, let alone everyday annoyances such as noise and vibrations. York has suggested a crash wall would be integrated into the building design ... somewhere. 

5.The development would mean the demolition or removal of structures on the city's heritage inventory. 

Let's take a closer look at the more important buildings on the site:

March 2021

197 Ann Street, the Kent Brewery, is on the city's register of Cultural Heritage Resources. One of the first breweries in London, it was built and originally operated by Marshall and Hammond. Later it was operated by John Hamilton from 1861 to 1887 and his son Joseph from 1887 to 1916 when it closed due to Prohibition. One of the oldest brewery buildings in Canada, it's also one of the oldest industrial structures in the neighbourhood. By the way, it was named after Kent, England, from where the brewery imported its hops.* Cool, eh?

March 2021

183 Ann Street, the Queen Anne style house next door, was the brewer's residence, making this a rare example of an early brewing site where both the brewery and the brewer's home remain. (The only other example in Canada is apparently Alexander Keith's in Halifax.) Yes, the Labatt and Carling families lived next to their breweries but those homes are gone. This house was built by Joseph Hamilton in 1893, replacing an earlier frame building on the site in which his father lived and died. This beautiful brick home is an indication of the brewery's success. 

March 2021

Tiny 179 Ann Street, also a Hamilton family home, is the next building to the west. Built before 1881, it was home to Joseph Hamilton from 1887 to 1890. A typical late 19th-century worker's cottage, it features a bay window on the east side.

Ann and St. George is not an HCD. And, as I've mentioned before, London City Council has been known to vote against Planning Department's recommendations. The City often touts the official plan but doesn't follow its rules. So the developer might be asked to merely retain facades. Or be given the go ahead to move the structures. Or to demolish them completely. 

But the structures don't appear in poor condition and still have apartments. Undoubtedly, 197 and 183 should be designated. They might be moved, but shouldn't be moved far, since they're still on their original site. And 197 might make a great craft brewery again, being a short distance from Richmond Row, Party Central. 

The preliminaries, including possible designation, begin tonight, April 25, when Planning and Environment Committee meets. Stay tuned. 

Update, April 26: Last evening, PEC voted to grant a heritage designation to the former brewery buildings. York Developments offered to relocate at least the main brewery building itself. 

According to this, two PEC councilors don't think heritage counts for much. Surprise. In the end, the committee voted to send York's application back to city staff. But the designation does mean York Developments will have to try harder to incorporate the buildings into their plans. 

Update, April 30, 2025: York has requested demolition of the buildings from 175 to 197 Ann Street and 84-86 St. George Street.  To do this, they have appealed the designation to the Ontario Land Tribunal. There will be a Public Participation meeting about this site at City Hall on May 21. 

Update, May 20, 2025: York has decided these six buildings mean absolutely nothing, but they can satisfy the heritage buffs by saving a few light fixtures, wooden windows and doors, etc., and incorporating them into whatever they build on the site.  Some questions: 

1. Exactly how stupid do they think we are? Heritage conservationists can tell the difference between real old buildings and crap that incorporates a few bits and pieces saved from what was there before.

2. What's the point in a heritage designation if any developer can come along and ask for an exception?

3. What's the matter with London anyway? Why can't Council demand a creative way to incorporate the old buildings into whatever York builds on the spot?

Update, May 22, 2025: Not surprisingly, Planning Committee voted 4-1 to allow demolition via a "heritage alteration permit," which basically translates to "knock it down but save a few bits to make it look like we care about that silly heritage thing." Mayor Morgan, and  Councillors Lehman, Cuddy, and Hillier voted in favour. Councillor Peloza opposed. Lewis absent. Remember this next election. 

Update, June 6, 2025: Council has voted to demolish. 

Just found this description that appeared in the March 5, 1861, London Prototype and Daily Western Advocate, reproduced as a Western Ontario History Nugget (No. 13) in 1947. Note the inclusion of a previously unmentioned partnership:

"Dundas and Philips, proprietors, Ann street, off Richmond street; formerly the firm of Marshall and Hammond. The brewery has been very successful since its establishment, and there are enlargements and additions being constantly made to it. With the present spirited proprietors, and the large demand for brown stout and amber ale, we have every reason to believe that the Kent Brewery will steadily and successfully progress. Private families and hotel keepers are supplied with the best ales and porter, at the shortest notice, and upon the most reasonable terms."

Update, January 2026: You'll never believe this, but the old Kent brewery has just burned down. See here for details. I suppose it won't be long before this burns down too. 

As of March 2026, this is what the location looks like. London, Ontario's idea of progress.

* For more information on this and other local breweries, see Glen C. Phillips, On Tap: The Odyssey of Beer and Brewing in Victorian London-Middlesex. Sarnia: Cheshire Cat Press, 2000.