HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - HIA - City Centre (Formerly Known as Centre Block) - Proposed Site Re-development1
~r~~erna~~Nlemo
I~[TCHEI~?ER. Comm~rnity Services Department www.krtther-er.ta
Date: May 25, 2011
To: Heritage Kitchener Committee
From: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
cc:
Subject: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment -Proposed City Centre Development
Heritage Planning Staff are in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated April 1,
2011 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., for the proposed City Centre
Development. The HIA was received on May 20, 2011. The subject City Centre property
encompasses lands municipally addressed 31 Young Street (the former site of the Forsyth Shirt
Factory), 11 Young Street (the former Mayfair Hotel), and 156-158 King Street West (the former
Hymmen Hardware Building). The City has published a Notice of Intent to Designate 11 Young
Street and 156-158 King Street West.
A Heritage Impact Assessment was made a requirement of the submission of any Site Plan
Application made for development on the subject property. Terms of Reference for the HIA were
prepared by City Staff in response to a Site Plan Pre-Submission Consultation meeting
considering the first of a proposed three phase development. The HIA prepared by The
Landplan Collaborative Ltd. appears to address all three phases of the proposed development
(with phase three impacting the former Mayfair and Hymmen Hardware buildings). It should be
noted that in addition to the approval of an HIA, the City will be requiring the submission and
approval of a Conservation Plan as part of the consideration of any formal Site Plan Application
made that includes the former Mayfair Hotel and Hymmen Hardware buildings.
The focus of this subject HIA is the broader impacts of the proposed development on the
identified cultural heritage resources. Staff will be preparing a report to Council this Fall advising
on proceeding with the passage of by-laws having the effect of de-designating 31 Young Street
(given the demolition of the Forsyth Shirt Factory) and formally designating 11 Young Street (the
former Mayfair Hotel) and 156-158 King Street West (the former Hymmen Hardware Building).
Committee members are reminded that a Heritage Permit Application will be required prior to
the owner undertaking making any change to the heritage attributes of the former Mayfair Hotel
and Hymmen Hardware buildings.
It is anticipated that formal Site Plan Applications may be made in the next several weeks.
Given Heritage Kitchener does not meet in July and August, a presentation on the draft HIA is
being made to Committee at the June 7t" meeting. Heritage Planning Staff are seeking the
Committee's comments and input.
6-1
f~ ~~o
~~ __
°~ ~,:
.~ _
~:- ~
Heritage Impact Assessment .;
~~.T"P _
City Centre Development '
Kitchener _ ~,~,.. v ~~ 3
•~~ ~
~.
H,. -
T ~ ~*a m
~~ ~ ~~.a
rw
~ ""
~ <.
„ ° • ;;
,;~ ~~
~o
~ '"
~.
~"° -
r
~. ~ n ~ ,
~ a~~ ~ ~~ ~ro.m
:. ~~
~ .. ~, ~"~, j°~
~'
,~
' ~~~ ,~, ~
~ r~
' 1~ 1'4~ i
ist,. -r
1 ~.5 '~'~ i x#3.;1.2 :4 ~'h~. , ~~ ~ , 3~
f.. __
i~~ ~`• ~~
~~ o~ ~"
~~~ ~' 151• ~ ~ ~"' r
s~ ~ '
~~ ~~"
u ~ _
~ ~~~~ • ~ 1~~3
s" 1~,~
.e•~ p.- ~- ~g ° ~ ° ,LL', 1'03 9 ~' a. ~ ' ~~ ~a
-'~ a , ~,.
#3 ~
~~~r''~,,, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
~;~ landscape architects, environmental planners, heritage Manners
~~~ 319 Wool«ich Street, Guelph, ON N1H 3W4 (~ 19) 824-8664 fai (519) 824-6776
landpl~uyu?thelandpl~ui.com ~~~s~ti.thelandplan.com
2°`~ DRAFT April 1, 20ll
6- 2
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elopment- Kitchener
Table of Contents
1.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................. 1
2.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) REQUIREMENTS ........................... 1
2.1 Present owner contact infornation ............................................. 1
2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and
heritage attributes .................................................... ...... 3
2.3.1 E~istinQ Structures on the Property
11 Young Street (formerly- 164 King Street West) ..................... ...... 5
156-1~8 King Street West ........................................ ..... 12
2.3.2 Ezistin~ Listed Properties adjacent to the Property
144-1~0 King Street West (Weber Chambers) ........................ ..... 1~
140-142 King Street West ........................................ ..... 18
Capital Theatre building, 90 King Street West ........................ ..... 19
72-78 King Street West ,the `Canadian Block' ....................... ..... 20
82-86 hing Street West .......................................... ..... 21
200 King Street West, City Hall ................................... ..... 22
2.3.3 Conclusions re~ar~ the significance and heritage attributes of the
cultural hei7ta~e resource(s) ...................................... ..... 24
2.4 Documentation of the heritage resource(s) ................................. ..... 24
2.~ The proposed development and potential heritage impacts ..................... ..... 24
2.6 Conservation option(s) ................................................. ..... 31
2.7 Suimmai~- of conservation principles ...................................... ..... 32
2.8 Proposed alterations and demolitions eiplained ............................. ..... 33
2.9 Recommendations .................................................... ..... 33
2.10 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage hnpact Assessment ......... ..... 33
3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........... ..... 33
4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION ......................................... ..... 34
REFERENCES ......................................................................... 3~
All photographs taken by the author on September 17, 2010 unless otherwise attributed.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-3
Appendix 1 -City of Iitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of~Reference, City Centre Develo~rnent,
March 30, 2010
Appendix 2 -Cite of Kitchener Centre Block-Heritage Analysis, September 200
Appendix 3 - Citti- of kitchener Council Mirrz~tes, selected Reports Adopted b~- Council, November 24, 2008
Appendix ~ - 11 Yozang Street -The Mayfair Hotel and 1 ~6 - 1 ~8 King ~S'n~~eet Fxisti~g Plans aid Elevations,
Quadrangle Architects Limited. 2010-O1-OS
Appendix ~ -The Mayfair Hotel -Project Statistics and Proposed Floor Plans, Quadrangle Architects Limited,
18 Februai~~ 2011
Appendix 6 -Qualifications of the author
~ss~~~cAr 1
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-4
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
1.0 BACKGROUND -REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA)
Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that Cit<~ of Kitchener Council shall have regard to matters of Provnicial
interest such as the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or
scientific interest. In addition, Section 3 ofthe PlanningActrequiresthat decisions of Council shall be consistent
~~~ith the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS requires that significant built heritage
resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.
The PPS defines ``builtheritageresource" asone ormore significantbuildings, structures, monuments, installations
or remains associated with arclutectt~ral, cultural, social, political economic or militai~- histoi~- and identified as
being impoi~vit to a community . These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation
easement under the OntaF°io Heritage Act, or listed by local provincial or federal Jurisdictions. The tei7n
'`significant" means resources valued for the important contribution the~~~ make to our understanding ofthe histoi~T
of a place, an event, or a people. ``Conseived'~ means the identification, protection, use and/or management of
cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are
retained. This maybe addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment.
This HIA is in response to pre-submission consultation comments (City of KitchenerRecord ofPre-submission
Consultation, City Centre Development, Februan- 23, 2010) and City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment
Terms ofReference, City Centre Development, March 30, 2010.
The applicant is proposing a missed (sic) use development including 391 residential condominium
units, a central amenity area, live work units and streetfronting retail on King ~S'treetas well as the
incorporation of the heritage buildings at 11 yozrng (sic) Street and 1 ~6-1 ~8 Kind Street.
Heritage conservation is an essential component in the consideration for redevelopment of lands
within the Downtown Core. Section 8.1.7 of the Official Plan indicates that in order to promote
residential development, heritage conservation and the provision of open space amenities maximum
,floor space ratios may be increased through bonusing outlined in the Zoning By-law.
In addition, the lands are also located within the City's Ciry Centre Design District. The Official
Plan has very detailed design policies for this district with respect to style of building, heritage
buildings, building heightand form, streetscapes, storefronts and signage as indicted in ~S'ection 9.3
(I) Cite Centre District ~
The subject property encompasses in part lands municipally- addressed 31 Young Street (the former site of the
Fors~~h Shirt Factoi-~-). 11 Young Street (the former Mayfair Hotel), and 1~6-158 King Street West (the foi7ner
Hymmen Hardware Building). The property municipally addressed 31 Young Street is currently designated under
Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, however all the buildings and structures on the property have been
demolished. Some materials fi-om the former Forsyth Factoi-~T building ~~~ere salvaged at the trine of demolition,
and there is City Council direction that the histor<- of the buildings and property be honoured by having the
ar clutecture of the buildings reflected in the new development on the property through the use of salvaged and
retanied materials. A Notice of Intent to Designate (under Part IV of the Ontario Het°itage Act) has been passed
i C'irf~ ofhitchenerRecor°d of Pr°e-S'z~Umzssiot~ C'ot~sz~ltcrtion -Meeting: Februai~- 23, 2010
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-5
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
for properties municipall~T addressed 11 Young Street and 156-158 King Street West. In addition, the subject
property is located immediately- adjacent 90 King Street West and 144-150 King Street West, both of«-hich have
been listed by Council on the Municipal Heritage Register asNon-Designated property- of Cultural Heritage Value
or Interest.,
2.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Present applicant contact information
Andrin City- Centre One Limited
26 Lesmill Road. Unit 3
Toronto, ON M3B 2T5
Ms. Anne Marchildon
V.P. Sales & Marketing
2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes
Buildings and structures on the subject property, 31 Young Street have been demolished, although the property-
is currently designated under Part IV of the Omar iv Heritage Act. Non-Designated property- of Cultural Heritage
Value or lnterest at 11 Young Street and 156-158 King Street West are on the subject property - aNotice of liltent
to Designate (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) has been passed for the these. The buildings at 144-150
Icing Street West and 140-142 King Street West are adjacent. The former is listed, the latter is not.
Immediately adjacent to and across the streets fi-om the subject property are other Non-Designated properties of
Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, namely: 90 King Street West, 200 King Street West (Gift- Hall), 87-91 King
Street West, 93-95 King Street West, 97-99 King Street West. 103-107 King Street West.
A Centre Block-Heritage Analysis (see Appendix 2) was prepared in September, 2005 from data collected in
August 2005. The infoi7nation in that anals-sis identified those properties in the Centre Block which are or may
potentially be ofheritage interest to the Cite of Kitchener. The anal~Tsis segregated properties into four categories:
fonnall~- designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, listed on the Cit~-'s Heritage Inventory as being of cultural
heritage interest but not designated, «orth~r of consideration for listing on the Heritage Inventor-, and ~s~orthv of
further investigation and evaluation to establish heritage interest.
Since that analysis «%as prepared, the onhT designated structures on the subject lands, the former Fors~~th Shirt
Factor- and John Forss~th Co./Sms~th Residence hasre been demolished. Also since that anals-sis, Kitchener Cits-
Hall, 72-78 King Street West. 82-86 King Street West. 83-85 King Street West, and 87-91 King Street West have
been added to the list of `Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest', all in 2009 or 2010
(Figure 1).
- Czt7~ ofhitchenerHeritage Impact~~ssessnzentTernrs of~Zeference, City Cej~tr°e Development, March 30.2Q 10 -
(Appendil 1)
~ C'itJ~ o 'Kitchener 11lza~icz gal Her°ita >e Re =ia~ter, Index o ~~on- Desi Hated Pro ernes o Her°itcr =e T'crlr~e or
f ~ b ~ f~ g p f ~
Interest, Febn~ary 12, 2010
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-6
Heritage Impact Assessment 3
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
Figure 1 Subject Propern~ and Heritage Contest (http://maps.re~ion.waterloo.on.ca/locator/locator.hhn)
`i ":. r ~+1'~,4 124 yvi ~~ ~k ,~, 'F ~Y_ ~~ ~,..
r
F __ ~- , t ~ I :144 F 73 +`' `'k' r
~, • ,.
~, ~" ~.
... .
,, ~.~,°
'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J
4
w ,:. ~ .~
g3
.•
,~..a. ~ _ ~ ~' ; ~ ~~~ ~-
-` ~ w ,~ ~ ,~ °~,. ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 42 ~ ~ 144 ~ , . ,,,
~4 '• r a ~ r~ ~~.. 4Sr ~ y b:
LL.
a 5 ." i
.y~
,; ~ .. a.
w ~ o-:.
yb.:.
a
_~
y~~~~~
rr~;.. "~
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-7
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
Figure 2
King Street West.. 197
(httu://danfisher.or~/untitled l l.hhnl)
4
Figure 2 shoe s the Ma~~fair Hotel in the left foreground. Mund~-s and Young Land are in the first buildings, ~~ith
the Palladium restaurant in the Weber Chambers building. Note the second floor restaurant sign. BeSond are the
Lvric and Caaital Theatres. The building housing the L~-ric has since been demolished.
Figure 3
King Street West c. 1962
(http: //ima Qes. ourontario. ca/kitchener/ )
Figure 3 sho~~~s King Street West looking to~~~ards Young Street. The entrance to the Ma~Tfair Hotel is in the
foreground of image. The storefronts for Bat<2 Shoes and Birks Je~~-ellers are just past the hotel (no~~~ the site of
Kitchener Cit<- Hall). Signs for Household Finance Corporation Loans (HFC), and Shand Bo~~-ling are in the
background.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-8
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
Figure 4
140-lib King Street West, and 11 Young Street, c. 1958
(http: //images. ourontario. ca/kitchener/)
~ ~ T~
Figure 5
King Street. 1910 (Herb Ahrens)
I<i Figure ~ above -left to right are: the Mayfair Hotel, Hvrnrnen Hardware, Palladium Restaurant in Weber
Chambers building - (2"`~ floor restaurant sign [see Figure 2] has been removed), and Lillian's Children Centre.
In Figure 5 above, King Street busuiesses starting atYoung Street, fi-om left to right, are Edward Lippert Furniture,
Peter H~anmen Hardware, Weber Chambers ~ti ith the Singer Se~~=ing Shop, Waldschmidt Grocers, the Grand Union
Hotel, Stieler and Seibert Tailors. and the Daily Telegraph.` The only buildings remaining today are the first four
listed, the others having been demolished.
2.3.1 Existing Structures on the Property
11 Young Street (formerly 164 King Street West)
11 Young Street was built in 1905 by Edward Lippert (1873-1930 to
sell furniture (Lippert's Home Furnishilig Co., 1905 to 1976) ~ ~ ~.
Lippert was a prominent manufacturer, merch~uit, hotelier and citi<r
builder, and a member of a prominent Berlin/Kitchener family.
Edward's father, George Lippert Sr. carne from Gei7nanv to Wall~erton
~ Mills, Rvch, Images of C'a~~ada, hitchenerBerizf~, 1880-1960 Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco. CA, p. 75
~ Lippert Uenealogti~ - http://retirees.u~~,~aterloo.ca/~ienti~/Lippertlihnl, accessed August 30, 2010
~ 1881 Census of Berlin. Waterloo, Ontario (S 158j, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Libran~ and Archie-es Canada
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-9
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
to Kitchener. The 1881 Census lists his occupation as carpenter. In 1893 he partnered ~yith Hem-y- Schaefer at
Woeller-Bolduc furniture factor- al~d in 1899, started his o«m Lippert Furniture Co. on Louisa and Ahrens Streets
in Kitchener. It closed in the early 1930s. Ed~yard's older brother, George Lippert operated the Geo J. Lippert
Table Company on Michael Street `~ 8.
Edward Lippert ryas born in Preston in 1873 and learned the upholstering trade at a young age.' Prior to starting
Lippert's Home Furnishing Co., he had been buying and selling real estate in Calgai~-10. He operated a retail
furniture and undertal~ilig business at 11 Young Street from 190, investing in other Berlin real estate, buying the
Bruns~yick House opposite and converting it into the Windsor Hotel. He also built a ne~y block of buildings on
King Street between Francis and Water Streets where he began a new furniture business. In 1920 he sold his
furniture business and converted 11 Young Street into the Windsor Annex Apartments. In 1929, he added three
storeys to the top of the building and opened the Mayfair Hotel on September 11 r'' of that year. Lippert served on
Kitchener City Council in the 1930s. Through his efforts to lo~~-er tales in Kitchener, the Kitchener Taipayers'
Association ryas organized. He resigned from Council due to illness ttyo months before his death in 193."
According to the City of Kitchener C'ev~tre Block-He>itage Analysis, 11 Young Street «-as also occupied by C. L.
Moser & Sons, di-~- goods, etc. (1924-25) and Ligget's Dn~g Store (1933-1946)',.
``Architecturally, the original three store~~ 190 brown brick building features elements ofthe Renaissance Revival
Style; a style that seas revived in commercial buildings, banks, and offices in mans- urban centres from c.1870 to
1910. Features on the former Ma~~~fair Hotel which are characteristic of the columnar variety of the Renaissance
Revival style include the arched ~yindow openings with elaborate voussoirs, brick pilasters, and detailed corbelling
atop the third storey. The 1929 three storey upper addition built by Ball Brothers Ltd., is similarly foi7nal in
balance and harmonious in composition. It is constructed ofyello~y brick and features design elements consistent
~yith the Art Deco style. including most notably cast concrete cartouche pilaster capitals and ~yindo~y comer
Lippert Genealogy -http://retirees.u«~aterloo.ca/~ienti~/Lippert.hhnl, accessed August 30, 2010
George J. Lippert «Tas my great-grandfather. He founded the company on Michael Street in Berlin early in the
centui-~-. Early in their history they also made caskets and operated what ~~°as then the Lippert-Gnahn Funeral
Home on Queen St (at .Toseph). Evenh~allj- the plant would employ as mane as 75 craftsmen, mane German
carvers and they became known for yen- high quality hard ~~~oods and grandfather clocks (the one in the lobby
of the Ratz-Bechtel fimeral home is a Lippert). Ultimately the compan~~ failed to recognize and respond to
consumer trends. As popular taste hirned to mass-produced, bond, clean designs -the companti~ continued to
manufachire heavier, darker 'old-~~~orld' fiirniture. They ~~~ould go out of business in the SOs. Because the
comp~uiy's production ~i~as limited (even compared to some of he other local manufachirers like Krug) there is
a small, but passionate interest in fi~rniture today, particularl~~ the clocks. David Lippert
http://«'w~~.efi-costarica.corn/~eor~e-i-lippert-ltd.html, accessed August 30, 2010
~ S'tczternet~t o Cultural Her°itcr e i ~rhre & Descri ~tion o Her°itn =e Ath°zbzrtes 11 Fo7rn = S'ti°eet For~~ier llm~ air
f <g' ~ f <~ <~ ~ ( f
Hotel), City- of Kitchener, n.d.
10 Uttlev, William Velores. A Hzstor7~ of hztcher~er°, Ohtar zo. p. 360
ii ~S'tatemer~tofCrrltzrra]Her°itage T nlrre &Deseriptior~ ofHerztage attributes 11 I-orrngStr°eet (Forn~er~~Icr~fair
Hotel). City of Kitchener, n.d.
i~ City of Kitchener Cer~tr°e Bloc1,-Heritage _-~r~alvszs, September 200.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-10
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
blocks."''
7
The original 1905 building is an eiainple of Classical Revival architecture, retaining these heritage character
defining architectural features:
• semi-elliptical arched and rectangular ~~ indo~~ openings with n~sticated brick voussoirs;
• wood cornice and brackets;
• brick piers;
• decorative brick strilig course and decorative corbelled brick under the cornice;
• terra cotta window sills and capitals.
The upper storey 1929 addition, in the Art Deco style, retains these character defining architectural features:
• square ~eindo~~- openings Keith cast concrete cartouche sills and coiner blocks:
• brick piers «-ith decorative cast concrete cartouche capitals;
• continuous stone string course running along the pi7nciple west and south elevations.
Figure 6
`~ ~..__ -
i
~.._,s
i
~..
_.~
Figure 8
~~
...
~ ~
~~ , ~.~ .
f
,.~~~.
Fi~~re 7
Figure 9
The Young /King Street facade is shown in
Figure 6. Figure 7 is the Young Street
facade opposite City Hall; Figure 8 is the
rear (east side) of the building. The three
store}- 1929 addition ~~=ith its elevator tower
can be clearly seen. The Young and Kraig
Street facades are elaborately treated,
whereas the rear of the building is utilitarian
and plain. Figure 9 is the 3-bay ping Street
facade.
i~ S`tatementofC~~ltzu°cr]He~°itcrgeT'crhre&Desci°iptionofHeritage_~m°ibz~tesllFo~mgS~i°eet(Fonnerlllaifcrir
Hotel), City of Kitchener, n.d.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`~ DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-11
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
WOOd
Ci)rnlCe
=~ decorative
~_w
. - - _ _ = brick
~._~._F. LL ~~-~-~~_ ~ ~„ , ~~ string course
fib"' - -~~ •-
'! ~ terra cotta
', capital
~.
w brick pilaster
~...
Figure 11
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
Mayfair Hotel 1905 facade details
8
Figure 10 illustrates the
semi-elliptical, arched and
rectangular window
openings with their
rusticated, brick voussoirs;
the decorative, corbelled
brick under the cornice;
and the terra cotta «~iiidow
sills and sill course of the
1905 building.
Figure 11 shows the wood
cornice and brackets; the
decorative brick string
course under the cornice:
and the brick piers with
terra cotta capitals of the
1905 building..
DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-12
Figure 10 Ma~~fair Hotel 1905 facade details
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
concrete
-~ - - string course
~~_~
- _ - cast
=- -,_ .. ~ decorative
~~ .,_.~e,--- concrete
.." _
~~------- , - capitals
=~"~" ~_=-- concrete
' ~ '~ corner
_y~ _ ~ -t-
.~-- ~ ~,~ _ tom; b I a c ks
_.._ - , ~-'~ -cast concrete
_~ _
` sills
_- _ ._
- - - --
t_ ~ ~ ,--
. ,.a
brick pier
Fi~zre 12
Mayfair Hotel - 1929 facade details
9
The facade of the 1929
addition features decorative
cast concrete cartouche
capitals heading brick
pilasters; a cast concrete
string course bete-een;
brick soldier course
headers and cast concrete
corner blocks on square
windows with concrete
sills (Figure 12).
I floor seeing the greatest change.
Fi~are 13 1910 (Herb Ahrens) Fi~~re 14
2010
The vie~~- of King Street in 1910 (Figure 13) sho«%s store fronts for both 164 King Street West (11 Young Street)
and the H~~mnen Hardware building adjacent. It is assumed that the storefront ~ti as modified when the building
was converted to a hotel: ho~z-ever, the current ground floor facade (Figure 14) is a snore contemporai-~~ expression
that does nothing to enhance the architecture of the upper floors or the streetscape.
Upper floors of all three facades of the 1905 building have been altered. See Figure 15 as an e~ainple.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-13
The facades of the building have
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
10
Windo~~~s have been
replaced with the upper
portions blocked in with
aluminum siding, and in
some cases, the entu-e
windo~~-. Fu-eescapes«-ere
lilcel~- added ~ti hen the 1929
addition was constructed
(Figure 15).
These unsympathetic alter-
ations are re~rersible.
The 1929 addition facade is much less molested (Figure 16).
Figure 16 1929 addition Young Street & King Street facades
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-14
Heritage Impact Assessment 11
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
liiterior features include the well-~~~oin terrazzo floors Ind ~~-ood panelling in the lobby-, the vintage elevator,
st~-lized ``M" wrought iron~ti orlc stair Ailing, and basement vault. Although interesting, none of these elements
is considered to be a heritage character defining architectural feature (Figures 17, 18, 19 & 20).
~-
,ti ~, N .,~ ' ~ -'
g.
s '~ ~
}~~~ }
,.r .
. ~_
20 -
ent ~ ault
Fi~~~re 18 terrazzo floor in lobby-
The interior of the building, before it was vacated, consisted of lounges in the basement, first and second floors,
(Figures 21, 22 & 23) with hotel rooms on the upper four floors (Figure 24).
~.
-
~~I
~-~
Figure 21 -basement lounge
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
Figure 23 - 2"``floor lounge! hall
DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-15
Figure 17 lobbti~ & elegy ator
Figure 19 stylized "M" ~~~rought iron~~~ork stair railing
Figure 22 - 1'' floor lounge & bar
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
12
There are no natural heritage elements or landscape elements, other than the
contemporai~- streetscape recenthr installed by the City of Kitchener.
The building provides a solid corner stn~cture with an interesting visual
repetition of windo«~s, especially across the Young Street facade and makes
an important contribution to the Do~~mto~~~n streetscape. Windo«-
replacements and alterations to the facade have been made at the street level,
but other than that, the building appears much as it did in 1929 «-hen the
addition ~~ as built. It was the tallest building (at siz stories) in the Dow~ito~~7i
folio«~iug construction of the 1929 addition', and continues to occupy a
prominent location on King Street.
11 Young Street is the subject of aNotice of Intention to Designate under Part
IV of the Ontat~io HeF°itage Act's
Figure 24 t~~pical hotel room Floor plans and elevations can be found in Appendix 4
156-158 King Street West
The foi7ner Hymmen Hardware building is a three storey, commercial,
brown brick building located on the north side of Kilig Street West. It
«-as constructed in 1905 - 1906, possibly by Peter Hymmen II, or
perhaps more likely by Ed« and Lippert, given that it is the same
arcltectural st~rle as 11 Young Street and uses the same materials and
details. The building was occupied by Hymmen Hardware from 1906
to 1960.
Peter Hymmen «as a tinsmith who opened a tin«-are shop in Berlin in 1850. The business was passed to his sons
Peter II and Hem~r, who established Hymmen Bros. In 1892, Peter Hymmen II bought out lus brother's share and
added hardware and plumbing to the business line; and in 1906 opened P. Hymmen Hard~~-are at 158 king Street
West. Peter Hvimnen directed the business until shortly before his death in 1930." His sons, H.L. Hymmen and
Homer Hv_ mmen continued the business, and Hymmen Hard~eare became Berlin / Kitchenei's longest operating
business, closing its doors at the 158 King Street West location in 1960.'
Like 11 Young Street, the Hymmen Hard~~-are build>lig is an eiarnple of Classical Revival architecture, retaining
these character defining architectural features:
• semi-elliptical arched and rectangular ~~ indo~~- openings ~~~ith rusticated brick voussoirs;
• wood cornice and brackets;
• brick piers;
is ibid
is CitT~ of Kitchener Council Minutes, Reports Adopted b~~ Council, Noy°ember 24, 2008 (Appendil 3)
i~ Uttley. William Velores. ~~ Histor-~~ ofliitchener, Ontario. p. 158
i City of Kitchener Council Minutes, Reports Adopted bti~ Council. November 24, 2008 (Appendil 3)
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-16
Heritage Impact Assessment 13
City Centre Development
• decorative corbelled brick under the coi7iice;
• brick parapet;
• painted concrete wilidow sills to snatch the terra cotta sills of 11 Young Street.
The King Street facade of the building is vei-~- similar to that of the adjacent 1905 Lippert Furniture / Mayfair Hotel
building as has been noted and, ~~; ith the eiception of the ground floor storefront, is mostly- intact. Figure 25 shows
the King Street facade. The rear facade; however, has been much modified. All of the original ~~ inflows have been
bricked-in and smaller, metal-fi-ame units have replaced some (Figure 26).
~. - '~ru
Figure 27
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
Figure 26 Hvmmen Hardware building -rear facade
Figure 27 illustrates the semi-elliptical, arched and
rectangular window openings with their rusticated,
brick voussoirs; the decorative, corbelled brick under
the cornice; the decorative brick parapet and the
window sills and sill course that appear to be terra
cotta. They- are: however, concrete, painted to match
the adjacent 190 building terra cotta sills (Figure 28).
-brick parapet
woad cornice &
J --- brackets
brick string
- course
~-~~~ ~..-„~-brick corbelling
- rusticated
~oussoirs
,~ brick pier
King Street facade details
DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-17
Figure 25 Hvmmen Hardware building King Street fa~,ade
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
14
The Kraig Street view from 1910 (Figure 29) sho«~s store fronts for both the H~-imnen Hard~~~are building (right)
and 164 King Street West (11 Young Street) (left). At some point, the storefront «%as modified, and the current
more contemporai-~-. rather severe, ground floor facade expression (Figure 30) does not enhance the architecture
of the upper floors. or the streetscape.
The upper ri~ o floor facades are veiti- much as they «~ ere constructed, with the eiception of the windo« s. The rear
facade is greatl~r modified (Figure 26).
Interior features that are eitant include a vault on the first floor and an arched brick alcove ili the basement.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-18
Figure 28 concrete sill, painted to match adjacent terra cotta sills
Figure 29 1910 (Herb Ahrens) Figure 30 2010
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
`~`
~' ~.. _
1
~, ,
W~
M
re
,ice ~, ~~ ~' i ~~
arched brick alcove i9
Neither of these elements is considered to be a heritage
character defining architectural feature (Figures 31 & 32).
There are no natural heritage elements or landscape elements,
other than the contemporary- streetscape recently- installed b~-
the City of Kitchener.
156 - 1~8 King Street West is the subject of a Notice of
Intention to Designate under Part IV ofthe Ontario Heritage
Act ,0.
Floor plans and elevations can be found in Appendix 4.
2.3.2 Existing Listed Properties adjacent to the PropertX
144-150 King Street West (Weber Chambers) ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_~, ~,~ ~~;~' ~~
hnmediatel~T adjacent to the foi7ner H~rnrnen Hardy-are building is a -- ~~~~~'~ " ~_~~~- '~'
four storeti- commercial /residential building, constructed c. 189. The ~;~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~''~~`
,~ ~ ~:~a, ~ : ~ ~~ ~'~
~I `
n~une may come from the Weberfarnily. Ityvas originalhr constructed ~~ ~ ~,~ ~~'~ ' ~;~"',",~~ it
_.~ • ;
as a professional office building ~~ ith street-level stores. The upper ~ r ~ ~ '~ ~ "'" ~~ ~ ~~~ ;
floors yyere converted to residences in 198. A number of notable ~,`' ~~ ~`~ ' . ,., . , . ,
tenants have occupied the building, including: London Life
Conservatoi-~T of Music, Met Life Insurance Co., Wm. Cairnes Real Estate (1912); H.L. Staebler Co. Ltd.
hnsurance, Salts and Chemicals Ltd., Bricker & Son Ltd. Wholesale Jeweller (1920; and H.L. Staebler Co. Ltd.
18 from: City of Kitchener Statement o f C'zrlt~u°al Heritage T "aloe & Descr iptzof~ of He~•ztage _dm ibutes 1 ~6-1 ~8
king Street lest (Former Hvmmen Harc7~na~•e Building), 10/21/2008
1 ~ il~id
~0 City of Kitchener Council Minutes, Reports Adopted bti~ Council. November 24, 2008 (Appendil 3)
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-19
Fi~zre 31 vault door is
Heritage Impact Assessment 16
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
hisurance, R.W. RipleyT dental laboratoi~yT, G.E. Schlee Advertising (1933) ,'. The Palladium Restaurant, ~~ ith its
large vertical neon sign, appears in ~ 1957, and ~ c. 1958 photograph (Figures 2 & 4 respectively-).
The building is an eza~nple ofthe Classical Revival style, retaining these character defining architectural features:
• rusticated facade;
• tall, three storey piers;
• cornices with small brackets belo~~ the roofline and above the storefront;
• a crenellated parapet;
• an inscription on the parapet reading '`Weber Chambers''.
A facade improvement loan ~~~as provided in 2000-2001 to correct unsafe conditions and to restore the upper
facade.,,
The rear and east facades are buff ("white") brick (Figure 35)
Figures 36 and 37 illustrate the n~sticated King Street facade
details, including cornices both under the parapet and above the
storefront.
__ ~
! . i ~ .~: p
F+~ '~ 11
4 ~ ;,.
Fig~ue 35 ~ _ _~
east facade ;~."~~
'i City of Kitchener Centre Bloc1~-Her itcrge ~nnlvsis, September 20Q~.
-- ibid
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 20
Figure 33 Weber Chambers King Street facade Figure 34 Weber Chambers rear facade
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
Figure 36
17
The top three floors of the King Street facade of the building are in eicellent condition and are basically
unchanged from ~z-hen the building ~~-as consUl~cted eicept for the ~~-indows (Figure ~0). The bottom floor;
ho~~-ever, has been drastically modified, not in beeping «ith the period of the building or the upper floors (Figures
38 and 39). Ill addition to wnido~~~ replacement, the rear facade ground floor has been substantially- altered.
''
m-
2010
There are no natural heritage elements or landscape elements,
other than the contemporan- streetscape recently installed by
the City- of Kitchener.
King Street facade details
Figure 40 «-indo«- detai12010
The Weber Chambers building was listed on the Cit~r's `Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value
or Interest' Januai~~ 12, 2009.
Figure 39
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-21
Figure 37 1'' floor cornice
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
140-142 King Street West
Built c. 190-1907, the building has been occupied b~ Waldschmidt
Grocers (1910) and a varietti- of other merchants. Its original 3-ba~T
facade likely remains under the present metal cladding. Although it is
difficult to tell, it appears that the original facade material mad- be
similar to the Weber Chambers building (Figure 41).
The City of Kitchener Centre Block-Heritage Analysis suggests that although the
building currently- has no heritage status, it ... met°its fi~Nthet° assessment to
establish heritage interest.,
Unlike the flat roofed buildings adjacent, 140-142 King Street West is a gable and
shed-roofed structure ili two parts, front to rear (Figure 44). The east elevation
(Figure 44) is a blank, metal-sided wall, formerly- a common wall with the ,~,~
demolished building beside it. ~
There are no nattaral heritage elements or landscape elements, other than the
contemporai-~- streetscape recently installed b~- the City- of Iitchener.
140-142 king Street West is not listed on the Cit~-'s `Non-Designated properties
of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest'.
18
^-
i^ r
~ I
~,. • _i~
~- ~=
Figure 42
King Street facade Figure 43
~~ Ibzd
rear facade Figure 44 east elevation
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 22
Figure 41 140 - 142 King Street
West, c. 198
(http://ima~es.ourontario.ca/kite
teener/)
Heritage Impact Assessment 19
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
Bordering the east side of the property- is the Capital Theatre building, 90 King Street West. Opened in April,
1921 ~~-ith 1,200 main level seats, it «-as considered to be one of the finest moving pict<ire theatres in Canada at
the tune. Designed b~- architect J. M. Jeffries of Toronto, artistic painting was done b~- Collins Co. of Toronto and
ornamental decorating «, as by Eckert Co. of Nee York. It is the last remaining vint<1ge theatre stn~cture in the
Cit~-.-
Fig~~re 45
72-90 King Street West -left to right Capitol Theatre. Tip
Top Tailors. Smock's China Shop. & Agne~~~-Surpass Shoes.
1962 (http://images.ourontario.ca/kitchener/)
Through the late 1930s and early 1940s Kitchenerwas beset by labourtroubles as manufacturers resisted demands
to bargain with emplo~-ees. One thousand three-hundred rubber workers were out on Febiuai~-18, 1939 when this
parade of strikers (Figure ~6) ~~%ound its wa~~ past the coiner of King and Queen Streets to a mass meeting at the
Capitol Theatre.,'
Figure 46
Strikers marching to Capital Theatre. 1939
(Kitchener Public Libraiti-)
The building is an eiarnple of Classical Revival theatre architecture. It is assumed that it retains the original facade
with the t~~=o-storey, arched windo«-under the false front. Significantheritageckaracter defining feahu-es include:
• the roof on projecting front;
• wood cornice and brackets;
• t~yin staircases to second level;
• the balcony;
,~ il~icl
- Mills, Ruch. Images of Canada, Ikitchene~°Berlit~, 1880-1960 Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco. CA, p. 125
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 23
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
• stage ~~~ith proscenium arch;
pressed tin ceiling;
Fi~ire 47
King Street facade Fi~~ue 49
20
«est facade
With the false front removed, the building ~z ould be avisual contribution to the streetscape. It is a distinctive style.
The Capital Theatre building was listed on the Cit~-'s `Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value or
Interest' January- 12, 2009.
At the coiner of Ontario Street and King Street West is 72-78 King
', ' M i :fink M~"a~F
Street West ,the `Canadian Block'. Built in 1865, it replaced a ~~ ood t~~'" ~ ~ `d i ~~ ~F°„ ; ~ A ,~~~=;
1861 building constructed by Jacob Y. Shantz, Berlin colonizer and ~ ~` ~ ;r,~ "" ~ "'"~"~~"
entrepreneur. It is one of oldest surviving commercial buildings on a~, ,~ ~ ;;~r.~~'„°+,~
King SU~eet West. Sold to the Breithaupt family in 1888, it housed a ~ ~ ~, a .,t ~ '' `~~"'"~~.~~1
number of offices of ke~~ Berlin / Kitchener businesses on a long-teen ~ ~`: ~ ~ ~ie ~ '-
~.~~~ .,
basis, including Shoemaker Drugs for 4~ rears, from 1919-196; -~~~ , - ~.
Betzner & Co. grocers: the Berlin & Waterloo Railroad: A. H. Kabel
r-=
clothing; J. Agne~~ ,Ltd. boots & shoes and later, Agnew-Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd.; J. J. MacCallum Ltd. and later
MacCallum's Cigar Store tobacconist, sporting goods & lending library; Do«ning, Steen & Co. florists; and W.
~~ ibid
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 24
• plaster chandelier medallion (? ~`).
Fi~~re d8 roof & cornice detail
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
H. Breithaupt construction engineer.,
21
It is a rare eia~nple of Georgian commercial architecture in the Cit<- with rectangular windo«~ openiligs in a
repetitive pattern across the ping Street and Ontario Street elevations. It has a prominent corner location with an
angled corner elevation, and decorative corbelled brick under the wood cornice.
~~
rr ~,
~, ~ ~ . ~,.
.~ ~~ i r~~:' Ali ~ • ~.~
l.~ r~ ~
Ys ~ I~~ k ~ I.
~ ~ ~~ ~_
11~1'NE~N ~~ _~~
Figure 50 King Street facade
A number of uns5~npathetic windos~~ replacements are obvious on the King
Street facade. As «e11, the storefronts are not in keeping ~~ ith the character
of the building and do not add to the streetscape amenit<-.
The Canadian Block ~~ as listed on the Cit~-'s `Non-Designated properties of
Cultural Heritage Value or Interest' Janua~~- 12, 2009.
Figure 52 date stone 18G5
(Centre BIoc7~-Her°itagel~i~alysis 2000
Bete-een the Canadian Block and the subject propert<~ is 82-86 King ~~~ ~`~, ~ ,~R , „~~„ ~f '" ~~ ~ ~
5 •1R
Street West, built c. 1895-1900.The western portion of the original ~~ ~`,~~ ~~ ~~ ~~„~~ . a~~,~-~'~
'dn M r Y~
building ~~~as replaced b5- construction of the Capitol Theatre in 1921. ~ ~ ,~~. ~~ R „t ~"~~
The Breithaupt fa~nil~r estate office ~~-as housed here from c. 1900- ~ ~~# °5~,~; -~ ^~~ *~ -„ ~~ ~`~ `~_
1928. It is a good eiample of restrailied Victorian commercial ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' " ' = ' ~ ~~~'
~~~~,~.-~ :~., ~,. c.. ~ I'~
c ~ ~~ ~ ~ [
arclitecture. The original 2-baV upper stores has been replaced ssith ~ ' ~ ~~ '~~" ~ `~
'r- ...,.
Z j7ZL~
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 25
Figure 51 corner of Ontario & King West
(C'ef~tr°e Bloel~-Heritage analysis 2000
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
~?
a three-part ~~~indo«- (Figure ~3). A traditional storefront configuration (front display-«-indo~~- and deepl~r recessed
entrance) remains on number 82 King Street West while the entire facade of number 86 has been covered and
stuccoed. Hei7tage character defnung features iliclude the storefront configuration, ~z-ood cornice brackets and
brick corbelling
T
ire ~~
g Street West facade
82 - 86 King Street West ~~~as listed on the Cit~T's 'Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value or
liiterest' Januai~T 12, 2009.
In the 1990s, the city- purchased the complete block enclosed b~- King, ~ -- ~.~ ~ , ~, ~~~b~~~„,
'~ r o rt2 a reRl ara
College, Duke, and Young streets, and held an architectural:, ~:~ ~~ ~ ~ _~~~~
competition to design a new City Hall. The ~~ iiuiing Finn of . "',,, ~~ ,
Ku~~-abara, Pa~~ne, McKenna Blumberg Architects laid out an open ~ '~~ "' n =~a`x",
square facing King Street complete ~~;ith a summerfountain and winter ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~~
skating rink. The square is enclosed on t<vo sides b~ three-storey °- ~ ~~~~~~' ,,;,,~ ~,.Q
-~
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 26
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
~3
«~ings, with the main building at the back of the square. The ~~-est side of the edifice houses the council chamber;
a central, open rotunda defines an indoor public space; and the east elevation consists of 1 twelve-store- office
to~zer (Figures ~4 and 55).
Red sandstone imported from India is featured with domestic granite used for pavement and floors. The ne«- Cit~T
Hall opened iii 1993.
-1
c
r
~,.
-_`-',~
~~. r
~~
c ~;
~
,
~* ~, -
~ „~
~ '~~ ~ r
~,~ ~ ~
Fr ,~, ~, ~, q
~ i
1
Figure ~4
200 King Street West
Cin- Hall fiom King West and Young Streets
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 27
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
Figure
City, Hall from subject property-
24
Kitchener Cit~T Hall was listed on the Cit~-'s `Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest'
June 29, 2009.
2.3.3 Conclusions re~ardin~ the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource(s)
With respect to cultural heritage value and interest, the listed properties on King Street West and adjacent to the
subjectpropert~- are associated ~~ ith anumber ofprominent Berlin / hitchener citizens including Edward Lippert,
Peter H~mmen II, H.L. Hvmmen, Horner Hvmmen, W. H. Breithaupt's, and likely numerous others. The
properties housed numerous businesses over the rears. including some of Kitchener's longest-lived.
Exterior architectural heritage attributes ofthe properties are numerous, ranging from 19ti' centuitiTthrough late 20"'
centui~- elements and are listed in the descriptions above..
2.4 Documentation of the heritage resource(
See Appendix ~ (11 Yoarn~ Sty°eet -The Mayfair Hotel and 1 ~ 6 - 1 ~8 King Street Existing Plans anc~ Elevations,
Quadrangle Architects Limited, 2010-O1-OS) for measured dra«~ings of the heritage resources ~~;ith "Intention to
Designate" status.
2.5 The proposed development and potential heritage impacts
On April 6, 2009, Kitchener City- Council received a ``land purchase and sale agreement" between the City- and
Andrin Investments Limited. The development b5-Andrin Investments Limited ~~~ill include: 397 residential units
located in two to«ers and three podium buildings fronting on King, Young and Duke Streets; 7,000 square feet
ofnew retail space along King Street, a publich-accessible court~~ard to be located in the centre ofthe development
on top of the parking stn~cture. The City- of Kitchener is partnering with Andrin in the construction of athree-level
parl~ing structure; the city- will o~~-n the top deck of approiimateh- 2~0 public parking spaces.,'
Andrin proposes to renovate the existing Ma~-fair Hotel (11 Young Street) and the adjacent Hvmmen Hardware
,8 Mantis of these prominent citizens are members of the Waterloo Region Hall of Fame and are listed in iT7~o's
ii7~o in C'ancrda in the earl~~ part of the 20'i' centun' (when the listing meant something)
~~ http://~~~~~~~i~.do~~°nto~i~nlcitchener.ca/ne~i-s/centre block deg-•elopment/ accessed September 24. 2010
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 28
Heritage Impact Assessment 25
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
building (1~6 - 1~8 hing Street West) to create an upscale boutique hotel and spa.~0
Figures ~6, ~7, and 58 illustrate the proposed development. The conteit for this development is downto~~n
Kitchener amidst a variet~~ of building tti-pes, ages, heights, and st~-les. I<mnediately adjacent are significant
contemporai-~- tower buildings such as City- Hall and significant 2 - ~ stored- heritage buildings. The proposed
development occupies the former Forsyth shirt factor- lands, now a temporary parking lot. The massing of the
development is sensitive to the sUeetscapes of Young Street and ping Street West, placing 3 - ~ storey elements
along the streets. Fourteen and 17 store~r towers are set back from the street. their scale being visually- reduced
b~-the lower buildings along the street (Figure ~ 8). The 3-4 storey building along Young Street opposite Cite Hall
is phy°sically° separated from the heritage propertti- at 11 Young Street (Figure ~9). The space between the t<vo
buildings is the entrance to the residential parking garage and a public lanewa~-. The four store- building is in
scale with the adjacent Ma~-fair Hotel building; the windo« rhythm and pilasters ofthe new building are reflective
of those of 11 Young Street.
The proposed new Young Street frontage is residential, with a ground floor pail~ing garage opposite the parking
garage of Citi<- Hall.
The proposed ne« King Street West frontage is retail at street level, with residential above.
~0 City Centre Condominiums (Centre Bloch) ~ ~9 , ~2 m ~ 16 , ld f7 ~ Sales September
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 29
Figure ~6 King Street West and Young Street (Quadrangle, March 2011)
Heritage Impact Assessment 26
Citti~ Centre Development
YOl1NG STREET+K
.__.~
I I,~. ~ ~• .. ~°
i
.~
i ~ , .a
f
kk Iaa~ "~gtw;~,~~~. _ .
k f
r~:
r l~tli-Iaxh~~~~s ~~( i ~~
We ~' ~ .
x ~-
~ ~ I
~,
A
i
i
I
-~ -. , -
:~--- 1_
~~ 'I
~,
I~
.. i ~.~
- r
Y ~.
~~ - _
-~~...,r r ~• r
~_~.
_ w~i
+'~
I ~ -~
~~ ~ i
~~r-....
. - .. - y Y. I'
f
. I ~ Yk _
t
1E
i I
~
i
~ l
~ ~ r' ~
~
_
~
~ ~ _
r:
i
~~
~ ~ I
% ~' _
4 _
S .
Y.
~- J
~ 1
1 j
',l
-•.;~= - -- d.~ ~-
I . ~ ..~ _ `
~.Y;
i ~E ~ ~ - _
--
_ - --i - i' 1 - ~ -
--- L__+._~..( I ~--I---------
r r
~,:
~ ~~
T T-1'.
'~
~ a
__ u
'. ~
7 ~ u
~--~.
A
I ' ~
~?~;
I' ~ jjjLLLj I~
---... .
~, ~
~~`
quad ragq~e
Figure 57 Development scheme -massing (after Quadrangle Architects 2010!06/01 & 2011/03/20
Young Street Elevation -proposed residential & parking garage and elisting 11 Young Sheet (without proposed addition]
Figure 58 (Quadrangle Architects 2010/06/01)
The proposed development, from street level, ~~-i11 physically be snore akin to the landscape ofthe property before
the designated shirt facton-~r building complei ~~-as demolished. Street level pedestrian scale and amenit~r is being
proposed. The potential impact of the proposed development on those cultural heritage resources for which City
Council has:
a. passed a Notice of Intent to Designate (11 Young Street. 156-158 king Street West), and
b. which Council has listed on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non Designated Property of Cultural
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`~ DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 30
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
?~
Heritage Value or Interest (144-150 King Street West [Weber Chambers], 140-142 King Street West, 90
King Street West [Capital Theatre building]. 72-78 King Street West , [`Canadian Block']. 82-86 King
Street West, and 200 ILing Street West [City Hall]) is expected to be milumal and an improvement over
the current parking lot landscape.
The former Mayfair Hotel, 11 Young Street, is to be refurbished as a hotel once again. In order to create a viable
enterprise, 156-158 King Street West~yill be included in the upscale boutique hotel and spa scheme, and additions
to both buildings are planned. Like the 1929, 3-storey addition to the top of the Ma~-fair Hotel ~yhich «as
contempora~~- at the time, another contempora~~- addition to the top of the building is planned. Similarr-, an
addition is planned for the top of the former Hymmen Hard~yare Building (156-158 King Street West), brniging
the ne~y hotel building to nine store~-s. (Figure 59) The interiors of these buildings ~yill be completer-
reconstn~cted.
Figure 59 the ne«- Ma~~fair Hotel (Quadrangle, March 2011)
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6-31
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre Deg`°elonment
28
Impacts on the heritage character resources of ll Young Street ~' and 156 - 158 King Street West ~' are eipected
to be minimal. The addition to 11 Young Street is set back from the street line. (Figure 60) It will be seen from
Icing Street West on1~- in the longer oblique view. The addition to 156 -15 8 King Street West maintains the strong
original cornice of the heritage building.
I I
I MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE I
I I
- -\ - - -
\
SKY BAR RESTAURANT \
TERRACE \
\ "i"r"
14 SUITES \
~ -
~45UI7E5 \
\
TERRACE
TERRACE veers
SerLwa
~ 14 SUITES « 2 CONFERENCE ROOMS \
s
14 SUITES + OFFICE SPROE ~ \
-rt- - - - - - - - - - - ~
- \ \.
14 SUITES « SPA UPPER LEVEL \
135UIT€5 « SPA REOEPTIQN f`" \
W \
W \
~ i 135Un€S « GYMfYOGA STUDIO Ec4""
S F° \
~ FL44A ~ \~
z
Q
~
I
i _______
SKEY HOTEL LOBBY +POOL ____
RESTAURANT _- ,ry
4+
~
'
8 R as
SPEAKEASY CLUB BACK OF HOUSE
THE MAYFAIR MOTEL STREET SECF90N LOOKING EA5T
„VW~streeta~,s~.,~K~~9~<re~, ~e~r~n~oR - ...quadrangle
Kitcnaner, Ontario ' ` ' '" nacHirccrs Lin~irsO
aroiP~<wo. o6sm
Figure 60 Proposed Mai, fair Hotel, Street Section looking east (Quadrangle, March 2011)
Both additions are proposed as contemporary pieces, not to be confused «-ith the heritage architecture upon which
they- rest. The brick elements of the existing buildings are being continued on the fill-in section of the 4ri' to 6ti'
floors using the profile of the podium level of the proposed ne«r building to the east along King Street West
~i 1905 building:
• semi-elliptical arched and rectangular window openings with n~sticated brick voussoirs:
• wood coi7lice and brackets:
• brick piers:
• decorative brick string course and decorati~re corbelled brick under the cornice;
• terra cotta window sills and capitals.
upper store` 1929 addition:
• square ~~°indow openings ~~°ith cast concrete cartouche sills and corner blocks:
• brick piers with decorative cast concrete cartouche capitals:
• continuous stone string course rnmlillg along the principle west and south elevations.
~- semi-elliptical arched and rectang~ilar window openings with n~sticated brick voussoirs:
• wood coi7rice and brackets;
• brick piers:
• decorative corbelled brick under the cornice;
• brick parapet
• painted concrete window sills to match the tetra cotta sills of 11 Young Street.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 32
Heritage Impact Assessment 29
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
(Building B) to help tie this corner in ~~~ith the balance ofthe development. Additionally-, the nee top three store~-s
are reflective of the towers in the ne« buildings. (Figures 56 & 59) The ground floors are intended to be restored
to resemble that which eiisted in the early twentieth centun-. (Figs 61, 62 c~ 63)
~~# ~
~°~
~~.
2010
Figure 61 1910 (Herb Ahrens) Figure 62
~-
Figure 63 proposed (Quadrangle March 2011)
There are no interior heritage character-defining architectural features to be impacted. Preliminary floor plans for
the hotel can be found in Appendix ~.
The proposed development is to compl~T with Council's direction to honour the history of the former Fors~-th
Factory buildings and property- bar having the architecture of the Fors~Tth buildings reflected in the ne«-
development through the use of salvaged and retained materials. In that regard, the following statement and
illustration from the architects is provided. As a key feature of the gallery linking theTublic realm ofKing :Street
to the Ci>1~ Centre courtyard, the original 1937.Iohn Forsyth Factory facade is intended to be a majestic ArtDeeo
style reminder ofKitchener's rich downtown heritage. (Figure 6~) Keconsh~ucted along the gallery's greatstair,
the stone masonry facade with glass block compor7ev~ts will be secured to the adjacent structural concrete wall
with standard galvanised masonry ties and suTTorts. All materials salvaged and retained from the original
construction will be r°eused and any missing parts or sections will be reconstr°ucted accordingly. The mor7olithic
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 33
Heritage Impact Assessment 30
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
Art Deco architectur°al elements ofthe For°syth facade will be within touching distance for pedestrians traversing
along side it. Highlighted by natural srmlight from the skylight canopies above, the tones and teztr~res of the
material will help anchor the facade as a signifrcant landmar°k in the new public space amidst the surrounding
positive development in Kitchenef°'s downtown. (Quadrangle, March 2011)
~~ ~~ ~ ~
~~ .~
5 ~`~ .~.
,,
~ ~~
-_
.,
Figure 65 1937 portion -Forsyth factor-
~~
--~ _
._ - - '`
w , ,.~ •` _
.~ ~_
~_ ~ i i
z
_ .. ,~''r
Y ~t
_ ~ J
3'" '' -
-. ~. , --
I
C TY ~ENTR.E Public G~lery Wcs^: Wall - Fyr~yth 8ui~ing Facadc _ _
Q,. ay
a~,m,~n ~ quadrangle
Pnynri M..^.M1 +c. i. -~.i- -i ir-
Figure 67 Forsj-th Building Facade, Public Gallery ~~-est ~yall (Quadrangle, March 2011)
In addition to identifying the impactofthe (Phase l) developmenton the identified heritage resources ofinterest,
the HIA shall provide gr~idance on proposed developmentPhases II and III and include a descr°iption of the f zrture
phases of development; a description ~f the timing for the future phases of development; a description of the
potential impact on the identified heritage r°esources of interest, and what interim measures should be undertaken
to address conservation interests until such time as the future phases ofdevelopmentmaterialize; and finally, what
additional heritage studies should be undertaken in Phasesll and III to address heritage conservation interests. ~``
~~ Figures 65 & 66, Cin~ of Kitchener Cer~tr°e Bloch-Heritage _di~crh~sis, September 2005.
~`~ City of KitchenerHe~°itage IrnBactAssessmentTe~°ins ofReferei~ce, C'ity~ Cents°e De>>elopme~~t, March 30.2010
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 34
Figure G6 detail
Heritage Impact Assessment 31
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
This HIA addresses potential impacts of the entire development on the designated. listed and non-listed buildings
on and adjacent to the subject property-. Designation of the 11 Young Street and 1~6 - 1~8 Ding Street West
properties, eipected iii the near future. and a heritage conservation plan for these properties (the proposed Ma~-fair
Hotel) should address all heritage conservation interests.
2.6 Conservation option(s)
From the terms of reference:
Conservation o~tion(s~ shall be ic~enti}ied, recommendinghow the heritage resource(s) will be conserved
given the level of significance. Where it is def~~onstratec~ that cr cultural heritage r•esor~rce cannot be
conserved in situ, alternatives forms of conservation such as relocation, incorporation of~arts of the
resource, commemoratiov~ or° docume~tatiov~, may be considered.
The heritage resources ~~-i11 be conserved i~ stlzr. An upscale boutique hotel and spa ~~-i11 occupy the 11 Young
Street and 1~6 - 58 King Street West buildings, conserving the heritage character attributes of both buildings.
Further, with respect to the conservation of 11 Young Street. it is recommended that:
• the heritage character defining architectural features of the 190 building be retained and restored ~s-here
needed, including the semi-elliptical arched and rectangular window openings with rusticated brick voussoirs,
the wood coi7iice and brackets, the decorative brick work (piers, string course, corbelling), and the terra cotta
window sills and capitals;
• the heritage character defining architectural features of the 1929 addition to 11 Young Street be retained and
restored where needed, including the square window openings with cast concrete cartouche sills and corner
blocks, the decorative brick work (piers with decorative cast concrete cartouche capitals), and the stone string
course;
• the existing «indows and blocked-in windows be replaced with an appropriate ~~%indow that both reflects the
heritage of the building and meets current building standards; and
• the 1950s ground floor facade on both Young Street and King Street West be restored to reflect the heritage
architectural qualities of the upper floors.
With respect to the conservation of 156-1~8 King Street West, it is recommended that:
• the heritage character defusing architectural features of the building be retained and restored where needed,
including the semi-elliptical arched and rectangularwiiidow openings ~~ ith nisticated brickvoussoirs,the wood
conuce and brackets, the decorative brick work (piers, corbelling, parapet), and the painted concrete window
sills;
• the existing windo~s s be replaced with an appropriate window that both reflects the heritage of the building
and meets current building standards;
• the ground floor facade and sign band be restored in concert with 11 Young Street to reflect the heritage
architectural qualities of the upper floors.
The buildings will beadaptively re-used in a manner sympathetic to the heritage resource and reflective of a former
use.
Options include ``do nothing", leaving the buildings abandoned and empty, or demolish the buildings and build
new.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 35
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
2.7 Summary of conservation principles
Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada provides '`General
Standards" for all projects.
L Conserve the heritage value of a historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact
or repair°able character-defining elements. Do not move a part of a histor°ic place i f its cr~rrent location
is acharacter-defining element.
The character-defining elements, as identified, are recommended for conservation.
2. Conserve changes to a historic place which, over time, have become character-defining elements in then
own right
The changes to the ground floorfarades overtime are not complementan-tothe heritage architectural qualities
ofthe upper storeys and should not be retained. Similarly, the changes to the upper floors (windows, boarded-
up window openi<igs) are not desirable.
3. Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention.
Interventions will be required to convert the buildings to an upscale boutique hotel and spa. Renderings and
preliminai~- floor plans indicate that these are unlilcel5- to pose more than minimal intervention: ho~~-ever,
detailed plans and specifications will be required to determine that these are appropriate from a conservation
perspective. Internal interventions «ould not be inappropriate.
-~. Recognise each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and use. Do not create a, false sense
of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties or by
combining features o f the same property that never coexisted.
Additions to the buildings are intended to be contemporai-~- in nature and complementai-~- to both the heritage
architecture and the adjacent ne~s° architecture.
~. Find a use, for a historic place that rec~uir•es minimal or no change to its character-defining elements.
The adaptive re-uses ~s i11 not alter the character-defming elements, elements ~~ hich provide a special ambience
to the redevelopment.
6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilise a historic place until any subsequent intervention is undertaken.
Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential, for distzrrbcrnce of
archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss ofinformation.
Not applicable. The buildings need no stabilization at present.
7. Evaluate the existing condition ofcharacter-defming elements to determine the appropriate intervention
needed Use the gentlest mews possible, for any intervention. Respect her°itage vah~e when under°taking
an intervention.
The character-defining elements have been identified and evaluated.
8. Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character-defining elements by
reinforcing their materials using recognised conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively
deteriorated or° missing parts ofchar°acter-defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes.
The character-defining elements have been eiamined and photographed, and measured dra«ings have been
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 36
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
;3
created in order that they can be repaired and/or replicated as required. Where elements are missing, such as
~ti indo~~ s having been replaced «=ith sheet metal, for eiample, it is recommended that these be replaced ~ti ith
historically-appearing appropriate units that meet current building standards.
9. Make any intervention needed toyreserve character-defining elements physically and visually corn~atible
with the historic place, and identifiable upon close inspection. Document any intervention for future
reference.
Any character-defining elements requiting replacement, repair, or replication should be accurately
reconstructed in new materials, al~d easily identified as contemporai-~r rather than historic upon close
inspection. Elements that require repair and ate repairable, such as sills, string courses, lintels, decorative
bricl~vork, etc. should be repaired. Elements that are beyond repair should be replaced with new materials.
2.8 Proposed alterations and demolitions explained
No demolitions ate proposed. Alterations include the aforementioned additions, the restoration ofthe ground floor
facades, and replacement of inappropriate and historically incorrect «indos~~s, as «e11 as the removal of fire
escapes.
2.9 Recommendations
Recommendations can be found in paragraph 2.6.
2.10 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Assessment
See Appendix H.
3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The cultural heritage resources on and adjacent to this property are numerous. They include:
• 11 Young Street, subject of a Notice of Intention to Designate under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act,
historically significant and possessing a number ofheritage character defining architectural features;
• 156-1~8King Street West, subjectofaNoticeofIntentiontoDesignateunderPartIVoftheOntarioHeritage
Act, historically significant and possessing a number ofheritage character defining architectural features:
• 144-1~0 King Street West, listed on the City's `Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value or
Interest', historically significant and possessing anumber ofheritage character defining architectural features;
• 140-142 King Street West, possibly possessing heritage character defining architectural features under the
current metal siding;
• 90 King Street West, listed on the Cit<-~s 'Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest',
historically significant and possessing a number ofheritage character defining architectural features;
• 72-78 King Street West, listed on the City's `Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value or
Interest', historically significant and possessing a number ofheritage character defining architectural features;
• 82-8H King Street West, listed on the City's `Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value or
Interest', historically significant and possessing a munber ofheritage character defining architectural features;
• 200 King Street West (City Hall), listed on the City's `Non-Designated properties of Cultural Heritage Value
or Interest', possessing a number ofheritage character defining architectural features.
It appears that the proposed development ~si11 have minimal impact on the cultural heritage resources and their
surroundings. Both heritage properties within the development «-i11 be substantially refurbished including
restoration of the street facades.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 37
Heritage Impact Assessment
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION
4
It has been determined b~- the Citti- that 11 Young Street and 1~6-1~8 King Street West are worth~T of designation
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. both meeting the criteria for designation. This report supports that view
and it is eipected that designation «-i11 follo~~-.
These properties ~~-arrant conservation per the definition in the Provincial Policy ~S'tatement, 200 (PPS) ~~ for the
reasons stated in the Cit~-'s Notices of Intent to Designate (Appendix 3).
This heritage impact assessment is respectfully submitted b~T:
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
l~E ,C~~ -
per: O~zen R. Scott, GALA, FCSLA, CAHP
~ss~~~cAr 1
~~ The PPS defines "significant". For built heritage resources to be significant or have cultural heritage ~-aloe or
interest, they must be "~~alued for the important contribution they- make to our understanding of the histor~-
of aplace, an e~ ent, or a people.' In the PPS. "conserved" means "the identification, protection, use and/or
management of cultural heritage resources in such a ~i a~ that their heritage ~~alues, attributes and
integrit~~ are retained". Pr°oi~incicrl Polzcv Stntemef~t (PPS; 2005) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology- Policies
2.6, Info Sheet #~. Heritage Impact Assessments and Conser~-°ation Plans. Winter 2006
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 38
Heritage Impact Assessment 35
Cite Centre De~~°elonment
REFERENCES
City of Kitchener Council Minutes, Reports Adopted by Council, November 24, 2008
Cit~T of Kitchener Record ofPre-submission Consultation, Cit<- Centre Development , Februai~- 23, 2010.
City- of Kitchener Development and Technical Services Department Heritage Impact Assessment -Terms of
Reference Ciry Centre Development, March 30, 2010.
Cit~T of Kitchener Development and Technical Services DeparUnent Leon Bensason, Heritage Planner, Stephanie
Barber, Assistant Heritage Planner, Cerrt~•e Block-Heritage Analysis, September 200.
City of Kitchener, Statement of Cultural Heritage Value & Descriptrorr of Heritage Attributes 11 Yoi~~g Street
(Formef~ Mayfair Hotel), n.d.
City- of Kitchener Statement ofCultural Heritage Value & Description of Heritage Attr°ibutes 1 ~ 6-1 ~8 Krug Street
West (Former Hymtnen Hardware Building), 10/21/2008
Cit~T ofKitchenerMunicipal Hef°itageRegister, Index: o fNo~-DesignatedPropef°ties ~fHef°itage Tlalue orlnterest,
Febn~ai-~- 12, 2010
Ontario Heritage Act RCS 0. 1990, c. 0.18, Province of Ontario
Ontario Heritage Toolkit, Miliisti~- of Culture, Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006.
Provincial Policy Statement, 200, Ministr~~ of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Queen's Printerfor Ontario, 200.
Uttlev, William Velores. AHistory ofKitchener, Ontario, The Chronicle Press, Waterloo, Ontario, 1937.
Who's who in Canada: an illustrated biographical record of men and ~z-omen of the time. Volumes 6-7,
Iliteniational Press Limited., 1914
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 2"`' DRAFT April 1, 2011
6 - 39
Appendix 1
CITY OF HITCHENER March 30.2010
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
TERMS OF REFERENCE
CITY CENTRE DEVELOPMENT
1. Background
A Heritage hnpact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to lcno~~-nand potential heritage resources ~yithin
a defined area proposed for fiiture development. The stud- shall include an inventon~ of all heritage resources
~yithin the planning application area. The study results in a report ~~hich identifies all krro~~m heritage resources,
an evaluation of the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that
would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage hnpact Assessment may be required on a
property ~yhich is listed on the City's Heritage Advisor- Committee Inventor~r; listed on the City's Municipal
Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; or ~yhere development is proposed adjacent to a
protected heritage propert<~~. The requirement may also apply to ur~l~rro~~m or recorded heritage resources which
are discovered during the development application stage or construction.
The subject proper- encompasses in part lands municipally addressed 31 Young Street (the former site of the
Forsyth Shirt Factor- ), 156-158 King Street West (the former Hymmen Hardware Building -see Appendix `B'),
and 11 Young Street (the former Mayfair Hotel -see Appendix `C'). The property municipally addressed 31
Young Street is currently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, however all the buildings and
stnrctures on the property have been demolished. Materials from the former Forsyth Factor-- building were
salvaged at the time of demolition, and there is City Council direction that the history of the buildings and property
be honoured by having the architecture ofthe buildings reflected in the new development on the property through
the use ofsalvaged and retained materials (see Appendix `A'). A Notice of Intent to Designate (under Part IV of
the Ontario Heritage Act) has been passed for properties municipally addressed 11 Young Street and 156-1 > 8 King
Street West (see Appendix `F'). In addition, the subject property is located immediately adjacent 90 King Street
West (see Appendix `D') and 144-1~0 King Street West (see Appendix `E')• both of ~ehich have been listed by
Council on the Municipal Heritage Register as Non-Designated property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.
2. Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements
It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development
or alteration. Notice ~yill be given to the property o~sner and/ortheir representative as early as possible. When the
property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment
requirement will typically be given at the pre-application meeting, followed by written notification to include
specific terms of reference. The notice swill inform the proper~~ o~sner of any laiown heritage resources specific
to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage hnpact Assessment.
The following minimum requirements will be required in the a Heritage Impact Assessment for the City
Centre Development (Phase I):
2.1 Present o~~,ner contact irifonnation for property proposed for development and/or site alteration.
~~
2.3 A complete listing and full ~yritten description of all existing structures, ~yith specific mention of
all heritage resources on and immediately adjacent the subject proper-, and to include: structures,
buildings, building elements, building materials, arclutectural and interior finishes, natural
heritage elements, landscaping, and archaeological resources, as applicable. Descriptionwillnlso
Appendix 1 2
include a chronological histoiti- of the structure(s) developments, such as additions, deletions,
conversions, etc. The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the
significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource(s).
2.4 Documentation ofthe heritage resource(s) shall include a site map identifying the contei-t ofthe
property a«d current photographs of each building elevation. To scale measured drawings and
floor plans may also be required, where appropriate. The documentation shall also include
historical photos, drawings, or other archival material that may be available or relevant.
The applicant must provide a description of all relevant municipal or agency requirements ~~-hich
~~-ould apply to the subject property and which could impact the conservation of the heritage
resource(s) (e.g. Building Code requirements, Zoning requirements, Engineering requirements,
etc.).
2.5 An outline of the proposed development, its conteit, and how it will impact the heritage
resource(s) of interest shall be required. This may iliclude but is not limited to reference to the
pattern oflots, location ofroads and drive~yavs, building setbacks, massing, relationship to natural
and built features. proposed building materials, etc. The outline should address the influence of
the proposed development on the setting, character and use of lands on the subject property,
adjacent lands, streetscape and neighbourhood.
In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on those
cultural heritage resources for which City Council has passed a Notice of Intent to Designate (11
Young Street, 156-1 ~ 8 ILing Street West) and which Council has listed on the Muncipal Heritage
Register as a Non Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (144-150 hing
Street West, 90 King Street West), shall be assessed.
Further, the HIA shall address how the proposed development complies with the direction of
Council requiring that the history of the former Forsyth Factoiv buildings and property be
honoured by haying the architecture of the Forsyth buildings reflected in the new development
through the use of salvaged and retained materials.
In addition to identifying the impact of the (Phase I) development on the identified heritage
resources of interest, the HIA shall provide guidance on proposed development Phases II and III
and include a description of the future phases of development; a description ofthe timing for the
future phases of development; a description of the potential impact on the identified heritage
resources of interest, and «-hat interim measures should be undertaken to address conservation
interests until such trine as the future phases of development materialize; and finally, ~yhat
additional heritage studies should be undertaken in Phases II and III to address heritage
conservation interests.
2.6 Conservation option(s) shall be identified, recommending ho«~ the heritage resource(s) ~yill be
conserved given the level of significance. Where it is demonstrated that a cultural heritage
resource cannot be conserved in situ, alternatives forms of conservation such as relocation,
incorporation of parts ofthe resource, commemoration or documentation, may be considered.
2.7 A summary of conservation principles and ho~y they will be used must be included. The
conservation principles may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada - ~StancraF°crs aid
Appendix 1
Gi~ic~elines for• the C'onset°vation of~Histoyic Places in C'anadcr; Eight Gz~iding Principles in the
C'o~servation ofHistoricPro~erties, OntarioMi~istry ofC'uhz~re; and theMinistry ofC'ulture's
Heritage Tool Kit Ser°ies (a11 available online). If the property is designated under Part V of the
Ontario Heritage Act, guidance may be provided in the corresponding Heritage Conservation
District Study or Plan.
2.8 Proposed demolition/alterations must be explained and any loss or impact on the value or
significance of a cultural heritage resource must be evaluated and justified.
2.9 All recommendations shall be as specific as possible indicatilig the eiact location of the preferred
option, site plan, building elevations, materials, landscaping, and impact on neighbouring
properties and streetscape/neighbourhood context.
2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment
shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional
understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The Assessment will
also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and
referenced in the report. Applicants looking for professional assistance are encouraged to refer to
the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals ~~-eb site: ~~~tiw.caphc.ca.
3. Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations
The summai~- statement should provide a full description of
- the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource, including the reference to
listing on the Municipal Heritage Register, or designation by-lacy or heritage district designation, as
applicable;
- the identification of ~uiy impact that the proposed development ~~;ill have on the cultural heritage
resource and its surroundings;
- an eiplanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development. or site
alteration approaches are recommended;
- clarification as to «hV specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site
alteration approaches are not appropriate.
4. Mandatory Recommendation
The consultant must pyrite a recommendation as to ~~-hether the subject property is worthy of heritage
designation in accordance with the heritage designation criteria per Regulation 9/06, Ontario Heritage Act.
Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject
property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06.
The follo~~-ing questions must be ans~yered in the final recommendation ofthe report:
1. Does the property merit being listed as anon-designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register?
2. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Regulation 9/06,
Ontario Heritage Act?
3. If the subject property does not meet the criteria for heritage designation then it must be clearly stated
as to why it does not.
4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation, does the propert<~ ~yarrant
conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement:
Please note that failure to provide a clear recommendation as per the significance and direction of the
identified cultural heritage resource may result in the rejection of the Heritage Impact Assessment and /
Appendix 1 ~
or a requirement for Addendum information.
5. Approval Process
Five hard copies of the Heritage hnpact Assessment and one electronic iii pdf fornat burned on CD shall
be provided to the City's Heritage Planner. The Heritage hnpact Assessment will be revie~yed by City
staff to determine if all requirements have been met.
Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the Citds Heritage Advisoi-~- Committee for
information and discussion. Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to apeer review to be conducted
by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. A decision to approve or refuse
the Heritage hnpact Assessment will be made by the Director of Planning.
An approved Heritage hnpact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development
application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved
version ofthe Heritage hnpact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements
between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality.
Attachments:
Appendix ``A": City Council minutes of March 20, 2006 regarding the salvage and re-use of materials from the
former Forsyth Factoi-~r (pgs.78-79).
Appendix `B": Statement of Significance for 156-158 King Street West
Appendix ``C'•: Significance of Significance for 11 Young Street
Appendix "D": Statement of Signficance for 90 King Street West
Appendiz'`E'': Statement of Significance for 14~-1~0 King Street West
Appendix "F": City Council minutes of November 24, 2008 regarding Notice of Intent to designate 11 Young
Street and 156-158 King Street West (pgs. 322, 333 - 334)
Appendix 2
CENTRE BLOCK-HERITAGE ANALYSIS
September, 2005
The folio« ing information selves to identif~T those properties in the Centre Bloclc «-hich are or mad- potentially- be
of heritage interest to the City- of Kitchener. The iiifornation contained in this report ~~-as collected in August,
2005 and presents a prelimina~~~ evaluation provided for discussion purposes.
Properties identified in the report are divided into 4 categories as folio«%s:
1. Fonnalhr designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.
2. Listed on the City's Heritage Inventoi~T (meaning they- have been identified b~T Heritage Kitchener as being
of cultural heritage interest but are not designated).
3. Worthy of consideration for listing on the Heritage Inventor-.
4. Worthy of further ilivestigation and evaluation to establish heritage interest.
~ss~~~cAr 1
Leon Bensason, Heritage Planner
Stephanie Barber, Assistant Heritage Planner
Development and Technical Services Department
LEGEND
Formally designated under the Ontario Heritage Act
Listed on the City's Heritage Inventory (meaning they have been
identified by Heritage Kitchener as being of cultural heritage interest but
are not designated)
Worthy of consideration for listing on the Heritage I<ZVentory
Worthy of further investigation and evaluation to establish
heritage interest
31 YOUNG STREET (JOHN FORSYTH CO./SMYTH RESIDENCE)
Heritage Status: Designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act
SMYTH RESIDENCE
Historical Value or Interest:
-The Smyth Residence was constructed circa 1888.
-Edward Smyth and his brother were considered to be "town builders" for their public and private
involvement which contributed much to Berlin's success.
-The brothers founded the drygoods firm of Smyth Bros. in 1877.
-Smyth Bros. imported goods from Europe and introduced the cash system to Berlin.
-When the Jolu1 Forsyth Co. acquired the factory and residence, they retained and used the structure as
office space.
Architectural Value or Interest:
-A good example of the Queen Am1e style.
-Possesses a number of notable original features
including:
• Multi-slope roof with j erlcinhead and
triangular gables-one with decorative collar
brace.
• Round-headed window with 90 panes.
• Two round-headed windows with 46 panes.
• Large rectangular window with 48 panes.
• 12/12, 15/15 and 18/18-sash windows.
• Two semi-circular window openings.
• Decorative chimney stack.
• Wooden eave brackets.
...............
.~ ~.__
y °'
a ~ -.
4
~'
S~TZyth Res<<de~rce-j~o~•th elevation details
Although attached to the factory building on two sides, the
stn~cture retains a residential appearance through the
existence of original rooflines and decorative features.
~S'mvth Residence ~~~est elevation details
JOHN FORSYTH CO. FACTORY
Historical Value:
-The original factory building on the site was constn~cted in 1900 and occupied by the Star Whitewear
Company, founded and operated by James Wing. Later owners of the company were the Messner
Family and A.L. Breithaupt.
-I11 1917, the building was leased to the John Forsyth Co. Ltd. who eventually acquired the complex.
-John Forsyth started his own company in 1906, originally located on King Street East.
-The John Forsyth Co. Ltd became a maj or employer in the City and achieved a sigiuficant reputation
across the Dominion for quality clothing.
-The original 1900 stricture comprised 3 bays facing Young Street and an additional four bays were
added, probably shortly after construction of the original building. h1 1937, a structure was added to the
north elevation.
A
hit
l V
l
t
rc
ura
ec
a
ue:
-An excellent example of vernacular industrial architect<ire
with Italianate style influences.
-1937 addition effectively executed in the Art Deco style.
The 1900s facades retain many notable original features: ~
~ ~ •-
• Round-headed windows with projecting brick arches. `"~'~
• Segmentally arched windows with wood sills and operable
transoms.
• Decorative brickwork along the roofline above the conuce
and brick piers.
• Painted signage bands on the south elevation. fosr 1900
west facade
The 1937 addition retains many notable original features:
• Cast concrete piers with vertical etching.
• Concrete spandrels.
• Glass block windows.
..... ti
Original 1900
w est, facade
~~
4
h r
~~
.~ --
- e--
fainted signage barrel-south elevation
Rear third storey penthouse with rooftop access
48 ONTARIO STREET NORTH (BELL TELEPHONE CO./CANADIAN LEGION)
Heritage Status: Listed
Historical Value or Interest:
-Built circa 1914 by Bell Telephone Co. and housed their offices from c. 1914 to c. 1941.
-Occupied by the Unemployment lilsurance Comnussion from 1942-1944 and by the Employment and
Selective Service Office from 1945-1946.
-Housed Royal Canadian Legion from c. 1946 - c. 2001.
-Historical significance lies with strong associations with prominent organizations.
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Example of Classical Revival style
architecture.
-Red brick with pilasters, brownstone
banding, lintels, sills and pilaster
capitals.
-Brick rustication at the basement level.
-Brownstone frontispiece with brackets.
-Tall rectangular windows.
Exterior Condition:
This building appears to be in fair
condition.
Brick rustication
-l8 Ontario ~St. N.
Front entrance with entablature
arrd scroll brackets
156-158 KING STREET WEST (P. HYMMEN HARDWARE)
Heritage Status: Listed
Historical Value or Interest:
-Constn~cted in 1906 possibly by Peter Hymmen II or E. Lippert (given the same architectural style as
No. 11 Young Street).
-Occupied for 54 years by Hymmen Hardware from 1906 to 1960.
-Hymmen Hardware was the longest operating business in the City, begun in 1850.
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Excellent example of Classical Revival architecture,
retaining these notable features:
• Semi-elliptical arched and rectangular window openings
with rusticated brick voussoirs.
• Wood cornice and brackets.
• Brick piers.
• Decorative corbelled brick under the cornice.
• Brick parapet.
Exterior Condition:
-This building appears to be in very good condition.
-Owners of building were recently in receipt of facade
improvement funding to remove paint from brick on the
upper floor facade.
Brick parapet
Wood cornice and brackets
`~
..e ., ___ -__~
. - ~I~
Decof°ative back corbelling
Semi-elliptical c~ rectangular
windows with rusticated brick
voussoirs
1 ~8 King ~S'treet West
144-150 KING STREET WEST (WEBER CHAMBERS)
Heritage Status: Listed
Historical Value or Interest:
-Built c. 1895 and called "Weber Chambers" possibly after the Weber Family.
-Originally constructed as a professional office building with street-level stores.
-Upper floors were converted to residences in 1985.
-Housed a number of notable tenants:
1912 London Life Conservatory of
Music
Met Life Insurance Co.
Wm. Cairnes, real estate
1924 H.L. Staebler Co. Ltd.-insurance
Salts and Chemicals, Ltd.
Bricker & Son, Ltd., -
wholesalejeweler
1933 H.L. Staebler Co. Ltd.-insurance
R.W. Ripley, dental laboratory
G.E. Schlee, advertising
Architectural Value or Interest:
-hnpressive example of the Classical Revival style.
-Retains many notable features including:
• Rusticated facade.
• Tall 3-storey piers.
• Cornices with small brackets below the roofline and
above the storefront.
• Crenellated parapet.
• Inscription on parapet reading "Weber Chambers"
Exterior Condition:
-The Weber Chambers building appears to be in very good condition and in spite of unsympathetic
storefront alterations, the building is cosmetically appealing.
-Present owners of the building were in receipt of a facade improvement loan in 2000-2001 to correct
unsafe conditions and to restore the upper facades.
1-1-1-1 ~0 King Street West
Weber C'hcrrnbers
Crenellated parapet
``Weber Chambers" Cornice and
inscription brackets
Weber Chambers-f ontfa~ade detail
~~
90 KING STREET WEST (CAPITOL THEATRE)
Heritage Status: Listed
Historical Value or Interest:
-Opened in April, 1921 with 120o main level seats.
-Was considered to be one of the finest moving picture theatres in Canada.
-Architect was J.M. Jeffries of Toronto.
-Artistic painting was done by Collins Co. of Toronto.
-Ornamental decorating was by Eckert Co. of New York.
-Last remaining vintage theatre structure in the City.
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Example of Classical Revival theatre architecture.
-Original facade with two-storey arched window
remains under false front (?).
-With false front removed, it would contribute visually
to the streetscape-it is of a distinctive style from later
Victorian style commercial buildings.
-Retains significant interior features including:
• Twin staircases to second level.
• Balcony.
• Stage with proscenium arch.
• Pressed tin ceiling.
• Plaster chandelier medallion (?).
Exterior Condition:
This building appears to be in fair condition.
11 YOUNG STREET (WINDSOR HOUSE/MAYFAIR HOTEL/L:IPPERT FURNITURE)
Heritage Status: Currently none though merits consideration for listing on Heritage Inventory
Historical Value or Interest:
-Built 1905 by Edward Lippert to sell furniture manufactured by his own company.
-Three storeys added c. 1920 for use as hotel rooms and later became the Windsor House Hotel and then
the Mayfair Hotel.
-Also occupied by:
• C.L. Moser & Sons, dry goods, etc. (1924-25).
• Ligget's Drug Store (1933-1946).
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Original building is a good example of Classical Revival architecture, retaining these notable features:
• Semi-elliptical arched and rectangular window openings with rusticated brick voussoirs.
• Wood cornice and brackets.
• Brick piers.
• Decorative corbelled brick under the cornice.
-The upper storey addition was constricted in the Art Deco style and retains these important features:
• Square window openings with stone sills and corner blocks.
• Brick piers with decorative stone capitals.
• Continuous stone stringcourse nu7ning along the principle west and south elevations.
-Provides a solid corner structure with interesting visual repetition of windows especially across the
Young Street facade.
Exterior Condition:
This building appears to be in very good condition.
166 King ~S'tNeet West soa~tlrwest cof°ner at Young ~S'tNeet
id cornice
Decorative
brick corbelling
Semi-elliptical
arched and rectanbular
windows «ith brick
voussoirs
Decorative
capitals
Li~pef°tFur~rizrNe burlc~ing
c. 1920 zr~~er storey addition
18-24 ONTARIO STREET NORTH
Heritage status: Currently none though merits consideration for listing on Heritage Inventory
Historical Value or Interest:
-Built c.1865, possibly part of the Canadian Block.
-The Canadian Bloclc was sold to the Breithaupt family in 1888.
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Rare example of Georgian commercial architecture in the City.
-Rectangular window openings-repetitive pattern carried on from King and Ontario Street elevations.
-Decorative corbelled brick under the cornice
-Wood cornice
-Contributes visually to the streetscape-it is of a
distinctive style from later Victorian style commercial buildings.
Exterior Condition:
These buildings appear to be in fairly good condition.
18-2-1 O~tcr~°io S'tr•eet North
72-78 KING STREET WEST (CANADIAN BLOCK)
Heritage status: Currently none though merits consideration for listing on Heritage Inventory
Historical Value or Interest:
-Built in 1865 (as per datestone) and called the Canadian Block.
-Original Canadian Bloclc constructed in 1861 by Jacob Y. Shantz, Berlin coloiuzer and entrepreneur.
-Replaced the wooden, 1861 building and is one of oldest commercial buildings on King Street West.
-The Canadian Bloclc was sold to the Breithaupt fanuly in 1888.
-Housed a number of offices of key Berlin/Kitchener businesses on a long-term basis (including
Shoemaker Dn~gs for 45 years from 1919-1964):
1912 Betzner & Co., grocers 1924 H.W. Shoemaker, drugs
Berlin & Waterloo Railroad A.H. Kabel, clothing
J. Agnew, Ltd. boots & shoes
1933 H.W. Shoemaker, drugs
Agnew-Surpass Shoe Stores, Ltd., boots & shoes
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Rare example of Georgian commercial architecture in the City.
-Rectangular window openings-repetitive pattern across King and Ontario Street elevations.
-Has a prominent corner location with an angled corner elevation.
-Decorative corbelled brick under the cornice
-Wood cornice
-Contributes visually to the streetscape-it is of a distinctive style from later Victorian style
commercial buildings.
Canadian Block
King Street elevation
~~>,
r ~ --;;
r~~r-P
r ~'.^~ r
r ,.
rr~ ~ ~ I
i' ~~
t
- - ~_ f-
`~~r~
~~~
~~~
'~
~ ~.
.1-4-,
`i _ _ _
.~ a :.._
~ "";v
~~
ti
~ ~~,
. _ ~J ~~' ,
J ~e ~'°
I m
- -~ ~ ~
Canadian Block-Northwest view at King & O~tar•io Stf°eets
Canadian Block -
Detail-c~atestone (1860
. 1
f
~ .
~ E
Exterior Condition:
The Canadian Bloclc appears to be in fair condition.
82-86 KING STREET WEST
Heritage status: Currently none though merits further assessment to establish heritage interest
Historical Value or Interest:
-Built c. 1895-1900.
-A western portion of the original building was replaced by construction of the Capitol Theatre in 1921.
-Breithaupt family estate office housed here from c. 1900-1928.
1901 Berlin Gas Co.
Louis Breithaupt Estate
1912 Berlin & Northern Railway Co.
Louis Breithaupt Estate
1933 MacCallum's Cigar Store- tobcnst, sporting
goods & lending library
Downing, Steen & Co.-florists
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Nice example of restrained Victorian commercial
architecture.
-Rectangular window openings-second floor tri-part
window and single rectangular window under stucco
cladding.
-Traditional storefront configuration (front display
window and deeply recessed entrance)
retained on no. 86.
-Contributes visually to the streetscape-appearance
can be improved with removal of false front on no. 86
and restoration work and proper signage on no. 82.
Two rows ofdecorative corbelled brick under the
cornice
1924 A.H. Kabel, clothing
Louis Breithaupt Estate/W.H.
Breithaupt constn~ction engineer
J.J. MacCallum, Ltd.-
tobacconist& sporting goods
Ath~active wood brackets with~ertc~'artts
~~ = f
140 KING STREET WEST
Heritage Status: Currently none though merits further assessment to establish heritage interest
Historical Value or Interest:
-Built c. 1905-1907
-Occupied by Waldschmidt Grocers (1910) and a variety of other merchants.
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Original 3-bay facade likely remains under the
present metal cladding.
Exterior Condition:
-Appears to be in fairly good condition.
96-98 KING STREET WEST
Heritage Status: Currently none though merits further assessment to establish heritage interest
Historical Value or Interest:
-Constn~ction date unlalown.
-(originally addressed 92-94) occupied by:
Gettas &Gettas, restaurant (1924-25, 1933).
-1946: No. 92 occupied by Queens Restaurant
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Original facade likely remains under the present cladding.
Exterior Condition:
-Appears to be in fairly good condition.
30-34 ONTARIO STREET NORTH
Heritage Status: Currently none though merits further assessment to establish heritage interest
Historical Value or Interest:
Built circa 1912.
Occupied by various Berlin/Kitchener merchants.
Architectural Value or Interest:
-Possible original 3-bay, red brick facade under cladding.
-Rectangular windows with 8/8 sashes.
Exterior Condition:
This building appears to be in fairly good condition.
~.
~~ ,-r.,_
Y ~ ~a ?`7!=~zi pp _
r - i ~- j
..
,_
~~
~ ~:h~ 6T_
s
_~ _
-~-= ~_
- -~.~ ~
Appendix 3
City of Kitchener Council Minutes, selected Reports Adopted by Council, November 24, 2008
L~_~~nxr i
COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 20, 2006 - 86 - CITY OF KITCHENER
REPORTS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE - (CONT'D}
10. That the recommendation of the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC), as
contained in Chief Administrator's Office report CAO-06-018 (EDAC Recommendation -Centre
Block) dated February 27, 2006, expressing their support for the Kitchener Public Library /
Centre Block Project Committee's current approach to the development of the Centre Block
site and recommendation that they move ahead wish the Request For Proposals (RFP),
including a new main library, be received; and further,
That report CAO-06-Ot 8 be revised by ending the last sentence under the heading "Report"
after the phrase "Centre Block project" and deleting the remainder of the sentence, as not all
Project Committee members were in agreement with the RFP development recruitment
process.
11. That the revised Terms of Reference for the Kitchener Waterloo Joint Service Initiatives
Committee be approved, which reflect an expanded scope and refinement of the Shared
Services program between the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo as approved in September
2004.
_, HERITAGE KITCHENER. , -.: _ T., ,.. , _ _._,.:....
1. That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA
2005-IV-018 (787 King Street West, Kitchener Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational knstitute) be
approved, to permit the installation of a sprinkler system and heads, outlined as Front Entrance
Sprinkler Option 1 in the Walter Fedy Partnership detailed design drawings reviewed at the
March 7, 2006 Heritage Kitchener meeting.
2. That pursuant #o Sec#ion 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA
2006-IV-002 {437 Pioneer Tower Road) be approved, to permit the installation of a hydro
meter and plumbing ventilation pipe, which are to blend into their surroundings as best as
possible, as outlined in Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-D6-033.
3. That Heritage Permit Application HPA 2005-IV-001 (437 Pioneer Tower Road} be amended to
permi# the farmhouse addition to be clad in vertical Cape Cod finished wood siding of either 1 x
8 Board and Batten or 1 x 6 V Joint design, as an alternative to the originally approved s#ucco
siding design, with the final colour scheme to be reviewed and approved by the Gity's Heritage
Planner.
4. That pursuant to Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA
2006-IV-001 (31 Young Street West) be refused, as it is considered premature at this time
given no site plan application has been submitted for the redevelopment of the Centre Block
properties; and,
Thal the remaining 2 phases of the Forsyth Building .designated under the Ontario Heritage
Act, being the 1937 Art Dece Addition and Smyth Residence, be retained and included as a
part of the City's Request For Proposals (RFP) to facilitate their incorporation into any future
redevelopment that is to occur on the Centre Black; and further;
That staff be directed to ensure the continued integrity of the 2 remaining phases of the
Forsyth Building by: making certain that the openings crea#ed by the demolition are secured
and boarded up; the fire alarm system is re-installed; and, the interim measures previously
approved by Council an fVovember 28, 2005 are undertaken.
(Motion Redundant and not considered as the matter was dealt with under Delegations)
COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 24, 2008 - 332 - CITY OF KITCHENER
REPORTS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE - {CONT'D)
g. That funding in the amount of $53,195.01 be approved to finalize all payment requirements for
the Sportsworld Drive 1 Gateway Park Drive reconstruction project, to be landed from the
Capital Reserve in the amount of $32,980.91 (62%) and from the Development Charges
Reserve in the amount of $20,294.10 (38%).
g. That extension of the original purchase order to McGlllivary and Sons Ltd be approved in the
amount of $43,343.29 to cover additional cons#ruction costs related to the City's Trenchiess
Rehabilitation Program.
1 D. That the tender process be waived for the scheduled purchase of a custom built aerial
apparatus and allow the purchase of a comparable stock apparatus from apre-qualified dealer
at a cost between $692,D00 and $83fi,000.
11. That the details of the Operating Framework for the Local Environmen#al Action Fund (LEAF),
as described in Development & Technical Services Department report DTS-D8-194 be received
for information; and,
That the LEAF Steering Committee be comprised of the following individuals: the four {4)
General Managers of City Departments, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Senior
Envirorimentaf t~#arii~eTresponsrbte'for L~A~F; the f~larragerrof Long Mange°artd arming,
the Director of Gorparate Communications and Marketing and two members of the public who
are environmental experts and / or community leaders with experience in granting
organizations, or represent other relevant speci#ied sectors of the community, for a period of
two (2) years {2009-2010); and further,
That the public member appointments be advertised and staff report #o the December 1, 2008
Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting on processes that could be used to
evaluate and make recommendations to Council an the applications received.
(Carried, as Amended)
AUDIT COMMITTEE -
That the 2009 Performance Measurement and Internal Audit Work Plan as outlined in Chief
Administrative Officer's report CAO-08-034, be approved.
That the Chief Administrative Officer's report CAO-08-035, regarding the Human Resources
Division Review, be received for information.
HERITAGE KITCHENER -
1. That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heri#age Permit Application HPA
2008-IV-019 to permi# the installation of a front gate and mail box at 300 Joseph 5choerg
Crescent, in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, subject to satisfying al!
other municipal requiremen#s and the final design of the front gate and mail box being
reviewed and confirmed as acceptable by Heritage Planning staff prior to installation, be
approved.
2. Thai pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA
2008-IV-020 to permit the installation of a fascia sign on the rear elevation of 70 King Street
East, subject to the final sign permit drawings being reviewed and confirmed as acceptable by
Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of sign permit, be approved.
3. That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed #o publish a
Notice of Intention to designate the property municipally known as 11 Young Street, Kitchener
(Former Mayfair Hotel) as being of cultural heritage value or interest, with the following
heritage attributes:
COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 2R, 2008 - 333 - CITY OF KITCHENER
REPORTS ADOPTED i3Y COUNCIL
HERITAGE KITCHENER - (CONY"D}
(Cont'd}
The cultural heritage significance of the former Mayfair Hotel building relates to its historic
association with Edward Lippert, a prominent Kitchener businessman; its architectural style;
and the contribution the building makes to the streetscape of the Downtown. Edward Lippert
was a prominent Manufacturer, Merchant, Hotelman and Gity Builder. In 1905, he built a three
storey building at the northeast tamer of King and Young Streets (then addressed 164 King
Street West), where he operated a retail furniture and undertaking business. Edward Lippert
was elected to City Council in the 1930s and #hrough his of€orts to lower taxes in Kitchener, the
Kitchener Taxpayers' Association was organized; and,
Architecturally, the original three storey 1905 brown brick building features elements of the
Renaissance Revival Style; a style that was revived in commercial buildings, banks, and
offices in many urban centres from c.1870 to 1910. Features on the former Mayfair Hotel
which are characteristic of the columnar variety of the Renaissance Revival style include the
arched window openings with elaborate voussairs, brick pilasters, and detailed corbelling atop
the third storey. The 1929 three storey upper addition built by Ball Brothers Ltd., is similarly
formal in balance and harmonious in composition. It is constructed of yellow brick and fea#ures
design elements consistent with the Art Deco style, including most notably cast concrete
,.
cartoucfib~ptl~starca~5itats ane~v~iridavrwmer' s;
Contextually, the former Mayfair Hotel makes an important contribution to the Downtown
streetscape. Apart from the replacement of windows and miner alterations to the facade at
street level, the building appears much as it did in 1929, and adds to the visual and
architectural continuity of the historic main street. It was the tallest building (at six stories) in
the Downtown following construction of the 1929 addition, and continues to occupy a
prominent location on King Street; and further,
That the designation makes reference to the following specific features of 11 Young Street,
being:
Ali exterior elevations includin
• Brown and yellow brick walls, pilasters and corbelling
• All window openings with rusticated brick voussoirs and s#one sills
All exterior door openings
Roof and roofline
Wood cornice and brackets
• Cast concrete pilaster capitals and window corner blocks
Inferior Features limited to:
• Terrazzo floors and wood paneling in lobby
• Main staircase with terrazzo treads and metal balustrade
• Pressed tin ceiling in the second floor lounge
(Dealt with under Delegations and Carried)
4. That pursuant to Section 29 0# the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a
Notice of Intention to designate the property municipally known as 15fi-158 King Street West,
Kitchener {P. Hymmen Hardware} as being o€ cultural heritage value or interest, with the
following heritage attributes:
The cultural heritage significance of the former Hymmen Hardware building relates to its
historic association with the Hymmen Hardware business; the architectural style of the
building; and the contribution the building makes to the streetscape of the Downtown. Peter
Hymmen was a tinsmith who opened a tinware shop in Berlin in the 1850s. The business was
passed on to his sons Peter I! and Henry, who establish Hymmen Bras. In 1892, Peter
Hymmen II bought ou# his brother's share and added hardware and plumbing to the business
line; and in 1906 opened P. Hymmen Hardware at 158 King Street West. Peter Hymmen II
directed the business until shortly before his death in 1930. His sons, H.L. Hymmen and
COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 2~1, 2U08 - 334 - CITY OF KITCHENER
REPORTS ADOPTER BY COUNCIL
HERITAGE KITCHENER - (CONT'D)
4. (Cont'd)
Hamer Wymmen continued the business, and Hymmen Hardware became Berlin 1 Kitchener's
longest operating business, closing its doors at the 158 King Street West location in 1980; and,
Architecturally, the #hree storey brown brick building was built c.1905-06 by Edward Lippert or
Peter Hymmen II and features elements of the Renaissance Revival Style; a style that was
revived in commercial buildings, banks, and offices in many urban centres from c.1870 to
1910. Features on the former Hymmen Hardware building which are characteristic of the
columnar variety of the Renaissance Revival style include the arched window openings with
elaborate voussoirs, and detailed corbelling atop the third storey; and,
Contextually, the former Hymmen Hardware building makes an impprtant contribution to the
Downtown streetscape. Apart from the replacement of windows and minor alterations to the
facade at street level, the building appears much as it did in 1906, and adds to the visual and
architectural continuity of the historic main street. Qf particukar interest, is that the facade
shares the same construction and architectural detailing as the original three storeys of the
former Mayfair Hotel building located immediately to the west; and further,
,.
That the designation makes reference to the following specific featilre~~o "1" - mg a ree
West, being:
All exteri r elevations includin
• Brown brick walls
• All window openings with rusticated brick voussoirs and stone sills
• All exterior door openings
• Roof and roofline
• Brick corbelling
• Brick parapet
• Wood cornice and brackets
Interior features limited ta:
• Vault with vault door and hinges on first floor
• Arched brick alcove in basement
(Dea3t with under Delegations and Carried)
Appendix `C'
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value & Description of Heritage Attributes
11 Young Street {Former Mayfair Hotel)
Description of Pronerty
Located on the northeast corner of King Street West and Young Street, the former
Mayfair Hotel is a six storey commercial building municipally addressed 1 i Young
Street. The building is situated on a property having 32.2 feet of frontage on King Street
and 140 feet of flankage on Young Street. The building occupies a prominent location in
the Downtown adjacent Kitchener City Hall.
Statement of Cultural Herita a Value or Interest
The cultural heritage significance of the former Mayfair Hotel building relates to its
historic association with Edward Lippert, a prominent Kitchener businessman; its
- , architec-tur~al-: style~:.d the contribution tk~e building <mak:~ L!~~. ~~r~~.~~~l~:~f ihe. .---- . _ .. _ ....
Downtown.
Historical /Associative Value
Edward Lippert was a prominent Manufacturer, Merchant, Hotelman and City Builder.
He was born i^ Preston in 1873 and learned the upholstering trade at a young age. He
worked in the furniture business in various U.S. cities and returned to Berlin in 1905.
That same year he built a 3 storey building at the northeast corner of King and Young
Streets (then addressed 164 King Street West), where he operated a retail furniture and
undertaking business. At the same time, Lippert invested in other Berlin real estate,
buying the Brunswick House on the opposite (northwest) corner of Young and King
Streets and converting it into a hotel named the Windsor Hotel. He also built a new block
of buildings on King Street between Franeis and Water Street where he began a new
furniture business. in 1920, Lippert sold his furniture business and shortly after converted
the 3 storey building at the northeast corner of King and Young Streets into the Windsor
Annex Apartments. In 1929, Edward Lippert added three stories to the top of the building
and opened the Mayfair Hotel on September 11'h that same yeaz. Lippert served on
Kitchener City Council in the 1930s, but resigned due to illness, two months before his
death in September 1935.
Design /Physical Value
Architecturally, the original three storey 1945 brown brick building features elements of
the Renaissance Revival Style; a style that was revived in commercial buildings, banks,
and offices in anany urban centres from c.1870 to 1910. Features on the former Mayfair
Hotel which are characteristic of the columnar variety of the Renaissance Revival style
include the arched window openings with elaborate voussoirs, brick pilasters, and
detailed corbelling atop the third storey. The 1929 three storey upper addition built by
Ball Brothers Ltd., is similarly formal in balance and harmonious in composition. It is
constructed of yellow brick and features design elements consistent with the Ari Deco
style, including most notably case concrete cartouche pilaster capitals and window corner
blocks.
Contextual Value
Contextually, the former Mayfair Hotel makes an important contribution to the
Downtown streetscape. Apart from the replacement of windows and minor alterations to
the facade at street level, the building appears much as it did in 1929, and adds to the
visual and architectural continuity of the historic mainstreet. It was the tallest building (at
six stories) in the Downtown following construction of the 1929 addition, and continues
to occupy a prominent location on King Street.
Description of Heritage Attributes
All exterior elevations including:
• _ Brown and yellow brick walls, pilasters and corbelling
_ . _. .
• All window openings with rusticated brick voussoirs arid~ne-sills
• All exterior doox openings
• Roof and roofline
Woad cornice and brackets
Cast concrete pilaster capitals and window corner blocks
Interior Features:
• Terrazzo floors and wood paneling in lobby
• Main staircase with terrazzo treads and metal balustrade
• Pressed tin ceiling in the second floor lounge
Location Map
South (Proof) & West Elevations
a
Corner Blocks and Cartouche
Capital on 1929 Addition
-
~~
~
* ~ _~
~~
~- ~~
-~ - -
-
-~ - 1
~ ~ ~ : ~,
~'~
~ ~ _
y:af
~ ~ . -
~ .i
_
~~4
~.. --Zw.. L
F y
~ f
Y~'
(~
~
;~
~..i .
j: SC
,.
~y l.,
..
~ '~
- ~>:~ _ -
.
West {Side} & North (Rear) Elevations
Window and Brick Detail on 1905 Building
Interior Details
APPENDIX `D': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Statement of Significance
90 KING STREET WEST
Municipal Address:
90 King Street West, Kitchener
Legal Description: Plan 401 Pt Lt 3
Year Built: c. 1921
Architectural Style:
Original Owner: -
Original Use: Movie Theatre
Ex#erior Condition: Unknown
Description of Historic Place
90 King Street West, formerly known as the Capitol Theatre, is atwo-storey 20~n century
commercial building built in the Classic Revival architectural style. The building is
situated c~r~ a 0:3 acre ° ffag shaped parcel -ofi iar~d between -Ontario °Stmt=North arid, _ .
Young Street in the City Commercial Core of the City of Kitchener within the Region of
Waterloo The flag shape parcel of land has 18 feet of frontage on King Street West.
The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the two-storey 20tH
century commercial building.
Heritage Value
90 King Street West is recognized fior its aesthetic, historic, associative, and
contextual value.
90 King Street West is an example of the Classic Revival architectural style that was
typical of early 20tH century theatres. The building is constructed largely of red brick
Paid in the common bond style. The front {King Street West) elevation features a
pent roof with Spanish tiles; decorative wood brackets; a recessed entrance with
plate glass windows and doors; and two movie poster boards.
The Capitol Theatre opened in April 1921. It was constructed at a cost of $250,000
and included 1200 main level seats with box seating above; pipe organ; orchestra
pit; and, centre dome feature with over 100 light bulbs. The building was considered
to be one of the finest movie picture theatres in Canada. It was designed by
architect, J.M. Jeffries of Toronto and the general contractor was Norman McLeod
of Toronto. Interior features were completed by Interior Hardwood Floor Co.,
Kitchener (seats); Collins Ca., Toronto (artistic painting}; and, Eckert Co., New York
(ornamental decorating).
The building is the last remaining vintage theatre building within the City of
Kitchener and therefore is representative of leisure activities in the Downtown prior
APPENDIX `D': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
to the advent of multi-plex theatres on the periphery of the City. The building
contributes to the streetscape within the Downtown.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 94 King Street West resides in the following heritage attributes:
^ All elements related to the construction and Classical Revival architectural style,
including:
n red brick;
o pent roof with Spanish tiles;
o decorative wood brackets;
o recessed entrance; and
o movie poster boards.
^ All elements related to the original historic use of the property:
o The placement and plan of the building with 18 feet of frontage along King Street
West that extends in depth 148 feet to accommodate the front lobby; and
The,v~rtioal pro}eating sign~ge. .. , ,:.:. _~ ... _... __. _ _.__. __ _ __
Photos
Kinq Street Elevation
APPENDIX `D': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
APPENDIX `D': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
City of Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form
Address: 90 King Street West Period: c. 1921 Recorder Name:
Description: Classical Revival
Photographs: Front Facade ® Lefr Facade ® Right Facade ^ Rear Farrade ^ Details ^ Setting ^ Date:
Design or Physical Value
Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a
particular architectural style or type?
Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example
of a particular material or method of construction?
Design Is this a particulazly attractive or unique
structure because of the merits of its design,
composition, craftsmanship or details?
Does this structure demonstrate a high degree
of technical or scientific achievement?
Interior Is the interior azrangement, finish, craftsmanship
and/or detail noteworthy?
RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
NIA ^ Unknown 8 No ^ Yes ^ NIA ^ Unknown E'] No ^ Yes ^
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No H Yes ^ NIA ^ Unknown d No ^ Yes n
NIA ^ Unknown Q No ^ Yes ^ NIA ^ Unknown Q No ^ Yes ^
NIA ^ Unknown 8 Na ^ Yes ^
NIA ^ Unknown 8 No ^ Yes a
Contextual Value RECORDER
Continuity : 1?oes.:this stnucture contribute to the c n~inyity , '.':' =. " ..?Jn1m^t` . - No ^ Yes. C
or chazacter of the street,neighboarhood or area?
Setting Is the setting or orientatioti of [he structure NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes l~
ar landscaping noteworthy?
Does it provide a physical, historical, functional NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes D
or visual link to its surroundings?
Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark ^ R NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes 1~
within the region, city or neighbourhood? ^ C
(indicate degree of importance} Q N
Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N!A 8 Unknown ^ No ^ Yes ^
notable landscaping or externaE features That
complete the site?
NIA ^ Unknown 0 No ^ Yes ^
NIA ^ Unknown D No ^ Yes ^
EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No Cl Yes ^
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes D
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes l~
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No D Yes ^
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ld Yes ^
RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Integrity
Site Does the structure occupy its original site? NIA ^ Unknown n No ^ Yes Cd N/A ^ Unknown n No ^ Yes Q
Note: if relocated, i.e. relocated on its
original site, moved from another site, etc.
Alterations Dces this building retain most of its original materials NIA ^ Unknown l~ No ^ Yes ^ NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ~ Yes ^
and design features?
Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic NIA ^ Unknown ^ Na 13 Yes ^ NIA ^ Unknown ^ No Q Yes ^
t have taken place over time?
th
i
ons
a
alterat
Condition Is this building in good condition? NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes ® NIA ^ Unknown D No ^ Yes ^
Historical or Associative Value & 5lgnificance
Does this property or s[rucmre have strong associations with and/or
contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization
or institution that is significant or unique within the City?
Is the original, previous or existing use significant?
Dces this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage
resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the
Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act?
A prnperly or structure valued for the important contribution It
makes ro our understandiag of the history of a place, ¢a
even!, or a people?
RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Unknown ^ No ^ Yes 8 Unknown ^ No ^ Yes l~J
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes D Unknown ^ No ^ Yes 1~J
Unknown ^ No Yes l~ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes
r
v
APPENDIX `E': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Statement of Significance
144-150 KING STREET WEST
Municipal Address:
144-15D King Street West, Kitchener
Legal Description: Plan 362 Lot 4 & 5 Pt Lot 3
Year Built: c. 1895
Architectural Style: Classical Reviva!
Origina! Owner:--
Original Use: Office Building
Condition: Good
Description of Historic Place
144-150 King Street West is afour-storey late 19~" century cast concrete commercial
__
building`t~uiif"in the~~Classf~at f~evival' arc~itecturaf-styte~"T#~e°°b~itekr~g fs°a ~ ~~.5
acre parcel of land located on the north side of King Street West between Young Street
and Ontario Street in the City Commercial Core of the City of Kitchener in the Region of
Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the four-storey
commercial building.
Heritage Value or interest
144-150 King Street West is recognized for its design, physical, historical, associative,
and contextual value.
The building is an impressive example of the Classical Revival architectural style. The
four-storey building has a rectangular plan with four bays on the front elevation. The
building was built circa 1895 and is in good condition with many original elements. The
building features a rusticated fagade, tall three-storey piers, cornice with small bracket
below the roofline and above the storefront, crenallated parapet, and an inscription on
the parapet reading "Weber Chambers."
The building demonstrates a high degree of technical and scientific achievement. The
King Street West fagade is likely the first in the City to be built with a precast concrete
fagade. The fagade is clad with an exterior insulation and finishing system (EIFS) similar
to stucco; however, the original precast concrete facade still exists behind the new
cladding. In addition, It is believed that this building was the first building within the City
to install an elevator.
The building is associated with the economic development of the downtown. The
building was known as "Weber Chambers" as can be seen in the inscription on the
parapet. The building was likely named after the Weber Family. It was originally used a
commercial office with street level storefron#s and professional offices above. The
APPENDIX `E': STATEMENTS OE SIGNIFICANCE
professional offices housed a number of notable tenants including: London Li#e
Conservatory of Music (1912); .Met Life Insurance Co. {1912}; Wm. Cairnes, Real Estate
(1912); H.L. Staebler Co. Ltd., insurance (1924 and 1933); Salts and Chemicals, Ltd.
{1924); Bricker & Sons, Ltd., Wholesale Jeweler (1924); R.W. Ripley, Dental Laboratory
(1933); and, G.E. Schlee, Advertising (1933). In 1985, the professional offices were
converted to residential units.
The building is a neighbourhood landmark within the downtown. It is one of the tallest
buildings located on this block of King Street West. It contributes to the continuity and
character of the streetscape within the downtown, and fiarms part of the historic Berlin
Main Street.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 144-15a King Street West resides in the following heritage
attributes:
^ All elements related to the construction and Classical Revival architectural style,
o Rectangular plan;
o Yellow buff brick on the side and rear elevations;
o Roof and rooflines;
o window openings;
o Stone lintels and sills;
o Boar openings;
o EIFS {Stucco) fagade;
o Tall three-s#orey piers;
o Storefronts with pla#e glass windows and doors;
o Cornice with small brackets above the storefront and below the roofiine;
o Crenellated parapet; and
o Inscription on parapet reading "Weber Chambers."
^ Internal elements associated with technical or scientific achievement:
o Elevator.
APPENDIX `E': STATEMEN'T'S OF SIGNIFICANCE
Photos
Inscription on parapet
wall -
"Weber Chambers"
;inn Street Elevation (Date of Phoio:_ October 20, 2x08)
APPENDIX `E': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Rear Elevation
Side and Rear Elevation
APPENDIX `E': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
City of Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Forln
Address: 144-150 Kang Street West Period: 1895 Recorder Name: Stephanie Bather
Description: Berlin Vernacular
Photographs: Front Fagade ® Leff Facade ^ Right Facade ® Rear Fagade ® Details ® Setting ^ Date: 2005/2006
pesigrr or Physical Value
Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a
particular architectural style or type?
RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMI7"I'EE
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes d NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes D
Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example
of a particular material or method of construction?
Design Is this a particularly attractive ar unique
structure because of the merits of its design,
composition, craftsmanship or details?
Does this structure demonstrate a high degree
of technical or scientific achievement?
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes L+J NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes 0
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes Q
NIA ^ Unknown 0 No ^ Yes ^
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes ~
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes
Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship NIA ^ Unknown H No ^ Yes ^
andlor detail noteworthy?
Notes -
Subcommittee : cast concrete
Contextual Value RECORDER
Continuity Dces this structure contribute to the continuity NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes
or character of the street,neighbourhood or area?
Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes D
or landscaping noteworthy?
Does it provide a physical, historical, functional NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes ~
or visual link to its surroundings?
Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark ^ R NIA ^ Unknown ^ No Q Yes ^
within the region, city or neighbourhood? ^ C
{indicate degree of unponance) ^ N
Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, NIA ^ Unknown ^ No Q Yes ^
notable landscaping or extema] features that
complete the site?
Integrity RECORDER
Site Does the structure occupy its original site? NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes ~
Note: if relocated, i. e. relocated on its
original site, moved from another site, etc.
Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials NIA ^ Unknown ^ No D Yes ^
and design features?
Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ® Yes ^
alterations that have taken place over lime?
Condition 15 this building in good condition? NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes
N1A ^ Unknown l~ No ^ Yes ^
EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes 8
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes 8
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes D
NIA ^ Unknown ^ Na ^ Yes Q
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No 8 Yes ^
EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes l~
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes 8
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes a
APPENDIX `E': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Historical or Associative Value & Signifecance RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Does this property or structure have strong associations with andlor Unknown ^ No H Yes ^ Unknown ^ No ^ Yes H
contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization
or institution that is significant or unique within the City?
Is the original, previous ar existing nse significant?
Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage
resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the
provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act?
A property or structure valued for the important contribution it
makes to our understanding of the history of a place, an event
or a people?
NIA ^ Unknown ^ No l?f Yas ^ Unknown n No ^ Yes D
Unknown ^ No Yes H Unknown a No ^ Yes D
Appendix ~
11 Young Street - The Mud fair Hotel and 156 -1 ~8 Ding Street
Existing Plans and Elevations
Quadrangle Architects Limited, 2010-O1-OS
~ss~~~cAr 1
~
_
_
w
¢
_
o _~ ~
1-
~ s
C ~~
~ y °~~'
V ~'
tW
S _
~ ~
Q Q _
_
O
~
'~
m
~ ~
m
N
dY
~~Q O
~ ~ ~ =
O ~ O
} m Y ~ Q
~ ~
¢;
U;
_
II
Me
M.~.
~ u
o d
O
O O
'm ~ 0
m a N
~ N d
m ~ a
(q
4f Y ~
~~N
~ ~ m
O m
} N W
m
a
__°
0~e
- _'_
"m°
_
ad -'
~ __
n~e^
-
0-,89+
~ U
w
w ~
9-, L Z+
^ ^~ ^I
„L-,9+ „d -,bl+
J
^ O W ~
~ O ~ +~
H ~
~ ~
Z
}
~ ~ ~
~ o
W ~ ~
_
~ ~ ~ U
~ L J
W W + .6-,OZ+ „Dl -,9+
^ U~ ^"
(
~
~
I
'1
V V
w
z z ~
OO fD ro-, l+
~ ~
r r
^ O
?a-
~ - ~[-
~ ~
,
,
„6-,5+ „9-,Z L+ „9-,8L m
z
w
~ `~ +i
~.,~ -.8+ ~ ,~d-.b „8-,£l~
~ I~
~ x
N U
~
+i
_ X w
w ~
Ol+ +
-0l-
Old ~
~~`~
' ~ ~ .
w
w~ .
~~ ..l-.b L~
+i
-
- ~
~ww
I ~"
--
- ~ x
~ U b
, ~ ~
,[~ w p m
d H
~ f
+ w~ Otn1
0- b+ L-,lL+
2
Z-
6+
.S-, c~ i
+i
_
~~ ~
,
+i
-
o ~ x „6-,6+ - `
^
+i X w
w
~ -
L l+ w +
.b-,f l+ b-,L+
L cJ
J ,
0-,+ ~x
~ U
„L-,b l~
~~G-~~~t w s
~ T ~
+I
~ x
U ~ ~ Sl3Ntld'~313 0
~
w ~
L-,8d~
~080~Z1 50-LO-OIOZ `6mp~suold OOd'd - s6uiplmg 6ui}six3 - ~g~g0~6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaen~~s6uinnoe0~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}ua0-gg~g0~:0
~ `O-
O ~
O
~
-
w
¢ _
1- ~
~ s
c ~ ~
R
IO _
'~
~ ~ ~ ~
¢;
:
'm m
~ N -
0
N a
-=9q
~~e
- P~v
- 1n
~ ~W
' °iin
F -
o °'ffio
o
F \ -
~
F- ~
~ C - ~
~ CLL
S _
~
dY
~
Z
II
~ ;
Qf Y a oa -_
FdP
_ -
- ~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ O ~ v
.~ Q Q _ ~ ~ - O M .T ~ ~ _
O~ t C the O ~ ~ _ __
o } m Y ~ Q o d } N W -
1332~1S JNI~I
uP
i
i uP -
+i „Z-,bl+ ~
~~ - „L-,S+
LJ- S~
w ,0- L~ ,0- S
rs+ o-,aa +
u-,u+
t-,Zl+
o ~ -,ro+
^D
9-,L L+
^ ^~
+i
~
l
^ V J ^H (f~
+I / f1 / f1
Z Z
~
r ~
r
+I ^N
Q
i
..Ol-b~ .£-Zl~
I ~
+I ~
'u
„S -,L+ „0-,8+ „6-
U-,6£~
„8-,6+
bOl-,L+ ~
+i
„9 -,b+ „£-,6+
^O
+~
J
W H
~ O ~
H ~
v~
~~
~a
o
~
w
r = ^
~
o
~
„ll-, + „d-,ll+
1
m
z w
o
w
x
+i ~ ~
Y +I l
^
„~~ .5~
..~~-.9 ~
I
~
®
O
L-,~~t
0
~ u~
~
x to
+i
m -
+i
0
+i
+i
z
0
z
~
+i t-,t~+
m
~ w
a Q o
Ljw
~~
i
Om w
m
C ,9+
~
~b-
9+
w a
~
,
, ~
w N J
~~ 1 X~ ~~
0-,6Z~
~d80~Z1 50-LO-OIOZ `6mp~suold OOd'd - s6uiplmg 6ui}six3 - £g~gQ~6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaen~~s6uinnoeQ~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}ua6-gg~c
_~ ~ ~' N
0 o m
w ~ s '~ ¢; 'm m 0 -=9q
c ~ ~ N ~~e
~ ma
_ ~W N _ ~ o _
_p r- F~ o ~~LL _
S _ N Y I I N Y a a_
_ O ~ ~ ~ u O m
_ o _ } m Y ~ Q o d } N W -
5-,~[+ 3dtl~S33dId9NIlSIX3
+~
+~
+i
+i
+i
P
U -,6£+
9-, l£~
s-,tt+
^D
^D
o~ ,t+ z-,as+
^O
o-,
~ o-,vc+
H
W
W
^D ~
~
Z_
Y
co
„L -,b+ „S ~C+
x
^D
^D
„9-,b~ „Z-.8L~
6- 6+
a-.
e-,5
+~
o~~ .~-s~~
H W
W Q
~ _
H ~
N
~ ~
Z }
~®Q
O
~
}
w
„OL-,
+i + „9-,9 L+
„~-,6Z+
+i
~dLO~ZI 50-LO-OIOZ `6mp~suold OOd'd - s6uiplmg 6ui}six3 - sg~gQ~6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaen~~s6uinnoeQ~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}uas-gg~gs~:~
_~ ~ ~ N `-,
O O m
1- ~ _ ~ ~ a
w ~ s '~ ¢; 'm O -=9q
c ~ ~ N ~~e
tW N _ (n d _
~ ~ rn ° ~ ago
F C O `~_
S _ dY II Qf Y lLL v°' -
.~ Q Q _ ~~ O M .. .T ~ F ~ e o
_ O ~ O ~ ~ O O
_ o _ } m Y ~ Q o d } N W -
+i
P
9-, LS+
.S-, l L~
~ 3dtl~S3 32i1d 9NIlSIX3 ~
H ~
+i ,~L-,Sly
o „-0L-
+i 8~
O L-,9+
„~-,9~
„-0L-,01
~
w
0
W
0
J
W
W W
~ ~
v,
+~ H
~
z
Y z LL
moo}
O ~
~ ~ _
H
S-.L~~
9-, ~ ~-.bay
w 0
a
+i O U
O U
~
-,9~ a ..£-,LZ~
+i
H =
`
0-.SSA +i w
+i
'^
+i
~ ~ o b
6- 6+ „S- b+ „0-,L l+
U -,6£+
D-,6Z+
+i
l
~OLO~ZI SO-LO-OIOZ `6mp~suold OOd'd - s6uiplmg 6ui}six3 - Zglg0~6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaenS~s6uinnoeD~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}ua0-gglgD~:D
D
N r
o ~ ~{
0 0
_
w
¢ - ~
~ ~
c ~ ~
~ 1n °~~' _
'~
~ ~ ~~
Qa
_i ~ O
'ma m
R N N
~= W
_ a
~~e
_'_
r- Ue ~
a „mo
_ ~W
'~ N
L
Frn _
° L
Fom _
°»
-
F
S _
N Y
I I
~
N LL _
v d _
-
U
Q N N 2 ~
(nom ~ ~ (V
~' ~ C ~
(n pY _
_~v
.~ Q -
_ ~~~ = M.. alL~ -9~~~
_ o } m Y ~ Q o d } W~ _
~3 v~s3 ~al~~
N SIX3
9-, l£~
+i
+i
~
W J
W
~
~
U'
Y
~
W
~ 0
~~
Z ~
O ~
'
~
~ ~ _
~
~~
~~
o~-.~~~
9 -, e-.a~~
9-,Zl+
~dLO~ZI 50-LO-OIOZ `6mp~suold OOd'd - s6uiplmg 6ui}six3 - ~g~gQ~6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaen~~s6uinnoeQ~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}ua~-gg~g~~:~
~ ~ ~ u,
w
¢ ~ ~
°"''
~ ~
~ ~ ¢¢ ~ O
~ -d~a
_ P v
- 1n
V ~.
aW
' L
N U; L m a
a „mo
c ° -
O
r ~ a~ Q
- F
`o -
S _
N Y
II
~ LL _
adP_=
_ o _ } }
m Y ~ Q o d W -
~3 v~s3 ~al~~
N SIX3
9-, l£~
~ w w
~ ~ a
w w U
N
w
+i
+i
J
W
~ O
~~
z ~
~ Q
O ~
~
~~
~~
o~-.~~~
9 -, e-.a~~
9-,dl+
~dLO~ZI 50-LO-OIOZ `6mp~suold OOd'd - s6uiplmg 6ui}six3 - ~g~gQ~6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaen~~s6uinnoeQ~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}ua~-gg~g~~:~
~
-
w
¢
o ~
~ ~
~ 1n °"''
~
'~ w
I-
S _
U
Q Q -
_
- ~
~
~ ~
L
F c
N Y
d~02 ~
(n r Q ~
O~ ~ ~ =
> m Y ~ Q
¢¢
U;
o
-
II
(V
~ ~
M.
o d ~
~ O
~
L m ~
F a
o
N LL
NL
(n X
.T (n
} W
-d~a
_ P v
dmo
.~ „-
- _
v °' m-
= -_
. _ -
~t_
-
~3 v~ s3 ~al~~
N SIX3
~ w w
~ ~ a
w w U
w
+i
+i
J
W
~ O
~~
z ~
~ Q
O ~
~
~~
b
~~
o~-.~~~
9 -, e-.z~~
9-,dl+
~dLO~ZI 50-LO-OIOZ `6mp~suold OOd'd - s6uiplmg 6ui}six3 - ~g~gQ~6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaen~~s6uinnoeQ~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}ua~-gg~g~~:~
mw
0 o r -
w ~ ~ ~ a; ~ ~ _Y~a
~D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~v
~ U s U1 U L °- dmo
~ w F~ o F R -
r - y ='_
~ x - mY n mw dd _`
_ o - } m Y ~ Q o d y W -
^~ ^~
~~ ~~ ~~ ^ ^
^~ ^~
^ ^
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
^~ ^~
^~ ^~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
^~ ^~
^~ ^~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ^ ^
^~ ^~
^~ ^~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
^~ ^~
^ ^ ^
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ^ ^
^~ ^~
^~ ^~ ^
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0
^~ ^~
0
a a a a ~ a a
wd~i~Zl 50-LO-OIOZ '6Mp~suoi}onal3 OObV - X8190\6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaen~~s6uinnoeQ~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}ua~-gg~g~~:~
w
¢ cu ~
_
C ~
-
D y R ~
o
'~
~ ~
; ~ N N
0 o
~,
'm m O
w ~
~ N .L-
m
~_
_dae
_~=
V ~'
tW
F
S _ m
N
F Ol
~
d Y U;
_
o
-
II m o a
(q N
F ~
I c a
N Y N "m°
_
~ d
a m-_'
_
.~ _ = u
Q Q _ ~ ~ Z ~
~ ~ O = M :
M.~. ~ ~ C
~ ~ Z _
n~e^
o } m Y ~ Q o d y N W -
YOUNG ~TREET w
w
° ~
cn
C7
z
O
~ }
^^
~
z
0 z
~ o
~~
~ 0 0
>
i i i
^® i w
w
w
°
o a
_
~ _
Q
~ ~
~ ~
~
~ ~
O
~ J
S
~
N Q
L.L
~
H
w
W '
VJ
/11
V
z Y
~ ~ ~ ~ Y
~ ~ T
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~.
^ N
~
/^
/
VJ
~
W O
T
~ ~ T
~ ~
~
'
O O
J °
~ w w
= z
-
(~ z vii
13 32~1S JNf1 0J~ V ~ a
wdLZ~ZI 50-LO-OIOZ '6Mp~suoi}onal3 OObV - X8190\6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaen~~s6uinnoeQ~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}ua~-gg~g~~:~
w
¢ ~
~ ~
~ 1n °"'' ~
~
~ ~
¢ ~ `-,
~ V
~ V
dEa
- P v
- V ~
'w
'a
r
S _ L
N
~rn
N Y V=
_°
I I L`o a
~m
~,
N w "m°
-
` " _ _
v d _'
~. d ~Q ~ Me N ~ _ -
o } m Y ~ Q o d Y W -
^°o
, .
~.~
7 ~\~
\`.
~. ~ :
~. ~~. `. f
^
~ .
0 0 0
~
i ~ ~ ~
~ t~. ~, ~ :r i
~,
0
^^ 0
^^ 0
^^
0
^^ i 0
^^ i 0
^^
\
~
w
w
~
r \
\.
~.
~~ ~~
i
o ~ ~ .
0
^^ ~
0
^^ ~
0
^^
\ c ~
~ ~
~ ~z ~ ~~
~~ ~`~ ~`~'~'
~~~ ~
0
^^ 0
^^ 0
^^ Y
~~ ~
~:V ` ~:'~
,~'~ .
,
o
~~
~o
^
~o
^
~o
^ ~ ~. i ~ ~i r
i
\:
\
,,
0 0 0
~,
\``
`
\
~.
0
^^
^^ 0
^^
^^ 0
^^
^^ \'
`\
~ . \~
~ ~
~
~\
~
~
o ~
0 0 0
^^ ^^ ^^
~;
a i i
wdLZ~ZI 50-LO-OIOZ '6Mp~suoi}onal3 OObV - X8190\6ui}six3 yoaouoW~}uaaen~~s6uinnoeQ~eauay~}!;~ %i~ol9 aa}ua~-gg~g~~:~
Appendix ~
The Mayfair Hotel
Project Statistics and Proposed Floor Plans
Quadrangle Architects Limited, l8 February 2011
L~_~~nxr i
a, w -
c
ro
L ~'
w
~ F
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
U ~
N ~_
~' v
C6 ~
+~ ~
}, v
U a
Q
~O a
~ O
~ Z
N
W
H
N
LL
Q O O M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ -I ~ -I ~ -I ~ -I ~ -I ~ -I ~ -I
W
m
C
C
Z
a
L
L
W
a ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
-I
00
M
M
M
00
00
I~
~
W
Q
Q C31 00 Ol Ol Ol 00 00 lD lD ~
J
N
N
O
oc
C7
p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s
_0 ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ X
N'1 ~ ~ ~
Z
LL N
~ i
~ ~
N ~ ~
a~ W
c~ N
m
o~
M
N
r-I
M
n
c ~
O v
v v
3 ~
(A m
~ ~
V ~
i ~
~ U
~ k
v
++ ~--
O
H
-~
c.i
i.+
v
i\
.~
i..~
i\
O
a
v
v
O
Z
U
H
H
Q
H
H
U
w
O
a
J
W
~ ~_
N2 Y
LL ~
a
a
} c¢ o
Q ~ ~ o
N
~ Q ~
a ~ 0 3
o ~ ~ °m
y U .O LL
Y d ~
.a...
v
v
a
=~
~~\\ ~ \ \~
~\ \
\.° \ ~.
H
am~o
\~
\~~ ~.
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~
a, w -
m
L ~' _
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
J
W
W
J
J
LL
z
W
W
Q
00
J
W
H
N~
LL
a
Q
W
2
Y
a
m o
o
N
~ Q ~
C N ~ ~
O N ~ N O
Y Y a LL N
Y d ~
~a
~:.
~ S
~%
~ ear
`~ ~~
r
I / 1
/%
~y:
/ //
~.
a, w -
c
ro
L ~'
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
J
W
W
J
J
LL
0
Z
J
W
H
N~
N
a
cQ
C
U..~
Y
a
m o
m o
N
~ Q ~
a ~ 0 3
o °~ ~ m o
Y ~ S LL N
Y d ~
\.
\\a
~:.
---~
- - -
\ '~
\an
a, w -
m
L ~' _
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
J
W
W
J
J
LL
0
Z
U
W
J
W
H
N~
LL
a
Q
W
2
Y
a
m o
m o
N
~ Q ~
C N ~ ~
O N ~ N O
Y Y a LL N
Y d ~
~`
\\a
~:.
\ '~
\an
a, w -
m
L ~' _
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
J
W
W
J
J
LL
0
~_
J
W
H
N~
LL
a
Q
W
2
Y
a
m o
m o
N
~ Q ~
C N ~ ~
O N ~ N O
Y Y a LL N
Y d ~
~`
\\a
~:.
\ '~
\an
a, w -
m
L ~' _
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
J
W
W
J
J
LL
LL
J
W
H
N~
LL
a
Q
W
2
Y
a
m o
m o
N
~ Q ~
C N ~ ~
O N ~ N O
Y Y a LL N
Y d ~
a, w -
c
ro
L ~'
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
J
W
W
J
J
LL
LL
LL
U..~
Q a
N2 Y
LL ~
alp
a
} c¢ o
Q ~ ~ o
N
~ Q ~
a ~ 0 3
o ~ ~ m o
Y ~ S LL N
Y d ~
a, w -
c
ro
L ~'
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
J
W
W
J
J
LL
2
H
x
w
Q a
N2 Y
LL ~
alp
a
} c¢ o
Q ~ ~ o
N
~ Q ~
a ~ 0 3
o ~ ~ m o
Y ~ S LL N
Y d ~
a, w -
c
ro
L ~'
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
~ ~ ~ ~
~ E
~~a
f E
~m~
NN `~ E
NnM "~ E
vlnM ~n n n
e
'~ E
<nnn
~
`° E
M
~
E n
N
o `n """
m
?tea
~nnM ~
w
m E
oN e~ ~~,~
O1 E
vin n
M
f
f
f
°
E E E
inns c=nn~ vine ~ E
N M M
J
W
W
J
J
LL
Z
W
W
W
Q a
N2 Y
LL ~
alp
a
} c¢ o
Q ~ ~ o
N
~ Q ~
a ~ 0 3
o ~ ~ m o
Y ~ S LL N
Y d ~
a, w -
c
ro
L ~'
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
J
W
W
J
J
LL
_~
W
w
~ ~
Q a
N2 Y
LL ~
alp
a
} c¢ o
Q ~ ~ o
N
~ Q ~
a ~ 0 3
o ~ ~ m o
Y ~ S LL N
Y d ~
a, w
o s- ~I
Ire- - - - - - II
w ~'
~- - - - m- - - -~ ~ E ,~.
~~ m
m °ro
~
zw
~
c~E
U
~~n E
~ N
- ~~
x~ N~M
of
~~
w~
N
2 ~ N ~ O ~
~ N N
inn
inn
c
ro
L ~'
w
ro ~ -m
U
4 nF
J
W
W
J
J
LL
Z
Z
J
W
H
N~
N
a
cQ
C
U..~
Y
a
c¢ o
m o
N
~ Q ~
a ~ 0 3
o °~ ~ m o
Y ~ S LL N
Y d ~
Appendix 6
Qualifications of the Author
OWEN R. SCOTT, GALA, FC'SLA, CAHP
Education:
Master of Landscape Architecture (M.L.A.) University of Michigan. 1967
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Landscape Horticulhire). (B.S.A.) Universih of Guelph. 1965
Professional Eperience:
1977 -present President. The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.. Guelph. Ontario
1965 -present President. Canadian Horticultural Consulting Company- Limited, Guelph. Ontario
1977 - 1985 Director, The Pacific Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Vancouver and Nanaimo. BC
1975 - 1981 Editor and Publisher. Landscape~rchitecture C'a~ada. Arils, Ontario
1969 - 1981 Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architechire. University of Guelph
1975 - 1979 Director and Founding Principal, Ecological Seri°ices for Planning Limited. Guelph. Ontario
1964 - 1969 Landscape Architect, Project Planning Associates Limited, Toronto, Ontario
Historical Research, Heritage Landscape Planning and Restoration Experience and Epertise
Current Professional and Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations:
Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation (AHLP)
Member: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP)
Member: Association for Preservation Technology (APT)
Member: Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA)
Fellow: Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (FCSLA)
Communit~~ and Professional Society Ser~~ice (Heritage):
Director: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, 2002 - 2003
Member: Advisor- Board. Architectural Conservanc~,~ of Ontario, 1980 - 2002
Member. Cite of Guelph Local Architectural Consei-~%ation Advisory Committee (LACAC), 1987 - 2000 (Chair 1988 - 1990)
Member: Advisor- Council Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies. 1985 - 1988
Personal and Professional Honours and A~i-ards (Heritage):
National Award 2009 Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement, Alton Mill. Alton. ON
Award of Merit 2009 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals A«ards, Alton Mill. Alton. ON
Award 2001 Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement
A~~°ard 1998 Province of Ontario. Volunteer Award (10 year a~yard)
Award 1994 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (5 year award)
Regional Merit 1990 Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA), Britannia School Farm Master Plan
National Honour 1990 CSLA Awards. Confederation Boulevard, Ottawa
Citation 1989 Cite of Mitisissluga Urban Design A~yards. Britannia School Farm Master Plan
Honour Award 1987 Cai~crdinn.4i°chitect, Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration, Cambridge, ON
Citation 198G Pc°ogressive Architectz~re, The Ceremonial Routes (Confederation Boulevard). Ottawa.
National Citation 1985 CSLA Awards, Tipperu-~- Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon. SK
National Merit 1984 CSLA Awards, St_ Tames Park Victorian Garden. Toronto. ON
Award 1982 Ontario Ministn~ of Municipal Affairs Ontario Renews A«ards, Millside, Guelph. ON
Selected Heritage Publications:
Scott, Owen R.. The Southern Ontario "Grid". _4C'OIZR-" Vol XXVI-3, Summer 2001. The Jor~rnal of the ~rchitectzrral
Coaser~~ai~cy of Ontario.
Appendix 6 2
Scott Owen R. 19th Cent~a~i~ Gardens for the 20'x' and 21 s, Centuries. Proceedings of "Consei-~%ing Ontario's Landscapes"
conference of the ACO. (April 1997). Architechiral Conservancy of Ontario Inc.. Toronto, 1998.
Scott Owen R. Landscapes of~~Iernories, ~ Gz4ide for Conser~~ingHistoric Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters) compiled and
edited bti~ Tamara Anson-Cartright, Ontario Ministiti~ of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, 1997.
Scott, Owen R Cemeteries: A Historical Perspecti~ e, ~,'e~~~sletter, The ~~Iemorial ,~S'ocietJ~ of Gz~elph. September 1993.
Scott Owen R. The Sound of the Double-bladed Ale. Guelph and its Spring Festival. edited b_v Gloria Dent and Leonard
Conolly, The Edward Johnson Music Foundation, Guelph, 1992. 2 pp.
Scott. Owen R. Woohyich Street Corridor. Guelph, ACORRT Vol XVI-2. Fall 1991. Newsletter of the Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario Inc.
Scott. O«-enR. guest editor, ACORy', Vol. XIV-2, Summer 1989. Cultural Landscape Issue.Ne~ysletterof the Architech~ral
Conservanc_ of Ontario Inc.
Scott O~yen R. Cultiyars. pavers and the historic landscape. Historic Sites S`trpplies Handhooh. Ontario Museum
Association. Toronto, 1989. 9 pp.
Scott Owen R. Landscape preservation -What is iY? ~le~nsletter, American Society of Landscape Architects -Ontario
Chapter, vol. 4 no.3. 1987.
Scott, O~yen R. Tipperan~ Creels Consei~~ation Area. Wanushewin Heritage Park. Landscape.Irchitectirral Reviei~~, May
1986. pp. ~-9.
Scott, Owen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial Histoiti~ Conference, McMaster University, 1984.
Scott Owen R. Canada WestLandscapes. FifthAnjnralProceedings ~TiagaraPeninszrlaHistor~~Conferenee (19831. 1983.
22 pp.
Scott. Owen R. Utilizing Histon~ to Establish Cultural and Physical Identit<- in the Rural Landscape. Landscape Planning,
Elsevier Scientific Press. Amsterdam, 1979. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 179-203.
Scott Owen R. Chan~in~RuralLandscapeinSouthernOntario. Third.lnnzralProceedings.-lgi°ic~iltzn°alHisto~yofOntario
Seminar (1978). June 1979. 20 pp.
Scott, Owen R.. P. Grimwood, M. Watson. Ueor~e Laing -Landscape Gardener, Hamilton. Canada West 1808-1871.
B~rlletin, The association for Pres~ei °ation Technolo~~. Vol. IX, No. 3. 1977, 13 pp. (also published in Landscape
architecture Canada, Vol. 4. No. 1. 1978).
Scott, O~yen R. The Evaluation of the Upper Canadian Landscape. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of
Manitoba. 1978. (Colour videotape).
Following is a repreyentati~~e listing of some of the manti- heritage projects undertaken b~ O~~en R. Scott in his capacity
as principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
o Acton Quan-~- Cultural Heritage Landscape & Built Heritage Study & Assessment Peer Revie~~,°, Acton, ON
o BehTedere Terrace -Peer Revie~y, Assessment of Proposals for Heritage Property, Pane Sound. ON
o Britannia School Farm Master Plan. Peel Board of Education/Mississauga. ON
o Confederation Boulevard (Susses Drive) Urban Design. Site Plans. NCC/Ottawa, ON
o Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans. Region of Waterloo/Kitchener, ON
o Downtown Gzrelph Private Realm Improvements lllanual. Citti- of Guelph, ON
o Downtown G~ielph Pzrblic Realm Plan, Cin- of Guelph. ON
o Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibilit~~ Study, CitvT of Hamilton, ON
o Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan, City of Waterloo. ON
o Exhibition Parh Master Plan. City of Uuelph. ON
o George Brown House Landscape Restoration. Toronto. ON
o Government of Ontario Light Rail Transit Route Selection, Cultural and Natural Resources Inventory for Environmental
Assessment. Hamilton/Burlington. ON
o Grand River Corridor C: onservation Plan. GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo. ON
o Hespeler West Secondary Plan -Heritage Resources Assessment. City of Cambridge. ON
o John Galt Park. City- of Uuelph, ON
o Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan. NCC/Ottass°a. ON
o Lakewood Golf Course Cultural Landscape Assessment Tecumseh, ON
o Landfill Site Selection, Culh~ral Heritage hiyentoi-~% for Environmental Assessment Region of Halton. ON
o Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans, Cambridge, ON
Appendix 6
o MacGregor/Albert Heritage Consei-~%ation District Sh~d~~ and Plan, Cite of Waterloo, ON
o Museum of Nah~ral Science/Magnet School 59/Landscape Restoration and Site Plans. Citti~ of Buffalo, NY
o Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan, MNIZ/Huntsville, ON
o Peel Heritage Centre Adapti~~e Re-use, Landscape Design, Brampton. ON
o Phyllis Rawlinson Park Master Plan (~~-inning design competition). Town of Richmond Hill. ON
o Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan. NCC/Otta~~,°a, ON
o Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans, Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON
o Regional Heritage Centre Feasibility Shid~~ and Site Selection. Region of Waterloo. ON
o Rockway Gardens Master Plan, KHS/Kitchener. ON
o South Kitchener Transportation Sh~d~,~. Heritage Resources Assessment. Region of Waterloo, ON
St George's Square, Citti- of Guelph, ON
~ St. ,Tames Park Victorian Garden, City of Toronto. ON
o Tipperaiti~ Creek (Wanuskewin) Heritage Consei-~~ation Area Master Plan, MVA/Saskatoon. SK
o University of Toronto Heritage Consei~~ation District Study. City of Toronto, ON
o Waterloo Vallevlands Study. Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies. Region of Waterloo
o Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration. Parks Canada/Kitchener. ON
Heritage Impact Assessments. Heritage Impact Statements and Heritage Conservation Plans:
o Acton Quarn~ Cultural Heritage Landscape & Built Heritage Study & Assessment Peer Review, Acton. ON
o Barra Castle Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener. ON
o Cambridge Retirement Complel on the former Tiger Brand Lands. Heritage Impact Assessment Cambridge, ON
o Cordingly House Heritage Impact Statement Mississauga, ON
o Grev Silo Golf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo. ON
o GRCA Lands, 748 Zeller Drive Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum. Kitchener. ON
o Hancock Woodlands Cultural Heritage Assessment and Heritage Impact Statement, Cit`- of Mississauga, ON
o Rock-way Holdings Limited Lands north of Fairway Road Eltension Heritage hnpact Assessment Kitchener. ON
o Thorny-Brae Heritage Impact Statement Mississauga. ON
o Winzen Developments Heritage hnpact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
0 140 Blue Heron Ridge Heritage Impact Assessment Cambridge, ON
o ~ 1 Breithaupt Street Heritage hnpact Assessment, Kitchener. ON
0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Conservation Plan. Kitchener, ON
0 307 Ca~~-•thra Road Heritage hnpact Statement Mississauga, ON
0 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment Guelph. ON
0 2~ Joseph Street Heritage Impact Assessment. Kitchener. ON
0 117 Liverpool Street Heritage Impact Assessment Guelph. ON
0 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment. Kitchener, ON
0 324 Old Huron Road Heritage Impact Assessment Kitchener, ON
0 927 Victoria Road South Heritage Impact Assessment Guelph. ON
Expert Witness Experience (Heritage):
Owen R. Scott has been called as an elpert witness at a member of hearings and trials. These include Ontario Municipal
Board Hearings. Conser~-ation Re~~ie« Board Hearings. En~~ironmental Assessment Board and. En~~ironmental
Protection Act Board Hearings. and civil and criminal trials. The heritage evidence he has presented has been related to
cultural heritage issues where historical and landscape resources were evaluated.