Downtown London Heritage Conservation District Study Final ... · Figure 2-10 Hotel London, Dundas Street looking west towards Wellington Street. c.1925 ... Vehicle Trips and Classification

Downtown London

Heritage Conservation District Study

Final Report

In association with:

• SJMA Architecture Inc. • Michael Baker, Historian • Sylvia Behr, Landscape Heritage Consultant

January 2011 161401203

Submitted by:

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY

i

Acknowledgements

On behalf of the project Team, we would like to acknowledge the input and assistance of many people

outside of the team who contributed in a significant way to the preparation of this study.

Thank you to the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH), Downtown London, the Chamber

of Commerce, and the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) for your support and continued

commitment to the preservation of your downtown “heritage” community. A special thank you goes out

to the Downtown London Heritage Conservation District Study Steering Committee for your assistance

and input.

Steering Committee

Greg Thompson (Chair) Janette MacDonald Judy Bryant (Ward Councillor) Tom Bird Jack Malkin Joe O‟Neil Sharon Hassan Jonathon Bancroft Snell

Our thanks are also extended to the City of London staff, particularly Charles Parker, Don Menard,

Gregg Barrett, and Sean Galloway, for the provision of documents and other background information

that have been crucial to the study and for comments and feedback throughout. Thank you also to the

London Room at the Central Library and the UWO Regional Collection for historical information.

Dan Young & Jim Vafiades, Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Ed Vandermaarel, Heritage Architect, SJMA Architecture Inc.

Mike Baker, Historian

Sylvia Behr, Landscape Heritage Consultant

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY

i

Table of Contents

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ................................................................................... 1.1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1.1

1.2 WHAT HAPPENS IN A HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT .................................. 1.2

1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF STUDY ........................................................................ 1.3

1.4 LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 1.3

1.5 FORMAT OF REPORT ...................................................................................................... 1.5

2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ................................................................................................ 2.6

2.1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN .................................................. 2.6

2.2 KEY DEVELOPMENT PERIODS ...................................................................................... 2.6 2.2.1 1826-1845............................................................................................................ 2.6 2.2.2 1845-1860............................................................................................................ 2.7 2.2.3 1860-1880............................................................................................................ 2.8 2.2.4 1880-1920.......................................................................................................... 2.10 2.2.5 1920-1955.......................................................................................................... 2.12 2.2.6 1955-1985.......................................................................................................... 2.13 2.2.7 Summary ......................................................................................................... 2.14

3.0 ARCHITECTURAL / BUILDING INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT ........................ 3.15 3.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 3.15

3.2 DESIGNATED PROPERTIES .......................................................................................... 3.16

3.3 LISTED PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................... 3.16

3.4 UNIQUE BUILDINGS AND LANDMARKS ................................................................... 3.20

3.5 STREETSCAPE GROUPING AND CONTINUITY .......................................................... 3.23

3.6 COMMERCIAL CONVERSIONS .................................................................................... 3.27

3.7 RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS ..................................................................................... 3.28

3.8 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION .............................. 3.28

3.9 ARCHITECTURAL CHALLENGES ................................................................................ 3.30

4.0 LAND USE PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT ..................................................... 4.31 4.1 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT ............................................................................ 4.31

4.2 OFFICIAL PLAN STATUS .............................................................................................. 4.31 4.2.1 Heritage Policy Context.................................................................................... 4.31 4.2.2 Land Use Designations ..................................................................................... 4.32

4.3 ZONING ......................................................................................................................... 4.34 4.3.1 Downtown Area Zone ...................................................................................... 4.35 4.3.2 Open Space Zone ............................................................................................. 4.35 4.3.3 Office Residential Zone .................................................................................... 4.35 4.3.4 Community Facility Zone ................................................................................. 4.35 4.3.5 Heritage Zone .................................................................................................. 4.35

Downtown London Heritage Conservation District Study TABLE OF CONTENTS

January 2011

ii

4.3.6 Other Mechanisms ........................................................................................... 4.35

4.4 OTHER STUDIES AND PLANNING INITIATIVES........................................................ 4.36

4.5 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ........................................................................................... 4.36

4.6 PLANNING OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES .................................................... 4.37

5.0 ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTER .................................... 5.38 5.1 PREDOMINANT LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS ................................................... 5.39

5.2 THE HISTORIC STREET PLAN AND STREET PATTERNS............................................ 5.42

5.3 PRIMARY ENTRANCES TO THE DISTRICT ................................................................. 5.43 5.3.1 Eastern Entrance .............................................................................................. 5.43 5.3.2 Southern Entrance ............................................................................................ 5.43 5.3.3 Northern Entrance............................................................................................ 5.43 5.3.4 Western Entrance ............................................................................................. 5.44

5.4 MATURE VEGETATION ................................................................................................ 5.44

5.5 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ........................................................................................... 5.45

5.6 SPATIAL ELEMENTS - VIEWS & VISTAS ...................................................................... 5.46

5.7 STREETSCAPES – MATERIALS, FURNISHINGS, BOUNDARIES, AND EDGES ........... 5.48

6.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................ 6.49

6.1 COMMUNITY STATISTICS ............................................................................................ 6.49 6.1.1 Population Profile ............................................................................................ 6.49 6.1.2 Housing Profile ................................................................................................ 6.49 6.1.3 Economic Profile .............................................................................................. 6.50

6.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES ............................................. 6.50

7.0 MOVEMENT ................................................................................................................. 7.51 7.1 STREET NETWORK ....................................................................................................... 7.51

7.2 PUBLIC TRANSIT .......................................................................................................... 7.53

7.3 CYCLING NETWORK .................................................................................................... 7.53

7.4 PARKING ....................................................................................................................... 7.54

7.5 PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................ 7.55

7.6 ASSESSMENT OF MOVEMENT SYSTEM ...................................................................... 7.55 7.6.1 Strength ........................................................................................................... 7.55 7.6.2 Weaknesses ...................................................................................................... 7.56

7.7 MOVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES ........................................................ 7.56

8.0 TOURISM AND PROMOTION .................................................................................... 8.57 8.1 HERITAGE TOURISM IN LONDON .............................................................................. 8.57

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 9.58 9.1 HERITAGE DISTRICT BOUNDARY OPTIONS .............................................................. 9.58


January 2011

iii

9.2 RECOMMENDED DISTRICT BOUNDARY .................................................................... 9.61

9.3 IMPLEMENTATION - POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND PROGRAMS ............................. 9.62

FIGURES Figure 1-1 Study Area Location Figure 1-2 Downtown Heritage District Study Area, City of London Planning and Development Figure 2-1 A view of the Courthouse looking northeast towards Dundas and Ridout, c.1845 (LRAHM) Figure 2-2 Richmond Street looking west towards Dundas showing rows of Georgian commercial blocks,

c.1860 (McCord Museum) Figure 2-3 Joseph Jeffrey Exchange, Crystal Block, Richmond Street, west side looking north from

Dundas, c.1870 (Leonard Album, JJTRC, UWO) Figure 2-4 111-113 Dundas Street (J. Tamblyn) Figure 2-5 Richmond Street looking south to Queens Avenue, c.1875. Two banks built in the 1850's are

along the right. (LRAHM) Figure 2-6 North side of Dundas Street between Talbot and Richmond, c.1885. Only the Chisholm

Building (ninth from left) still stands. (JJTRC, UWO) Figure 2-7 Grand Building (at right), 140-142 Dundas Street, c.1998 Figure 2-8 Burriadge Block, southwest corner of King and Talbot, c.1881 (Peter Vickers) Figure 2-9 Coffered ceiling of the 1926 London Life Buildings, c.1998 (J. Tamblyn) Figure 2-10 Hotel London, Dundas Street looking west towards Wellington Street. c.1925 (LRAHM) Figure 2-11 Interior of Wellington Square Mall, c.1965 (LRAHM) Figure 2-12 CNR Building under construction, c.1965 (LRAHM) Figure 3-1 Dundas Street. Designated property within the proposed District (SJMA) Figure 3-2 Unlisted Unit, 426-428 Richmond Street (SJMA) Figure 3-3 Unlisted Building, 433 Waterloo Street (SJMA) Figure 3-4 Designated and Listed Properties Figure 3-5 London Life Building, 255 Dufferin Avenue (SJMA) Figure 3-6 Dominion Building, 457 Richmond Street (SJMA) Figure 3-7 Middlesex County Courthouse, 399 Ridout Street (SJMA) Figure 3-8 London Mutual Fire Insurance Building, 476 Richmond Street (SJMA) Figure 3-9 Delta Armouries Hotel, 325 Dundas Street (SJMA) Figure 3-10 Mechanic's Institute, 229-231 Dundas Street (SJMA) Figure 3-11 Eldon House, 481 Ridout Street (SJMA) Figure 3-12 Carriage House - Eldon House (SJMA) Figure 3-13 332-366 Richmond Street (SJMA) Figure 3-14 388-398 Richmond Street (SJMA) Figure 3-15 172-210 Dundas Street (SJMA) Figure 3-16 170-204 Dundas Street (SJMA) Figure 3-17 201-215 Dundas Street (SJMA) Figure 3-18 272-468 Wellington Street (SJMA) Figure 3-19 88 York Street - Mixed Use Conversion Potential Figure 3-20 Bud Gowan Building aka Granite Block, 172-184 York Street Figure 3-21 199 Queens Avenue. Originally the George Hiscox House (1880), it has been modified and

added to since it was built. The property continues to be pristinely maintained. (SJMA) Figure 3-22 Example of facade renovation that occurred over time. 353-357 Clarance Street (SJMA)


January 2011

iv

Figure 4-1 Downtown Land Use - City of London Official Plan, Schedule "A" Figure 4-2 Zoning Map - City of London Planning and Development Figure 5-1 Landscape Character Units Figure 5-2 London Life Building streetscape - Dufferin Avenue Figure 5-3 Wellington Street (City of London) Figure 5-4 Richmond Street - north from York Figure 5-5 Richmond Street - north from York Figure 5-6 Dundas Street - east from Richmond Figure 5-7 Dundas Street - west from Wellington Figure 5-8 345-353 Talbot Street Figure 5-9 117-125 King Street 5-10 Richmond Street - Southerly Approach Figure 5-11 Richmond Street - Northerly Approach Figure 5-12 Middlesex County Courthouse - Westerly Approach Figure 5-13 Mature Vegetation - Carling Street Figure 5-14 Mature Vegetation (City of London) Figure 5-15 Mature Vegetation - Queens Avenue Figure 5-16 Covent Garden Market - Talbot Street Figure 5-17 St. Paul's Cathedral - Queens at Richmond Figure 5-18 Armouries - Dundas Street Figure 5-19 Middlesex County Courthouse - Ridout Street Figure 5-20 Eldon House - Talbot Street Figure 5-21 London Life - Dufferin Avenue Figure 5-22 192-210 Dundas Street Figure 7-1 London Transit Route (City of London Interactive Maps) Figure 7-2 Cycling Routes (City of London Interactive Maps) Figure 7-3 Fullarton Streetscape - Surface Parking Lot (SJMA) Figure 9-1 Original Study Area Boundary Figure 9-2 Study Area modified to remove the West Woodfield HCD Figure 9-3 Block Identification Figure 9-4 Recommended Downtown HCD Boundary

TABLES Table 3-1 - Designated Properties Table 3-2 - Listed Properties Table 6-3 - Age Distribution Table 6-4 - Ownership Table 6-5 - Income Profile Table 6-6 - Employment Status Table 7-7 - Vehicle Trips and Classification

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

January 2011

1.1

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY was undertaken on

behalf of the City of London to provide an architectural and historical analysis of Downtown London.

The study area was established from the boundaries of the Downtown as described within the City‟s

Official Plan. This boundary was expanded to include the Forks of the Thames, the focal point of

London‟s early development.

Heritage Conservation Districts are created under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act for the purpose of

conserving something of heritage value that is common to a whole district. The emphasis in a Heritage

Conservation District is the collective character of the overall area, as defined by its historical context,

architecture, streets, landscape and other physical and visual features. There is no minimum size for

heritage districts and they may be comprised of residential, commercial, or industrial areas or any

combination of these uses and buildings. This is London‟s first HCD focused on a predominantly

commercial area. All existing HCDs have been primarily residential areas.

Heritage designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act is not focused on individual buildings nor

concerned with the interior of buildings as these elements are governed by Part IV of Act.

A publication by the Ministry of Culture1 suggests that many heritage districts share common

characteristics, including:

A concentration of heritage buildings, structures, sites or landscapes linked by aesthetic, historical and socio-cultural contexts or use;

A framework of structured elements including natural and built features;

A sense of visual coherence that conveys a distinct time and place;

Distinctiveness from other places.

The DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY seeks to determine if

these characteristics exist within the study area, and if so, how to best protect them. Impetus for this

study was a result of The City of London‟s 1999 Heritage Conservation District Program and the timing

of the comprehensive Downtown Master Plan process. The Request for Proposal for this study was

approved by Council in February, 2009.

1 Ministry of Culture, “Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to District Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act” 2006.


January 2011

1.2

1.2 WHAT HAPPENS IN A HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

As previously mentioned, a Heritage Conservation District focuses on the preservation of a collective

area to help retain the key functional and visual attributes that convey or have a connection to the history

of the area in which they are located. A Heritage Conservation District can include buildings, landscapes,

streetscapes and vistas or a combination thereof. When an area is designated as a Heritage Conservation

District, it means that its essential elements are to be protected, but it does not mean that an area is

„frozen‟ in time or intended to be restored to some specific historical period or style.

Generally, it is the streetscape – the space from and including façade to façade and the negative space

between the buildings - that is the focus of a Heritage Conservation District. As such, policies and

guidelines are put in place to provide direction about what alterations, additions or new construction will

be considered appropriate for areas visible from the street. Heritage alteration permits are generally

required for major street-facing alterations and additions to existing heritage buildings, as well as new

construction. Minor repairs and alterations, or additions and renovations to the side or rear of buildings

typically do not require heritage alteration permits, although conservation guidelines may be provided to

assist with maintenance and repair of certain building elements. The interior of buildings is not affected

in any way in a Heritage Conservation District. If interior features are important, a Part IV designation

under the Ontario Heritage Act is required.

The public realm is also affected in a Heritage Conservation District and thus guidelines and policies are

often established for street trees, lighting, boulevards, signage and other such infrastructure. This is to

ensure that when a municipality undertakes public infrastructure improvements or changes, that they do

not have a negative impact on the heritage characteristics of the district.

Designation as a Heritage Conservation District is often considered to provide the following benefits to

property owners:

The protection and management of heritage assets (architecture, landscape, and history);

Additional information and guidance to property owners who are undertaking restoration, renovation and redevelopment;

Potential financial assistance (through grants, tax relief programs) for renovation and restoration;

Source of new promotion and tourism initiatives (walking tours, interpretive features);

Increased community stability.

Heritage Conservation District designation does put additional policies and guidelines in place, including

a more stringent review and approvals process. Residents and property owners however, should not

view designation as overly restrictive, cumbersome or as an imposition on property rights, but rather as

an opportunity to retain and enhance an area‟s most unique and attractive features for the overall benefit

of themselves and the community and city as a whole.


January 2011

1.3

1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The Ontario Heritage Act (Subsection 40.(2)) outlines the scope of a Heritage Conservation District (HCD)

Study, stating that it shall:

Examine character and appearance of the area including buildings, structures and other property features;

Examine and recommend area boundaries;

Consider and recommend objectives of designation and content of a HCD plan;

Recommend changes to Official Plan and municipal bylaws including zoning bylaws.

Consistent with the Act, the purpose of the DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION

DISTRICT STUDY is to “conduct a Heritage Conservation District Study that will examine and analyze

the historical, physical, environmental and socio-economic fabric of the study area”.

The Study is the first of a two-phase process, whereby Phase 1 focuses on background research and

examination of the history and architecture to determine if the area warrants designation as a Heritage

Conservation District based on the City‟s Official Plan criteria.

Phase 2 of the study will be the preparation of a Heritage Conservation District Plan including

implementation guidelines for the area delineated in Phase 1. The Plan will provide policy direction and

strategies to conserve and enhance the character of the Heritage Conservation District.

This report constitutes Phase 1 of the DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

STUDY.

1.4 LOCATION

Downtown London is geographically centred

within the City. Development has extended

outwards from the Downtown in all directions.

The relationship to the central area of the City is

depicted in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1 Study Area Location


January 2011

1.4

The Downtown as defined in the City‟s Official Plan (Section 4.2.2) is understood to include the area

north of the CN Tracks, east of Ridout Street and Thames Street, but including Museum London, and the

Labatt Restoration, south of Kent Street to Richmond Street, south of Victoria Park to Wellington Street,

south of Princess Avenue to Waterloo Street, and south of Dufferin Avenue to Colborne Street, and west

of Colbourne Street to the CN tracks as shown in Figure 1-2. In total, it encompasses approximately 102

ha (250 ac) and consists of hundreds of properties, including residential, commercial, institutional, retail

and office uses. Overall, there are approximately 1400 property owners in the Downtown area including

condo owners.

Figure 1-2 Downtown Heritage District Study Area, City of London Planning and Development


January 2011

1.5

At the beginning of this project, the heritage assessment focused on those buildings and streets within the

initial study area. As the study progressed, additional properties on the fringe of the study area were

also assessed to determine whether they should be included.

1.5 FORMAT OF REPORT

Our approach to the DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY focused

on the following aspects:

Identifying and evaluating the key historical, architectural and streetscape features of the Downtown to determine their heritage significance;

Reviewing the current planning and regulatory context as it pertains to heritage designation;

Establishing a clear, defensible rationale for the appropriateness and boundaries of a Heritage Conservation District;

Obtaining meaningful input and developing consensus with local stakeholders, property owners and residents.

This report contains the following components that were reviewed, investigated and analyzed for the

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY:

Historical context of the Study Area;

Building and site assessment and inventory;

Visual and contextual assessment and inventory;

Policy and land use planning context;

Socio-economic context;

Movement;

Recommendations relating to the proposed boundary for the Heritage Conservation District;

General recommendations regarding next steps and considerations to be addressed with the Downtown Heritage Conservation District Plan.

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY HISTORICAL CONTEXT

January 2011

2.6

2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

2.1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN

The study area encompasses part of the original town plot of London as laid out in 1826. Over time it

would become a densely built up area containing structures related to both business and industry erected

side-by-side for nearly 100 years beginning in the 1840s. The continuous redevelopment of much of the

core has resulted in a wide variety of building types from every period of the core‟s development, often

in close proximity to one another. Many of the surviving buildings represent industrial, wholesaling,

retailing and financial firms important in the development of the city and region. In their time, these

companies employed many Londoners and through their branches, sales offices and products brought

the city national recognition.

As late as the 1980s, London was still the home for a number of companies with national markets. Many

of the structures in the study area relate to these companies at various points in their development and as

such, the proposed district contains key elements of London‟s commercial and industrial history. The

surviving buildings also accurately reflect the concentration of certain types of services and commercial

enterprises. Within each district buildings from different eras illustrate the changes in size, design and

materials for several building types.

2.2 KEY DEVELOPMENT PERIODS

2.2.1 1826-1845

As with other communities, London‟s downtown is the oldest part of the city. The boundary of the

original town plot, laid out in 1826, ran south from the forks along a bend in the south branch of the river

then followed Wellington up to Queens (originally North Street) and then back to the river. The original

purpose of the settlement was to provide

a location for a new district court house

which would serve as the administrative

and judicial centre for a large part of

southwestern Ontario. The court house

itself (now the Middlesex County

Building) was located on Ridout Street,

then part of the route from Lake Erie to

the newly opened lands north of the

town site. Stores, mills, foundries and

tanneries sprang up to supply travellers

and incoming settlers. A public market

was established on the court house

square in 1835, intensifying commercial

activity in that area. Most residents in

this period lived south of the core

between the south branch of the Thames Figure 2-1 A view of the Courthouse looking northeast towards Dundas and Ridout, c.1845 (LRAHM)


January 2011

2.7

and Wellington Street.

A small number of buildings from this period survive including the Middlesex County Building, St.

Paul‟s Cathedral, Eldon House and the former Bank of Upper Canada at 435 Ridout. Most buildings of

the period were wood and did not survive fires and deterioration and were eventually replaced with

more permanent structures. Some were lost in the devastating fire of 1845, the worst of several in the

1840s. By 1850 only brick and stone could be used for construction in the area between Ridout and

Clarence and between Queens and King.

2.2.2 1845-1860

Three key developments in this

period contributed to the

reorientation of the core away

from Ridout Street and

towards Richmond Street. The

first was the establishment of

the market on its present

location in 1845. As the only

legal point of sale for meat,

produce and field crops

coming into the city, it

attracted many farmers as well

as townspeople. Retailers and

artisans supplying the farmers

tended to congregate along the

streets adjacent to the market.

Later services such as the first

bank branches located there as

well. Today, survivors such as the Massey-Harris implement dealership at 350 Talbot Street and 4 Covent

Market Place, one of Canada Trust‟s first branches, attest to the importance of the farm market to the

town‟s retailers and service providers.

On Dundas, a series of dry goods stores, boot and shoe retailers and hardware merchants started to

appear again largely as a result of the market‟s location. Kingsmill‟s, originally a dry goods store at 130

Dundas, is the most famous survivor of this development period having been on its present location for

145 years. In later years other department stores would move into this area.

Another development that tended to draw activity to Richmond as the centre of the core was the building

of the Great Western Railway passenger station on York Street at Richmond Street. A large hotel named

the Tecumseh was built several years later on the west side of Richmond opposite the station. It would be

the city‟s premier hotel until the 1920s. A passenger train station has been at or near that location since

1854.

Figure 2-2 Richmond Street looking west towards Dundas showing rows of Georgian commercial blocks, c.1860 (McCord Museum)


January 2011

2.8

Finally, in 1855 London began its first year as a city having achieved a population of 10,000. The little

town hall on Fullerton Street was abandoned and a new city hall was built on Richmond with a

carriageway running through to market square. This building was demolished in 1968.The relocation of

city hall may have had something to do with the appearance of other significant buildings on Richmond

at the same time, including several banks near the intersection of Queens and Richmond and a number of

office/commercial buildings including the first

Crystal Block, 417-423 Richmond (built 1859 and

replaced by the present structure in 1865), the

Albion Block built by the owners of the Carling

Brewery and the Victoria Building, half of which

still stands at 380 Richmond. In the 1870s, the

Crystal Block housed a private bank belonging to

financier Joseph Jefferies. He would go on to

manage a branch of the Molson‟s Bank and was

instrumental in founding a loan company, Ontario

Loan and Debenture, as well as the insurance

company, London Life, of which he was president

for 20 years. Ontario Loan was later taken over by

Royal Trust which replaced the first offices of all

three of these companies with the present building

at 137 Dundas in 1973.

Only a few of the structures from this period survive.

They include parts of the neo-Georgian blocks that

appeared in the area restricted to brick and stone

construction. One is a two-bay section of a block on

Dundas near Talbot (111-113 Dundas) possibly built

for merchants Andrew Chisholm and Laurence

Lawrason. The buildings opposite at 116-122 Dundas,

likely date from this period as well.

2.2.3 1860-1880

In this period certain types of land use begin to

occupy specific parts of the study area. Factories,

foundries and tanneries which had once dotted the

core now tended to occupy space on King and York

Streets and along the connecting streets. Two survive

from this period: a furniture factory at 174 King and a

carriage factory opposite at 179-181 King. What would soon be the largest factory in the core, McClary‟s

stove works, was now located on the northwest corner of York and Wellington. It would eventually

occupy most of the block.

Figure 2-3 Joseph Jeffrey Exchange, Crystal Block, Richmond Street, west side looking north from Dundas, c.1870 (Leonard Album, JJTRC, UWO)

Figure 2-4 111-113 Dundas Street (J. Tamblyn)


January 2011

2.9

A financial district, as has been seen, was developing on Richmond north of Dundas. Canada Trust, still

known by its original name, the Huron and Erie, built a new head office on this part of Richmond in 1870.

One of the few remnants of the banking district today is the former Bank of Montreal branch at 441

Richmond. It replaced the 1860 post office which had been bought by the bank. The Bank of Nova Scotia

replaced its historic branch built in 1889 with the present building at 420-422 Richmond in 1957. The

former CIBC bank at the corner of Dundas and Richmond also replaced a much earlier bank building. In

fact until recently, the Commerce had been on one side of Richmond at Dundas since shortly after it was

founded in 1867.

With the building of the railway station and a freight shed nearby, the wholesalers began to build their

warehouses in the vicinity of the corner of York and Richmond. Here their travellers (salesmen) could

hop on the train right outside the office and buyers arriving by train could easily find the buildings. The

surviving hotel in the vicinity, Grigg‟s at Richmond and York, also contained a number of sample rooms

where salesmen could display wares for potential customers. The earliest extant wholesale building is

340-342 Richmond originally owned by the Hobbs Hardware Company.

Commercial structures which continued to be found mainly on Dundas began to outgrow the Georgian

blocks of an earlier era. One of the best examples from this period, though damaged, is the Chisholm

building, the oldest in the dry goods district. Andrew Chisholm left the partnership with Lawrason and

built a new store at 142 Dundas in the mid 1860s. These stores, as well as those selling yard goods, often

Figure 2-5 Richmond Street looking south to Queens Avenue, c.1875. Two banks built in the 1850's are along the right. (LRAHM)


January 2011

2.10

had seamstresses and drapers working on the premises producing tailored clothes. Another example

outside the dry goods district is the McCormick grocery at 364 Richmond, completed in 1875.

2.2.4 1880-1920

In this period some of the more successful manufacturers were forced to leave the core in order to find

enough space to expand their factories. As well, wholesale blocks dramatically increased in size and the

first of the department stores were built in the old dry goods district.

Ontario manufacturers including those in London benefited tremendously in this period from the

imposition of tariffs on imported goods. At the same time a large influx of immigrants to the country as

well as people relocating from the nearby countryside, provided a growing labour pool for the expanding

factories. McClary‟s moved the stove foundry south on Adelaide Street near the river and retained the

downtown factory for making kitchenware. In the years leading up WWI however, several factories left

the core including McCormick‟s, a biscuit and candy factory, George White and Sons, a threshing

machine and steam traction engine maker, and Emco, the plumbing supplies company. None of their

downtown facilities exist today. Several other manufacturers found space on Clarence Street, part of the

manufacturing district. The two surviving factories on the street are quite different from those of an

earlier period found on King.

Figure 2-6 North side of Dundas Street between Talbot and Richmond, c.1885. Only the Chisholm Building (ninth from left) still stands. (JJTRC, UWO)


January 2011

2.11

Here tall narrow buildings are set on heavy stone piers and provided with a degree of ornamental brick

work. The Featherbone corset plant at 387 Clarence was built c .1890 and the Sterling shoe factory at 330

Clarence, was built c. 1898 and rebuilt after a fire in 1904. This was also the era when cigar manufacturing

was at its height in London. Several factories were built in the core, only one of which survives at 280

Dundas, the Smith cigar factory, built in 1890.

Banks and financial institutions also benefited from the prosperity in this period. London Life took over

an office building at 424 Wellington and added another floor. Now the Wright Litho building, it is one of

the best examples of Beaux-arts Classicism in the city. Wholesalers made fortunes in this period and new

wholesale blocks were built on Richmond (the Waterloo Block, 331-343 Richmond) and the Birrell block,

now merely a remnant, at 329 Richmond. On York Street, a series of wholesale blocks were built

including the Granite Block (176-184 York) and the McMahon-Granger Building (186 York).

The transition of several of the dry goods dealers into

department stores and the appearance of a new type

of retailer, the “five and dime” chain store occur in this

period. The Grand building at 140 Dundas is a good

example of this transition. Built in 1912 after a fire in

the block, the five-storey reinforced concrete building

housed a dry goods firm until the 1920s when it

became part of the Metropolitan Stores retail chain.

The building was a store and the head office for the

company until 1984. More recently it was part of a

discount chain the Red Apple Clearance Centre. The

era‟s largest department store the Smallman and

Ingram building at the corner of Dundas and

Richmond, built 1908, is also a good example of

Beaux-arts Classicism. It later became Simpsons.

This was a high point in the development of the core.

Large, beautifully ornamented structures were built to

house wholesalers, retailers, and theatres. An example

of which is the Scandrett grocery at 175 Dundas,

designed by the most prominent of London‟s 19th

century architects, George Durand. Other examples

are the Union Block, somewhat altered, at 183-189

Dundas, the Thomas furniture building at 240 Dundas

and the Burridge Block at King and Talbot, recently

restored.

Figure 2-7 Grand Building (at right), 140-142 Dundas Street, c.1998


January 2011

2.12

2.2.5 1920-1955

The 1920s was a boom period in the national economy resulting in the growth of many London

companies especially those engaged in the financial service sector. London Life, for example, built their

impressive Neo-classical headquarters next to Victoria Park in 1926. A new Bank of Toronto was built on

corner of Wellington and Dundas in 1928, now

the J. Allyn Taylor building. The London and

Western Trusts built a new head office and

banking hall at 353 Richmond. Most of this

activity required the demolition of existing

buildings as the core had almost been entirely

built up. In fact, London Life‟s new building

represents one of first incursions of

commercial buildings into the residential area

surrounding the core. Elsewhere, new

construction, including several factories, was

relegated to the edges of the core. Still

standing are the Holeproof hosiery mill across

the tracks on Bathurst and the Richmond

hosiery mill on Ridout, now part of Sterling

Marking Products. These are the last factory

Figure 2-8 Burriadge Block, southwest corner of King and Talbot, c.1881 (Peter Vickers)

Figure 2-9 Coffered ceiling of the 1926 London Life Buildings, c.1998 (J. Tamblyn)


January 2011

2.13

buildings to appear in the core. Another textile mill, Penmans, was built right on the river next to King

Street. It has since been demolished.

During the 1920s the impact of the automobile on the core is seen for the first time, beginning with

dealerships moving into existing buildings or constructing new ones and the appearance of the first of

numerous service stations mainly on street

corners. Of the many service stations once

located in the downtown, only one, at

Waterloo and York, remains. The car was

rapidly becoming the preferred means of

travel and as a result a new hotel, the Hotel

London, with a large garage attached was

built on the former McCormick‟s site at the

corner of Wellington and Dundas. It would

be the city‟s premier hotel until the 1970s

when it was replaced by the Holiday Inn as

part of the City Centre development.

The biggest impact the car would have on

the core was the growing need for parking.

A parking garage had been proposed as

early as 1947 for the city-owned market

square. So pressing was the need that

shortly after its completion in 1956, two additional levels were added. Intended to actually replace the

market and its vendors with a parking only structure, it was such a success that the vendors enjoyed low

rents for decades allowing the market function of the building to survive and become the focus of the

new market years later.

2.2.6 1955-1985

The beginning of major changes to core occurs in this period. The movement of industry and wholesaling

out of core freeing up land for retail and parking and the demolition of a large residential area near the

forks were the key developments in this period.

This period begins with the transformation of

what had been the largest industrial site in the

core, the McClary tin ware factory, into

Wellington Square Mall, the country‟s first

downtown indoor mall. The mall was anchored

by an Eaton‟s store and a second downtown

Woolworth‟s. The building of the mall saw the

removal of several factory buildings on Clarence,

most of which had come to house the Lawson

Figure 2-10 Hotel London, Dundas Street looking west towards Wellington Street. c.1925 (LRAHM)

Figure 2-11 Interior of Wellington Square Mall, c.1965 (LRAHM)


January 2011

2.14

and Jones printing and lithographing business which had built a plant on Clarence in 1910. The company

moved to a new plant on Wellington Road near Commissioners.

Large sections of the core were transformed in this period resulting in the replacement of many 19th

century buildings. In the west end a large section of the residential area bordering the core along Queens

and Dufferin were deemed to be substandard following an urban renewal study. The area, once home to

a large part of the turn-of-the-century Italian community, was demolished. Carling was stopped at Talbot

and Queens was extended over the river on a new bridge. The only new buildings that went up in place

of the cleared structures were government owned including the present federal building at 451 Talbot

and the new provincial courthouse. A mixed use tower at Talbot and Dundas stalled with little more than

the underground level built. It was later completed by Bell. In the east, two office towers and a hotel

replaced the Hotel London its parking building and the Northern Life building formerly used by Bell.

2.2.7 Summary

The area included in the study area was the home of most of London‟s major industrial, commercial and

financial endeavours up to the end of WWII. Many of the buildings these enterprises occupied can still be

found in a fairly compact area of the core. Historically certain types of commercial and industrial activity

were concentrated in specific areas and this is well illustrated by the surviving examples of each type.

Figure 2-12 CNR Building under construction, c.1965 (LRAHM)

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY ARCHITECTURAL / BUILDING INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT

January 2011

3.15

3.0 ARCHITECTURAL / BUILDING INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT

3.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The initial study area was selected by the City of London for the analysis and completion of a Downtown

Heritage Conservation District because it was consistent with the current Official Plan policies. This was

later expanded by the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) and Planning staff to include

the area west of the original study area up to the Thames River.

All buildings in the study area were photographed and catalogued for future reference. These photos

were mapped on the study area map and identified by their respective blocks. The properties were then

identified into categories as a result of the previous research completed by the City of London‟s Planning

Department. These properties were identified on the study area and HCD map as:

Designated Property

Priority Heritage Property

Property Recommended for Conservation

Property‟s Heritage Value to be Determined.

The information which was obtained to determine the ranked priority of heritage properties was

established from the following documents:

The Heritage Database within the City of London Inventory of Heritage Resources - 2006

Building Database (a work in progress) – May 2010

Downtown Heritage Properties Map within the Downtown Master Plan Background Study – 2009

There were also a number of unlisted heritage

properties identified which were felt to be of

significance. These properties were a) unlisted

units within a larger building, or b) properties

that possessed architectural features and or

elements which deemed them for

consideration.

Figure 3-1 Dundas Street. Designated property within the proposed District (SJMA)


January 2011

3.16

3.2 DESIGNATED PROPERTIES

The following list identifies the properties that are presently designated under Part IV of the Ontario

Heritage Act and lie within the proposed HCD boundary.

Table 3-1 - Designated Properties

No. Property Quad.

No. Description Type of Property

1 513 Talbot Street 1 First Christian Reformed Church L.S.P.-3318-193

2 435 - 451 Ridout Street 10 Nancy Campbell Collegiate Institute L.S.P.-3330-152

3 1 Dundas Street 21 Cottage L.S.P.-3320-207

4 399 Ridout Street 21 Old Court House L.S.P.-2917-501

5 481 Ridout Street 42 Eldon House L.S.P.-2329-578

3.3 LISTED PROPERTIES

The following list identifies properties that are either: a) unlisted units within a larger building, or b)

properties that possessed architectural features and or elements which deemed them for consideration.

These properties were identified within the original HCD Study Area and therefore may include

properties for review that are not necessarily in the final proposed HCD Boundary

Table 3-2 - Listed Properties

No. Property Quad.

No. Description Type of Property

1 187 Kent Street 2 Residence Unlisted Unit Within

Building

2 485 Talbot Street 4 Apartment Block (c1870) Unlisted Unit Within

Building

3 64 Fullarton Street 4 Single Family Home converted to Offices (1906) Property for

Consideration

4 66 Fullarton Street 4 Single Family Home Property for

Consideration

5 35 Picton Street 8 4 - Storey Apartment Building (1926) Unlisted Unit Within

Building

6 300 Queens Avenue 8 Single Family Home Property for

Consideration

7 307 Dufferin 9 Single Family Home converted to Business Property for

Consideration

8 413 Richmond Street 16 Grade: Business: L2-L3: Apartments (1865) Unlisted Unit Within

Building

9 121 Carling Street 16 Grade: Business: L2-L3: Residential Unlisted Unit Within

Building

10 123 Carling Street 16 Joseph David Photography Unlisted Unit Within

Building

11 125, 127, 131 Carling Street 16 Kingsmills Unlisted Unit Within

Building

12 133 Carling Street 16 ToWheels Unlisted Unit Within

Building


January 2011

3.17

13 135, 137, 139 Carling Street 16 former Red Apple Unlisted Unit Within

Building

14 141 Carling Street 16 Vacant Unlisted Unit Within

Building

15 143 Carling Street 16 Target Hifi Unlisted Unit Within

Building

16 145, 147 Carling Street 16 Unlisted Unit Within

Building

17 153 Carling Street 16 Up On Carling Unlisted Unit Within

Building

18 157 Carling Street 16 Michael Gibson Gallery Unlisted Unit Within

Building

19 148, 152. 154, 156 Dundas Street 16 Subway Unlisted Unit Within

Building

20 428 Richmond Street 17 Bob Burke Jewellery (1920) Unlisted Unit Within

Building

21 270 Dundas Street 18 BMO Property for

Consideration

22 294, 296, 298 Dundas Street 19 McKenzie Lake (1927) Unlisted Unit Within

Building

23 433 Waterloo Street 19 4 - Storey Apartment Building (1912) Property for

Consideration

24 372 Richmond Street 24 Richmond Hotel and Tavern (1860) Unlisted Unit Within

Building

25

213 Dundas Street; 397, 401

Clarence Street

24

#213 Dundas: Mina’s Buffet

#397 Clarence: Lucky Devil Tattoos

#401 Clarence: Vacant

Unlisted Unit Within Building

26 392, 394 Waterloo Street 27 Si Senor Property for

Consideration

27 365 Talbot Street 29 J.Burridge Building, Vacant (1881) Unlisted Unit Within

Building

28 360, 364, 366 Talbot street 30

(c1870)

#360: Commander Salamander

#364: Frilly Lizard

#366: Bombay Hair

Unlisted Unit Within Building

29 143, 154 King Street 30 Patty’s On King Restaurant Property for

Consideration

30 174 York Street 31 Formerly Bud Gowan (1883) Unlisted Unit Within

Building

31 340 Wellington Street 33 Yuk Yuks Property for

Consideration

32 362 Waterloo Street 34 Donohue Funeral Home Property for

Consideration


January 2011

3.18

In the first example shown, Figure 3-2, is an

Unlisted Unit within a larger building. The

property located at 428 Richmond Street where

the 426 Richmond Street, Artworks, is listed,

while its other half, 428 Richmond, Bob Burke

Jewellery, is presently not listed. This typically

occurs in the process of obtaining listing or

designation where the owner‟s approval has

been provided for one half of a similar building.

The inclusion of this property in the HCD will

provide a method for preservation through its

guidelines.

Figure 3-3 is an example of a building that is

unique and not presently on a list for

consideration. Built in 1912 and located on 433

Waterloo Street, it is an example of a very

unique four storey residential complex which

still maintains its front porch elements facing the

street, its original form of the windows, masonry

and stone base. The masonry colour alone juxtaposes itself amongst the properties on either its sides,

particularly the newer modern high-rise residential/commercial complex to the south.

Figure 3-2 Unlisted Unit, 426-428 Richmond Street (SJMA)

Figure 3-3 Unlisted Building, 433 Waterloo Street (SJMA)


January 2011

3.19

Figure 3-4 Designated and Listed Properties


January 2011

3.20

3.4 UNIQUE BUILDINGS AND LANDMARKS

The City of London, particularly its downtown, possesses a large number of buildings that can be

identified as unique buildings and also ones which are known as being landmarks within the City. This

provides a strong reinforcement of the downtown to become designated as a Downtown Heritage

Conservation District.

The London Life building, 255 Dufferin Avenue, and its addition comprise the block surrounded by

Wellington Street, Queens Ave., Clarence Street, and Dufferin Street and signifies the importance of the

white collar era of London‟s financial industry. This building possesses a magnificent presence on three

of its facades and is uniquely identified by

its massive stone architecture and finely

manicured lawns.

Similarly, Figure 3-6, the Dominion

Building, owned by the Federal

Government, 457 Richmond Street, is built

of stone. Its architectural style of Art Deco

and its monumental scale make it unique

within the City of London‟s downtown.

Its height is scaled to the street level by

using stepped back volumes which appear

to be on a single storey base. This

property was renovated in 2007 and is

presently listed on the Ontario Heritage

Properties List.

Figure 3-5 London Life Building, 255 Dufferin Avenue (SJMA)

Figure 3-6 Dominion Building, 457 Richmond Street (SJMA)


January 2011

3.21

The Middlesex County Court House, Figure 3-7,

located at 399 Ridout Street, was constructed in

1830. This notable structure was designed after

the Malahide Castle, near Dublin, Ireland, which

was the home of Colonel Thomas Talbot, founder

of the Talbot Settlement. The Middlesex County

Court House was declared a National Historic

Site in 1955 by the Government of Canada. It is a

significant historical and architectural landmark

within the City due to its many character defining

elements such as its octagonal towers, large

wooden doors, distinct parapets. Its location on

top of the hill at the Forks of the Thames

reinforces its prominence in London‟s Downtown

HCD.

The London Mutual Fire Insurance Building, Figure 3-8, is one of the few surviving financial buildings.

There are two Corinthian polished granite columns at its entrance, reminiscent of the Edwardian

Classicism era. It too is very distinguishable by its red brick and gable roof top identifying the building

entrance on Richmond Street.

Figure 3-7 Middlesex County Courthouse, 399 Ridout Street (SJMA)

Figure 3-8 London Mutual Fire Insurance Building, 476 Richmond Street (SJMA)


January 2011

3.22

Now known as the Delta Armouries Hotel, (Figure 3-

9) the original armouries building was retained and

turned into a full scale hotel, its tower a

contemporary glass and concrete structure. The

armouries building maintains its prominence of the

Edwardian military fortress of 1905 with its red

masonry and stone turrets. It is indicative of similar

armouries buildings situated and preserved in other

Ontario communities.

Figure 3-10, located at 231 Dundas Street, was

originally known as the Mechanic‟s Institute and has

been significantly restored. It possesses a central

tower and sloped roof line, accentuating the fourth

floor windows along the street face. The round

headed windows are ornately trimmed, a sign of the

era of Italian Renaissance.

Figure 3-9 Delta Armouries Hotel, 325 Dundas Street (SJMA)

Figure 3-10 Mechanic's Institute, 229-231 Dundas Street (SJMA)


January 2011

3.23

Eldon House located at 481 Ridout Street,

Figure 3-11, is London's oldest residence. It

was built in 1834 for John and Amelia Harris

and was donated to the City of London in 1960.

It is one of the City‟s designated properties and

continues to be maintained and operated by

the City as a museum. Also on the site is the

carriage house, Figure 3-12, and the recently

restored greenhouse. Although the house is

located in the City, it contains a number of

gardens and overlooks the Harris Park and the

Thames River.

3.5 STREETSCAPE GROUPING AND CONTINUITY

There are a number of groupings of buildings which reinforce the original heritage continuity of the

streetscape. These groupings are predominantly on Richmond and Dundas Streets, which is the main

axis for the downtown business district. Minor groupings of intact heritage buildings also remain on

parts of Wellington Street, north of Dundas Street, and on King Street at Talbot Street.

It was apparent during the study that the heritage gateway to the City of London is Richmond Street

north of the railway underpass at York Street. The south business gateway remains to be Wellington

Road as it is the direct route from the 401 highway.

Figure 3-11 Eldon House, 481 Ridout Street (SJMA)

Figure 3-12 Carriage House - Eldon House (SJMA)


January 2011

3.24

Figure 3-13, 332 to 366 Richmond Street. A number of buildings remain intact in the block between York

Street and King Street along Richmond. The massing, masonry elements, and fenestration features

remain apparent and continue to be candidates for preservation above the first floor. At street level, the

guidelines for the restoration will be an important tool to develop the historic cohesiveness of the original

grouping.

As well 388 to 398 Richmond (Figure 3-14) between King and Dundas has a significant grouping of

buildings which remain intact. Although the massing is very similar, the architecture of each building is

dissimilar, providing character to the street. As with the southern portion of Richmond, the street level

will benefit from the institution of restoration guidelines while the floors above are more conducive to

preservation.

Figure 3-13 332-366 Richmond Street (SJMA)

Figure 3-14 388-398 Richmond Street (SJMA)


January 2011

3.25

Dundas Street from 172 to 210 (Figure 3-15) is similar to Richmond Street, south of Dundas, in that the

building massing is relatively consistent. There are however, signs that indicate the massing has

deteriorated due to second floor removal of identified retail facades on the street face.

Other examples of groupings of significant heritage buildings include Figure 3-16, 170 to 204 Dundas

Street, Figure 3-17, 201 to 215 Dundas Street, and Figure 3-18, 272 Dundas Street – 468 Wellington Street.

Figure 3-15 172-210 Dundas Street (SJMA)



January 2011

3.26

There are a number of significant groupings of intact streetscape predominantly on Dundas and

Richmond Streets. This reinforces the need for an HCD to preserve the area and set guidelines in place to

maintain the existing groupings of buildings and streetscape.


Figure 3-18 272-468 Wellington Street (SJMA)


January 2011

3.27

3.6 COMMERCIAL CONVERSIONS

There are a number of opportunities in the proposed Heritage Conservation District for the conversion of

commercial buildings for adaptive reuse. 88 York Street, (Figure 3-19) is a three storey structure which

was built on top of the original foundry. This expanded the industrial nature of the building to also

incorporate woodworking and machine shops. Prior to the buildings being connected, the left building

housed the „Ontario Spring Bed and Mattress Company‟ and the right building „The London Machine

Tool Company‟. This property, physically, is well suited for conversion to a mixed use development of

retail on the lower level and residential on the upper levels. This building and ones similar to it also

allow for the creation of unique two floor apartments within the larger building.

The property located at 172 to 184 York Street, (Figure 3-20) more recently know as the Bud Gowan

building was historically known as the Granite Block. Originally used as warehouse space, its Italianate

architectural style and detailing make it attractive for use as retail and residential use. This building has

been converted to those uses over the years.

The incorporation of residential uses into these heritage buildings provides character to those living

spaces and provides intensification of the downtown to become more vibrant.

Figure 3-19 88 York Street - Mixed Use Conversion Potential


January 2011

3.28

3.7 RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS

Residential conversions are unique buildings within our downtown districts and should be preserved.

While few remain, they are typically located on what was once the edge of the main business district and

are indicative of city growth. These buildings are typically surrounded by larger commercial complexes

that have replaced heritage buildings over time. The development of the City Hall on Dufferin Street in

1971 and the addition to the London Life building have reduced the number of remaining single family

residential conversion properties.

These properties will require their own set of guidelines for their preservation as they are of original

residential context manifested into small business office use.

3.8 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION

The HCD Study area contains a number of types of uses including, commercial retail, business,

residential, and institutional use. As well, there is a wide variety of construction eras and additions

depicting changes in those eras.

Figure 3-20 Bud Gowan Building aka Granite Block, 172-184 York Street


January 2011

3.29

The downtown within the City of London, contains buildings with various styles including Art Deco,

Italianate, Victorian, Romanesque and others. The materials and construction vary in the downtown but

the majority of buildings are constructed either of masonry, or stone. Many of the buildings structure in

the downtown consist of masonry and wood. Roofs are predominantly flat with some ornate buildings

detailing sloped upper facades and gable detailing.

The fact that the downtown possesses a variety of styles, materials, and construction types lends the area

to be preserved for its uniqueness. The area contains a variety of these elements which reinforces the

proposed boundary for the HCD.

Figure 3-21 199 Queens Avenue. Originally the George Hiscox House (1880), it has been modified and added to since it was built. The property continues to be pristinely maintained. (SJMA)


January 2011

3.30

3.9 ARCHITECTURAL CHALLENGES

A preservationist believes that any building can be restored, rehabilitated, and reused. The challenge of

creating a successful Heritage Conservation District is to create a delicate balance of preserved buildings,

modern infill, and increased density for a vibrant and diverse downtown. This is no different for the

Downtown Heritage Conservation District in the City of London.

A major challenge is the restoration of buildings that have undergone numerous face lifts of their

building facades over time such as depicted in Figure 3-22. While the reversal of these facades to its

original context is necessary to restore the urban fabric, the owners of these properties are often the most

difficult to convince due to the vast amount of renovation investment expended.

A vibrant downtown

requires

intensification of

residential uses in

order that people live

and work in the City

centre. It will be a

challenge to

incorporate higher

residential use while

also preserving the

original heritage

street presence. It

will be a challenge

but also an

opportunity for

developers successful

at doing so.

Adaptive reuse of

heritage properties

will also be a challenge. This however is being overcome with the new Green movement identifying

„Preserved Buildings are the Greenest Buildings‟ and the increased numbers of uses being identified for

heritage buildings across the country.

Figure 3-22 Example of facade renovation that occurred over time. 353-357 Clarance Street (SJMA)

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY LAND USE PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT

January 2011

4.31

4.0 LAND USE PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT

The planning context of a community plays an important role in heritage district studies as it provides

the policy and land use framework that can either assist and support heritage preservation efforts or

minimize their potential and effectiveness. In London, the planning framework is established by the

City‟s Official Plan which sets out the broad based policies and land use designations for all areas within

the City and must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The Official Plan is implemented

by the Zoning By-law, which establishes the specific uses and regulations that are permitted within the

broader land use context. For the Downtown, the Downtown Master Plan further refines the vision and

goals of the subject area through policies and guidelines.

4.1 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT

The Provincial Policy Statement was revised in 2005 and affords greater protection to heritage resources

than in the past. Policy 2.6.1 provides the primary framework for heritage protection, stating that

“Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.” In

addition, Policy 2.6.3 states that “Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to

protected heritage property where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been

demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” It further states

that mitigative measures or alternative development approaches may be necessary to ensure that the

protected heritage attributes are not affected by adjacent development

4.2 OFFICIAL PLAN STATUS

4.2.1 Heritage Policy Context

The City of London Official Plan provides the framework for the protection of heritage resources through

the policies that are contained in Section 13. Key objectives identified in the Official Plan are as follows:

1. Protect, where practical and feasible, those heritage resources, which contribute, in a significant

way, to the identity and character of the City.

2. Encourage the protection, enhancement, restoration, maintenance, and utilization of buildings,

structures, areas, or sites within London, which are considered to be of significant architectural,

historical, or archaeological value to the community.

3. Encourage new development, redevelopment, and public works to be sensitive to, and in

harmony with, the City‟s heritage resources.

4. Increase public awareness and appreciation of the City‟s heritage resources, and encourage

participation by the public, corporations, and other levels of government in the protection,

restoration, and utilization of these resources.


January 2011

4.32

These policies recognize that heritage preservation may consist of buildings and structures, historical and

cultural assets, landscape features and archaeological resources. Detailed policies in the Official Plan,

along with the Ontario Heritage Act, set out the criteria for the designation of both individual heritage

resources as well as entire districts. Heritage districts can consist of a block, streetscape or any

contiguous area according to Section 13.3 of the Official Plan. There is no minimum or maximum size

that a heritage district must adhere to. Specific criteria that must be considered in determining whether

Downtown London warrants heritage district status include the following:

1. The association of the area with a particular historical event or era that is unique to the

community;

2. The presence of properties that are considered significant to the community as a result of their

location or setting;

3. The presence of properties representing a design or method of construction which is

architecturally and/or historically significant to the community, region, province or nation;

4. The presence of properties which collectively represent a certain aspect of the development of the

City which is worthy of maintaining;

5. The presence of physical, environmental or aesthetic elements which, individually, may not

constitute sufficient grounds for the designation of a Heritage Conservation District, but which

collectively are significant to the community.

Should a district meet these criteria and be designated by Council as a Heritage Conservation District, the

erection, alteration, demolition or removal of buildings or structures within the district are subject to the

provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act as well as the policies and guidelines provided by the Heritage

Conservation District Plans prepared for specific areas.

4.2.2 Land Use Designations

The City of London Official Plan establishes specific land use designations for the area on Schedule A.

The Downtown Study Area is simply classified as “Downtown” being a ubiquitous designation covering

a range of true uses. The Official Plan designation is graphically depicted on Figure 4-1.

The Downtown Area designation is intended to be the primary multi-functional activity centre for the

City. It contains a wide range of businesses and activities including office, retail, service, government and

cultural facilities. It is the primary office and commercial district, as well as providing medium and high

density residential living areas within the core. The Downtown Area contains many of London‟s heritage

buildings. The Official Plan promotes preservation of buildings within this area. However, it also stresses

the importance of growth and development in downtown.


January 2011

4.33

In regards to policy, the Official Plan establishes the following goals and objectives for the Downtown:

It should be the primary business, office, institutional, entertainment and cultural centre for the City of London;

It should remain the City‟s most prominent office employment area and large new office developments should be encouraged to locate downtown;

Downtown revitalization should be promoted while strengthening the role of the Downtown as the historic, cultural, institutional and economic heart of the City and region;

Growth in the residential population should be encouraged;

Services and facilities that will attract and support tourism should be promoted;

Transit usage and service should be emphasized and advanced;

Establish priorities for the preservation and retention of buildings in the Downtown through heritage zoning – balancing the policies of preservation against the policies which promote growth and development.

Figure 4-1 Downtown Land Use - City of London Official Plan, Schedule "A"


January 2011

4.34

4.3 ZONING

A review of the existing zoning applied across the study area identified four zones and a number of

variations for each. The zoning status is relevant to a heritage district as some zones may be more

appropriate for a heritage district than others, or play a greater role with respect to long term protection

and preservation of heritage assets within an area.

The area encompassed within recommended district boundary includes the following zones and

subsequent variations. The zoning and variations are depicted on Figure 4-2.

Downtown Area Zone (DA1, DA2)

Open Space (OS4)

Office Residential (OR)

Community Facility (CF)

Light Industrial (LI1, LI17)

Heritage (HER – HER/CF, HER/RF)

Figure 4-2 Zoning Map - City of London Planning and Development


January 2011

4.35

4.3.1 Downtown Area Zone

The Downtown Area Zone is specific to the city‟s core. DA1 permits a liberal range of commercial, office

and service uses and also permits residential above the first floor, whereas the DA2 permits ground level

office and residential uses. Both variations are meant to intensify the commercial business area within

this part of the city while supporting current design initiatives and recognizing heritage resources.

4.3.2 Open Space Zone

There are limit areas designated Open Space within the study area and these are found along the western

periphery and form part of the Harris Park network of open space paralleling the Thames River. These

are all OS4 addressing the steep slopes and flooding potential and come with restrictive uses.

4.3.3 Office Residential Zone

Office Residential establishes the rules for mixed-use buildings particularly in the transition areas

between the Downtown and adjacent residential subdivisions. Non-residential uses also permitted in

some variation areas include low impact service and convenience commercial.

4.3.4 Community Facility Zone

The Community Facility zoned properties are institutional uses that serve the city-wide community. They

are typically more intensive uses than that of a neighbourhood facility.

4.3.5 Heritage Zone

This zone is applied to site and/or buildings designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. It is often

compounded with an existing zoning that determines the permitted uses. All other regulations are

determined according the heritage parameters. There are currently 6 sites with the HER designation

within the downtown district.

4.3.6 Other Mechanisms

The Zoning Bylaw provides additional mechanisms in which to protect heritage resources or at least

ensure they are adequately addressed during development and redevelopment efforts. This includes the

application of a Holding designation as defined in Section 3.8 and a Bonusing provision as established in

Section 4.3.


January 2011

4.36

4.4 OTHER STUDIES AND PLANNING INITIATIVES

Historically, there have been numerous studies completed having regard for the Downtown and it‟s

prominence as the business and focal centre of the community. Looking at the past 10 years, studies

completed include:

2000 – Downtown London – Layers In Time – LACH/London Regional Art and Historical Museum;

2000 – City of London Heritage Resource Sector Implementation Plan – TCI Management Consultants, Inc.;

2006 – City of London Inventory of Heritage Resources – LACH/City of London – Planning & Development;

2005/2006 – Research project and reporting on Downtown buildings and heritage resources;

2006 – Implementation of new revitalization incentives for Dundas Street – “Feet on the Street”;

2008 – A Blueprint for Action – Report of the Downtown Task Force (Mainstreet and LDBA);

In regards to major planning and policy initiatives, the adoption of a Community Improvement Plan in

1995 established the framework for Council to proactively pursue the revitalization of downtown. This

Planning Act mandated power enabled Council to encourage rehabilitation and improvements through

the mechanisms of: acquisition, construction, and/or repair of lands and buildings; sale and lease of

property; provision of grants and loans.

The most significant study impacting the downtown of London is the Downtown Master Plan Study

being completed concurrently. Beginning with a Background Study to collect and compile the vast array

of existing information including policy, statistics, and identified issues, the Master Plan will contain the

vision for Downtown and an implementation plans for achieving that vision.

4.5 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY

Using the figures generated for inclusion in the Downtown Master Plan Background Study, the current

development activity for the study area consists of 84 current applications consisting of rezoning, site

plans, and related applications. “The planning applications we have reviewed have tended to fit into one

of three groups; 1) to exceed the specified maximum density and/or height or include bonus zoning, 2) to

establish a temporary surface commercial parking lot or extend the zoning on a lot, or 3) to permit a use

not contemplated by the Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law such as the bus station, convention centre or

casino.”2

2 City of London, Downtown Master Plan Background Study, 2009


January 2011

4.37

4.6 PLANNING OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

The diversity of uses and continually evolving composition of the downtown poses an intimidating

challenge to maintain the attributes of bygone periods. As its role in the community has changed, so too

have the uses of the various structures making up some of the original building stock. The desire for

residential intensification and other initiatives to support the economy of the downtown can also

conversely work against the efforts of preservation and restoration. The Downtown Master Plan currently

being prepared is symbolic of the desire and need for a guidance document to allow the community and

approving bodies to evaluate and direct the constant change.

The City of London has the ability to apply a Heritage Zone (HER) to buildings as a measure of

conservation. The Heritage Zone does not permit additions in the front or exterior side yards of

buildings and also requires any new building constructed to replace a designated building that has been

demolished, destroyed, damaged or removed to be of the same height, volume, floor area, form, mass

and external design as the original building. Urban design guidelines will also aide in reinforcing the goal

and desire to retain many of the cultural and landscape attributes of past eras. Finding the balance

between allowing and fostering positive change while holding onto the characteristics of past buildings

and places, will continue to be the challenge for this and all heritage districts.

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

January 2011

5.38

5.0 ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

Downtown London‟s heritage of landscape is highly diverse, and though it does not display a single

dominant character, its patterns are linked by common ideas and elements. The distinction of the

landscape is the combined effect of these heritage gardens, parks, open spaces, streetscapes, and

traditional land patterns which create a “sense of place” or heritage character to this part of London that

is more than the sum of its parts.

There are three predominant landscape characteristics with distinct elements in the study area –

residential, commercial and industrial/warehouse. The origins of these characteristics may be best

explained by looking back at the area‟s development. The map Figure 5-1 illustrates the area with an

overlay of the landscape as it was documented on City of London mapping in the early 20th century.

Many of the dwellings along Dufferin, Queens, Ridout, Talbot, and Fullerton originally residential, have

been redeveloped to commercial uses. These changes have broadened the commercial area but not

diminished Dundas, King and Richmond Streets as downtown‟s primary economic corridors.

Figure 5-1 Landscape Character Units


January 2011

5.39

5.1 PREDOMINANT LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS

The Residential Landscape – this pattern can be found on Dufferin Avenue (Richmond to Wellington),

Queens Avenue (Wellington to Richmond), Ridout Street (North of King), and Clarence Street (Queens to

Dufferin). The characteristics are:

The lots were originally laid out to accommodate residential and associated buildings with setbacks from the front and side lot lines, creating a landscape prominence to the street.

The original building composition was independent structures of typically two or three storeys on generous lots.

Today, it consists of four to twenty storey mostly non-residential buildings that have been redeveloped but done so in a manner that respects the historic residential pattern of streetscape (e.g. Bell building, London Life, 200 Queens, the London Club)

There is a rhythm of lawns, walks, tree plantings, landscaping and entrances to create interest at street level.

Streetscapes of curb, grassed and treed boulevards, walks, lawns and landscaping to building.

Figure 5-2 London Life Building streetscape - Dufferin Avenue

Figure 5-3 Wellington Street (City of London)


January 2011

5.40

The Commercial Landscape – this pattern can be found

on Dundas Street (Wellington to Ridout), Richmond

Street (York to Dufferin), and King Street (Talbot to

Clarence)

Development lots are built out to the front and side lot lines, creating a continuous street wall.

The tightness of the street is an integral part the character.

Buildings of varying heights between two

and six storey, create a varied street wall profile.

Rhythm of recessed entrances and storefronts create interest at street level.

Landscape and building materials are predominantly masonry - brick, stone, and concrete - with a variety of ornamentation.

The walkways are tight to the buildings, level and continuous, defined along road edge by services and signage creating a tight, busy corridor for pedestrian movement.

Ind

Figure 5-4 Richmond Street - north from York

Figure 5-5 Richmond Street - north from York

Figure 5-6 Dundas Street - east from Richmond

Figure 5-7 Dundas Street - west from Wellington


January 2011

5.41

ustrial/Warehouse – this pattern can be found on York Street (Clarence to Ridout), Clarence Street (York

to Queens), Talbot Street (York to King), Ridout Street (CNR to Dundas)

Original building lots were built out to the front and to one of the side lot lines, creating a street wall that is interrupted by lanes and drives.

The building lots are larger

Buildings of varying heights between two and six storeys create a varied street wall profile.

There is little interest at street level, few storefronts or retail display to create interest.

Landscape and building materials are predominantly masonry - brick, and concrete - with very little ornamentation.

The walkways are tight to the buildings, frequently interrupted by lane- and driveways, defined along road edge by services and signage creating a minor corridor for pedestrian movement.

Street characterized by vehicular traffic rather than pedestrian

Figure 5-8 345-353 Talbot Street


January 2011

5.42

5.2 THE HISTORIC STREET PLAN AND STREET PATTERNS

A survey of street patterns indicates that most street alignments remain authentic to their origins.

Successive civic improvements in the width of traffic lanes, the width of sidewalks, the introduction of

services (sewer, electrical, steam, gas, cable) as well as the curb, gutter and parking have moderately

altered most road profiles. The streets that have significantly changed are:

Queens Avenue which has been realigned from Talbot Street to the Thames River

Carling Street originally connected from Richmond to Ridout Street; in the early 1970s it was terminated at Talbot to facilitate the development of the new courthouse

Covent Garden Place/Market Lane

Thames terminated at King

Figure 5-9 117-125 King Street


January 2011

5.43

5.3 PRIMARY ENTRANCES TO THE DISTRICT

Entrances provide a sense of visual coherence to an urban environment. They enable districts to be

recognized and distinguishable from their surroundings or neighbouring areas. The arrival to downtown

London is distinguished by four points of entry:

5.3.1 Eastern Entrance

The primary eastern entrance occurs on Dundas Street at Wellington Street, where the street profile

narrows and the buildings form a tight, unified wall along the sidewalk. This results in an inviting

human scale to the buildings and streetscape with the north- and southwest corners framing the view

from the east approach.

5.3.2 Southern Entrance

The southern entrance occurs at two

locations being both the Richmond and

York Streets approaches. The south

entrances to the downtown are marked by

the continuity of the buildings and street

profiles.

5.3.3 Northern Entrance

A single approach defines the primary

northern entrance and is found on

Richmond Street between Dufferin and

Fullerton, where the street alignment

changes and the19th century streetscape

opens up to St. Paul‟s Cathedral.

Figure 5-11 Richmond Street - Northerly Approach

5-10 Richmond Street - Southerly Approach


January 2011

5.44

5.3.4 Western Entrance

The Middlesex County Courthouse is the landmark that announces the western entrance while crossing

the Kensington Bridge and ascending to the intersection of Dundas & Ridout Streets.

5.4 MATURE VEGETATION

In the 1860s, London embarked on its first street tree planting campaign, with some of the first trees being

planted around Victoria Park and adjacent residential streets. Though the last of these original trees in the

downtown were removed in the 1980s, some evidence of later planting campaigns in the 1920s, 1950s and

1970s can be found. Much of the

heritage character in the north-eastern

sector of the downtown is found in the

relationship of the buildings and this

landscape. The porosity of the

streetscape – the tendency to see trees

between buildings and at the end of

streets – is its defining characteristic.

Street trees in the district add greatly

to the heritage character.

In the traditionally commercial areas,

the landscaping, street tree planting

and furnishing are not historic. These

are civic improvements that were introduced from 1960s - 2000s, through a variety of campaigns. The

Figure 5-12 Middlesex County Courthouse - Westerly Approach

Figure 5-13 Mature Vegetation - Carling Street


January 2011

5.45

first street tree planting along Dundas Street was late 1960s early 1970s, renewed in the early 1980s, mid

1990s with further modifications in the early/mid first decade of 2000. Many of the renewals were

initiated from the need to improve conditions for ailing tree plantings. Challenged by space and

conditions along streets that were not designed/envisioned to support trees; to date, few of the street

trees have demonstrated longevity in the tight streetscapes in much of the commercial of downtown.

The most successful street trees that have demonstrated longevity can be found along Carling Street.

Historically, the industrial/warehouse area of the District only had trees in association with its

intermittent residential properties (York by Thames Street); the train station (see Open Space) and along

the south side of King Street in front of the McClary factory.

5.5 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

The original form of London was not established by a master plan so formal parks and open spaces were

not reserved in its early development. However, several parks, green spaces and public gathering areas

have evolved and are important to the downtown.

The most historic open space in the downtown is the site of the Middlesex County Courthouse including

River Forks park. It was part of the town plot set aside by Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe in

February 1793. It has continuously served as a public open space though for a variety of purposes.

Eldon House with its garden is the most significant historic public landscape of this part of the

downtown. Though only a portion of the historic garden remains, patterns of the historic parkland can be

found in Harris Park. This portion of the Harris family/Eldon House estate was developed by the family

for private recreational purposes with a tennis court, swimming pool and field sports.

Figure 5-15 Mature Vegetation - Queens Avenue Figure 5-14 Mature Vegetation (City of London)


January 2011

5.46

From the 1850s onward there has been a public open

space in association with London‟s Covent Garden

Market. Though over the decades the open space has

„moved‟ from the south, to the west, to the north of the

market; disappearing completely from 1957-1999 and

then being re-established in 1999 to the west. Today‟s

market square should be considered genuine to the

traditions of the market‟s operations. From early records,

vending, performance, display and pronouncements

have been associated with the market and the public

open space along Talbot Street serves as historic

testimony to that important fact.

Since the 1830s, the land surrounding St Paul‟s Cathedral has been a landmark for Londoners, and an

important public space. Though originally serving as a graveyard, the transfer of most of the graves to

the Woodland Cemetery enabled the churchyard to gain favour as a public green space.

The first portion of the Forks of the Thames parkland

was established in 1965 when the Dennison Steel factory

was removed. Since then, continuous improvement and

expansion of the parkland system along this section of

the Thames River has occurred.

Though privately held, for a 30+year period there was a

small park/garden in association with the CNR station

on York Street. It was removed with rail improvements

in the 1940s.

5.6 SPATIAL ELEMENTS - VIEWS & VISTAS

Several significant views have been recorded in the downtown area. Views that have been frequently

documented from specific vantage points in historic photos, postcards, publications or described in

documents have been selected. By virtue of the urban nature of the district these views are almost

exclusively of landmark buildings and their settings. These views are noted for their unobstructed but not

empty foregrounds between the viewer and the subject.

Figure 5-16 Covent Garden Market - Talbot Street

Figure 5-17 St. Paul's Cathedral - Queens at Richmond


January 2011

5.47

For downtown London the significant views would include:

The Armouries Building, Dundas Street – in postcards and publications presented from the north-west corner of Waterloo and Dundas Street;

The Middlesex County Courthouse – in postcards and publications presented from the intersection of Dundas and Ridout Street;

The London Life Building on Dufferin Avenue – in commercial publications and postcards in a variety of views from Victoria Park;

St. Paul‟s Cathedral – in historic

photographs and the importance of the view from

Eldon House down Fullerton framing the bell tower is documented in the Eldon House family papers;

Eldon House – the house and its

garden as seen from Ridout Street;

An example of a significant scenic

vista of the downtown is the Forks of the Thames – the convergence of the branches of the river flowing west as seen from the brow of the hill at the intersection of Dundas and Ridout Street;

Figure 5-18 Armouries - Dundas Street

Figure 5-19 Middlesex County Courthouse - Ridout Street

Figure 5-20 Eldon House - Talbot Street


January 2011

5.48

5.7 STREETSCAPES – MATERIALS, FURNISHINGS, BOUNDARIES, AND EDGES

The traditional streetscape materials

and details that furnished the

downtown streetscape were

concrete and asphalt paving

separated by grassed boulevard (in

places), curbs and gutters.

Historically, the presence of light

standards, service poles, directional

and street signs, and service boxes

(mail, newspaper and utility) were

present for utilitarian rather than

decorative purposes.

The introduction of street

furnishings (benches, planters,

bicycle rings, banners, kiosks,

interpretation or informational signage, etc.) as stylistic elements in the downtown is relatively modern

and reflective of „urban improvements‟ from late 1960s onward.

Further distinct modernization of the urban streetscape has been made with extensive landscaping

(planting, fencing, decoration) around parking lots, introducing a distinct soft residential edge treatment

into a tight hard urban form.

Figure 5-21 London Life - Dufferin Avenue

Figure 5-22 192-210 Dundas Street

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

January 2011

6.49

6.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

6.1 COMMUNITY STATISTICS

The 2006 Statistics Canada data as extracted by City of London Planning staff was analyzed to establish a

profile of the Downtown according to demographics, economics, and education of the resident

population. Although key in determining the human nature of the study area, it is not critical to the

determination of the Heritage District. Conversely, the housing/building data collected was instrumental

in supporting the architectural assessment.

6.1.1 Population Profile

The population of the Downtown is estimated to be approximately 3,420 persons of which 1,660 (48.5%)

are female and 1,760 (51.5%) are male. The age distribution differs greatly from London as a whole but

reflects what one might expect in a downtown tract. (See table 6.1) There are few children and the

majority of the population is between the ages of 20 and 44. The percentage of persons greater than 65

years of age is consistent with the City as a whole in about 16%.

Table 6-3 - Age Distribution

Downtown London

Age Group Number % Number %

0-19 220 6 85250 24

20-44 2035 60 128040 36

45-60 635 19 90740 26

65+ 530 15 48375 14

TOTAL 3420 100% 352395 100%

6.1.2 Housing Profile

According to Statistics Canada data, the proportion of residential units that are owned versus rented in

the Downtown is almost the reverse of the City of London as a whole, as shown in Table 4.

Table 6-4 - Ownership

Tenure Downtown London

Owned Dwellings 29% 62%

Rented Dwellings 71% 38%

The abundance of renters could potentially have an impact on the long-term success of a Heritage

Conservation District in that property owners that may not reside in the area may be less inclined to

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

January 2011

6.50

invest in their buildings to help retain and restore heritage features. It seems apparent that the presence

of high-density multiple family apartment buildings has artificially skewed the numbers and thus

reduces this concern immensely. In addition, the number of non-residential buildings or mixed-use

buildings that form the building stock under study far exceeds that of primarily residential.

6.1.3 Economic Profile

The occupational breakdown for the resident population of the Downtown is quite diverse with

concentrations in Finance and Administration and Sales and Services but relatively evenly spread across

all the categories.

Table 6-5 - Income Profile

Income Downtown London

Average Individual Earnings $35,465 $36,549

Average family income $53,807 $68,899

Median family income $46,908 $53,684

Table 6-6 - Employment Status

Employment Status Downtown London

In the labour force 71% 67%

Employed 64% 60.5%

Unemployed 7% 6.5%

Not in the labour force 29% 33%

6.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES

The social-demographic profile of the Downtown consists of a concentration of younger persons in the

20-44 year age cohort earning an average income. This may be misleading recognizing the age and that

earnings typically increase with years working thus leading one to believe that the percentage of

disposable income may be greater than the city average. Many of these people rent their residences and

thus may not have the same vested interest in a Heritage District status as a property owner would.

Generating a keen interest by the resident population may be more difficult than in a typical residential

neighbourhood.

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY MOVEMENT

January 2011

7.51

7.0 MOVEMENT

The assessment of movement throughout the study area focused on vehicular traffic patterns, parking,

transit, cycling and pedestrian circulation. This included the delivery of goods and how each of these

may impact, or be impacted, by the designation of a Heritage Conservation District. As the employment

and service centre of the community, the downtown serves as a destination hub for areas external to the

downtown. This blends with an active internal network of movements exclusive to the study area.

7.1 STREET NETWORK

The downtown street system is a basic grid with four primary east-west corridors and six in the north-

south direction. There are a few streets of lesser significance in that they terminate internal to the area.

Many of the streets accommodate on-street parking on one or both sides and provide access for delivery

and service vehicles to the various commercial and office operations found within the buildings. York

Street is a four-lane road moving traffic east and west with associated right and left turn bays. There is no

parking permitted on this street. King Street is two lanes one-way street moving traffic in an eastbound

direction. There is a bike lane on the south side with metered parking varying throughout the length from

one side or another or both. Dundas Street is a two lane road moving traffic in an east-west direction. On-

street parking is found along its length in metered parking lay-bys defined with a rolled-curb pavement

edge and a concrete parking surface. Angled parking is found along the block between Waterloo and

Wellington streets creating an extensive swath asphalt surface between building fronts.

Queens Avenue is predominantly a two-lane road running in a westerly direction with metered parking

on both sides. There are blocks where it expands to three lanes (all westbound) and blocks where the

street-side parking is limited to the north side. Fullarton Street is a short two block east-west roadway of

two lanes and street-side parking on the south side. The easterly block has a number of street-side

loading bays on the north side of the road. Beginning at the west end, Dufferin Avenue is a narrow two-

lane road moving traffic east and west. As it moves towards Richmond, it expands to accommodate a

number of turning lanes. It continues as two lanes with on-street parking on both sides before expanding

in width to accommodate parking and turning lanes before reaching Waterloo Street. Carling Street runs

east-west between Richmond and Talbot and consists of two lanes and limited curb-side metered

parking.

The north-south corridors include Waterloo Street which is a two-way, two-lane road with right and left

hand turning lanes incorporated throughout. Street side metered parking varies from side and type – i.e.

curb side or parking bay. Wellington Street is four-lanes moving traffic north and south. There is very

limited street-side parking south of Queens Avenue on the west side but for the most part there is no

parking permitted along the length of the study area. Clarence Street begins and ends within the study

area and is two lanes moving traffic north and south. Metered parking is found along both sides.

Richmond Street is four lanes moving traffic north-south. South of Queens Avenue, there is no street-side

parking. North of Queens, there is a short block of metered parking where the roadway is median

divided before it returns to four drive lanes.


January 2011

7.52

Talbot Street is a two-lane roadway moving traffic north and south. There is parking on both sides for

most of its length south of Queens and single-sided metered parking on the east side northbound lane for

this stretch north of Queens. Ridout Street North is two-lane with north and south traffic north of Queens

Avenue. There is no parking along this length. South of Queens it becomes one-way southbound until

King Street with metered parking on sections of both sides. South of King, it‟s a mix of three and four

lanes in both directions with associated turning bays. There is no street-side parking. Thames Street

enters the downtown from the south crossing under the railway tracks through a narrow tunnel. It

continues north across York and curves east to become King Street. There is no parking on this length of

roadway.

Table 7-7 - Vehicle Trips and Classification

Street Average Daily Volume

Classification

York Street 20,500 Arterial

King Street 9,000 Arterial

Dundas Street 10,000 Primary Collector

Queens Avenue 13,000 Arterial

Fullarton Street n/a Arterial

Dufferin Avenue 10,000 Primary Collector

Carling n/a Local

Waterloo Street 13,000 Primary Collector

Wellington Street 21,000 Arterial

Clarence Street 5,000 Primary Collector

Richmond Street 16,000 Arterial

Talbot Street 10,500 Primary Collector

Ridout Street 13,000 Primary Collector

Thames Street n/a Local

*Counts averaged for portion of roadway falling within the study area.

**Counts taken from City of London Interactive Maps (2010)


January 2011

7.53

7.2 PUBLIC TRANSIT

The Downtown is heavily served by public transit and includes the primary transfer point as 70% of the

local bus routes connect downtown. Bus routes are found along Richmond, Wellington, and sections of

Ridout, Talbot, Clarence, and Waterloo. They also move users east and west along Dundas and York, as

well as sections of Queens and King.

7.3 CYCLING NETWORK

Cycling in the City of London is recognized as playing an important role in achieving a balanced

transportation system and promoting an active and healthy lifestyle. The London Bicycle Master Plan is

intended to guide the City in the development of a long term, comprehensive, on and off-road commuter

and recreational bicycling network. Within the Downtown study area, there are a number of cycling

network linkages established and/or planned. King Street and Wellington have dedicated bicycle lanes.

Figure 7-1 London Transit Route (City of London Interactive Maps)


January 2011

7.54

Thames Street is part of the overall network but not signed. Queens Avenue and Ridout Street are

identified as future linkages with portion of Queens including a dedicated lane.

The on-street routes are simply roadways which have been selected because of their ability to connect or

link to a number of destinations and their lower or slower traffic flows. Some of these routes are signed

as bicycle routes and others are not.

7.4 PARKING

The location of on-street metered parking is noted above within the discussion on the street network. A

City of London by-law prohibits overnight on-street parking within the downtown except for the period

between Victoria Day and Labour Day. Based on the most-recent data available from the SmartMoves

Fact Sheet, there are over 14,000 spaces in the downtown with 700 of those being on-street spots.

Figure 7-2 Cycling Routes (City of London Interactive Maps)


January 2011

7.55

7.5 PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE

There are defined and established pedestrian pathways along the Thames River open space system and

the Harris Park area in particular. Beyond these linkages, pedestrian movements are accommodated

along brick and concrete sidewalks that are found on all the streets within the district. This is typical of an

urban environment and common for a historically downtown commercial and office area. It is also an

aspect of the streetscape that is important in establishing a user-friendly environment. This form of

pedestrian connectivity and accessibility across the study area enhances and strengthens the public

transit system.

7.6 ASSESSMENT OF MOVEMENT SYSTEM

The assessment of the overall system of movement through the downtown for all modes of travel

generated the following strengths and weaknesses.

7.6.1 Strength

The grid system of streets and sidewalks make the downtown logical and easy to get around;

The layout supports and enhances public transit usage and accessibility;

Building frontages at the sidewalk place people near the facilities, generate activity near businesses, and encourage pedestrian movements;

Building frontage and roadway/sidewalk interfaces provides “eyes on the street” enhancing security for both pedestrians and building users;

Street-side parking allows for easy access to businesses and facilities;

Figure 7-3 Fullarton Streetscape - Surface Parking Lot (SJMA)


January 2011

7.56

7.6.2 Weaknesses

Surface parking lots disrupt the streetscape and negatively impact the aesthetics of the downtown;

„Forced‟ street trees and other furniture can clutter the streetscape and impede pedestrian movements;

Restricted parking and/or paid parking can alienate potential business customers and patrons;

Cycling movements are competing with motorized vehicles making the environment unsafe and uncomfortable;

7.7 MOVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES

The battle between automobiles, pedestrians, and public transit in a downtown district is a common

concern for many communities. Parking is required to sustain the businesses operating in the area but

providing it affordably is difficult and results in the surface lots deemed undesirable. Parking garages are

expensive and often unsightly yet concentrate auto traffic to various nodes. Public transit is an option but

often not embraced by the majority and thus can be a difficult „sell‟ to downtown residents and

businesses.

Pedestrians are well served at present and should continue to be so as long as sidewalks are maintained

and buildings oriented to these linkages. Enhancing pedestrian movements through streetscape

improvements will strengthen this offering but must be done without impeding those movements with

unnecessary street furniture and obstructions. Accessibility for all persons continues to be of paramount

importance.

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY TOURISM AND PROMOTION

January 2011

8.57

8.0 TOURISM AND PROMOTION

The Downtown Heritage Conservation District has the potential to enhance the range of heritage tourism

opportunities present within London. Walking tours, collaborative programming with the many festivals

held each year in Victoria Park, and partnership programs linking heritage agencies and volunteer

groups are all options which should be considered.

8.1 HERITAGE TOURISM IN LONDON

Currently the City of London offers a variety of self guided tours throughout the downtown including

the area encompassed by the heritage district. Some of these tours occur annually while others are

available all throughout the year. Doors Open London is an annual tour of heritage buildings not

normally accessible to the public. Inclusion of key buildings found within the district and identification of

the overall district area as part of this program should be considered. This information can be linked to

the package of maps and data that is downloadable from the Doors Open London website prior to this

event.

Similarly, the inclusion of residential properties in programs such as London‟s Homes of Distinction

tours may be alternative method of showcasing the heritage sites and how a district does not impede but

rather enhances the ability to capture a period home. Building from existing attractions such as the Tree

Trunk Tour is method of showcasing the district and the cultural heritage aspects of which these works

become part.

Other organized walking and cycling tours could be developed connecting the proposed heritage district

to nearby districts and sites including Museum London, Eldon House, Banting House as well as the East

and West Woodfield Heritage Districts. Tours could focus on the architecture of the community

including the cultural heritage aspects as well as the historical significance of the periods to London‟s

evolution.

DOWNTOWN LONDON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

January 2011

9.58

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 HERITAGE DISTRICT BOUNDARY OPTIONS

The Downtown boundary as defined by the City of London Official Plan was selected as the initial study

area for the Downtown Heritage Conservation District. It was a logical choice in that it reflected the

current policy definition of the Downtown.

Early in the data gathering exercise there was consensus to remove those lands currently encompassed by

the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District. With the guidelines in place, an overlap of guidelines

was viewed as redundant and cumbersome to both the property owner and the City.

Figure 9-1 Original Study Area Boundary


January 2011

9.59

The in-depth architectural and heritage landscape review on the balance of the study area led to

recommendations of further boundary adjustments. On the east side, those lands east of Waterloo Street

(Blocks 20, 27, 34) were removed as they retained little historical significance and the buildings of concern

were already designated or identified in some fashion. The boundary was adjusted further with the

removal of most of the lands encompassing the Wellington/York Street intersection (Blocks portion 25,

portion 32, 33, portion 39, 40). This adjustment came after lengthy debate and discussion between the

consulting team, the Steering Committee, and City staff. Upon conclusion there was agreement that the

vacant sites as well as the substantial re-development of the Citi Plaza had removed the attributes that

had any continuity to the historical and heritage aspect of the downtown. Although this southerly

approach is critical to defining the Downtown, it lacked the heritage component to include it within the

District boundaries.

Figure 9-2 Study Area modified to remove the West Woodfield HCD


January 2011

9.60

The study findings including the historical analysis were conclusive in identifying the core of the study

area as a heritage district. Primarily mercantile in nature, the buildings and environment held strong

reminders and attributes of previous eras in London‟s evolution. With regard to the Ontario Heritage Act

and City of London Official Plan policies for the evaluation and assessment of potential Heritage

Conservation Districts, these elements included:

A concentration of buildings, sites or landscapes that reflect the community‟s historical and cultural context;

Architectural styles or methods of construction that are significant locally, regionally or provincially;

Visual coherence; and,

Distinctiveness within the community that contributes to the character of the larger community as a whole.

The delineation of the western boundary was not as clearly defined although there was consensus that

the original study boundary was not an appropriate demarcation in that it encompassed lands with

limited heritage significance (Blocks 11, 14, 22) but excluded lands (Blocks 41, 42) in close proximity that

were firmly enshrined as heritage landmarks in the London community.

Figure 9-3 Block Identification


January 2011

9.61

9.2 RECOMMENDED DISTRICT BOUNDARY

After extensive consultation with the Steering Committee and LACH, the decision was made to pursue

the expanded boundary as presented on Figure 9-4. The westerly boundary will fall along the centreline

of the Thames River and will encompass the Harris and Ivey Parks open space. This decision recognizes

London‟s origin near the Forks of the Thames. Moving west to east, the northern boundary is defined by

the south limits of the Blackfriars Bridge, Fullarton Street between Ridout and Richmond, Dufferin

Avenue and mid-block of the block between Wellington and Waterloo, north of Dundas. The South

boundary will remain the railway tracks. The easterly boundary stays west and north of the Citi Plaza

and extends east to Waterloo Street north of King.

This district boundary reflects the historical aspect of the downtown, the evolution of the community and

current centre near Dundas and Richmond.

By delineating the district in this fashion, we are acknowledging that there are other lands that are not

included but are most definitely part of the fabric of London‟s downtown. Similarly, we acknowledge

Figure 9-4 Recommended Downtown HCD Boundary


January 2011

9.62

that there are lands encompassed within the District boundary that do not have heritage significance and

thus will need to be identified and excused from the eventual Heritage Alteration Permit requirements.

9.3 IMPLEMENTATION - POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND PROGRAMS

With advancement into Phase 2 of the Downtown Heritage Conservation District the policies, guidelines

and programs associated with the District will be established. Within those documents will be the need

to ensure key components are addressed and applied. Generally, these are known to include:

The implementation of heritage supportive features for all areas of the District regardless of whether the building stock is of historical significance or new construction;

The preservation of streetscapes (or return to former characteristics) to maintain the feel and sense of Downtown as it is and has been while allowing for intensification and evolution;

The systematic elimination and/or reduction in surface parking lots that take away from the environs and leave gaps in the streetscape;

The Creation of a functional interface between new and old development so that the transitions are seamless and cohesive;

Determination of philosophy for the addition and enhancement of “old” heritage properties – should it look like the “old” or be identifiable as “new”;

Documents

Downtown London Heritage Conservation District Study Final ... · Figure 2-10 Hotel London, Dundas Street looking west towards Wellington Street. c.1925 ... Vehicle Trips and Classification