Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-13-110 - Listing of Non-Designated Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the MHR and Refinements to the 4 Step Listing Process Staff Report I r Community Services Department wvwuukitchenerra REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: December 3, 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: 2, 9 & 10 DATE OF REPORT: November 18, 2013 REPORT NO.: CSD-13-110 SUBJECT: LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER AND REFINEMENTS TO THE 4-STEP LISTING PROCESS 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-13- 110: • 69 Agnes Street; • 8-16 Arthur Place; • 10 Bingeman Street; • 31-43 Cedar Street North; • 142 Church Street; • 40 College Street; • 46-56 College Street; • 63 Courtland Avenue East; • 107 Courtland Avenue East; • 160 Courtland Avenue East; • 283 Duke Street West; • 286 Duke Street West; • 400 East Avenue; • 33 Eby Street South; • 181 Frederick Street; • 67 King Street East; • 69 King Street East; • 3570 King Street East; • 914 King Street West; • 148 Madison Avenue South; • 13-15 Oak Street; • 86 Victoria Street South; and further, 1 - 1 That the 4-Step Listing Process, as previously outlined in Staff Report DTS-05-213 and DTS-09-160, be refined for the purposes of the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) project to use existing resource material, where available and if appropriate, in lieu of developing an updated, full Statement of Significance. 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 69 Agnes Street; 8-16 Arthur Place; 10 Bingeman Street; 31-43 Cedar Street North; 142 Church Street; 40 College Street; 46-56 College Street; 63 Courtland Avenue East; 107 Courtland Avenue East; 160 Courtland Avenue East; 283 Duke Street West; 286 Duke Street West; 400 East Avenue; 33 Eby Street South; 181 Frederick Street; 67 King Street East; 69 King Street East; 3570 King Street East; 914 King Street West; 148 Madison Avenue South; 13-15 Oak Street; and, 86 Victoria Street South 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 December 3, 2013 where the properties will be considered for listing as non- designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. A Statement of Significance for each is attached to this report as Appendix "A". 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 is considering Report CSD- 13-104 on December 2, 2013 which outlines the PARTS 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. 1 - 2 In order to align with the proposed timelines for the PARTS project, and to continue the significant progress on the Municipal Heritage Register project, Heritage staff propose one minor refinement to the existing 4-Step Listing Process so that the review can be completed on time with existing staff resources. The preparation of individual statements of significance accounts for the majority of staff resources and adds to the time. As a result, Heritage staff recommend that the 4-Step Listing Process be refined to permit the use of existing resource material, where available and if appropriate, in lieu of preparing individual statements of significance. Existing resources may include, but are not limited to: historic reports prepared by the Local Architectural Conservancy Advisory Committee; approved Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans; published architectural books; and, Provincial documents. Information based on existing resource material will be provided to the property owner as part of the engagement process. Where existing material is not available or determined to be very inadequate, individual statements of significance will continue to be prepared and provided to the property owner during the engagement 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 October 31, 2013. 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 December 3, 2013 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 inquiries from two property owners. The owner of 10 Bingeman Street requested clarification regarding the current status of the property and the difference between a listed 1 - 3 property and a designated property. The owner expressed concern that the proposed listed status may impact their ability to demolish the small attached garage at the rear of the building which is not structurally sound. In response to this concern, the attached garage is excluded from the statement of significance. Staff also reminded the owner that they may submit comments in writing and attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting. The owner of 914 King Street West asked questions about the listing process. Staff responded to all questions and reminded the owner that they may attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting. 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. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning Community Services Department Attachments: Appendix `A' — Statements of Significance 1 - 4 Stuff Report Community Services Department www1itchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: December 3, 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: 2, 9 & 10 DATE OF REPORT: November 18, 2013 REPORT NO.: CSD-13-110 SUBJECT: LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER AND REFINEMENTS TO THE 4-STEP LISTING PROCESS 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-13- 110: • 69 Agnes Street; • 8-16 Arthur Place; • 10 Bingeman Street; • 31-43 Cedar Street North; • 142 Church Street; • 40 College Street; • 46-56 College Street; • 63 Courtland Avenue East; • 107 Courtland Avenue East; • 160 Courtland Avenue East; • 283 Duke Street West; • 286 Duke Street West; • 400 East Avenue; • 33 Eby Street South; • 181 Frederick Street; • 67 King Street East; • 69 King Street East; • 3570 King Street East; • 914 King Street West; • 148 Madison Avenue South; • 13-15 Oak Street; • 86 Victoria Street South; and further, 1 - 5 That the 4-Step Listing Process, as previously outlined in Staff Report DTS-05-213 and DTS-09-160, be refined for the purposes of the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) project to use existing resource material, where available and if appropriate, in lieu of developing an updated, full Statement of Significance. 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 69 Agnes Street; 8-16 Arthur Place; 10 Bingeman Street; 31-43 Cedar Street North; 142 Church Street; 40 College Street; 46-56 College Street; 63 Courtland Avenue East; 107 Courtland Avenue East; 160 Courtland Avenue East; 283 Duke Street West; 286 Duke Street West; 400 East Avenue; 33 Eby Street South; 181 Frederick Street; 67 King Street East; 69 King Street East; 3570 King Street East; 914 King Street West; 148 Madison Avenue South; 13-15 Oak Street; and, 86 Victoria Street South 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 December 3, 2013 where the properties will be considered for listing as non- designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. A Statement of Significance for each is attached to this report as Appendix"A". 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 is considering Report CSD- 13-104 on December 2, 2013 which outlines the PARTS 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. 1 - 6 In order to align with the proposed timelines for the PARTS project, and to continue the significant progress on the Municipal Heritage Register project, Heritage staff propose one minor refinement to the existing 4-Step Listing Process so that the review can be completed on time with existing staff resources. The preparation of individual statements of significance accounts for the majority of staff resources and adds to the time. As a result, Heritage staff recommend that the 4-Step Listing Process be refined to permit the use of existing resource material, where available and if appropriate, in lieu of preparing individual statements of significance. Existing resources may include, but are not limited to: historic reports prepared by the Local Architectural Conservancy Advisory Committee; approved Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans; published architectural books; and, Provincial documents. Information based on existing resource material will be provided to the property owner as part of the engagement process. Where existing material is not available or determined to be very inadequate, individual statements of significance will continue to be prepared and provided to the property owner during the engagement 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 October 31, 2013. 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 December 3, 2013 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 inquiries from two property owners. The owner of 10 Bingeman Street requested clarification regarding the current status of the property and the difference between a listed 1 - 7 property and a designated property. The owner expressed concern that the proposed listed status may impact their ability to demolish the small attached garage at the rear of the building which is not structurally sound. In response to this concern, the attached garage is excluded from the statement of significance. Staff also reminded the owner that they may submit comments in writing and attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting. The owner of 914 King Street West asked questions about the listing process. Staff responded to all questions and reminded the owner that they may attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting. 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. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning Community Services Department Attachments: Appendix `A' —Statements of Significance 1 - 8 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 69 Agnes Street Municipal Address: 69 Agnes Street Legal Description: Plan 324 Lot 4 to 7 Part > f�IN Lot 1, 2, 3 & 8 Plan 377 Part Lot 489 oA Year Built: 1927/1955 < Architectural Style: Art Deco Original Owner: KW Granite Club Original Use: Curlingx 24 jj Condition: Goodj 1 y Description of Historic Place 69 Agnes Street is a two storey commercial building built in the Art Deco architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.15 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Agnes Street between Dominion Street and Park Street 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 commercial building. Heritage Value 69 Agnes Street is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a notable example of the Art Deco architectural style. The building is in good condition and features: a two storey building with an asymmetrical composition; red brick construction; central two storey tower and smaller tower near south end of front fagade; concrete banding below the parapet with concrete motifs; 4/4 and 1/1 windows arranged in groups of two, three, four, seven and eight with concrete sills; the north entrance features a one-storey glazed entranceway will terrazzo floor; and, the south entrance features an unclosed entranceway with roof. The associative and historic values relate to the original land owner, the sport of curling, the Granite Club, the architect of the original building, the contractor of the original building, the sport of badminton, the badminton club, and the architect of the major renovation after the fire in 1955. The sport of curling dates back to the 1880s in Kitchener when players used to play on a rink in the location of the present day Schreiters furniture building at the corner of Charles Street and Gaukel Street (Schmidt, 1977). In 1927 both Kitchener and Waterloo decided to amalgamate and build on Agnes Street and formed the Athletic Association of Kitchener- Waterloo (Schmidt, 1977). The Granite Club purchased the land from A.R. Kaufman of the Kaufman Rubber Co. for $2500 (Schmidt, 1977). The original structure and the additions between 1927 and 1952 were designed by club member Bernal A. Jones. B.A. Jones attended the Toronto Technical School and worked as a draftsman for Frank Darling, in the office of 1 - 9 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 1932 Public Utilities Building and the 1936-37 Church of the Good Shepherd (Hill, 2009). The original structure was built by the Dunker Brothers (William and Albert) later known as Dunker Construction Ltd. (Schmidt, 1977). The Dunker Brothers were a well-known and respected local building company that operated between 1887 and 1974 (Parks Canada, 2013). They were responsible for the construction of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1938-39 Registry Theatre and the 1928 additions and alterations to Courtland Avenue Public School (Parks Canada, 2013). The sport of badminton dates to the 1920s in Kitchener and the Granite Badminton Club officially opened on November 20, 1931 (Schmidt, 1977). Over the years the club struggled with funding and was known for renting space for other uses such as tire storage for the Dominion Rubber Co, skating and tennis (Schmidt, 1977). An addition for the Badminton Club was constructed in 1931 (Schmidt, 1977). Unfortunately, disaster hit the building on May 8, 1955 when a fire caused extensive damage to the building (Schmidt, 1977). The Athletic Association did not dwell on the fire but rather worked quickly to design, fund and build a new building. The new building was designed by the local architectural firm of Jenkins and Wright (KW Record, 1955). Jenkins and Wright were also responsible for the design of the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. The Granite Club moved out of the building in 2003. The Granite Badminton continues to operate out of the building. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 69 Agnes Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Art Deco architectural style of the building, including: • a two storey building with an asymmetrical composition; • red brick construction; • central two storey tower and smaller tower near south end of front fagade; • concrete banding below the parapet with concrete motifs; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 4/4 and 1/1 windows arranged in groups of two, three, four, seven and eight with concrete sills; • the north entrance features a one-storey glazed entranceway will terrazzo floor; and, • the south entrance features an unclosed entranceway with roof. References Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada orb/architects/view/173 on October 4, 2013. Parks Canada. (2013). Canada's Historic Places: Registry Theatre. Retrieved from htts�://www.historic�laces.ca/en/red-rep/dace-lieu.as�x?id®12427 on October 4, 2013. Schmidt, C. (1977). History of Kitchener-Waterloo Granite Club. Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 10 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos o 69 Agnes Street Zoo rv: l% fy ..owo it f 69 Agnes Street 1 - 11 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE i//DO///"! i iiii"" 4 N """""", 69 Agnes Street 1 - 12 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 69 Agnes Street Period: 1927/1955 Field Team Initials: LB/MD Description: former Granite Club Date: July 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: banding, motifs,windows, central tower, details at cornice line 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 1 - 13 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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: maintenance is required 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 1 - 14 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 86 Victoria Street South and 8, 10, 12, 14 & 16 Arthur Place Municipal Address: 86 Victoria Street South and 8, 10, 12, 14 & 16 Arthur Place Legal Description: Plan 420 r.: Lot 41 58R-96669 Part 1-3 14 hard 9 j � 3 Year Built: c. 1904 ,l ! % r! , Architectural Style: Berlin Vernacular . r Original Owner: Original Use: Row house Condition: Good 92-94 Description of Historic Place The building is a one-and-one-half storey mid-19th century brick row house built in the Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.24 acre parcel of land located on the north west corner of Arthur Place and Victoria Street South 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 row house. Heritage Value The row house is recognized for its design value. The design value relates to the architecture and type of building. The building is a rare example of a row house constructed in the Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The row house is in good condition. The row house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: front gable roof; yellow brick; flat headed windows with brick voussoirs; multiple chimneys; and, multiple porches fronting Arthur Place. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Arthur Place streetscape. It is likely that the row house was constructed to house workers of nearby factories such as the Interior Hardwood Company, the Lang Tannery and the W.E. Woelfle Shoe Company. Heritage Attributes The heritage value resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Berlin Vernacular architectural style of the row house, including: 1 - 15 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the row house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Arthur Place streetscape. Photos � r i" 86 Victoria Street South 1 - 16 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ;r 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 Arthur Place mailr� 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 Arthur Place 1 - 17 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 86 Victoria St S and 8, 10, 12, 14 & 16 Arthur PI Period: c. 1900 Field Team Initials: GZ Description: Rowhouses Date: August 31, 2011 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: basic design, brick building, 2 storey compact homes Sub-Committee: particularly rare in the number of units of rowhouses and design for its age 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 ❑? 1 - 18 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ that complete the site? Notes Field Team: appears to have been housing for the factories Sub-Committee: unique orientation to lane rather than street, relationship to nearby industrial 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 L _L Notes Field Team: these have lasted over the years despite other buildings being torn down Sub-Committee: no signs of sagging in the roof, recently cleaned 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: associations to hardware company should be investigated, association with industrial growth of the city, masonry connection to tannery building, need to investigate further 1 - 19 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 10 Bingeman Street / 140 Lancaster Street West Municipal Address: y 10 Bingeman Street/ 140 Lancaster Street West / Legal Description: Plan 103 Lot 3 f, Year Built: c. 1918 / nd 10 Architectural Style: Italianate filt Original Owner: Original Use: Residence Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 10 Bingeman Street / 140 Lancaster Street West is a two storey early-20th century brick house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.17 acre parcel of land located on the north east corner of Bingeman 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 house. Heritage Value 10 Bingeman Street / 140 Lancaster Street West 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 Italianate architectural style with complementary additions. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: two-storey height of the house; varied roofline, including gable roof, hip roof and shed roof; wood soffits, fascia and brackets; brick cladding; projecting bay with gable roofline; window openings and windows, including: segmentally arched window openings with voussoirs and flat headed window openings; door openings and doors; and, multiple rear additions (excluding the one-storey attached garage). The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Bingeman Street and Lancaster Street West streetscape. The setting is noteworthy as the house is located on an unusual sized lot with a prominent presence on the corner of Bingeman Street and Lancaster Street West. The setting is completed by the presence of a fence that wraps around the house and brings the focal point to both the house and street. 1 - 20 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 10 Bingeman Street / 140 Lancaster Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: • Two-storey height of the house; • Varied roofline, including gable roof, hip roof and shed roof; • Wood soffits, fascia and brackets; • Brick cladding; • Projecting bay with gable roofline; • Window openings and windows, including: • Segmentally arched window openings with voussoirs; • Flat headed window openings; • Door openings and doors; and, • Multiple rear additions (excluding the one-storey attached garage). ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Bingeman Street and Lancaster Street West streetscape; • Lot size; and, • Fence that wraps around the house. Photos �yµ �u r, ti, u v 10 Bingeman Street/ 140 Lancaster Street West 1 - 21 APPENDIX A STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE � ; : 10 B|ngeman Street/ 140 Lancaster Str e West - . Wiz§ . < y . 10 B|ngeman Street/ 140 Lancaster Str e West 1 - 22 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Y u- 0 "y 1. 10 Bingeman Street/ 140 Lancaster Street West 1 - 23 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 10 Bingeman St/ 140 Lancaster St W Period: c. 1918 Field Team Initials: ML/CM Description: Date: May 9, 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: many intact features,wooden soffits and fascia, property has a number of interesting additions of different ages 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 ❑? 1 - 24 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N that complete the site? Notes Field Team: unusual lot size, prominent location, owner may be linked to Suddaby and street name Sub-Committee: fence completes site and brings focal point to house and street 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 1 - 25 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East Municipal Address: r 31-43 Cedar Street North Legal Description: Plan 369 Part Lot 22 25 & 26 I , Year Built: c. 1925 r / / I Architectural Style: Vernacular �V ✓ f "° , Original Owner: Unknown s i 20 27 Original Use: Row House 27 2161 i 27 � Condition: f [7 / 27!' Description of Historic Place The building is a two storey early 20th century brick row house built in the Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.29 acre parcel of land located on the south east corner of Cedar Street North and Duke 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 row house. Heritage Value The building is recognized for its design and contextual values but also has potential associative value that requires further investigation. The design value relates to the architectural style and type of building. The building is a rare example of an early 20th century row house built in the Vernacular architectural style. The row house is two storeys in height and features: irregular plan with varied setbacks; flat roof with decorative cornice; parapet; red brick; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; and, stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Cedar Street North and Duke Street East streetscape. The setting is noteworthy as the building is placed close to the street creating an urban form. The building was likely constructed as workers housing linked to industries in the area. The building has potential associative value because it may be connected with the D.B. Betzner Berlin Woodenware Co. that was located on the opposite side of Cedar Street between King Street and Elgin Street (now Duke Street). According to an evaluation from from 1997, the row houses were called "Bitzner Terrace" but it is likely that the reference should have read "Betzner Terrace" given the proximity and age of the building and the D.B. Betzner Berlin Hardware Co. across the street. The company was later known as the Ontario Woodworking Company Limited. 1 - 26 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Attributes The heritage value of the row house resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Vernacular architectural style of the house, including: • irregular plan with varied setbacks; • flat roof with decorative cornice; • parapet; • red brick; • segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; and, • stone foundation. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the row house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Cedar Street North and Duke Street East streetscape. References Wagner, P. (1997). 43 Cedar Street North. Kitchener Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Building Evaluation Form —2.0. Photos �p ,II �' ,,,.„�^”°`-w,"'www »..✓"""w"i Y� P I„, �I r' nBr � Mr ,p d 0 i �i Ji /JrJ rr r 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East 1 - 27 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE j I II �ry / I i 101�7Yk�ilki�l%fl1nW, r � :c l Sri iir r�lUDIYV)l)j � ' � 9� 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East r I 4 J I u iy ll � u III � i ral i �r � � f 1/ ������ ���ly�'✓�/// ����0//Gi0/iii rain/a/rri a� f�lllWlfl�lllllllll�lllllllllllll�lllllll Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/// ������////%�//� ,�, �/////���j��%%/ r�)N�",y,,,�" � " ///� ku✓i11 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East 1 - 28 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE mm Y �I d I 1. I ,iMlWo^�. �+ I it i 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East 1 - 29 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 31-43 Cedar St N & 187-189 Duke St E Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Row House Date: June 14, 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: rare—row housing, composition with varied front fagade setbacks, segmentally arched window openings, decorative cornice with evidence of dentils, rough stone foundation 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 - 30 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team:was building built for an industry or other purpose? Sub-Committee: proximity of building to street is a very urban form 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 1 - 31 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 142 Church Street Municipal Address: 142 Church Street �f Legal Description: Plan 367 Part Lot 17 Year Built: c. 1855 Architectural Style: Victorian Cottage -it a � Original Owner: J.Y. Shantz ✓ � , Original Use: Rental Residence g Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 142 Church Street is a one storey mid-19th century brick house built in the Victorian Cottage architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.08 acre parcel of land located near the north east corner of Cedar Street South 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. Heritage Value 142 Church Street is recognized for its design, contextual, associative and historic values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Victorian Cottage architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one storey in height and features: hip roof; chimney; wood fascia, cornice, soffits, brackets and frieze; yellow brick laid in the American Bond style; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills; 1/1 windows; flat headed door opening with transom; front porch; and, rear addition. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Church Street streetscape. The house is visually and historically linked to the adjacent property (138 Church Street). The buildings feature the same architecture and thus present themselves as twin buildings. The associative and historic values relate to the original owner of the property Jacob Y. Shantz. He was a building contractor and button manufacturer (Noonan, 1975). Jacob built the house as a rental home and owned it between 1855 and 1880. He also built the adjacent house at 138 Church Street as well as the DeBus, Weaver and Canadian Block. He also constructed the first sidewalks in Berlin around 1854 on the central parts of King Street, Queen Street North, Weber Street, Frederic Street, Benton Street and Schneider's Road (Noonan, 1975). He was credited with the idea of the Farmer's Market, which he constructed in 1869 (Noonan, 1975) and was involved in the re-settlement of Mennonites to Manitoba who were escaping the Czar of Russia. He was also one of the first public school trustees and served for 35 years (Noonan, 1975). The 1 - 32 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE home was also owned by Henry Bornhold between 1880 and 1913. Henry built a block near the old post office and numerous homes in what was then the south ward (Noonan, 1975). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 142 Church Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Victorian Cottage architectural style of the house, including: • hip roof; • chimney; • wood fascia, cornice, soffits, brackets and frieze; • yellow brick laid in the American Bond style; • segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills; • 1/1 windows; • flat headed door opening with transom; • front porch; and, • rear addition. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Church Street streetscape; and, • Visual and historic link to the adjacent property (138 Church Street). References Shea, P. (1989). Historic Buildings Inventory. City of Kitchener. City of Kitchener. (1985). By-law 85-128. City of Kitchener. 1 - 33 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos M, y / d r � r %�fi�l�rii�'I/�� ✓ 1F%ITy 6� r,�G>- ���,;; //'�1 /i%�,rJvr ,Vi•��F"* /li/'/' e"/nrs/(�>"J>/ra/rjFr,%,i r// l %�" i/�/�✓"�� (�//��� r /�i Or J /�.Frl�t�����1!z,F -/r �i /�/ G /ao � r�i /y�%t?J'l r J ��,,,/ ��� %n i//,J r�,r lf� ���i�/�///fy%r�r�>�i,�! dfry7.ril i//,,,�%�", lr'!F//l;'„`.a✓,/fG////r// ,/>//'�� G/A�Fia"✓�r `m,/�1�' �li/ al M�r/�l �l//; �i/�'%4C ri/N �,� -./r�6,;%��'If „u'�r�r(✓4�il �ii�iiijU;,,... i„���fG ,,,�„,,,;�,. �,,,,,.,,,.<<,,, ,,.11�,�F�,fh./rr,�f/JFi�,f!(d;��;',,.i<d/I fGWN;���i(����a�u7rm�KA'F;p..�, i�''�P�'�S�IkF�i�Ffi(� ,� ��`ir`,`�iJ 142 Church Street— Front Elevation n /ir j�/�/lfy���dv�//��llrlytl,����J��✓� � f k� FG ✓' �/ljY/�o,� �/ / r iY � 1 142 Church Street— Front & Side Elevation 1 - 34 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ipl II' , Y 1 M ,�ravi�, � r � � g)E�//�✓' i -� ,���/��i!/r/�NG/'�ij �d�✓✓iy✓l!i/ / lii91/n fj ,,":. �,ir„rifGll����� 41 ' 1r�, i r//, �D�r 1 N�!��Cau/� �,�%l/i:N j ra/i9✓ may✓ %�/i>l/t/✓�✓/��i�i i�✓il�J�l��� ��/�1��� ,. �������1��'��(��YkJ�l�ll��r 1�✓/ ai,�:,,..„, �� ,.., n«✓%'/Ji✓iu�rw��a�✓��'l�� i'�/,G��y✓i�l��irl✓✓✓�l lHa,i�✓���IJ/���t�PJ , „wti„w,., � 1;�� �.,A�'� ?j���i,�%l�yl�,yr�dliil///✓✓�lJ/✓//�ii0l,o/�✓ /ll�✓B� y/ IPA i �'`� ,I�J✓n°. 138 Church Street (Left) and 142 Church Street (Right) r r i a i l � I a � o, � 138 Church Street (Left) and 142 Church Street (Right) 1 - 35 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 142 Church Street Period: c. 1855 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: June 25, 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 ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: twinned with 138, many original design details including covered front stoop, detail at roofline and brick detailing 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 - 36 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: visual/historical link to 138 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 1 - 37 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 40 College Street Municipal Address: - 40 College Street m� Legal Description: Plan 374 Part Lot B Part Lot 160 AME i i Year Built: c. 1890 � ' Architectural Style: Variation of Decorative Berlin Vernacular with Stick and Shingle influences' Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Condition varies but building maintains a high degree of integrity Description of Historic Place 40 College Street is a one-and-one-half storey late 19th century brick house built during the Victorian era in the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style influenced by both the Stick and Shingle architectural styles. The house is situated on a 0.09 acre parcel of land located near the north west corner of College Street and Duke 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 house. Heritage Value 40 College Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is rare and unique with features from the Decorative Berlin Vernacular, Stick and Shingle architectural styles. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: front gabled roof; dormers on the front and side elevations; overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends; shingled walls on the second storey; diamond patterned windows; porch clad with diamond patterned shingles; and, rusticated stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the College Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 40 College Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Decorative Berlin Vernacular, Stick and Shingle architectural styles of the house, including: 1 - 38 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE • front gabled roof; • dormers on the front and side elevations; • overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends; • shingled walls on the second storey; • diamond patterned windows; • porch clad with diamond patterned shingles; 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 College Street streetscape. Photos uu a " t , u n , r v ^r ui 40 College Street 1 - 39 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE r� a 1 ��;���IDlyiybivrr^si '7% � r p 40 College Street pY U / u i / Gi y 40 College Street 1 - 40 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 40 College Street Period: c. 1890 Field Team Initials: MD/CM Description: Date: July 9, 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: c. 1890,original windows, leaded glass, shingled gables, exposed rafters,woodwork, red brick painted white, shingled diamond patterned handrail on porch, rock face foundation, gable extends over porch, bargeboard in front gable, Reinharts lived here in 1928 Sub-Committee: looks similar to 21 Maynard Avenue, possibly Victorian/Craftsman 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 ❑? 1 - 41 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 ❑ J- L Notes Field Team: high degree of integrity, requires maintenance, condition varies 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 1 - 42 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 46-56 College Street Municipal Address: 46-56 College Street ' "" Legal Description: Plan 374 Part Lot 162 & 164 & C PL 401 SVY D Weber Part Lots 8 & 9 Year Built: c. 1932 I' Architectural Style: Vernacular blend of late 19th and i early 20th architectural styles, including Beaux Arts, Art ✓� Deco, Edwardian Classicism and Neo Tudor Original Owner: Unknown' . g Original Use: Apartments flf wnq Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 46-56 College Street contains two mid-20th century brick apartment buildings influenced by late 19th and early 20th century architectural styles, including Beaux Arts, Art Deco, Edwardian Classicism and Neo Tudor. The buildings are situated on a 0.34 acre parcel of land located on the west side of College Street 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 resources that contribute to the heritage value are the apartment buildings. Heritage Value 46-56 College Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the apartment buildings. The buildings are rare examples of a blend of late 19th and early 20th century architectural styles, including Beaux Arts, Art Deco, Edwardian Classicism and Neo Tudor. The buildings are in good condition. The buildings are two storeys in height and commonly known as the Wales Apartments (#46) and the Royal Apartments (#54). The buildings feature: symmetrical fagade; flat roof; parapet cornice with abstracted pediment; wall surfaces with decorative concrete patterns and shields; brick quoins (#46); brown and yellow brick (#46); varied colour brick (#54); triple paired window openings with some original wood windows; and, arched entry into narrow courtyard with entrance doors. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the apartment buildings make to the continuity and character of the College Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 46-56 College Street resides in the following heritage attributes: 1 - 43 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE • All elements related to the Beaux Arts, Art Deco, Edwardian Classicism and Neo Tudor architectural styles of the buildings, including: • symmetrical fagade; • flat roof; • parapet cornice with abstracted pediment; • wall surfaces with decorative concrete patterns and shields; • brick quoins (#46); • brown and yellow brick (#46); • varied colour brick (#54); • windows and window openings, including: • triple paired window openings with some original wood windows; • windows with concrete headers and sills; and, • arched entry into narrow courtyard with entrance doors. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the apartment buildings and contribution that they make to the continuity and character of the College Street streetscape. Photos (a%/cult rf G'i 1 / of I '1 i i W 9 1 r F fi j/%ii � ii� i�.� � �%/'//�/ �/��//� ✓� /i //i i./i��/%%i iii/i - 46-56 College Street (Wales Apartments) 46-56 College Street (Royal Apartments) 1 - 44 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4 - io, d f i Ip i y mmpp d IOII�v�/G///��ii✓i'., �� 1 ++� "M uuwr)wu�r�i�rm�a nu4 r�(u� r� � 46-56 College Street (Wales Apartments) omvl v sti2ofq �rw ��to �rrrr✓ y�; ��v � 'G �� r r uu W'Amfiw �' v ; r u�,fr r✓ � l� �7 /771 '� � 5 � ,��, ///%� �f ,f r ,+ ��;r SPY�J � '.lf "+ `i UI�If4r'���`��w; r�✓7.N ��y���� �'i��'�r ,�M1W�'"u �1 r�l�( 4 1 rf�'r� 1 l 7� ` r�,j r 7 �✓h r r ,� .t F i �a" �'' � r�' , /' � 'e � � ���'fl'(JdN h N' i I� � I�'"� to ✓� p.WW. ��, u,I i ✓� ��''pfs� � �f N� ! 7�! rt Y d br, 4 r y �•., t A. oO 46-56 College Street (Royal Apartments) 1 - 45 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE fU� 46-56 College Street (Royal Apartments) 46-56 College Street (Wales Apartments) 1 - 46 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 46-56 College Street Period: c. 1932 Field Team Initials: MD/CM Description: Date: May 30, 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:#46— "Wales Apartments", #54—"Royal Apartments", concrete crests (suggestion that these may be masonic symbols), arched entry, concrete header and sills,some wood windows with aluminum storms,some new vinyl windows,#54 features smooth red/brown/orange brick 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 ❑? 1 - 47 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ that complete the site? Notes Sub-Committee: potential associations with industry in area 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: Potential associations with masons 1 - 48 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 63 Courtland Avenue East Municipal Address: 63 Courtland Avenue East % «. j h Legal Description: / ;''5y O/ / ° / Plan 280 Lot 6-9 Part Lot 10 GCT �g SUB 17 Part Lot 218 and 234 157 15)' 10 1d , Year Built: 1909 / w0%, // 1 ,,;� j /%h�o/i,�/iii > ® Architectural Style: Industrial Vernacular ° % ,'/ /j` Original Owner: J.M. Schneider Original Use: Pork Shop �,' l �� r��% ° Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 63 Courtland Avenue East is a two storey early 20th century brick building built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.57 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Courtland Avenue East between Benton Street and Peter Street in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the building. Heritage Value 63 Courtland Avenue East is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building features a notable design that combines the original industrial function of the property with a commercial / retail space. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: flat roof; sSeven bays; light grey brick; decorative brick work, including cornices, banding, pilasters and other details; parapet with cornice and dentil blocks; flat headed window openings with stone headers and sills; and, half round front door opening with brick voussoir and stone keystone. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Courtland Avenue East streetscape. The property is historically linked to the existing Schneider factory on Courtland between Palmer Street and Borden Avenue because that site was the location of the abattoir that served the original business at 63 Courtland Avenue East. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use as well as one previous owner. The original owner was John Metz (J.M.) Schneider. J.M. Schneider and his wife, 1 - 49 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Helena Ahrens, lived in a home on Courtland Avenue built by Helena's father, Charles Ahrens. J.M. worked at a button factory and injured himself in the spring of 1890 at the age of 31. In an effort to make money for his family, he bought a hog and grinder in order to make sausages out of his basement on Courtland Avenue. After 8 years operating out of his house, J.M. built a 1 '/2 storey retail building that resembled a house with the retail located at the front and the office located above. The building resembled a house so that if the business failed it could be resold quickly. An addition was built to the side and rear of the original building in 1909 and a 16 acres field farther east (the existing Schneider factory property) was purchased to build an abattoir in 1918. Plans to build the existing Schneider factory began in 1924 and thus the building at 63 Courtland Avenue East was vacated and sold to Silverwood Dairies Ltd who operated at the property for 45 years between 1924 and 1969. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 63 Courtland Avenue East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the house, including: • Two-storey height of the building; • Flat roof; • Seven bays; • Light grey brick; • Decorative brick work, including cornices, banding, pilasters and other details; • Parapet with cornice and dentil blocks; • Flat headed window openings with stone headers and sills; and, • Half round front door opening with brick voussoir and stone keystone. ■ 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 Courtland Avenue East streetscape. References J.M. Schneider Inc. (1979). J.M. Schneider Inc: a history. J.M. Schneider Inc. (1990). A Legacy of Quality. J.M. Schneider Inc.: a centennial celebration 1890-1990. 1 - 50 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos irrrlr, �1d,dz�a��sga� O�7�r 9� � / 1 q s r1 ru�vm��i�oiiiaoarr� ,, ,,,., � W� e 63 Courtland Avenue East— Front Elevation IyG r r I u ���i r✓wry rw�lr� _W„ �..w 63 Courtland Avenue East— Front Elevation 1 - 51 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE r 63 Courtland Avenue East—Side Elevation 1 - 52 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 63 Courtland Avenue East Period: 1892 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Kem Mfg Date: July 9, 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: design—brick detail, parapet, cornice,stone headers; style—notable as it combines an industrial function with a storefront/retail presence,designed both as a factory and a store 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 - 53 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: close to street, compatible scale and material 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: early addition was sympathetic to original building but not later additions 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: associations with J.M. Schneider, Silverwood Dairies—Kitchener long-standing business awards;second building including chimney appear to be associated with J.M. Schneider on fire plan map; structures reflect evolution of industrial complex over time to meet changing needs/methods of production 1 - 54 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 107 Courtland Avenue East Municipal Address: Wa 107 Courtland Avenue East lie Legal Description: Plan 419 Lot 4-9 Part Lot 10 & 11 GCT Lot 277 Year Built.. c. 1928 W U w tox ? FIB m, Architectural Style: Art Deco with Classical 141 I ::I fG„ 14 influences a Original Owner: Jw/ l ""; ; A '" d Original Use: Public School �o^ � m7 r 4 Condition: Good i�P/, a Description of Historic Place 107 Courtland Avenue East is a 20th century building built in the Collegiate/Neo-classical architectural style. The building is situated on a 3.96 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Courtland Avenue East between Peter Street and Cedar Street in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the school. Heritage Value 107 Courtland Avenue East is recognized for its design, contextual, historical and associative values. The design value relates to the Art Deco architectural style of the building. The two storey building features: yellow brick; concrete classical main entrance door surround with pilaster and entablature; blind concrete arches at each end of the front elevation; concrete cartouche above blind concrete arches; medallions with the blind concrete arches; concrete belt course below first floor windows and above second floor windows; original window openings with concrete sills; school sign that reads "Courtland"; date stone; bronze plaque that reads "Courtland Senior Public School 1890— 1990 to Commemorate One Hundred Years in Education". The historic and associative values relate to the original and current use of the building as well as the architect and builder. The building was the third public school in the City and was originally constructed in 1890 as a four room school at a cost of $4500. The first sub-principal was Miss Edith Matheson, the second principal was Miss M.B. Tier and later principals were Arthur Foster and Peter Fischer (Noonan, 1975). Peter Fisher was one of four founding members of the Waterloo Historical Society (The Record, 2012). A four classroom addition was added in 1903 and the current building was designed by Bernal A. Jones and constructed by the Dunker Brothers (William and Albert) in 1928. B.A. Jones attended the Toronto Technical School and worked as a draftsman for Frank Darling, in the office of Darling and Pearson, 1 - 55 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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). The Dunker Brothers were a well-known and respected local building company that operated between 1887 and 1974 (Parks Canada, 2013). They were responsible for the construction of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1938-39 Registry Theatre and the 1927 KW Granite Club (Parks Canada, 2013; Schmidt, 1977). A major renovation in 1965 added to the side and rear of the building but maintained the front portion of the 1928 building. The purpose of the 1965 renovations was to convert the school from a primary to a senior public school. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 107 Courtland Avenue East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Art Deco architectural style of the building, including: • yellow brick; • concrete classical main entrance door surround with pilaster and entablature; • blind concrete arches at each end of the front elevation; • concrete cartouche above blind concrete arches; • medallions with the blind concrete arches; • concrete belt course below first floor windows and above second floor windows; • original window openings with concrete sills; • school sign that reads "Courtland"; • date stone; and • bronze plaque that reads "Courtland Senior Public School 1890 — 1990 to Commemorate One Hundred Years in Education". References Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.ors/architects/view/173 on October 4, 2013. Noonan, G. (1975). A History of Kitchener. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Parks Canada. (2013). Canada's Historic Places: Registry Theatre. Retrieved from httK�://www.historic�laces.ca/en/red-red/dace-lieu.as�x?id®12427 on October 4, 2013. Schmidt, C. (1977). History of Kitchener-Waterloo Granite Club. Kitchener, Ontario. The Record. (2012). Waterloo Historical Society marks century of saving the past. 1 - 56 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos i rW l9F / f 107 Courtland Avenue East � ui/II uuuuiii / p J0000 / V a r; 107 Courtland Avenue East 1 - 57 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE �I (�r 1/ r/'/�"//ii/% �/i it✓/�' li ��/✓�r/ /r//i�JGii/fir -iri/j�/l/,/, ao� /I i 107 Courtland Avenue East r i � I //✓r i i iii,± r� �f; �i��%%%�!✓!%//��l r' 1 � �'prr"/'/%aimt�rv�vr%�/,+,lnrn"iii I i ' Il i J � % �/ �ij'I rillrrrllVr r r�i� I� 107 Courtland Avenue East 1 - 58 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 107 Courtland Avenue East Period: 1928 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Courtland Avenue Public School Date: July 9, 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: not traditional collegiate; neo-classical; arcs are 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood N? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 1 - 59 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 1 - 60 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 160 Courtland Avenue East Municipal Address: "° 160 Courtland Avenue East 26 r � -rte Legal Description: �� 46 Plan 395 Part Lot 1, 2 & 7 ��� Plan 404 Lot 22 and Part Lot 21 ,�i 1 � Year Built: 1920 rau Architectural Style: Simplified Beaux Arts Original Owner: Separate School Board Original Use: School rl/ / 64 Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 160 Courtland Avneue East is a mid-20th century brick school built in the simplified Beaux Arts architectural style. The school is situated on a 1.71 acre parcel of land located on the north east corner of Courtland Avenue East and Cedar Street South in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the school. Heritage Value 160 Courtland Avenue East is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the school. The school is a rare example of the simplified Beaux Arts architectural style with classical details. The school is in good condition. The school features: flat roof; symmetrical fagade; red brick; original window openings; classical entryway with transom and sidelights; concrete headers and sills; cast concrete decorative details such as the school sign; decorative brick work; entrance on Cedar Street with square transom and sidelights; and, cast concrete foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the school makes to the continuity and character of the Courtland Avenue East streetscape. The school is historically, functionally and visually linked to the St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church and Rectory. The historic and associative value relates to the growth of the catholic school system and link to the St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church and Rectory. The school was Kitchener's second separate school following the St. Anthony School (now Sacred Heart School). The school is 1 - 61 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE located adjacent to the church and rectory. The school held mass services before the church was constructed. The land that the church sits on was once owned by the school board. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 160 Courtland Avenue East resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the simplified Beaux Arts architectural style of the school, including: • flat roof; • symmetrical fagade; • red brick; • original window openings with concrete headers and sills; • classical entryway with rounded transom and sidelights; • cast concrete decorative details such as the school sign; • decorative brick work; • entrance on Cedar Street with square transom and sidelights; and, • cast concrete foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the school and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Courtland Avenue East streetscape; and, • Link to the St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church and Rectory. Photos � fk w r i 160 Courtland Avenue East 1 - 62 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1 r! "ll / y �r ..�-rrlr rr 7 D1 MY 11 ppyy � 4 4 y g r rrr��olwm'' i / a ,o 160 Courtland Avenue East r t �u 160 Courtland Avenue East 1 - 63 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 160 Courtland Avenue East Period: 1920 Field Team Initials: CM/LB/MD Description: St. Joseph's School Date: July 10, 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: classical entryway with transom and sidelights; red brick; concrete headers and sills; south addition; upper cornice clad with aluminum; second entrance off Cedar;2 additions—one with 1974 date stone 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 ❑? 1 - 64 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ that complete the site? Notes Field Team: contributes to Courtland streetscape; link to St. Joseph's Church and Rectory 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 1 - 65 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 283 Duke Street West Municipal Address: 74 Fa 72' 2BI6 283 Duke Street West Legal Description: , ; Plan 376 Lot 215-220 Part Lotdy'd ,a !r% 213 & 214 Lot 34 STS & LNS Year Built: 1896; 1936; 1939 jj !, . Architectural Style: ' j `„ ""� �� Eg Industrial Vernacular Original Owner: %, - 6 The D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd. ", 1% W a i * POP Original Use: Industrial . Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 283 Duke Street West is a complex of interconnected industrial buildings ranging from one to three storeys that were constructed in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The buildings are situated on a 1.54 acre parcel of land bounded by Duke Street West, Breithaupt Street, Waterloo Street and the CNR lands in the Mount Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the industrial buildings. Heritage Value 283 Duke Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the buildings. The buildings are a unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The buildings are in good condition. The buildings range in height from one to three storeys and feature: varied rooflines, including flat roof and low pitch side gable roof; buff brick; original windows, including 6/6 windows paired in each bay and ribbon of three 6/6 windows in each bay; original window openings, including flat head and segmentally arched openings with original wood sills or concrete sills; off-white brick (now painted); slight brick work under the eaves; shallow buttressing; and, entrance on Duke Street West marked by simple projecting pilaster. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the buildings makes to the continuity and character of the Duke Street West and Breithaupt Street streetscapes. The setting is noteworthy as the buildings are located directly adjacent to the rail line. The buildings are an important landmark within the neighbourhood. 1 - 66 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The historic and associative value relate to the original and previous owners as well as uses of the building. The original owner of the buildings was the D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd. (1889- 1920) (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984/85). Daniel Hibner founded the factory in 1889 but it was rebuilt in 1896 after a fire. He was mayor of Berlin in 1894-1895 and served as reeve for three years. He was instrumental in the decision to purchase the land that now comprises Victoria Park. He was also the chairman of the Parks Commission and a member of county council for 13 years. In the 1930s, Daniel Hibner left money for a memorial to himself, which resulted in the creation of the Ctiy's second oldest park, Hibner Park. The second owner of the buildings was Malcolm & Hill Ltd. (1920-1933) (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984/85). The third owner of the buildings was Dominion Electrohome Ltd. (1936-1979) (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984/85). The Pollock Manufacturing Co., which manufactured hornless phonographs, was founded in 1907 by Arthur B. Pollock (Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited, 1947). The vice president and general manager was C.A. Pollock. The company was also known as Pollock-Welker Limited, Electrohome Industries Ltd., and Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited (Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited, 1947). The company amalgamated with the Grimes Radio Corporation in 1933 with the radio division moving the property at the corner of Breithaupt and Edward (now Duke). The main offices were moved to the corner of Breithaupt and Edward in 1936 and a new wing was built in 1939. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 283 Duke Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the buildings, including: • varied rooflines, including flat roof and low pitch side gable roof; • off-white brick (now painted); • original windows, including 6/6 windows paired in each bay and ribbon of three 6/6 windows in each bay; • original window openings, including flat head and segmentally arched openings with original wood sills or concrete sills; • slight brick work under the eaves; • shallow buttressing; and, • entrance on Duke Street West marked by simple projecting pilaster. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the buildings and contribution they make to the continuity and character of the Duke Street West and Breithaupt Street streetscapes; • Proximity to the rail line; and, • Presence as a neighbourhood landmark. References Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited. (1947). The 40th Anniversary 1907-1947. Kitchener, Ontario. Kolaritsch, D. & Horne, M. (1984/85). D. Hibner Furniture/Electrohome. LACAC: Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 67 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos Ae , urv� iu'aur 1. 283 Duke Street West (Duke Street Elevation) i W r �µ •ry..m 283 Duke Street West (Breithaupt Street Elevation) 1 - 68 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE , ry 283 Duke Street West (Breithaupt Street Elevation) jai 1 , y i tl. 283 Duke Street West (Interior Side Yard Elevation and CNR Elevation) 1 - 69 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 283 Duke Street West Period: 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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:segmentally arched 6/6 windows; brick 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 1 - 70 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 1 - 71 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 286 Duke Street West Municipal Address: 286 Duke Street West ° ' 0M Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 221; 58R-9291 Part 1 i 2 Year Built: c. 1920 Architectural Style: Utilitarian i, r .! , Vernacular with Art Deco details '� 2.84 `.., l Original Owner: Public Utilities j Commission Original Use: Hydro Electric Sub Station Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 286 Duke Street West is a one storey early-20th century brick commercial building built in the Utilitarian Vernacular architectural style with Art Deco details. The building is situated on a 0.09 acre parcel of land located on the south east corner of Breithaupt Street and Duke Street West 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 commercial building. Heritage Value 283 Duke Street West 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 Utilitarian Vernacular architectural style with Art Deco details. The building is in good condition. The building is one storey in height and features: flat roof; red brick; two bays on each elevation separated by pilasters; modest corbelling at the roofline; semi-circular windows and window openings with stone keystone, brick voussoirs and stone sills; segmentally arched doors/windows and door/window openings with brick voussoirs and stone sills; decorative stone details; and, stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the of the Breithaupt Street and Duke Street West streetscapes. The building is historically, functionally and visually linked to its surrounding, including adjacent industrial uses and the rail line. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the building. The building was owned by the Public Utilities Commission and used as a hydroelectric substation. 1 - 72 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 286 Duke Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Utilitarian Vernacular architectural style with Art Deco details of the house, including: • flat roof; • red brick; • two bays on each elevation separated by pilasters; • modest corbelling at the roofline; • semi-circular windows and window openings with stone keystone, brick voussoirs and stone sills; • segmentally arched doors/windows and door/window openings with brick voussoirs and stone sills; • decorative stone details; and, • stone 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 Breithaupt Street and Duke Street West streetscapes. Photos ,.m „, �pnuO��ar�u�inrl fi sir, ii�� I p 1 l 286 Duke Street West 1 - 73 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE i 286 Duke Street West HUHN Div I u � j/ . /S II i l� 286 Duke Street West 1 - 74 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE i ne 1 it rilli, 286 Duke Street West 1 - 75 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 286 Duke Street West Period: c. 1920 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: one storey brick building; former hydro utility building 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team:stepped wall surfaces; rounded windows; arched windows; keystones; brick; concrete window sill 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 - 76 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team:south east corner of Duke Street West and Breithaupt Street(formerly Edward and Breithau t Street); 48 Edward Street 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: very good condition 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: public utilities commission 1 - 77 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 400 East Avenue Municipal Address: 400 East Avenue , w� Legal Description: GCT Lot 2 Part Lot 98 Closed STS & LNS Part Lot 94 Part 299 Lot 119 to 140 Part 672 Part Lot 45 Part 605 Part Lot 1 to 8 Year Built: 1950 Architectural Style: Modern Original Owner: City of Kitchener �? % �,, � , / w %i% Original Use: Auditorium r�` � Condition: Good ' Description of Historic Place 400 East Avenue is a two storey mid-20th century facade built in the Modern architectural style. The building is situated on a 44.18 acre parcel of land located on the east side of East Avenue between Ottawa Street North and Stirling Avenue North 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 1950s facade. Heritage Value 400 East Avenue is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the original facade. The original facade is a notable example of the Modern architectural style. The original facade is in good condition. The original facade is two storeys in height and features: flat roof; five central bays flanked by a two storey projecting bay on each side as well as 4 one storey bays on each side; buttressing between the central bays; limestone cladding; engraved sign that reads "Kitchener Memorial Auditorium"; and, steel doors and windows. The contextual value relates to the setting and orientation of the building as well as its status as a City landmark. The original facade is position as a terminating view at the end of Borden Avenue North. The historic and associative values relate to the first and second world war, architect, builder, and use of the building. The construction of the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium was approved during the December 3, 1945 municipal election by a majority vote on a Memorial Auditorium By-law that would allow the City to borrow the money for a new auditorium as a living memorial to Kitchener men and women who served in the first and second world wars (The Record, 2008). The building was designed by the Kitchener architectural firm of Jenkins and Wright. William Stuart Jenkins and Sherman W. Wright formed a partnership in 1945 and opened an 1 - 78 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE office in Kitchener (Hill, 2009). They were best known for their designs of municipal arena complexes in several Ontario town and for the restoration in 1952 of Woodside, the home of William Lyon MacKenzie King (Hill, 2009). The building was built by the Dunker Construction Company (The Record, 2008). The Dunker Construction Company was founded by the Dunker Brothers (William and Albert). The Dunker Brothers were a well-known and respected local building company that operated between 1887 and 1974 (Parks Canada, 2013). They were responsible for the construction of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1927 Granite Club, 1938-39 Registry Theatre and the 1928 additions and alterations to Courtland Avenue Public School (Parks Canada, 2013). At the time of construction, the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium was the third largest arena in Ontario after Maple Leaf Gardens and the Ottawa Civic Centre (The Record, 2008). The building was built as and continues to operate as an arena. The Kitchener Rangers have been the resident hockey team since 1963. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 400 East Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Modern architectural style of the original fagade, including: • original fagade; • flat roof; • five central bays flanked by a two storey projecting bay on each side as well as 4 one storey bays on each side; • buttressing between the central bays; • limestone cladding; • engraved sign that reads "Kitchener Memorial Auditorium"; and, • steel doors and windows • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Bingeman Street and Lancaster Street West streetscape; • Lot size; and, • Fence that wraps around the house. References Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada orb/architects/view/173 on October 4, 2013. Parks Canada. (2013). Canada's Historic Places: Registry Theatre. Retrieved from httK�://www.historic�laces.ca/en/red-red/dace-lieu.as�x?id®12427 on October 4, 2013. The Record. (2008, February 9). Flash from the Past. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 79 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos N i s ' , I. 1, / v,. /"" .,�°-; ".,�;; ,1��01✓///D�O/{//N�J1�O,i///(✓Old!!/!1/�/llr� I+uIG;J,�V�i��IW��!��CfYN��� / v 0 i/r w PO r 400 East Ave. (View down Borden Ave. N. towards Kitchener Memorial Auditorium) /11� ✓ ���%�//i �r«"��irr✓i i yl6 � y✓ // % �' ai �// r /�r � /✓//��r'ia, /�%���/���`/ %%/i// is?rr r�i;�r�/ri,fiiir,,.Ire„rir, /� � 1 // ', J r' l 400 East Avenue 1 - 80 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE / r / �1 1 , „ 400 East Avenue ul r 400 East Avenue 1 - 81 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE / i , % l / / i v /o / i / r /�r//%��� %ij�/��// , ///// /,✓� /.////iii... ... � r i /ii,,, o-. ✓��/� �i // /////�� ///ii/iii//a%///i„/i,,,, �,,, 400 East Avenue 1 - 82 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 400 East Avenue Period: 1950 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Date: July 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: original fagade is notable; original fagade attractive and unique; primary interest is with main original fagade; terrazzo floor with compass in main foyer 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 N or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 - 83 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: landscaping in front of entrance with circular drive; located on a rise of land; terminating view at end of Borden Avenue North; potential relationship to CFB Borden?Sir Robert Borden (8 Prime Minister of Canada); post war memorial 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: original fagade maintains most of its original materials and design 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 Field Team: associations with previous auditoriums; potentially erected as memorial to first or second world war 1 - 84 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 33 Eby Street South Municipal Address: 33 Eby St S , Legal Description: Plan 367 Pt Lt 10 GCT Sub Lt 2 & 1 Year Built: circa 1850 Architectural Style: Ontario Gothicmw Revival IN, j Original Owner: Henry Eby " Original Use: Residence � , µ Condition: Good r Description of Historic Place 33 Eby Street South is a one-and-one-half storey mid-19th century brick house built in the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.09 acre parcel of land located on the south east corner of Charles Street East and Eby Street South 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. Heritage Value 33 Eby Street South is recognized for its design, contextual, associative and historic values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a rare example of the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style in the surrounding neighbourhood. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: a side gable roof with a centred gable with pointed arch door located above the front door; a symmetrical front fagade with a central front door flanked by windows on either side; yellow brick construction; original window openings with brick voussoirs; stone foundation; and, a sympathetic one-storey board and batten rear addition. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Eby Street South streetscape. The associative and historic values relate to the original owner of the property Henry Eby as well as the Eby family. Henry Eby was the son of Bishop Benjamin Eby. He was born on January 25, 1820 and in 1840 became a printer associated with publishing Berlin's newspaper, Der Deutsche Canadier, which became the most successful and widely read German newspaper in the country (English & McLaughlin, 1983; Noonan, 1975). The printing office was located on King Street East at the corner of King and Eby Street South (Noonan, 1975). Henry was also associated with the early school system in Berlin. The first grammar and common school opened in his printing office before Suddaby School was built on Frederick Street 1 - 13.5 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Noonan, 1975). Henry was also one of the first school trustees (Noonan, 1975). Henry built the house at 33 Eby Street in 1850 (Waterloo Region Generations, 2013). According to various directories the house remained in the Eby family from 1820 to 1946. Other Eby names associated with house included: Miss Louisa Eby, Mrs. Menno Eby, and Miss Ilda Eby. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 33 Eby Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style of the house, including: • One-and-one-half storey height of the house; • Side gable roof with a centred gable with pointed arch door located above the front door; • Symmetrical front fagade with central front door flanked by windows on either side; • Yellow brick construction; • Original window openings with brick voussoirs; • Stone foundation; and, • Sympathetic one-storey board and batten rear addition. • 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 Eby Street streetscape. References English, J. & K. McLaughlin. (1983). Kitchener: An Illustrated History. Wilfrid Laurier University Press: Waterloo, Ontario. Noonan, G. (1975). A History of Kitchener. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Waterloo Region Generations. (2013). Waterloo Region Generations: A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario. Retrieved from http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personl D=121144&tree=generatio ns on September 11, 2013. 1 - 86 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos ti w f r =y I � r a, n/ 33 Eby Street South — Front Elevation r ^^ i i i 'i�'✓ t i�uf'v'v�rl`�' t/ s� f f 7 I l / l l 33 Eby Street South —Side (Charles Street East) and Rear Elevation 1 - 87 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE �r rJ� i Gf��tAlY ri/r'�rr� w ri flj�, Is �r�r� '� �'!Y��rl�J�✓�i f i, r y�llu� r �✓i�t r�t �%✓f✓,!Plr� %G Fr/✓���r r y%,r„"r,'�,,rWr�r�/ rr�Jl�yrl iiri r / 33 Eby Street South — Front and Side Elevation 1 - 88 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 33 Eby Street South Period: c. 1850 Field Team Initials: GZ/ER Description: Date: August 23, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Sub-Committee: Date of construction is earlier than surrounding area;style is rare within surrounding area 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 ❑? 1 - 89 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 Sub-Committee: new windows, new pressure treated front porch; aluminum fascia and soffits; pressure treated fire escape;scale of addition is appropriate 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: association with Eby family from c.1850 to at least 1946 1 - 90 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 181 Frederick Street Municipal Address: 181 Frederick Street Legal Description: Plan 392 Part Lot 4 & 5 Year Built: c. 1910 Architectural Style: , Craftsman plj Original Owner: Unknown �° ` is �� Original Use: Residence h Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 181 Frederick Street is a one and a half storey early-20th century brick house built in the Craftsman architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.22 acre parcel of land located on the south east corner of Frederick 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 house. Heritage Value 181 Frederick 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 Craftsman architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one and a half storeys in height and features: side gable roof with centre hip roof dormer on front elevation; wide eave overhang with roof rafters on the front elevation; full width porch under main roof supported by tapered brick columns with brick guard; red brick; chimney; windows and window openings, including: large picture windows with transoms, stone headers and sills, bay windows with transoms, stone headers and sills , 1/1 windows with and without stone headers and sills, small square windows with stone headers and sills on each side of the chimney; rusticated stone foundation; and, carport. The detached garage features: side gable roof with centre hip roof dormer on front elevation; wide eave overhang; red brick; and rusticated stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the detached garage that mimics the architectural style of the house and completes the site. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 181 Frederick Street resides in the following heritage attributes: 1 - 91 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE • All elements related to the Craftsman architectural style of the house, including: • side gable roof with centre hip roof dormer on front elevation; • wide eave overhang with roof rafters on the front elevation; • full width porch under main roof supported by tapered brick columns with brick guard; • red brick; • chimney; • windows and window openings, including: o large picture windows with transoms, stone headers and sills, o bay windows with transoms, stone headers and sills, 0 1/1 windows with and without stone headers and sills, o small square windows with stone headers and sills on each side of the chimney; • rusticated stone foundation; and, • carport. • All elements related to the Craftsman architectural style of the detached garage, including: • side gable roof with centre hip roof dormer on front elevation; • wide eave overhang; • red brick; and, • rusticated stone foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: ■ The detached garage that mimics the architectural style of the house and completes the site. Photos VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVI iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiVVVVVIVVVVI�VIN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII6 V'u'u'u'u'u'u'u'u'u'u'u'u uuu4 I 181 Frederick Street 1 - 92 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 181 Frederick Street 1 - 93 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 181 Frederick Street Period: c. 1910 Field Team Initials: LB/ML/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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: craftsman influenced; carport noteworthy 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 1 - 94 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: garage mimics building style 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: directories show ownership by Mrs. E. Snider(widow E.W.B. Snider)from 1924 till 1946 1 - 95 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 67 King Street East Municipal Address: 67 King St. E. j p j Legal Description. Plan 364 Pt Lot 3 Plan 394 Pt Lot 32 Year Built: c. 1976 Architectural Style: International � �� Original Owner: Canada Permanent Original Use: Bank Condition: Good . Description of Historic Place 67 King Street East is a two storey late 20th century commercial building built in the International architectural style. The commercial building is situated on a 0.22 acre parcel of land located near the south west corner of Benton Street and King Street 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 commercial building. Heritage Value 67 King Street East is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, associative and historic values. The design and physical values relate to the construction, materials and architecture of the building. The commercial building is a unique example of the International architectural style. The commercial building is in good condition and features: a two storey rectangular form; flat roof with large overhang supported by steel pillars; smooth neutral limestone cladding on 1/3 of front fagade; extensive use of glazing from ground floor to roofline; anodized aluminum framed doors and windows; horizontal steel panels that wrap around the building above both the first and second storey windows; and, steel canopy above the entrances. The building was also designed in such a way that two additional floors could be added in the future. The contextual value relates to the contribution that the commercial building makes to the continuity and character of the King Street streetscape. The setting is also notable because the commercial building provides a frame for the adjacent speakers corner park space. The associative and historic values relate to the architect, contractor and the original use of the building. The building was designed by the local firm of Rieder and Hymmen. The contractor was Incom Construction Co. Ltd. of Kitchener. The original use was for the Canada Permanent bank whose origins as a trust company date back to 1855 and at the time of construction the company was the oldest trust company in Canada. Canada Permanent later merged with Canada Trust. 1 - 96 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 67 King Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and International architectural style of the building, including: • two storey rectangular form; • flat roof with large overhang supported by steel pillars; • smooth neutral limestone cladding on 1/3 of front fagade; • extensive use of glazing from ground floor to roofline; • steel framed doors and windows; • horizontal steel panels that wrap around the building about both the first and second storey windows; and steel canopy above entrances. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the commercial building and the contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the King Street streetscape; • Setting that is provided to the adjacent speakers corner park space. Photos %}Q+ ,?' unll"�MkKlams�df aFlrb'r if ^ f I% I }J y I I r I� 67 King Street East— Front Elevation 1 - 97 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 67 King Street East—Side Elevation 1 - 98 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 67 King Street East Period: c. 1976 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: The Benton Building (former Canada Trust Building) Date: July 25, 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: unique, modern design—bahaus?, infill spandrels of note, overhang, supported by columns, large amount of glazing, use of vermiculated limestone (?)panels or marble panels, structure on roof(potentially shielding mechanical equipment) Sub-Committee: steel frame building 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 ❑? 1 - 99 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ that complete the site? Notes Field Team: relationship to speakers corner, chronology—established at same time as speakers corner(?),street parttern,setbacks on King and Benton Sub-Committee: building frames adjacent open space 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: recent internal changes 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: relationship to speakers corner public square 1 - 100 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 69 King Street East Municipal Address: 69 King St. E. Legal Description: Plan 364 Part Lot 1 Plan 394 Part Lot 32 RP 58R-1516 Part 1 Year Built: 1976 (original); 2010 (update) Architectural Style: N/A Original Owner: City of Kitchener . F s Original Use: Public Space Condition: Good 1/jj/ I//i / Description of Historic Place 69 King Street East is public space known as Speakers Corner, which features plaques, public art, seating areas, and landscaping. Speakers Corner is situated on a 0.16 acre parcel of land located on the south west corner of of Benton Street and King Street in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the plaques, public art, seating areas, and landscaping. Heritage Value 69 King Street East is recognized for its contextual, associative and historic values. The contextual value relates to the contribution that Speakers Corner makes to the continuity and character of the King Street and Benton Street streetscapes. The setting is also notable because Speakers Corner is located on a prominent corner in the downtown with historic ties to previous uses, including the old armouries and the old Speakers Corner. The site is complete with features such as public art, plaques, seating areas and landscaping. The associative and historic values relate the existing and previous uses of the site. Speakers Corner was originally dedicated in 1976. Speakers corner was redesigned in 2010 with a modern feel to accommodate a new event space. The space features public art, plaques, seating areas and landscaping. The redesign was one component of the City's King Street Revitalization project, which has won a Green Street Award from Tree Canada and a Community Place Award from the International Making Cities Livable Council. A national public art completion was held and Allan Harding MacKay was selected as the artist. The public art features a set of sculptures entitled "Relocation and Transformation of Memory", which pay homage to the site's past, Kitchener's present and the City's future. The artist describes his project as follows: "Combining elements of art and mathematics the public art concept combines literal and abstract images of the site before modernization and text 1 - 101 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE elements, unscoring the location as one that encourages public voice. The sculptural elements are a combination of an abstracted floor image (anamorphosis) created in full colour porcelain tiles, and a cyndrical mirror that reflects and transforms the anamorphosis into recognizable images of the original site. The text elements incorporated into the sculpture and on the granite walls act as a further reminder of the Speakers Corner site as public space, reinforcing the encouragement of public voice through repeating phrases SPEAKINGPUBLICSPAKING AND SPEAK UP and SPEAK OUT." The 24th Canadian Field Ambulance plaque pays tribute to the unit that was formed from recruits of the former armoury that operated in this location. The unit operated from 1941-1945. The unit was the only full military unit mobilized to represent Canada. The Canada Bill of Rights plaque pay tribute to people's rights. The plaque was unveiled in 1976 by John Diefenbaker, former Prime Minister of Canada, on October 11, 1976. The plaques notes that Speakers Corner was "set aside by Kitchener as a people place for free expression of opinion and will serve as a focal point for free speech for this and future generations of Canadians to engage in discussion, dialogue and debate." Speakers corner is featured as stop 15 in the Downtown Stroll walking tour. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 69 King Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Prominent location at the corner of Benton Street and King Street; 0 5' by 20' granite clad wall with porcelain image and water jet text; 0 8' sculpture with stainless steel mirror, granite collar with water jet text and porcelain anamorphic ground design with images; 0 5' by 20' granite clad wall with etched images and water jet text; o The 24th Canadian Field Ambulance plaque; o The Canada Bill of Rights plaque; o Seating areas; and, o Landscaping. References Harding MacKay, Allan. (2008). Public Art Projects / Speakers Corner / Kitchener, Ontario / 2008. Retrieved from http://www.alIanhardingmackay.ca/pdfs/collaborations/speakerscorner.pdf on September 18, 2013 1 - 102 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos a rte, 69 King Street East if Im N I w f, I( f u i 2011 f �4 69 King Street East 1 - 103 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE f r � H i r � n J " "itib"wa1,�f,rr f ' „✓gal,,, ;,, �a ���" t.�,,,�W�� ��Id. 69 King Street East �� p am &'rvM j i ff f I Nr` 1 VIA "i9D 3i➢�irini�i�l�iiAr�1�Di19111171rii��l�»1a1��»I»mirn�,��i+lrv�n 1 � �1 � '��'�rs' �'�' �UU�Vt�1 i �/%//iiii; // r /u uN" Nflrr "�' a/ 0// Pffti�a ter L 69 King Street East 1 - 104 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE i 69 King Street East 1 - 105 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE IIIIIIII �� r �� � I Illuliiiillllll uuumli!!!'IIIII r� i o �rA ri fi r; I r i i it y rid llr i 1 l 69 King Street East 1 - 106 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 69 King Street East Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Speakers Corner Date: June 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 ® El El El ® El El El 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 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 N or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 - 107 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: designed as a public gathering space;welcoming space; inviting visitors; corner location; prominent location; historical link to former armories; site of gatherings over time; Diefenbaker plaque unveiling 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ L -i Notes Field Team: missing—Glokenspiel, podium, plaque/signage explaining glockenspiel/podium; existing—Diefenbaker plaque,field ambulance plaque, 3 new monuments 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 1 - 108 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 3570 King Street East (Freeport Health Centre) Municipal Address: A a Yll A- A 3570 King Street East � �, . ,�� Legal Description: Beasle s Old Survey, Part Lot 12; � Registered Plan 58R-5285, Part 1 � � l �I Year Built: 1926 through to 1989 Architectural Style: Georgian Revival (pre-1989 buildings) Original Owner: Abraham Weber; Benjamin Shantz; Town of Berlin Original, Previous and Present Use: Farm (pre-1912), Sanatorium (1912 - 1989), Freeport Health Centre (1989 - Present) ° 1� Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 3570 King Street East is a 7.84 hectare (19.38 acre) lot located north of King Street East and east of Morrison Road in the Centreville Chicopee Planning Community in the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The property is commonly known as the Freeport Health Centre and was once known as the Freeport Sanatorium. The property contains nine early and mid- twentieth century, red brick buildings that were constructed when the site served as a sanatorium. The property also contains a large health centre complex that was constructed in 1989 and an addition constructed in 2010. Heritage Value The property is recognized for its design/physical, contextual and historic/associative values. The design value relates to the nine sanatoria buildings. The buildings are notable examples of the Georgian Revival architectural style, which retain many intact heritage attributes. The buildings feature: roofs and rooflines, including medium-pitched gable or hip roofs; doors and door openings; including: original exterior wood doors with bronze hardware and knockers, Doric pilasters and entablature, leaded glass sidelights and glass or wood transoms, brick voussoirs, copper porch stoop roof with brackets (doctor's residence); windows and window openings; including: original double sash wood windows, brick or concrete sills, original exterior wood storms, round arched panels of roughcast plaster (nurses' residence), brick voussoirs and artificial stone keystones, brick soldier course over upper windows, circular gable windows (nurses' residence), copper roofed bay window (doctor's residence), octagonal and fan windows (superintendent's residence); dark red, variegated brick construction; concrete foundation; porch (superintendent's residence); original iron railings (nurses' residence, superintendent's house); and, chimney. 1 - 109 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The physical value pertains to its demonstration of early 20th century scientific achievement for the treatment of tuberculosis. Sanatoria were developed as a direct result of scientific advancements in the identification of the bacillus that caused the disease and its method of infection. Like all sanatoria, the Freeport Sanatorium was located away from dense urban centres to isolate the infected population and prevent spread of the disease. At the time of its construction, the Freeport Sanatorium was located at the outskirts of Berlin (now Kitchener). Visitors could access the site via the Preston Berlin Railway which passed to the south. The Sanatorium also reflected scientific progress in the treatment of tuberculosis, which emphasized rest, fresh air and a healthy diet. High elevation was considered a critical factor in patient access to fresh air, and accordingly, the Freeport Sanatorium was situated at the highest elevation of any sanatorium site in Ontario. The contextual value of the site relates to its historical and functional link to its location. The Shantz farm was an ideal location for a sanatorium because of its location in the country away from Berlin, Waterloo, Preston and Galt to minimize possible spread of infection; it was accessible to both patients and visitors via the Preston and Berlin Electric Railway which traversed the south side of the property; it was located at a high altitude which was considered at the time to be a critical element in the circulation of air and the treatment of patients; and, the existing Shantz farmhouse could be repurposed for use by the Sanatorium (Dilse and Stewart, 2007). The historical/associative value relates to its association with the "Sanatorium Age" in Canada which was marked by extensive, national civic involvement (e.g. emergence of the Canadian Association for Prevention of Consumption and Other Forms of Tuberculosis in 1900 which ultimately evolved into the Canadian Lung Association), and government investment in tuberculosis education and treatment across the country (Grzybowski and Allen, 1999). Grounded on the principles of isolation, fresh air, rest and good nutrition, sanatoria were designed to prevent the spread of tuberculosis which was the most common cause of mortality in Canada in the late 19th century and early 20th century. A total of 14 sanatoria were developed in Ontario, the first of which was constructed in 1896 near Gravenhurst (Conrad, 1985). The Freeport Sanatorium was developed to serve the local community but also admitted a significant number of patients outside of Waterloo County. The associative value relates to its direct relationship with the theme of healthcare and Berlin's (now Kitchener) local civic health care movement. In the early twentieth century, a series of local deaths resulting from tuberculosis roused the concern of the County of Waterloo Coroner, Dr. J. F. Honsberger, and other physicians. In 1908, with the help of Berlin citizens, the doctors organized an "Anti-Consumption League" (later renamed the "Berlin Sanatorium Association") to generate awareness of the disease and its treatment. A committee was formed to select a suitable site for a hospital and to solicit financial support from municipalities in Waterloo County. Berlin town council allocated $2800 to the purchase of the Freeport site and passed a bylaw for an additional $15,000 to be raised for the construction of the Sanatorium. Civic involvement continued to play significant role in the operation of the Freeport Sanatorium through fundraising work of Sanatorium Auxiliaries, and local chapters of the Women's Institute. The property was purchased by the Berlin Town Council in 1912 from Benjamin Shantz to serve as a sanatorium for the treatment of patients suffering from tuberculosis. The Freeport Sanatorium, although originally intended for civilian use, first opened as a sanatorium and convalescent home for soldiers who had contracted tuberculosis during the First World War. The Shantz farmhouse (now demolished) served as the original treatment centre. The sanatorium was returned to civilian use in 1920 and an expansion of the facilities followed. The site is now a complex of buildings, nine of which were constructed between 1926 and 1953. 1 - 110 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The nine early buildings include a nurses' residence (1926-1927; additions 1933, 1940, 1953), a main treatment centre (1929-1930; additions 1932, 1937-1938, 1950), a doctor's residence (1953; demolished), a medical superintendent's house currently called the pastoral care house (1938-1939), a men's residence (1935-1936), a women's residence (1935-1936), a laundry building, a brick shed, a pump house and a power house (1932). In the late 1950s, advances in tuberculosis treatment and declining sanatorium admissions led to the expansion of care to include chronic-rehabilitative care. Freeport Sanatorium was the first in Ontario to expand the scope of care. By 1970, the tuberculosis division was closed and in 1989 a large health care complex was constructed. An addition to that complex to accommodate mental health care was constructed in 2010. The associative value also relates to its association with architect Bernal A. Jones and Barnett & Rieder. Bernal A. Jones designed the main treatment building and 1950 addition, additions to the Nurses' Residence (1933 and 1940) and the Medical Superintendent's Residence. Jones had a significant impact on local architecture in Kitchener through his designs of a number of important public buildings, including the Public Utilities Building, the Church of the Good Shepherd and St. Mary's Hospital. Jones assisted W.H.E. Schmalz in the design of the 1922/1923 Kitchener City Hall. The firm Schmalz and Jones maintained an office until 1926. Barnett & Rieder designed the east wing of the nurses' residence in 1953 with specifications that called for face brick matching and the colour and texture of brick in the sanatorium's existing buildings. Heritage Attributes ■ All elements related to the construction and Georgian Revival architectural style of the nine early sanatorium buildings, known as the nurses' residence, main treatment centre, doctor's residence, medical superintendent's house, men's residence, laundry building, brick shed, pump house and a power house. These attributes include: • roofs and rooflines, including medium-pitched gable or hip roofs; • doors and door openings; including: • original exterior wood doors with bronze hardware and knockers; • Doric pilasters and entablature; • leaded glass sidelights and glass or wood transoms; • brick voussoirs; • copper porch stoop roof with brackets (doctor's residence) • windows and window openings; including: • original double sash wood windows; • brick or concrete sills; • original exterior wood storms; • round arched panels of roughcast plaster (nurses' residence); • brick voussoirs and artificial stone keystones; • brick soldier course over upper windows; • circular gable windows (nurses' residence); • copper roofed bay window (doctor's residence) • octagonal and fan windows (superintendent's residence) • dark red, variegated brick construction; • concrete foundation; • porch (superintendent's residence) • original iron railings (nurses' residence, superintendent's house); • chimney. 1 - 111 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Original interior elements for: • nurses' residence including: single paneled doors on the upper floor, window surrounds on all floors, fireplace and mantel, inset bookcase cabinet, front and back staircases; • Doctor's residence, including: main entrance foyer, baseboards and wood window surrounds, front staircase and living room fireplace and mantel; • Superintendent's residence, including: beaded baseboard, original wood panel and glass paned doors, fireplace and mantel, front and back staircase; References The Lung Association Tuberculosis History in Canada. Website: _http://www.Iung.ca/tb/tbhistory/ 1987 Caring on the Grand : a history of the Freeport Hospital / by Peter Conrad Conrad, Peter KPL-Main Grace Schmidt Rm 362.160971345 Conra 1985 A historical sketch of the Freeport Hospital and the auxiliaries / by Mrs. E. T. Humphrey Humphrey, E. T., Mrs KPL-Main Grace Schmidt Rm 362.160971345 Humph Dilse, P. & Stewart, P. (2007). Heritage Impact Assessment at the Freeport Sanatorium Site 3570 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. Wherrett, G. J. (1977). The Miracle of the Empty Beds: A History of Tuberculosis in Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Grzybowski, S. and Allen, E. A. (1999). Tuberculosis: 2. History of the disease in Canada. CMAJ 160:1025-8. Uttley, W.V. 1 - 112 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos 01'I' Au Sri 357x1 r.;!d7a(rl A44d Y"„yr:y Z (fyfl.IJk'RdY 3570 King Street East (Aerial Photograph) i i 1 i i 3570 King Street East (Old Nurse's Residence) 1 - 113 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE .v Y, i riR w,.6 i �r fi F ' e J l�J1�1 1 1, I U4 r p i i i r r� VIII / 3570 King Street East (Old Medical Superintendent's Residence) /aaaaaa / i / / / / / / aaaaaaaaaaaoii% / / r �iiiiooa/i%%%%%// I ��'p liillliiii II VI „ ..' �0 "4 VYI�'dli IIIIII I'i � „o I /,/� / ,<,�„rr �,;✓�/%��/ri�/l��i/J!�/%%(off �O ! I��r'! 1 1) , 3570 King Street East (Old Laundry Building) 1 - 114 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 3570 King Street East Period: 20th Century Field Team Initials: MW/LB Description: Freeport Hospital Date: 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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 1 - 115 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 1 - 116 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 914 King Street West Municipal Address: 27 914 King Street West ' 2 rye,. ,7 Legal Description: '° • Plan 385 Lot 299 32d-9N t Year Built: c. 1900 rZR . Architectural Style: �, � .. , Queen Anne q104 � Original Owner: Original Use: House % •., %/j/ Condition: Good �1 Description of Historic Place 914 King Street West is a two storey residential building built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The residential building is situated on a 0.19 acre parcel of land located on the north side of King Street West between Mt. Hope Street 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 residential building. Heritage Value 67 King Street East is recognized for its design value. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a notable example of the Queen Anne architectural style. The building is in good condition and features: a two storey building; gambrel roof with moulded eaves, plain soffit and moulded fascia; red brick; front projecting bay with gable roof; two storey enclosed porch with brick piers, wood posts, multi- paned windows, shingled wall between foundation and lower porch, sloped shingle wall between lower and upper porch and gable roof; first floor picture window with half-round transom in centre of front projecting bay; round leaded window on right; three section bay window; two part attic window with pedimented trim in front window; semi-circular attic window on side elevations; and, rusticated foundation. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 914 King Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the building, including: • a two storey building; • roof and roofline, including: ■ gambrel roof with moulded eaves, plain soffit and moulded fascia; • red brick; • front projecting bay with gable roof; 1 - 117 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE • two storey enclosed porch with brick piers, wood posts, multi-paned windows, shingled wall between foundation and lower porch, sloped shingle wall between lower and upper porch and gable roof; • all window and window openings, including: • first floor picture window with half-round transom in centre of front projecting bay; • round leaded window on right; • three section bay window; • two part attic window with pedimented trim in front window; • semi-circular attic window on side elevations; and, • rusticated foundation. Photos KIM t o r 6. W e^-,. r✓i.�„i .. 'li :s %/iii%%%%///�<, / +. I r i uow w ��' �'"" � vMa4l.'Y luvmz4mWHM u!4bwtid1Vi4M Nmnw'NiwfgpiU �,mm 914 King Street East 1 - 118 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE k h silo/ 1�7�j��s�'a'r p ip a !1' IIV1,✓IIU��� � 5 m `��w�r� J��,'A"&W ��� )��� d i,✓�'� ,fry f ,�,"s i� M��y�����,f�� ;.p I�I�yly wr, r � fiu l � y1!��l> y 914 King Street East y h. i x 7 m - iP ��,�+suu»oo uw;m�oumww�7�vuii�iiinu;�Na¢�d irms�wmr q � r.� 914 King Street East 1 - 119 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 914 King Street East Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: June 20, 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: gambrel roof rare/unusual in Kitchener; brick detailing;stain glass;stepped corner, oriel window on side elevation;foundation interesting; porch enclosure/addition in keeping with rest of house 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 ❑? 1 - 120 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 1 - 121 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 148 Madison Avenue South Municipal Address: 148 Madison Avenue South tie Legal Description: Plan 395 Part Lot 1, 2 & 7 Year Built: 1930 & 1952 X R�l X6 Architectural Style: Romanesque 142 Original Owner: St. Joseph's Catholic Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 148 Madison Avenue South is a mid-20th century brick church built in the Romanesque architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.68 acre parcel of land located on the north west corner of Courtland Avenue East and Madison Avenue South in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. Heritage Value 148 Madison Avenue South 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 Romanesque architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church features: cruciform plan; 100 foot high bell tower with extensive decoration at the top and a flat roof with cross; front gable roof; 42 foot high sanctuary; rotunda with dome roof; semi rug buff brick with stone trim; buttressing; rounded arches on doors and windows with stone colonettes and surrounds; rose window; stained glass windows; date stone that reads "St. Joseph's Church 1930 & 1952"; stone crosses; and, rusticated foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the church makes to the continuity and character of the Courtland Avenue East and Madison Avenue South streetscape. The church is historically, functionally and visually linked to the St. Joseph's Catholic School and the St. Joseph's rectory. The historic and associative value relates to the original owner, congregation, original pastor, architect and builder. The lands were secured from the school board in 1930 for $3000 (St. Joseph Parish Roman Catholic Church, 2010). The congregation was formed in 1930 when Monsignor Reuben M. Haller was assigned the task of building a church due to the growing 1 - 122 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE congregation at St. Mary's and Sacred Heart (St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, 1990). The first mass was held on October 26, 1930 in the St. Joseph's School hall (St. Joseph Parish Roman Catholic Church, 2010). Monsignor R.M. Haller was the first diocesan priest to serve Kitchener; the first priest of the City to be made a Monsignor while serving the community; and, the first living person to have a new separate school named in his honour (St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, 1990). Construction of the basement began in the fall of 1930 with church services being held in the basement by Christmas (St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, 1990). Due to a steel shortage during the depression the remainder of the church was not built until 1952. The church was dedicated on April 12, 1953 by Bishop J.F. Ryan of Hamilton and the cornerstone was laid on July 20, 1952 by Monsignor A. J. O'Brien of Hamilton assisted by Rev. R.M. Haller and Rev. H.B. Smith. According to an article in the KW Record (April 11, 1953) the church was "built to match the design of the Pope's private chapel in Rome." The rectory was built on Madison Avenue South in 1958, a plaque in memory of Monsignor Haller was unveiled in 1980, the sanctuary was renovated in 1986, some brickwork was redone in 1988 and some of the brick on the tower was replaced with stone in 1996. The church was designed by Bernal A. Jones. 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 1932 Public Utilities Building and the 1936-37 Church of the Good Shepherd (Hill, 2009). The church was constructed by Ball Brothers Ltd. Ball Brothers Ltd. were general contractors formed by the partnership of Harold and Frank Ball in 1923 (Ball Construction, 2013). Ball Brothers Ltd. was a local based company but known across the province. Local examples of their work include: large portions of St. Mary's Hospital and Grand River Hospital; Centre in the Square; various buildings at Conestoga College, Wilfrid Laurier University, the University of Waterloo and the University of Guelph; the former Budd automative plant (demolished); and, the Kitchener railway barns (demolished). The company is now known as Ball Construction. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 148 Madison Avenue South resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Romanesque architectural style of the church, including: o cruciform plan; 0 100 foot high bell tower with extensive decoration at the top and a flat roof with cross; o front gable roof; 0 42 foot high sanctuary; o rotunda with dome roof; o semi rug buff brick with stone trim; o buttressing; o windows and window openings, including: • rounded arches on windows with stone colonettes and surrounds; • rose window; • stained glass windows; o doors and door openings, including: • rounded arches on doors with stone colonettes and surrounds; 1 - 123 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE • date stone that reads "St. Joseph's Church 1930 & 1952"; • stone crosses; and, • rusticated foundation. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the church and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Courtland Avenue East and Madison Avenue South streetscape; and, • Link to the St. Joseph's Catholic School and the St. Joseph's rectory. References Ball Construction. (2013). History. Retrieved from bhl!p,://www.ballcon.com/index.php/abo t- us on October 21, 2013. Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://vUww.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada orb/architects/view/173 on October 4, 2013. St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church. (1990). St. Joseph's Parish Community Kitchener, Ontario 1930-1990: Celebrating Our 60th Anniversary. St. Joseph Parish Roman Catholic Church. (2010). The History of St. Joseph's Parish. Retrieved from http://stiose hkitchener.org/parishlife/history.htm on October 21, 2013. Photos 148 Madison Ave. S. (corner of Courtland Avenue East and Madison Avenue South) 1 - 124 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ftj i i l 148 Madison Avenue South (Courtland Avenue East Elevation) e� r uuuuuuu uuuu W�VVV I iuuui uu V n igli�u��lll il�i ' I N III 148 Madison Avenue South (Madison Avenue South Elevation) 1 - 125 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE M 1 1 i Ij f it � I 148 Madison Avenue South (Madison Avenue South Elevation) i / %% AR +' a m " y ,i i r 1 II i l...... ✓�1 148 Madison Avenue South (Madison Avenue South Elevation including Rectory) 1 - 126 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 148 Madison Avenue South Period: 1930 & 1952 Field Team Initials: CM/LB/MD Description: St. Joseph's Catholic Church and Rectory Date: July 10, 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: yellow brick; rock faced foundation;stained glass windows; stone surrounds; square bell tower,. semicircular windows; date stone that reads"St. Joseph's Church 1930& 1952"; rose window; crosses 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 N? 1 - 127 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N that complete the site? Notes Field Team: Link to St. Joseph's Catholic School and Rectory 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: expansion of St. Mary's church 1 - 128 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 13-15 Oak Street Municipal Address: ���������� 13-15 Oak Street '' % 20 Legal Description: Plan 418 Lot 33 Year Built: c. 1880 � � Architectural Style: 7 Ontario Gothic Original Owner: Jacob Mederak 5 ll f % f Original Use: Duplex o� Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 13-15 Oak Street is a one and a half storey late 19th century brick duplex built in the Ontario Gothic architectural style. The duplex is situated on a 0.15 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Oak Street between Victoria Street South and Linden Avenue in the Victoria Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The duplex is also flanked on both sides and the rear by the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the duplex. Heritage Value 13-15 Oak Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the duplex. The duplex is a unique example of a duplex building constructed in the Ontario Gothic architectural style. The duplex is in good condition. The duplex is one and a half storeys in height and features: side gable roof with centre gable decorated with a closed-cut bargeboard; plain eaves; tongue and groove soffits; undecorated frieze; centre hall plan; four bays; yellow brick laid in the American bond style; masonry details including: concave joints, "header' course every 7 rows, and yellow quoins; twin one-bay entrance porches featuring: stairs, balustrades, square columns with architrave capitals, and boxed cornice decorated with scroll brackets; front doors and openings featuring: wood door with decorative panels, and arched openings headed with arched brick voussoirs; and, windows and window openings, including: main floor windows with 1/1 design, arched brick voussoirs and wood sills, second floor windows with 1/1 design and brick voussoirs, and basement windows with flat brick voussoirs. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the duplex makes to the continuity and character of the Oak Street streetscape. The setting is linked to the adjacent Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District as well as the Lang Tannery. 1 - 129 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 13-15 Oak Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the duplex and Ontario Gothic architectural style, including: • side gable roof with centre gable decorated with a closed-cut bargeboard; • plain eaves; • tongue and groove soffits; • undecorated frieze; • centre hall plan; • four bays; • yellow brick laid in the American bond style; • masonry details including: ■ concave joints, ■ "header' course every 7 rows, and ■ yellow quoins; • twin one-bay entrance porches featuring: ■ stairs, ■ balustrades, ■ square columns with architrave capitals, and ■ boxed cornice decorated with scroll brackets; • front doors and openings featuring: ■ wood door with decorative panels, and ■ arched openings headed with arched brick voussoirs; and, • windows and window openings, including: ■ main floor windows with 1/1 design, arched brick voussoirs and wood sills, ■ second floor windows with 1/1 design and brick voussoirs, and ■ basement windows with flat brick voussoirs. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the duplex and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Oak Street streetscape; • Link to the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District; and, • Link to the Lang Tannery. References Shea, P. (1988). Historic Buildings Inventory: 13-15 Oak Street. LACAC: Kitchener, Ontario. 1 - 130 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos elf ri�lrr�� r 1 r � r r � "! s ry � nr r xr 71 r��rlru/Y ✓ r;�� iof�%y � r���r r / ��/%in rye%� fY�. r1 d a dr ����l�'11������ lr�r , ) � � � ,������1 �liiyy°°�,,➢�1�;��f,,l��N^ r1 � r� u rJ �✓ i � ra r'. i Div r) i daiP I� � fJfWj'�7(dl���{' lm' ��;r �I mu r A'` '�. ;rRP`i��lr��r�r��iY i `��ir ��' � ! (�r�r �� ,j i, " r����I(l�9�i�i � '� l rn✓- //���'�1�. 13-15 Oak Street 1 - 131 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE qP M10, ,� � i glllllli ,r I J vwy���l�� Ir��°iii «�'I ➢Y lir r I� I C i ,, r ✓� ✓i iii r i �i rr i � , ' � i ri iii i U°i ii iii �i i//aUl✓i l/��rN/1Gl f/,�9IfOl//19y1116✓%�ly���i,��� ✓rrl fl`i 1. v�; � ✓ 0 1/ � Jl �9��t � ✓ Ali//�r �,//rl �rv" 1 r�I�� r i✓r i/ �/ >� �r � r�i/"�`"r��i �Heir✓ry E� 1 I � 1 � � y n � ��� � ;hw� � �v✓/f�l�� r r r a 13 Oak Street 1 - 132 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE /// J Jl I n� ✓W I ✓ 4{p<p<p 1 W r� � 401 r j �Nr « i rw dg, ' 15 Oak Street 1 - 133 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 13-15 Oak Street Period: c. 1880 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: July 30, 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:semi; features referenced in 1988 report; little has changed; yellow brick; bargeboard; porches;windows; doors 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 - 134 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: link to VPHCD and possibly Lang 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:wood features require maintenance 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 1 - 135