Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-15-040 - Municipal Heritage Register Listings Staff Report ��c t R Community Services Department wmkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: May 5, 2015 SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning - 519-741-2200 ext. 7648 PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Wards 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 DATE OF REPORT: April 22, 2015 REPORT NO.: CSD-15-040 SUBJECT: LISTING OF NEW NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the following properties be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register each as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest, in accordance with the respective Statement of Significance attached as Appendix 'A' to Community Services Department report CSD-15- 040: • 55 Aberdeen Road; • 111 Ahrens Street West; • 112 Benton Street; • 13 Bridge Street East; • 50 Brookside Crescent; • 500 Doon Valley Drive; • 92 Edgehill Drive; • 200 Fairway Road South; • 1541 Fischer Hallman Road; • 36 Francis Street South; • 101 Glasgow Street/ 149 Strange Street; • 314 Glasgow Street; • 418 Glasgow Street; • 600 Heritage Drive • 1333 King Street East; • 4336 King Street East; • 825 King Street West • 2481 Kingsway Drive; ***This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 1 • 160 Margaret Avenue; • 398 New Dundee Road; • 1478 New Dundee Road; • 350 Park Street; • 535 Park Street; • 35 Roos Street; • 9 Tyson Drive / 7 Bridge Street East; • 15 Tyson Drive; • 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street; and, • 1254 Union Street. BACKGROUND: The Planning Division and Heritage Kitchener work programs identify the continued development of the Municipal Heritage Register as a project to be completed in 2015. This work contributes to the `Quality of Life' Community Priority in the City's Strategic Plan. The development of the Municipal Heritage Register follows the Council approved 4-Step Listing Process, as outlined in Staff Reports DTS-05-213 and DTS-09-160. This is anticipated to be the last large group of proposed listings. The Municipal Heritage Register will now become a core business function with ongoing maintenance and consideration of proposed property listings on a case-by-case basis. REPORT: Over the last 8 years, Heritage Planning staff have prioritized the development of the Municipal Heritage Register. The Council approved 4-Step Listing Process has facilitated the evaluation of properties for inclusion as non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The process has been transparent and has provided opportunities for public engagement. In addition to the review of properties identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, Heritage Planning staff have also undertaken a significant amount of work identifying cultural heritage resources in the Rapid Transit Station Areas. Council, at the December 9, 2013 meeting, directed staff to proceed with the PARTS project as outlined in the Community Services Department report CSD-13-104 and the Phase 1: Project Plan and Background Report. These reports identify the need to prioritize and complete the listing process for properties identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings and previously unidentified properties of cultural heritage interest located within the proposed station areas prior to the preparation of land use / development scenarios for the Station Study Areas. Listing properties on the Municipal Heritage Register is consistent with PARTS. Properties identified on the inventory and previously unidentified properties of cultural heritage interest are found throughout the City. Completing the review of the inventory and the previously unidentified properties of cultural heritage interest will strengthen efforts to conserve cultural heritage resources and align with provincial, regional and municipal policies. The listing process has ensured a thorough and objective evaluation of each property, and opportunities for public input and consultation. 1 - 2 Current Properties The properties municipally addressed as 55 Aberdeen Road, 111 Ahrens Street West, 112 Benton Street, 13 Bridge Street East, 50 Brookside Crescent, 500 Doon Valley Drive, 1541 Fischer Hallman Road, 36 Francis Street South, 101 Glasgow Street, 314 Glasgow Street, 418 Glasgow Street, 600 Heritage Drive, 4336 King Street East, 2481 Kingsway Drive, 398 New Dundee Road, 1478 New Dundee Road, 350 Park Street, 35 Roos Street, 9 Tyson Drive, 15 Tyson Drive, 80 Union Boulevard and 1254 Union Street are identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings and have been recommended by both the field team and the evaluation sub-committee to be listed as non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The properties municipally addressed as 92 Edgehill Drive, 93 Edgehill Drive, 200 Fairway Road South, 1333 King Street East, 825 King Street West, 160 Margaret Avenue and 535 Park Street were previously unidentified properties of cultural heritage interest and have been recommended by the field team and evaluation sub-committee to be listed as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. All property owners have been formally notified of the heritage interest, mailed an information package and invited to participate in Step 3 of the listing process. Step 3 involves the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting scheduled for May 5, 2015 where the properties will be considered for listing as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. A Statement of Significance for each is attached to this report as Appendix `A'. Summary of Municipal Heritage Register The evaluation of properties has been an ongoing process since 2007. To date, 189 properties have been listed by Council as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. An additional 28 properties are recommended for listing through the recommendations in this staff report. Approximately 75% of properties that were evaluated did not meet the criteria, were not listed and therefore have no heritage status. The process revealed 143 properties had been demolished at some point in the past. The majority of properties that still require evaluation also require the owner to provide permission to access the property in order to accurately complete the evaluation form. Multiple letters requesting the owner's permission to access have been sent but no response has been received. These properties will continue to be flagged until such time as access is granted and the evaluation is completed. In addition to the listing process, a number of properties have been formally protected through designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Within the last year, Council has passed notice of intent to designate two properties. Over the last few years, 6 properties have been individually designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The largest concentration of properties (304) was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2012 as part of the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District. A summary of the properties that have been evaluated since 2007 is provided in Table 1.0 below. Next Steps The Municipal Heritage Register will now become a core business function with ongoing maintenance and consideration of proposed property listings on a case-by-case basis. 1 - 3 Table 1.0: Summary of Municipal Heritage Register Evaluations (2007— Present) Heritage Status Number of Properties Listed 189 Not Listed (No Heritage Status) 605 Demolished 143 Require Evaluation (Excluding properties currently before Heritage 52 Kitchener and Council) Notice of Intent to Designate 2 Individually Designated Under Part IV 6 Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District 304 ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Listing of non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register supports the Quality of Life Community Priority of the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan by helping to nurture a sense of pride and community and promote culture as both an economic driver and a central element of a healthy community. Listing on the Municipal Heritage Register also supports the Development Community Priority to honour and protect our heritage. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Property owners have been engaged under the "INFORM" and "CONSULT" theme of the Community Engagement Toolkit. The Kitchener listing process continues to go beyond the legislated requirements and typical steps of other municipalities. Public Open House Letters were sent on January 20, 2015 inviting owners to attend a Public Open House regarding the Municipal Heritage Register on February 10, 2015. The owners of 112 Benton Street, 50 Brookside Crescent, 93 Edgehill Drive, 314 Glasgow Street, 1333 King Street East, 1478 New Dundee Road, 535 Park Street, 35 Roos Street, 80 Union Boulevard and 1254 Union Street attended the public open house. Display panels were available for viewing before staff provided a presentation. Handouts were also available including the municipal heritage register brochure, a heritage information sheet, a copy of the staff presentation and a list of frequently asked questions. The display panels, heritage information sheet, staff presentation and frequently asked questions are attached as Appendix `B.' Owners were asked to submit comments by March 24, 2015. Information Package An information package was mailed to all property owners on March 20, 2015. The information package included: a letter that describes the heritage interest in the property and the listing process, including how property owners can participate in the process and/or submit comments; a copy of the Municipal Heritage Register brochure; a copy of the Statement of Significance which describes the historic place, identifies the key heritage values, and lists the principal 1 - 4 heritage attributes; and the Public Open House materials: including the heritage information sheet and list of frequently asked questions. The Statement of Significance also includes photographs of the property and a copy of the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form, which was completed by the field team and evaluation sub-committee. Owners were asked to submit comments by April 21, 2015. Heritage Kitchener Property owners were also invited to submit comments and attend the May 5, 2015 Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. A second letter will be mailed to property owners advising of the Heritage Kitchener committee recommendation in advance of the final Council meeting. A third letter will be mailed to property owners advising of the Council decision. Correspondence from Property Owners In response to the information package sent in March, Staff received correspondence from six property owners. Written comments submitted by property owners are attached as Appendix C. Written comments and meetings are summarized below. The owner of 93 Edgehill Drive submitted written comments on April 21, 2015. The owner expressed concerns with the information in the Statement of Significance and cultural heritage resource evaluation form. In order to verify the information, Staff suggested that the proposed listing be deferred, a site visit be scheduled and, if necessary, the property be re-evaluated by the sub-committee before being considered for listing by Heritage Kitchener and Council. The owner is aware of the deferral and has agreed to provide permission to access the property. Staff met with the owners of 418 Glasgow Street on March 19, 2015. The owners previously submitted written comments in 2013. Staff clarified the difference between listing and designation; provided information about heritage property values and energy efficiency; agreed to correct errors found in the information package; and, agreed to remove the interior features from the list of heritage attributes. The owners continued to express concerns with listing. Additional written comments were received on April 20, 2015 expressing opposition to the listing. Staff met with representatives of the owner of 36 Francis Street South (Lang Site A) on Friday, April 17, 2015. Staff explained the 4-Step Listing Process, the difference between listing and designation, the application of the approved Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan, and responded to questions. Staff believe the discussion was positive. No written comments were received. A planning consultant on behalf of the owner of 1333 King Street East submitted written comments on April 21, 2015. The comments outlined the owner's objections to listing based on the planning consultant's opinion that listing is at odds with the policies of the secondary plan and the intent of the mixed use corridor. The comments also identified that a number of criteria on the evaluation form were not met. Staff met with representatives of the owner of 825 King Street West on Wednesday, April 22, 2015. Staff explained the 4-Step Listing Process, the difference between listing and designation and responded to questions. Staff also shared examples of listed and designated properties that have undergone redevelopment and required the submission of a heritage impact assessment. Staff believe the discussion was positive but understand that the owner may still have some concerns with listing. The owner advised that they would submit written comments before the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. Depending on the nature of their comments, the owner 1 - 5 also indicated that they may attend and speak as a delegation at the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. Prior to sending the information package in March, Staff corresponded with two property owners. The owner of 111 Ahrens Street West submitted written comments in 2013. The owner advised that the building is a series of buildings rather than one single building. Staff agree with this clarification and have updated the Statement of Significance. The owner does not agree that the property has cultural heritage value and notes the following: the property is not a landmark; the Industrial Vernacular architectural style is not a defined or recognizable architectural style; the style is not notable, rare or unique; the design is not particularly attractive or unique; the setting is not noteworthy; the building is not in good condition; the property is not associated with a belief, person, activity or organization that is unique within the City; and, the use is not significant. In an effort to discuss these comments, Staff contacted the owner to schedule a meeting. The owner has not met with staff. The owners of 160 Margaret Avenue requested a deferral in May 2014 to allow the Board of Directors of the New Apostolic Church Canada to meet and form a position on the listing of their property. Written comments were received on April 17, 2015 advising that they are concerned about listing because they believe it may restrict their future ability to modify the church. CONCLUSION: Identifying specific local cultural heritage resources is a vital first step toward upholding the City's responsibility to protect and conserve its heritage. The subject properties have undergone thorough and objective evaluation through the City's public process for listing non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The result of the evaluation is that the properties meet the City's criteria for listing as non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDIX `A': Statements of Significance APPENDIX `B': Public Open House Materials: • Display Panels • Staff Presentation • Frequently Asked Questions • Heritage Information Sheet APPENDIX `C': Written comments submitted by property owners 1 - 6 Statement of Significance 55 Aberdeen Road M Uw auv M1 / n M M w M1 55 ft 42 X A4 2a Municipal Address: 55 Aberdeen Road Legal Description: Plan 956 Part Lot 140 Part Reserve Block A Year Built: 1969 Architectural Style: Modern Original Owner: Zack Family Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 55 Aberdeen Road is a two storey mid-20th century house built in the Modern architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.26 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Aberdeen Road between Claremont Avenue and Inverness Drive in the Westmount Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 55 Aberdeen Road is recognized for its design, physical and contextual values. The design value relates to the modern architecture of the building. The importance of Modern architecture and the building at 82 Weber Street are described in the book "Images of Progress 1946-1996: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region."The book indicates that: 1 - 7 "Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region presents fifty buildings constructed between 1946 and 1996, designed by architects of local, national, and in some cases international renown. It is our collective hope that the general public will gain a better understanding of the role architecture has played in the development of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. In presenting architecture of high quality, we expect to raise public appreciation for well-designed buildings, such that people will begin to understand how their lives can be enriched by the buildings they use on a daily basis."(Mannell, 1997, p. 7). "Images of Progress: 1946-1996 brings attention to the fine modern architecture of the Waterloo Region, promoting awareness of the architectural heritage of the last fifty years. Much of this work reveals the energy associated with the first appearance of an explicitly modern architecture in the Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge area in the 1950s and `60s. This period of `high' modernism (particularly in the City of Kitchener) produced more than half of the projects presented. The architecture of this period is open, diverse and confident in its handling of form and technology, not at all surprising given the optimistic spirit of Canadian society between the Second World War and the Centennial."(Mannell, 1997, p. 9). "A pair of opposed pavilions create an open court, joined by a small glazed link containing the entry and sunken living room in a modern version of the vernacular "dog-trot" house. Light coloured timber columns and beams are expressed on the exterior, framing brown brick infill panels with large areas of glazing towards the court. The gentle upward curve of the roof allows for continuous clerestory windows at the eaves, while the shaped ceilings reflect this light deep into the interior. A low fieldstone wall divides the entry forecourt from the street, and shields the ramped driveway leading to the basement garage."(Mannell, 1997, p. 36). The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Aberdeen Road streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 55 Aberdeen Road resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Modern architectural style of the house, including: • Irregular plan; • Asymmetrical fagade; • Curved and flat rooflines with wide eave overhangs; • Timber columns and beams; • Brown brick cladding; • Floor to ceiling windows; • Clerestory windows; and, • Central double entrance door with open court. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Aberdeen Road streetscape. References Mannell, Steven (Ed.). (1997). Images of Progress 1946-1996 Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region. The Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery: Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 8 Photos r Y1V� r 1 �I �r r Y 55 Aberdeen Road 07, r�pIINN �m rwA �x a� �f 55 Aberdeen Road 1 - 9 i o, t � ar^'�'sw6krr _a 55 Aberdeen Road 1 - 10 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 55 Aberdeen Road Period: 1969 Field Team Initials: GZ/JT Description: Date: July 24, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Unknown No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Unknown No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 1 - 11 INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that Unknown No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — apparently there is another house in the area built by the same architect 1 - 12 Statement of Significance 111 Ahrens Street West E." ry ry 00FO o kkk PO ryry t:- oil ryryry � ,,. , ,,. , Municipal Address: 111 Ahrens Street West Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 222 58R-2921 Year Built: 1887 Architectural Style: Industrial Vernacular Original Owner: Hartman Krug Original Use: Industrial Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 111 Ahrens Street West is a late 19th century complex of industrial buildings and additions built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The buildings and additions are situated on a 1.06 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Breithaupt Street between Weber Street West and Ahrens Street West in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the industrial buildings and additions. Heritage Value 111 Ahrens Street West is recognized for its design, physical, historical, associative and contextual values. 1 - 13 The design and physical value relates to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the buildings. The buildings are in good condition with many intact original elements. The sections of the complex of industrial buildings and additions are numbered below to assist with their description. r/ I firr �� F J i I i i III u i y i dl r r J ; �f25�Pr6a �o r fir�'`n �� �+� ��m,„a.,'�y, � iii%�����✓��j, r t' Sections of the Industrial Complex Section 1 features: 4 storeys; yellow brick construction laid in the common bond; flat roof; decorative cornice; parapet wall facing railway line; 3 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; 6 bays along Ahrens Street; shallow buttressing between bays; two original flat headed window openings with stone sills and lintels per bay; 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows; basement windows along Breithaupt Street; black and white painted signage that reads "H. Krug Furniture Co. Limited" on the railway line elevation and the Ahrens Street elevation; segmentally arched loading dock opening facing Ahrens Street; and, stone foundation. The 1924/25 Fire Insurance Map identifies the use of this section of the factory as the "Office, Show Room and Storage." Section 2 features: 4 storeys; yellow brick construction laid in the stretcher bond; flat roof; decorative cornice; 6 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; shallow buttressing between bays; two original flat headed window openings with stone sills and lintels per bay; 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows; basement windows along Breithaupt Street; and, stone foundation. The 1924/25 Fire Insurance Map identifies the use of this section of the factory as "Shipping, Upholstering and Storage." Section 3 features: 4 storeys; yellow brick construction laid in the stretcher bond; flat roof; decorative cornice; 7 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; shallow buttressing between bays that extend to roofline; original flat headed window openings with concrete sills and lintels; tripled 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows on the Breithaupt Street elevation; two original flat headed window openings with 6/6 true divided light wood windows with stone sills and lintels per bay on the railway line elevation; tapered square smokestack on railway line elevation; painted signage that extends across section 3 and 4 that reads "H. Krug Furniture Company Limited"; concrete foundation; and 3 storey addition on railway line elevation with 1 - 14 segmentally arched 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows. The 1924/25 Fire Insurance Map identifies the use of this section of the factory as "Woodworking, Finishing and Storage." Section 4 features: 4 storeys; yellow brick construction laid in the stretcher bond; flat roof; decorative cornice; 9 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; 5 bays deep; shallow buttressing between bays that extend to roofline; original flat headed window openings with concrete sills and lintels; tripled 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows; painted signage that extends across section 3 and 4 that reads "H. Krug Furniture Company Limited"; and, concrete foundation. The 1924/25 Fire Insurance Map identifies the use of this section of the factory as "Machine Room, Bench Room, Finishing and Storage." Section 1, 2, 3 and 4 are unified to appear as one building from a distance through the use of height (4 storeys); materials (yellow brick); and design details (e.g. shallow buttressing, 6/6 windows, painted signage, etc.). Section 5 features: 1 storey; painted brick; gable roof with parapet; decorative cornice; 3 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; shallow buttressing between bays; original semi- circular door and window openings with brick voussoirs and drip moulds in the centre bay on the Breithaupt Street elevation; and, fanlight transom above door. The 1912 Fire Insurance Map indicates that this building housed the Randall & Roos Wholesale Warehouse and the Ottawa Brick and Tile Company. The 1925 and 1947 Fire Insurance Maps indicate that this building housed the J. M. Card Lumber Company. Section 6 features: 2 storeys; painted brick; flat roof; decorative cornice; 3 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; 5 bays along Weber Street; shallow buttressing between bays that extend to roofline; original segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills per bay; 4/4 true divided light hung wood windows; and, foundation. The 1912, 1925 and 1947 Fire Insurance Maps indicate that this building was occupied by the Alpha Chemical Company, which was founded by brothers William John and David Moody initially to make stove and harness polishes. By 1957 Alpha Chemical Company manufactured 60 products including: soaps, cleaners, polish, dubbin, ink, antiseptics, mucilage, enamels, sewing machine oil, silver cream, wax tile, compounds and abrasives. Section 5 and 6 were purchased by the H. Krug Furniture Co. Limited in the latter half of the 20th century. The contextual value relates to the sites role in maintaining and supporting the character of the City's historic Berlin Industrial/Warehouse District which has been identified as a candidate cultural heritage landscape of regional significance in a background report prepared for the Region of Waterloo (Envision Consulting Group and Scheinman, 2006). This finding has been confirmed through additional professional reports, including: the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report conducted for the Go Transit Georgetown to Kitchener Rail Expansion Class Environmental Assessment (Archaeological Services Inc, 2009) and the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes report (Landplan Collaborative, 2014). The district, which roughly encompasses the complex of industrial buildings and additions concentrated along the Canadian National Railway (formerly Grand Trunk Railway) and the railway line itself, was the site of the majority of the City's economic development during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Characteristics of the district include "many multi-storey structures designed for industrial use, of three to five storeys in height, with a principal structure that may contain several additions to its massing. These structures were built tight to their street-fronting property lines and adjacent rail lines, generally of masonry or frame with masonry infill" 1 - 15 (Landplan Collaborative, 2012). The industrial complex at 111 Ahrens Street West support these character-defining elements through its height, mass, incremental development, set back, Industrial Vernacular architectural style and brick construction. The contextual value also relates to the building's historical and physical link to the surrounding landscape, including the railway. The Krug factory was constructed immediately adjacent to the Grand Trunk Railway and across the tracks from the Berlin Railway Station. A spur line led directly to the factory, permitting the delivery of raw materials to the factory and the distribution of finished products. The contextual value of the property also relates to the Krug factory's importance as a landmark. The factory is conspicuous because of its mass and meaning. The multi-storey building spans from Weber Street to Ahrens Street West, with little to no setback from the street which increases the perception of the building's bulk. The building is also highly conspicuous relative to the 2 storey buildings to the north and the railway corridor to the south. With over 130 years of operation as a furniture factory, the building is a well-known fixture in the City's downtown core. The historic and associative values relate to Hartman Krug who was a prominent industrialist in Berlin during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Hartman Krug was born in 1853 in New Dundee to a father, Henry, who was a maker of fine furniture. Hartman Krug became an expert carpenter and joiner and moved to Berlin in the 1870s. In 1887, H. Krug established the H. Krug Furniture Company on the subject property opposite the Grand Trunk Railway station. Krug was an influential member of the community, serving as a committee member of Berlin's Board of Trade as a committee member in 1886 and as a member of the Separate School Board. He was also a charter member of the Interior Hardwood Company, and in 1916 purchased the Doon Twine plant and brought it to the City. His son Henry was President of the Doon Twine plant and his son Rudolph was President of the H. Krug Furniture Company. Hartman Krug has been inducted into the Region of Waterloo Hall of Fame for his pioneering work in the furniture industry and his involvement in the community. The associative value of the building also relates to its relationship with the theme of local furniture manufacturing, for which Berlin (now Kitchener) was especially noted. In 1912, Berlin claimed itself to be the "Furniture Centre of Canada" with more than 15 furniture companies operating in the city (English and MacLaughlin, 1983). As one of the earliest furniture manufacturing companies to establish operations in the City of Kitchener, the Krug factory played an important role in situating Berlin as a leader in furniture manufacturing and is the only remaining furniture manufacturing company in the City from that era still in operation today (Donnelly, 2006). The company was recognized in 2000 by the City of Kitchener with a Business Heritage Award for 120 years in business. The Krug website indicates that: Krug's attention to detail and quality was the force behind its popularity within Canada. Steam-bent and hand-carved pieces were the trademarks of a company whose goal was to create an elegant and lasting product. In the 1930's, Krug was producing office and contract chairs and tables exclusively, and in the war years of 1939 to 1945, virtually all the company's production was for the Canadian government's war effort. In the post-war boom period, Krug's output grew rapidly to supply a market in which office furniture was in high demand. 1 - 16 The implementation of new equipment and procedures were required for Krug's entrance into the U.S market mid 1970's. As a result Krug entered into the desk market, and purchased Imperial Furniture of Stratford, Ontario in 1980. Krug immediately moved its large lumber and kiln-drying operations to Stratford and also began production of its new traditional desk line there, while continuing production at the Ahrens Street plant. Today Krug is one of the fastest growing companies in the office furniture industry. Fueled by product development and plant expansions Krug has enjoyed double-digit growth each of the past four years. Additionally, Krug's showrooms and outstanding team of sales representatives across the United States and Canada have achieved sales of almost 100 million dollars. "This is a very exciting time for Krug," Says Len Ruby, Krug President. "With a 125 years of rich heritage we continue to grow by leveraging today's technology, with Hartman Krug's vision for detailed craftsmanship." Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 111 Ahrens Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of Section 1, including: 0 4 storey height; o yellow brick construction laid in the common bond; o flat roof; o decorative cornice; o parapet wall facing railway line; 0 3 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; 0 6 bays along Ahrens Street; o shallow buttressing between bays; o two original flat headed window openings with stone sills and lintels per bay; 0 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows; o basement windows along Breithaupt Street; o black and white painted signage that reads "H. Krug Furniture Co. Limited" on the railway line elevation and the Ahrens Street elevation; o segmentally arched loading dock opening facing Ahrens Street; and, o stone foundation. • All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of Section 2, including: 0 4 storey height; o yellow brick construction laid in the stretcher bond; o flat roof; o decorative cornice; 0 6 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; o shallow buttressing between bays; o two original flat headed window openings with stone sills and lintels per bay; 0 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows; o basement windows along Breithaupt Street; and, o stone foundation. • All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of Section 3, including: 1 - 17 0 4 storey height; o yellow brick construction laid in the stretcher bond; o flat roof; o decorative cornice; 0 7 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; o shallow buttressing between bays that extend to roofline; 0 original flat headed window openings with concrete sills and lintels; o tripled 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows on the Breithaupt Street elevation; o two original flat headed window openings with 6/6 true divided light wood windows with stone sills and lintels per bay on the railway line elevation; o tapered square smokestack on railway line elevation; o painted signage that extends across section 3 and 4 that reads "H. Krug Furniture Company Limited"; o concrete foundation; and, 0 3 storey addition on railway line elevation with segmentally arched 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows. ■ All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of Section 4, including: 0 4 storey height; o yellow brick construction laid in the stretcher bond; o flat roof; o decorative cornice; 0 9 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; 0 5 bays deep; o shallow buttressing between bays that extend to roofline; 0 original flat headed window openings with concrete sills and lintels; o tripled 6/6 true divided light hung wood windows; o painted signage that extends across section 3 and 4 that reads "H. Krug Furniture Company Limited"; and, o concrete foundation. ■ All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of Section 5, including: 0 1 storey height; o painted brick; o gable roof with parapet; o decorative cornice; 0 3 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; o shallow buttressing between bays; 0 original semi-circular door and window openings with brick voussoirs and drip moulds in the centre bay on the Breithaupt Street elevation; and, o fanlight transom above door. ■ All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of Section 6, including: 0 2 storey height; o painted brick; o flat roof; o decorative cornice; 1 - 18 0 3 bays along railway line and Breithaupt Street; 0 5 bays along Weber Street; o shallow buttressing between bays that extend to roofline; 0 original segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills per bay; 0 4/4 true divided light hung wood windows; and, o foundation. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the industrial complex and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Berlin Industrial/Warehouse District; • Link to the surrounding landscape including the district and the railway line; and, • Presence as a local landmark. References Archaeological Services Inc. (October 2008; revised March 2009 and June 2009) Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Go Transit Georgetown to Kitchener Rail Expansion Class Environmental Assessment. Prepared for RJ Burnside and Associates Ltd. Guelph, Ontario. www otransit.com/r�ublic/en/docs/ea/�eor�etown- kitchener/Volumell Appendices/A pendixc5partZp f Donnelly, E. (2006). Sustainable success. Canadian Interiors. 43(3): 24-26. English, J. and K. MacLaughlin. (1983). Kitchener:An Illustrated History. Wilfred Laurier University Press: Waterloo, Ontario. Envision Consulting Group and Scheinman, Andre. (2006). Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Waterloo Region:A Framework for Inventory, Assessment and Policy Development. Kitchener, Ontario. The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. (2014). City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study. Kitchener, Ontario. The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. with John MacDonald Architect Inc. (2012). Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment: Proposed Region of Waterloo Multimodal Hub 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener. Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 19 Photos 111 Ahrens Street West (Section 1 facing railway line) �r�hbuSV iiViiliili I � . f ,x,111 Il' f ,,� r �'-i .t H, '� �V�" rl � �,��` �A(�i��IN,��, �9 r�� .7Y y up + I x n� ���Y(! Y�.,f�/% (J�rpi;(�(��� p✓,����� 111 Ahrens Street West (Section 1, 2, 3 and 4 facing railway line) 1 - 20 x It 111 Ahrens Street West (Section 1 at corner of Ahrens Street and Breithaupt Street in foreground) f t �1101i 111 Ahrens Street West (Section 4 on Breithaupt Street in foreground) 1 - 21 l I I f: 1 111 Ahrens Street West (Section 5 facing Breithaupt Street) h ., i III fawMYp,{ (m I h yy 4 zrlw i r'" 6 y y / r 111 Ahrens Street West (Section 6 at corner of Breithaupt Street and Weber Street in foreground) 1 - 22 Niiuuil gUlUu�q'b "� 41 11 Ahrens Street West (Section 3 smokestack) 1 - 23 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 111 Ahrens Street West Period: 1887 Field Team Initials: YWC/MW Description: Industrial Vernacular Date: September 8, 2009 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes Yes region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 1 - 24 Notes: Field Team — setting, proximity to railway line INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — significant brick spalling on building section at corner of Breithaupt and Weber HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — research age and significance of building at corner of Ahrens and Breithaupt 1 - 25 Statement of Significance 112 Benton Street N M a Yqm* Pn VA 2 53 N MINN.- UTU % �N Ve NO, d� ril NN/j znx / 7 Municipal Address: 112 Benton Street Legal Description: GCT Part Lot 17, Lot 174, Plan 398 Part Lots 11-20, 58R-15894 Part 1 Year Built: 1913 (original); 1954, 1961 and 2011 (additions) Architectural Style: International / Bauhaus Original Owner: Williams, Greene & Rome Original Use: Industrial Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 112 Benton Street is an early 20th century concrete building built in the Bauhaus architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.27 acre parcel of land located on the North West side of Benton Street between St. George Street and Courtland Avenue East in the Cedar Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the former industrial building. 1 - 26 Heritage Value 112 Benton Street is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historical and associative values. The building is a rare example of the Bauhaus architectural style and is an example of the daylight factory popularized by American architect Albert Kahn. The building is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: original four storey factory building; rectangular plan with seven by nine bays; flat roof with stepped cornice and undecorated frieze; poured concrete construction, including concrete dividers between bays and floors; red brick laid in the American bond style; metal framed glazed bays; decorative uncoursed ashlar fieldstone foundation; and, a four storey addition. The contextual value relates to the contribution that the building makes to the character of the Benton Street and St. George Street streetscapes. The building sits at the top of a hill in what was once the garment district of the City. The building is historically and visually connected to its surroundings, including the Bread and Roses Cooperative building and the Nelson Terrace row houses. The historic and associative value relates to the original and previous owners as well as the shirt manufacturing industry. The building was built in 1913 for Williams, Greene & Rome when they outgrew their building at the corner of Courtland Avenue and Queen Street South. Samuel James Williams was the president and general manufacturer of the shirt business. He also promoted the Ontario Sugar Company. He was one of four men involved in the purchase of The Berlin Light Commission in 1903 and was elected to the first Board of Lighting Commissioners. He also served on Town Council and the Board of Trade. Cluett, Peabody and Company purchased the building in 1920 and began to manufacture "Arrow" products, including the soft Arrow collar. The Arrow trademark was known all over the world. The business remained in operation at this site until 2001. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 112 Benton Street resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and Bauhaus architectural style of the building, including: • original four story factory building; • rectangular plan with seven by nine bays; • flat roof with stepped cornice and undecorated frieze; • poured concrete construction, including concrete dividers between bays and floors; • red brick laid in the American bond style; • metal framed glazed bays; • decorative uncoursed ashlar fieldstone foundation; and, • four storey addition. References GSP & SRM. (2003). Heritage & Development Assessment Auburn Developments Inc. The Arrow Lofts 112 Benton Street Kitchener. Green Scheels Pidgeon & Snider Reichard March Architects: Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 27 Hill, N. (1995). Victoria Park Area Kitchener Heritage Conservation District Study. Nicholas Hill, Architect— Planner: Kitchener, Ontario. Photos ii 0 r i 112 Benton Street r , r/ r n I nvr 112 Benton Street 1 - 28 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 112 Benton Street Period: 1913 Field Team Initials: MW/LB Description: Industrial - Bauhaus Date: 2009 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or No No detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — Bauhaus 4-storey concrete building with industrial infill brick and metal framed glazing bays, `daylight' factory; Sub-Committee—solid concrete structure, warehouse architecture with mushroom cap CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? 1 - 29 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Sub-Committee— built for Williams, Greene & Rome when they outgrew their Queen and Courtland building INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Sub-Committee— industrial heritage, association with Williams, Greene & Rome 1 - 30 Statement of Significance 13 Bridge Street East ? ; o a t „ Ilk d , "a ,4 Municipal Address: 13 Bridge Street East Legal Description: Tagge Survey Plan 577 Lot 5 Year Built: c. 1853 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 13 Bridge Street East is a one-and-one-half storey mid-19th century house built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.25 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Bridge Street East and Tyson Drive in the Bridgeport East Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 13 Bridge Street East is recognized for its design, contextual and historic values. 1 - 31 The design value relates to the type of building. The building is a rare surviving example of an original building from the 1856 plan of Bridgeport. The building is designed in the Georgian architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is one-and-one-half storeys in height and features: gable roof; rectangular plan; siding; 2/2 hung windows and original window openings; and, original entrance inside porch that features door, sidelights, pilasters and fanlight. The contextual values relate to relates to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity of the Bridge Street East and Tyson Drive streetscapes. The historic value relates to the buildings association with the original village of Bridgeport. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 13 Bridge Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the house, including: • gable roof; • rectangular plan; • siding; • 2/2 hung windows and original window openings; and, • original entrance inside porch that features door, sidelights, pilasters and fanlight. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity of the Bridge Street East and Tyson Drive streetscapes. Photos 13 Bridge Street East 1 - 32 V I 13 Bridge Street East �y ail ✓ /i%/ / ��irr 6 1 i ,c J�i /�frr�l I r ✓✓i y/l//!����rr���J1"n 13 Bridge Street East 1 - 33 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 13 Bridge Street East Period: Field Team Initials: GZ/JS Description: 1.5 storey home Date: July 23, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Unknown No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or No No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — possible addition/alteration particularly at rear CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Unknown No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Unknown No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Yes No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 1 - 34 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team —2 door garage in rear of house, possibly built at a later date INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and No No design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — alterations to roof and possibly siding over time HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Unknown Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — more research on the building is required 1 - 35 Statement of Significance 50 Brookside Crescent 42 �UI I MMNMhM d M M WV f I mMM �/ ��� x,. / �j/ nNxnn" d, 'M i ' ^"" PI I ' ,w �� 5 All, d, III��II������ .M N'N �/ �M "w°"".•s" IIIIIIII�� Municipal Address: 50 Brookside Crescent Legal Description: Plan 1334 Part Block O Year Built: c. 1855 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 50 Brookside Crescent is a two storey mid-19th century stone house built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.59 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Brookside Crescent in the Forest Heights Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 1 - 36 Heritage Value 50 Brookside Crescent is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Georgian architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: side gable roof; cedar shingles; stone construction; gable end chimneys; 6/6 windows; attic windows in gable ends; full-width front porch; white washed first story front elevation; front door with transom and sidelights; and, detached stone garage. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Brookside Crescent streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 50 Brookside Crescent resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the house, including: • side gable roof; • cedar shingles; • stone construction; • gable end chimneys; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 6/6 windows; ■ attic windows in gable ends; • full-width front porch; • white washed first story front elevation; • front door with transom and sidelights; and, • detached stone garage. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Brookside Crescent streetscape. 1 - 37 Photos � «\ � �< � } , 5 Brookside Crescent , 5 Brookside Crescent 1 - 38 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 50 Brookside Crescent Period: c. 1855 Field Team Initials: AH/ER Description: Date: July 9, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Unknown No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Yes Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? 1 - 39 Notes: Field Team — set on top of hill — highest point in neighbourhood INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 40 Statement of Significance 500 Doon Valley Drive ,6 s 't � r � 0 � s "110 000�oab '101100 �Uo gg 5 r.,. ida i' i I SF y I at:rsdc 4 oiy 7Jd M1 7 0 w 0�P '� Municipal Address: 500 Doon Valley Drive Legal Description: Beasleys Old Survey Part Lot 10 & 11; 58R-13632 Part 1-4 Year Built: 1824/1835/1880 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: Henry McNally Original Use: Farmhouse Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 500 Doon Valley Drive is a two storey 19th century building designed in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 149 acre parcel of land located at the end of Doon Valley Drive adjacent to the Grand River and the 401 in the Lower Doon Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the original farmhouse and golf course. Heritage Value 500 Doon Valley Drive is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. 1 - 41 The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a rare example of a stone farmhouse. The building is designed in the Georgian architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: side gable roof; stone construction; rectangular window openings with 1/1 windows, voussoirs and sills; and, square windows on the gable ends. The contextual values relate to the setting and orientation of the clubhouse and golf course, including use of table and river valley lands, presence of the roadbed of the former Grand Trunk Railway and the parkland style of the original Robinson designed golf course. The historic and associative value relate to the original owner Henry McNally. Henry owned and operated a woolen mill on the Blair-Galt Road from 1875 until 1903 (Waterloo Historical Society, 1954). In addition to the information outlined above, the City of Kitchener's Cultural Heritage Landscape study report dated October 2014 indicates that: "Donn Valley Golf Course's story began when Arnold Elmslie started construction of the 6,200 yard course, located next to the Grand River in the south end of Kitchener, in 1955. Elmslie operated it under private ownership until 1966, when it was purchased by the City of Kitchener for $340,000. Situated mainly in the flood plain of the Grand River and in both Kitchener and Cambridge (the municipal boundary was changed with the construction of Highway 401), the table land features a clubhouse founded on a 19th century farmhouse. The original farm was once crossed by the Grand Trunk Railway, the roadbed of which can still be found on either side of the highway. The course architect in 1955 was C. E. (Robbie) Robinson, a student of renowned golf course architect Stanley Thompson. Robinson moved on to become one the premier golf course architects of his time, designing over 100 courses across Canada. He was mentor to many other designers, and a compatriot of Bob Moote who made improvements to the course in the latter part of the twentieth century. In 2010- 2011, the course was transformed from its original 18 hole layout to a 27 hole course with a pitch and putt course and practice range, utilizing river valley lands on the Kitchener side and additional flood plain lands on the Cambridge side of Highway 401. The eight new holes situated on the Cambridge side of Highway 401 were constructed with the environmental features of the land at the forefront. Wetlands were created and planted with native plant species. The Savannah landscape of the new holes contrasts with the parkland style of the original Robinson course. The revamped and enlarged course was designed by golf course architect Shawn Watters with landscape architects The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Its historic/associative value, both pre and post the current golf course use are complemented by its design and contextual values. It is an important public open space." References Waterloo Historical Society. (1954). History of Blair — Harry D. Kinzie. Waterloo Historical Society: Kitchener, Ontario. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 500 Doon Valley Drive resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the house, including: o side gable roof; 1 - 42 • stone construction; • rectangular window openings with 1/1 windows, voussoirs and sills; and, • square windows on the gable ends. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • the setting and orientation of the clubhouse and golf course; • use of table and river valley lands; • presence of the roadbed of the former Grand Trunk Railway; and, • the parkland style of the original Robinson designed golf course Photos 500 Doon Valley Drive AN, �'j/ %�� 500 Doon Valley Drive 1 - 43 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 500 Doon Valley Drive Period: Field Team Initials: JS/GZ Description: Golf Club House Date: August 26, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes No architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or No No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Yes Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — some heritage aspects still visible; Sub-Committee - stone CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Unknown No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 1 - 44 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and No No design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that Yes No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — additions take away from original aspects HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Unknown Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — more research, building has been compromised for golf clubhouse; Sub- Committee —City owned building adapted to golf clubhouse 1 - 45 Statement of Significance 92 Edgehill Drive 11 71 ��iuuuu %ih1 ���� Ili U 1 /� m „ 111 " Y Municipal Address: 92 Edgehill Drive Legal Description: Plan 698 Lot 16-18 Year Built: 1964 Architectural Style: Colonial Revival Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 92 Edgehill drive is a one-and-a-half storey mid-20th century brick house built in the Colonial Revival architectural style. The house is situated on a 1.10 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Edgehill Drive between Helen Avenue and Stanson Close in the Pioneer Tower West Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 92 Edgehill Drive is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Colonial Revival architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half 1 - 46 storeys in height and features: side gable roof with cedar shingles; cornice decorated with dentils; gable dormers with horizontal siding and 6/6 windows; painted brick; front paneled door with sidelights; rectangular shape window openings with concrete sills; 6/6 windows with and without shutters; and, chimneys. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Edgehill Drive streetscape. The driveway design and location, landscaping, brick pier lights and signage contribute to a noteworthy setting. These features along with complimentary additions such as the garage help to complete the site. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 92 Edgehill Drive resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Colonial Revival architectural style of the house, including: • side gable roof with cedar shingles; • cornice decorated with dentils; • gable dormers with horizontal siding and 6/6 windows; • painted brick; • front paneled door with sidelights; • rectangular shape window openings with concrete sills; • 6/6 windows with and without shutters; and, • Chimneys. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Edgehill Drive streetscape; • Driveway design and location; • Landscaping; • Brick pier lights; and, • Signage. 1 - 47 Photos M.,, �,,✓ girl r �, I � � x N �r o� ,✓mq?✓„�w�� �, Jay G � 92 Edgehill Drive P 4 u Y k 'So u h � J r r f M1 r 4 O/ 92 Edgehill Drive 1 - 48 pp r i 92 Edgehill Drive 4' rr r � Fµ r b r MAC 1tl1�! �r U Jfi n 1 92 Edgehill Drive 1 - 49 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 92 Edgehill Drive Period: 1964 Field Team Initials: MD/LB/CM Description: Date: July 16, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — period revival; cedar roof; dentils; main door with sidelights; bay windows CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Yes Yes Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 1 - 50 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — attached garage; landscaping INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 51 Statement of Significance 200 Fairway Road South ; uuuuuuuuuuuu � .... ... jIM d Municipal Address: 200 Fairway Road South Legal Description: Plan 961 Part Lot 10 and 14, Plan 962 Part Lot 4 Year Built: 1965 Architectural Style: Kennedy Era International Modern Original Owner: Simpson-Sears Original Use: Department Store Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 200 Fairway Road South is a mid-21St century department store built in the Kennedy Era International Modern architectural style. The building is situated on a 12.59 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Fairway Road South between Highway 8 and Wabanaki Drive in the Vanier Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the department store. 1 - 52 Heritage Value 200 Fairway Road South is recognized for its design, physical, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building and the construction technique. The building is a rare and unique example of the Kennedy Era International Modern architectural style. The building was built by Dunker Construction Limited and, according to Carl E. Dunker, was one of the first entirely precast structures to be built in this part of Ontario (Your Heritage Waterloo Region, 2009-2010). The building is in good condition and features: flat roof; pre-cast concrete construction; 20 foot high white precast moulded stone facing panels; and, 8 foot high dark green antique glazed bricks, including decorative brick patterns near doors. The design and physical value is further described as follows: "The design calls for walls, floors, roof and all beams and posts to be precast, then moved onto the site where they will be hoisted into position by cranes. The store measures 432 feet long and 192 feet wide. Rising above an eight-foot base wall of dark green antique glazed brick will be a series of 20-foot high white precast moulded stone facing panels. They will extend vertically to the roofline and cover all four sides of the structure. Each face panel will be four feet wide and weigh 16,000 pounds. Deep recesses in the panels will provide light and shadow contrast during the day. At night, light concealed in the store facings will accentuate the heavily moulded arches and "float" the upper area of the design above the dark base." (Your Heritage Waterloo Region, 2009-2010). The historic and associative values relate to Sears and Dunker Construction Limited. The building was the 19th major department store built by Simpson-Sears (Your Heritage Waterloo Region, 2009-2010). The building was built by Dunker Construction Limited for a total cost of $1,9000,000 (Your Heritage Waterloo Region, 2009-2010). Dunker Construction Limited was a local builder between 1887 and 1974 responsible for the construction of numerous buildings, including: the 1928 renovations and additions to Courland Avenue School; the 1938-39 Registry Theatre; and, the 1956 Waterloo Country Home for the Aged. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 200 Fairway Road South resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Kennedy Era International Modern architectural style of the building, including: o flat roof; o pre-cast concrete construction; 0 20 foot high white precast moulded stone facing panels; and, 0 8 foot high dark green antique glazed bricks, including decorative brick patterns near doors. References Your Heritage Waterloo Region (2009-2010). Scrapbook 55: Construction of $1,900,000 Department Store Starts. Retrieved on November 28, 2014 from http://www.y urlocalheritage.ca/Report.php?ListTy e=Documents ID®3259. 1 - 53 Photos IM uy 200 Fairway Road South i i �,i, n r/, ,,,, ,�i1i/✓ ,r, ,,,//,lie';nf/i,1. �/Y//,%iii, "! 200 Fairway Road South 1 - 54 a 1- /II d ,rl«rr o/�/, /rrrl /�iiiii� /Ilwl / V Ilbaoa�Eriiiirr «iarrri�«i�iD))>�j�III-: `,VI «rrrari fly/(r jllll�'r/f/l r ��o�� I�Illu�/i Il�iiiulllllll�lulu ii ui ii ii; /i/rr/r as i !��//r�%//�%////%///i/%r/i/ / iq///�i p / //il➢DUI �I r//IIUW11/lr /a VIVJr%/ / I IKVFiNNi;< u M�n Nino rill/Gia/ oa/.; /iin/�%/i/r/ X16/i Vul� /�,:r � �' luuuuu�ll i�r�1pai I«rrlrr✓��ali lorr/rF✓lr�IolulilwuualUlarrrnfaaf»r c«i/r n�ii�i / /i/�Yi /iif�u � f ' ul�m Ilullllmqui//i,„uuu�p /iii a�/wr«r// /rnnii/� igu,/"r ri'r rrr nrr/ //✓/�/ rc ' P✓fy�0/ /i�///ly �9;n!1a/1/////,�✓F//iiKll/� gV %'�f„ ///r7 J/fir Ala �,ui����/ /l� l I�l. � >rr'� �I,' l i��'� '/(1//i�iliy«�• rr�71/��� � r �o ur�l y« ✓- y� dr r 1" ! m qlr" A''r r�%��'f�4r�f/r/�1/ u 200 Fairway Road South / III. III � I' i ,.I I' 200 Fairway Road South 1 - 55 r• J I dV 3; /rrrrr r/err a� rr% r Rl �/ri/,, /'r�'r�7 f✓iM�,ii„a; r/ri,,, �i iii// ,//fr���� 200 Fairway Road South 1 - 56 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 200 Fairway Road South Period: 1965 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Sears Date: August 16, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 1 - 57 INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No Yes 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — sears-simpson department store opened in 1965; Sub-committee—dunker construction, in-house architect?, first suburban mall in Kitchener 1 - 58 Statement of Significance 1541 Fischer Hallman Road M Mmm I mM mM Mmm � I� AILLIArdS UIR,CErA..7F,I Y III mm..mmuxmm'• 0 k9 U)i p_ CM I w hry .w^ ry �[2 Municipal Address: 1541 Fischer Hallman Road Legal Description: GCT Part Lot 155 Year Built: original circa 1800; reconstructed in 1996 Architectural Style: Gothic Original Owner: Mennonite Church (Queen and Lark Streets in the Beaches area of Toronto) Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 1541 Fischer Hallman Road is a one storey brick church built in the Gothic architectural style. The building is situated on a 54.33 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Fischer Hallman Road in the Rosenberg Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the dedication centre. Heritage Value 1541 Fischer Hallman Road is recognized for its design, contextual and historic values. 1 - 59 The design value relates to the architecture of the dedication centre. The building is a notable example of the Gothic architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is one storey in height and features: steeply sloped front gable roof; yellow brick; circular window in gable end; central front entrance with pointed arch transom and double doors; pointed arch windows with brick voussoirs; stained glass windows; and, windows alongside the elevation facing the pond. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the dedication centre makes to the character of the cemetery. The setting and orientation of the dedication centre along with the soft and hard landscape features are noteworthy. Landscape features include: a winding bridge across Promontory pond, which features solar powered lights and botanical-themed iron railings; pathways; Promontory pond with cascading fountains; wetlands; stamped patio; and, pergola repurposed from black iron pillars topped with reclaimed white oak. The historic value relates to the former Mennonite Church at the corner of Queen Street and Lark Street in the Beaches area of Toronto (City of Kitchener, 2007). The building was dismantled in 1966 and the main support beams and roof deck were purchased in 1997 by Timeless Materials (City of Kitchener, 2007). In 1996, the City of Kitchener incorporated the main support beams and roof deck in to the design of the Williamsburg Dedication Centre. Additional materials were salvaged from other buildings to complete the project, including: stained glass windows from the Baptist Church at King Street and Union Street in Waterloo; Douglas Fir floor, walls and wood finishes from the Newland Textile Plan in Cambridge; and, bricks reclaimed from various houses in Kitchener-Waterloo (City of Kitchener, 2007). The dedication centre was presented with a Mike Wagner Heritage Award in 2002. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1541 Fischer Hallman Road resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Gothic architectural style of the dedication centre, including: • steeply sloped front gable roof; • yellow brick; • circular window in gable end; • central front entrance with pointed arch transom and double doors; • pointed arch windows with brick voussoirs; • stained glass windows; and, • windows alongside the elevation facing the pond. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Contribution that the dedication centre makes to the character of the cemetery; • Setting and orientation of the dedication centre; • Landscape features, including: • a winding bridge across Promontory pond, which features solar powered lights and botanical-themed iron railings; • pathways; • Promontory pond with cascading fountains; • wetlands; • stamped patio; and, • pergola repurposed from black iron pillars topped with reclaimed white oak. 1 - 60 References City of Kitchener. (2007). Williamsburg Crematorium and Dedication Centre Celebrates 10 Years of Service. Media Release: City of Kitchener. Photos A,w, 1541 Fischer Hallman Road tj , fT �M7!, Y J ✓ I" 4�, A 4 li 1541 Fischer Hallman Road 1 - 61 r J rrw (£fW ��/r, � r� r,r�< ?/, l0° r /,j�/� �m/it;➢ /i%'Il llr, i Ui Ja�rn i�r 1/i "rig a, x, n rJ rr6rr���fi ��,�� rll , /rr r a `111 ��':........ ty! POOR .jiiM 40�7aw„er rp 1 N W w a r r i o Ik 1 e � 1 F r IM VM N tf rrpr r, r �/✓ihi/rr�%I"�'r„r � ” ICI n I I� "� �;. .. A � a ro a� ^ II � � i * / ri//(� ff%% 'Ag AIM /rr l(c r r r r rxx�Nil , i i r I r r u rr / r r � lr / /lr /�%i y%rain '// �i„ �, � ��%r'/i /i�r�r ✓//bi/ � r//////�!/� 1541 Fischer Hallman Road 1 - 62 m wi hr i Irr i / rf f✓; � %/l // ��,�����/'iii//%�j1� �//�/ �� //i/� rp i/r/ ✓ r, Y f ,� �vl➢ f�rr"Y/���,�� rm+wrmww ryrwl✓Y; ✓/ 1 y > / I r; l i Y fw w Wl�'"+YDi srtu f, ' rw/ l� i 1 - 63 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 1541 Fischer Hallman Rd Period: Field Team Initials: BG/ST Description: Williamsburg Cemetery Dedication Centre Date: July 12, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Yes detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Yes Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? 1 - 64 INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes No Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and No No design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that Yes Yes have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique No No within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 65 Statement of Significance 113-151 Charles St W / 170-188 Joseph St / 3-44 Francis St S (commonly known as Lang Site A) WON Municipal Address: 113-151 Charles St W/ 170-188 Joseph St/3-44 Francis St S Legal Description: Plan 375 Lot 110-116 Lot 131-138 Part Charles St 58R-6449 Part 1 Year Built: c. 1896 to 1956 Architectural Style: Industrial Vernacular Original Owner: Reinhold Lang / Lang Tanning Company Original Use: Industrial Condition: Good Description of Historic Place Lang Site A is a complex of approximately 15 interconnected industrial buildings ranging in height from one to five storeys built between 1896 and 1956 in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The buildings are situated on a 3.95 acre parcel of land bounded by Charles, 1 - 66 Francis, Joseph and Victoria Streets in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the industrial buildings. Heritage Value Lang Site A is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the complex of buildings. The complex consists of a series of approximately 15 interconnected buildings that reflect the evolution of the site's use and Industrial Vernacular architecture from the turn-of-the-century until after world war two (ERA Architects Inc., 2008). The oldest portions of the site were built between 1896 and 1904 and include: the former two to three storey beam and currying house at Victoria Street and the two storey leach house at the centre of the site (ERA Architects Inc., 2008). The remaining buildings were constructed between 1904 and 1917, with significant alterations and additions occurring between 1917 and 1925 (ERA Architects Inc., 2008). The buildings that best exemplify the Industrial Vernacular architectural style between 1904 and 1925 include: the former administration and production buildings at the corner of Charles and Francis Streets; the former beam and storage house; and, the former leach house along Joseph Street. The buildings are in good condition. The buildings range in height from 1 to 5 storeys and feature: breezeways interconnecting buildings; painted signage on the exterior walls; decorative brickwork; lionhead tie roads; segmentally arched windows with wood sashes and stone sills; generous floor to ceiling heights; wooden beams and flooring; wooden staircases; exposed structural columns and mechanical systems; freight elevators with wooden gates; and, metal fire separation doors with original weights and pulleys (ERA Architects Inc., 2008). The contextual values relate to the contribution that the complex of buildings make to the continuity and character of the adjacent streetscapes and the overall Warehouse District. The buildings are historically and visually linked to their surroundings, including: Lang Site B, the railway line, and the Warehouse District. The buildings are recognized as a significant landmark reflecting Kitchener's industrial history of Industrial Vernacular architecture, its intimate relationship to the Lang family and the overall industrial development of the City of Kitchener (ERA Architects Inc., 2008). ERA Architects Inc. (2008) further described the contextual value as follows: The Lang Tannery compin i� contextually significant in relation to the developrm nt a nd growth of Berliti/Kit:rhnn r`s leather tanning industry, the poht:icaah leadership of the Lang farmil ,, and the hardworking Gernmla n community in estatihs,hing Berkn/Kitch n r as an industrial centre. The City of Kitchenor was ofig"Unatly part of a iaairge tract of r'onore tlharn 240,0100 hest- aaires of land granted to the `ix INati(arrs Tridiaans [a' khe Biu°it,ilshn (ro nn iiirn ,084. B tweert 1796 a and 1 7� ' , the Six R`'�iantiloi n' led b �7rrss-�ph Br ar°nt scnlV,ri'' raff 3'8,00() hectares of to nlri to Coloinel. Richard Beasl,ey, a United Ein'i�piry LoyalnisL Located far i�nl,a nd a and isol,,at d froirn (',erare s of x104110 I(Itce the Land attracted the ;sett k,=rr e nt of Pennsylvania 'Gerrrnaalrp Merinlo- nile failirirrn(-fir ° ^hi(( were attracted try the h'nrranrrnirse of inexlpe nsusne Ilarnri and t,ticr',, guairant(,'-e, of religious fr rRecioals, 1 - 67 By 0"ie rand of 1800, the first Perfrianenit, rio n na t live settlernent mils established in wl­iat is riaw, the City of Kitchener. 511"mr-tty after, a group, of Mennoriftes purchased all the unsold land froar Beasley and forrried the Gerrnan Cornparry Tract. The German Corw- pariy dilvided its 60,,1000 acres into 1310 farrristea& Withl t1fls the Cornpariy established a Pennsl vvania Mennorifte colony in Upper Canada. Isotated froirril the cornrnerce and developrnent along the lakefront, its religious and spiritual. ethos arlaide it different frorn tfie Ariqlo­saxon protestant values of the test of the province. lin 18,116 the Geiir,nari Cornpany Tract becairw the Township of Waterloo. This Trilarked tlhe beqirirIiirlq of steady rnigration of Gerrrrar'i speaking Europeans, to the arena. A large proportion of German speaking im"irnigrarits rnoved to the area between the 1,,820s and 1870s. Population growth and inIproververds to the roads helped establishi the be iirr,- r'1i111_1qS Of a t1FUE1 Urbani Centre t1hat becarrie tJl'rrr 1-iafrlilet of Berlin irr 1833. Tri 18,53 Berlil'i becarne the COLInt.y seat for the C0HntY Of Wat(111100 and three years later the Grarid [nark Railway was extended to Berlin, openliTlq LIP the area cornplete(y to UippelF Canada and future iTI(JUStd8liZaJOIFI. The skilled, trades and industrial. knowledqe of the Geirinian immigrant population clointrib- uted gfcatty to 161'chC1)c,',r'5 induAtialization Leather taiming became Bcrkn/KitchcTm'-j first rnajor industry, Irr 1848, Reinhold IL airig carne Lo, Beirtin frown Baderi, Geirilmny arid founded the IL.ang Tanning Cornparrly [irrijited irr 1,849. L-ocated at the nottl"wast corfrel" of Kirig arrd Ontario Streets the tariinelr rrrad,a all classes of Leal"ier required foir sadd[ers arrd shoernakers. Tn 1853 the original tarmery was destroyed by fire. To i b -ang purchased a lrge _ Uild his b usiness ear hold, L uc a piece of tanid at t�he corner of King anid, Francis Streets. w,era[ natural springs and a srna[[ The piopeity d feature s,c creek that woluld provide a good water su,pply for the tanirety. Lang built a new tannery on the conner of Fran- I ciis and Charles Streets. Figure 4. Rvuiiificdxl [Any, A Mdwy of Kird�&We As Berlin grew into air industrial centre, Reinhold (Lang, emerged, as a prominent tocal citiizen. In 1859 he was elected to the Ber[in Council., As member of Councit Reinhold Lang was one of two prominent businessmen to put forward a motion for an official "factory poticy" that provided exemptions and municipal, bonuses to new and expand- ing businesses, Many of Berlin's niost prong ilient. and prosperous firinis we�re aided bY 1 - 68 this policy. the significant iinpact of this poficy, on the fit 's industrial growth 11as, been extensively documented by local. historians. The town's industry and potitics, were inextricably linked. Berlin's Council relied heavily on its Board, of Trade for advice. It was not. unusual for the town's inanufacturing fanii- lies, to sit. on local ward committees set up by the Board to, assist in getting, legislation passed. These farni6es, often lived in the ward whichi thiey represented which enhanced the sense of cominunity,, I he Board of Trade went beyond, industrial expansion, of t1he town and proud[y sponsored, German cultural events throughout the late 1800s. Reinhold Lang's sons George, WiMarn, John and August and grandsons, Louis L,, Rein- hold, Jerome amid George W, continued family traditions as prominent figures in the local coinniunity,. Over Lhe Years, in addition to tanning, inerribers of the Lang family were also involved in die local insurance industry, banking, power nianufacturing, and mu- nicipal planning. By the lend of this 19th cu ntury Bleitini 'was a niiaJor industrial centre within the Dornini ion of Canada, boasting furniture factories, tanneries,, a foundry and button factories. Berlin's econoimic success is wildely attributed to the industry and coinimunity pride of its people. Berlin officially became a City in 1912 and was considered Canada's Gernian Capital. How ever, the outbreak of VNI caused anti-German sentiment and controversy for the City. And in 1916 the City was pressured to change its narne to Kitchener, after a British GeneraL During the Wortd, War period the Lang "Fanning Company became the largest solte leather producer in the British Empire., During, the First World War Lang, "canning produced huge arnounts of saddle material, and in the Second World War it supplied sole leather and leather linings for airicraft gasoline tanks. Operations delchined quickly after Worlid War 'It due to changes in the industry. 111 1954 the company discontinued operations as a tzinne•y due to competition from synthetic rnateriats, but kept the 5-acre downtown site and complex olf 35 buildings LITItil 1.974, when the piolperty was sold to Ball Brothers 1-in-flteld, a Kitchieriei contracting firin. Founded in 1849 and operating to 3.954 established Lang as one of Kitchener's longest operating businesses. ERA Architects Inc. (2008) also describes the historic and associative value as follows: The Lang, Tannery coiniip[ex is culturall y significant for its relationship to Berhri/Kitchen- er's important leather tanning industry and its association with Local indllstria list. IRein- hold Lang. The coinIp[ex represents the significant industrial, (heritage of Berhn/Kitchener and the evolution of industrial architecture in Ontario. 1 - 69 The (Lang, Tanning Coirnpa,qy, was founded iin 1848 bY Reinhold ILanq. The Tannery's opera- tion and grow ffi contributed to esLabhshing leather tanning as Kitchener's first major industry. 'rhe ILanq faimily were Aron iiinent local industrialists whose cultural and pohh- cal leadeiship establisl'ied as an InIPOOAT/Ft UINM CHItTe Of JfldUSI-ftat activity southern Ontario, The Lang Tanning Company became the largest sole leather producer in the British Empire. Located within the warehouse district of downtown, the Lang Tannery is one afthe [arg- est remaining industrial complexes in the area. It is a good example of tile vernacular industrial buildings of Berlin/Kitchener, The Tannei-y comprises a compdex of intercon- nected industrial, buildings that reflect the evolution of the tanning induistry. Simple brick detailing and durable finishes, demonstrate the functional and industrial history of building i,jse, A inanufactory of nearly two-dozen buildings, at some points, iin its development, the Lang Tannery exhibits the different activities of the industrial tanning process. T'he complex's morphology reflect-9 the organizational, technological, and rear et changes of the tanning industry. Leather and leather products were fil'I'portant crafts through the 1850s and the first. major industry iin Berlin/Kitchener. European handicraft techniques adopted by CD10- nists continued with minor modifications. IHiides were soal ked, in lime and water, and loosened hair was scraped off After cleaning, hides were tanned in large vats by tfie chemical action of ta,nn in-bearing hark of hemlock, SUFTIM DT oak trees,. "FIle tanned hides would then be dried and finished with oil (currying). Tanning was initatty undertaken on a small scate and was wide[y dispersed; using to- ,cat fi-iatedats and targeting local markets. Inn the mid to late 19th century important changes to the industry occurred and regional leather rylai'kets, began to ernerge. Tan.- neries tended to concentrate in settLernents where hides were readily available or in areas whem the proper tree species abounded. During this pedod, tanners and leather rnacl-linery firms, developled machines to unfiair, scrape, beat, split, tan, dry, and fin- ish leather. They also developed steani d1i ive rnechani sms that could feed tannin and stir hides. Tainflin ext.idct substiLUt.ed foit bar k after 1,890. The use Of clurrini(i Ldnithig (ichemical/miniera[) over chromic acid (vegetable) reduced, tanning time and overcame the dependence on bark. These changes resulted in langer tannei-ies. Tanneries becari* comp[exes composed of a series of buildings, which catered to the different stages or ancillary activities of the tanriirig process. These activities included: Animal hide and hark storage Scrubing (c[eaning, rinsing) Beaming (flfnl-i and hair removal) 1 - 70 Leaching (preparation oftanning Solution) 'rdonirrq (dying) Drying Curryin( (stretching and finishing leather) In the complexes the bark mi[1, boilers and furnaces were typically associated with the [each house as spent tan bark was often used as fuel for the boiler furriaces. A sys- tern of purrips and pipes would deliver and drain the [eaching, solution to and 1-rom the tanning yards in order to maintain the desired concentration of tannins in each vat. Starting as a single frame bui[ding, built at the corner of Francis and Charles Streets after 1,853, the second Lang I arinery devetoped into an industrial complex oicc�upyiing nearly three city blocks. In 1887 John A. Lang the son of Reinhold Lanig buift, his, residence at the northwest corner of Charties, and Francis Streets. Its adjacency to the tannery was typical of Bler- [in factory owners of the time and their perference to be involved in overseeing, idaily factory activities, In 1897' it was sold to the company and served as offices untit opera- tions c�eased, in 1954. It was denliohished in the 1990s. �By 1904, the original buRdi'ings, on the site started to be replaced, expanded or con- verted, from frame to more permanent brick or irion constructions. Some of these changes appear to coincide with the reorganization of the buildings' uses just after 1917, Likely the resu[t of the company"s invo[vernent in the production of wartillie supplies. The post war Period saw more modest changes to, the site. Most were in the forrn of connections between existing buildings to accoirnirnodate the site's later uses by a Local construction company and various light industrial renters. The Lang, Tanning property, was sold to Bahl Brothers, Construction in the 191 0s. From this time portiions of the property were rented out and, adapted for various light indus- trial, uses iri(Auding, wai3OIGUSillg, W[f StOTAgE, Ca.r[)eritry, coritractirig, rnachinery repair, studios and industrial office space,. Since 2008, the site has been rehabilitated and adapted for new uses. The uses support the City's economic development strategy focused on the creation of an innovation district with high-tech companies. The rehabilitation and adaptive reuse efforts were acknowledged in 2011 when the Lang Site A was the recipient of a 2011 Mike Wagner Heritage Award. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of Lang Site A resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the design and physical value, including: o Complex of industrial vernacular buildings spanning the turn-of-the-20th century; 1 - 71 • Breezeways interconnecting buildings; • Painted signage on the exterior walls; • Former administration and production buildings at the corner of Charles and Francis; • Former beam and storage house; • Former leach house along Joseph Street; • Decorative brickwork; • Lionhead tie roads; • Segmentally arched windows with wood sashes and stone sills; • Generous floor to ceiling heights; • Wooden beams and flooring; • Wooden staircases; • Exposed structural columns and mechanical systems; • Freight elevators with wooden gates; and, • Metal fire separation doors with original weights and pulleys (ERA Architects Inc., 2008). References ERA Architects Inc. (2008). 36-50 Francis Street South Heritage Impact Assessment Lang Tanning Co. A. ERA Architects Inc.: Toronto, Ontario. Photos f Lang Site A 1 - 72 � lam' 1 c4 A nn .N' r ��W / AAA " r/ ire Lang Site A r , ', lift,� / jjjjjIIIIIIIIIIIII Lang Site A 1 - 73 Statement of Significance 101 Glasgow Street / 149 Strange Street 4, gw owrl 1 1/ ' D .� // / h � i nrM / ry Municipal Address: 101 Glasgow Street/ 149 Strange Street Legal Description: Plan 431 Lots 7-10, Plan 377 Part Lot 492, 58R-9638 Part 1, 3, 4 and 17 Year Built: 1912-13 (main factory); 1912, 1913, 1919 (main office); 1920, 1946, 1947, 1953, 1964, 1965, 1969, 1975 (additions and accessory buildings) Architectural Style: Early Industrial Modernism or "Daylight Factory" (original factory); Vernacular with some elements of the Classic Revival architectural style (main office) Original Owner: Merchant's Rubber Co. Ltd. Original Use: Rubber Manufacturing Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 101 Glasgow Street / 149 Strange Street is a complex of industrial buildings designed in the early Industrial Modernism architectural style. The buildings are situated on a 14.25 acre parcel of land generally located on the south west corner of Glasgow Street and Strange Street directly north of the rail line in the Cherry Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the industrial buildings. 1 - 74 Heritage Value 101 Glasgow Street / 149 Strange Street is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the factory and office. The factory is a rare example of an industrial complex built in the early Industrial Modernism architectural style. The factory is also an excellent example of the work of one of the 20th century's greatest architects, Albert Khan (1869-1942). The original 1912-13 factory was four storeys in height, measured 700 feet by 90 feet, had a symmetrical fagade, had a central entrance portico, had a free-standing power house coupled with an office block at the rear and cost $1 million to build (Mavor, 2013). Today, the factory buildings range in height and feature: flat roofline, including: cornice and dentil mouldings; exposed concrete frame, including exterior columns; corner towers; red brick; concrete details; windows and window openings, including steel sash windows with and without concrete sills and lintels; and, entrance porticos. The factory buildings are in good condition. The office building is influenced by the design and construction of the adjacent factory buildings in terms of the use of red brick, concrete and dentil mouldings. The office building is three storeys in height and features: flat roof; dentil mouldings; rectangular plan; symmetrical fagade; red brick, including decorative details; window openings with concrete sills and lintels; and, the one-storey projecting entrances with flat roof, cornice, dentil mouldings, red brick and concrete. The design value also relates to the technical achievements represented in the materials and design, including: reinforced concrete, uninterrupted floor space, increased fireproofing and natural lighting. The design also took into account future requirements for higher floor loads of up to 350 pounds of pressure to the square foot (KW Record, 1967). The contextual values relate to the continuity, setting and landmark status. The buildings contribute to the character of the Glasgow Street and Strange Street streetscapes as well as the City's overall warehouse district cultural heritage landscape. The setting is noteworthy because the property is directly adjacent to the railway. The complex is considered a landmark within the Region. The historic and associative values relate to prominent industrialists, the architect Albert Khan, the Grand Trunk rail line, the rubber industry, and war efforts. Talmon Henry (T.H.) Rieder along with Jacob Kaufman organized the Merchant's Rubber Company Ltd. in 1903, which was absorbed by the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company Ltd. and later referred to as the Dominion Rubber System. Berlin entered a competition to attract the factory by offering $25,000 and a 10 year tax exemption (DeRuyter, 1991). The offer required a vote, which was won and coincided with the declaration of Berlin as a city in 1912 (DeRuyter, 1991; Mavor, 2011, The Record, 1992). The company purchased 50 acres on Strange Street in order to construct the four storey factory (DeRuyter, 1991). T.H. Rieder was instrumental in attracting the Dominion Tire Factory to Berlin rather than other larger and more developed cities such as Hamilton, London and Windsor (University of Waterloo, 2014). He realized how the factory would contribute to his goal of establishing a residential neighbourhood on farmland west of the factory based on the Westmount neighbourhood in Montreal (Fear, 2014). In addition, the site was located close to the downtown business core, other rubber companies and directly adjacent to the Grand Trunk rail line. The proximity to the rail line acknowledges the influence the railway had on early industrial growth and development (Judge, 1984). 1 - 75 Construction of the factory began on August 1, 1912 with T.H. Rieder overseeing the operations (Judge, 1984). The factory was designed by the architect Albert Khan who is known as the greatest industrial architect in North American history (Mavor, 2011). The factory was built by Caspar Braun who was a prominent local building contractor (Kolaritsch et al, 1984-85). T.H. Rieder remained as President and General Manager of the company from 1907 until 1920 (Kolaritsch et al, 1984-85). The official opening of the factory drew 6000 people, the equivalent of one quarter of the combined population of Berlin and Waterloo (Fear, 2014). The first tire was produced on January 6, 1914 (The Record, 1992). In 1917 an integral part of the factory was opened, the Rubber Machinery Shops (RMS). Built next to the factory for the express purpose of creating machines for use in the factory, the RMS designed and manufactured machines for use in the rubber industry (and eventually many others) at this location until 2009 (University of Waterloo, 2014). The diversity of products manufactured by the RMS did not compare to any other factory of similar size in Canada (Judge, 1984). The 40,000 square foot office building commonly referred to as 149 Strange Street was built in 1919 and served as the company's Canadian administration headquarters until 1986 (DeRuyter, 2000). The building was originally intended to be a two storey building with a smaller footprint but was expanded due to the growing needs of the factory (The Dominion, 1919). The building contained: the cafeteria, a root cellar, a store room, a refrigerator, a smoking room, and a reading room (The Dominion, 1919). In addition, 22 bedrooms were provided for male employees on the third floor as an experiment because the space was not immediately required for other purposes (The Dominion, 1919). In response to a housing shortage, the company formed the Dominion Housing Company on November 13, 1919 to buy land adjacent to the factory and construct homes for rent to employees (DeRuyter, 1991; The Record, n.d., The Record, 1992). This also enabled employees to live close to work. Houses went up on Agnes, Dominion, Gildner and Gruhn (The Record, n.d.). The presence of the rubber industry led to Berlin (now Kitchener) receiving such names as the "Akron, Ohio of Canada" (Judge, 1984) and the "rubber capital of the world" (Bloomfield, 1986). The company contributed to the war efforts through research and manufacturing of products. The company also contributed to the history of organized labour in the City and Canada. The first contracts to be signed by a rubber company in Canada arose from the February 1939 strike involving workers at Dominion Tire (Judge 1984; The Record, 1992). In 1964, the company became the largest tire factory in Canada (The Record, 1992). By 1966 the company changed its name to Uniroyal and by 1986 the company merged with BF Goodrich to become Uniroyal Goodrich (The Record, 1992). After producing 160 million tires the factory represented the oldest tire factory in North America and the final day of work at the Strange Street factory was December 18, 1991 (The Record, 1992; KW Record, 1993). Today the factory is owned by AirBoss Rubber Compounding. According to their website, AirBoss Rubber Compounding (2015) "is the single largest custom rubber mixing facility in North America, stretching out over 1 million square feet and employing almost 300 employees." Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 101 Glasgow Street/ 149 Strange Street resides in the following heritage attributes: 1 - 76 • All elements related to the early Industrial Modernism architectural style of the factory buildings, including: • Varied height of buildings and additions; • flat roofline, including: cornice and dentil mouldings; • exposed concrete frame, including exterior columns; • corner towers; • red brick; • concrete details; • windows and window openings, including steel sash windows with and without concrete sills and lintels; and, • entrance porticos. • All elements related to the Vernacular with some elements of the Classic Revival architectural style of the main office, including: • flat roof; • dentil mouldings; • rectangular plan; • symmetrical fagade; • red brick, including decorative details; • window openings with concrete sills and lintels; and, • the one-storey projecting entrances with flat roof, cornice, dentil mouldings, red brick and concrete. References AirBoss Rubber Compounding. (2015). AirBoss Rubber Compounding, North American Locations, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved on March 2, 2015 from h!!L//www.airbossrubbercompounding.com/locati ns/?doc=north american locatio ns. Bloomfield, E. (1986). Berlin's Last Bonus: Or How Kitchener Became the Rubber Capital of Canada. Waterloo Historical Socieity, 74: 6-22. DeRuyter, R. (1991). Tire industry grew with Kitchener. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. DeRuyter, D. (2000). Uniroyal ex-head office on market. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Fear, J. (2014). Last week's picture: Dominion Tire plant opened 100 years ago. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Judge, M. (1984). The Contribution of Kitchener's Rubber Industry During the Second World War. Waterloo Historical Society, 72: 6-19. KW Record. (1993). Goodrich site draws interest. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1967). Talking business. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Kolaritsch, D., M. Horne and J. Campbell. (1984-85). Historic Property Report— Uniroyal Ltd. City of Kitchener. 1 - 77 Mavor, S. (2011). Westmount: The tie that binds the twin cities: An illustrated history of Westmount's 100 years. Friesens Corporation: Altona, Manitoba. Mavor, S. (2013). Rieder, rubber and romance: How Kitchener became the rubber capital of Canada. 2013 Edna Staebler Research Fellow, Friends of the Joseph Schneider Haus Museum, Joseph Schneider Haus: Kitchener, Ontario. The Dominion. (1919). Dominion Rubber System cafeteria. Vol. XI 1, No. 1: The Modern Printing Co., Montreal. The Record. (n.d.). Talking business, company-built housing problem solved in 1916. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. The Record. (1992). Tire plant milestones. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. University of Waterloo. (2014). Finding Aid: GA 217 Rubber Machinery Shops fonds. Special Collections, University of Waterloo Library. Photos 101 Glasgow Street (background) —Original 1912 Factory Building and 1947 South Annex Addition & 149 Strange Street (foreground) —Administration Office 1 - 78 101 Glasgow Street— Detail of Original 1912 Factory Building 101 Glasgow Street—Original 1912 Factory Building 1 - 79 as 101 Glasgow Street— 1947 South Annex Addition Il 101 Glasgow Street (left) — 1947 South Annex Addition & 149 Strange Street (right) —Administrative Office 1 - 80 r j i y l I 149 Strange Street—Administrative Office 1 - 81 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 101 Glasgow Street Period: 1912 Field Team Initials: LB/ MD Description: see also 149 Strange Street Date: July 2, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Unknown Unknown Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team: need to verify if the structure demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement; early example of day light factory (similar to Kaufman) with reinforced concrete; 149 Strange Street is the administration building CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes Yes region, city or neighbourhood? 1 - 82 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Yes Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team: large lot; adjacent to railway; functional link to its surroundings INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that Yes Yes have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 83 Statement of Significance 314 Glasgow Street I y y y I � y 0101, ' 3 20 , 00e,000,01 I, 'y I 3 4 � 87 4 y 1 4 y J J'' 44 I Iti ....,. ,...,.• _ IyY y yy ...��' � ..:.:....................."....... VI O Municipal Address: 314 Glasgow Street Legal Description: Plan 350 Part Lot 79 & 80 Year Built: 1947 Architectural Style: French Period Revival Original Owner: Westmount Homes Limited Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 314 Glasgow Street is a two storey mid-20th century brick house built in the French Period Revival architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.18 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Glasgow Street between Westmount Road and Dunbar Road in the Westmount Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 314 Glasgow Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a rare example of the French Period Revival architectural style. The House is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: mansard roof; chimneys; segmentally arched dormer windows; brick construction, including decorative details below eaves and at front corners of the building; 1 - 84 main floor segmentally arched casement windows with brick voussoirs; and, paneled front door with brick voussoirs. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Glasgow Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 314 Glasgow Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the French Period Revival architectural style of the House, including: • mansard roof; • chimneys; • windows and window openings, including: • segmentally arched dormer windows; • main floor segmentally arched casement windows with brick voussoirs; • brick construction, including corbelling on chimneys, decorative details below eaves and decorative details at front corners of the house; and, • paneled front door and door opening with brick voussoirs. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Glasgow Street streetscape. Photos M 314 Glasgow Street 1 - 85 N4 I < 314 Glasgow Street ffi � 1 314 Glasgow Street 1 - 86 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 314 Glasgow Street Period: 1947 Field Team Initials: JS/GZ Description: similar to second empire Date: August 26, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Yes Yes Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular architectural style? Construction Unknown No Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of construction? Design Yes Yes Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical No No or scientific achievement? Interior Unknown Unknown Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — haven't seen too many houses of this style; Sub-Committee — French Period Revival, mansard roof, second floor dormer windows with arch, casement windows, brick CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Unknown No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Unknown No 1 - 87 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that Yes No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes No within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 88 Statement of Significance 418 Glasgow Street ` �u "` .,.,�II q ,.......` qi .,• �a� ''hiIIIII �� �IIIII IIII �I�i �jj� IIII ��, qi o!q3 II�il�l 'h, '+q IIIIIII� � IIII h+i I'h 'h IIIII� I llll�li '" 64 1 IIII�IIIII I I'y h I 1 ka`, -� T2 A AIR,/[ IPP/// �, IIII P/ 438 Municipal Address: 418 Glasgow Street Legal Description: Plan 855 Lot 6, 58R-16725 Part 1 Year Built: c. 1895 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: Samuel S. Snider Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 418 Glasgow Street is a two storey late 19th century brick house built in the Italianate architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.49 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Glasgow Street between Orchard Park Crescent and Westmount Road in the Westmount Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the residential building. 1 - 89 Heritage Value 418 Glasgow Street is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historical and associative values. Robinson Heritage Consulting (2009) concluded that the property has cultural heritage value and interest, is worthy of conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act, and is a significant cultural heritage resource as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement. According to Robinson's Heritage Consulting (2009), "the property has design value or physical value because the subject property has high integrity as it is in its original location, it has almost all of its original later 19th century form and its original exterior brickwork and wooden sashes are intact." The building is an example of the Italianate architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The original c. 1895 building features: rectangular plan with hipped roof; segmentally arched single hung 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs; wood storm windows; wood brackets; front door with transom; white (yellow) brick laid in a stretcher bond; wood fascia; and, wood tongue and groove soffits create a boxed cornice supported by wood brackets (paired on both sides of each corner of the main roof) that extend below a wood frieze board; chimneys; and fieldstone foundation. The north addition located to the rear of the Italianate building is believed to be original to the main building (Robinson Heritage Consulting, 2009). The addition is in good condition and features a centre gable with pointed arch window. The historic and associative value relates to the original size of the property as Lot 22 in the German Company Tract, which was originally owned by Samuel Shantz Snider. The original property appears on both the Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo in 1861 and the Map of Waterloo Township in the Illustrated Atlas of Waterloo and Wellington Counties in 1881 (Robinson Heritage Consulting, 2009). The 1881 Atlas also contains a Biographical Directory of Waterloo County Subscribers, which describes Samuel Shantz Snider as residing on Lot 22, farming, milling and owning 516 acres of land (Robinson Heritage Consulting, 2009). Samuel Shantz Snider's father-in-law, Jacob C. Snider, originally purchased the property in 1842. Jacob C. Snider purchased the Abraham Erb Mill in Waterloo. Samuel Shantz Snider was associated with both the Union Mills in Waterloo and the Lancaster Mills in Bridgeport. It is believed that Samuel Shantz Snider built the existing house either around 1864 or sometime between 1892 and 1895 (Robinson Heritage Consulting, 2009). The property remained in the Snider family until 1917. The historic and associative value also relates to later property owners including: Talmon Henry Rieder, Westmount Improvements Co. Ltd., Eben Oliver Weber, Harold Mortimer Bezeau and Allen J. Ritzer. Talmon Henry Rieder is featured in the Waterloo County Hall of Fame for his contributions to the rubber industry in Berlin (now Kitchener). Rieder along with Jacob Kaufman organized the Merchant's Rubber Company Ltd. in 1903, which was absorbed by the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company Ltd. and later referred to as the Dominion Rubber System. Rieder was instrumental in attracting the Dominion Tire Factory to Berlin rather than other larger and more developed cities such as Hamilton, London and Windsor (University of Waterloo, 2014). He realized how the factory would contribute to his goal of establishing a residential neighbourhood on farmland west of the factory based on the Westmount neighbourhood in Montreal (Fear, 2014). The Snider farm lands were purchased by T.H.Rieder in 1917 and conveyed to his 1 - 90 company the Westmount Improvements Company Limited in 1918 (Robinson Heritage Consulting, 2009). Eben Oliver Weber is featured in the Waterloo County Hall of Fame which indicates that "Eben Oliver Weber was born in Woolwich Township in 1881. He attended Stratford Business College before taking a degree at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. He joined his father, L.S. Weber, and his brother I.S.K. Weber, in manufacturing furniture in Waterloo. His entrepreneurial spirit was manifest in his ownership of the Waterloo Furniture Company, the National Furniture Company in Kitchener, and the Crown Furniture Company in Preston, as well as two farms west of the Kitchener boundary. He donated approximately seventy acres of maple sugar bush to the Westmount Golf and Country Club; the remainder was developed into the Westmount residential area. He served as chairman of the K-W High School Board, the K-W Hospital Board and the K-W Orphanage Board."Weber purchased the lands in 1921 and his son became the executor in 1953 (Robinson Heritage Consulting, 2009). Today, the Snider Farm lands are occupied by the Westmount neighbourhood and the Westmount Golf and Country Club. Both the neighbourhood and golf course have recently been identified a significant cultural heritage landscapes. Harold Mortimer Bezeau, the son of the 1931-32 Berlin Mayor Charles Mortimer Bezeau, leased or rented the building between 1938 and 1951. Harold Mortimer Bezeau was also the owner of the Mansfield Shirt Company in Kitchener. Allen J. Ritzer and his family leased the building from around 1950 through to the 1990s (Robinson Heritage Consulting, 2009). Allen J. Ritzer was a manager at the London Life Assurance Company. Until the subdivision of land in 1955, the property was used for agricultural purposes including a horse farm (Robinson Heritage Consulting, 2009). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 418 Glasgow Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the construction and Italianate architectural style of the original c. 1895 building, including: • rectangular plan with hipped roof; • existing windows and window openings, including: • segmentally arched single hung 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs; and, • wood storm windows; • existing doors and door openings, including: ■ front door with transom; • white (yellow) brick laid in a stretcher bond with smooth stone lug sills; • wood fascia; • wood tongue and groove soffits, boxed cornice, wood brackets and wood frieze board; and, • brick chimney stacks and shafts. • All elements related to the construction and architectural style of the north addition, including: • centre gable with pointed arch dormer window; and, • existing windows and window openings (with the exception of the large picture window on the east wall). 1 - 91 ■ The following elements related to the context and landscaping: o The mature trees, including: • Norway Spruce; • White Spruce; • Sugar Maple; and, • Scots Pine. References Fear, J. (2014). Last week's picture: Dominion Tire plant opened 100 years ago. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Robinson Heritage Consulting. (2009). 418 Glasgow Street Kitchener, Ontario Heritage Impact Assessment. Robinson Heritage Consulting: Cambridge, Ontario. University of Waterloo. (2014). Finding Aid: GA 217 Rubber Machinery Shops fonds. Special Collections, University of Waterloo Library: Waterloo, Ontario. Photos h � 418 Glasgow Street 1 - 92 �wrr qPm v�N � 1 lF�r /,NUm,i I V ✓ � I ` III r/ daiy�xn " 418 Glasgow Street , F 418 Glasgow Street 1 - 93 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 418 Glasgow Street Period: c. 1895 Field Team Initials: MW Description: Italianate Date: November 2008 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No No architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Yes Yes detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team - original square plan with hipped roof, segmentally arched windows with brick voussoirs, wood brackets, front door with transom and side lights, white (yellow) brick, wood soffits; Sub-Committee— simple rectangle CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes Yes region, city or neighbourhood? 1 - 94 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Yes No landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — mature trees along rear property line INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Sub-Committee - lost the original 2 storey front verandah; one blind window on side elevation; rebuilt chimneys; new front door HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team - associated with Samuel Shantz Snider, Eben O. Weber, and Allen T. Ritzer; Sub-Committee - one of last remaining original farm houses in the neighbourhood 1 - 95 Statement of Significance 570-600 Heritage Drive i j/ � p , .... a ... on �3�t 40 4oy,W laa,•�+ 5 Cpl % J ra Ww P L GRAND RAVER STANLEY PARK LIBRARY 9�0 "*.,,y� y •3 INS-1111-11V III: 0 5 70 600 r' 2..6 7V I'RIIN 'F 1111 01110 ii�� �IIII Municipal Address: 570-600 Heritage Drive Legal Description: Plan 1589 Block 76 Plan 1594 Block 45 & 46 Year Built: 1990 Architectural Style: Modern Original Owner: City of Kitchener Original Use: Recreation Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 570-600 Heritage Drive is a late 20th century recreation complex built in the Modern architectural style. The building is situated on a 12.08 acre parcel of land bounded by Heritage Drive, Oakhurst Crescent, Lackner Boulevard and Ottawa Street North in the Grand River North Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the recreation complex. 1 - 96 Heritage Value 570-600 Heritage Drive is recognized for its design value. The design value relates to the modern architecture of the building. The importance of Modern architecture and the building at 570-600 Heritage Drive are described in the book "Images of Progress 1946-1996: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region."The book indicates that: "Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region presents fifty buildings constructed between 1946 and 1996, designed by architects of local, national, and in some cases international renown. It is our collective hope that the general public will gain a better understanding of the role architecture has played in the development of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. In presenting architecture of high quality, we expect to raise public appreciation for well-designed buildings, such that people will begin to understand how their lives can be enriched by the buildings they use on a daily basis."(Mannell, 1997, p. 7). "Images of Progress: 1946-1996 brings attention to the fine modern architecture of the Waterloo Region, promoting awareness of the architectural heritage of the last fifty years. Much of this work reveals the energy associated with the first appearance of an explicitly modern architecture in the Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge area in the 1950s and `60s. This period of `high' modernism (particularly in the City of Kitchener) produced more than half of the projects presented. The architecture of this period is open, diverse and confident in its handling of form and technology, not at all surprising given the optimistic spirit of Canadian society between the Second World War and the Centennial."(Mannell, 1997, p. 9). "Situated in the growing suburb of Stanley Park, the Grand River Recreation Complex is a modest building supporting a comprehensive recreation program. Two perpendicular volumes flank a major intersection, framing the park behind. A Community Hall is located in the volumne along Heritage Street, while the Pool Hall, containing a lap pool, splash pool, hot tubs, and children's area, extends along Ottawa Street. The bold juxtaposition of sawtooth-roofed community hall and barrel-vaulted pool hall creates a unique work of architecture — a place full of light and activity." Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 570-600 Heritage Drive resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Modern architectural style of the building, including: • Sawtooth-roofed community hall; • Barrel-vaulted pool hall; • Entrance with canopy and round column; • Windows and window openings, including skylights; • Doors and door openings; and, • Various wall cladding including concrete block and EIFS. References Mannell, Steven (Ed.). (1997). Images of Progress 1946-1996 Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region. The Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery: Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 97 Photos ,.,,....1,111.... �( l I` Yw , 1 570-600 Heritage Drive 1 _ 1 t J it 1; 570-600 Heritage Drive 1 - 98 570-600 Heritage Drive 1 - 99 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 570-600 Heritage Drive Period: Field Team Initials: AH/ER Description: Date: July 9, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Yes Yes detail noteworthy? Notes: Sub-Committee: good representation, entrance, orientation to street, canopy CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 1 - 100 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes No within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — landscaping seriously overgrown, difficult to see architecture from Ottawa Street 1 - 101 Statement of Significance 1333 King Street East g �lll� V mm 77 �%" r" IIIVu."uunn,w, mN r ' .,.,..$..,. 111 $....r. X11111 IIIIIIIII Ij�1 0111,1111,111111111 a 1111111 INN p 1/jrrta 11II�j01IIIII�" " lJjllll � uuW llll �/ 70 4 rrrr " Municipal Address: 1333 King Street East Legal Description: Plan 258 Part Lot 10 to 12 Year Built: 1940 Architectural Style: Edwardian Vernacular Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 1333 King Street East is a two-and-a-half storey mid-20th century brick house built in the Edwardian Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.17 acre parcel of land located on the south west corner of King Street East and Preston Street in the King East Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 1333 King Street East is recognized for its design, contextual, associative and historic values. 1 - 102 The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Edwardian Vernacular architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two-and- a-half storeys in height and features: square plan; hip roof; hip roof dormers; chimney; flat headed window openings with concrete sills; varied window pane arrangements, including: 4 over 1, 12 over 1, 6 over 9, 3 over 1, 9 over 1, and 2 over 1; yellow brick; full width front porch with gabled pediment, brick piers and brick guards; and, stone foundation. The contextual value relates to the presence of the red brick multiple car garage, which completes the site. The associative and historic values relate to the previous use of the building. The building was the former Kitchener Ontario Provincial Police detachment between c. 1952 and 1986 (KW Record, 1986). The building was also the former home of the Central Ambulance Communications Centre between 1986 and c. 1995 (KW Record, 1986). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1333 King Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Edwardian Vernacular architectural style of the house, including: • square plan; • hip roof; • hip roof dormers; • chimney; • flat headed window openings with concrete sills; • varied window pane arrangements, including: 4 over 1, 12 over 1, 6 over 9, 3 over 1, 9 over 1, and 2 over 1; • yellow brick; • full width front porch with gabled pediment, brick piers and brick guards; and, • stone foundation. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o The red brick multiple car garage. References KW Record. (1986). OPP look forward to new name, new home in Cambridge. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 103 Photos r 1333 King Street East q �a u 4 7 r 1 1333 King Street East 1 - 104 yy yy II 4Inl' 1333 King Street East f ' r r f 1333 King Street East w.�iiiaira�i/ii i 7 I i 1 r J s 1333 King Street East 1 - 105 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 1333 King Street East Period: 1940 Field Team Initials: MD/LB Description: Date: July 16, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — large footprint; relatively intact; original windows with aluminum storms; full width front porch; dormers; retain wall matches foundation; generous overhang on eaves CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Yes Yes 1 - 106 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — red brick multiple car garage; Sub-Committee— link to police service INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Yes Yes Does the structure occupy its original site? Alterations Yes Yes Does this building retain most of its original materials and design features? Condition No No Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — missing chimney HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with Unknown Unknown 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? No No Does this property meet the definition of a significant built Yes Yes 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 an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team —former OPP building; Sub-Committee —what did this building serve?, tell the story of policing as City grew 1 - 107 Statement of Significance 4336 King Street East 431�B + � II g Ik i Municipal Address: 4336 King Street East Legal Description: Beasley's Broken Front Part Lots 8 & 9, 58R-16058 Part 3 Year Built: c. 1889 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: Original Use: School Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 4336 King Street East is a one storey late-19th century former school house built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.40 acre parcel of land located on the corner of King Street East and Heldmann Road in the Pioneer Tower East Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the former school house building. 1 - 108 Heritage Value 4336 King Street East is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The design, composition, craftsmanship and details of the building constructed in the Georgian architectural style are attractive. The building is in good condition. The building is one storey in height and features: front gable roof; buff brick; segmentally arched window openings with brick hoodmoulds; flat headed basement window openings with brick voussoirs; circular vent (former window) with brick hoodmould; remnants from former school name plate; and, fieldstone foundation. The contextual values relate to the historic link the former school house building provides to the former locality of Little Paradise. The historic and associative values relate to former school, known as Pine Grove, which once served the localities of Limerick, Pine Grove, Freeport and Little Paradise. A log school house was first built in 1809 followed by a wood structure in 1855 and the current brick building c. 1889 (Hill, 2011). The log school is reported as the first school house in the County while the current brick building served as a school circa 1889 up until the mid-1950s. Henry Heldmann purchased the schoolhouse in the 1950s and converted the building to a residence and factory for manufacturing plastic bandages. The building was occupied by the Heldmann family until the 1990s before becoming part of the Sportsworld Water Park. The history of the property and its importance to the community was celebrated by naming the road running past the school house in honour of the Heldmann family. The building has now been rehabilitated and adapted for use by the Borealis Grille and Bar restaurant. Heritage Attributes ■ All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the building, including: • one storey height; • front gable roof; • buff brick; • segmentally arched window openings with brick hoodmoulds; • flat headed basement window openings with brick voussoirs; • circular vent (former window) with brick hoodmould; • remnants from former school name plate; and, • fieldstone foundation. References Hill, V. (2011). Old Pine Grove schoolhouse is now a stylish restaurant. Retrieved on June 19, 2014 from http://www.therecord.com/living-story/2578180-old-pine-grove-schoolhouse® is®now-a-stylish-restaurant/ 1 - 109 ��IiIII�I��i4luum r I�Pi ;-': 4ulliujipuuuuuuuuuuuum Photos 4336 King Street East M , 4336 King Street East 1 - 110 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 4336 King Street East Period: c. 1889 Field Team Initials: MD/LB Description: former Pinegrove School Date: 2009 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No No architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — simple Georgian architecture; fieldstone foundation; brick details; window hoodmoulds CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? 1 - 111 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness No No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — historically linked to the locality of Little Paradise INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team —altered window openings HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — association with Pinegrove School, which once served the localities of Limerick, Pine Grove, Freeport and Little Paradise; Sub-Committee— may be the oldest or last remaining oldest school house in Kitchener 1 - 112 Statement of Significance 825 King Street West fi f'Mr,% Municipal Address: 825 King Street West Legal Description: GCT Lot 15 Part Lot 7 Year Built: 1938 Architectural Style: English Gothic Original Owner: St. Mark's Lutheran Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 825 King Street West is a mid-20th century brick church built in the English Gothic architectural style. The church is situated on a 0.58 acre parcel of land located on the south west corner of King Street West and Green Street in the K-W Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. 1 - 113 Heritage Value 825 King Street West is recognized for its design, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the church. The church is a notable example of the English Gothic architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church features: original cruciform plan; steeply pitched roof with a simple cross at the apex; brown brick; ornamental buttresses capped with stone; windows and window openings with stone sills and brick voussoirs, including: stained glass windows, leaded glass windows, flat-headed windows and lancet windows; cast Indiana stone details; and, double door entrance with semi-circular cast stone surround with quoins. The historic and associative values relate to the First English Lutheran Church (now St. Mark's Lutheran Church), the architect and the building contractor. The First English Church was founded in 1913 to provide the first English-language services in the area (Beglo, n.d.). The current property was purchased in 1918 when the church membership totaled 475 (NWRACO, 2013). The church name was changed from First English Lutheran Church to St. Mark's Lutheran Church in 1938 along with the dedication of the present church building (Beglo, n.d.; NWRACO, 2013). Additions to the building include: 1958 parlor and offices; 1959 parish hall; and, 1973 extension to the building (NWBACO, 2013). Bernal A. Jones was selected to design the building. B.A. Jones first worked with Frank Darling in the firm of Darling & Pearson from 1908 to 1922 and later moved to Kitchener to work with W.H.E. Schmalz in the firm of Schmalz and Jones from 1922 to 1926 (Hill, 2009). B.A. Jones opened his own practice in 1926 and continued until his retirement in 1952 (Hill, 2009). During that time, B.A. Jones was responsible for the design of many buildings such as the1922-23 Kitchener City Hall (with W.H.E. Schmalz), the 1932 St. Matthew's Lutheran Church chapel and parish hall, the 1932-33 Public Utilities Building, the 1936-37 Church of the Good Shepherd and several buildings at the Freeport Sanitorium (Hill, 2009). The church was built by Ball Brothers Limited, a local building contractor. The company was founded as a partnership between Harold and Frank Ball in 1923, which became incorporated in 1930 and is now known as Ball Construction Ball Construction, 2014). The company is owned by the third generation of the Ball family (Ball Construction, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 825 King Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the English Gothic architectural style of the house, including: • original cruciform plan; • steeply pitched roof with a simple cross at the apex; • brown brick; • ornamental buttresses capped with stone; • windows and window openings with stone sills and brick voussoirs, including: • stained glass windows, • leaded glass windows, • flat-headed windows, and • lancet windows; • cast Indiana stone details; and, • double door entrance with semi-circular cast stone surround with quoins. 1 - 114 References Ball Construction. (2014). History. Retrieved on October 14, 2014 from http://www.b licon.com/index.php/about-us/history/. Beglo, J. (n.d.). English Gothic and the Architecture of Lutheranism. Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800 to 1950: Jones, Bernal Ambrose. Retrieved on October 14, 2014 from http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.orb/architects/view/173. North Waterloo Region Branch Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (NWRACO). (2013). Newsletter. 9(6): 4. Photos � Olir _iii mR!�Il �� I� ,��+ � �IYIdG'ti({4�l WLWWiJNdP/Wlll nll�UV/WA'Aw'G(�4'�U4Lkilbp7hbIIV1� yy. ♦nlMS➢�WMW�W/1?�I//!/IWU!ISVdIJk�'MfNCL4Gmft!NUIWWW@IWINIhINII froi ��fj���11 �� lu IhY�i�ll�U�lll'��RI�fJNfunfiNN�W(�fNnmIIV� r /� ���'�� /�l � �i II�V'GG�;foli��IVI��IIIIIIIi�f�IN�fhYBU���fI�fI�IING4 fo1I0111UIIVI�IV W�WlflmllihlMl�VI�I��IW16.. 8�',II�OW�VVNW�I 825 King Street West 1 - 115 i J" �F Vr 825 King Street West �I l 825 King Street West 1 - 116 1 t � i ^ r 825 King Street West 1 - 117 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 825 King Street West Period: 1938 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: St. Mark's Lutheran Church Date: June 20, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — gothic detail; stained glass; cast stone details; addition (1950) works well with original church building CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No 1 - 118 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 119 Statement of Significance 2481 Kingsway Drive d -ii;.� / � j //j//ia�j////ioi� llll�y�lll➢II14U111U911➢a[IIIIII'"'����������������II�I,�)� �'� � %'� All !� � 'U ^///////O j MY /O%%��""mow„ �%� / .."„ „ i U OF '' III jjj °room;" �' AA Municipal Address: 2481 Kingsway Drive Legal Description: Plan 254 Lot 156-167 Part Lot 155 & 168 Year Built: 1952 Architectural Style: Original Owner: Dare Foods Original Use: Office Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 2481 Kingsway Drive is a two storey office and factory building that has evolved with various additions. The building is situated on a 7.83 acre parcel of land bounded by Kingsway Drive, Ninth Avenue, Connaught Street and Eigth Avenue in the Vanier Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the 1952 fagade. 1 - 120 Heritage Value 2481 Kingsway Drive is recognized for its design, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the modern architecture of the 1952 fagade. The importance of Modern architecture and the building at 2481 Kingsway Drive are described in the book "Images of Progress 1946-1996: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region."The book indicates that: "Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region presents fifty buildings constructed between 1946 and 1996, designed by architects of local, national, and in some cases international renown. It is our collective hope that the general public will gain a better understanding of the role architecture has played in the development of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. In presenting architecture of high quality, we expect to raise public appreciation for well-designed buildings, such that people will begin to understand how their lives can be enriched by the buildings they use on a daily basis."(Mannell, 1997, p. 7). "Images of Progress: 1946-1996 brings attention to the fine modern architecture of the Waterloo Region, promoting awareness of the architectural heritage of the last fifty years. Much of this work reveals the energy associated with the first appearance of an explicitly modern architecture in the Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge area in the 1950s and `60s. This period of `high' modernism (particularly in the City of Kitchener) produced more than half of the projects presented. The architecture of this period is open, diverse and confident in its handling of form and technology, not at all surprising given the optimistic spirit of Canadian society between the Second World War and the Centennial."(Mannell, 1997, p. 9). "This project added new head office space for the Dare Biscuit Company to the front of an existing factory, thereby creating a strong public image. The two-storey yellow brick fagade stretches across the former King Street frontage. A cast stone surround marks the entrance at the centre, flanked by horizontal bands of windows. The original "Dare" sign still tops the symmetrical composition, holding its place as a landmark as one enters the city. This simple fagade expresses a strong civic vision for industrial architecture. The power of the building was diminished when King Street was split by the sunken expressway in 1965." (Mannell, 1997, p. 40). The historic and associative values relate to Doerr (now Dare) family, the C.H. Doerr (now Dare) company and the architect of the 1952 fagade, Barnett & Rieder. Charles H. Doerr founded the C.H. Doerr Co. in 1892 and operated out of a renovated house on Weber Street (Moyer, 1979). In 1919, the company moved to a new factory at the corner of Weber Street and Breithaupt Street (Moyer, 1979). C.H. Doerr died in 1941 and his grandson, Carl, became president of the company (University of Waterloo, n.d.). The factory was destroyed by fire in 1942 (Moyer, 1979). A new factory was constructed on a former flying field on the outskirts of Kitchener in 1943 and the company name changed to Dare in 1945 (University of Waterloo, n.d.). The 1952 fagade was part of an office addition designed by Barnett & Rieder in 1952 (University of Waterloo, n.d.). The 1952 office addition was designed by the architect Barnett & Rieder. The firm designed numerous institutional and residential buildings across Ontario. In Kitchener, the firm was responsible for the design of several local buildings, including: the Bank of Nova Scotia, Dare 1 - 121 Biscuits Limited, Eastwood Collegiate Institute, the Highland Baptist Church and the main branch of the Kitchener Public Library. In 2003 a new Kitchener office building was constructed to preserve and highlight the original 1952 yellow-brick structure (University of Waterloo, n.d.). With the help of his sons Bryan and Graham, Carl continued to guide the company until 2012 when Fred Jacques was appointed president, the first non-family member to head the company in 111 years (University of Waterloo, n.d.). Bryan and Graham Dare remain co-chairman of the company's Board of Directors (University of Waterloo, n.d.). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 2481 Kingsway Drive resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Modern architecture of the 1952 fagade, including: • Symmetrical composition; • Yellow brick; • Former entrance opening; • Cast stone surround to the former entrance (now hallway); • Window openings; • Horizontal bands of windows; and, • Cast stone banding above and below windows. References Mannell, Steven (Ed.). (1997). Images of Progress 1946-1996 Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region. The Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery: Kitchener, Ontario. Moyer, B. (1979). Kitchener. Yesterday Revisited. An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd.: Burlington, Ontario. University of Waterloo. (n.d). Finding Aid. GA 163: Dare Foods Limited. Special Collections, University of Waterloo: Waterloo, Ontario. 1 - 122 Photos l°I°I°I°I°I°I°I°I°I°I°I°I�I°I°IVIII � r r iq, f 2481 Kingsway Drive 2481 Kingsway Drive 1 - 123 'lilli�I�i��I�I���III�Itiliul i Nljl�ipYpllll�ll��l�ii��''i l Vl V f °i 2481 Kingsway Drive IW � 2481 Kingsway Drive 1 - 124 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 2481 Kingsway Drive Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB/MD Description: Dare Foods Date: June 26, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No No architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or No No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Yes detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team —yellow brick fagade conserved on interior of new 2003 addition? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 1 - 125 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and No Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No Yes have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Unknown Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — historic collection at UW library 1 - 126 Statement of Significance 160 Margaret Avenue I;R � 16(1 nq n ji " P6 20 1 Y4,i oMm S k 0/11 d� %i/ for ^"t i OF ,b�R n d wO// Municipal Address: 160 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Plan 376 Lots 518 to 521 Part Lots 515 to 517, 522 to 526 STS & LNS Part Lot 38 Year Built: 1973 Architectural Style: Gothic Original Owner: New Apostolic Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 160 Margaret Avenue is a late 20th century stone church built in the Gothic architectural style. The church is situated on a 3.63 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Margaret Avenue between Adam Street and Blucher Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. Heritage Value 160 Margaret Avenue is recognized for its design, contextual, associative and historic values. 1 - 127 The design value relates to the architecture of the church. The church is a unique example of the Gothic architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church features: an irregular plan; limestone cladding in an ashlar pattern; cross gabled roof encompassing tower on south side; projecting main entrance; surrounding arched arcade; parapets and gothic windows on tower with stain glass glazing and trefoil windows; multi-pane rectangular, gothic and trefoil windows; concrete arched door surrounds; double wood door with glazing and stain glass transom; and, pendant lights. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. The wrought iron fence with limestone clad pillars was constructed at the same time as the church and contributes to setting of the property. Many large and mature trees also contribute to the setting of the property. The associative values relates to the architect of the building. The building was designed by the architect Barnett & Rieder. The firm designed numerous institutional and residential buildings across Ontario. In Kitchener, the firm was responsible for the design of several local buildings, including: the main branch of the Kitchener Public Library, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Dare Biscuits Limited, Eastwood Collegiate Institute, and the Highland Baptist Church. This historic value relates to the New Apostolic Church. Early services of the New Apostolic Church were held in Waterloo in 1926, and by 1930 services were also being conducted at 20 Ellen Street in Kitchener. As the congregation was growing rapidly, the church purchased a house at 182 Victoria Street North and used it as their church for several years. Having outgrown this building, it was demolished in 1946 to allow for the construction of the current building at 182 Victoria Street North. The congregation continued to grow and moved to the current location at 160 Margaret Avenue in 1973. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 160 Margaret Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Gothic architectural style of the house, including: • irregular plan; • limestone cladding in an ashlar pattern; • cross gabled roof encompassing tower on south side; • projecting main entrance; • surrounding arched arcade; • parapets and gothic windows on tower with stain glass glazing and trefoil windows; • windows and window openings, including: ■ multi-pane rectangular windows, gothic windows and trefoil windows; • door and door openings, including: • concrete arched door surrounds; • double wood door with glazing and stain glass transom; and, • pendant lights. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape; • Wrought iron fence with limestone clad pillars surrounding property; and, 1 - 128 o Large mature trees. Photos k +r +f 160 Margaret Avenue / r t� � ; r 160 Margaret Avenue 1 - 129 rI p r -7' I / u 160 Margaret Avenue J e r i 160 Margaret Avenue 1 - 130 4 M " , I u p Y it I . I L uV� Ii r li 160 Margaret Avenue 1 - 131 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 160 Margaret Avenue Period: 1974 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: New Apostolic Church Date: August 15, 2013 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes 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 ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: stone; arches; pendant lights; stained glass windows; etc. Sub-Committee: unique because 1970s architecture does not typically look like this FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character of the ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood N? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 - 132 original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team:wrought iron fence with stone pillars; orientation on corner in curve/bend of road; large mature trees FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE INTEGRITY N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Site Does the structure occupy its original site? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Notes FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& SUBCOMMITTEE SIGNIFICANCE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place,an event or a people? Notes Field Team: New Apostolic Church; growth of congregation Sub-Committee: architect—Rieder and Hymmen 1 - 133 Statement of Significance 398 New Dundee Road ryh ��If �ryh � q hhh ryhh ryhryryh ;, ry�hryh ,," ti�� ryryhryh hhry� � „,,� —m hry n.„ CIA 583 Municipal Address: 398 New Dundee Road Legal Description: Beasley's Old Survey Part Lot 8, 58R-17821 Part 2 Year Built: c. 1822 Architectural Style: Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 398 New Dundee Road is a one-and-a-half storey early 19th century log house. The building is situated on a 1.28 acre parcel of land located on the north side of New Dundee Road between Pinnacle Drive and Robert Ferrie Drive in the Doon South Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the log house. Heritage Value 398 New Dundee Road is recognized for its design and contextual values. 1 - 134 The design value relates to the material and method of construction. The building is a rare example of a log house. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: gable roofline; cedar shake roof; symmetric rectangular plan; hand-hewn log construction; two brown brick interior end chimneys; central front entrance door opening; flat headed rectangular window openings with 6/6 window style; and, fieldstone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the character of the property. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 398 New Dundee Road resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the log house, including: • gable roofline; • cedar shake roof; • symmetric rectangular plan; • hand-hewn log construction; • two brown brick interior end chimneys; • central front entrance door opening; • flat headed rectangular window openings with 6/6 window style; and, • fieldstone foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the character of the property. Photos w i J✓ Xd r Ali 398 New Dundee Road 1 - 135 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 398 New Dundee Road Period: Field Team Initials: BG/ST Description: Date: July 12, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes No architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or No No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 1 - 136 INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes No design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that Yes No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown No within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 137 Statement of Significance 1478 New Dundee Road "lhll "' I umpu° 5i VIII �I hjj 4 II41 , •°"* h i / / �hh h 111 °I'°II"II io0� . ,., Municipal Address: 1478 New Dundee Road Legal Description: Beasley's New Survey Part Lot 4 Year Built: c. 1845 Architectural Style: Original Owner: Adam Unger Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 1478 New Dundee Road is a one-and-a-half storey mid-19th century log house. The building is situated on a 1.76 acre parcel of land located on the north side of New Dundee Road between Reidel Drive and Dodge Drive in the Doon South Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the log house. Heritage Value 1478 New Dundee Road is recognized for its design value. The design value relates to the material and method of construction. The building is a rare example of a log house. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: gable roofline; rectangular plan; hand-hewn log construction with dovetail corners; flat headed rectangular window openings; and, fieldstone foundation. 1 - 138 Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1478 New Dundee Road resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the log house, including: • gable roofline; • rectangular plan; • hand-hewn log construction with dovetail corners; • flat headed rectangular window openings; and, • fieldstone foundation. References Slichter, A. (1997). This Old House: 1478 New Dundee Road. Report prepared for history fair project at Doon Public School. Kitchener, Ontario. Photo n,s. rn "wtiP 41 i r 1478 New Dundee Road 1 - 139 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 1478 New Dundee Road Period: Field Team Initials: BG/ST Description: Date: July 12, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Unknown Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Unknown Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Unknown No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 1 - 140 Notes: INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and No No design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown No within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Unknown Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 141 Statement of Significance 350 Park Street / 91 Gruhn Street 1 MIMI " 61 �����1��1111lJ � .Ilb"'glryry NN I 814 ;"��up ow R opl ��° kY 83; ,I 2 111 .. •,, 2,D' ➢ 2 031 31111 , Municipal Address: 350 Park Street/ 91 Gruhn Street Legal Description: Plan 387 Part Lot 2-4 Year Built: 1921 Architectural Style: Original Owner: Calvary Memorial Evangelical Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 350 Park Street / 91 Gruhn Street is a 20th century church designed in the Gothic architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.75 acre parcel of land with frontage on both Park Street and Gruhn Street between Dominion Street and Glasgow Street in the KW Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. 1 - 142 Heritage Value 350 Park Street / 91 Gruhn Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative value. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a notable example of a church built in the Gothic architectural style. The building is in good condition. The 1921 portion of the building features: hip roof with cross parapet gable; castellated tower; chocolate coloured brick; white concrete trim; pointed arch stained glass windows with brick voussoirs and stone sills; flat headed windows with stone headers and sills; concrete ogee front entrance surround; single and double doors with three quarter glazed side lights and transoms with trefoil and quatrefoil designs; sign that reads "Calvary Memorial Evangelical Church", date stone that reads "1921"; and, the Kellerman Hall addition. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Park Street and Gruhn Street streetscapes. The setting is also noteworthy because the building has presence on two streets. The historic and associative value relates to the church, architect, builder and prominent citizens associated with the founding and expansion of the church. Planning for the establishment of a mission in this section of the City dates back to 1898 (Calvary Memorial Church, 1972). In 1913, local builder Casper Braun was appointed by Zion Evangelical Church to secure a site for a mission Sunday school in conjunction with members of the Annual Conference Committee and the Zion Church Committee (Brubaker, 1969). The Annual Conference committee consisted of Rev. J. G. Litt, Rev. G.D. Domm, Rev. J.P. Hauch, Rev. A.Y. Haist, Mr. C. Breithaupt and Mr. Jacob Kaufman (Brubaker, 1969). The Zion Church Committee consisted of E.E. Ratz, E.C. Kabel, D. Hibner, C. Braun, A.R. Breithaupt, P. Rieder and Geo. Dippel (Brubaker, 1969). The property at 350 Park Street was purchased on March 5, 1919 with a mission Sunday school opening in 1929 and the official dedication of the church in 1922 (Calvary Memorial Church, 1972). The congregation was a mission of Zion Evangelical Church (KW Record, 1972). The first trustees were C. Breithaupt, P. Rieder, M.R. Kaufman, H.A. Wettlaufer and E.E. Staebler (Brubaker, 1969). Donations from Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Kaufman for assisted with the construction of the church (KW Record, 1962). Plans for the church were prepared by Spier and Gherke of Windsor and Detroit and the contract for construction was awarded to Casper Braun (Brubaker, 1969). Ten memorial windows were donated in memory of loved ones by family and friends while the bell and the pulpit and altar furniture were donated by Mr. and Mrs. A.W. Augstine and Mr. and Mrs. D. Hibner, respectively. Mrs. M. Kaufman continued to support through donations for a pipe organ, debt payments, heating plant, built-in storm windows, exterior paint, winter's supply fuel and improved Sunday school facilities (Brubaker, 1969). A parsonage was built in 1928 and various additions and alterations were completed over the years, including: construction of Kellerman Hall in 1955; alterations to the basement in 1958; and, renovation to the auditorium in 1958. Kellerman Hall was built by local builder Laverne Asmussen as a Christian education building in memory of Dr. H.A. Kellerman who served as Calvary minister for 11 years until his death in 1953 (KW Record, 1955; KW Record, 1972). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 350 Park Street / 91 Gruhn Street resides in the following heritage attributes: 1 - 143 ■ All elements related to the Gothic architectural style, including: • hip roof with cross parapet gable; • castellated tower; • chocolate coloured brick; • white concrete trim; • pointed arch stained glass windows with brick voussoirs and stone sills; • flat headed windows with stone headers and sills; • concrete ogee front entrance surround; • single and double doors with three quarter glazed side lights and transoms with trefoil and quatrefoil designs; • sign that reads "Calvary Memorial Evangelical Church", • date stone that reads "1921"; and, • the Kellerman Hall addition. References Brubaker, C. (1969). The History of Calvary Memorial Church, originally the Evangelical Church later the Evangelical united Brethren Church and lately the United Church of Canada. Calvary Memorial Church. (1972). 50 Grow 1922-1972: This is our fiftieth year. The United Church of Canada: Kitchener, Ontario. Calvary Memorial United Church. (2014). Calvary Memorial. Retrieved on October 14, 2014 from htt :H calvarymemorial.ca/AboutUs/CalvaryMemorial/tabid/633 X. KW Record. (1972). Places of Worship, Calvary church says `welcome'. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1962). Special Dinner Set, Calvary to Mark 40th Anniversary. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1955). Cornerstone of Kellerman Hall is Laid. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 144 Photos 350 Park Street/ 91 Gruhn Street II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r�+ 1 - 145 ƒ \ ms`s ! . . . . y . . 350 Par Street/ 91GrhnStreet 350 Par Street 91 Gr hn Street 1 - 146 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 350 Park Street Period: 1921 / 1954 Field Team Initials: LB/MD Description: Date: DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team: 1921 — Calvary Memorial Evangelical Church; 1954—Art Deco influenced addition between 2 buildings, Kellerman Memorial Hall CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No Yes 1 - 147 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team: presence on two streets INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 148 Statement of Significance 535 Park Street M: ,...'r f;r 547 545 rd yj I; 'i h.l 5:9.5 �1w t � �' '�",, � u f' a 96 i 1 R2 ................................ t r "knuNhM1 f� ryryq rl f�J I t' +r � Municipal Address: 535 Park Street Legal Description: Plan 385 Part Lot 285 Year Built: 1973 Architectural Style: Brutalist Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Dental Office Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 535 Park Street is a two storey 20th century concrete office built in the Brutalist architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.34 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Park Street between Union Boulevard and Mt. Hope Street in the K-W Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the commercial building. 1 - 149 Heritage Value 535 Park Street is recognized for its design, contextual and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the office building. The building is a rare example of Brutalism. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: flat roof with a broken roofline over the main entrance; cedar shakes; raw concrete walls; horizontal wood details; varying window styles and sizes; randomly placed window openings; and, doors and door openings. The building originally features a wooden beam that ran from the building canopy to the concrete partial wall on the far side of the driveway, forming an entranceway to the parking lot. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Park Street streetscape. The building was constructed for medical offices given its close proximity to the hospital. The associative value relates to the architect. The architect for the building was Tony Horton from the architectural firm of Horton & Ball. James David Ball formed Horton & Ball in 1959 with Tony Horton a former classmate from St. Jerome's High School. Tony practiced in Kitchener and Waterloo from 1962 until 1986. Some of Tony's best work includes the 1966 Waterloo Public Library and St. Anthony Daniels Church in Kitchener. Tony's best work in the Brutalist architectural style is the 1972 EIWO office building at 82 Weber Street East. The firm also designed the 1969 Stanley Park Mall. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 535 Park Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Brutalist architectural style of the house, including: • flat roof with a broken roofline over the main entrance; • cedar shakes; • raw concrete walls; • horizontal wood details; • varying window styles and sizes; • randomly placed window openings; and, • doors and door openings. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Park Street streetscape. References City of Kitchener. (1973). Building Permit#B0837. 1 - 150 Photos v 9 w � a G 1( i 535 Park Street IN m , / GPLUIIUi //i r NI d r/ 535 Park Street 1 - 151 a f 1, 1l t 535 Park Street /rf r r/ 535 Park Street 1 - 152 o , r ��%�� � � �%/ i, � � r ,gym,uro" » '✓© �iri x wr i 535 Park Street 1 - 153 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 535 Park Street Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: July 30, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — brutalist; possible early experimentation with concrete forms; roofline; wood; concrete; wood shingles; Sub-Committee - raw CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No 1 - 154 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 155 Statement of Significance 35 Roos Street I .. 84 Nluo Ilh,l � ICI„m, �mmml h,ll mil„I„uluu mmoum 3,5 /%N1111111 luluVppu I ,,IIIIIJ ” nn.",a^^ n VpuVUU, iluVp� pup y 5 "fi I I� III III VIII VO III III "I�ryWwn qq��i� ,ep�" III',II "m,^, IJ'� ”"iir.,. p f6 11111 .............. ......., Municipal Address: 35 Roos Street Legal Description: Plan 117 Lot 106 and 107, Part Lot 108 Year Built: 1853 Architectural Style: Gothic Original Owner: Doon Presbyterian Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 35 Roos Street is a mid-19th century brick church built in the Gothic architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.50 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Chalmers Street at the end of Roos Street in the Lower Doon Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within 1 - 156 the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. Heritage Value 35 Roos Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the church. The church is a notable example of the Gothic architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church features: hipped roof; rectangular plan; red brick construction, including brick banding, decorative details and window voussoirs; tall front tower with quatrefoil; pointed arch window openings with stained glass windows, brick voussoirs and stone sills; segmentally arched door opening; stone foundation; and, plaque erected by the Waterloo Historical Society in June 1982. The plaque reads: "DOOM PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH The first Presbyterian worship service in Doon was conducted on July 7, 1853 by Dr. John Bayne of Galt. Two days later an organizational meeting was held at which plans were made to build a church. A committee was formed to promote Presbyterianism and collect funds. Mr. Robert Ferrie donated land for the church. On December 31, 1854 this building was opened for public worship with Dr. Bayne and Rev. D. McRuer conducting the services. The first communion service was held on February 25, 1856."(Cook, 2014) The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Chalmers Street and Roos Street streetscapes. The church sits on the highest hill in the area. The historic and associative values relate to the original land ownership, the Doon Presbyterian Church and the village of Doon. The original land owner was Adam Ferrie who is associated with the founding of the village of Doon in the late 1830s when he constructed a complex of mills on Old Mill Road (Simpson, 1981). The Doon Presbyterian Church was founded in 1853 on land donated by Adam Ferrie (Shantz, 1980). The church opened on December 31, 1854 with services presided by Dr. John Bayne of Galt and Rev. D. McRuer of Ayr (Simpson, 1981). The church was attended by local families including: Robert Ferrie (miller), James Goodfellow, John Chapman, Mrs. Joseph Perine, Mrs. M.B. Perine (wife of the cordage manufacturer), William Linton (teacher), Homer Watson (famous Canadian artist), the Tilts (brickmakers of Oregon), the Weavers, the Wildfongs and the Wolfes (Simpson, 1981). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 35 Roos Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Gothic architectural style of the church, including: • hipped roof; • rectangular plan; • red brick construction, including brick banding, decorative details and window voussoirs; • tall front tower with quatrefoil; • pointed arch window openings with stained glass windows, brick voussoirs and stone sills; • segmentally arched double door opening; • stone foundation; and, 1 - 157 o plaque erected by the Waterloo Historical Society in June 1982. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Chalmers Street and Roos Street streetscapes. References Cook, W. (2014). Historical plaques of Waterloo County. Retrieved on March 18, 2015 from http://www.waynecook.com/awaterloo.html. Shantz, C. (1980). Historic Property Report: 1784 Old Mill Road. LACAC: Kitchener, Ontario. Simpson, S. (1981). Historic Property Report: 1784 Old Mill Road. LACAC: Kitchener, Ontario. Photos �d s, tr 4' rq it V i I lil a I ill r I r 35 Roos Street 1 - 158 �N o. �1 I., 411 35 Roos Street i J Y t r J 35 Roos Street 1 - 159 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 35 Roos Street Period: Field Team Initials: ER/AH Description: Date: July 16, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 1 - 160 Notes: Field Team — setting on Grand River, top of hill INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — additions to side in 1980 and 1992 (unobtrusive from front) HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — see notes— rare Berlin church, original form, well preserved and maintained 1 - 161 Statement of Significance 7 Bridge Street East / 9 Tyson Drive ,I• IIII yI III i p0 A IIII II ee„"n 111 II Ili 1 I �I II M , to IIII IIII 2µw I I I I I T9 10 � P P J �,I 1,1 II 11 11' II'' d1 1 111�I � � i � ��0. 111 11111�I 1111,II„ ..,11111 J 1 J 11 imVU�� 111 111 11 II II III Ip 1 � �� 111 p1 IP 111 1j111 !w""�m°i° Gy &I� 1111 1111 11j11 11111 111 �Oiinilo / " 111j1 111 111 F 3-2 5 III 111 //�� ”rMnr IIJ: 11 11 I Municipal Address: 7 Bridge Street East/ 9 Tyson Drive Legal Description: Tagge Survey, Plan 577 Lot 7 & 10, Part Lots 6, 8 & 9 Year Built: c. 1851 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: David Erb Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 7 Bridge Street East/ 9 Tyson Drive is a two storey mid-19th century house built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.11 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Bridge Street East and Tyson Drive in the Bridgeport East Planning Community of the City of 1 - 162 Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 7 Bridge Street East/ 9 Tyson Drive is recognized for its design, contextual and historic values. The design value relates to the type of building. The building is a rare surviving example of an original building from the 1856 plan of Bridgeport. The building is designed in the Georgian architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: gable roof with return eaves; rectangular plan; siding; window openings; and, front entrance with porch. The contextual values relate to relates to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity of the Bridge Street East and Tyson Drive streetscapes. The historic value relates to the buildings association with the original village of Bridgeport. David Erb is identified as the owner in 1856. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 7 Bridge Street East / 9 Tyson Drive resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the house, including: • gable roof with return eaves; • rectangular plan; • siding; • window openings; and, • front entrance with porch. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity of the Bridge Street East and Tyson Drive streetscapes. 1 - 163 Photos i r i I � r 7 Bridge Street East/ 9 Tyson Drive 1 1 i 7 Bridge Street East/ 9 Tyson Drive 1 - 164 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 7 Bridge Street East/ 9 Tyson Drive Period: c. 1851 Field Team Initials: JS/GZ Description: 2 storey Georgian house Date: July 23, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or No No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Sub-Committee— rare type as an example of an original building from village of Bridgeport CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Unknown No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Unknown No 1 - 165 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — has barn in rear, but it is likely not original, large property on Grand River, near the Bridgeport Bridge; Sub-Committee— proximity to river INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Unknown Unknown design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Unknown Yes Notes: Field Team — covered with siding, unknown what may be underneath siding, some windows appear to be very old HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Unknown Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — more research required; Sub-Committee— association with Bridgeport in 1850s when it was a thriving village 1 - 166 Statement of Significance 15 Tyson Drive [J.� �� N .'u�ud ' ���min, � f M"/ AN ,' , •....."rrr" „ ���� . " "�NI a 1 i Municipal Address: 15 Tyson Drive Legal Description: Tagge Survey Plan 577 Lot 1, Part Horning Drive, 58R-3246 Part 1 Year Built: c. 1856 Architectural Style: Gothic Revival Original Owner: Lucas Fisher Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 15 Tyson Drive is a one-and-a-half storey mid-19th century house built in the Gothic Revival architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.26 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Tyson Drive and Horning Drive in the Bridgeport East Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 15 Tyson Drive is recognized for its design, contextual and historic values. 1 - 167 The design value relates to the type of building. The building is a rare surviving example of an original building from the 1856 plan of Bridgeport. The building is designed in the Gohtic Revival architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: side gable roof with centre gable; rectangular plan; siding; window openings; and, front entrance with porch and balcony. The contextual values relate to relates to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity of the Tyson Drive streetscape. The historic value relates to the buildings association with the original village of Bridgeport. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 15 Tyson Drive resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Gothic Revival architectural style of the house, including: • side gable roof with centre gable; • rectangular plan; • siding; • window openings; and, • front entrance with porch and balcony. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity of the Tyson Drive streetscape. Photos r � 11 i, r. 15 Tyson Drive 1 - 168 �. i n •� � �n� �rf�a �� I�ui�',r/fir�/fir �i � r, I ��� fw to �'� v r. �i W'✓�/i�;l����(/ ,fr rPr VIII T JAI Win ' � �"��� ,✓ Gi4iri��✓�rJ��f���ti�������� � ,'I V� w, �' .,�ol i�Il iioa�f��µr�J�I�uI��IIP��yr�1����i��Q� Icy �� � !✓w9� � rah �w I'„r a�� ���'�'��✓w��r�����ih�`tiv"� j a ;F p �r r � /�� f; if r/ lr/% �lJf lliiir/ rri 15 Tyson Drive a f 6, I�fll � r�✓, i l a d a fN��+�,r�/l �i' r i P I✓' r � r0U/l�lllG/! r w� v J/ � 1 /rFl/,/�%�ll! �✓U/l//�l/✓/�ll ,l.(�!G/�Ol//„r�/i rrorr✓!�r,�l V%!l�✓l✓l/w/rr�/%rr//%/!%�lI///� r r //��1 rr��r ri riri ri aiiiir >" �UrL�l+rr✓sr i �,%�rrl(//rr r rri if 1 n.r a L rim a trio r 1 �, � f r �r r) � �roaiir raa rioiirririlirrrr rrrniai i/f u , r "�( / f �//i mrii fi fif ffnfir fr1i, i ,� .„4<Gw✓lJlllllllJJll,11,�111JA1 p�=,N s�''e rr ✓s i �H f"”' �rirr Irin�r°�' ,C(Gua+ f^V�(l� M ��� iul,uur � w .✓✓�� rrar�y � I^` //,/,�w/r/r/ oir A v f "� k i✓a✓ �a�' c.,r� r//frrrr,i f��frriry r »f u wwui � f ""��W�9/i ,! '' r r gyp: � ���'��`I✓ VI�VV � it Idii ii � r . %�i ii�i�/' /r�r/✓%'�°�r ���� ����/�rJJ�IIr o r f �r r rr r 15 Tyson Drive 1 - 169 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 15 Tyson Drive Period: Field Team Initials: GZ/JS Description: Gothic Revival Vernacular Date: July 23, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Unknown Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Unknown No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Unknown No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Unknown No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Yes No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 1 - 170 Notes: Field Team — 1 car garage behind home INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations No Does this building retain most of its original materials and (material); No design features? Yes (design) Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — house has new roof, eaves, windows and doors, vinyl siding on exterior covers painted brick (Google street view shows brick) HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. Notes: Field Team — more research required 1 - 171 Statement of Significance 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street gym. -�I� 1 � III u.7 � I 111111 I 1111111 I 111111 I �I I I MINI IN N 80­84P'115 711 / vo Municipal Address: 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street Legal Description: Plan 203 Lot 140 Part Lots 115, 138, 139 & 140 Year Built: 1944 Architectural Style: Mid-Century Vernacular Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Apartment Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street contains two mid-20th century apartment buildings designed in the Mid-Century Vernacular architectural style. The buildings are situated on a 0.25 acre parcel of land located on the corner of York Street and Union Boulevard in the K-W 1 - 172 Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the apartment buildings. Heritage Value 80-86 Union Boulevard /571 York Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the style and type of building. The buildings are a unique example of a apartments built in the Mid-Century Vernacular architectural style. The buildings are in good condition. The buildings are three storeys in height and feature: varied roofline; curved building corners; varied brick colour; concrete banding; windows and window openings, including: 1/1 windows with concrete headers and sills; 6/6 windows with concrete sills; glass block windows with concrete sills; projecting central front bay with first floor stone faced main entrance; sign that reads "UNION APTS"; symbol with the letters `U' and `A'; and, parged concrete foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Union Boulevard and York Street streetscapes. The overall design of the apartments in terms of form and height is compatible and complimentary to the surrounding neighbourhood that is primarily characterized by 1.5 and 2-storey single detached dwellings. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Mid-Century Vernacular architectural style, including: • varied roofline; • curved building corners; • varied brick colour; • concrete banding; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 1/1 windows with concrete headers and sills; ■ 6/6 windows with concrete sills; ■ glass block windows with concrete sills; • projecting central front bay with first floor stone faced main entrance; • sign that reads "UNION APTS"; • symbol with the letters `U' and `A'; and, • parged concrete foundation. 1 - 173 Photos r � � uumuu, � � "i'�9""0� )I14 @�foll'�MIXiP Id�IIVW o I � I r u �' �N i! 'm^UYIYIVlYm7fUlN)myy!wlW u � ii 1 Qrl✓lrN�r��Y1�4N�N u i �'�� �, mu�u v i i m i� n i l i ai � iuumoimmm � N i "emu ll i i � li. u 'I l 0 m�. 1& ��aa „� ,sae✓' l � I u .I 80-86 Union Boulevard 1 - 174 �), ✓ �� �%jl � ) V9"'"'. r�" Nr�^r nri rdiui"an,«rN ;.rl/l/ewA«1v^�'r"IwmVVVVV �°a��`� l !�jl�� i� ' ir,�t Y J r, I r�fl�H "✓"�'� / /I" r/r err/ �rmmlr u�Nmlrw�'�0�e/ IIPIm" %^�� F�:1 � �-� / r+""✓u w',rr"rrr x^"u� P / ,,, r 1l,°!I!/r IIIfO m`f„� rri /kl ^�� rr°�F n r� rrn r r/ aimum�'JrvurvrrD"��iovuumr"�/ I I I 1 i r �� n^ Iml �umrot �� . v r, n r✓y uQ �,/a� marm�� � . Itt�qq u Ui" r.. o, 1� �r✓re 1vu �r rulr i F NIlmmm1 r �� W r w^uri�aii A ur � 'Nmwrl�rmiJ�f�r"�limb'L'flr�� ` m� �mad Ube✓ rc r r ru i � r "J rr �� � ^w>r "n,a�F/r� "� Y✓'AAum' rv!MryWM"' @uW(Nr19d;U��1 �,r y ur iu� VII gM1�0.VVIluOVUdW l J s% luu�p r rim rr'r ru"«j r � �I�UlrOlr//p NNF« 1�,4d�u< uJ'N^''r r rp ri ;ia Nirrr"r �!/ � If1)AI u I ,dnu r P>("' k � r r nn rrn�rcm/m" r✓Ir rr rr r Neil w �� 7 r r for i rFj nn'ilir/x^ir�rlr( 0 r,"r'".mr wum! »7rw�'^« '� "I� �� iri w r� ✓ � �r r r 41' � `jr✓ bh r I w; `' I ,�a "uomumuom ,a Irk I➢Ip� "/v�b�uG�4)M rr r, ,, ' gram 1 r 1 ". 11 m / VYW✓ r�� N ,. ��Ippp�m u :nor/ �i/,�i i„ � .,4ua nl� ��✓/vu'f���/ky'girt /tq :rr "tr r�YN � 4�J�� r,,, ✓i��°M1��f ���1 i`!f!"rr/Y%r� r � � w. .r J�'l 'N� Fj✓�«� r�l� �/tr�"t ,�s � � rcu" rr rl Nr tr�o;� : rr, F�/✓ ,r '� r�^ryrlri�rl�l'���� rlehr«rr< �✓; 80-86 Union Boulevard r d � � «Ja m r u r / r f. r�r1i'""y ✓GN'n `w� W� r <:« >t rX r f ns r r« J ,� Nfi � r u���Jy'"r"r +,�r r�r( ay " ��jy %" "r I r�t�"r✓ � « r 8 ��HI�N��� �,✓�J. � I f��� � l � «� i .. err"rnf '�h� Ian'. C 1teiM1 � 1 " fir `, ✓ r rtiF/ir1//!ir r/a/1 r 80-86 Union Boulevard 1 - 175 9 I I w �,. �� a Vi Y r* 6 N���� ,�✓��4 ru i t� J I� �pII f✓, �' {Pf ,7� f ° d d� �G,�.. � y'�" i,ra�lIT ,Yni , I � 1 ' l r 1 a r!I r � 80-86 Union Boulevard 1 - 176 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 80-86 Union Boulevard Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: 571 York Street Date: July 30, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — "union apts" facing York Street; door with stone surround; 6/6 windows; "union apts" with maple leafs facing Union; door with stone surround and glass blocks; curved corners with glass block; Sub-Committee— Union Apartments —symbol with U and A CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? 1 - 177 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — connected with uncovered "breezeway" to #84 INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 178 Statement of Significance 1254 Union Street I i] 4 ti .r /lll��III//f 00or , Municipal Address: 1254 Union Street Legal Description: GCT Lot 59 Part Lot 1 &10; 58R-1977 Part Lot 1, 2 & 8 Year Built: 1902 Architectural Style: Industrial Vernacular with Spanish Eclectic influences Original Owner: Ontario Sugar Company Original Use: Beet Sugar Factory (Warehouse) Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 1254 Union Street is a two story early 20th century yellow and red brick former warehouse built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with Spanish Eclectic influences. The building is situated on a 5.63 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Union Street just before Union turns into Sereda Road in the Northward Planning Community in the City of Kitchener within the 1 - 179 Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the former warehouse building. Heritage Value 1254 Union Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the warehouse building. The building is a notable, rare and unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with Spanish Eclectic influences. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: main hip roof; flat and shed rooflines on additions; yellow and red brick including decorative details; brick pilasters between bays; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; various multi-pane windows; two-storey front entrance portico with parapet; segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs; flat headed door openings with timber lintels; and, exterior archways. The contextual value relates to the setting. The factory was situated in close proximity to both the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand River. The railway was used to bring beets from farms to the refinery and the river was used to power the refinery and discharge effluent. The factory was built on a slight rise of land providing it prominence in the landscape. Today, the property features buildings, ponds, patios, fountains and 20,000 square feet of gardening beds, including the Hacienda Sarria Market Garden operated by The Working Centre. The Hacienda Sarria Market Garden is a volunteer-driven initiative to develop an inclusive, hands-on learning environment to demonstrate, promote, and share knowledge about sustainable local food production and environmental stewardship. The historic and associative values relate to the original use of the building. The building was a warehouse to the former sprawling three-storey sugar beet factory (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984- 85). The warehouse supported the factory that was built in 1902 as a result of a government movement to encourage the creation of new industry in Ontario. The movement provided bonuses to certain industries willing to enter Ontario, including the sugar beet industry. Berlin (now Kitchener) encouraged the construction of the sugar beet factory as a new form of industry for the community, making great investments into the project in hopes of becoming the home of Canada's first sugar beet mill. Although its life was short-lived, the factory did indeed become Canada's first sugar beet factory (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory was opened in 1902 in Berlin and operated for 6 years between 1902 and 1908 under the ownership of the Ontario Sugar Company (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory was moved from Benton Harbour, Michigan and erected by E.H. Dyer and Co. of Cleveland in 1902 (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory stimulated new residential construction in the area (Bloomfield, 1987). Upon the Ontario Sugar Company becoming bankrupt the factory was sold to the Erie Coal company who quickly sold the factory to the Dominion Sugar Company (Bloomfield, 1987). The Dominion Sugar Company operated the factory for another 10 years until it closed in 1923 and sold the factory to Guggenheim Distilleries of Canada Ltd. in 1927 (Bloomfield, 1987). The factory was never used for sugar production again and its unsuccessful history mirrors that of just under 30% of the enterprises which received bonuses from Berlin, and either failed or were closed within 10 years of operation (Bloomfield, 1987). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1254 Union Street resides in the following heritage attributes: 1 - 180 • All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular with Spanish Eclectic influences, including: • main hip roof; • flat and shed rooflines on additions; • yellow and red brick including decorative details; • brick pilasters between bays; • segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; • various multi-pane windows; • two-storey front entrance portico with parapet; • segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs; • flat headed door openings with timber lintels; and, • exterior archways. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Buildings; • Ponds; • Patios; • Fountains; and, • Gardening beds. References Bloomfield, E. (2006). Waterloo Township through two centuries. St. Jacobs Printery Ltd.: St. Jacobs, Ontario. Bloomfiled, E. (1987). Manufacturing in Kitchener-Waterloo: a long-term perspective. University of Waterloo: Waterloo, Ontario. Kolaritsch, D. & M. Horne. (1984-85). Historic Property Report: 1254 Union Street. LACAC: Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 181 Photos i 1254 Union Street 1 - 182 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 1254 Union Street Period: Field Team Initials: LB/MD Description: former sugar beet factory Date: July 11, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Yes Yes detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — industrial with villa influences CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Yes Yes Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 1 - 183 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that Yes Yes have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 1 - 184 a tl m , • lu IIII°IIII • �tl //1/%I/:�� � ;G�!✓�,rlA l uuuuullll a • IIII iiiVIVIV,V,H'M'M'Hii�� • • $ �" � � 1,,,, ® • u 9 � IiIIIIIIIIIIV ® 411� � Iliiiolli�l IIII� • �', yl l,l I � , � ° , • �� ,,,,o /i .i/n J.yYI VrIY • • II�III ' • ° ' lllllilllllll • • � ' , • �n llllluiiillll /f, 1 f„ .I , ��Ilil�llV A yl, ,. • • A f uuu A i! I�I�� • IIIIIIIII ,; ���illillllll 1 • piiiiilllllllillllllol" ° f Illlmm�IV IIIIIIIIIIII�.' • luiol IIV • l IIII l�ilii , , II�IIi��IIIIIIV A • ° 1 li f. � II • IIUNIllllllm • r Illlloviiiiiilllll A lul"I IIV , • • A A • ' / t 1 • 1 A / ® • d �%iii.%/�;,, /�'.' /��� A ® fl III I A IJ,I A Yil' • A J IIII��yy,Vl , • J 1 1 1 • • A , • ,�, F r1 VIII^I VII uu a Il�u„ Ijiil'lllllllu I Vu�lllm luu>I�mlllllluu piii �BkYuu 1plol IIV \ 1 • i tl • pliiiilll�l�llillllllol" • , 1 1 IIIIIVIIIIIII�.. • • IIIIIIIV \ 1 , 1 \ 'illoi�,Vl 1 1 i . 1 . • • IIIIIIIIIIIII 1 • • • a 1 • i • 1 \ uu"� 1 • 1 1 1 IuNIIIIVIm ® 1 � 1 ® • 1 luu>Imluu • 1 i tl , i • 1 1 � • 1 IVml�iiiiiuull 1 1 • , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • i i 1 \ • 1 • 1 • lllluumu ® • 1 • tl 1 1 1 1 1 1 , • • II III IIIIIVI I 1 u�u • 1 • NONNI= %u � o o ��+ x ❑ ❑ ❑ a v g x 5 E o aV 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ s� z � s ❑ o ❑ o o � � ❑ ❑ o 0 0 w� ❑ o ❑ o o ❑ ❑ o 0 0 ❑ o ❑ o o ❑ ❑ o 0 0 s Y, EE 9 mE EE.9 t EE I N — — — O � � 1 1 \ 1 • 1 • 1 1 \ 1 • 1 • • • 1 ® 1 1 ® • • ® 1 . i 1 i • ' 1 1 ® ® • i 1 1 ® • 1 1 • II III ® • ® • ' 1 1 • 1 6 1 IIIIII I • 1 1 \ Null„IIII • i 1 1 • ' 1 ' 1 1 • • 1 i i 1 a • Iluuuuuuulll ® 1 1 ® i oiluuuumuuuu i • ® 1 iV,�lilu i 1 1 • 1 • • 1 1 • i 1 1 • 1 IIIIII�..I uu 1 ® • i 1 • i IIII�III ® ® 1 1 ® • a ® ® ' 1 • 1 r / j o / r %/% ouu uuuuuuuu� iii% rrr ,, �Iu / /iii..... rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. / r/ / r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII %"„<; „ IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� m VumII IIIIII IIIIII WE 11............ IIIIII/% /iii j rr .... .../ /iii / /i � / " � � j/ //� � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIMIII � / � uuuuuuuuum aa N m uum uuu >r AD �j 3 .� (� � N uuu uuuuuuuuuuuuu 3 � N N O" 4 = uuuuuuul�uuuuuum Lm th s s /////a Q) 3 m o C} i U .x 3 0 'c � i � 0 ' � uuuuuuuu N �� N U 0) ■� — E w- t) ' mluuuuuumi q) 3 N +. uuuuuuuuu N m°1uuuuuuuuo lu C33 U? U p w m 2r 0 p f3 i " S3 (B c ^� C i p cumw mllllV y- N N Q 3 � Q ■� LN' (.j � f D N ?' Q O 6�} m VIuIIuIuIuIuIuIuIuIuIuIuIuIuIuIuIm Iu I CS 16 m 9? m 0 � to => o }' (� Z C T w .O Qj O c W iQ -c %%/ "'11111 mllllll' -0 -c ■� � � ,� ������/ R3 /,,, uuu uuuuuuuuuuuuu u L '" / "iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �w O �� j,O/; IIIIIIIIIIIIIII r „rrrr m uuuuuuuu T' N Or IIIIII f gyp, tl� � h , III %„ CAI. l / ' J { l , rr /✓r p y F� I a IIII ill m�l ' li llllllllV MO. r i IIIIIIIII j n � � ' �4 lluu^HIV � Joie �i IVIIIIIII �.� V „� �II � trt, ; J, A t i uuuuuuulllllm J�/ �j/, /l�/r •. t � pp ;� Yw, / / i i 00 i / / i / U Is- LM Q Q �. ■ O q 41 (1) � 0 T- > N (B 3 p Q cu cu, �- a� cu o C © ccu 0 0), 7 cu CL 70 cu C U �; iiii _ c o it �? -0 O © c W > w N N N O 0 d -C c c cU ODU / R3 70 70 TS C0)U Cdr i 3f AW NN N L L L C) a N 'C N _ a) (n N Z C D Q � to a O O O L L L. m 3 3 LL f� Q a w Z, 2 Z iii i r .,,,,,,..,,,, ,,,,,, /i / -C -C 5 / 4 46 � O p " c q � O lit � CL uj � � � PL LM 4t7 a) C3 sv s C3} C3 a) cu iii o a) = v) U C7 C O D c c to U ■ p CU p O s to C c 0) 0) c v) 4J a) +. �1 C 0) a) 0) 4 0- c (/) m 0 0 0- o a) cu a) 5) E' 4- �c our '+- cn a) .- ai o 4 o 0 , aa)i 0) 0) c c 0- 0- -0 a) U � C cu o '� _ Q o 0 o © a w U) 0 /% ° c N c a ._ m _� � a) , 0-'F LO �s � U) T - N "' m m 2 2 g ;;;; "I'illmmuuuuuuuuuu 11 E E �s a) � 2 0 s a) o �� � �� � CU c — Q1 ui"'i"muuuuuuuuuui ,,,N � .�} ; i Q) a) Q r CL i�O „,;, R3 " w O O (7 0/,/;/""”,„ L ,_ O ;U 0 o s o a ,,, CN (1) j E co C14 m p ) i CU o ) i� Cl 0 0 o 0 0 0 0// iii ���thi i�llllllll°IIII' � W (7 O o E Lu LL .o a N U (D h W W `o m rI� y m IAI�I ,>ii, a � � s IIIIIIII 'I n V lilll � A IIIIIIIIV� v a " u�4-j -4-1 1 d axi a w <° Q z y W O � = . c a 03 � M 0.'$ cn M o CIO 0. 0 4-j CD Q C: m d cn d� m U V c a C3 O a c o- C7 (n D j>> d U D 1 0 0 0 0 0 of " / i / / z3 / / / / / / / / / / / / / aii%/ .. _ J Q a) t R3 C13 ( , . - .... in pm CD C/) om 0 p �- q�j 3 % QD �- i ._ -E-� cr Q o (� Q c -0 O QJ ;, 4-j -'-j -p-j O �� -C -C N q , Ali '' a �I�iiii �� �I ���� �uuuuiu I uuu�� a � t up uu t III 0110 m�111111""" ���� 1111111011 �I � l II �I . � t ® � 1 1 1i ► ► II � U ► / / III ' IIIIIII�II n I V�lum������ 1 �I IIIIIIIIIIU 1 1 1 1 ' MINE / , / j rrrrrr,. / / J r / / / / / r r / / / r , / / / r/ / / / rrr / / %r r r /iiorrrr�// r i / / / /iii rr / / „ rrrrr o/ I. rrr/r -- /// C�r s.. 4-j 70 CU - o 4-- CIO ca C �1-- Z3 / . -}-+ N CU N mmmmmo a) uu ! G / {r I w I , a✓�;�'Y r � ��ir rcr� <� i I V r Y //o �rRlll�l 'I �I !a i ATM' r r °l� MI I' II i i�X lu, y It 2 Hr , `U r r r r / 1 r j i � � mm IV u p„ , iii lllllluum�� w w I I ���������� Rio VU � Mxbhf V �nm" imnnni ul° i� �� U 1111111 uumm arr'� ��y� s �J� � �v�� ,� � ��, ,�, ,. ������ i �NN� � � � � �J>v�2�r�ie � �„ wl,,, � � ... moo ��r, ,i yw"r�«Hr> �r `` �, i i r ii��� v „� Y, ,�1 r� a °, ✓� luu / o / / / / i / i a , , / Sri / / At � �} s.. ' X s.. •L + 2. .., , 0 � C ,,,,,q ,, p cu 4.4 -L tU M O ?, Jc c !/3 — C: �c •> N p #-' , N N •N _ p L. #�+ +, U �0 -� i3. U (U N r . -�--� �t3 � / cu cn � ) CU - cu �-.� / ; + C: O to Z3 R3 _ ■— D L.C:L mm u lllllluum�� w U I I �n°"' imnnni ul° I� U 1111111 uumm arr'� moo I i r v w luu IN �mllilV1°,". �mm II e �I .m� t t I I t r �I t I ` t t t ` e t t t � t r ilk 0 Nil t e i , i�... cm cU - iii /dial J! CIL Nm -�-► .— CL � E: z3. C� to +r d d (U tJ 0, 03. cn — :R cu C].. cu cn cn � s.. 0 ' � .00C cu 0 p � cU IN IN m L, �— �, Q -ii E O p �. 4 Q o s.. cn cn U N cry Illm U E (U N � N Co (U C: .�.., . cu 0 — 0 IN s.. , C Q ._ : EE 4-4 co h 17 0 0 0 0 � co IN _ cu tU U '— W cm —E t/) ,x'37 4- 0 ch 1 / / t ► / II Ell 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 /%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/ •/iii„ / �j r / ,, rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr / / / / / / / / / ,,, rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr „ , / / / / / / / , / / olio / / / / / / /rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr/�// / �, o i / r r/ r r ir i / i , r r/ r / rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r//rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrr///rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr , IMF CZ ( ;; CD • X cn cn CN LO cq" " El cu r„ i L / L February 10, 2015 Municipal Heritage Register Frequently Asked Questions Q1. What alterations can you make to the buildings if they are listed? The listed status does not impose restrictions for alterations. I would encourage you to conserve the values and attributes identified in the statement of significance for your property. But you would not require review by staff, Heritage Kitchener or Council. For instance, you could build a deck, change the roof or re-clad the building with no heritage approvals. Q2. Are heritage approvals required for listed properties that apply for a building permit to conduct interior or exterior work to the building? No. Q3. Will the heritage status require us to make improvements to our buildings once they are listed? No. The Ontario Heritage Act provides no authority for the City to require owners to make improvements to their property or buildings. Generally, this applies to both listed and designated properties. The only exception is the City's property standards by-law related to designated vacant heritage buildings. Similar to normal property standards requirements, designated vacant heritage buildings are required to maintain a minimum level of maintenance. Q4. What is the purpose of the extended timeline to process demolition permits under the Ontario Building Code? Prior to 2005, the Ontario Heritage Act did not enable the City to list property. Now the Act enables the City to provide an interim delay from demolition for listed properties. The purpose of the delay is to provide sufficient time for Council to consider whether the property warrants further protection by means of designation. The designation process involves notice to the owner, Ontario Heritage Trust and general public via circulation in a local newspaper and provides an appeal mechanism to a provincial tribunal known as the Conservation Review Board. Q5. What happens if I want to develop my property and require planning approvals? A Heritage Impact Assessment and/or Conservation Plan may be required with the submission of a complete application. The purpose of these documents is to identify the range of conservation options and recommend a preferred conservation option. Note that conservation options range and may include: • Documentation with measured drawings before demolition; • Commemoration through interpretive signs, historic street names or historic park names; • Integration within a new development by requiring design guidelines for new construction that create a compatible new context; or, • Rehabilitation that facilitates new uses through partial demolitions, additions and other improvements. 1 - 206 February 10, 2015 Q6. How will the listed status affect my property value? Property values depend on many variables. It has been our experience that opponents to heritage regulation believe that restrictions will make a property less attractive in the marketplace. There is no solid evidence to support such a generalization. In fact, studies have shown the opposite to be true. Residential property values actually increase faster than other properties and hold their value during market slumps. Q7. Who completes the cultural heritage resource evaluation form during Step 1 and 2 of the process? Step 1 involves Field Team members. The individuals are either Heritage Planning staff or members of the Heritage Kitchener committee. Step 2 involves the Sub-Committee. The individuals include at least one Heritage Planning staff member along with members of the Heritage Kitchener committee. Q8. What are the qualifications of the Heritage Kitchener members who complete the evaluation forms? Members of the Heritage Kitchener committee have various backgrounds such as architecture, building industry, engineering, history, or planning. Members are provided training when they are appointed to the committee. The training focuses on the listing process, the provincial criteria and architectural styles. Q9. How many properties have been considered for listing? 815 properties have been evaluated. 537 were not listed and therefore have no heritage status. 128 properties were listed. Approximately 250 properties remain to be evaluated through the 4- Step Listing Process. Q10. Do the numbers that remain to be evaluated include those properties recently identified for potential listing that were not previously identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings? Yes. The primary focus since 2006 has been to evaluate properties identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory through the 4-Step Listing Process. We focused our attention on various areas of the City, including downtown, rural lands, and mixed use corridors. Over the last year, we have focused our attention to the central area of the City and in doing so completed pedestrian or windshield surveys for upwards of 10000 properties. From those surveys, approximately 60 properties that were not on the inventory were identified for potential cultural heritage value and listing. 1 - 207 February 10, 2015 Q11. Does Council list all properties put before them for consideration? No. Over the years the various Councils have listed the majority of properties put before them by staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee. However, some owners expressed concern to staff, submitted written comments and/or spoke as a delegation before Council and Council chose not to list their property. Properties that are not listed by Council have no heritage status. Q12. Isn't it true that listing is the first step to designating a property? Not necessarily. A property does not need to be listed to be designated. The City's listing process does confirm that the property may be worthy of designation at some point in the future. As stated previously, unless under threat, the City's practice is to informally consult with owners in an effort to find support before proceeding to recommend designation to the Heritage Kitchener committee and Council. Q13. How fast can a property change from listed to designated? The Ontario Heritage Act suggests that designation is possible within 60 days. Our opinion is that 60 days is a very tight timeline. Unless under threat, the City's practice is to informally consult with property owners about designation before preparing any reports for consideration by the Heritage Kitchener committee and Council. It takes time for informal consultation, the preparation of a staff report, consideration by the Heritage Kitchener Committee, approval by Council to proceed with notice of intent to designate, distribution and publication of the notice, and the 30 day appeal period. If appealed, the timeframe could increase beyond several months. Q14. How many properties that have been listed have then been designated? 128 properties have been listed and 2 of these properties have been designated. The 2 properties were designated due to potential threats that could have comprised the cultural heritage value and attributes of the property. Q15. How does a property owner have their listed status removed from the property? The Ontario Heritage Act does not provide an appeal mechanism. The City has not received any requests to remove a property once it has been listed by Council. Other municipalities have received such requests and the practice has been that the requests must be submitted to Council and Council must seek the advice of the Heritage Kitchener committee before making a decision to remove the listed status. Q16. Where can we find a copy of the Municipal Heritage Register? The City Clerk is responsible for maintaining the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The register contains listed properties and designated properties. Three pdf documents are available for download from the City's website. 1 - 208 February 10, 2015 HERITAGE INFORMATION SHEET HERITAGE & PROPERTY VALUES Heritage Districts Work! Heritage Conservation District Study Summary Report 2009 prepared by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario with the assistance of Heritage Ottawa, Huron County Municipal Heritage Committees, St. Catharines Municipal Heritage Committee, Thunder Bay Municipal Heritage Committee and the Heritage Resources Centre http://www.arconserv.ca/news events/cf download.cfm?fi le=H C D%20Study%20S Q M ARY%20REP ORT.pdf&p th=\ Heritage Designation and Property Values: Is there an Effect?, 2000 prepared by Robert Shipley and published in The International Journal of Heritage Studies http://www.heritageoshawa.ca/docs/re and- Study of the Comparative Value of Heritage and Non-heritage Houses in Vancouver, 2005 prepared by Kelsey Singbeil for the Vancouver Heritage Foundation http://www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org/documents/Research The Economic Value of Heritage Districts: How assessment growth in Heritage Conservation Districts compared with non-designated areas in Hamilton, 2012 prepared by the Centre for Community Study HERITAGE & INSURANCE Insurance and Heritage Properties, 2012 prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport df Heritage Properties: Insuring the Living Past, 2012 prepared by the Insurance Bureau of Canada http://www.ibc.ca/en/home insurance/documents/brochures/hgLitagepro rties brochure HERITAGE & LAND USE PLANNING Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, 2006 prepared by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage Tool Kit Heritage PPS infoSheet. df OTHER RESOURCES Ontario Heritage Tool Kit • Information on municipal heritage committees, heritage property evaluation, designating heritage properties, heritage conservation districts and heritage places of worship http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage to lkit.shtmi 1 - 209 February 10, 2015 Waterloo Region Heritage Foundation • Information on the foundation, grants, awards, upcoming events, heritage links, gallery and the media htt�://www.wrhf.or�/ City of Kitchener— Heritage • Information on districts, funding, awards, properties and walking tours htt ://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/Herita�e.as� The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario— North Waterloo Region Branch • Information on branches, news and events, resources, buildings at risk, gallery and the preservation works program http://www.arconserv.ca/branches/show.cfm?id®8 Heritage Resources Centre • Information on the centre, services, projects, resources, news and events https://uwaterloo.ca/heritage®resources®centre/ Ontario Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport • Information on the heritage act, conserving Ontario's heritage places, designating heritage properties, heritage conservation districts, heritage tool kit, municipal heritage directory, renewable energy, standards and guidelines to protect provincial heritage properties, and tools http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage.shtmi Ontario Heritage Trust • Information on the trust, conservation, programs, resources and learning http://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/Home.g.spx 1 - 210 Michelle Drake From: Sent: Monday,April 15, 2013 12:08 PM To: Michelle Lee Subject: 111 Ahrens St West, Kitchener (Krug Inc. Building) Proposed Listing on the Municipal Heritage Register Dear Michelle, Thank you for your recent letter-we are providing our comments in accordance with the process you outlined. We have consulted with several architectural advisors regarding the Statement of Significance (SS), and we see a number of problems with it. In fact, what is described in the SS as the "building" is not a single building, but at least three completely distinct and separate adjoining buildings. Each were built at time periods significantly different from the time and architectural periods that the other buildings were designed and constructed. Each building is different from the others in design, style, construction, size, and features. There is no continuity between the separate structures, and this fact alone, in our view (and that of a number of other experts we have consulted with) significantly reduces and impairs the architectural significance, attractiveness and uniqueness of what is being described in the SS as "the building" in its entirety. The statement is made in the SS that "119 Ahrens St West is recognized for its design, physical, historical, associative and contextual values. We dispute this statement. We are not aware of noteworthy recognition that this building has received for its architectural and cultural value. We are also not aware that this property is considered to be a 'landmark" - this statement is not supported within the SS, nor is it true in the context of the general and typical understanding of what defines a "landmark". As noted below, we do not agree that the so-called "Industrial Vernacular" architectural style is in fact a well- defined and recognized architectural style; or that it this style is defined sufficiently enough to be able to characterize our building in this way. We have also focused our review on the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form (CHREF) for the property, as we understand this evaluation will be part of the focus for the committee's recommendation. We have conducted our own research on, and evaluation of, the property, and we do not concur with several of the key elements of the CHREF - we have listed below where we do not concur with the findings of the evaluation: 1. Style - we do not agree that this property is a notable, rare, or unique example of a particular architectural style or type. Further, we dispute that the so-called "Industrial Vernacular" style is a definitive and specific architectural style, in consideration of the typical definition and specificity of architectural styles, and the recognized acceptance of defined architectural styles within the broad architectural community. 2. Design -we do not agree that the property is a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details. 3. Setting -we do not agree that the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping is noteworthy. 4. Condition - we do not agree that the building is in good condition. i 1 - 211 5. Historical or Associative Value & Significance -we do not agree with the recorder's evaluation of the first two elements of this section - to our knowledge, the property does not have strong associations with a belief, person, activity or organization that is unique within the City - nor do we understand the original, previous or existing use to be significant. As noted, to assist us in evaluating this proposed listing we have consulted with several advisors who are knowledgeable in the field of architectural heritage. While we acknowledge that the building has a number of historical and architectural features that may be viewed as having architectural, associative and cultural value, our research and evaluation suggests that these features are limited, and not particularly unique or noteworthy. As such we do not support the conclusion that the building has a rare, unique or even significant level of cultural heritage value, and we are not in agreement with designating our property as a non-designated property on the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). Sincerely, President Krug Inc. z 1 - 212 April 16, 2015 Michelle Drake Heritage Planner 200 King St.W 6th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4G7 RE:93 EDGEHILL DRIVE—MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTRAR Dear Ms. Drake I am writing this letter in response to the one 1 received dated March 2D,2015 in regards to adding my home 93 Edgehill Drive to the list of non-designated properties on the Municipal Heritage Registrar. I would like to provide some more information on my home, as I believe the report that I received did not accurately represent my home. Design Value In the report,it is suggested that my home is influenced by the work of Frank Lloyd Wright,and is a I unique example of the Prarie and Usonian architectural styles. If you take the time to view all of Mr. Wright's work,found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of Frank Lloyd Wright�works you can see that there is very little similarity to my home,and the work of Mr.Wright. In fact there are homes on my street that have far more resemblance to his work than my home(PDF attached, pages 3-12). You will also find that if you review the other homes In the PDF attached,almost all of them have the same design elements that were listed in the report. (Single story,asymmetrical plan, multiple low pitched roof lines, moderately wide eaves, brick and wood cladding,wide facade, recessed covered entry with paneled door, rectangular window openings and attached garage). With this in mind,I think that it is fair to say that these are not unique qualities as they are seen throughout the entire neighbourhood. I also believe that the following information should be considered. • The home is not one or two stories. It is a backsplit or side split that has a walkout in the rear yard. • The front door not recessed. It is covered by the soffit, however I am not sure that was the Intent of the note. • The garage is attached to the home by a breezeway,but has separate foundations,and as such I believe it-would be considered detached. • Almost all of the original design elements have been replaced on the house since It was originally built, and as such it no longer accurately reflects the original design. o Original siding has all been replaced o Original eaves&soffits have been completely removed, and replaced. { 1 - 213 • All windows but a few windows have been removed, redesigned and replaced with vinyl windows. • The original cedar shingle roof has been replaced with asphalt shingles. o • The roofline have modified in multiple locations since they were original constructed. • The home has had multiple additions& renovations since it was originally built, There has been approximately 4-5 major additions(which spanned all the way to the 90's), and multiple renovations that were done throughout the life of the house. o These additions include multiple wings of the house,the garage,expanding the front and rear of the original home etc. o The renovations include(items above such as changing the original exterior finish materials) as well as completely redoing the interior of the home,such that there are no original materials or design elements left). • Field Report--Integrity/Alterations o The report notes that the building retains most of its original materials and design features. As noted above there are very little if any original building materials and the design has changed so much from its original form that I do not believe the field report is accurate. Contextual Value The report notes that the contextual value relates to the contribution that the house.makes to the continuity and character of the Edgehill Drive streetscape. This statement is very broad,and could be applied to almost any house on Edgehill Drive, and likely a majority of homes in Kitchener. Every house is unique, and provides continuity and character to the street on which it resides. This statement is especially true for homes on Edgehill because all the homes are old, large,situated on large lots,and have very extensive landscaping features. Another point of Interest, as mentioned in a previous email, none of the current landscaping is original, it has all been redone over the past 10-12 years. In fact,when I moved in you could not even see the house from the road. The new landscaping includes driveway, pathways, pond, armour stone, yard reconstruction,trees,shrubs grasses, stone features, lighting etc. None of these features represent the original design of the houses, and as such, I am confused as to why they would contribute to the home being added to the MHR, There are many homes in Kitchener that have vast and extensive landscaping yet would not be considered because it was recently constructed. There Is little difference between those homes and my own. Associative Values The report notes that the associative value relates to Mr.Carl Rieder. While I can appreciate the fact that Mr.Rieder was part of a firm that designed numerous buildings in the Kitchener Waterloo Region, I find it hard to believe that simply owning a property makes it historically significant. There are i i i i 1 - 214 ' many architects, leaders and employers in our region that have had a significant impact on our region and I doubt that many would consider their place of residence historically significant. Further, it was noted that my home had similarities to his office on Queen Street. I have attached a picture of the office on Queen for reference. As you can see,the Queen Street building is 2 story,square with a fiat roof and carport, and looks nothing a like to my home on Fdgehill. In summary, my house is an old home that was built In the 40s,but has since had many renovations and alterations to the interior, exterior and landscaping. These alterations have removed essentially all original design features and building material and as such no original features remain. The landscaping is all new,is similar to other homes on the street,or any other home of this quality in the region,and as such should have no historical significance. Finally,while many of Mr. Rieder's works might be considered of some historical or architectural significance, it would be those structures to be identified not his residence. The simple fact that he owned and lived in a home for a period of time, should not mean that it automatically becomes significant to Kitchener,almost every single person who lives on-Edgehill drive has had a similar impact to our community at some point in their life. With all of the above information, I trust that you now will agree that my house does not meet the requirements and will reconsider adding it to the non-designated MHR, Thank You. If you have anv further questions or concerns you can reach me at or Sincerely, r 1 - 215 J i t r 7RrV� ri I � W �t�/�✓f+ lid 7 ✓� ���„ tl� Yr� ��jY�f err J�rlix� d � r Virr/r%r�f✓e �rY ^^ �� r rn/✓�11 h 1�r��✓ r� 6 t i � r y, ^fi �i�i ✓ °drlkd i r f rry t rt �i > �i✓trj� �tl 'ii �yi/f�19✓✓ � ,� y J ti � i a �rdirfFitrtif�+ f i �1� l�rdfi � � r ,? > � rJ w n � � v µ d i r � w r r 1 P� � fayi4 � rr o ✓ r I t ri r r r u I {y ti N i Gf pp , b . r. y s r� i �,ar t I l 'fl f�l✓fJ �� �'�iPv j9 fr'i P90P/, rfb N4 r. f Y, � '�� � 'AAA ✓ /�/J�,y�j1�r �� p�p(���� r 99 I m;A vl I I. W r° v x;y I' P 1. } 1 r� r �u�J„" i„i�,.� r..��uVw�wiu✓�J�r '` �j�a I I �1 I� r tl rl t��yg Yp r surf �� d r 7 h 1✓m��� I IWAI Nfrrpa f rlW� � ✓y d��'� �1 V""(IWT rr MOI %i,�� r r`fG l�'r,`�p���✓r��; ,i ;' � nay �" � �✓,l r�i�l�I"' � +r � � ✓pr ��f� l ���r✓�1ry,, �y �, #I r� r, na ✓ Y� r rrd {,�N r d✓t ro rY�. { s v ;p r �i t � al�ye r I v✓il'd��✓ jfi�l�✓�+���r,' dt� s P l r y �' a1 ✓, z r I ,I V' � 1✓ %r r r(>"op� e+fir uU, Iti V� ✓�r t r ✓ lu a � r t r ✓ f✓��� { �s � {r G 9 r i i r l r, r r !r r C0 (�t i J�fY1�r�rfj c� ff i uf�r i d a- ICJ ri vP�rjfF ' yr1"i��fr r , .(7 ✓'y`/ f',, Y °I' , ��(r71,�f%j✓1G i� gal( r�Fr r N y, ,d+i !y ✓i � ¢�yiwN��i%r w) 61r if+� i J I v +� r it k J 4+ ' 1� I �r vo i d r, + ✓I � r y j ��/��fll f✓i + I r II i� / � I u y I y"I /'u /' yW�y� 'tV r+ I dl �1 ky y 'mp s�,C'����r���y{�biC` Id. i I " r "a 11, vJ�VA / c J 2 A V I, 1 I ( yf E y� Y y+ s ly,l r i I i !, w r9 I i 9r,r l 41 y yE yV� F q a A, NSA t" /,"Ii,IA:.'�rvN�:/,,,,I iii u 1�.,r•.�.. L. � ... .. , � " ";� .0 I too to ef �, nr SOT WAR I � a r {n VIA " r i , i E< r I �I r. 1� � l. r �a i �ylll 7 rt fi I ��� ;r v frpl47�Nu RI r � QPt� � y�� �d'C G�fi I f YhJ o �P a ,u �p t � �, psi Y V i III �PV k. � ,aib 1 1�/`�' U �9s1/`V � ' fi f 17p �.:. J ✓1 •�; � r,�"tl, 4 JrfN� �9 �ifw + ip � ;�' p � tr Eli ,���; i f�, a� r G✓� A I T 1 H I n/�i vj' p� , �' '��✓ �%pr�`,'t�r f� �� r f.I s�f ' I� dJ2j� �G "i9 f�� �', lr� rur ti r�„✓ ���1�'g� ,If�' �%`�i� , jiff���� f���'�rv� ✓gf 9���� �l�a� f rI. r/,�ji�i 1 ✓y � d e �g� t n J l 11`/' /-RAN � t N � r �7 i �1 a tl'G f y r r �SYK a r yx� yV 1J i r wr G f �d r 1r +� J ✓,�°ri k. r � Ir r e"�� �a"�,3i i �P'�� I � g�,l�rr��J�i��j����Jr, +���JIpp9�w U � � �" 4 iu r r l' l�r iJ J y✓ N'��i �/I �I r�, i �� ✓' r t `�Jfr�z r i r'✓r r i+ �� r ��� n { ! a 1r✓i"�u�ldG"�✓f�4t� 'r i i � Iy9F � 1ri !✓ Le4�4✓'�d� � 6�1�J om w#Sri ��' i � f+%1 ��✓ 4��������^���d d�� � xvri°r k;�° rrr�„k u �N 4r �lf lF r�j��JK� IVNI i � l� �� "q y��lAr '�uR� i !wr ,rl�G✓r �"M�1✓ 7 rl r U� r r r, Pp,�><! r �t✓�4% rs„r rw � r Y� 4 a Mr lr a'✓ 6+ r^” i✓ ! ��� � +� � �! � ✓qtr N�,'�r✓r I�, ��;�,yR � �r�d � "t �� rye o, �i r,,�'�✓u�r����df��sJ�4^�r¢b, iul Ili e } �r,��l 1h"�i�'p��r�✓,rr r�,J��lry ✓IMF i� i't!r�y r H!a - r I '� �FI��F 4 I ��✓'�YI�°r,�� d � 4 M r�r rr r Michelle Drake, Heritage Planner April 20, 2015 City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario., N2G 4G7 RE: 418 Glasgow Street-- Municipal Heritage Resister Dear Ms Drake, I acknowledge receipt of your letter to me dated March 20, 2015 informing me of the impeding registration of the aforementioned property address as part of the Municipal Heritage Resister. I further wish to thank you for taking time to meet with me and my on March 19, 2015 to discuss same. Along with this response, I am submitting the letter that I completed on May 7; 2013 when I was initially contacted and invited to attend a meeting regarding the same issue that was subsequently cancelled on the day I was to appear. This letter was in response to the "Statement of Significance" (SoS) I received prior to that meeting. I wish to include this letter as it proved incorrect and inaccurate information regarding the SoS that was both frustrating and disappointing to me. If this or other properties are going to be listed and owners of those properties affected, I think the City should ensure complete accuracy in their reporting. Your letter states that Samuel S. Snider as "the original owner". While trying to confirm this, I Googled Samuel S. Snider and the Google search box corrected and redirected me to a search for Samuel Snyder . . . ? Does this disprove the popularity of Samuel S. Snider?? I am under the assumption that facts should relate specifically to the "structure" at 418 Glasgow, as the lands surrounding the address have gone through considerable severances over the past number of years. Samuel S. Snider is referred to as "Original Owner" in your report but it appears he was a land owner but never resided in the home so I wish to dispute this claim. A further search of other noteworthy owners of 418 Glasgow, as highlighted in your report turned up the following information; Please note that my search was simply done using the website, Waterloo Region Generations A record of the people of waterloo Region, Ontario. 1 - 224 1 Harold Mortimer Brazeau; (possible owner or renter, records are inconclusive) The website returned 10 Brazeau's, none with a first name of Harold Allen J. Ritzer; The website returned 18 Ritzer's. none with the name Allen J. Eben Oliver Weber; The website returned 1,829 Weber's, Eben was listed I further wish to point out a few of issues as they relate to the Robinson Heritage Consulting 2009 report; 1) the wood storm windows and brackets have been replaced with energy efficient single hung thermal windows 2) changes to the front door systems are on order 3) it states, " the north addition located at the rear of the Italianate building is believed to be original to the main building". I would assume every your own staff sees inconsistent building materials, windows and styling's to be considered "original° to the main building. As well I point to a couple of issues as they relate to the City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form dated November 2008; 1) as disputed strongly in my May 7 2013 letter, and I repeat today that the interior of MY home is not for public display so interior details should not carry any significance in the study of 418 Glasgow. Your"Field Team" and "Evaluation Subcommittee" both answer YES under the subtitle of Interior when answering the question "is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and or detail noteworthy?" An even greater question is . . . when was the Field Team or Sub Committee inside my Dome to make such claims??? 2) the Field Team states that there is Contextual Value in "the mature trees along the rear property line" this is not a true statement and should be removed for your report. I will assume those trees mentioned now belong to the property address of 412 Glasgow Street. I close my letter by a statement made by Ms. Joleen Taylor; a teacher and heritage interpreter at the historic McDougall Cottage in Cambridge while being questioned about the Rockway Center for Seniors during the much discussed heritage value of that property back a couple of years ago. QUOTE "A lot of people don't really know about the seniors'center, It is just a 1950s building that they drive by and they don't really consider it" . . . kind of like those that drive by 418 Glasgow Street. Thank you for your time and allowing me to comment, Sincerely, 1 - 225 Michelle Lee, Heritage Planner May 7 2013. Planning Division / Community Services Dept City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON., N2G 4G7 RE Proposed Listing on the Municipal Heritage Register, 148 Glasgow Street. Dear Ms. Lee, I respectfully wish to respond to your letter dated April 8 2013 regarding the upcoming Heritage Committee Meeting regarding the consideration of the aforementioned property address and the committees desire to deem this property worthy to the Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). Firstly, as the property owner I, like many other owners of older homes within the region do not wish to have 418 Glasgow Street upgraded to Registered Heritage status (HMR). I am sure you have heard before from other such owners that this distinction does nothing but add costs to maintaining the property for the rest of that owners operating life. It further reduces the resale value as many potential purchasers will shy away from the arduous burden of owning a heritage property. I realize that one of the criteria that the Heritage Committee reviews is the historical ownership and their status within the community and what they brought to this fine City. I can absolutely tell you by first hand experience that the majority of people that pass by my home, or many others built within the previous century, that they simply appreciate the appearance of the home. They appreciate the upkeep of the home for its curb value but ninety nine out of one hundred people have no idea who owned the home sixty, seventy or even one hundred years ago. Even if you told them who they were they would not associate their name to their contribution to the community. I would hazard a guess that if you screened 100 twenty-something year olds, one hundred percent would have no interest on the history ownership of ANY home or property. Many of the Heritage criteria negates owners from properly insulating these properties (i.e. windows) bringing them to higher standards of heat recovery thus helping the environment with less green house gas emissions which in my opinion do more harm to our city. Now speaking directly to the property at 418 Glasgow Street. This home sits like an island, by that I mean It is not part of a bigger area of heritage value such as Doon Village Road or Victoria Park. When you drive through these areas you get a feel for Kitchener as it once was because all or many of the homes are from the previous century. 418 Glasgow sits amongst homes built in the 50's and 1 - 226 sixties and as late as 2011. I point out errors your most recent letter and information package present. As quoted "the building is situated on a 1.25 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Glasgow Street . . ." This statement, along with the topographical mapping included in the City of Kitchener's archives is completely wrong and to some shows a lack of knowledge of care and control of City files. 418 Glasgow sits on only a .75 of an acre parcel. The property has a shared right of way with the property address of 412 Glasgow Street. Fifty percent of the land was reduced through a severance application granted in March / April of 2009. Your paragraph continues with the statement"The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the residential building". Then in your second to next paragraph you state "although the building is not notable, rare or unique architectural style . . ." These statements seem to contradict each other. I may further dispute the other features mentioned that quite frankly are design elements that can easily be mirrored or in fact are still used in today's modern building attributes. Hipped roof, brick voussoirs, front door transoms are all attributes that I could have or did include in the building of my own home in 2011. Wooden single hung windows with wooden storm windows are nothing but poor examples of inefficient energy savers adding to increased natural gas and therefore emissions. There are standards that windows need to meet in today's concern for conserving our natural resources and these don't come close. Regarding the rear addition, you make comment that it"is believed"that it is original to the main building but you cannot in fact make a verified claim, only assumptions. Therefore it really has no bearing on the main structure and should not carry any significance or value. I find it difficult to imagine it was original to the main structure as it contains no similarities to building materials, design, windows etc. Mentions of interior features have always been a topic that eludes me as no public individuals will ever see them to appreciate them as I must remind you this is a private residence. This is not a museum that is free to the public to visit. Why would interior features be part of any heritage criteria in a private residence?? While on this topic however, the interior stair railings that are mentioned would not meet today's safety standards so I find it surprising that we would want to celebrate their existence. Wood floors are simple pine floors that have been resurfaced a number of times and shrunk over the years leaving unsightly gaps between the boards so I don't see the heritage value in that. Historic and associative value relating to original size of the property within the German Tract is also mentioned. Is it not true that the`'original tract" has been 1 - 227 basterdized by; I believe three significant land reductions through subdivision developments and severances? Your letter also mentions context of landscaping. It indicates that there are Norway Spruce, White Spruce, Sugar Maple and Scots Pine . . . all which could be found in any number of neighbourhoods through the City. Further, each one of these mature trees has a natural life and by no hand of the common man can any one of these have demise without warning thus eliminating whatever Heritage value you may consider they possess. In closing, no home owner wants any local, regional or federal governments dictating to them what they can or cannot do to a home/property (within reason) that will strong hold them to costly repairs, small market purchasers and reduced market value. While I agree that this is a beautiful home and should be maintained I see no reason or no compelling arguments to move this from a non designated inventory home to an MHR. I further have strong feelings that when it comes to cultural heritage properties that the City sees as obstructions to their planned developments we find some loopholes that see clear for the destruction of such a property. Its politics at it worst! I just ask that you leave this property alone and allow me to maintain the home in a manner that increases the value of the asset as well as the value of the streetscape. If the committee feels compelled to do something, simply leave this property on the non designated list. This would provide enough protection that there would be some sort of control for its continued life. This would provide control over the demolition application through delays allowing for further dialogue should an application be filed. It would also indicate to the city that should I decide to find a buyer, he/she would buy it for its aesthetic value and not for the reasons of demolition for a new modern home. Submitted with concern and respect, 1 - 228 Lalbreche Patterson & Associates Inc. Professional Planners, Development Consultants, Project Managers (via e-mail_michelle.drake itchener.ca) April 21,2015 Ms. Michelle Drake, MASS, MCIP, RPP Heritage Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West—e Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Drake: Re: 1333 King Street East, Kitchener,ON.—Proposed Listing on Municipal Heritage Register Labreche Patterson & Associates Inc. advise that we represent the owner of the above noted property being .We have been asked by the land owner to advise him further on potential impacts of the proposed listing of the subject lands within the "Municipal Heritage Register" (MHR) considering the material that has been provided to him to date by the City, the "Statement of Significance" (Appendix "A") form evaluating the property and the applicable current planning policies and zoning that applies to the subject lands and surrounding area. Please also accept this letter as our request to speak as a delegation when this matter is to be discussed in further detail along with a related city staff recommendation report at the "Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting on May 5, 2015, While we will provide further comments at the committee meeting on May 5�h, based on review of this matter to date, we wish to object to the subject property being added to the list of non-designated properties of the Municipal Heritage Register(MHR)for the following reasons. 1. This property is part of a defined block bounded by four roads being King St. E., Preston St., Sheldon Ave.E., and Charles St.E. This property and surrounding block is also a key part of a larger defined "Special Policy Area 1° within the "King Street East Neighbourhood Secondary Plan" with the subject lands and surrounding area designated as "Mixed Use Corridor". We have attached as "Appendix 1° the Land Use Plan and applicable policies of this secondary plan for ease of reference. Based on our review of the applicable policies of this plan, it seems clear that the consideration to place the subject property on the MHR is at odds with many policies of the applicable secondary plan. 2. This plan places emphasis on the fact that "King Street East constitutes the major transportation spine through the area directly connecting it to the core of the City". Further, the long term fi objective for the corridor also encourages the development of a high profile entranceway to the city".. 3. The secondary plan for this area permits the highest standard development density in the City of Kitchener at a Floor Space Ratio(FSR) of 4.0. Further, in this area a FSR of 5.0 is permitted for a = large mixed use development. 330-F Trillium Drive, Kitchener, Ontario NQE 3J2 Tel 51 9-696-5955 • Fax; 519-8913-5355 1 - 229 2 4. While the existing structure is in good repair, the land owner has had continuing difficulty in leasing any space in the building due to lack of available parking on site. This is primarily due to the large detached 3+ bay garage on site and a significant drop in grade from the front to the back of the site. The restricted ability to construct a proper parking area due to the garage and site grading continues to be a major restriction to allow the reuse of the property and building on its own. 5. Our client has considered plans which he has recently discussed with us for various options to better utilize the site in the short term which will no doubt require alterations to the site and the removal of the large garage structure for to create a functional and accessible parking area. 6. Long term options as well for the redevelopment of the property in accordance with the applicable Official Plan policies and zoning of the site being"Nigh Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone(MU-3)' must also be maintained which would entail the consolidation of the property with abutting properties 7. Based on the review of the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form, from the 18 evaluation questions, there were 11 that did not satisfy the evaluation criteria. While we can appreciate it is not necessarily the case that the evaluation outcome in terms of the numbers of criteria met such as 50% or more that fully determines the outcome, however a significant number of the criteria were not met in this case. I Based on the forgoing and as previously noted we object to the subject property being listed within the Municipal Heritage Register. Even with the property being listed, this would further add to the challenges the landowner has had for several years now with their redevelopment considerations for the property in the short terms and would result in further issues and delay with the lands being properly redeveloped as required by the Official Plan and Zoning of the subject lands and surrounding area. Thank you for your consideration of our comments noted herein which we will speak to further at committee on May 51h on our request that this property be removed from any further consideration of being listed within the Municipal Heritage Register. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions on this matter. f 3 1 Yours truly, Labreche Patterson&Associates Inc. i Victor Labreche, MCIP, RPP Senior Principal S VU Attach. Copy: 9090596 Ontario Inc. i 1 - 230 ' Awe- d 1 � a LU a a =) g on LIJ m TL wow U. z � y _ZW U Ir as Xkd ! 9 1 - 231 City of Kitchener 7. Mired Use Corridor objective, the City of Kitchener may also Mixed Use Corridors are linear in form and impose maximum front yard setbacks, limit recognize the evolution of uses along major vehicular parking between the building corridors in the inner city. These corridors fagade and the street, and will require are primarily intended to serve the adjacent specific fagade treatments such as window residential neighbourhoods and employment or door openings and minimization of blank areas and allow for intensive, transit walls. supportive development. Mixed Use Corridors provide residential redevelopment New development shall be compatible with opportunities together with appropriate surrounding residential neighborhoods and commercial and institutional uses that will be of an appropriate height and density primarily serve adjacent residential in relation to adjacent low rise residential neighbourhoods. Over time it is intended development. In locations that immediately that the Mixed Use Corridors shall intensify and provide it balanced distribution of abut Iow rise residential land uses, new commercial, multiple residential and development shall be permitted having a institutional uses. Individual properties minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and a within Mixed Use Corridors shall be zoned maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0. to achieve this distribution of uses. However, new development may be permitted to exceed this maximum Floor A broad range of commercial uses shall be Space Ratio in locations which abut arterial permitted, including freestanding office and or major collector roads, are well separated small retail, The full range of institutional from low rise residential development and uses as well as multiple residential uses shall also be permitted. To achieve a built form have adequate municipal infrastructure. in that is compatible with surrounding low rise such cases, the City of Kitchener may residential development, is pedestrian impose a minimum Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 oriented and allows for a balanced and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 4.0. distribution of retailing outside of other commercial nodes, the size of retail Notwithstanding the above, for parcels establishments shall be regulated. In this located between Icing Street East, Charles respect,retail uses shall be permitted to have Street East, Cedar Street South and Preston a maximum gross floor area of 1,040 square Street in the King Street East Mixed Use metres and shall only locate within existing Corridor, new food store use shall be buildings or internal to large mixed use developments. All other retail uses legally permitted to have a maximum gross floor existing on September 17, 2001 shall be area of 5,000 square metres provided that recognized and shall be permitted to expand the use is located internal to a large mixed on the existing lot by a maximum of 25 use development.Additional gross floor area percent. for the food store use above the 5,000 square metre maximum may be considered where Mixed Use Corridors generally have strong the gross floor area in excess of the 5,000 pedestrian linkages with the surrounding square metre maximum is located in upper residential neighbourhoods. To strengthen these linkages, new development may be storeys. required to orient a portion of the building mass to the street,provide for integration of For a large mixed use development cycling facilities, provide on-site pedestrian incorporating a food store use with a gross 3 facilities, and provide pedestrian floor.atea greater than 1,000 square metres, connections to abutting developments or off- up to 1,000 square metres of additional gross site transit facilities. To achieve this floor area may be devoted to other retail OFFICIAL PLAN Part 3 January 23,2015 Page 13-11 1 - 232 City of Kitchen or uses and the maximum Floo ce Ratio of north side of King Street East as it existed the entire developmen shall be 5.0, on December 31, 1987. 8. Neighbourhood Institutional King Street East constitutes the major The Neighbourhood Institutional transportation spine through the area directly designation makes provision for and connecting it to the core of the City, This recognizes the existence of small, corridor acts as the main entranceway into neighbourhood-oriented institutions such as the City and is characterized by a wide schools,churches,and community services. variety of commercial, office, institutional and residential uses, The King Street East Uses permitted within the Neighbourhood corridor is designated Mixed Use Corridor Institutional designation are restricted to in order to foster commercial development. single detached dwellings,duplex dwellings, However, the long term objective for the and semi-detached dwellings, home corridor also encourages the development of businesses, private home day care, a high profile entranceway to the City educational establishments, religious consisting of office, high density residential institutions, and small residential care and institutional uses in mixed use buildings facilities. In addition, day care facilities are with ground floor commercial uses. it is also a permitted use provided that they are intended that a number of existing uses and located within an educational establishment additional objectives be recognized. or a religious institution. Office, institutional and high density 9. Open Space residential uses are permitted in either The Open Space category is intended to freestanding or mixed-use buildings, In reserve lands for a variety of reasons such as order to attract urban format food store use, for preservation of natural features, outdoor the lands located between Cedar Street recreation, lands undevelopable for reasons South, Charles Street East, King Street East , of flooding or instability, and land parcels and Preston Street shall permit food store made available through public works, water use to have a maximum gross floor area of courses and railway right-of-ways. up to 5,000 square metres provided that the Uses include major community scale parks, use is internal to a large mixed use conservation areas,hazard lands,cemeteries, development.Additional gross floor area for crematoriums, mausoleums, outdoor the food store use above the 5,000 square recreation,and golf courses. metre maximum may be considered where the gross floor area in excess of the 5,000 13.2.3 Special PoHeles square metre maximum is located in upper storeys. For large mixed use developments 1. Notwithstanding the Mixed Use Corridor incorporating food store use with a land use designation, the following shall minimum gross floor area of 1,000 square apply, metres the maximum floor space ratio shall be 5.0 and an additional 1,000 square metres .« Special Policy Area 1 is defined as those of retail space shall be permitted. lands falling within the area bounded by Madison Avenue/Cedar Street, the In order to create a higher order transition Conestoga Expressway, Charles Street and zone adjacent to the City Commercial Core, the extent of the commercial zoning on the new development of the following uses OFFICIAL PLAN Part 3 January 23,2015 Page 13-12 1 - 233 I I' CYly of Kitchener between Cedar Street and Stirling Avenue small lodging house, small residential care shall be prohibited: automobile service facility, home business and private home station; car wash; the sale, rental, service, day care. Multiple residential and storage or repair of motor vehicles and commercial uses are contingent upon these major recreational equipment and parts and lands being assembled with lands that have accessories for motor vehicles or major frontage on King Street and redevelopment recreational equipment; tradesman or will be accomplished by a holding zone contractor's establishment;warehousing and category being applied to such properties in wholesaling. Any such existing uses will be the Zoning By-law.The holding provision of recognized as permitted uses and shall be the zoning shall be removed so as to allow permitted to redevelop or expand subject to redevelopment to proceed when the site plan approval. following criteria have been met: These uses will also be prohibited from a) Consolidation or assembly of all the occupying those lands which front onto properties with property having frontage on Charles Street between Ottawa and Sydney King Street;and Streets. This prohibition is intended to ensure a higher order form of development b) A site plan pursuant to Section 41 of in recognition of the existing residences on the Planning Act indicating that these lands both the north and particularly south side of will developed in conjunction with lands Charles Street. having frontage on King Street has been approved. In order to allow for the assembly of adequately sized redevelopment parcels on 2. Notwi anding the Low Density the north side of King Street East the Commerc I Residential designation, boundary of Special Policy Area I has been redevelop nt of properties fronting onto enlarged to the extent of the commercial the sidestree running south of Weber Street zoning as it existed on December 31, 1987. East to comet cial uses shall be subject to a A holding provision prohibits commercial holding provi 'on until such time as said development on properties fronting onto the properties are nsaIidated with a property sidestreets running north off King Street fronting onto W ber Street East. East until such time as said properties are consolidated with a property fronting onto 3. Notwithstanding a Neighbourhood Mixed King Street East. Use Centre desi ation, the sale, rental, service, storage and cpair of motor vehicles The lands between Sheldon Avenue,Preston shall be permitted at 0 Ottawa Street North. Street, King Street East and Charles Street, except for those properties fronting onto 4. Deleted(MPA 36) King Street East between Preston Street and Sheldon Avenue, shall be subject to a 5. Notwithstanding the Lo Rise Conservation holding provision in order to ensure the land use designation on lands known as short term viability of the existing 21 Krug Street,a multiple welling having a residential uses. Permitted uses shall be maximum of 6 dwelling its shall be - restricted to single detached dwellings, permitted. = duplex dwellings, multiple dwellings containing a maximum of 3 dwelling units, OFFICIAL PLAN Part 3 January 23,2015 Page 13-13 s I f 1 - 234 ' New Apostolic Church Canada April 16, 2015 Dear Ms. Drake, We recognize that the church is an attractive building due to its architecture and materials, and that it has been associated with our congregation since its construction in the early 1970s. However representatives of the Church are concerned about listing the property on the municipal heritage register in that it may restrict our future ability to modify the church to suit its needs and that of the congregation. Our concerns about these restrictions stem from the fact that the church was constructed in an era that is different than today. Many members of the congregations originally lived near the church and walked to it; there were fewer considerations for accessibility and other code-related issues. Over time, the congregation and its needs have changed, and representatives of the church express concern that listing of the property may restrict our ability to appropriately adapt to these needs. While we recognize that listing of the property does not directly restrict our ability to make minor changes and repairs that are not considered to be development, we must be able to adapt to changing circumstances and make changes that benefit our congregation's needs without undue restriction or regulation by the City of Kitchener. For the reasons listed above, our Church respectfully requests that the Church not be included on the municipal heritage register. We will continue to be good stewards of the property that we purchased and the building we have constructed. Respectfully, Senior Vice President New Apostolic Church Canada Administration Office 319 Bridgeport Road Fast,Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2K9 Canada Telephone (519) 884-2862 Fax (519) 884-3438 Website www.newapostolicchurch.org 1 - 235 €b A Mark's Lutheran Church !+r1,7!!11)Q i!1 rSljr1;l.'r17ffC1,r?Jli•"!!}}iiil!lTtJr<�S l J 1 y! 825 King Street W.,Kitchener, ON N2G 1E3 Tel: (519)743-6309 Fax: (519)743-6300 office@stmarkskw.org stmarkskw.org www.stmarkskw.org April 23, 2015 SENT BY EMAIL ONLY Michelle Drake, MAES, MCIP, RPP Heritage Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Michelle: RE: Proposed Listing as an Undesignated Property on the Municipal Heritage Register of St. Mark's Lutheran Church, 825 King Street West Thank you for meeting with us this morning to explain the process that has been undertaken by the City of Kitchener with respect to the Municipal Heritage Register and to explain and discuss the ramifications of being listed as an undesignated property. Our meeting helped enormously in our understanding of the situation. Please be advised that we have concerns with regard to St. Mark's Lutheran Church property being listed as an undesignated property on the Heritage Register and ask that the property not be listed for the following reasons: 1. Should St. Mark's decide to redevelop the property, being listed will increase the cost of redevelopment of the property in order to comply with the requirements of a heritage assessment. 2. Should St. Mark's decide to completely demolish the church building or decide to partially demolish the church building as part of a redevelopment project, being listed would delay obtaining a demolition permit.. 3. Should St. Mark's decide to sell the property, being listed will decrease the value of the property because any purchaser may need to deal with the factors indicated in 1 and 2 above. 1 St. Mark's financial situation is precarious and becoming more so each year due to budget shortfalls which are fast depleting our resources. Our future will be very limited without the opportunity of freely exploring redevelopment or sale options. If 825 King Street West is placed on the undesignated list with the associated restrictions and limitations that would then attach to the church property, St. Mark's may not be able to continue to serve our members or provide a home for over 30 community user groups and we believe this would not be in the best interests of Kitchener's core. St. Mark's will be sending a delegation of two to the May 5th Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. Our representatives will be: Yours very truly 2