HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - 2014-02-04 - 25 Breithaupt St Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
25 Breithaupt Street, Kitchener
(addendum to 51 Breithaupt Street HIA, September 7, 2010)
Mill
j
rur,�rnvi7N��IIi�fiN��IdG11�VNJJl1JJJI�iiiYld�E�WJ�d�V JO�dIL' � BIWITU,��!W ry�rR�p,„
Old uvrOnMa°�1r��
r7UtdU!4!�dE1P�f���,0��sxrnf�ra
�1 iUd
i!mrv�m�+ieo�vr�,mm v
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
landscape architects, environmental planners, heritage planners
319 Woolwich Street, Guelph, ON N1H 3W4 (519) 824-8664 fax(519) 824-6776
landplan(cr�,thelandplan.com
Y"C ND DRAFT January 13, 2014
1 - 1
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment(addendum to 51 Breithaupt Street HIA, September 7,2010)
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
Table of Contents
1.0 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Present owner contact information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Site history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and
heritage attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.4 The proposed development and potential heritage impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Mitigating measures and conservation of the heritage resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6 Summary of conservation principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7 Proposed alterations and demolitions explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.8 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.9 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix 1 - City of Kitchener Development and Technical Services Department Heritage Impact
Assessment Terms of Reference 51 Breithaupt Street, April 27, 2010
Appendix 2 - Criteria for Determining Heritage Significance of Modernist Buildings
Appendix 3 - Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations, Robertson Simmons architects inc.
Appendix 4 - Qualifications of the author
All photographs taken by the author May 28,2010, September 11, 2013 and December 19, 2013.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. c.co�iul II graft January 13,2014
1 - 2
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment(addendum to 51 Breithaupt Street HIA, September 7,2010)
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
Figures
Figure 1 - Subject property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2 - 1909 Building No. 2 - May 2010, September 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 3 - 1912 Building No. 5 - May 2010, September 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 4 - 1918 Building No. 6 - May 2010, December 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 5 - Cafeteria, Office, Lab Building - May 2010, December 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 6 - Excavation for 25 Breithaupt Street c. 1954 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 7 - Aerial perspective from King Street West and Moore Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 8 - Aerial perspective from King Street West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 9 - Views from Breithaupt Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 10 - Views from King Street West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 11 - North elevation illustrating wall types and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 12 - Current proposal versus 2010 HIA proposal versus existing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 13 - 1966 Cafeteria, Office Lab Building and adjacent 1918 & 1955 buildings, front&rear
May 28, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 14 - 1966 Cafeteria, Office Lab Building and adjacent 1918 & 1955 buildings, front&rear
December 19, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II)raft January 13,2014
1 - 3
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
1.0 BACKGROUND
This scoped HIA is an addendum to the approved September 7, 2010 HIA for 51 Breithaupt Street and is
in response to pre-submission consultation comments 25 Breithaupt Street Proposed Site Plan Application
ScopedHeritagebnpactAssessment Terms ofReference,City of Kitchener Community Services Department
-Planning Division',November 19, 2013.
The Breithaupt Block is two parcels of land located on the north side of King Street West on both sides of
Breithaupt Street. It was also the subject of a approved Conservation Plan'. 25 Breithaupt Street is one
component of the overall property know as The Breithaupt Block (Figure 1).
r
I
http://mai)s.region.waterloo.om.ca/locatonhtm Figure 1 -subject property
i Heritage Impact Assessment, 51 Breithaupt Street, Kitchener, ON, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.,
September 7,2010,approved November 8,2010,(memo to Garett Stevenson,Planning Technician from
AlainPinard,Interim Director of Planning,"Approval of Heritage Impact Assessment,51 Breithaupt Street
Site Plan Application- SP 10/006/B/GS")-see Appendix 1
2 See Appendix 2
' Conservation Plan, 51 Breithaupt Street, Kitchener, ON re: Site Plan Application SP10/0668/GS The
Landplan Collaborative Ltd.&Robertson Simmons Architects Inc.,December 2010,amended February
2011
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II prift January 13,2014
1 - 4
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 2
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
2.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Present owner contact information
Perimeter Development Corporation
119 King Street West, Suite 220
Kitchener ON N2G lA7
Mr. Craig Beattie (519)745-3800 ext. 132
cbeattie perimeterdevelopment.com
2.2 Site history
The Breithaupt Block consists of a series of buildings built between 1903 and 1969 with numerous
additions. The original building and early additions were built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural
style with later additions being more modern in appearance. 25 Breithaupt Street is the most recent
addition,being constructed in 1955, with numerous changes into the 2000s.
2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes
The original Breithaupt Block building near the corner of Breithaupt Street and Waterloo Street is circa
1903 with additions,new buildings,and major renovations being made over a 100 year period. It and
the additions,save the 1955 building at 25 Breithaupt Street,was recently refurbished according to the
Conservation Plan as part of the overall Breithaupt Block redevelopment. The following figures
illustrate some of redevelopment as seen from the street.
Figure 2 1909 Building No.2-May 2010(left),September 2013 (right)
Mew /
/ r �
fV /
!l
o�
l
Figure 3 1912 Building No. 5 -May 2010(left),September 2013 (right)
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II)riff January 13,2014
1 - 5
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 3
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
d
.,• � �l a
,
Figure 4 1918 Building No. 6-May 2010(left),December 2013 (right)
wav
NINE
r
Figure 5 Cafeteria,Office,Lab Building-May 2010(left),December 2013 (right)
A chronological history of the properties, their architectural and materials characteristics, and the
redevelopment plans can be found in the aforementioned Heritage Impact Assessment and
Conservation Plan.
The following table 4 summarizes the building materials and architectural elements of the building at
25 Breithaupt Street, the subject of this addendum to the HIA
4 from:Heritage ImpactAssessment,Sl Breithaupt Street,Kitchener;ON,The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.,
September 7,2010
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II h'af'[January 13,2014
1 - 6
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 4
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
building building materials/comments character-defining architectural elements
25 Breithaupt Street 1955 • steel post&beam frame,brick • modernist design
veneer&aluminum sash`H' • aluminum sash`H' mullion glass
mullion glass • 6/6/9 windows&hopper windows with
• 6/6/9 windows&hopper aluminum sills
windows
• aluminum sills
(stone sills,office block)
• flat roof
• concrete foundation,full
2 storeys with basement basement
1
IN"If,106 �Yo�g
11M1Wtll�lrrittU TI7(l
front
s
i
u
Jre
rear side(King Street)elevation
w
top floor interior
With respect to cultural heritage value and interest, the Breithaupt Block is representative of the
founding and progression of the industrial age in the City of Kitchener,with the earliest building dating
from 1903 and the latest addition of 2001 prior to its recent redevelopment. The Merchants Rubber
Company and its successors occupied the buildings from 1903 to 1981,employing many local residents
over its 78 year history. Prominent Kitchener citizens Jacob Kaufman, Talmon Henry Rieder, and
George Schlee, all Waterloo Region Hall of Fame members,have been associated with the property.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II)raft January 13,2014
1 - 7
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 5
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
Like many of its contemporaries, its industrial life came to an end and an adaptive re-use has been
found, one that garnered a 2013 Mike Wagner Heritage Award.
The 66,000-square-foot,mid-201'century Prack&Prack building(25 Breithaupt Street)was originally
constructed to produce a variety of rubber and plastic products,including dashboard crash pads, fuel
cells, carpet underpadding and coated auto fabrics. It does not meet the criteria for architectural
significance as noted in the HIA 5 and although it is a continuation of industrial building construction
on this site,it has no direct association with the important local personages in the rubber industry.
i
i
r r X41 i
lftl�a(��/�f(✓�'! �f�r!l�(�l��lfiI�r �u" ll) ���/ ��� '
1n �r r �/r! r Fr+�t.%�+srl°IJy�✓ �l err r / l r
� fir! � l i �w �i�rr f//r /%i � r✓G/ inw '� i6 �;f d�f!/
M ✓ r �%i/iii! � yr, /// %l�r ��% ! � �d-
�
�ry�r 1/�j//r�r ///nr AG r /� r � ' ! ✓ � JoGI r/
r r li I rHr"%ii//!�%//%�Jj� rf/i �i, r /����„ s'/''�� �r a 1�✓ i�V�,a
I I
Figure 6 excavation for 25 Breithaupt Street c. 1954
5 Ibid("It is not a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or
construction method; it does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; it does not
demonstrate ahigh degree of technical or scientific achievement.-Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage
Act criteria for designation")
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II prift January 13,2014
1 - 8
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 6
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
2.4 The proposed development and potential heritage impacts
Figures 7 through 10 illustrate the proposed upgrades which include a main pedestrian entrance on
Breithaupt Street,an elevator tower,a new building skin,a revamped roofscape,and a third floor glass
bridge to the redeveloped adjacent building (the 1918 Building No. 6).
ij
�,rcrrr✓r�mn���� Cpl,,. ��� I� � � � �i�pf �/ ... °,
„�i�uuman�^r+rNw�mm uwtli ����i
r1�'"�g4�s��aaVr off, Y
�dr��tl ��Vl�yi
i
nVUari�i��ui�u,�
��,��
i J'11
�
�rburu'NIV,p�ru+`ldl
Figure 7 aerial perspective from King Street West and Moore Avenue
Robertson Simmons Architects Inc.
w,
r� l
ON
VpY
��iyi a fua10,u �ar�a�rriioi��r,
r
b
y .....
Figure 8 aerial perspective from King Street West
Robertson Simmons Architects Inc.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II prift January 13,2014
1 - 9
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
I f
oir
II���IN�� �lo�sllsiu�ilollulmoulll�l�uul��u�i�im��l�l���a��uuuuM't ��
G
i
�� htlu�u Xc
i viM rmirN, �".. �, r ✓.� IIl11Iu i ,,,,
puuuuuuuumiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumiiiuiii
oo, G d�luuuuuuuuuuVVuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuVVuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuVVuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuVVi��
r
rr�,
s+auww�n y �roa�trrtir� / r � �� a,
✓/!' Md'�IIY�r'IINIYIVY1rIw�1W�/rf� � /�
rid II�IIVi
t -
Ir ref"
u���DS�,� I�'�XY�rJfI�I��IVX7 �Bi� I r�l�' r ��` ! d�irfr, Ayl, r� I ,�;i,,; fl ,�«ofa�ar r�,ni�raaaaaaaaiaaiianniruriavviarr
�11 �EM
ro� "u �I
Figure 9 views from Breithaupt Street-Robertson Simmons Architects Inc.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. c.co�iul II graft January 13,2014
1 - 10
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 8
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
.�. ,� Un""�°� . w,.i � ,,.. - na�� 5 ��'ililiuliuliuliul�u�i �Wiult ' ��� 0� iiD��018UIV�uII
r
n
r
�r, �ii�N i�ii
w mm�lrit 9a( Y 1IIi� l�&
.. " �.,mrznn�nuAVImW7X1�!!
%0
r
"
�• ,��li' "- a���������//
Figure 10 views from King Street West-Robertson Simmons Architects Inc.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II)raft January 13,2014
1 - 11
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 9
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
The HIA noted that`Because the sill heights of this building are not conducive to an office adaptive
re-use, and to make this project viable,it is proposed that the skin be replaced with a modern curtain
wall/modified glazing system,retaining the modernist look of the existing building."'
As can be seen in Figure 11, the current proposed development retains the footprint of the existing
modern building,its linearity and its basic massing. Additional floor space is garnered with a partial
penthouse floor unlike the continuous additional floor proposed in the 2010 HIA. The design of the
building, although different from that envisaged in the HIA, continues to be sympathetic and
complementary to the existing, refined, modernist character of the building and to the overall
Breithaupt Block complex. The elements that contribute to defining the modernist character of the
building, its linear plan and features such as the extensive use of glazing work toward achieving a
pattern and mix of tones on the facade that will be visually complementary and similar to the glazing
on the existing building(which is a character defining architectural element). The variation in colour
and reflectance of the proposed thermally broken curtain wall glazing system is a design element that
builds upon some of the character defining features of the existing building and the previously
proposed design.(Figures 11 and 12 and Appendix 3). A dark iron spot clay brick,mirror and charcoal
finish aluminum panels, sandblasted concrete, and three glass types are proposed.
........ ....�............ 1 1 .
.. ....... ......
m ."
J I F 14 F ...--------------- ...
,,,, y „ ............ ...... ............
M,H11
. 11
(
G a.l
,
+ -------
.........
1............ 4,iH[A[N,W Il,f
,"1 11., a
Norlh Elevation
^.0 imq F,.
1, H z',,QN PI«,'r L,,,XV,V$
Figure 11 north elevation illustrating wall types and materials-Robertson Simmons architects me.
(see Appendix 3 and full-size elevations in Site Plan presubmission consultation package)
6 Ibid
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Second II prift January 13,2014
1 - 12
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 10
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
iii Diu o I
PROPOSAL-[December 2013
ii�ar
I
PR4)P1aAIL_Se temtaer 20101
I
i
t F
r Ifrv�.,a ! „ � i �� ,on.r „M a„wmeusa�ot�r✓✓ii nruo „ _, x wyw..Ra
EXIS'�IIN'G -Decereber 2013
Figure 12 current proposal versus 2010 HIA proposal versus existing
The 2010 HIA and subsequent Conservation Plan proposed demolition of the following:
• the three buildings at 20-24 Breithaupt Street;
• the 1966 concrete block addition(Office, Cafeteria&Lab);
• the front portion of the 1912 single storey building (Building No. 5); and
• the front portion of the 1909 single storey building with its 2001 addition(Building No. 2).
Those demolitions have taken place. The one affecting the subject of this addendum to the 2010 HIA
is the 1966 concrete block Cafeteria, Office and Lab Building which filled the gap between the 1918
building and the 1955 Prack & Prack building. From 1966 onwards, this building hid the westerly
facade and those heritage attributes of the historic 1918 building.
A departure from the 2010 HIA concept for the 1955 building is the inclusion of a glass bridge between
the adjacent 1918 building and the new modern building. The bridge is designed in a strictly modern
style that complements, without mimicking or pandering to the nearly century old building or the
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Secoud II)raft January 132014
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
former modernist building. Its transparency does not impact or mask any of the heritage attributes'
of the 1918 building.
o, iJ 1
1(1 I
Figure 13 1966 Cafeteria,Office Lab Building and adjacent 1918& 1955 buildings,front&rear
May 28,2010
gill
' I
r
(IAf(iG4 , Oi r�r,, f��✓ �-, i.9+�J,c„ti a
Figure 14 1966 Cafeteria,Office Lab Building and adjacent 1918& 1955 buildings,front&rear
December 19,2010
The sight line from Breithaupt Street provides a framed view of the Pharmacy Building, and soon the
Multi-modal Hub complex. Views from King Street West are not compromised by the bridge,which
logically enters the 1918 building on the projecting stair tower.
Sight lines and views from the historic Breithaupt Block are enhanced by the glazed bridge, allowing
for elevated views of the Pharmacy Building, and the future Multi-modal Hub complex.
The impact of these change to the Prack&Prack building will be to provide a pedestrian amenity to
the street which is currently lacking and provide opportunity for landscaping,which now exists as a
very narrow band of turf.
Ibid-buff("white")brick;brick pilasters&cornice with central tower;concrete lintels&sills;6/6 double
hung windows with 3 light transom;date stone(1918);wood post&beam construction,brick bearing wall,
designed to carry heavy loads
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Secoud II unit January 132014
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 12
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
2.5 Mitigating measures and conservation of the heritage resource
The 1955 Prack&Prack building is not considered aheritage resource.' However,it will be adaptively
redeveloped on its original footprint and re-used in a manner sympathetic and complementary to the
adjacent heritage resources. All of the heritage attributes of the adjacent properties are being conserved
and are not affected by the redeveloped 25 Breithaupt Street building which reflects the modern style
of the current 1955 building on this site.
Options to the proposal include "do nothing",leave the building abandoned and empty; demolish the
entire building and build new;or redevelop the building in a sympathetic and complementary manner.
The first two options do not satisfy heritage conservation objectives,while the third is an adaptive re-
use scenario that has no negative impact on the heritage resource.
2.6 Summary of conservation principles
Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada provides
"General Standards" for all projects.
1. Conserve the heritage value of a historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter
its intact or repairable character-defining elements.Do not move apart of a historic place if its
current location is a character-defining element.
The adjacent character-defining elements are to be conserved (see also principles 97, 98 and 99).
2. Conserve changes to a historic place which,over time,have become character-defining elements
in their own right.
Not applicable.
3. Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention.
No interventions are planned which would affect the adjacent heritage resource or character-defining
elements.
4. Recognize 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 of the same property that never coexisted.
Not applicable.
5. Find a use for a historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character-defining
elements.
The adaptive re-use will not alter the adjacent character-defining elements, elements which provide a
special ambience for the development.
6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize a historic place until any subsequent intervention is
undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential
for disturbance of archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss
of information.
Not applicable.
7. Evaluate the existing condition of character-defining elements to determine the appropriate
' see: Behar,Moiz, Steven Bell,William Granger,Beth Hanna,Mihaela Marcu,North York's Modernist
Architecture,1997,reprint 2009 prepared for the North York Modernist Architecture Forum held at North
York Civic Centre on October 27,2009-(Appendix 2).
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II prift January 132014
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 13
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage
value when undertaking an intervention.
The adjacent character-defining elements have been identified. No interventions are being proposed.
8. Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis.Repair character-defining elements
by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any
extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character-defining elements, where there are
surviving prototypes.
Not applicable.
9. Make any intervention needed to preserve character-defining elements physically and visually
compatible with the historic place, and identifiable upon close inspection. Document any
intervention for future reference.
Not applicable.
2.7 Proposed alterations and demolitions explained
The alterations and demolitions proposed will remove some of the crude and ad-hoc additions, and
create spaces for people in the adaptive re-use of the spaces. There will be no loss of cultural heritage
value and the impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context is expected to be positive.
2.8 Recommendations
Recommendations emanate from the mitigating measures in 2.5 and the conservation principles in 2.6.
• Adaptively re-use the buildings in a manner sympathetic to the adjacent heritage resource and
neighbourhood context.
• Remove concrete block additions, superfluous piping,vents and fire escapes as required.
• Use contemporary materials in new construction that are complementary to the adjacent historic
architecture.
• Redevelop 25 Breithaupt Street in a manner that responds to its existing modernist,linear character
to provide a viable adaptive re-use.
2.9 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Assessment
See appendix 4.
3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The significance and heritage attributes of the property limited to the adjacent early 201x' century
buildings now known as 51 Breithaupt Street(the Breithaupt Block). Those attributes are:
• use of local buff("white")brick,including pilasters, decorative friezes, cornices, arches, and other
details;
• windows and window openings, mostly 6/6 double hung sash with brick or concrete lintels and
concrete sills;
• central"tower" element on 1918 building;
• the association of the rubber industry and at least three important members of that business and the
community of Berlin/Kitchener;
• the contribution that these properties make to the understanding of the 20th century industrial culture
in Berlin/Kitchener;
• the physical,visual and historical links of the properties to their surroundings;
• the properties could be considered a local landmark.
The proposed redevelopment of the 1955 Prack & Prack building is expected to have no negative
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II prift January 132014
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 14
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
impact on the heritage attributes of the adjacent property or the neighbourhood. In fact,the effect will
be apositive one that helps to integrate the early 20th century industrial buildings with the new adjacent
developments that are recent or in the planning stages.
Alternative development or site alteration approaches would not provide the conservation measures
being proposed and are not appropriate.
4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable 9.
This heritage impact assessment is respectfully submitted by:
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
per: Owen R. Scott, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP
9 25 Breithaupt Street Proposed Site Plan Application Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment—Terms of
Reference,City of Kitchener Community Services Department-Planning Division,November 19,2013
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II prift January 132014
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 15
25 Breithaupt Street,Kitchener
REFERENCES
"Approval of Heritage Impact Assessment, 51 Breithaupt Street Site Plan Application - SP 10/006/B/GS"
memo to Garett Stevenson, Planning Technician from Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning,
November 8, 2010
Building A Preliminary Schematic Design Package, The Breithaupt Block, Robertson Simmons architects
inc.,November 28, 2013
Behar, Moiz, Steven Bell, William Granger, Beth Hanna, Mihaela Marcu, North York's Modernist
Architecture, 1997, reprint 2009 prepared for the North York Modernist Architecture Forum held at
North York Civic Centre on October 27, 2009. presented by ERA Architects Inc. October 2009,
www.cra.on.ca,printed and bound in Toronto, Canada.
City of Kitchener Development& Technical Services INTERNAL MEMO, to Garett Stevenson,Planning
Technician - from Michelle Drake, Heritage Planner, re: Site Plan Pre-Submission Consultation, 25
Breithaupt Street,November 19, 2013.
City of Kitchener Community Services Department-Planning Division,25 Breithaupt Street Proposed Site
Plan Application Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference,November 19, 2013
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Heritage Impact Assessment, 51 Breithaupt Street, Kitchener, ON,
September 7, 2010
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. &Robertson Simmons Architects Inc. Conservation Plan, 51 Breithaupt
Street, Kitchener, ON re: Site Plan Application SP10/066/B/GS,December 2010, amended February
2011
Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18,Province of Ontario
Ontario Heritage Toolkit, Ministry of Culture, Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005,Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing,Queen's Printer for Ontario,
2005.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Seconl II prift January 132014
Appendix 1 1
City of Kitchener
Community Services Department - Planning Division
25 Breithaupt Street
Proposed Site Plan Application
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment—Terms of Reference
1 Background
A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential
cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study
shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area.
The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the
significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that
would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be
required on a property which is listed on the City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed
on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; or where
development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also
apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the
development application stage or construction.
These terms of reference have been scoped, on the basis of the submission of an earlier
Heritage Impact Assessment which received approval as part of a previous Site Plan
application made for the subject property. Sections not required are noted by
strikethrough.
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 will be given to the property owner and/or their
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 will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources
specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact
Assessment.
The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment:
1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site
alteration.
2 A detailed site histafy to ineltide a listing of ownefs ffam the Land Registfy E)ffiee, a
histafy of the site tise(s)-
3 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject
property including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes,
natural heritage elements,and landscaping.
histafy of the buildings' development, stieh as additions and demolitions.
The report shall include a clear statement regarding cultural heritage value and interest, as
well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes.
Consideration shall be given to both the subject property and the relationship of the subject
property with the larger Breithaupt Block complex. Note that City staff accept the evidence
included in the earlier HIA concluding that Building No.13(the 1955 building)does not satisfy
criteria used to identify significant modernist projects. Nevertheless, staff are of the opinion
that the earlier HIA assigned some value to the subject building given the previous proposal
to "re-skin" the structure was deemed to be sympathetic and complementary to the
existing refined modernist character of the building. The Scoped HIA should elaborate on
1 - 19
Appendix 1 2
whether the refined modernist character of the 1955 building contributes to establishing
cultural heritage value or not.
4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of the
property/each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and
a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and
site details. Doetirrientatman shall also Oneltide, whefe available, etiffent floof plans, anel
5 Outline of the proposed development, its context, and how it will impact built heritage
resources and cultural heritage landscapes (buildings, structures, and site details, including
landscaping).
In particular, the potential physical and visual impact of the proposed development on
identified heritage attributes of the subject property and neighbouring properties (i.e.
the larger Breithaupt Block complex). The supporting materials submitted for the current
Site Plan Pre-Submission Consultation process depict a revised design for
"re-skinning"the building, a three storey addition to the building, and a sky bridge from the
1918 building to the 1955 building. As a result, the Scoped HIA should address the
following:
• the impact of the proposed design for"re-skinning"the building on the refined
modernist character of the 1955 building (if deemed to have cultural heritage value),
and on the larger Breithaupt Block complex;
• the impact of the proposed three storey addition on the cultural heritage value of the
1955 building (if such value is identified) and on the larger Breithaupt Block complex,
including consideration of scale and massing, and potential impact on significant views
and sightlines; and,
• the potential physical and visual impact of the sky bridge from the 1918 building to
the 1955 building (e.g. potential impact on heritage attributes of the 1918 building).
The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in
the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Potential impacts
may include those that are visual/contextual, as well as physical/structural. Negative
impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that are not sympathetic or
compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural
heritage resource; etc.
6 Options shall be provided that explain how the cultural heritage resources may be
conserved, relating to their level of importance. Methods of mitigation may include, but are
not limited to preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re-use, alternative development
approaches, design guidelines, relocation, commemoration and/or documentation.
Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for identified cultural
heritage resources.
7 A summary of the conservation principles and how they will be used must be included.
The conservation principles may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada —
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight
Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of
Tourism, Culture & Sport; and, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport's Ontario
Heritage Tool Kit (all available online).
8 Any loss of cultural heritage value (whether permanent or temporary) resulting from the
proposed development impacting identified heritage attributes on the subject property and on
neighbouring properties and which cannot be mitigated, shall be explained and justified.
9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations,
1 - 20
Appendix 1 3
elevations, materials, landscaping, timing, etc.
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 report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people
contacted during the study and referenced in the report.
3 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations
The summary statement should provide a full description of:
The significance and heritage attributes associated with the subject property.
The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage
attributes of the subject property and neighbouring properties (i.e. larger Breithaupt Block
complex).
An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative
development or site alteration approaches are recommended. Clarification as to why
specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration
approaches are not appropriate.
4 Mandatory Recommendation
worthy of listing of designation tindef the E)ntafia I lefitage Aet. Should the eanstiltant not
stippoft listing of designation then it must be eleafly stated as to why not.
The following questions must be answefed On the final feearnmendation of the fepaft!
Why of why not?
waffant eansefvatian as pef the definition On the Pfavineial Palmey Statement? Why of
why not?
1 - 21
Appendix 1 4
5 Approval Process
Five (5) hard copies of the Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic pdf
format burned on CD shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic
copies shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact
Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met
and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the Scoped Heritage Impact
Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one electronic copy of the final Scoped
Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copies of
the final Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning.
Note that Scoped Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage
Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting
may not be scheduled until the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an
opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff.
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a
qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be
notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Scoped
Heritage Impact 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 of the Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into
development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of
the municipality.
1 - 22
Appendix 2 1
Criteria for Determining Heritage Significance of Modernist Buildings 10
CRITERIA
A project must satisfy several of the following conditions to be a significant Modernist project.
PHILOSOPHY
1. Does the project represent the philosophy of the modern movement?
• Modernism was a Utopian vision of a new aesthetic that would enhance the arts, architecture,
and lifestyles of the machine age
• Modern age of speed and technology would abandon the traditional forms of the past to forge a
brave,new feature
• The International style was to bring the world together with a universal design aesthetic
• Progress and technology were to bring liberation from the banality of daily life
• Modernism was to constantly replace the old and pathological with the new and innovative
• Modern space was to be filled with light and fresh air to promote health and vitality
DESIGN
2. Does the design of the project reflect the most salient characteristics of the Modern aesthetic?
• Pure, simple geometries, clean lines
• Buildings must appear fresh and immaculate
• Sense of visual weightlessness by suspending volumes on pilotis and use of glazing
• Pure Modernistic styling included flat roofs,unadorned finishes, elegantly machined details and
the latest equipment
• Modular design to facilitate ease of erection and fabrication
• Devoid of decoration which was deemed to deaden the pure geometry of form
• Interior and exterior become ambiguous with the opening up of ground plan and the extensive
use of glazing
• Emphasis on volume rather than mass
• Use of the free plan, strip windows,pilotis,roof gardens
• Symmetry is avoided to relieve static composition
• The form of a building should be designed to reflect and reveal its function
MATERIALS
3. Is the material palette treated in a distinctively modern way?
• Use of synthetic materials, such as concrete, glass, steel
• Emphasis on intrinsic beauty of materials themselves
• The plasticity of reinforced concrete makes any building form possible
• Colour is not decorative,but expressive of material
CONSTRUCTION
4. Is the structure of the project particularly innovative or representative of Modern technology of
construction?
• The expression of elements that are structurally necessary
• Standardization and mass production to produce efficient and economical buildings
• Exterior walls are not load bearing,becoming merely a skin to clad envelope of building
• Machine-like precision
ALTERATIONS
5. Does the project retain its most salient design features, or have alterations been sensitive to the
original intentions of the design?
10 Behar, Moiz, Steven Bell, William Granger, Beth Hanna, Mihaela Marcu, North York's Modernist
Architecture,1997,reprint 2009 prepared for the North York Modernist Architecture Forum held at North
York Civic Centre on October 27,2009.
1 - 23
Appendix 2 2
• Little or no alterations have been made to the original structure
• Alterations to the project were made as necessary to preserve the structure
• Alterations maintain the project's architectural integrity
ARCHITECT
6. Was the project designed by an important and influential architect who made a significant
contribution to the Modern Movement?
• The architect attained acclaim on an international,national or local level
• The architect wrote significant essays or manifestos on Modernism
• Body of work produced is a comprehensive cross-section of Modern design
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
7. Has the project contributed to the historical development of North York?
• Illustrates broad patterns of cultural, social,political,military or economic status of the
community or country
• The building contributes to the identity of North York and/or its landscape
• Association of the building to a particular event or person that was instrumental in North
York's history
INFLUENCE
8. Has the project influenced the development of architecture locally,nationally, or internationally?
• The project set a precedent in the genre inspiring other projects
• The quality and craftsmanship of the project created a standard for future development
AWARDS
9. Has the project received recognition through publication or awards?
• The project's design, craftsmanship, or handling of site issues has received significant awards
in the architectural community
• The project has been published extensively in architectural journals, or books
CONTEXT
10. Does the project contribute to community identity?
• The project's architectural features,massing, landscaping, or siting enhances the character of
the surrounding street, or neighbourhood
• The project is considered a landmark in the eyes of the community
TIME PERIOD International- 1900 - 1950s
Canada- 1940s - 1960s
PHILOSOPHY The Modern Architectural Movement was born out of a rapidly changing social
and cultural climate
• Utopian vision of the work united with a common design aesthetic that
celebrated progress and technology
• Propagandist in nature, the machine-like architecture was to bring social and
moral salvation with a pure,rational and functional environment
• Denial of traditional forms to forge a new architectural language that would
reflect the era of the industrial revolution
DESIGN FEATURES Design solutions for architectural issues often disregarded context by
continuously reapplying formulaic elements
• Uninterrupted surface volumes
• Non-load bearing walls and internalized structure
• Flat or angled roof lines
• Long horizontal strip windows with simple mullions set flush with cladding;
windows often placed toward the outside face of buildings
1 - 24
Appendix 2 3
• Use of standard modular units
• Sense of visual weightlessness with the use of pilotis and extensive glazing
• Buildings often raised above the site on a platform
• Single unobstructed clear spans with unitary volumes
• Volumes wrapped in textureless,unarticulated skin
MATERIALS Inherent beauty of materials emphasized rather than surface decoration
• Unadorned,white stucco, concrete, glass, steel
• Standardization and pre-fabrication facilitated ease of erection and efficiency
1 - 25
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
F.
CL
M
----�CA
Imi
..............
.........................................................................
o
.............................................. ......................................................
.............
...................
41
........................
..........
011
ee,
4
1 - 26
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
y.
. .......... . .
1,
i
y —,,,�. ,—,,,, ,. „...., ...,, „��, ----------------
� w
f
r s
�l ✓
..... _______...... a .... ..,� ....
b��ir�au�m�r�i
v
r
TW
N fr"us"
,,,.✓�
27
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
Il I 1
... .... ������iwv ��
A
IT
�g
ry
e. ,,,,,,
„,,,, 1 111MINORAWAN,glib o ,
J
;-m �
A
N�
a ,
r.
p ll
f ` f
I Ma
.............
Il'l.......................
..............
i
............
s
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
2—..........
E"
..........
... ....................
..............° ;ice
.... ...........................
................
-----------
IT Sin U
..........
... ................... .......................................
yF........... ..............
............... --------
............
29
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
II �„ -e
j u
0
f
II
Y,
V ok
f ull u V c
� q
i
----
�or;r ao'WHnM'k
9'
d
m u .
I C
f
M pld j G r
0
I
u
p
-----------
� rl
f�
f�
1 - 30
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
rn '
........,,.�.: .........,,,:y, ...... .. ...,e,� ..., e .,..� .......,, .......... !pA11M1f�91@'I@�114PI V
.
,
n a.
r
f
......... ..........,..
f C6
ICI
r
I
I r1
L ll,
u
AN�r� .. o... ... •iYa�t
Il j
- 31
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
Rj
� r u
`'
--------- --------- -------- ------- -----
i
r
"Tl
0
.....
u
;r
M "D
........ ......
1 - 32
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
li
u
---------------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- --------------------------- "'R
ym
xi
............. ............... ..................
jl-a
.....................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.......................
..........................
15
1 - 33
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
------------
L1`"
PH
Bryn
�F
r
u M6
..;
a,
........,.
71 rc� �.�- t_.i sr�rr�rmxrxrr �nxrrre i.;IYRdA �.�rm{r�rrr!rxrrs- •rarorm{r�rrr�rrr�rrr�xxa�+ w prcAnrr�rmxrxrrr�rrr�rrr!r .�rmmxy�
,..
�s
V
i
a<rr i{i�ni rm�i� i ixacau uwn,F�.
,,,,=.
r
s V yi Q n
V�
,
4
"w�p
ry ping" qw& 1 "
u rw r
�5 r H is
1 �s
r
1 - 34
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
mm.
R
Cn
4a,u
a
4:
„s .,, �,.,, �,.,� -
wry ma
'I a �A
ti Vn
W
rx
ER
JJ
V�
�4
w
N,W V1 � �r ",� y 4 I lax.,
4
ttr ,
rg�"
�a ya a
- 35
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
LLJ
r
a
{ �N rr
a
16 �
e+
r r �
rw
µ IY JJ
";
k
m�
k{
If
4
ti.
rr
e4
ti
a r.
W
y'4r.
°w✓
I*
�� el "
% I1�U 111111 �� f
� yl 1 f m
/
p
Y
ulr v i
>F
V
�,r dll
1
v
11I�
1 - 36
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
............
...............
ZZ
a,
v,
}
6
a
n P n
�`-
u
99
Cr r
Ay n
y �
n
9n
....... v
o� I
M!
4
r /
J
IJ:
p xf
1 - 37
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
m
Cu
El
µ
V
q"s
Y;
W� kh
Si u e h
I+r
1,
..""
f � s„� r ii�lUiir J� h„', I r ✓
I
r p 1
yy,
h
'IW
�^: slaw 1;✓ v�J� �.:� J � .� �, I '`r..
C, I i 1� ;✓ RN '
hu
r��✓ r m. �� l; v i;n . ' � h is V,.��r � �' "�` N M `E
W r ✓ tiVi lF wi p..
{nw I rrfl �d.;N
1 - 38
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Plan, Sections and Elevations
Its
Ae
LU
wY
,
r.,
� o m i ri �a
4
�r
vYj .
9 U
t E
a
4.0 p
Y
t
�I
..
i Yl
I
J
2v W Vlf
y�.......................-
I� II �� r
Wi
�w a ti
1 - 39
Appendix 4
Qualifications of the Author
OWEN R.SCOTT, OALA,FCSLA, CAHP
Education:
Master of Landscape Architecture(M.L.A.) University of Michigan, 1967
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture(Landscape Horticulture),(B.S.A.) University of Guelph, 1965
Professional Experience:
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 Architecture Canada,Ariss,Ontario
1969 - 1981 Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architecture,University of Guelph
1975 - 1979 Director and Founding Principal,Ecological Services for Planning Limited,Guelph,Ontario
1964- 1969 Landscape Architect,Project Planning Associates Limited,Toronto,Ontario
Historical Research,Heritage Landscape Planning and Restoration Experience and Expertise
Current Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations:
Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation
Member: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals(formerly CAPHC)
Member: Association for Preservation Technology
Member: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario
Community and Professional Society Service(Heritage):
Director: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals(CAHP), 2002-2003
Member: Advisory Board,Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, 1980-2002
Member: City of Guelph Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee(LACAC), 1987-2000(Chairman
1988- 1990)
Member: Advisory Council,Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies, 1985 - 1988
Personal and Professional Honours and Awards(Heritage):
Mike Wagner Award 2013 Heritage Award-Briethaupt Block,Kitchener,ON
People's Choice Award 2012 Brampton Urban Design Awards,Peel Art Gallery,Museum and Archives,Brampton,ON
Award of Excellence 2012 Brampton Urban Design Awards,Peel Art Gallery,Museum and Archives,Brampton,ON
National Award 2009 Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement,Alton Mill,Alton,ON
Award of Merit 2009 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards,Alton Mill,Alton,ON
Award 2007 Excellence in Urban Design Awards,Heritage,Old Quebec Street,City of Guelph,ON
Award 2001 Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement
Award 1998 Province of Ontario,Volunteer Award(10 year award)
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 City of Mississauga Urban Design Awards,Britannia School Farm Master Plan
Honour Award 1987 Canadian Architect,Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration,Cambridge,ON
Citation 1986 Progressive Architecture,The Ceremonial Routes(Confederation Boulevard),Ottawa,
National Citation 1985 CSLA Awards,Tipperary Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon, SK
National Merit 1984 CSLA Awards, St.James Park Victorian Garden,Toronto,ON
Award 1982 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ontario Renews Awards,Millside,Guelph,ON
Selected Heritage Publications(Heritage):
Scott,Owen R., The Southern Ontario"Grid",ACORN Vol XXVI-3, Summer 2001. The Journal of the Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario.
Scott,Owen R. 19th Century Gardens for the 20"and 21"'Centuries.Proceedings of"Conserving Ontario's
Landscapes"conference of the ACO,(April 1997).Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc.,Toronto, 1998.
Scott,Owen R. Landscapes of Memories,A Guide for Conserving Historic Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters)compiled
and edited by Tamara Anson-Cartright,Ontario Ministry of Citizenship,Culture and Recreation, 1997.
Scott,Owen R. Cemeteries:A Historical Perspective,Newsletter; The Memorial Society of Guelph, September 1993.
1 - 40
Appendix 4
Scott,Owen R. The Sound of the Double-bladed Axe, Guelph and its Spring Festival. edited by Gloria Dent and
Leonard Conolly,The Edward Johnson Music Foundation,Guelph, 1992.2 pp.
Scott,Owen R. Woolwich Street Corridor,Guelph,ACORN Vol XVI-2,Fall 1991.Newsletter of the Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario Inc.
Scott,Owen R. guest editor, ACORN,Vol.XIV-2,Summer 1989. Cultural Landscape Issue,Newsletter of the
Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc.
Scott,Owen R. Cultivars,pavers and the historic landscape,Historic Sites Supplies Handbook. Ontario Museum
Association,Toronto, 1989.9 pp.
Scott,Owen R. Landscape preservation-What is it? Newsletter, American Society of Landscape Architects- Ontario
Chapter,vol.4 no.3, 1987.
Scott,Owen R. Tipperary Creek Conservation Area,Wanuskewin Heritage Park. Landscape Architectural Review,
May 1986.pp. 5-9.
Scott,Owen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial History Conference,McMaster University, 1984.
Scott,Owen R. Canada West Landscapes. Fifth Annual Proceedings Niagara Peninsula History Conference(1983).
1983.22 pp.
Scott,Owen R. Utilizing History to Establish Cultural and Physical Identity in the Rural Landscape.Landscape
Planning,Elsevier Scientific Press,Amsterdam, 1979. Vol. 6,No.2,pp. 179-203.
Scott,Owen R. Changing Rural Landscape in Southern Ontario. Third Annual Proceedings Agricultural History of
Ontario Seminar(1978). June 1979. 20 pp.
Scott,Owen R., P. Grimwood,M.Watson. George Lain4-Landscape Gardener,Hamilton,Canada West 1808-1871.
Bulletin, The Association for Preservation Technology,Vol.IX,No.3, 1977, 13 pp. (also published in Landscape
Architecture Canada,Vol.4,No. 1, 1978).
Scott,Owen R. The Evaluation of the Upper Canadian Landscape. Department of Landscape Architecture,University
of Manitoba. 1978. (Colour videotape).
Following is a representative listing of some of the many heritage landscape projects undertaken by Owen R.Scott
in his capacity as a landscape architect with Project Planning Associates Ltd.,as principal of Owen R. Scott&Associates
Limited,and as principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
• Acton Quarry Cultural Heritage Landscape&Built Heritage Study&Assessment Peer Review,Acton,ON
• Alton Mill Landscape,Caledon,ON
• Belvedere Terrace-Peer Review,Assessment of Proposals for Heritage Property,Parry Sound,ON
• Black Creek Pioneer Village Master Plan,Toronto,ON
• Britannia School Farm Master Plan, Peel Board of Education/Mississauga,ON
• Confederation Boulevard(Sussex Drive)Urban Design, Site Plans,NCC/Ottawa,ON
• Swift Current CPR Station Gardens condition report and feasibility study for rehabilitation/reuse, Swift Current, SK
• Cruickston Park Farm-Cultural Heritage Resources Study,Cambridge,ON
• Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans, Region of Waterloo/Kitchener,ON
• Downtown Guelph Private Realm Improvements Manual,City of Guelph,ON
• Downtown Guelph Public Realm Plan, City of Guelph,ON
• Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibility Study,City of Hamilton,ON
• Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan,City of Waterloo,ON
• Exhibition Park Master Plan,City of Guelph,ON
• Feasibility Study for a Heritage Resource Centre,Regional Municipality of Waterloo,ON
• George Brown House Landscape Restoration, Toronto,ON
• Government of Ontario Light Rail Transit Route Selection,Cultural and Natural Resources Inventory for
Environmental Assessment, Hamilton/Burlington,ON
• Grand River Corridor Conservation Plan, GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo,ON
• Hespeler West Secondary Plan-Heritage Resources Assessment, City of Cambridge,ON
• John Galt Park, City of Guelph,ON
• Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan,NCC/Ottawa,ON
• Lakewood Golf Course Cultural Landscape Assessment,Tecumseh,ON
• Landfill Site Selection,Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Region of Halton,ON
• Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans,Cambridge,ON
• MacGregor/Albert Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan,City of Waterloo,ON
• Museum of Natural Science/Magnet School 59/Landscape Restoration and Site Plans,City of Buffalo,NY
• Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan,MNR/Huntsville,ON
• Peel Heritage Centre Adaptive Re-use,Landscape Design,Brampton,ON
• Phyllis Rawlinson Park Master Plan(winning design competition),Town of Richmond Hill,ON
• Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan,NCC/Ottawa,ON
• Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans,Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake,ON
1 - 41
Appendix 4
• Rockway Gardens Master Plan,Kitchener Horticultural Society/City of Kitchener,ON
• South Kitchener Transportation Study,Heritage Resources Assessment,Region of Waterloo,ON
• St. George's Square,City of Guelph,ON
• St.James Park Victorian Garden,City of Toronto,ON
• Tipperary Creek(Wanuskewin)Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan,MVA/Saskatoon, SK
• University of Toronto&Queen's Park Heritage Conservation District Study,City of Toronto,ON
• Waterloo Valleylands Study,Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies,Region of Waterloo
• Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration,Parks Canada/Kitchener,ON
• 255 Geddes Street,Elora,ON,heritage opinion evidence-Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Heritage Impact Assessments,Heritage Impact Statements and Heritage Conservation Plans:
o Barra Castle Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
o Biltmore Hat Factory Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON
0 140 Blue Heron Ridge Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON
0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Conservation Plan,Kitchener,ON
o Bridge 420 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report&Heritage Impact Assessment,Blandford-Blenheim Township,ON
o Bridge 425 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report&Heritage Impact Assessment,Blandford-Blenheim Township,ON
0 215 Broadway Street Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON
Cambridge Retirement Complex on the former Tiger Brand Lands,Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON
0 27-31 Cambridge Street,Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON
0 3075 Cawthra Road Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON
City Centre Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
0 175 Cityview Drive Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON
Cordingly House Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON
0 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph,ON
0 31-43 David Street(25 Joseph Street)Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
0 35 David Street(Phase II)Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
0 172- 178 Elizabeth Street Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON
0 3 - 7 Gordon Street Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON
0 1261 Dundas Street South Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON
Grey Silo Golf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo,ON
GRCA Lands,748 Zeller Drive Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum,Kitchener,ON
o Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital Conservation Plan,for Infrastructure Ontario,Hamilton,ON
o Hancock Woodlands Cultural Heritage Assessment and Heritage Impact Statement,City of Mississauga,ON
o Hart Farm Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON
o Kip Co.Lands Developments Ltd. Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment-Woodbridge Heritage
Conservation District,City of Vaughan,ON
0 117 Liverpool Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph,ON
0 30-40 Margaret Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
0 2610,2620 and 2630 Mississauga Road,Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON
0 4067 Mississauga Road,Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON
0 1245 Mona Road,Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON
o Proposed Region of Waterloo Multimodal Hub at 16 Victoria Street North,50&60 Victoria Street North,and 520&
510 King Street West,Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
0 324 Old Huron Road Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
0 40 Queen Street South Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,(Streetsville),ON
o Rockway Holdings Limited Lands north of Fairway Road Extension Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
o Thorny-Brae Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON
University of Guelph,Trent Institute Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment,Guelph,ON
University of Guelph, 1 and 10 Trent Lane Cultural Heritage Resource Assessments,Guelph,ON
University of Guelph,Gordon Street Houses,Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON
o Victoria Park Proposed Washroom Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON
0 927 Victoria Road South Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph,ON
o Winzen Developments Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON
0 1123 York Road Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON
1 - 42
Appendix 4
Expert Witness Experience:
Owen R. Scott has been called as an expert witness at a number of hearings and trials. These include Ontario Municipal
Board Hearings,Conservation Review Board Hearings,Environmental Assessment Board and Environmental
Protection Act Board Hearings,and civil and criminal trials. The heritage landscapes evidence he has presented has
been related to cultural heritage issues where historical and landscape resources were evaluated.
1 - 43