heritage designation: a national perspective · national historic site designation, a distinction...

Does Designation Work? Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme Symposium. March 26th 2011,

Ottawa. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University.

1

Heritage Designation: A National Perspective

Heritage Canada Foundation: Natalie Bull, Executive Director & Chris Wiebe, Manager of Heritage Policy and Government Relations

2011

Summary report written by Amy Barnes

Introduction

The Heritage Canada Foundation (HCF) is a non-

profit, membership-based organization which works

on a national level to protect Canada’s historic places

so that they may be enjoyed by future generations.

HCF annually publishes a list of the top 10 most

endangered historic places in Canada as part of a

public awareness and educational campaign. As HCF

works at the national level, the purpose of this

presentation is to highlight some of the issues and

challenges with designation using four real life cases

from across Canada. Although designation is

generally analyzed and applied at a local level, within

very specific local policies and frameworks, it is

important to share how similar issues play out across

the national landscape.

Landmarks become Landfill

Figure 1

At HCF, much work goes into to analyzing and

understanding how some of Canada’s most

prominent, as well as lesser-known, yet dearly loved,

landmarks become landfill (Figure 1). HCF’s

primary goal is to find compatible solutions that can

be applied at all three jurisdictional levels (local,

provincial and national). As all three levels of

government play a role in the planning, management

and protection of heritage assets, the solutions must

work within those particular frameworks.

Tools and Measures

Figure 2

Several different tools are employed coast-to-coast to

help communities protect, promote and manage their

heritage resources (Figure 2- “Sticks”). There are also

a multitude of incentives which can be employed to

encourage such protective measures (Figure 2-

“Carrots”). Designation is a tool that is commonly

used and will be the focus of our conversation today.

It must also be stated that strong leadership is a

critical part of making sure that the tools being used

are enforced (Figure 2- “Leadership”). Local leaders

have a profound effect on the landscape and how

designation is, or is not, enforced. For all of its

positive assets, designation can impose limitations as

it plays out in the real world, and the heritage

community needs to be informed of how they might

plan ahead or seek to avoid problems that other

communities have encountered.



2

Designation: Limitations and Issues

Figure 3

Figure 3 is a list of limitations and issues which can

play a negative role in the designation process. It is

not exhaustive and in no particular order. The first

four points are all centred on the reality that

designation functions within a legal context, but is

not necessarily a legally-binding agreement. As the

following case studies shall demonstrate, even when

a proper designation is in place, there are many

examples of de-designation being approved to allow

for major changes to the property- and in some

unfortunate cases, its complete demolition.

In many cases, designation is imposed on a property

rather than being actively sought by the owner. When

designation goes against owner consent, it may not

create a positive relationship and therefore can

present a major issue in the enforcement of

designation and property maintenance.

Designation exists within larger market forces, and

planning measures play a significant role in how it is

understood and managed by communities. For

example, a designated building that is 5 or 6 stories

might be subject to zoning which actually allows for

a 20-storey structure. It seems logical that developers

will look to maximize earning potential and therefore

seek to develop to the maximum allowance. In some

cases, designation may make heritage properties a

target as developers see the potential profit in

maximizing the legally-allowable development of the

property. From this perspective, obtaining the proper

building permits is often perceived as a larger

challenge than overturning a heritage designation.

As the sixth point alludes to, designation imposes

limitations on alteration and demolition, but does not

necessarily enforce maintenance and ongoing

investment in ensuring the longevity of the resource.

All of these issues can make properties less attractive

for investment and less likely to remain a viable

resource. Furthermore, the limited scope of what

designation is typically concerned with (exteriors)

sends a message to the developer that this part of the

resource is the only concern. This has the effect of

limiting the perceived significance of the intangible

or historical elements that are also important and

associated with the property.

Many have raised concerns that the alteration review

process remains inconsistent. Many outsiders view

the designation and alteration process as being an

unscientific, inconsistent and subjective process. In

effect, this does not send a positive message or

reinforce what is trying to be achieved through

designation. Disagreement and differing approaches

are not isolated to outsiders: as in the case of Port

Dalhousie, some of the most prominent heritage

professionals disagreed with what approach was best.

Within the field of heritage there is a wide spectrum

of opinion on how we approach alterations. This is an

area that can cause great concern with regard to

overturning designations, and will often create a

negative ripple effect.

Highlighting Limitations and Issues through Four Cases Studies

Case Study #1

Figure 4

The first case study deals with two churches in the

Lakeshore District near Windsor, Ontario (Figure 4).

With declining congregation numbers, the Diocese

proposed closing the two churches to create one new

church to serve the local community. When the desire

to abandon the historic churches was made publically

known, the local community formed a group called

“SOS L’Eglise” and requested formal designation

under the Ontario Heritage Act, against the wishes of



3

the Diocese. The local town Council not only refused

the request for designation, but went on to pass a By-

law stating that the property owner had to propose

designation before it would be considered by

Council. This decision had far-reaching implications

as it attempted to enshrine the need for owner consent

for heritage designation. When a demolition permit

was issued for one of the churches, the local group

took the town Council to court. An interesting

decision followed.

In a three-judge divisional court panel, the town was

ordered to reconsider the designation. The judges

found that by refusing to designate without owner

consent, and by further more passing the By-law,

Council had demonstrated “patent unreasonableness”.

The judge went on to say that Council had acted in a

manner inconsistent with the overall objectives and

intent of the Ontario Heritage Act. After discussion

between local groups and Council, and following

recommendations by the Conservation Review

Board, the churches were eventually designated.

This particular case highlights several important

issues. Firstly, many jurisdictions have policies that

do not allow designation in the face of owner

objection. In these situations owner’s consent may

never materialize or resources are lost while waiting

for it. Consent, which is ideal, is not always

achievable. Secondly, there is power in the people.

This case highlights that you can beat City Hall and

the religious establishment.

Read more about this case online:

Report by the Ontario Superior Divisional Court:

http://www.ocol-

clo.gc.ca/html/diocese_london_2003_05_06_e.php

Conservation Review Boards report on the issues

surrounding the “Intent to Designate” (Case 0353):

visit http://www.crb.gov.on.ca and type Case # 0353

into the search box.

Case Study #2

Figure 5

The second case study takes us to the West Coast of

Canada and also deals with alterations, consent and

designation. Rogers Chocolates, in Victoria BC, is a

tiny store, less than 1000 square feet in total (Figure

5). It has always been used as a chocolate shop and

has a strong history within the community. Both the

interior and exterior of the building have received

National Historic Site designation, a distinction

which provides commemorative, but not protective,

status. In this case, the owners wished to expand the

store by pushing back the rear wall, effectively

doubling its area. The design proposal was deemed

an “unacceptable alteration” by the City’s heritage

staff and the City moved to place a 16-day stop order

on the work, providing time to determine a course of

action by the municipality. If they decided to

designate, it would be the first designation in Victoria

without owner’s consent, and the first involving a

commercial interior.

The case could result in financial compensation by

the BC government to the property owners, since the

designation could result in commercial property loss,

anticipated at upwards of $500,000 to $2 million. In

spite of the massive financial implications, the

decision was made to designate the building. Council

passed a special Bylaw to allow access to financial

incentives and proposed an alternative design that

allowed for increased space but reduced impact on

the heritage character. The owner rejected the new

proposal and the case went to arbitration. The

decision favoured the owners and the City was forced

to pay over $600,000 in compensation and 80% of

the lawyer’s fees. This case study highlights the

financial risk that is involved when a decision of this

magnitude to made, but it also demonstrates the

effect of ‘designation chill’. It further highlights the

importance of collaboration between property owners

http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/diocese_london_2003_05_06_e.php

http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/diocese_london_2003_05_06_e.php

http://www.crb.gov.on.ca/



4

and City Council to create good designs that can

facilitate the goals of owners, while simultaneously

having the least impact on heritage character.

Read more about this case study on the Heritage

BC website: http://www.heritagebc.ca

Case Study #3

Figure 6

The third case study takes us to Moose Jaw,

Saskatchewan. In the last few years, the City has

been disposing of heritage buildings to allow for new

development. For many properties, designation is

often the only form of protection.

Located a half an hour west of Regina, Moose Jaw

has benefitted from Main Street project initiatives

that were established in the 1980s. At one point, the

city had not only a remarkable building stock but also

one of the highest ratios of original buildings of the

larger regions in Canada. During Prohibition in the

1920s, much liquor was run across the Canadian-US

border. The town assumed a quaint “mini Chicago”

identity which to this day is romanticized to a certain

degree. Using historical animators, the famous Moose

Jaw tunnels have played up this layer of history for

tourist, although many of the city’s buildings reflect

this era as well. Sadly, in the last few years, a whole

host of de-listings in and around Main Street have

taken place, and it seems as if the city has lost its

historical compass.

It appears that in Moose Jaw, not all designations are

created equal. Although Main Street (Figure 6 -

bottom left) is sacrosanct, many of the buildings

around it have been left open to demolition and/or

further development. This includes River Street,

home to much of the booze and risky illegal business

which took place in the 1920s. River Street is now

the focus of major re-development, despite the fact

that the buildings are the original embodiment of the

City’s historic identity so popular with tourists.

The designated Brunswick Hotel (Figure 6- top left)

is the site where the historic papers incorporating the

town of Moose Jaw were signed in 1903. Its 1997

Statement of Significance further outlined the

architectural and streetscape value of this heritage

resource. In 2009, a developer in concert with the

city, called for demolition of the Hotel, along with 15

other historic buildings on River Street to make way

for a massive two square block casino, hotel and

sports multi-complex. The new development was

intended to recreate River Street with a “historic

roaring twenties” feel and historic façades.

The developer argued for demolition on the grounds

that the buildings’ current condition made them

structurally unsound. This argument was based

solely on a visual analysis. Local heritage advocates

took the de-listing to the Saskatchewan Heritage

Property Review Board. The Review Board vocalized

their opposition of the de-listing based on a limited

analysis of the true structural condition of building,

and also criticized the Council’s lack of plan to

manage the larger context of heritage resources in

Moose Jaw. Similar to other jurisdictions, the Review

Board’s decision is non-binding and Council is in no

way obligated to follow through on their

recommendations. Sadly, the demolition went ahead

as seen in the photo (Figure 6- right). The local

heritage community was quite discouraged by this

massive loss, as all effort to develop and implement

responsible heritage policies throughout the 1980s

and 90s were essentially swept away in a single

move.

Case Study #4 Much like our third case study, Winnipeg has also

disposed of many heritage buildings to allow for

modern development. This final case study

emphasizes how even heritage designation along with

a secondary plan in place to protect resources may

not be enough. Political will and leadership to

enforce these are essential.

http://www.heritagebc.ca/



5

Figure 7

In recent years, the economic upswing of Winnipeg

has resulted in great changes to the city. While there

has been careful management of the historic

Exchange District, the areas around it have not been

given the same planning and management

consideration, and a number of buildings on Main

Street have been demolished.

Elsewhere in the city a residential property,

Dennistoun House, faced a de-listing request (Figure

7- bottom left). Built in 1877, this Tudor style

building in the Osborne area is one of the oldest

houses in the district, and speaks to the area’s historic

residential era. When a developer came forward with

a proposal to de-list and build a 12-storey condo

tower with 74 units, the Osborne Village

Neighbourhood Association believed that both the

designation and secondary plan put together in 2007

would provide adequate protection. The plan

specifically stated that heritage resources shall only

be considered for demolition as a last resort, and only

be considered when 1) the building was determined

to be structurally unsound, and 2) the economic

viability the building was no longer possible. The

case ended up before the Manitoba Court of Appeal,

where residents based their case on arguing the de-

listing as an unfair process. The residents claimed

that the secondary plan should have precedence and

recommended that the reasons for de-listing did not

meet the terms of the secondary plan. This argument

was rejected by the judge, who stated that Council

and Committee did not need to provide any written

reason about how or why they came to the decisions

regarding the building. The Dennistoun House was

delisted and is slated for immanent demolished.

Moving Forward

These case studies serve as reminders that the

designation system in place in Canada does not

provide the adequate protection that is generally

assumed. They also highlight that without strong

leadership and a political willingness to enforce these

policies, there are always ways of getting around any

protective measure we have at our disposal.

The idea of how the heritage community views

easements is an area that we should re-examine; we

need to start looking at this tool as a gift. For

example within the environmental movement there is

the eco-gift program. Owners can donate easements

on ecologically sensitive lands in exchange for a tax

benefit; in essence it is treated as a donation. We

should be moving towards this approach within the

heritage movement. A more aggressive approach

would be a national level income tax-based incentive.

At the provincial level, it could be a property tax-

based program. Easements are used in many other

countries in the environmental sphere and it makes

sense to think about how this could be applied to

heritage properties as well.

There is also a need to make heritage designation a

more desirable and attractive option. One way to do

this is to have a captivating brand associated with

heritage. For example, despite LEED’s shortcoming,

it does provide a positive brand with industry and

with the public. There is also a need to create a

market demand for small space. Often our older

building stock consists of small spaces. Encouraging

government to put in place policies that favour using

heritage buildings for accommodation and hosting

events or meetings instead of using only newer

buildings would go a long way to the conservation of

these unique spaces. This is an important measure

that might do more than designation in terms of

protection, as it ensures that they remain viable and

used.

There are many lessons to be learned from the

environmental movement. This movement has made

their processes more scientific, less personal and less

objective, which is a constant criticism of our current

designation system. Changing our approach ensures

we all speak the same language, and raises the bar of

professionalism. This will work to give the field more

credibility and consistency. There are many avenues

we can use to move our field forward, and we must

continue to learn and adapt.

heritage designation: a national perspective · national historic site designation, a distinction...

Documents