Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-14-036 - Listing of Non-Designated Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the MHR Staff Report ��c ti R Community Services Department wmkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: May 6, 2014 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 9 & 10 DATE OF REPORT: April 22, 2014 REPORT NO.: CSD-14-036 SUBJECT: LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTY 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-14- 036: • 19 Benton Street; • 234 Cameron Street North; • 53 Church Street; • 16 Clarence Place; • 240 Frederick Street; • 265 Frederick Street; • 11 Irvin Street; • 14 Irvin Street; • 18 Irvin Street; • 160 Lancaster Street East; • 20 Linden Avenue; • 58 Louisa Street; • 86 Louisa Street; • 61 Madison Avenue South; • 91 Madison Avenue South • 49 Mary Street; • 85 Queen Street North; • 29 Shanley Street; • 57-61 Stirling Avenue North; 2 - 1 • 25 Strange Street; • 85 Strange Street; • 97 Victoria Street North; • 82 Weber Street East; • 257 Weber Street East; • 126 Weber Street West; and, • 136 Weber Street West. BACKGROUND: The 2013-2015 Community Services Department Business Plan identifies the continued development of the Municipal Heritage Register as a Divisional Project to be completed in 2013 and 2014. 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. REPORT: Heritage staff continue to prioritize the listing of non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The approved 4-Step Listing Process includes a transparent and public process for evaluating properties identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Building for inclusion as non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. Properties identified on the inventory are found throughout the City with the most recent group of properties generally located in the central area in and around the downtown. Completing the review of the inventory will strengthen efforts to conserve cultural heritage resources and align with provincial, regional and municipal policies. The process continues to ensure a thorough and objective evaluation of each property, and opportunities for public input and consultation. Current Properties The properties municipally addressed as 19 Benton Street; 234 Cameron Street North; 53 Church Street; 16 Clarence Place; 74 Frederick Street; 240 Frederick Street; 265 Frederick Street; 11 Irvin Street; 14 Irvin Street; 18 Irvin Street; 160 Lancaster Street East; 20 Linden Avenue; 58 Louisa Street; 86 Louisa Street; 61 Madison Avenue South; 91 Madison Avenue South; 49 Mary Street; 85 Queen Street North; 29 Shanley Street; 57-61 Stirling Avenue North; 25 Strange Street; 85 Strange Street; 97 Victoria Street North; 82 Weber Street East; 257 Weber Street East; 126 Weber Street West; and, 136 Weber Street West 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. As a result, the property owners have been formally notified of the heritage interest and invited to participate in Step 3 of the process. Step 3 involves the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting scheduled for May 6, 2014 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 W. Next Steps Moving forward, the continued identification and assessment of cultural heritage resources is related to another project that the City is undertaking, titled Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS). The Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-13-104 on December 2, 2013 which outlined the PARTS 2 - 2 project, including the continued need to prioritize and complete the listing process for the Municipal Heritage Register. Heritage staff will continue to review candidate heritage properties through the Council approved 4-Step Listing Process, including property owner engagement, review by Heritage Kitchener, and consideration by Council as part of each individual station study area planning process. 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. An information package was mailed to all property owners on March 25, 2014. 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; and, a copy of the Statement of Significance which describes the historic place, identifies the key heritage values, and lists the principal heritage attributes. 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. Property owners were also invited to submit comments and attend the May 6, 2014 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. Staff received correspondence from two properties. The owners of the property municipally addressed as 86 Louisa Street provided three pages of additional information to enhance the statement of significance prepared by staff. The owners noted that they are pleased that their home will be considered for listing as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The owner of the property municipally addressed as 234 Cameron Street North provided additional information to enhance the statement of significance prepared by staff. The owner noted that it is a beautiful home and the neighbourhood is one of the best in the City. The owner understands that the property will be considered for listing as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. 2 - 3 CONCLUSION: Identifying specific local cultural heritage resources is a vital first step toward upholding the City's responsibility to protect and conserve its heritage. A number of properties in the central area in and around the downtown 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. Statements of Significance, outlining the cultural heritage value and interest of the properties, are included in Appendix `A' of this report. REVIEWED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDIX `A': Statements of Significance (Available in alternate format upon request) 2 - 4 Statement of Significance 19 Benton Street x or 1 �IJ ZIIQ aee v fes t P ka tz to � Municipal Address: 19 Benton Street Legal Description: Plan 394 Part Lot 38 Year Built: 1988 (original); 2013 (current) Architectural Style: Maypole (Maibaum) Original Owner: Kitchener Waterloo Oktoberfest Original Use: Condition: Excellent Description of Historic Place 19 Benton Street is public space known as Oktoberfest Platz, which features the Kitchener- Waterloo Oktoberfest maypole. The maypole is situated on a 0.08 acre parcel of land located on the north east corner of of Charles Street East and Benton Street in the City Commercial Core 2 - 5 Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the maypole. Heritage Value 19 Benton Street is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, associative and historic values. The design and physical values relate to the maypole. The maypole is rare and features an attractive design. The maypole is 22 metres (72 feet) in height, constructed with cedar and features a ribbon-like pattern in blue and white to represent the Bavarian flag (MacNeil, 2013; The Record, 2012). The maypole also features the crests of the City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and the five traditional local German clubs: The Concordia Club, The Schwaben Club, The Transylvania Club, The Alpine Club and the German Canadian Hunting & Fishing Club. The contextual values relate to the location of the maypole, the relationship to its surroundings and the significance within the community as a landmark. The maypole was originally located at the corner of King Street and Benton Street in the public space known as Speakers Corners. The maypole is currently located on the corner of Charles Street East and Benton Street directly adjacent to the Hans Haus. Its current location is prominent, highly visible and in close proximity to its original location making it a Regional landmark. The associative and historic values relate to the KW Oktoberfest festival, Fred Buttinger and the local German cultural heritage and traditions. The maypole has been a symbol of the KW Oktoberfest festival for 25 years. It was originally raised in 1988 with the generous support of the Buttinger family, in memory of Fred Buttinger, a long-time supporter of the festival (MacNeil, 2013). The maypole is a tradition in many German countries representing the beginning of the harvest season and used to celebrate May Day (midsummer) as a symbol of the bountiful harvest to come (MacNeil, 2013). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 19 Benton Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the maypole, including: • Height of 22 metres (72 feet); • Cedar construction; • Blue and white ribbon-like pattern; and, • Crests, including: • The City of Kitchener, • The City of Waterloo, • The Concordia Club, • The Schwaben Club, • The Transylvania Club, • The Alpine Club, and • The German Canadian Hunting & Fishing Club. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the maypole on the corner of Charles Street East and Benton Street adjacent to the Hans Haus. 2 - 6 References MacNeil, D. (2013). Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest Celebrates Dedication of New Maypole. Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest Media Release. The Record. (2012, December 20). Deteriorating Maypole to come down but will be replaced. The Record. Retrieved from http://www.therecord.com/news-story/2617744- deteriorating-maypole-to-come-down-but-will-be-replaced/ on September 10, 2013. Photos rl b i i iI' r i 19 Benton Street 2 - 7 ''.m; Sh %! e 41� i 1rj ,e Rs�l3oi�u��}fUfi�S'�444. i / 19 Benton Street 2 - 8 F In $f ✓1�/� N i e r 1 1 g, 1116ui�i�N11)'�yyr of (II ut� �o �f 19 Benton Street 2 - 9 d � < 19 Benton Street 2 - 10 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 19 Benton Street Period: 1988 &2013 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Kitchener Waterloo Oktoberfest Maypole. Date: June 19, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: cultural traditions/emblems/symbols represented in design and construction of the maypole; traditional maypole reflecting German traditions Sub-Committee: rare example of a maypole; 25 years old; raised in 1988; 22 metres(72 feet)tall 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N N, city❑ or neighbourhood ❑? 2 - 11 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ that complete the site? Notes Field Team: landmark in the Region; prominent, highly visible setting in close proximity to its original location at speakers corner Sub-Committee: proximity to Hans Haus 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: moved from speakers corner 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: strong associations with German culture and traditions in the City, including Oktoberfest; use in Oktoberfest festivities/ceremonies 2 - 12 Statement of Significance 234 Cameron Street North r 1 4 175 ro � ,. n / �_�2�3 4 a I M4 � �, 2 3 0i r gal' i r/U rii ri a"i r rr// Municipal Address: 234 Cameron Street North Legal Description: Plan 351 Part Lot 35 to 37 Year Built: 1939 Architectural Style: Tudor Original Owner: Ed Schnarr & Sons Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 234 Camerson Street North is a one-and-a-half mid-20th century brick house built in the Tudor architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.13 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Cameron Street North between Lydia Street and Merner Avenue in the Auditorium Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 2 - 13 Heritage Value 234 Cameron Street North is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Tudor architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: multiple overlapping rooflines with varied eave-line heights; wood shingle roof; brown and red brick; chimney; round arch door opening with stone surround and wood door; groups of windows with multi-pane glazing; hung windows; front bay with casement windows and copper hood; loop hole window beside front door; stone sills; and, stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Cameron Street North streetscape. The historic and associative values relate to a former significant owner. Arthur C. Greb resided in the house for almost 40 years from approximately 1945 until 1984. Arthur was the son of Erwin C. Greb who founded the Greb Shoe Company in 1910 with his father Charles Greb (Walker, 1990). The Greb Shoe Company became one of the largest footwear manufacturers in Canada (Walker, 1990). The company originally manufactured work boots but broadened its focus to include other foot wear including the "hush puppy" casual shoe, the Kodiak work boot, athletic foot wear and Bauer skates (Walker, 1990). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 234 Cameron Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Tudor architectural style of the house, including: • One-and-a-half storey height of the house; • multiple overlapping rooflines with varied eave-line heights; • wood shingle roof; • brown and red brick; • chimney; • round arch door opening with stone surround and wood door; • windows and window openings, including: • groups of windows with multi-pane glazing; • hung windows; • front bay with casement windows and copper hood; • loop hole window beside front door; • stone sills; and, • stone foundation • 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 Cameron Street North streetscape. References Walker, B. (1990). Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings: 234 Cameron Street North. Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 14 Photos '6 it 9yl Il fnj ,/� 234 Cameron Street North �a /§ sr��'+ JI"I g r n i w i a. 0 � V ' 1 i m rr ! a. 234 Cameron Street North 2 - 15 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 234 Cameron Street North Period: c. 1939 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: August 6, 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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: other examples of this style in neighbourhood 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 16 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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: associated with Greb family 2 - 17 Statement of Significance 53 Church Street elf f �� /f i rr era 3�5 %C �f 11 ��„ ' . r Municipal Address: 53 Church Street Legal Description: Plan 394 Part Lot 41 Plan 393 Part Lot 45 Year Built: c. 1921 Architectural Style: Vernacular with Romanesque influences Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 53 Church Street is a two storey early 20th century brick church built in the Vernacular architectural style with Romanesque influences. The church is situated on a 0.49 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Church Street between Benton Street and Peter Street 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 church. Heritage Value 53 Church Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historical and associative values. The design value relates to the design, composition, craftsmanship and details of the church. The church is an example of the Vernacular architectural style with Romanesque influences. The church is in good condition. The church is two storeys in height and features: rectangular 2 - 18 plan; front gable roof with dentils and buttressing caps; yellow brick; rosette window; 1/1 semi- circular windows with dripstones and sills; semi-circular windows with voussoirs; semi-circular window openings with dripstones; segmentally arched window openings; semi-circular door opening with double wood doors, decorative trim and glazing; and, concrete block foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the church makes to the continuity and character of the Church Street streetscape. The historic and associative value relates to the use of the land and the various congregations that have occupied the building over time, including Wesleyan Methodist Church (1842-1868); United Brethren in Christ (1898-1907); Congregational Church (1907-1921); Grace Tabernacle (1921-1935); Mennonite Brethren (1935-1953); Bethel Evangelical Lutheran (1953-1966); and, Martin Luther Evangelical Church (present). The land has a long history of religious use beginning with the Wesleyan Methodists in 1842 (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-85). The United Brethren in Christ congregation purchased land and a small frame building from Wesleyan Methodists in 1868 (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-85). It appears that the current building was constructed by the Grace Tabernacle congregation around 1921. References Horne, M. & Kolaritsch, D. LACAC Report. Kitchener, 1984-85. Photos r, U r 53 Church Street 2 - 19 rc i 11' Y f �r yi i % I I 1� F �c IIA 53 Church Street gtil�l4 I� i � l/ ,'J� ✓J�IH� iwy"y / r rl/// /� / ��rl�%j����l �u�/r��i7 �, � l / d li'✓i � oWf/�/ /�� ��rf r r���� l�%}"'�,. I�r� Iw� f 53 Church Street 2 - 20 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 53 Church Street Period: Field Team Initials: GZ/EY Description: Date: August 15, 2012 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 Sub-Committee: not necessarily rare; more decorative; no sign of a tower; Romanesque influences; buttressing caps are unique; cross over rosette window; round arched instead of gothic windows 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city❑ or neighbourhood N? 2 - 21 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ that complete the site? Notes Field Team: possibly neighbouring property was part of the site previously(51 Church Street) Sub-Committee: link to surrounding community 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 Sub-Committee: tells the story of the religious use of the site and the evolution of congregations throughout time 2 - 22 Statement of Significance 16 Clarence Place ZI S2 ICJ of r( ° i : 86, r , Municipal Address: 16 Clarence Place Legal Description: Plan 425 Block B Part Lot 7 Year Built: 1928 Architectural Style: Italian Renaissance Original Owner: Eitel Carl Woeller Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 16 Clarence Place is a two storey early 20th century brick house built in the Italian Renaissance architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.12 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Clarence Place between Lancaster Street East and Gordon Avenue in the Central Frederick 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 16 Clarence Place is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Italian Renaissance architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys 2 - 23 in height and features: hip roof with dormers; plain fascia and soffits; chimney; window openings; rectangular windows with leaded, etched and coloured glass; wood door containing a small leaded glass window above a metal ring door knocker with a coach lamp to each side covered by a half-round winged hood roof supported by brackets; and, front porch. A more detailed description of the architectural style and heritage attributes can be found in the Historic Buildings Inventory report for 16 Clarence Place prepared by Bob Rowell dated April 19, 1992. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Clarence Place streetscape. The associative value relates to the architect of the building, W.H.E. Schmaltz, and the original owner, Eitel Carl Woeller. The E. Woeller Company was started as a family business in 1920, which sold full and half rolls of European upholstery fabrics to furniture manufacturers across Canada and extended sales to across North America during the Second World War (Woeller, 2013). The house was the family home from 1928 until approximately 1958 (Personal Communication, Jon Woeller, 2014 January 24). The Woeller Group continues to operate out of Kitchener today. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 16 Clarence Place resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Italian Renaissance architectural style of the house, including: • Two storey height of the house; • hip roof with dormers; • plain fascia and soffits; • chimney; • window openings; • rectangular windows with leaded, etched and coloured glass; • wood door containing a small leaded glass window above a metal ring door knocker with a coach lamp to each side covered by a half-round winged hood roof supported by brackets; and, • front porch. ■ 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 Clarence Place streetscape. References Rowell, B. (1992). Historic Building Inventory: 16 Clarence Place. Kitchener, Ontario. Woeller Group. (2013). Woeller Group: Company. Retrieved from http://www.woeller.com/company/ on January 23, 2014. 2 - 24 Photos ��. 16 Clarence Place , 16 Clarence Place 2 - 25 1 1 /n /j qi t r r � 16 Clarence Place 2 - 26 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 16 Clarence Place Period: Field Team Initials: ML/CM Description: Date: April 29, 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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 27 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: attached garage 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 Sub-Committee:some new windows; not sure if porch is original 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 Sub-Committee: architect was W.E. Schmaltz 2 - 28 Statement of Significance 240 Frederick Street k4 15 7 MIA 10 ,rye. �� 2 jA Municipal Address: 240 Frederick Street Legal Description: Plan 425 Block A Lots 4 & 5 Part Lots 6 & 7 Year Built: c. 1888 Architectural Style: Queen Anne Original Owner: Peter Itter Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 240 Frederick Street is a two storey late 19th century brick house built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.47 acre parcel of land located on the north east corner of Gordon Avenue and Frederick Street in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 2 - 29 Heritage Value 240 Frederick Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: steeply pitched roof of irregular shape with gables facing both Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue; wood brackets; asymmetrical fagade; painted brick; one-storey front porch that extends around corner of building featuring spindlework porch supports, ornamentation and frieze; two storey rear porch featuring spindlework porch supports, ornamentation and frieze; 1/1 windows with stone headers and sills; large square picture windows with transoms; storm windows; front storm door; and, rusticated stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes. The setting is noteworthy as the house is located on a very large corner lot. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner, Peter Itter. Between 1880 and 1893 Peter and his wife managed the House of Refuge (Waterloo Historical Society, 1948). In 1888 Peter purchased approximately 4.2 acres of land from the House of Refuge property on the west side of Frederick Street (Waterloo Historical Society, 1948). Peter built a number of homes on Frederick Street, Gordon Avenue, Irvin Street and Clarence Place. Some of the streets were named after his sons: Clarance Gordon Itter; Gordon Itter; and, Irvin Itter. Peter owner the house on Frederick from about 1888 until approximately 1908. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 240 Frederick Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including: • Two-storey height of the house; • steeply pitched roof of irregular shape with gables facing both Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue; • wood brackets; • asymmetrical fagade; • painted brick; • one-storey front porch that extends around corner of building featuring spindlework porch supports, ornamentation and frieze; • two storey rear porch featuring spindlework porch supports, ornamentation and frieze; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 1/1 windows with stone headers and sills; ■ large square picture windows with transoms; ■ storm windows; • doors and door openings, including: ■ front storm door; and, • rusticated stone foundation. ■ 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 Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes; and, 2 - 30 o Lot size. References Waterloo Historical Society. (1948). Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 35: Kitchener, Ontario. Photos r i i/i1 t i y/ Iilll r J jJ 240 Frederick Street ii / / f / y i i ( uu LL Y1 16 1, ,� >!�>l�y is ,;,;;, ,.,, , �•, iJ i Q, i I s. 240 Frederick Street 2 - 31 2 - 32 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 240 Frederick Street Period: c. 1888 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: May 2, 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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: porch detail unique, elaborate, original/intact 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 33 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: very large corner lot 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 2 - 34 Statement of Significance 265 Frederick Street y 2 6M n fr r� j F u � l 1 � i r, 11 I'3 Municipal Address: 265 Frederick Street Legal Description: Plan 424 Part Lot 7 Year Built: c. 1907 Architectural Style: Decorative Berlin Vernacular Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 265 Frederick Street is a two-and-a-half storey early-20th century brick house built in the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.14 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Frederick Street directly opposite Pequegnat Avenue in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 2 - 35 Heritage Value 265 Frederick Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is constructed in the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style with attractive and unique design details. The house is in good condition. The house is two-and-a-half storeys in height and features: prominent front and side gables with wood shingles and return eaves; wood soffits and fascia; four continuous semi-circular windows in the front gable end; circular window in side gable ends; 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs; picture window with transom; bay window with transoms; front porch; and, rusticated stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 265 Frederick Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style of the house, including: ■ two-storey height of the house; ■ prominent front and side gables with wood shingles and return eaves; ■ wood soffits and fascia; ■ four continuous semi-circular windows in the front gable end; ■ circular window in side gable ends; ■ 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs; ■ picture window with transom; ■ bay window with transoms; ■ front porch; and, ■ rusticated stone foundation. ■ 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 Frederick Street streetscape. 2 - 36 Photos / / / e / / tr ��' ��N p �l ➢ x Y 7 u Y Ij e JOIN , �,� 7� ,,,,, ,.,,a ,,ri, ,,,iii a�' „,/l/� ,,%i//,.,,,✓,rte„ 265 Frederick Street t n I 7 , f �Y 265 Frederick Street 2 - 37 / r' 265 Frederick Street 2 - 38 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 265 Frederick Street Period: c. 1900 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: May 2, 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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: large for decorative berlin vernacular;details of note include unique gable window, porch gable end detail,soffit and fascia, stained glass 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 - 39 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: garage is older—age? 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 2 - 40 Statement of Significance 11 Irvin Street t/ 2i' k y4 � ��14M R B kk .irt, Municipal Address: 11 Irvin Street Legal Description: Plan 32 Lot 3 & Part Lot 4 Year Built: c. 1890 Architectural Style: Tudor Original Owner: Alexander Chapman (A.C.) Renshaw Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 11 Irvin Street is a one storey late 19th century brick house built in the Tudor architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.29 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Irvin Street between Frederick Street and Scott Street in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 2 - 41 Heritage Value 11 Irvin Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Tudor architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one storey in height and features: front gable roof; decorative half timbering with stucco; red brick; tall narrow multi pane windows; chimneys; square turret; front porch; and, stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Irvin Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 11 Irvin Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Tudor architectural style of the house, including: • one-storey height of the house; • front gable roof; • decorative half timbering with stucco; • red brick; • tall narrow multi pane windows; • chimneys; • square turret; • front porch; and, • stone foundation • 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 Irvin Street streetscape. References Berliner Journal. (1896). New Buildings in Berlin for 1896. Berlin, Ontario. 2 - 42 Photos i 11 Irvin Street al ills v " „r i 11 Irvin Street 2 - 43 I /f f 11 Irvin Street 11 Irvin Street 2 - 44 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 11 Irvin Street Period: c. 1890 Field Team Initials: ML/LB/CM Description: Date: April 18, 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 ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ material or method of 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: turret and windows unique and attractive 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ landscaping or external features that com Iete the site? 2 - 45 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Notes 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 2 - 46 Statement of Significance 14 Irvin Street Municipal Address: 14 Irvin Street Legal Description: Plan 32 Lot 9 Year Built: c. 1890 Architectural Style: Queen Anne Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 14 Irvin Street is a two-and-a-half storey late 19th century brick house built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.14 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Irvin Street between Scott Street and Frederick Street in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 2 - 47 Heritage Value 14 Irvin Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two-and-a-half storeys in height and features: hip roof; plain fascia and soffit; moulded frieze with dentils; gables with scalloped shingles; buff brick; curved corner with curved glass window; front porch; window openings with brick voussoirs and stone sills; two storey bay window with five sided hip roof dormer; stone foundation. A more detailed description of the architectural style and heritage attributes can be found in the Historic Buildings Inventory report for 14 Irvin Street prepared by Bob Rowell dated April 29, 1992. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Irvin Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 14 Irvin Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including: • two-and-a-half height of the house; • hip roof; • plain fascia and soffit; • moulded frieze with dentils; • gables with scalloped shingles; • buff brick; • curved corner with curved glass window; • front porch; • window openings with brick voussoirs and stone sills; • two storey bay window with five sided hip roof dormer; and, • stone foundation. ■ 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 Irvin Street streetscape. References Rowell, B. (1992). Historic Buildings Inventory(14 Irvin Street). Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 48 Photos 11 " 14 Irvin Street 14 and 18 Irvin Street 2 - 49 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 14 Irvin Street Period: c. 1890 Field Team Initials: ML/LB/CM Description: Date: April 18, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: some unsympathetic alterations but still retains most features that make it unique; unusual curved window; similar to 18 Irvin Street 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2 - 50 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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 2 - 51 Statement of Significance 18 Irvin Street 'w ' W 'fit 3 ° f-_...] , .rP;+ry r 17 Municipal Address: 18 Irvin Street Legal Description: Plan 32 Lot 10 Year Built: c. 1897 Architectural Style: Queen Anne Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 18 Irvin Street is a two-and-a-half storey late 19th century brick house built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.14 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Irvin Street between Frederick Street and Scott Street in the Central Frederick 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 2 - 52 18 Irvin Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two-and-a-half storeys in height and features: hip roof; plain fascia and soffit; moulded frieze with dentils; gables with scalloped shingles; buff brick; curved corner with curved glass window; front porch; window openings with brick voussoirs and stone sills; two storey bay window with five sided hip roof dormer; stone foundation. A more detailed description of the architectural style and heritage attributes can be found in the Historic Buildings Inventory report for 18 Irvin Street prepared by Bob Rowell dated April 29, 1992. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Irvin Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 18 Irvin Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including: • Two-and-a-half height of the house; • hip roof; • plain fascia and soffit; • moulded frieze with dentils; • gables with scalloped shingles; • buff brick; • curved corner with curved glass window; • front porch; • windows and window openings with brick voussoirs and stone sills; • two storey bay window with five sided hip roof dormer; and, • stone foundation. ■ 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 Irvin Street streetscape. References Rowell, B. (1992). Historic Buildings Inventory(18 Irvin Street). Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 53 Photos �i1�14ti�s,1 , 18 Irvin Street 1 � � J 14 and 18 Irvin Street 2 - 54 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 18 Irvin Street Period: c. 1897 Field Team Initials: ML/LB/CM Description: Date: April 18, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, N ❑ ❑ 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: unique style, curve in wall and window; similar to 14 Irvin Street 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 55 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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 2 - 56 Statement of Significance 160 Lancaster Street East 36 14 IN F fl � �� . �/ 1, 0010 % gwomij HI 3a t r , 9 . 000 d 25 27 1 00,1 u ° 17 ^ y Municipal Address: 160 Lancaster Street East Legal Description: Plan 363 Part Lot A and Part Lot 1 Year Built: 1908 Architectural Style: Gothic Original Owner: Bethany Missionary Church Original Use: Religious Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 160 Lancaster Street East is a one storey early 20th century brick church built in the Gothic architectural style. The church is situated on a 1.35 acre parcel of land located on the north east corner of Lancaster Street East and Chapel Street in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. 2 - 57 Heritage Value 160 Lancaster Street East is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. 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 is one storey in height and features: rectangular plan; front gable roof with brick corbels; 3 by 7 bays; brick pilasters between bays; red brick; pointed arch door and window openings with drip moulds and sills; stained glass windows; segmental arch basement window openings with brick voussoirs; date stone that reads "MBC 1908"; and, rusticated stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the church makes to the continuity and character of the Lancaster Street East and Chapel Street streetscapes. The historic and associative values relate to the founding of the congregation. The congregation was first formed in 1875 when some of the members of the First Mennonite Church were excommunicated due to progressive beliefs. The first church was built in 1877 and the current church was built in 1908 to accommodate the growing congregation. Jacob Y. Shantz, a noted Industrialist at the turn of the century, selected this lot and supervised the construction of the church (Noonan, 1975). It was the first church of this denomination to be built in the centre of the City (Noonan, 1975). Early pastors of the church were Rev. C.F. Krauth, Cyrus N. Good, Silas Cressman, Ephraim Sievenpiper, William Brown, George Warden, William Yates and Sidney S. Shantz. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 160 Lancaster Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Gothic architectural style of the church, including: • one-storey height of the church; • rectangular plan; • front gable roof with brick corbels; 3 • by 7 bays; • brick pilasters between bays; • red brick; • pointed arch door and window openings with drip moulds and sills; • stained glass windows; • segmental arch basement window openings with brick voussoirs; • date stone that reads "MBC 1908"; and, • rusticated stone foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the church and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Lancaster Street East and Chapel Street streetscapes. References Noonan, G. (1975). A History of Kitchener. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. 2 - 58 Photos s f I r� u o w� t rri V 160 Lancaster Street East / a� i i / „r / I AG I �' jt✓ �i'''per I r, t io✓J�%//pe�i��ltr�%��/iao/�,u�„��j it q I �/y orr u` ,rP l r//iii yin iQ��'✓ d I � ,�1�. I � , J i 160 Lancaster Street East 2 - 59 I 'rr a. r Mh ) ���➢VM ' +�'J�d9N" ,w?��r5,vwr, ., ,. �„ �, ,� „,,,:r s:�„ "'�r��' "�� � ���?r^n1�i��rG�111/�/.r�iy���w✓�;��)� 'r�1'� r!✓� 160 Lancaster Street East Y fdm ✓ i � n ) ±;,✓ Iw�.l F r "�P J�' ��/il T�i��IO�YJl�1 i/d�bi�/��✓ l%i, r, '� ri��✓r , �rr� r�,i ar�IN y���1i,�y� / , 'r�� ✓ 4�p��,� /rrm.!r�r,u/��ii/�r mY�`i���f71�i�w�+'N��,i 1 r n II ✓r����I 4 f r��, r )tilt✓il�'ir d y✓¢� !r�� „/ '�p� '� 160 Lancaster Street East 2 - 60 7 � � / l V1 �� � � IIIV�tIuUuuuuum�VV 9°��� a Ili i � t �I 4 I a r i mr 9 dr I N" �, I �'Ny il�.� v, rum '�"�+'"��, �Y xw�N ,� ;�I�VI',w„ „gym ° /„rvW ✓,�r.,,a iii 160 Lancaster Street East 2 - 61 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 160 Lancaster Street East Period: 1908 Field Team Initials: ML/CM/MD Description: Bethany Missionary Church Date: May 16, 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: gothic arch; pilasters; modest/vernacular gothic;stained glass newer but complementary; new doors; date stone-1908 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2 - 62 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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 2 - 63 Statement of Significance 20 Linden Avenue IN ,o War° '; r Evil Municipal Address: 20 Linden Avenue Legal Description: Plan 418 Part Lot 2 Year Built: c. 1889 Architectural Style: Ontario Gothic Original Owner: Henry Wildfong Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 20 Linden Avenue is a two storey late 19th century brick house built in the Ontario Gothic architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.08 acre parcel of land located on the north west corner of Linden Avenue and Oak 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 house. Heritage Value 20 Linden Avenue is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. 2 - 64 The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is built in the Ontario Gothic architectural style. The house is attractive and unique because of its craftsmanship. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: gabled roofline; tongue and groove soffit and plain frieze; `L' shaped plan; four bays; yellow brick laid in the American Bond Style with every sixth row a "header" course; brick quoins; arched front door opening with brick voussoirs, wood sill and trim; arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills and trim; and, porch. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Linden Avenue streetscape. The house is also historically and visually linked to the Lang Tannery as it was owned by the Lang Tanning Company between 1912 and 1951 and rented to workers (Shea, 1988). The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and building as well as the Lang Tanning Company. The original owner was Henry Wilfong. Wilfong and Denges were responsible for the carpentry work during the 1893 renovations of the Court House (Sokvitne, 1977). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 20 Linden Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Ontario Gothic architectural style of the house, including: • two-storey height of the house; • gabled roofline; • tongue and groove soffit and plain frieze; • `L' shaped plan; • four bays; • yellow brick laid in the American Bond Style with every sixth row a "header" course; • brick quoins; • arched front door opening and storm door with brick voussoirs, wood sill and trim; • arched windows and window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills and trim; and, o porch with Doric columns, wooden shingled balustrade and brackets. ■ 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 Linden Avenue streetscape. References Shea, P. (1988). Historic Buildings Inventory. 20 Linden Avenue. Kitchener, Ontario. Sokvitne, M. (1977). The Waterloo County Gaol. Kitchener, Ontario: Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 65. 2 - 65 Photos I1 �1 1 //� / �� iiri Jrl rf✓i/i�b g�, �� r�r�/� �wi/ �✓/rr�l����� �/ /1�����1�/O !%��✓/ �„ 1/rl%✓lr��/�� ��� r� �h�frl ��;(1���/��9��rr� , 0���������, � ��' �lr� ���ar 'r ?� /� 20 Linden Avenue h 9 f i 20 Linden Avenue 2 - 66 Mme. 41 i iiii �r� III III 20 Linden Avenue 2 - 67 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 20 Linden Avenue Period: c. 1889 Field Team Initials: MW/LB Description: Date: April 15, 2009 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: new wood windows; painted brick; interesting voussoirs 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 ❑ ❑ N ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 68 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: notable tree (evergreen); house contributes to continuity and character of Linden Avenue; orientation of verandah and entrance; no links unless associated with Lan 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: excellent maintenance; front door with wood screen door; new wood windows 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: no associations unless connect to Lang Sub-Committee: confirmed once owned by Lang and rented to workers 2 - 69 Statement of Significance 58 Louisa Street r, M14 58 ard 10 � , Municipal Address: 58 Louisa Street Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 376 Year Built: c. 1907 Architectural Style: Decorative Berlin Vernacular Original Owner: William Dunker Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 58 Louisa is a two-and-one-half storey early-20th century brick house built in the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.12 acre parcel of land located on the north west corner of Louisa Street and Moore Avenue 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 house. 2 - 70 Heritage Value 58 Louisa Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is built in the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style and is attractive and unique because of its design, composition, craftsmanship and details. The house is in good condition. The house is two-and- one-half storeys in height and features: front gable roof; plain fascia and soffit; brick construction; 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs; windows with transoms; front porch; full-height bay window with turret roof; bay window; and, stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Louisa Street and Moore Avenue streetscapes. The historic and associative value relates to the original owner and builder. William Dunker built and resided in the house from 1907 to 1954. William was a member of St. John's Anglican Church, the Kitchener Planning Board, the Kitchener Relief Board, the Scottish Rite, the masons, the Shriners, the Twin City Lodge and past patron of the Order of Eastern (KW Record, 1956). William along with his brother Albert took over the company from their father Henry who had founded Dunker Construction in 1887 (KW Record, 1974). In 1974 the KW Record commented that Dunker Construction was the oldest continually operating construction company in Kitchener-Waterloo (KW Record, 1974). Dunker Construction was associated with the construction of many local buildings such as the KW Granite Club (1927); renovations and additions to Courtland Avenue Public School (1928); alterations to the Waterloo County Gaol (1931); and, the Registry Theatre (1938/39). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 58 Louisa Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style of the house, including: • two-and-one-half storey height of the house; • front gable roof; • plain fascia and soffit; • brick construction; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs; ■ windows with transoms; • front porch; • full-height bay window with turret roof; • bay window; and, • stone foundation. ■ 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 Louisa Street and Moore Avenue streetscapes. 2 - 71 References Hett, L. (1988). Kitchener Transit — The First Hundred Year 1889-1989. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 76: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1956, October 25). W.H. Dunker Passes at 71 Years. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1969, October 7). Water Commission Chief, Dunker Dies. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1974, July 11). Dunker Construction to End Operations. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Parks Canada. (2013). Canada's Historic Places: Registry Theatre. Retrieved from 7 on October 4, 2013. Schmidt, C. (1977). History of Kitchener-Waterloo Granite Club. Kitchener, Ontario. Sokvitne, M. (1977). The Waterloo County Gaol. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 77: Kitchener, Ontario. Photos r �l w I 0000 0, +° ;i kl I�i o��lll i Jpll y+ ,9 u 1 ri i, 58 Louisa Street 2 - 72 d� 7 w� °d I� ri r% r J ' r 58 Louisa Street 2 - 73 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 58 Louisa Street Period: c. 1907 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: July 31, 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 74 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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: painted brick; some new porch features 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 2 - 75 Statement of Significance 86 Louisa Street �4 9 °w 'qly 4 k� rr r"fit ,I 4 N�� V / i Municipal Address: 86 Louisa Street Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 380 Year Built: c. 1880 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 86 Louisa Street is a two storey late 19th century wood clapboard house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.11 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Louisa Street between Moore Avenue and Waterloo Street in the Mount 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 house. 2 - 76 Heritage Value 86 Louisa Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Italianate architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: square plan; two bays; shallow slope hip with gable over front bay; plain fascia and soffit; single and paired brackets; decorative frieze; full-height rectangular bay window; wood clapboard; wood vertical corner boards; wood trim; 1/1 segmentally arched windows with plain trim; octagonal window with plain trim and coloured glass; French doors with rectangular transom and plain trim; porch; stone foundation; and, rear wing. A more detailed description can be found in the Historic Buildings Inventory report for 86 Louisa Street (Rowell, 1992) and in the letter regarding 86 Louisa Street (Smith, 2014). The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Louisa Street streetscape. The historic and associative values relate to the original land survey for the area as well as the original owner and builder. Lot 380 was laid out on the 1853-1854 survey prepared by George John Grange (Smith, 2014). Sheriff Grange was from Guelph and decided to buy the land because had discovered that the Grand Trunk Railway route would be located in the general area bounded by King Street, Victoria Street, the City of Waterloo border and St. Leger (Smith, 2014). The house was the second built in the area after the original farmhouse located at 102 Louisa Street (Smith, 2014). Registry records show that the land was bought by Louis Pommer, a wheelwright at Doerr Brothers, from Barbara Brown in 1891 for $225 (Smith, 2014). Louis Pommer built the house and his name is scrawled vertically at the top of the middle post of the rear porch (Smith, 2014) Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 86 Louisa Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: • two-storey height of the house; • square plan; • two bays; • shallow slope hip roof with gable roof over front bay; • plain fascia and soffit; • single and paired brackets; • decorative frieze; • windows and window openings, including: ■ full-height rectangular bay window; ■ 1/1 segmentally arched windows with plain trim; ■ octagonal window with plain trim and coloured glass; • wood clapboard; • wood vertical corner boards; • wood trim; • doors and door openings, including: ■ French doors with rectangular transom and plain trim; • porch; • stone foundation; and, 2 - 77 o rear wing. ■ 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 Louisa Street streetscape. References Rowell, B. (1992). Historic Buildings Inventory. 86 Louisa Street. Kitchener, Ontario. Smith, B. & I. (2014). Letter addressed to Michelle Drake dated April 3, 2014 regarding 86 Louisa Street. Kitchener, Ontario. Photos iY *W W ' ,f'?"` "'pry ��" I�� ^�ri 'J//i✓9�„�/i�i/J���j / e 86 Louisa Street 2 - 78 +r, T i ,ME," °MidIL 4 86 Louisa Street / Wr , „`r�pVnm'," >�. �'��/, t n'•!)��v 'WI�i ',� ,i��"r ;r.,,,I '�'� � r' r I � 86 Louisa Street 2 - 79 f 1 j o / / / e s i Aril` 86 Louisa Street AM 86 Louisa Street 2 - 80 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 86 Louisa Street Period: c. 1880 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: July 31, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: see Bob Rowell report(1992); clapboard with white trim, brackets, frieze,soffits, fascia,segmentally arched windows 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ 2 - 81 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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: no noticeable alterations;well maintained 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 2 - 82 Statement of Significance 61 Madison Avenue South 2�7- 7 1' o, ' Al 61 6 Municipal Address: 61 Madison Ave. S. Legal Description: Plan 365 Part Lot 3 Year Built: c. 1890 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 61 Madison Avenue South is a two storey late 19th century brick house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.24 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Madison Avenue South between Charles Street East and Church Street 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 house. 2 - 83 Heritage Value 61 Madison Avenue South is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is an attractive Italianate building. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: square plan; hip roof; brackets; frieze; brick construction; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs, 1/1 windows and concrete sills; and, front porch. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Madison Avenue South streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 61 Madison Avenue South resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: • Two-storey height of the house; • square plan; • hip roof; • brackets; • frieze; • brick construction; • segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs, 1/1 windows and concrete sills; and, • front porch • 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 Madison Avenue South streetscape. 2 - 84 Photos a ,N C r m u t v m ✓40 „ �f� �, 4;�Ir ���! x41 m ! 61 Madison Avenue South /r i fm m um rim, / is ram;�x i r it /iuA /iA/�i�/, 61 Madison Avenue South 2 - 85 IV` �r °r c i 1 i r r "w,,Y) '`f�J as r r �,i//�o ,o,,,a/✓� ur^r6�1r�rot 61 Madison Avenue South 2 - 86 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 61 Madison Avenue South Period: c. 1890 Field Team Initials: ER/GZ Description: Date: 2012 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ landscaping or external features 2 - 87 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes that complete the site? Notes 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:Addition at back 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 2 - 88 Statement of Significance 91 Madison Avenue South dJ'tlP "hµ I � � g� � y pp yy i r ! / f Municipal Address: 91 Madison Avenue South Legal Description: Plan 390 Part Lot 6 & 7 58R-10159 Part 2, 3 & 4 Year Built: 1924/25 Architectural Style: Byzantine Revival with Romanesque influences Original Owner: Beth Jacob Synagogue Original Use: Synagogue Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 91 Madison Avenue South is a two storey early-20th century religious building constructed in the Byzantine Revival architectural style with Romanesque influences. The building is situated on a 0.43 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Madison Avenue South between Church Street and Courtland Avenue East in the Cedar Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener 2 - 89 within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the religious building. Heritage Value 91 Madison Avenue South is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the religious building. The building is a notable, rare and unique example of the Byzantine Revival architectural style with Romanesque influences. The building is in good condition. The building features: rectangular plan; flat roof with shaped parapet and concrete coping; multi-colour brick; pilasters; semi-circular features including decorative brick work and windows; semi-circular multi-pane hung windows with brick or concrete headers and concrete sills; square windows with concrete sills; concrete cornice; decorative brick and concrete details; double 8-panel door with semi-circular transom; single 8- panel doors; and, concrete foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the religious building makes to the continuity and character of the Madison Avenue South streetscape. The building is also an important neighbourhood landmark. The historic and associative values relate to early Jewish settlement and the original owner and use. Early Jewish settlement in Berlin involved minimal organized religion (Ontario Jewish Archives, 2009). By 1907, ten families had joined to form an Orthodox synagogue (Ontario Jewish Archives, 2009). In the same year, Rabbi Joseph Krivy was appointed Kitchener's first shocet and rabbi (Ontario Jewish Archives, 2009). The property for Kitchener's first synagogue, the Beth Jacob Synagogue, was purchased from Jacob Cohen on Albert Street (now Madison Avenue) in 1923 (Ontario Jewish Archives, 2009). Construction commenced in 1924 with the help of fundraising by Jack Davis, Wolfe Feldman, Samuel Florence and Max Migdal whose names were inscribed on stones at the base of the building (Ontario Jewish Archives, 2009). The synagogue opened in 1925 under the guidance of Rabbi Levine and 61 founding members whose names were inscribed on a plaque inside the building (Ontario Jewish Archives, 2009). The building was sold in 1963 to the Zion Mennonite Brethren Church (Ontario Jewish Archives, 2009). Since 1963, the building has been occupied by various religious groups, including: Zion Mennonite Brethren Church; Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church; Romanian Church of God; Grace Presbyterian Fellowship ; and, CRKVA BOZJA Church of God. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 91 Madison Avenue South resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Byzantine Revival architectural style with Romanesque influences of the building, including: • rectangular plan; • flat roof with shaped parapet and concrete coping; • multi-colour brick; • pilasters; • semi-circular features including decorative brick work and windows; • windows and window openings, including: 2 - 90 • semi-circular multi-pane hung windows with brick or concrete headers and concrete sills; • square windows with concrete sills; concrete cornice; • decorative brick and concrete details; • doors and door openings, including: • double 8-panel door with semi-circular transom; • single 8-panel doors; and, • concrete foundation. ■ 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 Madison Avenue South streetscape. References City of Kitchener. (2012). 100 Years of Cityhood. Retrieved from http://kitchener100.ca/decades/1920-1929 on November 26, 2013. Ontario Jewish Archives. (2009). Religious Life Kitchener. Retrieved from http://www.ontarioiewisharchives.org/exhibits/osic/communities/kitchener- waterloo/religiouslife/index.html on November 26, 2013. Photos rmugp.uir,7W H�gYiWP1NNP"�1�VOrv'�S'WtWJW>?IV,�ieE,�fi I � ru 7i iv r r z i u 91 Madison Avenue South 2 - 91 Fr; i / ry Vi rJJI ,,; / r uoi I 1., �ff��1111111/ll// �r , ////!//,� '��n rAyalrN�l�l����1��J`��»J��1�>(SrSMJNVt»a Y� �✓i /�a/: %�/r//////////l/%� /„ Ij I 91 Madison Avenue South 2 - 92 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 91 Madison Avenue South Period: 1924/25 Field Team Initials: GZ/ER Description: Date: 2012 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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 93 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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 2 - 94 Statement of Significance 49 Mary Street " 5 : ;� a wP re7 d r^ � Municipal Address: 49 Mary Street Legal Description: Plan 385 Part Lot 330 Year Built: c. 1895 Architectural Style: Queen Anne Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 49 Mary Street is a two storey late 19th century cement block house built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.17 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Mary Street between Union Boulevard and Pine 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 house. 2 - 95 Heritage Value 49 Mary Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is notable and rare in terms of the rusticated cement block construction. The house is quite attractive with high attention to detail. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: hip roof with gables and a square turret; brackets; rusticated cement block construction; large picture window with two part transom, voussoir and cement sill; semi-circular window with voussoir and cement sill; 1/1 windows with voussoirs and cement sills; front doors with voussoirs; and, front porch. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Mary Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 49 Mary Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: • Two-storey height of the house; • hip roof with gables and a square turret; • brackets; • rusticated cement block construction; • windows and window openings, including: ■ large picture window with two part transom, voussoir and cement sill; ■ semi-circular window with voussoir and cement sill; ■ 1/1 windows with voussoirs and cement sills; • doors and door openings, including: • main entrance door with voussoirs; • second floor entrance door and storm door; and, • front porch. • 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 Mary Street streetscape. 2 - 96 Photos ✓,!i/, /l�s !r h % r f� r r! �% r m i f ✓�j'dr� f 'o! m� d IA n an p �I t� i� a Yi �' ' � ~,� �' ✓u 49 Mary Street Na r m � '�� o Y7 r "' Mfr✓lrvrrAr *M r, yfry a y �n!r l r , ry�r r ����1 �U���i/!✓���r� /rug' r�drt i o r r u /i/ r �rrlrlrl�/� ✓���� ��!/iiir,r r " G /'rr nrrr /1//G/l /rl��✓1 �"ar�ysiLLm, zu"1� lYix �l� 'm rM�!/� r� frY�•"! ill�,rY�/Jl �� t< � r i!/ ri � fr .Ilwr�����"° w���re;�mkw�w y� � � !/l! �r ��� r i 9 1/!r mn aVj mrl J l fl�7tr r�,�a �;f �u� i �, i 'uU✓l��' ��1D ,� - �:ww M rtirYfMr�r`✓�G l�✓��✓ r; r�m, v P�r �,.bY ti , i d 6 ✓ � i���0mr � u" i�✓ r w� a but r!>M""�� �r e M 49 Mary Street 2 - 97 >w i jr� , HW r t l IN D; 6 rr AA PI r{ pjI (Nib Y I1 a W 1 v 49 Mary Street 2 - 98 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 49 Mary Street Period: c. 1895 Field Team Initials: LB/CM Description: Date: August 6, 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: Not notable, rare or unique because of style but is notable, rare because of cement block construction and high level of detail for such material; block detail above openings; angled bay and square turret 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? 2 - 99 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ that complete the site? Notes 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 2 - 100 Statement of Significance 85 Queen Street North 2,s / co, i � %�j 68 ° j /fr � D Municipal Address: 85 Queen Street North Legal Description: Plan 20 Lot 1-8 Plan 388 Part Lot 2 Year Built: 1961-62 (original); 1978, 1994, 2011-2014 (additions) Architectural Style: International Original Owner: City of Kitchener Original Use: Library Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 85 Queen Street North is a two storey mid-20th century modern building designed in the International architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.60 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Queen Street North between Roy Street and Ahrens Street East in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the library. 2 - 101 Heritage Value 85 Queen Street North is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a rare example of the International architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: flat roof; precast concrete arches infilled with a combination of glass and cut stone laid in a rustic fashion; two-storey windows; main entrance sheltered by a projecting canopy with a decorative copper screen above; and, the former Children's Library entrance with large concrete lintel with impressed artwork celebrating children. Interior features include: two- storey interior space with the mural by Jack Bechtel; and, the auditorium with sloped floor hall in the basement. The importance of Modern architecture and the building at 85 Queen Street North 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). "Projecting concrete bays organize the facades, infilled with large areas of glazing or with panels of random-laid fieldstone. The main entrance facing Queen Street is sheltered by a projecting canopy with a decorative copper screen above. Book stacks occupy two floors on the south, adjacent to a double height reading area. Between is the circulation area, on axis with the front and rear entrances. The library maintains an intimate relation to the ground, and is scaled to match the adjacent houses. A fitting institutional image is achieved by the stately rhythm of the concrete frames and the rich texture of the stone."(Mannell, 1997, p. 18). The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Queen Street North streetscape. The historic and associative values relate to the architect of the building as well as the original and present use 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 Bank of Nova Scotia, Dare Biscuits Limited, Eastwood Collegiate Institute, and the Highland Baptist Church. The building was designed as a library and continues to operate as a library. 2 - 102 Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 85 Queen Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the International architectural style of the building, including: • two-storey height of the building; • flat roof; • precast concrete arches infilled with a combination of glass and cut stone laid in a rustic fashion; • two-storey windows; • main entrance sheltered by a projecting canopy with a decorative copper screen above; • the former Children's Library entrance with large concrete lintel with impressed artwork celebrating children; • two storey interior space with the mural by Jack Bechtel; and, • the auditorium with sloped floor hall in the basement. • 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 Queen Street North streetscape. References Carter, P. (2010). Heritage Impact Assessment: Addition and Renovations to Main Branch Kitchener Public Library and the New Underground Parking Garage for the City of Kitchener. Toronto, Ontario: Phillip H. Carter Architect & Planner. Mannell, Steven (Ed.). (1997). Images of Progress 1946-1996 Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region. The Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery: Kitchener, Ontario. Photos 6 r J f „ Dili Q.Vieeri S"treet fivyade at KL'°r1 t1 unce Qme fl Street I aV�ade at A hGe11 a SIReL 2 - 103 VVVV iuuuuuuu uuuuuuuumVVVVV8�V4uuuum�u�� � �; wiuum iiu uuuuuu 1�III'I r i i r' �;, �uuuu�V��VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiVUUUmm" r: u �V �' uuBjo�d,'UVVVVpuuiuuiV Vui i 9 j f fu sun,s enlranu lid 2 - 104 yc i ' v��yrl kl✓?u�r;'v IIII IIII � IIII�I IIII III I Rarrsj Clive' cif l)-cpmsse l Additi(TI lid Nlural akwc Children"sa F�FIlrra°lce N i. I 85 Queen Street North 2 - 105 r w t 85 Queen Street North 2 - 106 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 85 Queen Street North Period: 1961-62 Field Team Initials: MD/LB Description: Kitchener Public Library Date: March 5, 2014 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city N or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 107 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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 2 - 108 Statement of Significance 29 Shanley Street IP f�1 PIR 33 29 27 Municipal Address: 29 Shanley Street Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 405 Year Built: c. 1880 Architectural Style: Georgian with Italianate influences Original Owner: Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 29 Shanley Street is a one-and-a-half storey late 19th century wood clapboard house built in the Georgian architectural style with later Italianate influences. The house is situated on a 0.15 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Shanley Street between Andrew Street and Braun 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 house. 2 - 109 Heritage Value 29 Shanley Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Georgian architectural style with later Italianate influences. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: irregular plan; symmetrical fagade; wood clapboard siding; 1/1 double hung windows with pedimented wood architrave; gently pitched roof, return eaves, scrolled brackets and wood fascia board; and, wood panel door with wood pedimented architrave. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Shanley Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 29 Shanley Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Georgian architectural style with later Italianate influences, including: • One-and-a-half storey height of the house; • irregular plan; • symmetrical fagade; • wood clapboard siding; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 1/1 double hung windows with pedimented wood architrave; • gently pitched roof, return eaves, scrolled brackets and wood fascia board; and, • doors and door openings, including: o wood panel door with wood pedimented architrave. ■ 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 Shanley Street streetscape. 2 - 110 Photos r / V J/ I l � I, I , l 29 Shanley Street / ah �D 1J11 N"Al y } ,u rid; i )r 1 29 Shanley Street 2 - 111 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 29 Shanley Street Period: c. 1880 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: July 31, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: construction material—clapboard is a rare example 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 112 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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 2 - 113 Statement of Significance 57-61 Stirling Avenue North 227 lJ 432— �..,yf d„ Fry r ,,M1 �/��/ // / � ..:•.. 71 5 2 41 s r J fN / 0 0 A� s l"�" ! � ?'3 4 i a Municipal Address: 57-61 Stirling Avenue North Legal Description: Plan 77 Part Lots 59-62 58R-7728 Part 1 Year Built: 1925, additions in 1952 and 1991 Architectural Style: Neo-Gothic Original Owner: Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good 2 - 114 Description of Historic Place 57-61 Stirling Avenue North is a church built in the Neo-Gothic architectural style. The church is situated on a 0.41 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Stirling Avenue North between King Street East and Weber Street East 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 church. Heritage Value 57-61 Stirling Avenue North is recognized for its design, contextual, historical and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the church. The church is a notable example of the Neo-Gothic architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church is one storey in height and features: asymmetrical design; front and side gables with shaped parapets; multi colour brick; pointed-arch windows with stone drip-molds; pointed-arch front door with drip-mold; and, stone details such as door surrounds, window surrounds, lintels and date stones. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the church makes to the continuity and character of the Stirling Avenue North streetscape. The historic and associative values relate to the Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. During 1924 friction within the First Mennonite Church resulted in the exclusion of members from services (Mennonite Archives of Ontario, 1999-2012). Those excluded chose to form an independent Mennonite congregation under the direction of Urias Weber (Mennonite Archives of Ontario, 1999-2012). Construction of a new church building began on November 1, 1924 with excavation by horse drawn equipment using fill from Kitchener's new City Hall built in the same year (Harder, 2003). The church was located on a hill overlooking First Mennonite Church and completed in 1925 (Mennonite Archives of Ontario, 1999-2012). The church is one group that supports higher education and Conrad Grebel College (Waterloo Historical Society, 1967). The 1952 addition was designed by W.H.E. Schmalz and built by Dunker Construction (KW Record, 1952; Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church, 1997). The stones used in the renovation and addition came from Superior Stone whose joint owners, Elven Shantz and Alson Weber, were members of the church (Millar, A. & D. Millar, 1993). The 1992 addition was designed by R.J. Dyck (Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church, 1992). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 57-61 Stirling Avenue North resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Neo-Gothic architectural style of the house, including: • one-storey height of the church; • asymmetrical design; • front and side gables with shaped parapets; • multi colour brick; • windows and window openings, including: ■ pointed-arch windows with stone drip-molds; • doors and door openings, including: ■ pointed-arch front door with drip-mold; and, 2 - 115 o stone details such as door surrounds, window surrounds, lintels and date stones. References Bauman, S. (1963). First Mennonite Church 1813-1963. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 51 — 1963: Kitchener, Ontario. Millar, A. & D. Millar. (1993). Of such is the kingdom: a pictorial history of Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. Kitchener, Ontario. Harder, L. (2003). Risk and Endurance: a history of Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1952, October 20). Present Keys for Addition to Church. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1974, September 28). Present will vary for Stirling's 50th. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1992, June 13). Kitchener congregation pulls together." KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Mennonite Archives of Ontario. (1999-2012). Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. Retrieved from htt s://uwaterloo.ca/mennonite-archives-ontario/congregations/stirling-avenue® mennonite®church on January 24, 2014. Shantz, E. (1967). Mennonite Groups in Waterloo County and Adjacent Area. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 55— 1967: Kitchener, Ontario. Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. (1992). Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church Dedication Service. Kitchener, Ontario. Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. (1997). Stirling Quarterly, January 1997. Kitchener, Ontario. Waterloo Historical Society. (1967). Mennonite Groups in Waterloo County and Adjacent Area. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 55: Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 116 Photos it �q Y w f V 4 rrrirr� 0 sm /i ix r,%/iii/l/ ;,;.,,,,/i/ ',>„ % %%/ % ;i% e 57-61 Stirling Avenue North a 4r '�' a �trr r /RI ➢,� r rirJ/� r' ���" �i' i' �' iYM � � r ��,. '�*C2 �, v M�� � i r"'''�dnlii�%�f�l9✓I/i�j�r���f t/��, �"'�q ^ f � i tll tl 2 - 117 57-61 Stirling Avenue North a � I�III����IIIIIII II J I i I , I Ir IIN I , I I I I i 14, I P i 1 t 57-61 Stirling Avenue North „`rc�Nwlti rMi�tr w'. „mwwwr ouomiomm vr� uuom ararf« i �� ,onmvluYMr nmuwwwwiwwawwilm�e�,vbrwlllollol,�(iiu�uwa�u�ii r�wa mum PwM1 lwlw�,ulvrovuwuww lNw,rcnm�uu 5',wmn �uoom�t u�l �, vv ru°i�il�N mow� rxliin<ilti�ynrr�f 1 I i�� :1� it �"�N f,�, x'k P .�: 1�1W° nuw�rl�wwliluulwwuwuwr;wmuuwmsw� ,iuww �N�uui �nmwttw,w �/ °'PIP uWli wtaaww?ti"�� �u Iwlill �. � �r o�m.�rya. muuwr m u 111 �1 � � wm r 1 � uumw IWVua i loom „uwU e m �' � r,�w,ai lrt IN u �,IVn!amir'>~i mso ioNw. t, myv rli � °��Vi °wl� Iwl (w�au ,v r�rc�NU�a�rmreuiini 1 r�rtvvo ii/ SINIONIN IIPI01+ II md0l I1 � TW�wwM11YP r�14iW 111 i1�II� 1 w'w„u� unrIMMV vw y � n� �'7 luv1 ww lGvdolrwo IN yrcm 111 mNmwUwmAm' ,�- i IYtt w M' ,, frG, lr;�✓,r %% , 2 - 118 57-61 Stirling Avenue North 1� r i o � r, t i V u 9i � 1 lM�, f 57-61 Stirling Avenue North 2 - 119 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 57-61 Stirling Avenue North Period: 1924 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church Date: June 13, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: extensive use of cast stone detailing around the openings; 1925 date stone; 1952 date stone—small side additions, rear addition; 1991 date stone—left addition 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 - 120 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: church is well integrated with the surrounding residential neighbourhood; set amongst residences (internal to block); same setbacks as residences 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: additions have been sympathetic/appropriate/respectful 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: relationship with Mennonite community/Mennonite influence on Kitchener's history 2 - 121 Statement of Significance 25 Strange Street ,i 9 1 ✓ � F 1 ' +• 25 ^ // I"✓p., 702 ^ 704 1 h " r 70 707 gp' Municipal Address: 25 Strange Street Legal Description: Plan 375 Part Lot 270 Part Lot 329 Part Lot 494 Year Built: 1922 Architectural Style: Art Deco Original Owner: Original Use: Public Utilities Building (Waterworks) Condition: Good 2 - 122 Description of Historic Place 25 Strange Street is a one storey early-20th century brick water pumping station built in the Art Deco architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.46 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Strange Street between Cherry Street and Herlan Avenue in the Cherry Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the pumping station and steel reservoir. Heritage Value 25 Strange Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historical and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the pumping station building. The building is a rare example of an early pumping station built in the Art Deco architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is one storey in height and features: rectangular plan; flat roof with decorative brick cornice; red brick; door opening with concrete surround; window openings with concrete keystones and sills; building signage that reads "Waterworks"; datestone that reads "1922"; and, concrete foundation. The Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Water Commissioners of the City of Kitchener describe the building as follows: "The Pump House, 62 ft. x 34 ft., is of solid brick construction on concrete foundations. A small basement in the north corner of the building, with an underground coal bin, was constructed of super-cement concrete to house a pipeless furnace with which the building is heated. The walls are 15 inches thick, three brick deep with an air space. The outside is faced with red pressed brick, trimmed with a base, window sills and keystones, and coping of white limestone. The inside is faced with buff pressed brick with wainscoting of green, glazed brick. The windows, all metal sash, are trimmed with outside brick. The floor and roof are of reinforced concrete. To prevent sweating a wooden roof, leaving air space, was laid on top of the concrete slab, before a slack roofing was applied."(City of Kitchener, 1922, pg. 9-10). The contextual value relates to the proximity of an artesian water source and the ability for the water from various wells to flow by gravity to the pump house (City of Kitchener, 1922). The historic and associative values relate to the public waterworks commission and the construction company. The first commission was overseen by prominent citizens including John C. Breithaupt, John S. Anthes, P.S. Lautensch larger, Herbert J. Bowman and Mayor John R. Eden (Noonan, 1975). The Strange Street property was the second pumping station and reservoir (Region of Waterloo, 2013). Increasing water demands lead to a search for a new water supply and the digging of the first well on Strange Street in 1911 (Region of Waterloo, 2013). Over the next 10 years, a number of test wells and pump houses were built with the current building being constructed in 1922 (Region of Waterloo, 2013). Upon construction, 9 wells had been dug providing a total of 3,000,000 gallons of water per day (City of Kitchener, 1922). Horton Steel Works built the original circular steel reservoir with a capacity of 1,000,000 gallons for use during hydro outages or drought (City of Kitchener, 1922). The reservoir was replaced in 1989 (Region of Waterloo, 2013). The pump house and well were constructed by the Dunker Brothers (City of Kitchener, 1922). Dunker Construction was founded in 1887 (KW Record, 1974). In 1974 the KW Record commented that Dunker Construction was the oldest continually operating construction company in Kitchener-Waterloo (KW Record, 1974). Dunker 2 - 123 Construction was associated with the construction of many local buildings such as the KW Granite Club (1927); renovations and additions to Courtland Avenue Public School (1928); alterations to the Waterloo County Gaol (1931); and, the Registry Theatre (1938/39). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 25 Strange Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Art Deco architectural style of the house, including: • rectangular plan; • flat roof with decorative brick cornice; • red brick; • door opening with concrete surround; • window openings with concrete keystones and sills; • building signage that reads "Waterworks"; • datestone that reads 1922"; and, • concrete foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • proximity of an artesian water source; and, • the ability for the water from various wells to flow by gravity to the pump house. References City of Kitchener. (1922). Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Water Commissioners of the City of Kitchener. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1974, July 11). Dunker Construction to End Operations. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Noonan, G. (1975). A History of Kitchener. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Region of Waterloo. (2013). Regional Municipality of Waterloo Strange Street Pumping Station. Retrieved from http://row.minisisinc.com/page/detail/PUP AUTHORITY/318 on November 25, 2013. 2 - 124 Photos a uo ir Q 25 Strange Street jj a , rg SON, i ,m � M �P 1 25 Strange Street 2 - 125 25 Strange Street f x k r 25 Strange Street 2 - 126 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 25 Strange Street Period: 1922 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Waterworks (building and tank) Date: July 17, 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 ❑ ❑ 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: brickwork, keystones, "waterworks" lettering, decorative brick band below roofline, newer or replacement cornice?, example of technology?, is the tank notable/rare/unique? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 2 - 127 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team:why was it located here?, relationship to topography,water sources, etc. (e.g. creek) 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: association with growth/history of city, development of infrastructure and utilities, new technology, etc. 2 - 128 Statement of Significance 85 Strange Street r; �� � r //, ii/ p �y' 7 9 oil 'prlly' Municipal Address: 85 Strange Street Legal Description: Plan 375 Lot 1 Part Lot 493 Year Built: 1937 (church), 1948 (rectory) Architectural Style: Neo-Gothic Original Owner: St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 85 Strange Street consists of two buildings, which were once individual buildings but are now connected: the 1937 Church and the 1948 Rectory. Both buildings were built in the 20th century in the Neo-Gothic architectural style. The buildings are situated on a 0.88 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Strange Street between Dominion Street and Waverly Road 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 church and rectory buildings. Heritage Value 85 Strange Street is recognized for its design, physical, historical and associative values. 2 - 129 The design and physical values relate to the Neo-Gothic architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The Church building features: a rectangular plan; red brick construction; one large gothic arch window per bay; buttressing between bays; wood front entrance door with concrete gothic arch door surround; large gothic arch stained glass window above front entrance door; two small octagonal steeples with bells flank the front fagade; and, decorative concrete details. The Rectory building features: a square plan; hip roof with dormers; red brick construction; front entrance concrete pediment with cross and inscription reading "St. John's Rectory"; wood paneled door with sidelights; and, hung windows with concrete surrounds. The historic and associative values relate to the buildings associations with the St. John's Catholic Church congregation. St. John's Catholic Church was the fourth Catholic Church in Berlin (now Kitchener) and was built to serve 200 families in the West Ward. The Rev. W.S. Gleason of Guelph was chosen to form the new parish, and make the necessary preparations for building a church and parish hall. The cornerstone of St. John's Church was laid on August 15, 1937, by the Rev. W. Beninger, C.R.. The architect for the church was B.A. Jones and the builder was Ball Brothers (City of Kitchener, 1937). The rectory was also designed by B.A. Jones in 1946 and constructed by Ball Brothers Ltd. (City of Kitchener, 1946). B.A. Jones attended the Toronto Technical School and worked as a draftsman for Frank Darling, in the office of Darling and Pearson, between 1908 and 1922 (Hill, 2009). B.A. Jones moved to Kitchener in 1922 and worked with W.H.E. Schmalz until opening his own office in 1926 (Hill, 2009). During that time B.A. Jones assisted W.H.E. Schmalz design the 1922-23 Kitchener City Hall. B.A. Jones is also responsible for the design of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1927 KW Granite Club, the 1932 Public Utilities Building and the 1936-37 Church of the Good Shepherd (Hill, 2009). Ball Brothers General Contractors was founded by Harold and Frank Ball in 1923 (Ball Construction, 2014). The company was incorporated as Ball Brothers Limited in 1930 (Ball Construction, 2014). After World War II, Frank's son, Bill, and Harold's sons Jack, Jim and Thom joined the business (Ball Construction, 2014). The company is now known as Ball Construction and represented by the third generation of Ball owners (Ball Construction, 2014). The contextual value relates to the contribution that the church and rectory make to the continuity and character of the Strange Street and Waverly Road streetscapes. The setting of the church is noteworthy on the crest of a hill at the intersection of two streets. The church and rectory are physically, historically, functionally and visually linked to the adjacent St. John's Catholic School. The church and rectory are important neighbourhood landmarks completed by pathways that connect the church, rectory and school. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 85 Strange Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Neo-Gothic architectural style of the Church building, including: • a rectangular plan; • red brick construction; • roof and roofline; • windows and window openings, including: • one large gothic arch window per bay; • large gothic arch stained glass window above front entrance door; • buttressing between bays; 2 - 130 • doors and door openings, including: ■ wood front entrance door with concrete gothic arch door surround; • two small octagonal steeples with bells flank the front fagade; and, • decorative concrete details. • All elements related to the construction and Neo-Gothic architectural style of the Rectory building, including: • a square plan; • roof and roofline, including: ■ hip roof with dormers; • red brick construction; • front entrance concrete pediment with cross and inscription reading "St. John's Rectory"; • doors and door openings, including: ■ wood paneled door with sidelights; and, • windows and window openings, including: ■ hung windows with concrete surrounds. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of buildings and contribution that the church and rectory make to the continuity and character of the Strange Street and Waverly Road streetscapes. References Ball Construction. (2014). History. Standing the test of time. Retrieved from http://www.b licon.com/index.php/about-us/history/ on February 3, 2014. City of Kitchener. (1937). Building Permit#311 (85 Strange Street). City of Kitchener: Kitchener, Ontario. City of Kitchener. (1946). Building Permit # 5626 (85 Strange Street). City of Kitchener: Kitchener, Ontario. Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada orb/architects/view/173 on October 4, 2013. 2 - 131 Photos / r i I r r r �� i i ti,,duo, 85 Strange Street 85 Strange Street 2 - 132 i of }v 85 Strange Street 85 Strange Street 2 - 133 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 85 Strange Street Period: 1937 Field Team Initials: YWC/MW Description: St John's Catholic Church and Residence Date: September 2009 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 Sub-Committee: house with pediment, carvings and stone details; church with simple buttressing and neo-gothic influences 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 - 134 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: continuity—relationship between church, house (rectory)and school; located on a crest of a hill; link to school; neighbourhood landmark; outbuildings and landscaping—church is now connected to rectory and pathways are connected to church, rectory and school 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N N Notes Sub-Committee:well maintained 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 2 - 135 Statement of Significance 97 Victoria Street North I NO I lm spa Municipal Address: 97 Victoria St N Legal Description: Plan 374 Year Built: c. 1927 Architectural Style: Industrial Vernacular Original Owner: Mitchell Button Company Original Use: Industrial Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 97 Victoria Street North is a two storey early-20th century brick building constructed in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.24 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Victoria Street North between Duke Street West and Weber Street West in the City Commercial Core 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. Heritage Value 97 Victoria Street North is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The house is a unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: flat roof with shaped parapet on the front fagade; 3 by 9 bays; red, yellow and beige brick; shallow buttressing between the windows; original window 2 - 136 openings with brick headers and concrete sills; and, groups of three 6/6 windows on the front fagade with brick headers and concrete sills. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the warehouse district. The building is historically linked to its surroundings within the warehouse district. The historic and associative value relate to the original owner, original use and present owner. Walter Mitchell began manufacturing ivory buttons in 1914 (Moyer, 1979). W.E. Mitchell, Walter's son, took over the company in 1915 (Moyer, 1979). The company was known as the Mitchell Button Company. Dwindling supplies and foreign competition shifted the business from ivory to plastic under the direction of Lloyd G.E. Mitchell in 1945 (Moyer, 1979). The company started on Frederick Street in 1915, moved to Gaukel Street for a short period and then to the Victoria Street site around 1921 for 50 years (KW Record, 1958; KW Record, 1970). The company name changed to Mitchell Plastics. Marshall Ariss joined the company in 1955 and lead the change from plastic buttons to plastic components for industries including IBM, Otis Elevator, International Harvester, Greb and Leigh (Moyer, 1979). Ariss is associated with the early plastics industry and has been honoured with membership in the Plastic Pioneers Club of Canada (Moyer, 1979). The existing use of the building is for The Working Centre's Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares store and St. John's Kitchen. According to The Working Centre's website: "The Working Centre was established in the spring of 1982 as a response to unemployment and poverty in downtown Kitchener. The Centre grew roots in the Kitchener downtown through the dedication of Joe and Stephanie Mancini, a young married couple who had just graduated from St. Jerome's College at the University of Waterloo. They saw the potential for building a community of interest around responding to unemployment and poverty, developing social analysis and engaging in creative action." Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 97 Victoria Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: • two storey height; • flat roof with shaped parapet on the front fagade; • 3 by 9 bays; • red, yellow and beige brick; • shallow buttressing between the windows; • original window openings with brick headers and concrete sills; and, • groups of three 6/6 windows on the front fagade with brick headers and concrete sills. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the warehouse district; and, • The link to the surrounding warehouse district. 2 - 137 References Kolaritsch, D., & J. Campbell. (1984/85). 97 Victoria Street North - Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. LACAC: Kitchener, ON. The Working Centre. (2014). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.theworkingcentre.org/about® us/82 on February 3, 2014. Photos �f j4 w� „D i 97 Victoria Street North 2 - 138 i � r t r� �➢o� rr, U 97 Victoria Street North � v 97 Victoria Street North 2 - 139 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 97 Victoria Street North Period: Field Team Initials: GZ/ER Description: Date: August 29, 2012 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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood N? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 140 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Sub-Committee:warehouse district 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 Sub-Committee:original use and working centre 2 - 141 Statement of Significance 82 Weber Street East µp rII n YI1 82 eti "aw Municipal Address: 82 Weber St E Legal Description: Plan 175 Part Lot 2 Plan 364 Part Lot 4 & 28 Plan 406 Part Lot 15 & 16 Year Built: 1972 Architectural Style: Modern Original Owner: Horton & Ball Original Use: Offices Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 82 Weber Street East is a two storey modern building constructed in 1972. The building is situated on a 0.57 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Weber Street East between Scott Street and Lancaster Street East in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the building. 2 - 142 Heritage Value 82 Weber Street East is recognized for its design, physical and associative 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: "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). "Designed for an architectural firm and a group of lawyers, this is an uncomplicated building with a traditional relationship to the street. The expression of the exterior is noteworthy, with walls of cast-in-place concrete using forms of rough sawn hemlock boards. The resulting textured surfaces are complemented by the wooden sun screen shielding the south-facing window on Weber Street. This project displays the contemporary interest in the use of textures from natural materials to give character to concrete which originates from Le Corbusiers's experiments in beton-brut(concrete in the raw) in the late 1940s."(Mannell, 1997, p. 27). The associative value relates to the architect and contractor. The architect for the building was Horton & Ball who also designed the 1966 Waterloo Public Library and the 1969 Stanley Park Mall. James David Ball formed Horton & Ball in 1959 with Tony Horton a former classmate from St. Jerome's High School. The contractor was Oscar Wiles and Sons Ltd (City of Kitchener, 1972). Oscar Wiles founded Oscar Wiles General Contractor in 1927, which later became Oscar Wiles and Sons Ltd. (KW Record, 1982). The company's first job was the former KW Record building at Duke Street and Queen Street (KW Record, 1982). Oscar's five sons: Arthur, Donald, Peter, Bill and Richard assisted with the family business, which built houses, churches, schools and factories. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 82 Weber Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Modern architectural style of the building, including: • Two-storey height; • Brick walls; • Cast-in-place concrete walls and decorative details; 2 - 143 • Rough sawn hemlock boards; • Wooden sun screen; • Windows and window openings; and, • Doors and door openings. References City of Kitchener. (1972). Building Permit #0540 — 82 Weber Street East. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1982, July 3). Workers at $900 weekly force developer to quit. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Mannell, Steven (Ed.). (1997). Images of Progress 1946-1996 Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region. The Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery: Kitchener, Ontario. Photos 87 WEUR J w riui /� ff'u'"x,,,,,, ,,, ,,,d M1 H/ d EdG ��,'k' §A°,I�Y�(ff�r✓�df�N. 1� mw, 82 Weber Street East 2 - 144 Wu+y111�1111��r`g � ............... N r { INS lift i ( � ,J � / y" ry , P ✓//f l ✓T r�i[� iii, P,/✓ / iwr, ee �r r i 82 Weber Street East ; 1 82 Weber Street East 2 - 145 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 82 Weber Street East Period: 1972 Field Team Initials: MD/CM Description: EIWO Date: June 11, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: concrete; brick; pebbles; hemlock 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 146 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: similar massing and setback to adjacent properties 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 2 - 147 Statement of Significance 257 Weber Street East ,w...,....... ...... .,.".....w�.v„w^^*«dw„w„ 03 y, f i,f Municipal Address: 257 Weber Street East Legal Description: Plan 339 Part Lot 15 and 16 Year Built: 1939 Architectural Style: Colonial Revival Original Owner: L.A. Dunbar Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 257 Weber Street East is a one-and-a-half storey mid-20th century house built in the Colonial Revival architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.13 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Weber Street East between Simeon Street and Borden Avenue 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 257 Weber Street East is recognized for its design, contextual and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Colonial Revival architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half 2 - 148 storeys in height and features: steeply pitched gambrel roof with flared eaves and gable dormers; full-width porch under main roof line; asbestos shingle siding; 6/6 windows; and, front entrance door with elliptical fanlight and sidelights. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Weber Street East streetscape. The setting is noteworthy as the house is located on the bend of the road adjacent to a park and cemetery. The setting is completed by the presence of a retaining wall that extends along the frontage of the property past the park to the cemetery. The associative values relate to the architect and builder. The building was designed by prominent local architect A. Carl Rieder and built by E. Loebsack in 1939 (City of Kitchener, 1939). The 1947 rear addition was designed by the architectural firm of Barnet & Rieder and also built by E. Loebsack (City of Kitchener, 1947). Carl was born in 1913 and attended the University of Toronto where he obtained a Bachelor of Architecture (Region of Waterloo, 2013). He served in the RCAF before forming Barnett and Rieder, later Rieder, Hymmen and Lobban (Region of Waterloo, 2013). One of his best accomplishments was the Centre in the Square (KW Record, 1996). His firm was also responsible for many other local buildings such as the Waterloo Region Administration Building; Kitchener Police building; Highland Baptist Church; the Kitchener Public Library on Queen Street; Cameron Heights Collegiate Institute; and, the Benton Street Baptist Church. Carl served on the board of the Kitchener Horticultural Society; contributed to the development of the KW Art Gallery and was one of the founding members of the Waterloo County Hall of Fame, including the design of the hall at Doon Heritage Crossroads (KW Record, 1996; Region of Waterloo, 2013). Ervin Loebsack was a local builder who started Ervin Loebsack Construction in 1929 (KW Record, 1985). Ervin built houses including Carl Rieder's house as well as small factories and churches (KW Record, 1982). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 257 Weber Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Colonial Revival architectural style of the house, including: • steeply pitched gambrel roof with flared eaves and gable dormers; • full-width porch under main roof line; • asbestos shingle siding; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 6/6 windows; and, • front entrance door with elliptical fanlight and sidelights. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Weber Street East streetscape; • Setting; and, • Retaining wall that extends along the frontage of the property past the park to the cemetery. References KW Record. (1982, December 2). Grampa keeps family in furniture. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 149 KW Record. (1985, August 17). Veteran home builder, Ernie Loebsack dead. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1996, October 26). Kitchener's premiere architectural firm celebrates 50th anniversary. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Region of Waterloo. (2013). Inductees. Retrieved from http://www.waterlooregio museum.com/region-hal-of-fame/inductees---p-to-r.aspx on February 3, 2014. Photos AV r'r r ����/m ��I�lllllllllUf6, u6uiwlrr. NGuilY�i (i ry v. I r a l I i 257 Weber Street East 2 - 150 ll , 257 Weber Street East , a h � I �,,,,r,�1✓�Iiao��ill'�Ilpii 1 P J ryN Urv�n� nrr/r rnln/ � ori�2 /ii '/ ri r�Vi vmyWr�nrtnrm+�rd rnJ�l�J P I I ,,,., �Nw �u ,vunwamV,aww�wiu�aomow�ww�Qttam'v�rl� ! 257 Weber Street East 2 - 151 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 257 Weber Street East Period: 1939 Field Team Initials: CM/MD/LB Description: Date: July 4, 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: first commission by Carl Rieder(Rieder, Hymmen and Lobban Architects); notable, rare and unique Colonial Revival 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? 2 - 152 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N that complete the site? Notes Field Team: setting next to park/cemetery on corner Sub-Committee: retaining wall 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: see notes under design/physical 2 - 153 Statement of Significance 126 Weber Street West ,i!/ ///f// /// /iii U/ iµ„W, V�•""w ro Y, NPI �, � .� rl� i/'" ��%✓ �� �,w. �iii✓ / �,W //°., , f/ Municipal Address: 126 Weber Street West Legal Description: Right of Way, Westerly between Ahrens and Weber Street West Year Built: 1897 Architectural Style: Richardsonian Romanesque Original Owner: Grand Trunk Railway Original Use: Train Station Condition: Good Existing Protection: Designated under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act The Heritage Resources Centre prepared a statement of significance in order to list the property on the Canadian Register of Historic Places in 2006. The full statement of significance is provided below. 2 - 154 "Description of Historic Place The Former Canadian National Railways (CNR) (VIA Rail) Station at Kitchener is a one-storey, brick-clad railway station, built in 1897. It is located on a narrow strip of land on the periphery of the commercial centre of Kitchener. The formal recognition is confined to the railway station building itself. Heritage Value The Former CNR (VIA Rail) Station at Kitchener reflects the turn-of-the-century prosperity and confidence of both the Grand Trunk Railway and the town of Berlin (now Kitchener-Waterloo). The station was constructed to accommodate the increased volume of goods manufactured in Berlin which required rail transport. The Kitchener station's simple, horizontal form is a result of 20th century alterations to its original structure following a 1908 fire and 1960s changes in use. Original features include the brick-and-stone masonry and the configuration of openings. The station retains remnants of the station garden. It is surrounded by factory buildings evocative of the station's original context and purpose. Sources: Heritage Character Statement, Former CNR/now VIA Rail Station, Kitchener, Ontario, May 1993; Heritage Research Associates, Railway Station Report 146, Former Canadian National Railways Station/now VIA Rail, Kitchener, Ontario. Character-Defining Elements Character-defining elements of Former CNR (VIA Rail) Station at Kitchener include: - its long, low massing and rectangular plan - the strong horizontal emphasis created by: the long expanse of gable hip roof; the deep, overhanging eaves supported on decorative brackets; the projecting brick string course at the level of window and door transoms; and the prominent limestone wainscoting extending to window-sill height - the irregular rhythm of round-arched openings of varying widths but similar heights - the brick string course, breaking to form stepped arches over openings - the projecting telegrapher's bay on the track(north) side - the curved bay on the town (south) side - the open porte-cochere at the west end - its high-quality brick-and-stone masonry, consisting of buff brick with limestone accents - its fine masonry detailing, including: a rough-faced, limestone base; ornate, brick, string coursing; corbelled arches; and an ornate chimney stack - surviving interior finishes and detailing from the early 19th century, including: beaded, wood, tongue-and-groove walls and ceilings; fluted window surrounds; and bull's-eye corner blocks"(Parks Canada, 2013). References Parks Canada. (2013). Canadian Register of Historic Places: Former Canadian National Railways (VIA Rail) Station. Retrieved from http://y�r�nry�r.hiltoric�laces.ca/en/red-red/dace® lieu.aspx?id=4571&raid®0 on December 3, 2013. 2 - 155 Photos r ON` 126 Weber Street West / . r lrrrrrriii%ii%� . 1 � r 126 Weber Street West � z �k o� r, 1 ^,h �n y i ! 126 Weber Street West 2 - 156 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 126 Weber Street West Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: VIA Rail Station Date: July 31, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: beaded tongue and groove walls 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 2 - 157 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: reference to station garden 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 2 - 158 Statement of Significance 136 Weber Street West OF- M „ 4 R � � Municipal Address: 136 Weber Street West Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 157 & 158 Year Built: 1890 Architectural Style: Edwardian Original Owner: Charles H. Doerr Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 136 Weber Street West is a two storey late 19th century brick house built in the Edwardian architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.14 acre parcel of land located on the north east corner of Weber Street West and Breithaupt 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 house. Heritage Value 136 Weber Street West is recognized for its contextual, historic and associate values. 2 - 159 The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Weber Street West streetscape. The setting is historically linked with the original home of C.H. Doerr Co. Ltd., the grocery store that preceded Dare Foods (Stantec, 2011). The historic and associative values relate to the original owner, Dare Foods and Dunker Construction. The original owner was Charles Doerr who built the house along with a store and stable in 1889 (Berliner Journal, 1889). The house was the childhood home of Carl Dare. Charles was the founder of the Dare Foods Company, which started in 1892 (Moyer, 1979). A new plant was opened in 1919 at the corner of Weber and Breithaupt (Moyer, 1979). Mrs. L.S. Doerr hired Dunker Construction Limited to convert the house into four apartments in 1942 (City of Kitchener, 1942). The conversion was needed to house factory workers in response to industrial growth near the train station (Stantec, 2011). The building remained in the Doerr family from 1889 to 1955. Dunker Construction was founded by Henry Dunker in 1887. William Dunker along with his brother Albert Dunker took over the company after WWI (KW Record, 1974). In 1974 the KW Record commented that Dunker Construction was the oldest continually operating construction company in Kitchener-Waterloo (KW Record, 1974). Dunker Construction was associated with the construction of many local buildings such as the KW Granite Club (1927); renovations and additions to Courtland Avenue Public School (1928); alterations to the Waterloo County Gaol (1931); and, the Registry Theatre (1938/39). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 136 Weber Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ 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 Weber Street West streetscape. References Berliner Journal. (1889). Berlin's Growth 184 New Buildings with a value of$263,350. Kitchener, Ontario. City of Kitchener. (1942). Building Permit#3045 (136 Weber Street West). Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1974, July 11). Dunker Construction to End Operations. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Moyer, B. (1979). Kitchener Yesterday Revisited: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd: Kitchener, Ontario. Stantec. (2011). Draft Report Heritage Impact Assessment Weber Street Widening Kitchener Ontario. Stantec: Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 160 Photos { � ✓a I re I � 136 Weber Street West I .. 1 / JJ II i 136 Weber Street West 2 - 161 136 Weber Street West 2 - 162 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 136 Weber Street West Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: August 6, 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: though front entrance has some detail,overall, this building is not particularly attractive or unique 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2 - 163 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes 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: original use as estate of Doerr(Dare)family is significant, as is its conversion to multiple units reportedly(in Weber Street EA reports)to accommodate area factory workers; significance as a boyhood home of Doerr and located next to the former Doerr grocery store, the beginning of the Dare Foods dynasty 2 - 164