UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Municipal heritage planning in Canada Lazear, Stuart Brent 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 L39_3.pdf [ 6.67MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095128.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095128-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095128-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095128-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095128-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095128-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095128-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095128-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095128.ris

Full Text

MUNICIPAL HERITAGE PLANNING IN CANADA by STUART BRENT LAZEAR B.A., McGill University, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1981 (c)Stuart Brent Lazear, 1981 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of SoW00\ o £ Ct. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date (pf.\ VI \ i i ABSTRACT Municipal Heritage Planning i n Canada: A P r o f i l e of Ten C i t i e s The need to conserve physical evidence of the past or "heritage", i n a changing urban environment, has manifest i t s e l f i n a new aspect to municipal planning. This thesis examines municipal heritage planning i n Canada from the f o l -lowing perspectives: (a) the events leading to and comprising municipal involvement i n i t s heritage; (b) the role of the heritage planner; (c) the tools a v a i l a b l e to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r heritage preservation. Based on the premise that the appointment of the heritage planner i s a s i g n i f i c a n t point i n the evolution of the planning profession and the conserva-t i o n movement, the thesis focuses on those c i t i e s which have a heritage planner. A questionnaire was sent to sixteen c i t i e s where heritage a c t i v i t y was taking place. Ten of these q u a l i f i e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the analysis by v i r t u e of having one or more Heritage Planners on s t a f f . While the primary j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r the regulation of heritage property rests with the P r o v i n c i a l Government, the provinces have recently given muni-c i p a l i t i e s the power to protect t h e i r own c u l t u r a l resources through designa-t i o n . These powers are r a r e l y s u f f i c i e n t and have compelled m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to use other tools to achieve protection e i t h e r with or without designation. These mechanisms can range from " s o f t " incentives which require l i t t l e commit-ment from the municipality i n terms of time and money spent (for example, moral suasion), to "harder" mechanisms such as outright purchase. The r o l e of the Heritage Planner w i l l continue to be the development and administration of these tools together with other heritage programs such as the Inventory and Evaluation of the c i t y ' s c u l t u r a l resources and the educa-t i o n of the p u b l i c and p r i v a t e sectors about heritage preservation. A central conclusion of t h i s thesis i s that current municipal a c t i v i t y i n heritage preservation i s directed, i n large part, towards ameliorating the negative economic consequences of heritage designation. More could be done by s e t t i n g designation aside as a primary concern and using the e x i s t i n g tools at the municipality's disposal to encourage the private sector to undertake preservation a c t i v i t i e s . The opportunity for the Heritage Planner rests i n using these tools and developing new ones. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. EVOLUTION: INFLUENCES ON THE EVOLUTION OF MUNICIPAL HERITAGE PLANNING IN CANADA 4 The P r o v i n c i a l Level 4 The Local Level 5 The National Level 6 Influences from Europe 8 U.N.E.S.C.0 1 0 The American Influence; Ideas H Summary I I . PROFILES OF SELECTED CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES 17 Method of Survey 17 P r o f i l e s 2 0 Vancouver 22 V i c t o r i a 27 Edmonton 34 Calgary 38 Winnipeg 41 Toronto 4 5 Ottawa 4 8 Quebec C i t y ->2 St. John, N.B 5 5 H a l i f a x 5 7 I I I . INCENTIVE MECHANISMS: A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS 62 Persuasion 62 Plaques 63 Green Door P o l i c y 63 Public Awareness . . 64 Demonstration Projects 65 Public Works 65 Design Options 65 Donation of Facade Easements 66 Building Code F l e x i b i l i t y 66 V Leasing Space 67 Zoning Incentives 67 Transfer of Development Poten t i a l 68 Tax Freeze; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Reduced'Property Assessment . 70 Tax Increment Financing 70 Revolving Funds 70 Value Capture 71 Loans or Grants 71 Mortgage Guarantees . . 72 Purchase of Property 72 Purchase of Facade Easements 72 Purchase and Resale with Covenants 73 Redevelopment Levy 74 IV. CONCLUSION: A CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL HERITAGE PLANNING IN CANADA 79 Beginnings - A Scenario of Local Involvement 80 The Role of the Heritage Planner 82 Functions 82 Categories 83 Location Within the Bureaucracy 84 Education 87 The Future: Opportunities and Contraints 88 Tourism 89 Implications of t h i s Thesis 90 Summary 92 Epilogue 93 Po l i c y Recommendations 93 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 95 Books and Reports 95 Per i o d i c a l s 102 Newspaper A r t i c l e s 104 Interviews 105 APPENDICES . Appendix A: L e g i s l a t i o n 106 Appendix B: The Questionnaire 114 Appendix C: Addresses of Municipal Heritage Planners 123 Appendix D: The Duties and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the Heritage Planner i n Edmonton l^o v i Appendix E; A Description of the D i v i s i o n du Vieux Quebec et du Patrimoine f o r the C i t y of Quebec; , . , , . 129 Appendix F: A P r o f i l e of Regina 130 Appendix G: The Case of St f John's, Newfoundland . . . . . . . 131 Appendix H: D e f i n i t i o n s . . . . . 133 v i i LIST OF TABLES 1. Background to Municipal A c t i v i t y i n Heritage Preservation . . . . 21 2. A Summary of Incentive Mechanisms 3. An Analysis of Incentive Mechanisms 76 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Influences on the Evolution of Municipal Heritage Planning i n Canada 14 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should l i k e to g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge the following f o r t h e i r help: - Professors Michael Se e l i g and Brahm Wiesman for t h e i r guidance; - The B r i t i s h Columbia Heritage Trust for awarding me the Peter Cotton Scholarship (80-81) f o r studies i n Heritage Conservation; - The Heritage Planners across Canada who r e p l i e d to my question-naire; - Barbara Humphries of the Canadian Inventory of H i s t o r i c Building for g iving me my f i r s t exposure to heritage preservation and for supporting that i n t e r e s t over many years; - Diana Bodnar for access to her private l i b r a r y ; - My family f o r t h e i r constant support. I should also l i k e to acknowledge the past and continuing contribution of volunteers such as Mary Roaf, the late Eleanor Holt and many others across Canada. Without t h e i r activism and s e l f l e s s work within heritage s o c i e t i e s and other community groups, municipal heritage planning could not have become an issue to be described i n t h i s t h e s i s . 1 • INTRODUCTION The profession of planning continues 1 to evolve, r e f l e c t i n g the needs of d i f f e r e n t communities. The need to conserve physical evidence of the past or "heritage" i n a changing urban environment has manifest i t s e l f as a new fact i n municipal planning i n Canada, This thesis describes Municipal Heritage Planning i n ten Canadian c i t i e s as seen through the following: (a) the events leading to and comprising municipal involvement i n i t s heritage; (b) the ro l e of the Heritage Planner; (c) the tools a v a i l a b l e f o r the encouragement of municipal heritage preservation. Heritage i n i t s broadest sense can include anything from the past. For the purpose of t h i s study, the d e f i n i t i o n w i l l focus on those h i s t o r i c , aes-t h e t i c and c u l t u r a l components of the urban b u i l t environment which are of concern to the municipality. The C i t y of Halifax describes i t s heritage as " . . . s i t e s , structures, buildings and environments of h i s t o r i c , a r c h i t e c t u r a l or c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t . " Heritage Planning, i n general, i s any a c t i v i t y r e l a t e d to the protection of t h i s heritage. S p e c i f i c a l l y i t can r e f e r to a c t i v i t i e s such as the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Evaluation, Designation and Promotion of that heritage. Further d e f i n i t i o n s are included i n Appendix H. While heritage planning occurs i n many other communities and by many actors apart from the Heritage Planner, the existence of t h i s s t a f f p o s i t i o n responsible f o r heritage a c t i v i t i e s was f e l t to be an important point i n the evolution of municipal heritage planning. It represented the climax of a sequence of events often i n i t i a t e d by community mobilization against threats to landmark buildings and environments. A survey was conducted by means of a questionnaire c i r c u l a t e d to sixteen c i t i e s across Canada where heritage a c t i v i t y was known to be taking place, 2 but where the existence of a Heritage Planner had not yet been determined. F i f t e e n r e p l i e s were received, of which ten q u a l i f i e d by v i r t u e of having one or more Heritage Planners on s t a f f . This p o s i t i o n could be t i t l e d a Heritage Planner, Heritage O f f i c e r , Heritage Coordinator or Planner. The c r i t e r i o n , for the purpose of t h i s survey, was that they be recognized by the bureaucracy as having f u l l or part-time (greater than 25% of t h e i r time) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r municipal heritage preservation a c t i v i t i e s . Information from the question-naires was supplemented by readings and interviews. Local government was chosen as the scene for t h i s survey for several rea-sons. Whereas the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments are involved with the protection of heritage with the s i g n i f i c a n c e appropriate to t h e i r l e v e l of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , the greatest p o t e n t i a l f o r the preservation of the urban environment exists at the l o c a l l e v e l . P r o v i n c i a l governments across Canada have passed on r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r l o c a l heritage designation to the municipality over the past eight years. This l e g i s l a t i o n was created by means of a new Heritage Act,amendments to e x i s t i n g Planning Acts or a combination of the two. The nature of t h i s enabling l e g i s l a t i o n often presented b a r r i e r s to the municipality by holding back some of the powers of the province with respect to municipal designation. Heritage Conservation D i s t r i c t s i n Ontario and Saskatchewan, f o r example, have to be approved by a p r o v i n c i a l government review board. This board also has the authority to repeal any municipal h e r i -tage designation. In B r i t i s h Columbia and Alberta the municipality (unlike the province) i s obliged to pay compensation for economic loss r e s u l t i n g from heritage designation. This requirement f o r compensation i s not accompanied by the provision of funds f o r the support of monetary incentive programs. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s have consequently been compelled to use tools apart from designation. These mechanisms are l i s t e d i n Table 2 and range from " s o f t " incentives which require very l i t t l e commitment from the municipality i n terms 3 of time or cost (e.g. Moral Suasion or Persuasion) to "harder" incentives such as outright Purchase which requires more commitment both i n terms of time and money. The r o l e of the heritage planner i s c l o s e l y t i e d with that of an advisory committee to Council i n the preparation, evaluation and implementation of h e r i -tage programs such as an Inventory of H i s t o r i c Resources, Designation, or programs using the incentive mechanisms l i s t e d i n Table 2. The Heritage Planner i s also involved with other c i t y , p r o v i n c i a l , federal and community contacts i n carrying out and coordinating these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . An important aspect of t h e i r r o l e i s educating the public and p r i v a t e sector with respect to the opportunities of heritage preservation i n general and:" informing them of speci-f i c programs which could help r e a l i z e those opportunities. The r e s u l t s of t h i s survey demonstrate,for the f i r s t time, the expansion of the function of planning i n Canada, which now incorporates heritage preserv-ation as an i n t e g r a l part of the planning process i n urban environments. This has culminated i n the emergence of the "Heritage Planner" as an e n t i t y within the profession. This thesis also establishes the fact that much of current municipal act-i v i t y i n heritage preservation i s d i r e c t e d towards ameliorating the negative economic consequences of heritage designation on the private sector. A great deal more could be done by s e t t i n g designation aside as a primary concern and using the e x i s t i n g tools at the municipality's disposal to encourage the private sector. The opportunity for the Heritage Planner rests i n using these tools to t h e i r best advantage i n negotiating with the p r i v a t e sector to preserve the City's heritage. 4 CHAPTER I: EVOLUTION Introduction This chapter describes contemporary and h i s t o r i c a l influences on the ev-o l u t i o n of municipal heritage planning i n Canada. These influences are described as follows: (a) The influence of the P r o v i n c i a l Government i n creating l e g i s l a t i o n which enabled m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to protect t h e i r heritage resources. (b) The influence of l o c a l a c t i v i t y which lobbied for p r o v i n c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n and municipal heritage programs. (c) The influence of the Federal Government through the creation of the Cana-dian Inventory of H i s t o r i c Building and Heritage Canada. (d) The h i s t o r i c a l influence of ideas and l e g i s l a t i o n i n Germany, Great B r i t a i n and France. (e) The influence of in t e r n a t i o n a l ideas through U.N.E.S.C.O. and n a t i o n a l l y through Heritage Canada. (f) The influence of the United States. (g) The influence of ideas which gave added dimension and support to the evolution of heritage planning. While these influences are described separately, i t was a combination of a l l of them over time which caused municipal heritage planning i n Canada to evolve. Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n , (a) Influence of the P r o v i n c i a l Government The most recent influence on the evolution of municipal heritage planning has been the delegation to the municipality of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the protect-ion of heritage property which has l o c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . This power has been delegated by P r o v i n c i a l Governments through t h e i r authority to regulate prop-erty under the B r i t i s h North America Act.* This trend has been followed to varying degrees over the past eight years as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 1, and i n a l l provinces with the exception of Quebec,where leg a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the 5 protection of a l l heritage property remains with the province. The provinces of Manitoba, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have given s p e c i a l enabling powers f o r heritage protection to t h e i r respective c a p i t a l s but t h i s power has not as yet been extended to the other c i t i e s . In providing m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with the power to protect t h e i r own heritage resources, the provinces did not always delegate a l l of the powers which i t 2 had i n the area of preservation. For example, i n B r i t i s h Columbia (apart from 3 Vancouver) and Saskatchewan, the provinces can waive b u i l d i n g and f i r e code re-quirements i n the case of r e h a b i l i t a t i n g heritage structures, while municipali-t i e s cannot. In addition, the provinces did not complement the enabling l e g i s -l a t i o n with funds to help support municipal heritage programs, but rather i n -creased the drain on municipal f i n a n c i a l resources, i n the case of B r i t i s h 4 Columbia and Alberta, by o b l i g i n g the payment of compensation to the owners of designated heritage property. While these factors have caused problems for the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , they have  also necessitated innovative heritage programs which make use of, complement  or ignore p r o v i n c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , (b) Local Influence The delegation of power f o r heritage preservation by the Province to the C i t y represented the formal recognition of a l o c a l concern for the protection of i t s heritage. This concern had grown i n strength over the past decade and was an important impetus for the creation of t h i s enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . While l o c a l a c t i v i t y i n heritage preservation was not a new phenomena^it often needed a c r i s i s on which to focus public awareness. In Vancouver, that c r i s i s was Project 200 and a threat to Gastown^ Ha l i f a x faced a s i m i l a r freeway threat 7 to i t s waterfront b u i l d i n g s . Groups such as the Vancouver Community Arts Council, Montreal's Save Montreal and Ottawa's Cap i t a l f o r Canadians swelled 8 during the 1970's as consciousness of conservation i n general confronted the increasing impacts of urban growth such as urban renewal and freeway construct-6 9 10 ion. The f i r e s were fanned by publications of Heritage Canada which spread word of recent confrontations and developments i n other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , prov-inces and countries, to member s o c i e t i e s and i n d i v i d u a l s across the country. Heritage Canada encouraged an awareness of national and i n t e r n a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y through i t s publications and provided f i n a n c i a l support to new heritage socie-t i e s forming i n i t s image. Heritage Canada was i t s e l f the product of the federal government and i s evidence of the influence of i n t e r n a t i o n a l ideas on Canadian federal p o l i c y . A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the evolution of t h i s p o l i c y i n the area of h e r i -tage conservation follows, (c) National Influences The H i s t o r i c Sites and Monuments Board was established i n 1919, two years a f t e r the f i r s t National H i s t o r i c Park, for the purpose of advising the Mini-s t e r on the national h i s t o r i c s i g n i f i c a n c e of persons, places or events. While the r o l e of the Board has not changed, i t s supporting research arms have played a part i n i n f l u e n c i n g heritage awareness and p a r t i c i p a t i o n across Canada. One of these i s the Canadian Inventory of H i s t o r i c Building. The Canadian Inventory of H i s t o r i c Building The support services for the H i s t o r i c Sites and Monuments Board started a nation-wide inventory of h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g i n 1970. This Canadian Inventory of H i s t o r i c Building was intended to help the Board make more accurate decisions as to the nation's more s i g n i f i c a n t s i t e s but i t s side benefits had even great-er impact. Issue No. 4 of the National H i s t o r i c Parks' News expresses some of these side e f f e c t s . "The data compiled through t h i s National H i s t o r i c Sites Service survey w i l l u l t i m a t e l y be made av a i l a b l e , i n catalogue form, to a l l provinces for use i n t h e i r own planning i n t h i s f i e l d . In preparing a basis for b u i l d i n g evaluation, the Service team w i l l also help to encourage e f f o r t s of interested i n d i v i d u a l s and private enterprise i n r e s t o r a t i o n and use of worthwhile structures ... The Minister expects that the inventory w i l l provide a valuable basis for f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l cooperation i n preserving 7 buildings with the greatest h i s t o r i c a l and a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e throughout Canada,"11 While the i n i t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s inventory was rather l i m i t e d i n scope, i t s long term ramifications for heritage p o l i c y across Canada and, through feedback, to Parks Canada, were s i g n i f i c a n t . The C.I.H.B., with a l i s t of over 200,000 s i t e s across Canada, has provided a data base on which mu n i c i p a l i t i e s can b u i l d t h e i r own heritage Inventories and preservation pro-grams. The Research arm of the C.I.H.B. has provided guides to recognizing 12 and evaluating Canadian heritage architecture, and through the employment of students under Opportunities f o r Youth and Winter Works Programs, i t has ed-ucated and s e n s i t i z e d people to heritage across Canada. The Heritage Canada Foundation Concurrent with the formation of t h i s Inventory, a study was c a r r i e d out by the Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development "...regarding the creation of some form of National Trust, through which s i t e s , buildings and furnishings of national h i s t o r i c importance (could) be donated or acquired 13 and preserved." This National Trust, modelled on the B r i t i s h and American National Hisror-i c Trusts became Heritage Canada, incorporated i n 1973 with an i n i t i a l endow-ment of 12 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s provided by the federal government. "The main purpose of Heritage Canada, said Mr. Chretien, (then Minister of Department of Indian A f f a i r s ) i s to e n l i s t the active i n t e r e s t and p a r t i c i p a r t i o n of a l l Canadians who would l i k e to share i n the important task of preserving the nation's h i s t o r i c and natural heritage and who would be glad of an op-portunity to contribute t h e i r services and money to t h i s cause. It has been the experience i n other countries that an a c t i v e , independently structured national t r u s t can create an environ-ment of c i t i z e n involvement which a t t r a c t s greatly increased p u b l i c support and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . " I 4 Heritage Canada (now the Heritage Canada Foundation) has had a substantial impact i n i n f l u e n c i n g government l e g i s l a t i o n and p o l i c y with respect to h e r i -tage preservation at a l l l e v e l s . The Area Conservation Program was a s i g n i f i -cant impetus to Heritage Planning at the municipal l e v e l . Through t h i s pro-8 gram, Heritage Canada has financed i n whole o r i n part studies of p o t e n t i a l municipal conservation areas, It has also invested i n the property, provided the following conditions were met: the conservation area had s u f f i c i e n t merit; there was a strong p u b l i c commitment to the area; There was l e g i s l a t i o n at the municipal l e v e l to create and enforce protection of the area; a foundation was created to administer the area. These conservation d i s t r i c t s were of s i g n i f i c a n t impetus i n Winnipeg, St. John's, Newfoundland and 9 other c i t i e s across Canada. While the Canadian Inventory of H i s t o r i c B u ilding could encourage public awareness of h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g through a government program, Heritage Canada was free to a c t i v e l y lobby for better l e g i s l a t i o n . The p u b l i c a t i o n of i t s Brown Paper on L e g i s l a t i o n i n 1975 attempted to provide a prototype for t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n . Some of the points included i n t h i s model p r o v i n c i a l heritage l e g i s l a t i o n are as follows: the P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t e r and the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are to be given powers concerning the ownership, study, control and financing of heritage properties; properties designated as heritage by e i t h e r the M i n i s t e r or the muni-c i p a l i t y cannot be a l t e r e d or destroyed without s p e c i f i c approval from these circumstances; the M i n i s t e r may exempt heritage properties from b u i l d i n g and f i r e codes; heritage property must be maintained by the owner, and i f required, the munciipality or Minister may order and enforce maintenance and r e p a i r at the owner's expense.*^ (d) European Influence " I t i s a matter of intimate duty of conscience on the part of c i t y 9 governors, to care f o r the older monuments, not i n amateur fashion ... but of set purpose as one of the most important objects of c i v i c administration." ^ 1902 the Burgomaster of Hildesheim The evolution of state p o l i c i e s r e l a t e d to the preservation of h i s t o r i c 17 s i t e s has been described i n great d e t a i l by authors such as John Harvey who has traced i t to the t h i r d and fourth centuries A.D. For the purpose of t h i s discussion we are p r i m a r i l y interested i n recent developments r e l a t e d to de-f i n i n g conservation beyond the scope of preserving monuments and i n enabling government at the l o c a l l e v e l to have a say i n what should be conserved and how. A l i s t of heritage l e g i s l a t i o n i s included as an appendix. The f i r s t " . . . e x p l i c i t programme and d i r e c t i v e f o r conservation...in the 18 world...stemmed d i r e c t l y from the work of Louis X." The 1818 decree of Ludvig X, Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt, discusses the basis f o r heritage p o l i c y which holds true f o r a l l l e v e l s of government to t h i s day. It covers such basic items as the following: 1. a preliminary and d e t a i l e d Inventory 2. the establishment of a "learned" Advisory Board 3. a form of Impact Assessment to monitor the impact of "excavation" or development on heritage property 4. very s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r care of monuments was to be the duty "of a l l public a u t h o r i t i e s " and not just the supreme monarch. The concept of "das S t a d t b i l d - the general townscape produced by the 19 large number of humbler domestic monuments...", which was expressed i n Germany i n 1904, helped extend the evolving scope of heritage conservation beyond the monumental and cl o s e r to the more h o l i s t i c view of conservation accepted today. The B r i t i s h Ancient Monuments Act of 1931 extended r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the conservation of l o c a l monuments to l o c a l o f f i c i a l s . It also extended t h i s authority "...to protect not only monuments but also the areas surround-10 ing them."^ uThis authority was again expanded through the 1932 Town and Country Planning Act to protect buildings and groups of buildings other than ancient b u i l d i n g s . The concept of conservation areas was promoted by the C i v i c Trust since i t s founding i n 1957 and eventually l e g i s l a t e d under the C i v i c Amenities Act of 1967 enabling l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s to designate areas of a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c i n t e r e s t . This increase i n l o c a l c u l t u r a l autonomy was not without i t s d e f i c i e n c i e s . "While the character and appearance of these areas were to be pre-served and enhanced by s t r i c t planning control, the Act made no pr o v i s i o n f o r the protection of b u i l d i n g s , other than l i s t e d b u i l d i n g s , within such a scheme; offered l i t t l e i n the way of advice on the problems of r e c o n c i l i n g the economic and s o c i a l developments of the twentieth century with the preservation of our old towns; and gave no s i g n i f i c a n t f i n a n c i a l incentive to make the idea of conservation a t t r a c t i v e to the l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s on whose good w i l l i t r e l i e s . " 2 1 In France, Law 4 of August 1962 combined an expanded context and author-i t y f o r conservation i n enabling the designation of h i s t o r i c conservation centres. It viewed " H i s t o r i c a l , Archaeological and A r c h i t e c t u r a l Interest... less i n the "monumental" character of the p a r t i c u l a r b u i l d i n g making up the 22 group than i n the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y . " State and l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s together with the i n d i v i d u a l property owners are involved i n the designation and administra-t i o n of these areas, (e) U.N.E.S.C.O. The c r o s s - f e r t i l i z a t i o n of ideas r e l a t e d to preservation at the Inter-national l e v e l can be seen i n the International Recommendations of the United National Educational S c i e n t i f i c and C u l t u r a l Organization (UNESCO). While these recommendations are p r i m a r i l y directed toward i n t e r n a t i o n a l and national concerns, the f i l t e r i n g of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the l o c a l l e v e l and the expanded view of the context of conservation i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Recommendation f i v e "concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of H i s t o r i c Areas" (1976). " H i s t o r i c areas and t h e i r surroundings should be regarded as forming an i r r e p l a c e a b l e universal heritage. The governments and the c i t i z e n s of the states i n whose t e r r i t o r y they are situated should deem i t 11 t h e i r duty to safeguard t h i s heritage and integrate i t into the s o c i a l l i f e of our times. .The national, r e g i o n a l , or l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s should be answerable f o r t h e i r performance of t h i s duty i n the i n t e r e s t of a l l c i t i z e n s . In the conditions of modern urbanization, which lead to a con-siderable increase i n the scale and density of b u i l d i n g s , apart from the danger of d i r e c t destruction of h i s t o r i c a l areas, there i s r e a l danger that newly developed areas can r u i n the environ-ment and character of adjoining h i s t o r i c areas."23 (f) The American Influence Planning i n Canada has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y influenced by a c t i v i t y i n 24 B r i t a i n and the United States. We have developed i n Canada a hybrid of gov-ernment intervention as accepted p r a c t i c e i n land use regulation combined with 25 a healthy respect for the "prerogatives of private ownership" as guaranteed i n American c o n s t i t u t i o n a l doctrine. "Preservation exposes contradictory impulses i n America's psyche. On one side i s a genuine commitment to the goal of safeguarding the nation's h i s t o r i c and a r c h i t e c t u r a l heritage. On the other i s the b i a s , deeply rooted i n the nation's l a i s s e z - f a i r e t r a d i t i o n s , that private decisions should be supreme i n the market-place despite t h e i r destructive impact on community ,,26 values." The American influence on Municipal Heritage Planning i n Canada has been the adoption of economic and other incentives to encourage preservation by the p r i v a t e sector and encourage i t s v i a b i l i t y . The U.S. has not been with-out heritage l e g i s l a t i o n at the municipal l e v e l . Its f i r s t preservation ord-inance was adopted i n Charleston, South Carolina i n 1931 and i t has a t r a d i -t i o n of h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t zoning such as the Vieux Carre i n New Orleans. The difference between the American and European influences on Canadian heritage planning l i e s i n the importance placed with the involvement of the p r i v a t e sector. (g) Concern for the protection of the urban b u i l t environment has had a long t r a d i t i o n i n Europe and even i n Canada p r i o r to the 1960's and 1970's. Why then, was formal municipal involvement with i t s past so long i n coming about. The following quotations express some of the possible reasons f o r i n i t i a l hesitancy on the part of the municipality: 1. P r i o r i t i e s : " C i t i e s are more preoccupied with day-to-day operations than with the long-range a c t i v i t i e s of preserving t h e i r culture and h i s t o r i c a l heritage. 2. Attitude Towards Progress and Misconceptions About Conservation: "Faced with problems of changing growth and structure (Ontario towns) tend...to ignore or devalue t h e i r own unique assets and to seek "big c i t y " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a solution...A shopping centre complex mushrooms on the fringes or as a multi-use downtown mall...The small centre welcomes these proposals as a v i s i b l e sign of "progress" and they are thought to be a needed boost to the tax base."28 3. Opposition of Vested Interests: "Developers, b u i l d i n g managers, f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , brokers and t i t l e insurance companies...look askance at any governmental measure that d i l u t e s the p r i v a t e sector's control over r e a l estate decisions such as those a f f e c t -ing land assembly, demolition and redevelopment."29 While the reasons f o r municipal reluctance described above have not d i s -appeared, the arguments f or heritage preservation have been strengthened by the influences mentioned e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter and by the following ideas and events of the I960' and 1970's. The Environmental Conservation Movement encompassed the Urban as well as Natural Environment. " U n t i l r e l a t i v e l y recently, concern f o r the environment focused on the pro-t e c t i o n of natural resources - a i r and water q u a l i t y , land conservation and w i l d l i f e preservation. As i n t e r e s t i n the environment has i n t e n s i f i e d , a broader and more sophisticated understanding of environmental q u a l i t y has emerged to encompass natural and man-made factors that make up our environment. Underlying t h i s expanded concept i s a recognition that buildings and neighborhoods should be preserved f o r reasons that go beyond h i s t o r i c or a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . A "sense of place" and one of c u l t u r a l continuity are incr e a s i n g l y accepted as genuine needs i n urban American society. Equally widespread i s the growing recognition that the q u a l i t y of l i f e i n urban areas i s intimately r e l a t e d to a hospi-table environment. Conserving our b u i l t environment, p a r t i c u l a r l y those older elements that are often more gracious and humane i n terms of scale, texture and design, i s now a p r i o r i t y i n almost a l l urban r e v i t a l i z a t i o n programs."30 The Canadian Centennial celebrations of 1967 and the l a t e r celebrations of 13 the P r a i r i e Provinces provided an impetus to the recognition of a national and p r o v i n c i a l i d e n t i t y and heritage, Funds were also expended during these celecbrations on programs r e l a t e d to the promotion of heritage. - The physical and s o c i a l upheaval of urban renewal created a need f o r the s t a b i l i t y and sense of place which heritage preservation could provide. - The International Style of Design which had been dominant f o r over h a l f a century was l o s i n g ground to a greater appreciation f o r the c r a f t of orna-ment and d e t a i l . Summary This chapter has b r i e f l y described some of the contemporary and h i s t o r i c -a l influences on the evolution of municipal heritage planning i n Canada. While t h i s a c t i v i t y i s being examined i n t h i s thesis over the course of i t s recent past and i n the context of the l o c a l municipality, the o r i g i n s of planning f o r heritage preservation can be traced to the fourth century A.D. and across the World. The influences described i n t h i s chapter provide an h i s t o r i c a l backdrop against which we can observe municipal heritage planning i n Canada as seen through the r o l e of the Heritage Planner and the mechanisms for preservation at t h e i r d i s p o s a l . The Interchange of Ideas and People The P r o v i n c i a l and Munici-pal Governments and Local Influences The Federal Government and Other National Influences International and H i s t o r i c -a l Influences c r o s s - f e r t i l i z a t i o n lof people, ideas r -L < other ^ P r o v i n c i a l provinces copy l e g i s l a t i o n T i I Federal/National International Ideas I O a5 request authority O i/i • H O 4-> U nJ O bO • H S , other ^ ~ ~ c i t i e s 7 — countries | p r o v i d e e n -I a b l i n g l e g i s • 1a t i o n jk l J M u n i c i p a l T K-r-, >l I Tax R e l i e f I Bldg. Code Relaxation I f i g h t , lobby s o l i c i t ad-vice — o t h e r — s o c i e t i e s through Heritage Canada - p J l o c a l g r o u p s / i n d i v i d u a l s i j I C.I.H.B'./Parks Canada i _ . I Heritage Canada (open ended system) H i s t o r i c a l FIGURE 1: INFLUENCES ON THE EVOLUTION OF MUNICIPAL HERITAGE PLANNING IN CANADA •French • B r i t i s h •American •UNESCO Rec-ommendations • Roman • German •Hessian Creed of 1818 (model for a l l sub-sequent pres-rvation leg-i s l a t i o n •das Stadbildt Footnotes ^ B r i t i s h North America Act, sec. 92,92. 2 Heritage Conservation Act. S.B.C. 1977. 3 Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act. S.S. 1980. 4 Alberta H i s t o r i c a l Resources (Amendment) Act. S.A. 1978. ^This early a c t i v i t y i n heritage was c a r r i e d out by l o c a l groups such as the B.C. H i s t o r i c a l Society formed i n 1922 and the Vancouver Community Arts Council which was formed i n 1946. (Dates are from the Arts Reference D i v i s i o n , Vancouver Public Library, October 1981). ^A Case Study of Gastown i n Mark Denhez, Heritage Fights Back (Toronto, Ontario: Fitshenry and Whiteside, 1978), p. 184. 7 Barbara Lambert. "On the Waterfront - The Story of Halifax's Oldest Buildings." Heritage Canada, (Summer 1977): 21. g Michael S e e l i g , "The ro l e of heritage conservation i n planning." (School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980) . 9 The case of Project 200 i n Vancouver i s an example as described i n Mark. Denhez, Heritage Fights Back, o p . c i t . •^The current bi-monthly p u b l i c a t i o n of Heritage Canada i s c a l l e d Canadian  Heritage. This was changed from Heritage Canada. Heritage Canada also pub-l i s h e d Heritage Conservation f o r a b r i e f period. ^^Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development National H i s t o r i c Barks News 4. 12 Harold Kalman. The Evaluation of H i s t o r i c Buildings (Ottawa, Ont.: Parks Canada, 1980). 13 Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development Annual Report (1969-70), p. 18. 14 Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development National H i s t o r i c Parks News 10. 16 "^Howard Goshulak, "Preserving the Past f or the Future." Coaster's th e s i s , Winnipeg: Un i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1980), p. 332, "^John Harvey, Conservation of Buildings (London: Un i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press), p. 25. Ibid. 1 8 I b i d , p. 27. 19 Ibid, p. 25. 20 Jane Fawcett (ed.) The Future of the Past, Attitudes to Conservation  1174-1974 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), p. 21. 21 N. Boulting. In The Future of the Past, Attitudes to Conservation 1174- 1974, o p . c i t . 22 Harvey, p. 46. 23 United Nations Educational S c i e n t i f i c and C u l t u r a l Organization Recommen-dation, 1976. Section I I . 24 Tom Gunton "The History of Planning i n Canada" Doctoral Thesis, Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1981, 25 John Costonis, Space A d r i f t : Landmark Preservation and the Market-Place (Champaign, I l l i n o i s : University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1974), p. 14. ^ I b i d , p. 26. 27 Weiming, Lu "Public Commitment and Private Investment i n Preservation" i n Economic Benefits of Preserving Old Buildings,(Washington, D.C.: Preserva-t i o n Press, 1976), p. 35. 2 8 Jack Diamond, " S t r a t f o r d " Heritage Canada (Spring 1977), p.43. 29 John Costonis, Op.Cit., p. 11. 30 R. Verner i n Cobett, M. et a l . Splendid Survivors San Francisco's  Downtown A r c h i t e c t u r a l Heritage. ( C a l i f o r n i a L i v i n g Books, San Francisco, C a l i f o r n i a , 1980). 17 CHAPTER I I : PROFILES OF SELECTED CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES Part 1: Method of Survey In order to describe municipal heritage planning i n Canada as defined i n t h i s thesis i t was necessary to f i l l a void of e x i s t i n g material on t h i s recent phenomenon and c o l l e c t new information. A written, mailed questionnaire was used as a means of s o l i c i t i n g t h i s primary information. At the same time, new, unpublished documents r e l a t e d to heritage planning were requested from the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s surveyed. These l o c a l planning documents comprise the major body of information i n the f i e l d of municipal heritage planning i n Canada, be-ginning with the study of the Glebe neighbourhood i n Ottawa by John Leaning i n the 1970's^and continuing with documents such as the 1980 study of Nelson, 2 B r i t i s h Columbia. A questionnaire was chosen because of the ant i c i p a t e d savings i n cost as compared to a telephone survey, and also the p o t e n t i a l f o r greater accuracy i n in t e r p r e t i n g written responses ( p a r t i c u l a r l y i n another language) rather than over the phone. The costs of t h i s mailed questionnaire, however, were compar-able to a telephone survey when factors such as the costs of typing, t r a n s l a -t i o n , e d i t i n g , retyping, layout, p r i n t i n g , mailing, reminder mailings, reminder phone c a l l s , speed of response, are taken into consideration. There was also ambiguity i n some of the written responses which could have been remedied during an i n i t i a l telephone survey rather than through repeated mailings and c a l l s . I n i t i a l contact was established with the Heritage Planners f o r Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa and St. John, New Brunswick, at the Heritage Canada Foundation Conference i n Winnipeg i n October 1980. These planners were can-vassed informally f o r t h e i r receptiveness to a questionnaire dealing with municipal heritage planning, f o r suggestions regarding i t s content and for addi t i o n a l contacts. The Heritage Planner f o r Vancouver was approached i n person i n Vancouver and the Planner f o r V i c t o r i a was contacted by telephone. 18 The c i t i e s of Toronto, Kingston, Montreal, Quebec C i t y , Charlottetown, Ha l i f a x and St. John's, Newfoundland were approached on the basis of the ex-istence of reports r e l a t i n g to municipal heritage preservation or coverage of t h e i r a c t i v i t y by Heritage Canada. Questionnaires were sent to these c i t i e s to the attention of the Planner re s p o n s i b i l e f or heritage preservation i n care of the Director of Planning. The design of the questionnaire took into consideration c l a r i t y , b r e v i t y , 3 layout, etc. It was influenced by a survey of Energy Conservation i n twenty Canadian c i t i e s prepared by the C i t y of Toronto i n conjunction with the C i t i e s Energy Conference i n Toronto, i n February 1980. A c r i t i c a l analysis was c a r r i e d out of the questionnaire within the U.B.C. School of Community and Regional Planning by f a c u l t y and students. The f i n a l d r a f t of the questionnaire and the covering l e t t e r were approved and dispatched over January and February 1981. C i t i e s which d i d not respond to the questionnaire a f t e r f i v e weeks and where a Heritage Planner was known to exist were contacted by telephone to speed the reply. The remaining c i t i e s were contacted by s p e c i a l d e l i v e r y l e t t e r . The Se l e c t i o n Process The following c i t i e s were sent questionnaires because of demonstrated a c t i v i t y i n heritage preservation as mentioned e a r l i e r i n t h i s section: V i c t o r i a , Vancouver, Nelson, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Montreal, Quebec Ci t y , St. John, N.B., Charlottetown, Halifax, St. John's. The following c i t i e s did not q u a l i f y by v i r t u e of having a s t a f f person devoting more than 25% of t h e i r time to heritage preservation a c t i v i t i e s : Nelson, B.C.; Kingston, Ont.; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; St. John's, Newfoundland. The following c i t i e s did not reply to the questionnaire: Vancouver, B.C.; Montreal, Quebec. 19 Those c i t i e s which did respond or q u a l i f i e d through the existence of a Heritage Planner (Vancouver) w i l l be described i n the p r o f i l e of Part 2 of t h i s chapter. 20 Part 2: P r o f i l e s Information summarized i n t h i s chapter i s derived p r i m a r i l y from the answered questionnaires supplemented by municipal reports, which were included with those r e p l i e s , interviews and p u b l i c a t i o n s . The p r o f i l e of each municipality consists of the following: 1) Background The major events which affected municipal heritage planning i n that c i t y are traced c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y . The l e t t e r s i n brackets beside the date cor-respond to Chart 1 l a b e l l e d "Background". 2) Role The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the Heritage Planner are described. 3) Evaluation The opportunities, constraints of municipal heritage program are discussed. 4) Incentive Mechanisms A summary of the status and effectiveness of the incentive mechanisms i s appendedr'in Table 2. Only those mechanisms which were discussed i n d e t a i l by the municipality are included here. A d e s c r i p t i o n of these mechanisms i s included i n greater d e t a i l i n Chapter 3. 5) Additional Information A d e s c r i p t i o n of sources of assistance to the municipality for h e r i -tage programs. 2 1 Table 1 Background to M u n i c i p a l A c t i v i t y i n Heritage P r e s e r v a t i o n T h i s c h a r t d e s c r i b e s the e v o l u t i o n of muni c i p a l a c t i v i t y r e l a t e d to h e r i t a g e p r e s e r v a t i o n f o r f o u r t e e n c i t i e s a c ross Canada t o March 1981. This a c t i v i t y i s d e f i n e d i n terms o f the events d e s c r i b e d i n the legend. rH 00 Os H t-H M M O 00 OS i-t © o rH . * o © o H id CP 1979 ,o m o CJ o P.c-\ o o eg c_> CO c- _ O N rH rH H rH o rH 1-1 id m ft. fH (^  -* r i rH ft. | 1977 rH rH CJ Q, CJ O a ca p. o CO o. o SO c^-Os H ft. rH o CM CJ eg o (& Os rH w H M rH CJ CO CM o •H III m rH (E^  CJ O s ~ H CJ O CM i - l m rH O CO rH CM O r-t •H rH o e n Os — rH o rH CO CM @ CM C -^O s ~ " rH CJ E H P . O CO rH O CS( ,-") o rH O -Os rH •si H U 0, O CM D, O O o -OS~" rH M C CO •H CO • a a) a! In a a, E-< CO X w f c j P . O rH O Pre 1970 (Specify Date) •P o w O O S O U O Os CM rH En rH rH id 3: ON-P rH «H * - ^ o 1 S L O H s O O Os H 1 >>rH C -P rHSO •H «1 Os U I H T3 » 1 <D 00 O CO VS. l i o c o 10H Q,.H rH ^ 3 rH PQ O P c o (H 00 <H M3 U o\ 0) rH -P — m E H S Victoria r l > 3 O o § > c o P c o E TJ fcl >> rH CD M rH cd o m c •H 60 CD CC W) CD P . «H •H 3 : O •P C O U o E H c O P CO SO .5 cd S id + J •p o >> +-> •H O o <u rQ <D 3 c c .c o •-a •p CO O P 0) P +» O rH cd . C CJ X cd "M •H rH Cd X 0} c Xi o >-) •P CO 0> . <M«H x : o p , >> O fn -P - H - H TJ U >H P o 3 (d id aJ<H +-> <D O ^ C W r l (4 a> 3 cd o> o &, E u w o c o a; aJ >> o tu • ' ^ r C ^ -P O £ >J E U 0) . H <« - H £ O +> O a) O E M o w e >* I CJ .H .H (U X : O O U to E-t hD •H «H C C O o QJ'H M • > h lUT) 0} C O O 0) ,Q • H + J JH O M P C C C * H O <D CO < £ W E O +> 1 o cd <u C - H 1 60 O tn -a c cd P . P g o 0) 03 p CO CO 3 . •H tiD'H •H CD *H rH TJ cd J= (H t l XI O cd f +> a> cd o rH •H c c c CO CH O s o o • M U •H <U -P cd o •H.H O 3 J= H +> -P +» o (U o >> cd cd C C f H rH *H CO ? •a •a > 3 o c cd " M cd <u S " rH •H tlO m • •H « H bH rH +• 3 0) o. -rl c bJlrH U U c >> cd o ca \ •H CD o cd d) C 0) •H c q rH • M C rH C •H +> > •H P. • o U o U O P ^ H 0) >• CO rH cd (H id u wH s c •H r l l H O •rt CD rH CD CD H u c u s <tH cd O TJ TJ O j S r H P. o n •3 cd o P. rH S id •H rH u VH O CD tlf l .H a o >» c o rH o TJ C " c cd •H wH n O V l a u •H C •H rH CH >H •H •H P o rH H - r l H M • O O u -P Cl) U id id f> > f > - H >> •P P to Cd H •H CD X 3 cd o cd tiO-P CO CO c CD £1 • M u u •p c u C OJ-rl •H •H +> U-H <H c cd O D H t > X o O CO o E H e u II II II II II II II tl rH CM f cd o p , r} n a m ft. o E H t5L • s >> cd £ O 1 rH O > H P < • H rH G >» J= O O ^1 u to] IH cd o -p ItH-H In i ( CD 10 C cd P c V i cd CD U CD C •P 3 •P O -H o 1 01 >> > C TJ < cd CD a. P « H P o • H . H I S o B °U • > » CD rH r H T j - H O C O io 3 c • H 3 > TJ O TJ CD O < -P Cd CD CD CD 01 m J H - H cd o > +> TJ " H >>cd b r H CD rH O X cd -P M [H I C -H cd ^ fcr: C * a> a) m rH at co a l o a) <u t-i JH ^ £ +^  P . P . o c 0) 3 o +» U CO CJ o 0) « co +> <u +> c •p C a> rt - H a> e • H s P , X : E 4-» o o • E H r H - H CO o co o i : a) O p , > S CD 0) 4-> H T 3 Q • *H rt o > E rH - 4 - » . H rt > > o - p <u p,+> o P * H u - m C o III co mH«H ftjcj c C O IH o C 3 r4 Oj-H <C E Oh -P CO P - P t-. O 3 CT3 P O » H o rt (H IH CO +» IU O i j E to O < H o m-H O H D a> T ) rH , o TJ a) o C • H - P O (H O tfl CtJ E H P . - H c a> P •H h rH Cfl o . rt > JH Q) O U (U >i W - H (1) rC O O C CO +-> rt a £ c •rH u u o o 0) CJ 3 01 O 3 P . - P a) rt at 3! V CJ CJ P fc.H.H Q) +^  3 <H <H a) • H f l - H - H CO f o o t * ID 0) 0) 0) o r a f t > U P CO CO o 22 VANCOUVER: 1. Background 1967 (T) - Project 200 was the largest commercial development yet proposed f o r 4 downtown Vancouver when i t became public i n 1967. Its 36 h i g h r i s e towers of apartments and o f f i c e s as well as a waterfront freeway threatened the o l d Gas-town and Chinatown areas and provoked a strong p u b l i c reaction. This p u b l i c reaction changed the attit u d e of C i t y Council, which i n i t i a l l y supported Project 200, to the point where i t requested the Province to designate the Gastown and Chinatown areas as h i s t o r i c s i t e s . June 1969 (S) - This change of p u b l i c a t t i t u d e i s expressed by Abraham Rogatnick i n a report e n t i t l e d "Maple Tree Square" Phase 1, f i r s t published i n June, 1969. "The C i t y of Vancouver i s only now beginning to mature. It s t i l l hovers on that f a s c i n a t i n g threshold between naive and reckless youth and the wonderful unfolding of i t s f u l l adult p o t e n t i a l . The C i t y i s at that stage where i t s t i l l can choose to recognize the value and the beauty of i t s c u l t u r a l inheritance. It has a very s p e c i a l and a t t r a c t i v e human heritage, and though i t has im-petuously squandered some of i t , and through ignorance and b l i n d -ness has often p i t i f u l l y neglected to take proper stock and care of i t s possessions, a substantial sum of them remain i n t a c t and only need to be revealed and c u l t i v a t e d to help Vancouver to re-fine and strengthen that character and p e r s o n a l i t y which w i l l make i t great among great c i t i e s of the world. 1970 (I) - The City's f i r s t inventory of h i s t o r i c buildings was started i n 1970 and covered Gastown and Chinatown. This inventory had national and internation-a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , as the evaluation system developed by Harold Kalman f o r t h i s 6 7 survey was expanded and used by c i t i e s across Canada and i n San Francisco. 1971 (B a) - Chinatown and Gastown were zoned h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t s . 1972 (P) - The C i t y of Vancouver f i r s t h i r e d Nancy O l i v e r and John G i f t - E l l i s i n 1972 as part of an L.I.P. project. Nancy O l i v e r would eventually become the City's Heritage Planner. John E l l i s moved to other planning r e s p o n s i b i l i -t i e s within the C i t y . June 1973 - "Time Present and Time Past", 1973 by Michael Seelig, proposed a framework f o r t h e development of A r e a Conservation P o l i c y i n Vancouver and ex-panded the perspective o f conservation beyond a concern only for h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g preservation. "A conservation p o l i c y involves determining what peo-ple treasure i n d i f f e r e n t parts o f the c i t y ; trees, fences, large l o t s i z e , Q and views may be as important, i f not more s o , than b u i l d i n g s . " This report, prepared f o r the Vancouver Soc i a l Planning Department, also expanded the concern for conservation beyond "...the province o f an i n t e l l e c t -ual e l i t e o r a hobby o f the wealthy - i t i s important t o the humanity and stab g i l i t y o f a c i t y and a l l o f i t s inhabitants." 1974 (D) - Michael Harcourt, then Alderman f o r Vancouver, made t h i s statement a t a conference sponsored by Heritage Canada i n February, 1977, e n t i t l e d "New L i f e f o r Old Buildings", "I think that people got excited about heritage pres-ervation i n Vancouver by becoming aware that C h r i s t Church Cathedral was going t o be torn down and secondly that the Birks Building was going t o be torn down This statement r e f l e c t s the continuity o f c r i s e s i n stimulating p u b l i c involvement i n preserving Vancouver's heritage. While the development o f a municipal heritage program may have been i n i t i a t e d by p u b l i c reaction t o the threat o f Project 200, renewed threats t o Vancouver's heritage continue t o r e -new c i t i z e n and municipal a c t i v i t y . 1974 ( L 2 ) - Vancouver received enabling powers f o r heritage designation under an amendment t o i t s charter i n 1974 a t the same time as amendments t o the Municipal Act provided these powers for the rest o f the province. 1974 ( C 2 ) - The Heritage Advisory Committee was appointed i n 1974. December 1974 (S) - "Vancouver's Heritage 1 - Twenty-two Buildings and Two H i s t o r i c Areas" (1974) was written in-house by the Planning Department for the newly appointed Heritage Advisory Committee. September 1975 (S) - "Vancouver's Heritage 2" (September, 1975) was a follow-up o f buildings recommended f o r preservation. September 1975 (S) - "The Gastown Economic Study" (September, 1975) was import 24 ant i n j u s t i f y i n g p u b l i c and p r i v a t e expenditures, on Commercial D i s t r i c t Rehab-i l i t a t i o n and R e v i t a l i z a t i o n . Gastown's success as reported i n t h i s document was p u b l i c i z e d n a t i o n a l l y through Heritage Canada's publications and Marc Denhez's case study i n "Heritage Fights Back".1'"5 February 19 76 - The c i t y ' s f i r s t heritage plaque was awarded to the Davis Residence i n recognition of the work c a r r i e d out by the Davis family to pre-serve t h i s property and as an incentive to other heritage property owners. 1977 (Li) - The B.C. Heritage Conservation Act superceded the 19 74 Vancouver charter amendment. It d i f f e r e d from early l e g i s l a t i o n i n that the c i t y was now obliged to pay compensation f o r economic loss which might r e s u l t from des-ignation. October 3 1978 - As a r e s u l t of the r e s t r i c t i v e p r o v i n c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , the C i t y of Vancouver prepared a study dealing with methods of "Monetary arid Non-Monetary Compensation f o r Heritage Designation".**A Case study incorpora-ted i n that report demonstrated that designation did not n e c e s s a r i l y cause an economic l o s s . Several of the non-monetary mechanisms were pursued under an amendment to the 1979 Zoning and Development Bylaw which enabled the Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board to relax r e s t r i c t i o n s such as parking, design, use f o r designated s i t e s . January 1979 - C i t y Council rejected a motion i n January, 1979 to h i r e a perm-12 anent heritage o f f i c e r f o r the C i t y . The p o s i t i o n of Heritage Planner was re-newed on a year-to-year b a s i s . 2. Role While Council refused to approve a heritage o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n , they d i r e c -ed that i t be incorporated as the part-time r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a planner. The p o s i t i o n , currently held by Tom Phipps, includes r e s p o n s i b l i t i e s with respect to the following three categories:" (a) Planriing: Heritage conservation has been considered an i n t e g r a l part of the planning 25 and s p e c i f i c a l l y urban design function of the c i t y , The r o l e of the heritage planner i n t h i s context i s to a s s i s t with s p e c i a l area and neighbourhood stud-ies which include heritage resources. Normally, the heritage planner's involve-ment includes providing terms of reference f o r s p e c i a l heritage studies, supervising s t a f f or consultants carrying them out or carrying out a l i m i t e d survey of heritage resources and developing a program f o r t h e i r evaluation. (b) Heritage Advisory Committee: The r o l e of the Heritage Planner i s c l o s e l y t i e d to the Heritage Advisory Committee. He provides information on ongoing and anticipated municipal pro-grams which might a f f e c t , p o s i t i v e l y or negatively, heritage resources. He provides advice on proposed designations, a l t e r a t i o n s to designated s i t e s and i n f i l l development and provides l i a i s o n between the Heritage Advisory Committee and the Planning and other municipal departments. (c) Private Sector: The Heritage Planner provides information to developers on opportunities and legal constraints f o r development with respect to heritage and p o t e n t i a l heritage resources. Information i s also provided on a continuing basis to the p u b l i c on Vancouver's heritage programs. 3. Major R e s t r i c t i o n s / L i m i t a t i o n The C i t y of Vancouver has designated f i f t y - n i n e heritage s i t e s , the maj-o r i t y of which were designated p r i o r to the 1977 Heritage Conservation Act. The few s i t e s designated since that time have a l l been p u b l i c l y owned. This slowdown of designation a c t i v i t y can be a t t r i b u t e d , i n part, to the require-ment for compensation upon designation. While compensation appears to be discretionary under the Heritage Conserv-ation Act (Subsection 1), the 1979 Municipal Act states that "...the Council s h a l l make to owners, occupiers or other persons interested i n r e a l property... i n j u r i o u s l y affected by the exercise of any of i t s powers, due compensation 26 14 fo r any damages." M u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n B.C. have chosen not to r i s k the possib-i l i t y of large compensation settlements i n the Courts and have designated only those "safe" buildings such as pu b l i c buildings where compensation i s not an issue. The Planner responsible f o r heritage can devote only 50% of h i s time to these a c t i v i t i e s , while t h i s time can be used e f f e c t i v e l y i n seeing that input i s provided to other ongoing studies and while expertise can be drawn from other departments and consultants when needed, i t i s u n r e a l i s t i c to expect an e f f e c t i v e municipal program with t h i s l i m i t e d a l l o c a t i o n of manpower. 4. Items of Special Interest Another heritage program which has the opportunity of being unique to Vancouver and Canada i s "Park S i t e 19". A f e a s i b i l i t y study was commissioned by Heritage Canada i n 1979 for an urban park i n Vancouver's West End.^This study proposed a park which incorporated some of the e x i s t i n g houses of vary-ing heritage s i g n i f i c a n c e . The concept was an attempt to combine passive rec-r e a t i o n a l park space, housing and heritage conservation i n a unique oasis. The Park S i t e 19 proposal i s being reviewed again i n 1981. Heritage conservation i s an i n t e g r a l part of urban design. The r e v i t a l -i z a t i o n of Gr a n v i l l e Island, while not a designated conservation d i s t r i c t , attempts to use the e x i s t i n g i n d u s t r i a l architecture and sympathetic new con-s t r u c t i o n to create the atmosphere of a heritage d i s t r i c t . The C i t y of Vancouver i s attempting to include heritage conservation as an i n t e g r a l part of i t s s p e c i a l area and neighbourhood studies. The most am-bi t i o u s of these i s the Core Area Study which includes the greater part of Vancouver phy s i c a l heritage. 27 VICTORIA 1. Background 1962 - The C i t y of V i c t o r i a was the f i r s t i n Western Canada to i n i t i a t e a mun-i c i p a l heritage conservation program through i t s r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of Bastion and Centennial Squares i n 1962 through 1965. 1971 ( 0 ) - Demolition of the Basset House i n 1971. 1973 (T) - Possible demolition of buildings on Wharf Street i n 1973. 1973 (Lj) - L e g i s l a t i o n enabling m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia (other than Vancouver) to designate heritage properties f i r s t came about i n 19 74, under an amendment to the Municipal Act. 1973 ( C 2 ) - The Heritage Advisory Committee of Council was established. 1974 (P) - Doug Koch, a Planner, was given heritage r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n 1974. He was followed by K. Van Westen and i n turn by Dean Strongetharm (1976-1980). Brian Sikstrom currently f u l f i l l s t h i s r o l e . 1975 (S) - Heritage Recycle Report (1975). - C i t y of V i c t o r i a : Heritage Conservation Report (1975). 1975 (I) - An Inventory of older commercial buildings i n the downtown was ca r r i e d out. 1975 (B D B a) - Bylaw No. 6825, the "Designation of H i s t o r i c a l D i s t r i c t , Down-town V i c t o r i a . " (1975). 1977 (B) - Demolition of the Jones Building on Fort Street. 1977 (Lt) - The Heritage Conservation Act (1977) was passed thus replacing the Municipal Act amendment mentioned above. Nov. 22 1977 (B Q) - The "Heritage Houses F i n a n c i a l Compensation Bylaw" (1977) was intended to encourage owners of r e s i d e n t i a l property to re p a i r , improve and maintain the ex t e r i o r or s t r u c t u r a l parts of the b u i l d i n g . 1977 - Plaques program i n i t i a t e d . 1978 (I) - Inventory of Residential buildings was c a r r i e d out. 1979 - Residential Inventory published i n This Old House (1979) . 28 1979 (Op) - '.'City .of V i c t o r i a Heritage Conservation; A.Guideline to P o l i c i e s and Programs" (.1979) (Revised 1981) . July 31 1980 (B 0) - "Heritage Commercial Properties Compensation Bylaw" (1980). This bylaw attempts to compensate owners f o r the designation of commercial b u i l d i n g s . 1981 (I) - Inventory of i n d u s t r i a l b u i l d i n g s . 1981 (S) - "Heritage Buildings: A l t e r a t i o n s and Designs" (1981). 2. Role Name: Brian Sikstrom Job Description: Pol i c y : To provide information, ideas and advice on heritage issues. Administration: To ensure that proper procedures are followed on b u i l d i n g and demolition permits which a f f e c t heritage b u i l d i n g s . Public Relations: To attend heritage meetings, provide planning information and advice, present planning ideas and concerns, and inform the Heritage Advisory Committee of events and other C i t y p r i o r i t i e s . C i t y Departments with Heritage Preservation A c t i v i t i e s : Building Department: This department i s responsible for inspections, stop work orders and ensuring that plans f o r r e s t o r a t i o n , r e h a b i l i t a t i o n s , or any development which a f f e c t s heritage property are followed once approved. Dem-o l i t i o n and b u i l d i n g permits or plans which a f f e c t heritage buildings are sent to the Heritage Planner for a check. Municipal Manager's O f f i c e : Administers "Heritage Houses Grant Program". Shared R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f or Preservation: Doug Koch - Planner O f f i c e r . Responsible To: Director of Planning. Potential Contribution of Heritage Planner: Brian Sikstrom f e l t that the po-. t e n t i a l constribution of the Heritage Planner was i n undertaking research i n -to l o c a l heritage issues and concerns, understanding the economics of pres-ervation and evaluating p o l i c i e s and programs to ensure t h e i r effectiveness. 29 Limitations; Lack of time. Involvement with day-to-day operations of the Planning Department outside of heritage. Changes: More research/less day-to-day work. Time Devoted to Heritage: 50% to 75%. 3. :Evaluation - Constraints/Opportunities The C i t y of V i c t o r i a has managed to use the e x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n despite uncertainties surrounding the issue of compensation. It has done t h i s by encouraging designation through grants and other incentives. V i c t o r i a has also used i t s zoning powers under the Municipal Act i n conjunct-ion with heritage designation and the incentives to provide an e f f e c t i v e pro-gram for heritage preservation. Commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l areas have been downzoned to reduce the economic incentive to demolish the e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g stock. The conservation of heritage buildings and streetscapes i s encouraged by providing small l o t sizes as i n the Fort Street Special Commercial D i s t r i c t (Zoning Bylaw Sec. 6.5). A "Premises and Occupancy Bylaw" (1974) ensures that heritage property i s maintained while the various grants and other incentives described l a t e r help the property owner cover the cost of that maintenance. Barri e r s to Designation: The C i t y i s concerned about the amount of money being spent and changes i n the r e s i d e n t i a l grant program are being considered to make i t less gener-ous. (A p o l i c y was adopted by Council to designate heritage houses only i n areas where there i s a threat of demolition). The C i t y Administration f e e l s that the majority of important heritage buildings have been "saved" and that heritage i s l a r g e l y a "stewardship" r o l e now. The C i t y i s also concerned that new construction i s being t i e d up with red tape. 4. Incentive Mechanisms J u r i s d i c t i o n - Persuasion Implemented by the Heritage Planner and Heri-tage Advisory Committee. - Plaques - Public Awareness - Demonstration Projects - Public Works - Design Options - Building Code F l e x i b i l i t y - Encouragement and coordin-ation of leasing space by the p u b l i c sector i n mun-i c i p a l , p r o v i n c i a l and federal heritage s t r u c t -ures - Zoning Incentives - Purchase of Property 30 Implemented by C i t y under a r e s o l u t i o n of Council i n 1977, Implemented by C i t y under a r e s o l u t i o n of Council. Examples include: The Mayoral Proclamation f o r "Heritage Day"; Letters of Commendation; "Heritage C l i n i c " . Implemented by C i t y under a r e s o l u t i o n of Council. An example i s the r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of Chinatown. Implemented by C i t y under a r e s o l u t i o n of Council. Examples include Bastion Square and the Government Street Mall. Implemented by C i t y under a re s o l u t i o n of Council. An example i s Centennial Square. The C i t y has requested the province to relax code requirements f o r heritage buildings under the Municipal Act (Sec. 740). The C i t y under a re s o l u t i o n of Council has leased the Carnegie Library and encouraged the leasing of the Cr y s t a l Gardens. Implemented by C i t y under a zoning regulation bylaw for Fort Street'and the downtown. Implemented by C i t y . An example i s the Centennial Square r e v i t a l i z a t i o n c a r r i e d out between 1962 and 1965. 31 P r o f i l e f o r Significant. Incentive Mechanisms; 1) Measure; Commercial Properties Compensation Program. Implemented By: Comptroller-Treasurer's Department, Planning Department and Municipal Managers O f f i c e . Objectives: To compensate owners for designation of commercial b u i l d i n g s . Description: The bylaw permits the C i t y to cal c u l a t e property taxes on heritage designated commercial buildings as i f assessed values were f r o -zen, even though f o r assessment purposes they are not. The bylaw i s e f f e c t i v e f o r a period of 3 years following the designation. I f improve-ments are made the addit i o n a l taxes on these are forgiven f o r a maximum period of 7 years following designation. Funding: C i t y . Sites Preserved: None so f a r . Limitations, Constraints, Problems Experienced: Meant to be used "as a l a s t r e s o r t " . So f a r no commercial b u i l d i n g has been designated under the program. 2) Measure: Heritage Houses Grant Program. Implemented By: Planning Department and Municipal Manager's O f f i c e . Objective: To encourage owners of r e s i d e n t i a l property to repair, im-prove and maintain the ext e r i o r or s t r u c t u r a l parts of t h e i r b u i l d i n g s . Description: To provide annual grants up to an amount equal to 3 times the gross property taxes to owners f o r e x t e r i o r or s t r u c t u r a l work. Funding: C i t y funds from taxes. Since 1977, $187,000 has been spent on t h i s program. Sites Preserved: 59. Limitations, Constraints, Problems Experienced: - the grant i s e x c l u s i v e l y f o r "designated"residential heritage s i t e s and f o r e x t e r i o r work only; - the grant formula could be too generous; 32 - designated apartment buildings obtain a r e l a t i v e l y large sum of money. Measure: Heritage Building C l i n i c , Implemented By; C i t y of V i c t o r i a , Hallmark Society, Vancouver Island Chapter of the Royal A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B.C, Objectives: To inform prospective renovators of proper r e s t o r a t i o n and renovation methods. Description: Free advice was provided by persons with design experience. Funding: Those involved donated t h e i r time. The C i t y covered the admin-i s t r a t i o n costs. Limitations, Constraints, Problems Experienced: Each applicant was en-t i t l e d to a maximum of two sessions. Consultants l i m i t e d t h e i r advice to discussion of h i s t o r i c a l aspects, colour and general design advice and would not provide d e t a i l e d working drawings. It terminated because ap-p l i c a n t s started to use the c l i n i c as a free design service, instead o f h i r i n g a r c h i t e c t s . Measure: Chinatown "Paint-up" Program. Implemented By: Planning Department. Objectives: To help r e v i t a l i z e Chinatown. Description: Owner pays h a l f , C i t y pay h a l f , f o r a "paint-up". Funding: B.C. Heritage Trust and b u i l d i n g owners. The b u i l d i n g owners provided $30,000. Sites Preserved: Approximately 25 b u i l d i n g s i n Chinatown. Limitations, Constraints, Problems Experienced: - Uncooperative owners cannot be made to p a r t i c i p a t e . - C i t y acts as the trustee for government funds but contracts between painter and owner created administration confusion. - q u a l i t y control of work was a problem. C o n f l i c t s occasionally arose over t h i s between property owners and the C i t y . 5) Measure; Annual Heritage Commendation Letters (Heritage Day), Implemented By; Planning Department and Mayor's O f f i c e , Objectives: To encourage sympathetic renovation of o l d b u i l d i n g s . Description: Letter of Commendation from the Mayor. In the past an awards ceremony/reception was held. Assistance Received by the C i t y with Respect to Heritage Preservation: The Hallmark Society has provided the C i t y with information of general and technical nature The Province has restored several of i t s own heritage buildings such as the C r y s t a l Gardens; L e g i s l a t i v e Buildings; Rich and Can House, etc. Funds ($30,000) were received under the P r o v i n c i a l Heritage Area R e v i t a l -i z a t i o n Program (HARP) f o r the r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of Chinatown. Funds were also obtained f o r the preparation of the "Conservation Report" and This  Old House. The Heritage Canada Foundation has been a source of information f o r the Ci t y . U n i v e r s i t y professors have been a part of the V i c t o r i a Heritage Advisory Committee and helped with reports. Heritage preservation i n V i c t o r i a has been supported by pr i v a t e entre-preneurs and a r c h i t e c t s i n various projects thorughout the c i t y . 34 EDMONTON: 1. Background 1970 (T) - The threat to the Strathcona neighbourhood i n the 1970's was perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of i t s p o l i t i c a l impact. A proposed approach to a new bridge threatened to destroy many structures and the character of the area. Concerned residents formed the Strathcona H i s t o r i c a l Group i n 1972 and p e t i t i o n e d C i t y Council to preserve the area. 1971 (Op) - Council's p o s i t i o n with respect to h i s t o r i c preservation was f i r s t stated i n the General Plan (1971): ".. structures of h i s t o r i c and a r c h i t e c t u r a l d i s t i n c t i o n should be pre-served and restored to r e f l e c t our taste and culture of d i f f e r e n t per-iods, to provide continuity with the past and to a i d the i n d i v i d u a l character of Edmonton. Structures o f f i c i a l l y designated to be preserved should be protected by l e g i s l a t i o n and should be properly maintained and given a proper s e t t i n g so that succeeding generations can enjoy them.''^^ 1974 (C-^ ) - C i t y Council approved the establishment of the H i s t o r i c Sites Selection Committee i n 1974 as a sub-committee of the Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Board to recommend buildings and s i t e s to the Board for protection, and provide a set of l e g i s l a t i v e guidelines f o r t h e i r preservation. 1975 (I) - An inventory of structures i n the C i v i c Centre area. J u l y 22 1976 - Heritage Canada became involved i n t h i s area through i t s Area Conservation Program and the Strathcona Heritage Foundation was subsequently 17 created to administer the area. 1976 (B a) - In 1976 the C i t y of Edmonton adopted a development control r e s o l -ution for the Old Strathcona H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t to enable the monitoring of demolition and new development. This r e s o l u t i o n was declared u l t r a v i r e s by 18 the Supreme Court of Canada i n the case of Tegon vs. The C i t y of Edmonton. As a r e s u l t of t h i s landmark decision, municipal land use controls cannot be  used for the purpose of heritage conservation unless authorized by law. The 1978 amendment to the Alberta H i s t o r i c a l Resources Act provides t h i s authori-zation. 35 1 9 7 7 (Bfo) - In 1 9 7 7 , the H i s t o r i c a l Board was empowered to withhold the dev-elopment permit for h i s t o r i c a l buildings for a period of up to 10 days to per-mit an inspection by the Board. 1 9 7 7 (I) - An inventory of the neighbourhoods of O l i v e r , Garneau and Strathcona. 1978 ( L t ) - Under a 1978 amendment to the Alberta H i s t o r i c a l Resources Act of 1 9 7 3 the municipality can enact bylaws that would provide f o r the designation and protection of any h i s t o r i c resource within the municipality whose preserv- at i o n i t considers to be i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . The H i s t o r i c Resources Act amendment of 1978 states that the owner of a designated property s h a l l be pro-vided with compensation f o r the decrease i n economic value a t t r i b u t a b l e to the designation. Unlike the B.C. Act, there i s no ambiguity here as to Council's d i s c r e t i o n . 1978 - The demolition of s i g n i f i c a n t buildings has been an ongoing experience 'v. i n Edmonton over the past decade r e s u l t i n g from the development pressures f o l -lowing Alberta's o i l wealth. A group of c i t i z e n s founded the Society f o r the Protection of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Resources i n Edmonton (SPARE) i n 1 9 7 8 i n response to t h i s continued actual and threatened demolition of buildings and neighbour-hoods. The creation of SPARE followed by two years the creation of SPARC i n Calgary, and i s i n d i c a t i v e of the development pressures and response i n both c i t i e s . 1 9 7 9 - An inventory of Mayor's residences. December 13 1 9 7 9 (Op) - A report was prepared by the Corporate P o l i c y Planning O f f i c e with respect to a municipal heritage preservation program. It dealt, i n part, with designation of s i t e s , monetary and non-monetary forms of compen-sation, the creation of a municipal heritage foundation, the composition of i t s advisory board, and changes to p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n . 1 9 8 0 (P n) _ The p o s i t i o n of Heritage O f f i c e r was created i n 1 9 8 0 .and i s cur-r e n t l y held by R. Kilstrom. 36 1981 (I) - An inventory of h i s t o r i c resources w i l l be commenced t h i s summer i n conjunction with the province and c i t y groups such as SPARE, 2. Roles The p o s i t i o n of Heritage O f f i c e r i s currently held by Richard Kilstrom. 19 The r e s p o n s i b l i t i e s of the p o s i t i o n include: (a) the implementation of C i t y p o l i c y on h i s t o r i c preservation; (b) the coordination of a l l C i v i c preservation a c t i v i t i e s ; (c) the development and administration of an inventory and evaluation process for municipal heritage property; (d) acting as an advisor and l i a i s o n to owners, developers and other i n t e r -ested i n the purchase, redevelopment or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of heritage b u i l d -ings through the provision of information and assistance on land use control and development permit processes, loan and grant assistance pro-grams, property tax treatment, and b u i l d i n g inspection processes; (e) serving as an e x - o f f i c i o member of the Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Board to en-sure l i a i s o n and consultation between the Board and the C i v i c Administra-t i o n ; (f) preparing reports for Council on heritage matters through the General Manager of the Planning Department. (The s p e c i f i c duties are included as an appendex because they are the most comprehensive l i s t of r e s p o n s i b l i t i e s included i n the survey r e s u l t s ) . Potential Contribution of Heritage Planner: Educating p u b l i c , council and administration. Coordination-- of heritage groups and problems. Limitations: P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r i n g compensation f o r designation. Lack of Council support. C i t y Departments (Apart from Planning) with Heritage Preservation A c t i v i t i e s : Real Estate and Housing Department: Ownership of properties, assessment 37 and tax abatements. Parks and Recreation Department: Has a h i s t o r i c a l planning section of two or three persons which does research on h i s t o r i c a l matters f o r parks such as Fort Edmonton ( h i s t o r i c a l theme park), a proposed c i t y museum, etc. 3. Evaluation Edmonton i s i n the very early stages of a c t i v i t y i n municipal heritage conservation. The attitud e towards municipal conservation i s beginning to s h i f t from the separation of old and new as expressed i n the Fort Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Park to an attempt to conserve heritage and integrate i t with the new. The creation and protection of the Old Strathcona D i s t r i c t was a step i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . Edmonton and Calgary, l i k e Vancouver and V i c t o r i a , are faced with the need to develop heritage programs, based on designation combined with incentives or compensation. 4. Incentives of Special Interest  Plaques: Plaques have been used on a continuing basis by the Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Board. Purchase: The C i t y owns several r e s i d e n t i a l properties i n the Old Strathcona D i s t r i c t . T.D.P.: The Transfer of Development P o t e n t i a l has been used by the C i t y i n two cases to help preserve two p r o v i n c i a l l y designated heritage s i t e s ; The Le Marchand Mansion and The Rit c h i e M i l l . 38 CALGARY: 1. Background January 1975 (S) - A report e n t i t l e d "Recycling Valuable B u i l d i n g s " by stud-ents i n the Environmental Design Faculty of the U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary, was presented i n January 1975 to the Arts and Architecture Committee which forward-ed i t to Council. 1975 (C n) - The Arts and Architecture Committee was established under a pro-gram to promote Calgary's Centennial i n 1975. An Ad Hoc Heritage Committee was created i n 1975 to i d e n t i f y , inventory and evaluate s i t e s and determine the administrative procedures and l e g i s l a t i o n 20 required for t h e i r protection. 1976 (S) - In 1976, a report e n t i t l e d "Heritage Conservation" was prepared by the Ad Hoc Heritage Committee. Their suggested approach to the evaluation of heritage s i t e s was based on the c o l l e c t i v e vote of the Heritage Advisory Com-mittee . "To evaluate a s i t e , given the vagaries of time, place and circumstance, the Committee discarded a r b i t r a r y scoring schemes applied through the inventory i n favor of a c o l l e c t i v e judgement, made when action for or against conservation at a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e i s necessary, by a broadly based group, a Heritage Advisory Board with knowledge i n the f i e l d s of l o c a l h i s t o r y , a r chitecture, urban design and p l a n n i n g . " ^ This report covered the basic, elements of a municipal heritage program: Inventory, Evaluation, Protection, Management, Public Awareness and Organiza-t i o n of Heritage Advisory Committee. 1977 (I) - An inventory of h i s t o r i c resources was c a r r i e d out i n 1977 which i d e n t i f i e d 304 s i t e s . 1978 (Lj) - The C i t y of Calgary derives i t s enabling authority f o r municipal heritage designation from the 1978 amendment to the Alberta H i s t o r i c a l Re-sources Act. 22 1978 (Op) - The 1978 revisions to the Calgary Plan recommended the protection of h i s t o r i c resources and the i n i t i a t i o n of a public education program. 39 1979 (Op) - A p o l i c y framework for Heritage Conservation was defined i n 1979, which included a study of the monetary and non-monetary incentive mechanisms a v a i l a b l e to the municipality. It also recommended the h i r i n g of a Heritage Planner. 1979 (Pj) - The Heritage Planner recommended i n the 1979 p o l i c y report was hired i n that year. 1980 (P2) - Two addit i o n a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l h i s t o r i a n s have been employed on a contract basis to research the e x i s t i n g municipal inventory and prepare an evaluation framework. 1981 - The heritage inventory i s currently being researched and "An Evaluation 23 Process f o r Calgary's H i s t o r i c Resources" i s being reviewed by C i t y Council. 1981 - An a l l i a n c e of merchants and property owners on the Stephen Avenue Mall has been organized by the Heritage Planner to work out a strategy f o r r e v i t a l -i z a t i o n and conservation on t h i s downtown commercial s t r e e t . 2. Role The Calgary Heritage Planner was to "... be responsible to the Director of Planning for the coordination of the Heritage Program i n The C i t y of Calgary. The Planner w i l l be expected to consult with the Heritage Advisory Board, a l l 24 C i t y Departments, senior l e v e l s of government and the p r i v a t e sector." The 1979 terms of reference f o r a Heritage Advisory Board include the Heritage O f f i c e r as a non-voting Administrative Representative. The responsi-b i l i t i e s of the Heritage O f f i c e r are t i e d i n very c l o s e l y •/•"•to that of the 25 Board which i s responsible as follows: "- To make recommendations to Council, through the Heritage O f f i c e r , re-garding the designation of heritage s i t e s , b u i l d i n g s , streetscapes and areas. - To be responsible f o r advising the Heritage O f f i c e r of the most import-ant aspects f o r preservation, and other matters, on a project-by-project bas i s . - To make recommendations through the Heritage O f f i c e r regarding the demolition, conservation, a l t e r a t i o n , maintenance and renovation of a l l recognized heritage s i t e s , b u i l d i n g s , streetscapes and areas." The Heritage Planner i s a part of the Special Projects D i v i s i o n . 40 3. Evaluation The search fox monetary and non-monetary mechanisms to accompany designa-t i o n continues as i n Edmonton, Vancouver and elsewhere, but the Transfer of Development Pote n t i a l i s being given the most attention because of the intense 2 market for development i n the downtown, p a r t i c u l a r l y on the Sixth Avenue Ma l l . The intense development pressures i n Calgary necessitate a strong p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s and education aspect to the heritage planning r o l e , i n p a r t i c u l a r with respect to the economic advantages and opportunities of conservation. This i s not only f o r the benefit of the pr i v a t e sector and the p u b l i c but f o r the municipal bureaucracy as w e l l . 41 WINNIPEG: 1. Background 1964 ( 0 ) - Demolition of the Old C i t y H a l l . 1971 ( L 2 ) - An amendment to the C i t y of Winnipeg charter authorized the crea-t i o n of a b u i l d i n g conservation l i s t and protection of those b u i l d i n g s . (L]J - While s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n enabling m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to regulate and protect heritage resources does not e x i s t , the general regulatory provisions of the Municipal Act and the Planning Act can be u t i l i z e d to accomplish the objective of heritage conservation. S p e c i f i c reference to heritage conserva-t i o n i s made i n the amended Planning Act, and thus heritage resource protect-ion can be provided by the sympathetic a p p l i c a t i o n of zoning and b u i l d i n g by-27 laws. A municipality or planning d i s t r i c t can undertake a development plan which may take into account the preservation, p r o j e c t i o n or enhancement of areas of land, buildings and structures by reason of t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r a l , h i s t o r i c a l , archaeological, geological, environmental or scenic s i g n i f i c a n c e . The C i t y has inventoried 600 properties, of which i t has purchased three and designated 30. 1974 (S) - The " H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Restoration Area Report dealt with the Warehouse D i s t r i c t and Market Square. October 1975 (P]j _ H i s t o r i c Projects Coordinator established. 1976 (S) - "Winnipeg's H i s t o r i c Warehouse Area". This study was c a r r i e d out by the Manitoba H i s t o r i c a l Society and commissioned by Heritage Canada under i t s area conservation program. 1976 (Op) - Following t h i s report, Heritage Canada offered to become involved i n the area contingent upon f i n a n c i a l and legal commitment from the C i t y , through the following: - the introduction of heritage resource protection l e g i s l a t i o n ; the pro-t e c t i o n of the character of the area by a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n t r o l , d i s t r i c t plan and anti-demolition measures for buildings of a r c h i t e c t u r a l and 42 h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t ; - a matching $500,000 f i n a n c i a l contribution from the C i t y of Winnipeg. 1976 (Ct) - H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Downtown Advisory Committee. 1977 (C 2) - Heritage Advisory Committee. February 1977 (B b) - " H i s t o r i c Buildings Bylaw 1474/77" (amended August 1978) outlined c r i t e r i a f o r evaluation, appeal procedures and l e g a l r e s t r i c t i o n s . August 1978 (B a) - " H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Restoration Bylaw :2048/78" established the "HW" zoning d i s t r i c t known as the H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Restoration Area. It empowers the H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Advisory Committee to advise on the appropriate-ness of a l t e r a t i o n s , new construction, signs and other d e t a i l s of e x t e r i o r development proposed i n the area. 1978 (B 0) - Winnipeg's General Zoning Bylaw was amended to allow the regula-t i o n of uses, heights of b u i l d i n g s and to control the d e t a i l s of b u i l d i n g s ex-cept residences to be b u i l t or remodelled within the H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Restor-. . 28 ation Area. March 1978 (P2) - Assistant H i s t o r i c Projects Coordinator. September 1978 (T) - Demolition permits were applied for two s i g n i f i c a n t banks on Main Street; The Bank of Commerce Building and The Hamilton Bui l d i n g . It was strongly protested by the Manitoba H i s t o r i c a l Society. 2. Role C.I. Brook - H i s t o r i c Projects Coordinator Steve Barber - Assistant H i s t o r i c Projects Coordinator - Department of Environmental Planning. Mr. Barber acts as the secretary to the H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Advisory Committee,(a design control committee which advises on e x t e r i o r renovations and new construction i n the H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Restoration Area) and as an an advisor to Heritage Winnipeg. Potential Contribution of the Heritate Planner: - Public r e l a t i o n s work promoting heritage conservation, providing i n -formation to h i s t o r i c a l s o c i e t i e s and lobbying. 3. Evaluation Programs of encouraging preservation through monetary and non-monetary mechanisms are now being investigated i n Winnipeg. The C i t y did not reach t h i s state by the same path as c i t i e s i n B.C. and Alberta. They were attempt-ing to work around l e g i s l a t i o n which required payment of compensation f o r eco-nomic loss r e s u l t i n g from designation. Winnipeg's search for incentives der-ived from the need to negotiate f o r preservation i n the absence of s t r i c t heritage enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . 4. Incentive Mechanisms J u r i s d i c t i o n - Public Awareness The Planning Department has published an i l l u -s trated guide to the H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Restora t i o n Area. - Demonstration Projects An example of t h i s mechanism was the Masonry Cleaning Seminars which was promoted with the help of Heritage Winnipeg. - Design Guidelines H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Advisory Committee provides design guidelines under Bylaw 2048. - Encouragement and coordin- Future o f f i c e space f o r c i v i c buildings w i l l ation of leasing space i n be housed i n heritage buildings where possible municipal, p r o v i n c i a l and federal heritage structures. Assistance Received by the C i t y with Respect to Heritage Preservation: The Manitoba H i s t o r i c a l Society has provided f i n a n c i a l assistance for municipal heritage programs. The P r o v i n c i a l Government has provided f i n a n c i a l and t echnical assistance through the H i s t o r i c Resources Branch. Heritage Winnipeg i s a charitable, non-profit corporation, established by the Province of Manitoba i n 1978, which promotes the r e s t o r a t i o n , rehabil 44 i t a t i o n and preservation pf heritage resources, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the H i s t -o r i c Winnipeg Restoration Area. The Federal Government has provided technical and general assistance through Parks Canada, P r a i r i e Region. The Heritage Canada Foundation sponsored 1976 Area Conservation Study. Local industry and business has supported the preservation e f f o r t s of the C i t y by providing f i n a n c i a l assistance through the Old Market Square Association. 45 TORONTO: 1. Background c.1960 (0) - Demolition of University Avenue Amouries 1960 (C^) - Toronto established a H i s t o r i c a l Board to manage h i s t o r i c property owned by the C i t y . c.1967 (T) - Threat to Old C i t y H a l l . 1969 (L2) - P r i o r to passage of the Ontario Heritage Act Toronto had s p e c i f i c enabling authority f o r heritage designation under Section 2 of the C i t y of 29 Toronto Act. c- 197.0 . - (T) - Threat of Spadina Expressway. 1972 (Op) - P o l i c y with respect to heritage conservation was included i n the City's o f f i c i a l plan. 1973 (Pi) - A section within the Toronto H i s t o r i c a l Board was created c o n s i s t -ing of a Planner, A r c h i t e c t , H i s t o r i c a l Researcher and Secretary. 1974 (Li) - The 1974 Ontario Heritage Act passed authority f o r heritage conser-vation on to the municipality. I t provided f o r a l o c a l advisory committee (LACAC) to advise and a s s i s t Council on heritage conservation matters and a p r o v i n c i a l Conservation Review Board to consider objections to proposed muni-c i p a l designations. The Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act created a s i m i l a r review board. (L Q) - Under the Planning Act, the municipality can supplement provisions of the Heritage Act with respect to Development Control, Maintenance and Demo-l i t i o n Control. The municipality can regulate signs under the Municipal Act. Any h e r i -tage regulation passed using the Planning or Municipal Act has to conform to the Heritage Conservation D i s t r i c t Plan as defined by the Ontario Heritage Act. 1974 (C2) - The Toronto H i s t o r i c a l Board assumed the r o l e of Local Architectur-a l Advisory Committee (LACAC) under the 1974 Ontario Heritage Act. 1975 (I) - The C i t y c a r r i e d out an inventory i n 1975 of 1,600 buildings and 46 has designated approximately 17Q-sites'under'the'Ontario Heritage Act. 2. Role The H i s t o r i c a l Preservation Section of the Toronto H i s t o r i c a l Board i s presently headed by Marcia Cuthbert, a Planner. The section works with C i t y departments i n the development and management of municipal heritage p o l i c y and property as follows: - Building - to examine a l l b u i l d i n g permit a p p l i c a t i o n s . - Planning and Development - to comment on a l l rezoning, development review and other a p p l i c a t i o n s . - Legal - to prepare and enforce the designation bylaw and Heritage Ease-ment Agreements. - Public Works - to ensure that legal descriptions of properties for designation bylaws and municipal numbers are c o r r e c t . 3. Evaluation The s i t u a t i o n i n Toronto i s unique i n the sense that i t i s the only muni-c i p a l i t y surveyed where the Heritage Planner operates independently from the municipal planning bureaucracy. While the Preservation Section works i n con-junction with the C i t y and i t s departments, t h i s Section i s responsible to an independent body, the Toronto H i s t o r i c a l Board. 4. Incentives C i t y Council created a heritage revolving fund i n 1979 of $500,000 to pro-vide low i n t e r e s t loans or grants to owners involved i n restoration.* A grant i s awarded, contingent upon the property owner signing a Heritage Easement Agreement. A Density bonus of up to 25% of the permitted maximum f l o o r area can be used to encourage the preservation of designated property i n the downtown. This incentive, as well as the Transfer of Development P o t e n t i a l , are being t r i e d f o r the f i r s t time. The Development Bonus f o r the Confederation L i f e 47 Building and T.D.P. f o r St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. The City, has also requested an amendment to the p r o v i n c i a l Assessment Act to allow m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to exempt designated heritage properties. 48 OTTAWA; 1. Background 1972 (B) - The Rideau Street Convent was demolished. 1972 (C]_) - The Mayor's Committee on Heritage was established. It i s s i g n i f i -cant that the Chairman of t h i s Committee was R.A.J. P h i l l i p s , the Founder and f i r s t Executive Director of the national Heritage Canada (now Foundation). 19 72 (S) - Report of the Mayor's Committee on Heritage (1972) . 1973 (L2) - The Cit y of Ottawa Act included powers to protect municipal h e r i -tage property. 1973 (S) - "Conservation of Heritage Buildings i n the National Ca p i t a l Region'.' (19 73) by the Ottawa Research Foundation. 1974 (S) - "Heritage Centretown" (1974) by the Centretown C i t i z e n s Planning Committee. 1974 (S) - The R e v i t a l i z a t i o n of Older Residential D i s t r i c t s (c.1974) (refer-r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y to the Glebe neighbourhood) by John Leaning. 1974 (Lj) - Ontario Heritage Act (1974). 1974 (P^) - C l i f f o r d Ham h i r e d as the City's Heritage Planner. He was followed by A l a i n Lafreniere i n 1979. 1974-5 (S) - "The Sandy H i l l Heritage Study". 1975 (P2) - Technical Assistant f o r the Heritage Planner appointed i n 1975. 1975 (B a) - Bylaw 123-75, l a t e r repealed by Bylaw 280.77,- established a Demo-l i t i o n Control Area i n the Downtown/Centretown Area. 1976 (C2) - LACAC Heritage Advisory Committe was established. March 21 1977 (0 p) - "Plan of Heritage" Amendment 80 to the o f f i c i a l c i t y plan. 1978 (B ) - Bylaw 135-78 included four heritage zones to the o f f i c i a l zoning map: - HP-1 - Heritage Public - HC-1 - Heritage Commercial - HR-1 - Heritage Residential - HR-2 - Heritage Residential 49 n.d. (I) - The C i t y has a l i s t of about 3,500 buildings i n 3 categories. 260 are on the l i s t to be designated i n d i v i d u a l l y and 2,000 are i n future heritage d i s t r i c t s . Approximately 100 buildings are a c t u a l l y designated. 28 proposed d i s t r i c t s are being considered by Toronto. None have yet been endorsed. 2. Role The Heritage Planner, as part of the Current Operation D i v i s i o n of the Planning Department, i s responsible f o r heritage a c t i v i t i e s which include: studies, designations, r e s t o r a t i o n , r e l a t i o n s with the (LACAC) Heritage Advis-ory Committee, the Minis t r y of Culture, other s t a f f members and the p u b l i c . Potential Contribution of Heritage Planner: "Heritage has to be seen as a part of General Planning, i f you can con-vince p o l i t i c i a n s and c i t i z e n s - not to i n s i s t only on designation but make sure that they understand that heritage i s important i n p a r t i c u l a r and also i n general."^0 Barriers to Designation: (According to the Heritage Planner) - Economics of r e v i t a l i z a t i o n . - Attitudes to heritage, i . e . , "that only the Parliament Building i s a 30 heritage b u i l d i n g . " - I n a b i l i t y to v i s u a l i z e what the property w i l l look l i k e a f t e r i t s r e s t -oration. 3. Evaluation Ottawa's heritage program has been c l o s e l y linked with neighbourhood stud-i e s . In that aspect i t resembles the approach i n Vancouver. Ottawa has also encouraged p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t and investment through some of the incentives l i s t -ed here. An aspect of Ottawa's program which i s not t y p i c a l of any of the other c i t i e s i n the survey, i s the consideration of the e f f e c t of "displacement" or 31 " g e n t r i f i c a t i o n " i n i t s heritage program. The Heritage Plan f o r Lower Town provided f o r the establishment of non-profit housing cooperatives i n the neigh-bourhood to help soften the impact of the area r e v i t a l i z a t i o n and keep the 50 o r i g i n a l residents i n the ririghbourhood. 4. : P r o f i l e : f o r : S i gnifleant Incentive Mechanisms 1) Measure: Design. Implemented By: Design Committee with the Heritage Section. Objectives: Ensures that the a l t e r a t i o n s are done well or compatible with adjacent heritage property. Description: When an a p p l i c a t i o n i s submitted to Design Committee i t i s c i r c u l a t e d to Heritage Planner f or comments and approval. Sites Preserved: Scattered i n the C i t y where Design Committee j u r i s d i c t -ion applies (Centretown area and main s t r e e t s ) . Limitations, Constraints, Problems Experienced: - The Committee i s not obliged to consider comments. - Their j u r i s d i c t i o n i s l i m i t e d to designed highways or buildings facing public lands or i n the Centretown heritage area. 2) Measure: Transfer of Development P o t e n t i a l . Implemented By: Current Operations D i v i s i o n Heritage Section and Zoning Section. Objectives: Preserves streetscapes within heritage areas. Description: Height i s c o n t r o l l e d on the street leaving the back (20 feet) f o r hi g h r i s e (transfer of p o t e n t i a l ) . Sites Preserved: None. 3) Measure: Grants. Implemented By: Heritage Section. Objectives: To help owners of designated buildings to restore. Description: Provides 1/3 of costs up to $5,000 for i n d i v i d u a l l y desig-nated buildings (only f o r ex t e r i o r work) and up to $3,000 for buildings i n d i s t r i c t s (not i n e f f e c t as y e t ) . Funding: C i t y of Ottawa. Sites Preserved: Individual buildings and d i s t r i c t s s c attered'in the C i t y . 51 Limitations, Constraints, Problems Experienced; - The grant i s low but the owners may apply every two years. - Not e f f e c t i v e f o r p u b l i c buildings where the r e s t o r a t i o n costs are very high. 4) Measure: Purchase and Resale. Implemented By: C i t y of Ottawa. Objectives: Preserve important b u i l d i n g f o r the C i t y . Description: Usually by expropriation or i f possible by negotiation. Funding: C i t y . Sites Preserved: Philomene Terrace (Daly Avenue). CKOY Building (Richmond Road). Limitations, Constraints, Problems Experienced: - Control of future use and development of surrounding s i t e . - C i t y may lose money. Powers of the Mun i c i p a l i t y with Respect to Heritage Preservation D i r e c t l y or I n d i r e c t l y : - Individual designation (Part IV of the Ontario Heritage A c t ) . - D i s t r i c t designation (Part V of the Ontario Heritage A c t ) . - Demolition Control Bylaw (Planning Act). - Property Standards Bylaw (Planning A c t ) . - Zoning Bylaw (for Heritage) (Planning Act). - Design Committee (On main streets only). QUEBEC CITY: 1. Background 1967 - Interest and a c t i v i t y i n Quebec C i t y has extended beyond the boundaries of the C i t y due to the s i g n i f i c a n c e i n age, quantity and q u a l i t y of t h i s c i t y ' s heritage. The Place Royale D i s t r i c t was designated by the Province as a pro-32 tected area i n 1967. A c t i v i t y i n the old part of Quebec has been ongoing since the 1960's at the i n i t i a t i v e of the p r o v i n c i a l and federal governments. Three hundred buildings have been, protected i n d i v i d u a l l y , and 2,000 within heritage conservation d i s t r i c t s under p r o v i n c i a l designation. 1970 - The "Canada/Quebec Agreement" i n i t i a t e d a conservation/restoration project f o r the area which has received over 22 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n Government funds. 1972 (Li) - M u n i c i p a l i t i e s may, under the C u l t u r a l Property Act (1972), i n i t i -ate bylaws within p r o v i n c i a l l y designated h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t s f o r the regulation of b u i l d i n g a l t e r a t i o n , renovation or demolition. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n Quebec are l i m i t e d i n the r o l e they can play with re-33 spect to heritage preservation. Quebec law, l i k e that of France, reserves the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c u l t u r a l property f o r the State. Quebec passed the f i r s t heritage l e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada, the " H i s t o r i c or A r t i s t i c Monument Act" (1922) . 1974 (L Q) - The " C i t y and Towns Act" (1974) authorized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to pro-h i b i t the demolition of p o t e n t i a l h i s t o r i c s i t e s f o r 12 months within provinc-i a l l y designated d i s t r i c t s . 1976 (Op) - A document e n t i t l e d "Philosophie d'Intervention et C r i t e r e s d'approbation des permis", discussed the a c t i v i t y of the Commission f or Urban Planning and Conservation of Quebec C i t y with respect to approving permits f o r renovation, r e s t o r a t i o n and demolition. 1976 (C2) - "La Commission d'Urbanisme et de Conservation de Quebec" was estab-l i s h e d i n 1976 with authority to monitor r e s t o r a t i o n , renovation and new construction a c t i v i t y i n the C i t y . 53 1978 (L2) - Quebec C i t y derives i t s authority for a c t i v i t y i n heritage preserv-ation beyond that which i s enabled under the C u l t u r a l Property Act (1972) and the C i t y and Towns Act (1974) from an o f f i c i a l agreement with the M i n i s t e r of C u l t u r a l A f f a i r s i n 1978. 1978 (C]J- An Advisory Committee for Old Quebec and Heritage was established by the municipality i n 1978. 1979 (P 2) - A " D i v i s i o n du Vieux-Quebec et du Patrimoine", with a f u l l - t i m e s t a f f of f i v e was established. 1979 (C4) - Two s p e c i a l technical committees have been established f o r preserv-ation a c t i v i t y i n the d i s t r i c t of Old Quebec; one by Parks Canada i n 19 79 and the other by the Province i n 1980. 1981 - Four programs are proposed f o r t h i s year by the municipality: 1. An evaluation of archaeological resources i n the d i s t r i c t of Old Quebec. 2. An inventory of the islands Chantier, St. Paul and Sault-au Matelot. 3. A d e t a i l e d a r c h i t e c t u r a l inventory of the h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t of Old Quebec. 4. The preparation of technical guides f o r the conservation, restora-t i o n and renovation of a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements. S p e c i f i c a l l y with respect to windows, doors, emergency s t a i r s and verandahs. The f i r s t program i s unique i n Canada. No other municipality has taken a d i r e c t i n t e r e s t i n the inventory of i t s archaeological resources. The prep-aration of t e c h n i c a l guides has also been undertaken to a small extent i n V i c t o r i a and Winnipeg. 2. Role The"Division du Vieux-Quebec et du Patrimoine" consists of f i v e people responsible to the Director of Planning. The duties of t h i s D i v i s i o n are ap-pended. In summary, they include the following: 54 1. Research - inventory - publications 2. P o l i c y and Planning - planning studies i n i t i a t e d by t h i s D i v i s i o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n o v e r a l l studies with and f o r other departments - p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s - p r i o r i t i e s 3. Architecture and Operations - permit approval - supervise public and p r i v a t e works of r e s t o r a t i o n , i n f i l l , etc. - e s t a b l i s h standards for the above. 3. Opportunities and Constraints The greatest opportunity of the Heritage Planner, as expressed by the respondent Francois Varin, was to be able to provide information to the publ on programs and techniques of preservation. The greatest hindrance was seen be the lack of coordination between the d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n s of the C i t y and the lack of money. The greatest help to the Planner would be the responsibi i t y f o r and the access to funds to encourage private i n i t i a t i v e . 55 ST.JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK: 1. Background 1978 (L^) - The "Municipal Heritage Preservation Act" (1978) enabled the des-ignation of a preservation area (which can also mean an i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g or structure) by a municipality. 1979 (C2) - A Preservation Review Board was established under the 1978 enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . 1980 (P^) - Three s t a f f members serve i n an advisory capacity to the Preserva-t i o n Review Board i n a part-time capacity. They are as follows: - The Assistant Building Inspector who acts as Secretary to the Board and advises on b u i l d i n g matters. - A C i t y S o l i c i t o r . - A Planner, Mr. Kenneth K e l l y . January 14 1980 (S) - The C i t y became involved i n heritage a c t i v i t i e s when Heritage Canada and the P r o v i n c i a l H i s t o r i c a l Resources Administration o f f e r -ed on January 14, 1980 to co-sponsor an implementation plan f o r the creation of a preservation area i n the central core of the C i t y . 1981 (B a) - Heritage Area Bylaw Proposed. 2. Role Mr. Kelly has the following r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s with respect to heritage: - developing heritage p o l i c y and promoting awareness among C i t y s t a f f and Council - providing a l i a i s o n between the Preservation Review Board and the Plan-ning Branch - overseeing the implementation plan f o r a proposed preservation area being conducted by consultants - coordinating the sale of ten City-owned heritage b u i l d i n g s . 56 Potential Contribution of Heritage Planner: - providing encouragement and guidance to the p r i v a t e sector - r e l a t i n g the experience of others - developing a plan f o r re t e n t i o n and economic use of areas. 3. Incentive Mechanism "Purchase and Resale of Property": "Though the C i t y d i d not purposely go out and purchase heritage b u i l d -ings with the thought of r e c y c l i n g them i t s e l f or by sale and reuse by the p r i v a t e sector, the C i t y had a very successful proposal c a l l f o r the purchase and r e c y c l i n g of ten City-owned heritage b u i l d i n g s . These b u i l d -ings were already i n the City's hands, as 6 of the buildings had at one time been occupied by C i t y o f f i c e s or ser v i c e s . In 1971, a new C i t y H a l l was constructed and 5 of these 6 buildings were vacated by the C i t y and since that time have been u n d e r - u t i l i z e d or vacant. The C i t y has been maintaining these buildings these past 10 years, but Council f e l t i t was time for these buildings (including the Old C i t y Hall,1878) to be placed i n the p r i v a t e sector f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and re-use. One b u i l d i n g , the J a r v i s , 118-120 Prince William, was sold by Council f o r $20,000 on the condition that the structure be r e h a b i l i t a t e d as stores, o f f i c e s and accommodation with 1 year of the transaction. This proposal c a l l and sale, to my knowledge, i s a unique incentive being o f f e r e d by t h i s muni-c i p a l i t y f o r the pri v a t e sector to become involved i n rejuvenating a somewhat neglected part of the City.""* 4 57 HALIFAX; 1. Background 1967 (L 0) - The Town Planning Act enables m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to use land use con-t r o l s such as the regulation of use, l o c a t i o n , height, design and density f o r purposes of heritage conservation. 1968 (T) - Threat to h i s t o r i c buildings on the waterfront from a proposed highway. 1969 (L ) - The Nova Scotia Planning Act permitted zoning regulations which cover a r c h i t e c t u r a l character. 1970 (Cj) - The Halifax Landmarks Commission was empowered under the City's charter to act as an advisor to Council regarding heritage conservation. 1970 (L2) - The H a l i f a x Landmarks Commission received authority to designate h i s t o r i c s i t e s under the Ha l i f a x Charter. 1971 (Op) - The Ha l i f a x Municipal Development Plan (Draft) incorporated the objective of preserving h i s t o r i c s i t e s on the waterfront. 1972 - The H i s t o r i c Properties Project of 1972 involved the municipal, provin-c i a l and federal governments, together with p r i v a t e enterprise i n s u c c e s s f u l l y developing the Ha l i f a x waterfront. 1975 - In 1975, an Intergovernmental Waterfront Committee con s i s t i n g of the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments planned a r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of the Ha l i f a x and Dartmouth harbours. It i s s t i l l i n progress. 1976 (P^) - A Planner was assigned the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of preparing the Heritage P o l i c i e s section of the Municipal Development Plan. 1977 (S) - Jennifer P h i l l i p s prepared the heritage p o l i c y section of the Muni-c i p a l Development Plan and a report e n t i t l e d "An Evaluation and Protection System f o r Heritage Resources i n H a l i f a x " (1977), which surveyed l e g i s l a t i o n and protection methods i n Canada and the United States, This report was o f f i c i a l l y adopted by C i t y Council i n 1978. It was one of the most comprehens-ive works r e l a t i n g to municipal heritage planning i n Canada at the time and was 58 very important i n i n f l u e n c i n g the work, of l a t e r Heritage Planners. 1978 - H a l i f a x Municipal Development Plan was approved. 1978 ( P 2 ) - As a consequence of the 1977 report, a Heritage Coordinator was appointed i n 1978. Mr. A.W. C h u r c h i l l i s also the Supervisor for the Real Estate D i v i s i o n of the Development Department and has extensive r e s p o n s i b i l i -t i e s i n that capacity. 1980 (L^) - "An Act to Provide f o r the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Preservation and Pro-t e c t i o n of Heritage Property" (1980) Section 27. ' Although the 1977 Heritage Report sets out a d e t a i l e d evaulation system and l i s t i n g of heritage resources, none have yet been designated under t h i s enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . 2. Opportunities/Constraints Ms. P h i l l i p s feels Heritage Planners can make t h e i r most important con-t r i b u t i o n s by taking an objective, non-emotional standpoint between " s k e p t i c a l " Councils and heritage groups. The a l l o c a t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r heritage to a s t a f f person with other duties was seen by Ms. P h i l l i p s as an obstacle to an active heritage program. 59 Footnotes ^John Leaning, The R e v i t a l i z a t i o n of Older Residential D i s t r i c t s . (Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing (1975)). 2 B.C. Heritage Conservation Branch. Department of the P r o v i n c i a l Secre-tary. Nelson: A Proposal for Urban Heritage Conservation? ( V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1981). 3 Lang and A. Armour, Energy Conservation i n Twenty Canadian C i t i e s . (City of Toronto, 1980). 4 Marc Denhez, Heritage Fights Back. (Toronto, Ontario: Fitshenry and Whiteside, 1978), p. 213. ^Abraham Rogatnick, "The Basic Premise" i n Maple Tree Square Phase 1. (Vancouver, B.C.: Planning Department, June 1969), p. 7. ^Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Regina have used evaluation systems s i m i l a r to that o u t l i n e d i n the booklet by Harold Kalman, The Evaluation of H i s t o r i c  Buildings. (Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1980). 7 M. Cobett, et a l . Splendid Survivors - San Francisco's Downtown Archi- t e c t u r a l Heritage. (San Francisco, C a l i f o r n i a : C a l i f o r n i a L i v i n g Books, 1980). g Michael Seelig, Time Present and Time Past: Proposals for Area Conserva- t i o n i n Vancouver. (Vancouver: Dept. of So c i a l Planning, June 1973), p. 7. 9 Michael Harcourt i n New L i f e f o r Old Buildings. Proceedings of a B.C. and Yukon Heritage Conference. Feb. 10-12 1977. (Vancouver: Community Arts Council of Vancouver, 1978), p. 444. ^Denhez, op . c i t . , p. 184. ^"''Vancouver, B.C. "Monetary and Non-Monetary Compensation for Heritage Designation." (Vancouver: Department of the C i t y Manager, Oct. 3 1978). 12 Vancouver C i t y Council minutes January 1979. 13 The Vancouver Planner could not reply as a r e s u l t of Municipal s t r i k e . Information was s o l i c i t e d from the Heritage Planner f o r Vancouver to 1978, from a member of the Vancouver Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee, and from minutes of the Council. 60 .14 Wi1ljam Huot, Compensation for:Designation, ( V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Heritage Conservation Branch., 1979), *^Barry Downs, and Archambault A r c h i t e c t s , Park S i t e 19. A F e a s i b i l i t y Study. (Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1979). "^Edmonton, Alberta. "General Plan" C i t y of Edmonton Planning Department, 1971. 17 Edmonton, Alberta. "Agreement re the Old Strathcona Heritage Conserva-t i o n Area between the C i t y of Edmonton, the Old Strathcona Foundation and Heritate Canada." (Edmonton, Ju l y 22 1976). 18 Marc Denhez, "In the Wake of the Tegone Mess." Heritage Canada, 5 (February 1979), 32-34. 19 Job de s c r i p t i o n summary for Richard Kilstrom, C i t y of Edmonton Planning Department, 1981. 20 Calgary, Alberta. Municipal Heritage Conservation Framework. (City of Calgary, 1979), p. 18. 21 Calgary, Alberta. Heritate Conservation: Report of the Ad Hoc Heri-tage Committee. (Calgary: C i t y of Calgary, 1976), p. 10. 22 Calgary, Alberta. Calgary Plan. C i t y of Calgary, 1978. Sec. 7,8,9. 23 Trevor Boddy, "An Evaluation Process of Calgary's H i s t o r i c Resources", Draft Paper. (Calgary: Planning Department, 1981). 24 C i t y of Calgary Competition notice for a Heritage Planner June 29, 1979. 25 Edmonton, Alberta, "Report of the C i t y of Edmonton Corporate P o l i c y Planning O f f i c e " , December 13, 1979. Appendix. 26 Penina Coopersmith at the Annual Meeting of the Society f o r the Study of Architecture i n Canada. Lecture. A p r i l 198o, V i c t o r i a , B.C. 2 7 P l a n n i n g Act C.C.S.M. 1980. 28 Bylaw No. 16502 c i t e d as "Winnipeg Zoning Bylaw", C i t y of Winnipeg(1978) 29 City of Toronto Act. S.O. 1969. 61 30 A l a i n Lafreniere, Heritage Planner f o r Ottawa, Ontario i n response to questionnaire, March. 1981, 31 Georges Bedard at Annual Meeting of the Heritage Canada Foundation Lecture, October 1980, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 32 Act Respecting Royal at Quebec. S.Q. 1967, c.54. 3 3 L o i , n. 62-903 du aout 4 1962. 34 Ken K e l l y Neighbourhood Planner for St. John, N.B. i n response to questionnaire March 1981. CHAPTER I I I : A DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF INCENTIVE MECHANISMS "You can catch more f l i e s with honey than with vinegar"'!' This chapter deals with the "honey" or incentive mechanisms which can sweeten the economic blow of heritage designation or perhaps even replace i t as a means of heritage 2 preservation. Heritage Designation does not always cause a loss of economic return to the private property owner as demonstrated by studies such as that 3 c a r r i e d out by the C i t y of Vancouver. It can, however, imply a loss of devel-opment opportunity either at present or i n the future. "Economic blow" i s  therefore the r e a l or perceived loss of opportunity for p r o f i t through develop-ment at a "higher" use now or i n the future. Several incentive programs have already been described under the c i t y pro-f i l e s of Chapter Two. Table II summarizes the status and effectivenss of these mechanisms f o r twelve of the c i t i e s surveyed. Table III provides a summary of the mechanisms i n termssof t h e i r main advantages, shortcomings, costs, ease and term of implementation. 1. Persuasion Persuasion or Moral Suasion i s the a b i l i t y of the municipal bureaucracy to encourage preservation through request as opposed to negotiation using some of the incentives mentioned below. Persuasion i s defined as "An act or the action of i n f l u e n c i n g the mind by 4 arguments or reasons o f f e r e d . . . " and '.'...the addressing of reasonings, appeals or entreaties to a person i n order to induce him to do or b e l i e v e something."^ A municipality as a government body has the power to regulate and to protect heritage resources through that regulation. It also has a degree of status associated with that power which can be used to "influence the mind" without r e s o r t i n g to actual regulation. The municipality also has the power to nego-t i a t e using the incentive mechanisms described i n t h i s chapter. Persuasion as the " s o f t e s t " of these mechanisms i s neither regulation nor negotiation but the a b i l i t y of the municipal bureaucracy to encourage preservation through 63 request. It does not need any enabling l e g i s l a t i o n but only the receptiveness of both the municipality and the p o t e n t i a l heritage property owner to discussion. Persuasion i s therefore the f i r s t step in a program to encourage heritage pres-ervation. Eight of twelve m u n i c i p a l i t i e s surveyed found persuasion to be e f f e c t i v e i n encouraging preservation. The response from Charlottetown, P.E.I, described persuasion as u s e f u l , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the administration and issuance of b u i l d i n g permits and the administration of funds through the Residential R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program(RRAP). 2. Plaques Plaques can be used to commemorate and in t e r p r e t i n d i v i d u a l s i t e s , but the greatest benefit i n terms of p u b l i c awareness, promotion and cost occurs when plaques are used i n an established Conservation area. Plaques work well as part of a l a r t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n program of guided tours, p r i n t e d tours, school programs, etc., and they need not be used i n conjunction with formal designation of a s i t e . The Commemorative Plaque on Vancouver's Davis House demonstrates t h i s device as a means to commemorate the e f f o r t s of the owners of the home i n conserving i t and to thereby encourage others by example. Plaques not only commemorate the s i t e but the work of the agency awarding the plaques. This p u b l i c i t y i s important i n maintaining p u b l i c awareness of and support f o r the program. Seven of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s surveyed found plaques to be e f f e c t i v e as a mechanism for encouraging support f o r the pres-ervation of heritage s i t e s . It i s an inexpenseive mechanism with benefits f or tourism and p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s . The r e l a t i v e l y small cost can be borne e n t i r e l y by the municipality, by a l o c a l conservation authority responsible f o r the p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t such as the St. John's H i s t o r i c Trust or Heritage Winnipeg, by the owners of the property, or a combination of the above. 3. Green Door P o l i c y The purpose of t h i s mechanism i s to hasten those processes within the municipal bureaucracy which involve heritage preservation such as heritage 64 designation, the pro v i s i o n of zoning incentives, etc., by providing s p e c i a l assistance to property owners i n dealing with the City's bylaws and depart-ments. Putting a "Green Door" on applications r e l a t e d to heritage preserva-t i o n i s an incentive f o r those property owners who are intimidated by the "Red" tape of municipal regulation. This p o l i c y has not been used i n the c i t i e s surveyed. This lack of popularity can perhaps be a t t r i b u t e d to the d i f f i c u l t y of giving s p e c i a l treatment to some municipal programs at the expense of .others within l i m i t e d manpower and budget constraints. 4. Public Awareness Public awareness encompasses any program intended to p u b l i c i z e heritage s i t e s , areas and programs. These programs do not need to be s p e c i f i c a l l y t a i l o r e d f o r t h i s purpose but can be accommodated i n others such as Urban Design Awards, p u b l i c i t y brochures, c u l t u r a l programs, etc. Urban Design Awards, which rewarded (among other categories) p r i v a t e r e s i d e n t i a l and com-mercial r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or r e s t o r a t i o n projects were considered e f f e c t i v e i n Ottawa and Toronto as a means of encouraging preservation by example, s i m i l a r to the plaque mechanism mentioned e a r l i e r . The p u b l i c a t i o n of a heritage inventory i s a common form of encouraging p u b l i c awareness. This can be done by the municipality i t s e l f , by a l o c a l heritage committee or by a priv a t e i n d i v i d u a l . W e l l - i l l u s t r a t e d studies such as the C i t y of V i c t o r i a ' s Heritage Conservation Report were intended, not only to provide information f o r i n t e r n a l use, but to promote pu b l i c i n t e r e s t and support. Equivalent publications of t h i s nature were also produced i n seven of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s surveyed. Public awareness can also be introduced through educational programs s p e c i f i c a l l y t a i l o r e d to introduce people to opportunities and techniques of preservation. These programs can be as extensive as public seminars or as simple as How-To-Do-It re p r i n t s from technical preservation journals placed i n locations accessible to the pu b l i c . 65 5. Demonstration Projects Six of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have t r i e d demonstration pr o j e c t s . Demonstration projects can be c a r r i e d out by a municipality to encourage area r e v i t a l i z a t i o n . A s t r a t e g i c , municipally-owned landmark, such as the Regina Post O f f i c e on the Scarth Street Mall, can be conserved to demonstrate the p o t e n t i a l s of conservation and how to go about i t properly. The i n t e n t i o n i s to cause a s p i n - o f f e f f e c t i n r e v i t a l i z i n g the rest of the s t r e e t . The C i t y of V i c t o r i a provided h a l f the cost of paint and free advice on color schemes to r e v i t a l i z e i t s Chinatown area. 6. Public Works Five of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have used t h i s mechanism. The p r o v i s i o n of p u b l i c amenities such as b r i c k paving, s p e c i a l l i g h t i n g , street f u r n i t u r e , landscaping around heritage b u i l d i n g s , can increase the value and v i a b i l i t y of heritage property. The costs of these improvements can be borne wholly by the C i t y or i n conjunction with the property owner(s). The provision of amenities by the C i t y has worked to greatest advantage as an incentive i n encouraging the r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of commercial conservation d i s t r i c t s and non-designated character areas such as malls and p u b l i c squares. "The c i t y needs to combine carrots with s t i c k s . Public improvements such as landscaping, l i g h t i n g , fountains and benches w i l l help to enhance a h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t . They also are c r i t i c a l i n changing the investment climate f o r private investors. According to Arthur Skolnik, former c i t y conservator for the C i t y of Seattle, the two m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n p u b l i c improvements i n Pioneer Square by the C i t y of Seattle played no small part i n a t t r a c t i n g a ten m i l l i o n d o l l a r private investment i n the d i s t r i c t by 1975. 7. Design Guidelines Design guidelines have been t r i e d i n f i v e of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s surveyed. Design guidelines are proposed i n i t i a l l y by the c i t y and a l t e r e d to s u i t the needs of the developer. Like the "Green Door P o l i c y " i t attempts to en-courage the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the private sector, by easing the bureaucratic 66 process. Like the "Demonstration Project" i t attempts to promote s e n s i t i v e design through example, This example i s not only through stated guidelines f o r s i z e , shape, materials, color, s t y l e , etc., but through a graphic portrayal of the type of the above best suited for the s i t e . Design guidelines attempt to demonstrate opportunities f o r s e n s i t i v e re-h a b i l i t a t i o n and new i n f i l l . They can be used for i n d i v i d u a l s i t e s by them-selves, as part of conservation d i s t r i c t s where design guidelines are s p e c i f i e d , or i n character areas where f l e x i b l e zoning (for example: Comprehensive Develop-ment Zoning i n Vancouver) permits a negotiation of design. Design guidelines require imagination and time on the part of municipal s t a f f but i t saves time i n the long run, f a c i l i t a t e s the approval process and helps encourage coopera-t i o n by the p r i v a t e / p u b l i c developer through removing stumbling blocks. Design options have been t r i e d i n f i v e of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 8. Encouragement of the Donation of Facade Easements Private property owners can be encouraged to donate facade easements to the C i t y or to a separate heritage foundation created by the C i t y f or that purpose. Facade easements can be s o l i c i t e d i n l i e u of municipal property taxes. The use of t h i s mechanism to encourage preservation was not popular outside of Toronto and Edmonton. In both cases i t was the a c t i v i t y of h e r i -tage foundations which encouraged and purchased the easements and not the municipality i t s e l f . This mechanism has the p o t e n t i a l , however, of being an inexpensive means of encouraging preservation. 9. Building Code F l e x i b i l i t y This mechanism for preservation provides concessions with respect to b u i l d i n g bylaws to r e t a i n the i n t e g r i t y of the heritage s i t e . The municipality 7 may have powers under i t s charter or under more universal planning or heritage l e g i s l a t i o n to exercise d i s c r e t i o n i n the enforcement of i t s b u i l d i n g / f i r e codes through the planning d i r e c t o r , i t s b u i l d i n g inspectors, or f i r e marshall. The municipality can also ask for input from the National Research Council with 67 respect to "equivalents" i n the case of heritage b u i l d i n g s . "Equivalent" material, e x i t s , s p r i n k l e r systems are approved or s p e c i f i e d which would be more sympathetic to the heritage b u i l d i n g and provide equivalent safety. Building code f l e x i b i l i t y has not been used to a great degree due to re-luctance on the part of b u i l d i n g inspectors and planning d i r e c t o r s to take a chance on standards d i f f e r i n g from the National Building Code and which could g possibly endanger public safety. The National Research Council i s expected to announce shortly, revisions to the National Building Code which w i l l take into account heritage b u i l d i n g s . This w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the future effectiveness of Building 9 Code F l e x i b i l i t y i n encouraging heritage preservation. 10. Encouragement and Coordination of Leasing Space i n Municipal, P r o v i n c i a l  and Federal Heritage Structures These three governments can own a large number of heritage structures and s i t e s within a municipality"f^They might also account for a s i g n i f i c a n t need for o f f i c e and storage space as well as for r e s i d e n t i a l , apartment, c u l t u r a l , r ecreational and other space. The municipality has the opportunity to encourage the re-use of these p u b l i c l y owned spaces f o r p u b l i c purposes and to coordinate and disseminate information on space requirements and a v a i l a b l e s i t e s . It i s another way in which the municipality can'use moral suasion to lobby and negotiate f o r con-servation. This mechanism has been t r i e d i n V i c t o r i a , Winnipeg and Toronto. 11. Zoning Incentives The relaxation of r e s t r i c t i o n s under zoning bylaws with respect to park-ing, use, design, etc., may be allowed to make the heritage b u i l d i n g more economically v i a b l e . Density bonusing i s becoming the rule rather than the exception as a means of encouraging design amenities (including heritage con-servation) and i s consequently l o s i n g i t s impact as an incentive. Permitting 68 these select relaxations or bonuses can also be viewed as spot zoning and a threat to the c r e d i b i l i t y of o v e r a l l land use control as evidenced i n zoning. It i s , however, the most f l e x i b l e , d i s c retionary and rewarding incentive mechanism av a i l a b l e to the municipality. Zoning incentives have been used i n s i x of the c i t i e s . 12. T.D.P. The trans f e r of development p o t e n t i a l (sometimes re f e r r e d to as t r a n s f e r of development rights) allows the heritage property owner to s e l l excess de-velopment p o t e n t i a l as determined by f l o o r area r a t i o to a prospective develop-er f o r use on another s i t e . This s i t e can be adjacent to the heritage property or some distance from i t . The l a t t e r case requires the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of areas where these rights can be used so as not to upset the e x i s t i n g balance of land uses. A development r i g h t s bank might be set up by the c i t y to purchase ex-cess development p o t e n t i a l from an endangered heritage property and s e l l i t to the highest bidder i n areas where the c i t y has determined these r i g h t s can be used. This bank permits the c i t y to intervene where a buyer f o r the develop-ment p o t e n t i a l i s not immediately a v a i l a b l e . It also affords the opportunity to the c i t y to make a p r o f i t from the resale of the development p o t e n t i a l which could be used f o r conservation purposes through a heritage revolving fund or other mechanism. The concept of T.D.P. has been used i n Vancouver to allow a t r a n s f e r of excess p o t e n t i a l from Chri s t Church Cathedral and Gabriola Mansion to adjacent developments. For the purpose of the former case as well as two cases i n Edmonton, Alberta, the heritage property and the adjacent new developments were considered to be on one s i t e . The allowable development p o t e n t i a l was thus transferred over one s i t e rather than from one to another or through a development rights bank. T.D.P. i s associated with a number of s i g n i f i c a n t drawbacks. It requires time to negotiate the tr a n s f e r and a s i t e capable of accommodating the i n -69 creased density without negatiye impacts. It may weaken the c r e d i b i l i t y of a municipality's zoning regulations i f i t i s seen that exceptions to e x i s t i n g zoning are continuously made. Most important, T.D.P. requires a demand for the transferable space and i f the municipality attempts to downzone the area i n order to create a market, i t t y p i c a l l y runs against opposition from vested i n t e r e s t s . These reasons account f o r the infrequent use of t h i s incentive mechanism and i t s l i m i t a t i o n to very s i g n i f i c a n t heritage s i t e s . 13. Tax Freeze on Rehabilitated Commercial Property Property taxes on designated commercial property are frozen at the l e v e l before any improvements are made. This freeze w i l l forgive the taxes r e s u l t i n g from improvements to the property over a period of a few years. The freezing of taxes for r e h a b i l i t a t e d commercial heritage property was t r i e d only i n V i c t o r i a . The costs of r e h a b i l i t a t i n g commercial property are such that the incent-ive afforded by a freeze on taxes i s l i m i t e d . This mechanism has the p o t e n t i a l to be e f f e c t i v e when used i n combination with other incentives within a desig-nated conservation d i s t r i c t . 70 14. Reduced Property Assessment A reduction of property taxes for.designated heritage b u i l d i n g s , It could be f o r a l i m i t e d duration to help a l l e v i a t e the costs of necessary renovations sympathetic to the b u i l d i n g or i t could be a freezing of taxes forever at the time of designation. It i s another mechanism for encouraging the v i a b i l i t y of a heritage property but i s not s u f f i c i e n t by i t s e l f to encourage a property owner to seek designation. It has been used only i n Edmonton. 15. Tax Increment Financing A project area i s selected for restoration and i t s tax base i s frozen. From then u n t i l the project i s completed, the taxing bodies continue to re-ceive the same low revenues as before. As investment and improvement take place i n the area, there i s an increased property valuation or increment above the frozen l e v e l . That increment i s a l l o c a t e d to a s p e c i a l fund to be used f o r reinvestment back into the area. This i s a form of value recapture or betterment tax. (See No. 17). Tax Increment Financing has not been used i n any of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s as yet due perhaps to the perceived loss by Finance Departments of operating revenues. 16. Revolving Funds "The revolving fund i s your equity that enables you to venture into the economic b a t t l e f i e l d . The techniques of using such a fund are your weapons. Victory comes when you have r e v i t a l i z e d the economic q u a l i t i e s of your h i s t o r -i c d i s t r i c t so well that i t can work without you."^ 71 "A revolving fund i s cash or other e q u i t i e s , a l i n e of c r e d i t or any com-bina t i o n of these owned and administered by a non-profit organization for the express purpose of purchasing and r e s t o r i n g a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s t r u c t -ures. It can also be cash loaned by a non-profit organization to i n d i v i d u a l s or organizations f o r the same purpose. A l l proceeds from r e n t a l s , sales, i n t e r -est and dividends must be returned to the fund i n order to replenish i t . Thus the fund revolves. Generally, such funds are used i n s p e c i f i c urban areas and d i s t r i c t s rather than applied h e l t e r - s k e l t e r to one b u i l d i n g here, another elsewhere. The funds could be derived from the following: 1. p r i v a t e industry, groups and i n d i v i d u a l s 2. the province, i n the form of a grant 3. a l o c a l demolition tax based on the value of the b u i l d i n g , and i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e 4. a new development tax 5. value capture derived from other enterprise. This fund has been established only i n Ottawa and Toronto. 17. Value Capture Value capture (betterment tax) could be a source of funding f o r the Heritage Revolving Fund and the many incentives which extend from that fund. Increased tax revenues which accrue from property which has increased i n value due to heritage b u i l d i n g and area r e v i t a l i z a t i o n would be "captured" and re-cycled back into other buildings and areas through the revolving fund or another mechanism. While the former source of value capture taxes betterment accruing from conservation, other developments could be taxed. I f the municipality decided that a heritage s i t e should be demolished on account of substantial economic benefits which would accrue to the c i t y overriding the c u l t u r a l benefits of the s i t e , part of that value could be captured for the c i t y ' s heritage pro-grams. The use of Value Capture as a mechanism for preservation has not been used as yet i n Canadian m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 18. Loans or Grants to Owners of Residential Heritage Properties The provision of low-interest loans or grants or combinations of the two 72 can both compensate f o r and encourage heritage designation. These funds could be used to subsidize necessary s t r u c t u r a l repairs or sympathetic renovations. They would be given s o l e l y f o r that type of work and upon s a t i s f a c t o r y comple-t i o n of i t . The source of that fund could be a heritage revolving fund derived from a p r o v i n c i a l grant or municipal taxes or p r i v a t e donations as discussed e a r l i e r . This monetary incentive i s offered i n f i v e of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and i s rated h i g h l y by them i n terms of i t s effectiveness i n encouraging r e s i d e n t i a l heritage preservation. The most successful program i s offered i n V i c t o r i a . It i s described i n greater d e t a i l under that c i t y ' s p r o f i l e . 19. Mortgage Guarantees The C i t y would insure private financing for the purposes of purchasing and r e v i t a l i z i n g s i g n i f i c a n t heritage property by guaranteeing the mortgage. The c i t y could also act as a lender of l a s t resort i f the project could not receive p r i v a t e funding. Mortgage guarantees have not been used i n any of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s surveyed, perhaps because of the r i s k s involved. 20. Purchase of Property The property should be very s i g n i f i c a n t as i t e n t a i l s great public ex-pense i n a c q u i s i t i o n , maintenance, possible r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and administration. Not a l l of these costs could or should be r e t r i e v e d on resale of the property i f that were desired. Five of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have pur-chased heritage property. 21. Purchase of Facade Easements This mechanism i s less expensive than purchase i n fee simple, yet i t preserves the facade as a public amenity, helps the property owner maintain i t and r e l i e v e s the municipality of administrative headaches. Easements "A l i m i t e d ownership r i g h t i n a piece of r e a l property granted by the owner to another person. It i s granted i n perpetuity and accompanies the t i t l e to the land through i t s various successive ownerships ... 73 A facade easement, f o r example, protects the front of an h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g while allowing the owner unimpaired enjoyment of the re-mainder of h i s property."4 It i s an inexpensive way to use a small revolving fund e f f e c t i v e l y . It need not be reserved f o r h i s t o r i c facades but can be used for the fronts of adjacent buildings i n order to preserve a streetscape or for the preservation of landscaping and also f o r i n t e r i o r s . An easement can place r e s t r i c t i o n s on the future development or a l t e r a -t i o n of the property or require that c e r t a i n changes be made which would restore i t s heritage character. It has been used only i n Toronto and i s l e g a l l y possible i n B.C., Ontario, P.E.I., Alberta and Saskatchewan. 22. Purchase of Property and Resale with R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants Although t h i s i s much more expensive i n i t i a l l y than the purchase of ease-ments, there i s an opportunity f o r capturing increased "value" r e s u l t i n g from resale of a r e h a b i l i t a t e d heritage property and consequently supporting other conservation e f f o r t s through a revolving fund. It also provides the opportuni-ty of demonstrating what can be done (a demonstration project) and what i s being done (public awareness) with the fund. The property cannot always be resold at a p r o f i t depending on the zealousness of the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n e f f o r t and the market conditions. The intent of t h i s mechanism i s not to preserve the s i t e and contents as a museum piece, but to keep i t i n pri v a t e hands with r e s t r i c t i o n s on the type and q u a l i t y of renovations which can be made so that i t i s conserved f o r the enjoyment of the c i t y yet continues as a v i t a l and functioning part of i t . R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants Covenants, l i k e easements p r o h i b i t unsympathetic a l t e r a t i o n to heritage property. Unlike easements, however, they require property purchase before they can be applied. " T y p i c a l l y , they s t i p u l a t e that no a l t e r a t i o n to an e x t e r i o r may be made without the consent of the preservation group or i t s successors, that the group may sue the owner i f he v i o l a t e s the agreement, and that the preservation group has the f i r s t option to repurchase the property f o r a b r i e f • - period i f i t i s put up for sale."** This mechanism has been used e f f e c t i v e l y i n V i c t o r i a , Edmonton, Ottawa and i s currently being t r i e d i n St. John. 23. The Redevelopment Levy An opportunity not described to t h i s point i s the "redevelopment levy". It was used u n t i l very recently by the C i t y of Edmonton to help pay f o r recre-a t i o n a l and school f a c i l i t i e s through a levy on new o f f i c e development. Although i t was enabled by a change i n the Alberta Municipal Act requested by the C i t y of Edmonton, i t i s now being contested i n the Supreme Court of Canada. I f the necessary amendments to enabling l e g i s l a t i o n could be s o l i c i t e d f o r other provinces, t h i s redevelopment levy would provide a substantial boost f o r a municipal heritage fund, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n areas of extensive o f f i c e develop-ment such as Calgary. It i s more a t t r a c t i v e than a tax since i t i s only l e v i e d once. B r i t i s h Columbia Al b e r t a Manitoba Ontario V i c t o r i a Vancouver Edmonton Calgary Winnipeg Ottawa Toronto S E 7 E T • C • B 1. Persuasion 2. Plaques 3. Green Door k. Public Awareness • B 5. Demonstra-t i o n Projects • B 6. Public Works * B 7. Design * B Options 8. Donation of facade ease-ments 9. Bldg. Code » 7 f l e x i b i l i t y 10. Leasing Space » B 11. Zoning • B Incentives 12. T.D.P. 13. Tax freeze commercial 14. Reduced Property Assessment 15. Tax Incre-0 * 7 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. ment financing Revolving Fund C Value 0 Capture Grants * B Mortgage Guarantees Purchase Purchase of easements Purchase & resale with covenant St/Ef C a St. Jo St/Ef St/Ef St/Ef St/Ef St/Ef St/Ef Prince Edward New Brunswick Island  . hn Charlottetown St/Ef Nova Scotia Newfoundland H a l i f a x - St. John's St/Ef St/Ef 0 C C C 0 0 C C c c Quebec  Quebec St/Ef • - C • B • B » B * B • B * A • - c • c C 7 * B 0 « B • c c 7 0 0 • 0 0 • 7 » B • A C 7 * 0 • B c 7 • A c • 7 0 0 0 • A C • c • B c c • 7 0 0 0 • A • B • 7 » c • B c 0 0 • A C c 7 c c 0 0 0 0 c 7 0 • B c 7 • 0 • C C c 7 0 0 • 7 0 » 0 C c 7 c c • B • B • 0 0 0 • B • B • B c 0 • B c 0 0 0 c 7 0 c c 0 0 0 0 N . A . c 7 • 7 c 0 0 0 0 0 N . A . c 7 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 c 7 0 c c • - • 0 0 C c 7 0 0 0 0 0 C B 0 0 c 0 • B * 0 • A • A 0 c c 0 0 0 0 C c 0 c c • B • 7 0 • A c • A 0 c c . 0 • B 0 0 c 0 • A c c • 7 » A 0 c •-3 P o-M (-"•<+ i-3 > <+ o •s H' CO CD ID 01 C 01 3 O O 3 p o ST P 0) C P 1 1 1 < o p c+ o ID 01 H> C P ? M 1 ID 3 O •( P O •1 ID c+ h" 3 H" P c+ ID H* CD ID 01 <S \-> ID • >a <+ ET s ID ID ID 01 O ID C IT 01 E < ID 5 P H* t+ O 01 H* Hi s O 01 3 O* ID «< 3 <+ <+"< * I ID i+ I-1 % < O ID M O 3 §s P 3 CL r+ 5 3 a s C ID 3 O H- 3* 2.S P 0} M 3 On Legendi Statugj T r i e d » Considered C Not 0 Considered Not Applicable N.A. Effectiveness! Very E f f e c t i v e A E f f e c t i v e B Marginally E f f e c t i v e C Ine f f e c t i v e Don't know ) ) 7 Too early to< evaluate i (The headings ST/EF i n the table r e f e r to Status and Effectiveness.) Method/ Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s Main Advantage Main Shortcoming/ Obstacle Fi n a n c i a l Costs to Public Persuasion Plaques Green Door Public Awareness Demonstration Projects Public Works Design Options Donation of facade ease-ments Bldg. Code F l e x i b i l i t y Leasing Space Zoning Incentives T.D.P. Tax Freeze Commercial Reduced Prop-er t y Assessment Tax Increment Financing Revolving Fund Value Capture Grants Mortgage Guarantees Purchase Purchase of easements Purchase and resale with covenant P.R. P.R. Encouraging Private Sector P.R. P.R. Encourage P.S. Enc ourage P.S. Enc ourage P.S. Encourage Public Sector Enc ourage P.S. Compensate P.S. Maintenance Maintenance Fund Raising Fund In-centives Encourage P.S. Preserve forever Maintenance Recycles property Cost S t a f f time Income Tax Act National Code & perceptions Coordination Urban Design Not enough of an incentive Source of funding Fund Raising Maintenance Cost Appl i c a t i o n Risk Cost I n i t i a l cost N i l Small N i l Varies Moderate Large N i l N i l N i l N i l N i l N i l Small Small Small N i l N i l Small N i l Large Small Small \ \ Ease of D u r a t i o n of T r i e d i n "X " Implementation Implementation (of 12 C i t i e s ) i-3 to Very Very Very Very Very Moderate Very Very Moderate Very Moderate Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Occasional Occasional Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Moderate-high Occasional Very Very Moderate Moderate Limited Limited or continuous Continuous Continuous 7 1 7 6 7 6 None k 3 6 3 1 1 None 2 O rt t-3 > 3 > 3" rt 3 H - < < O P to i p-rt P < « * 1 CO C O rt H * CO < Mln CD 3 C O VJ o 3 "1 CD a <+3 » 1—1 o rt 1 3 h" H * o S 3 < N CD pi It (I 3 H, CO rt O 3 3 < O CD CD M LT<< 1 3 C03 p CD H H- p. O • CO < ri-3 PJ ii co 5 3 rt H * pi p CO CO(W s CD CO CX CO CD rt B CD 5 y O. p. p. 3 CD 01 p. 01 p. o- < t< p 3 M rt CD 01 COOS C CD M CO rt CO o "1 ON Moderate Continuous Moderate-high Continuous Very Occasional Very Occasional Moderate Occasional Moderate-high Occasional None 5 None 5 1 k 77 Footnotes "*"L. Killam, New L i f e f o r Old Buildings; Proceedings of a B.C. and Yukon Heritage Conference Feb. 10-12 (Vancouver, B.C.: Heritage Canada, 1977), p. 99. 2 Heritage Designation means that the property cannot be altered, moved, demolished or sold without the permission of C i t y Council. Designation can cover a l l of the property or parts of i t . Additions or deletions to t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n w i l l vary with the s p e c i f i c p r o v i n c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n as l i s t e d i n Appendix A. 3 Vancouver, B.C. "Monetary and Non-Monetary Compensation f o r Heritage Designation." (Vancouver: Dept. of the C i t y Manager, May 2, 1978). 4 Webster's T h i r d International Dictionary. ^Oxford English Dictionary Volume VII, 1970. ^The National Trust for H i s t o r i c Preservation, Old and New Architecture - Design Relationships (Washington, D.C: The Preservation Press), 1980. 7 For example, Vancouver has the authority under the Vancouver charter. For a more d e t a i l e d survey of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n see Mark Denhez Heritage Fights  Back (Toronto, Ontario: Fitshenry and Whiteside), 1978. g University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Habitat Seminar on Heritage Preservation (Vancouver, May 1981). The obstacles permitting a l t e r n a t i v e s to c e r t a i n code requirements were expressed by the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s seminar. They included Richard Henriquez (Vancouver A r c h i t e c t ) , The Deputy F i r e Marshall for the C i t y of Vancouver and others. 9 Georges Bedard of the Heritage Canada Foundation,Interview, Regina, Sask., < Sept. 1981. "^Surveys of the Canadian Inventory of H i s t o r i c Building, Ottawa, 1971-77. "^Development rights banks cannot be established under the charters of most Canadian c i t i e s at present, according to Laura Lee Richard, Interview, Vancouver, October 1981. 78 ^ A r t h u r Zi e g l e r et a l ? Revolving Funds for H i s t o r i c : P r e s e r v a t i o n (Pittsburgh, Penn.: Ober Park Associates Inc., 1975) p. 107. 13 Arthur Ziegler, H i s t o r i c Preservation i n Inner C i t y Areas (Pittsburgh, Penn.: Ober Park Associates Inc., 1974) 14 Ibid, p. 32. 1 5 I b i d , p. 34. 79 CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSIONS: A CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL HERITAGE PLANNING IN CANADA This concluding chapter w i l l provide an overview and analysis of the cha r a c t e r i z a t i o n of municipal heritage planning i n Canada presented i n th thesis as seen through the following: a scenario of l o c a l involvement i n heritage a c t i v i t y ; the r o l e of the Heritage Planner; the r e l a t i o n s h i p of tourism and a c t i v i t y i n heritage preservation the implications of the t h e s i s . 80 Beginnings - A Scenario of Local Involvement Public involvement i n municipal heritage conservation was often i n i t i a t e d by confrontation over the loss of a s i g n i f i c a n t heritage b u i l d i n g . An aroused p u b l i c would then form a heritage committee as part of an e x i s t i n g H i s t o r i c a l (or other) Society or by i t s e l f , i n a f f i l i a t i o n with the national Heritage Canada Foundation. I n i t i a l l y , t h i s committee would concern i t s e l f with saving endangered buildings and developing p u b l i c awareness through a c t i v i t i e s such as walking tours, open houses, publications and lectures. At some point, a plan for heritage would be prepared f o r presentation to C i t y Council, which might con-t a i n the following: 1) general statements on the importance of preserving the City's heritage bu i l d i n g s . 2) creation of an Advisory Committee to Council on heritage matters. 3) a l i s t of s i g n i f i c a n t b u i l d i n g s . 4) the need f o r a larger and continuous Inventory. 5) the a l l o c a t i o n of a Planner or other resource person i n C i t y H a l l to l i a i s e with the committee, and watch out f o r heritage i n t e r e s t s . 6) recommendations to lobby p r o v i n c i a l and federal governments regarding heritage enabling l e g i s l a t i o n ( p r o v i n c i a l ) , tax incentives or the relaxa-t i o n of b u i l d i n g and f i r e codes ( f e d e r a l ) . These points would reappear again i n the p r o v i n c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n which followed the early c i t i z e n heritage plans and again i n the municipal bylaws which followed the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n . The community heritage plans were influenced i n part by national and i n t e r n a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y as promoted by Heritage Canada. Early a c t i v i t y i n the Designation of Municipal Heritage Sites was c a r r i e d out by the provinces i n areas such as Vancouver's Gastown and Chinatown. This a c t i v i t y was prompted by p u b l i c pressure, aroused through increasing threats 81 to these and other older urban centers, r e s u l t i n g f r om rapid urban growth. While protection of endangered heritage s i t e s was an important factor i n these confrontations i t was the a l l i a n c e with larger s o c i a l concerns such as the preservation of neighbourhoods which gave a greater strength and c r e d i b i l i t y to heritage conservation issues. Enabling l e g i s l a t i o n f o r heritage conservation has been delegated to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n varying degrees over the l a s t eight years. Those c i t i e s which had not already adopted the community-prepared heritage plan discussed e a r l i e r , began preparing one. These more recent plans drew on the experience of plans prepared i n other Canadian and American c i t i e s as well as guidebooks on Municipal Conservation Programs prepared by the Province.''' At t h i s point, personnel were s o l i c i t e d from the regular planning, tech-n i c a l or research support s t a f f and the process of P o l i c y formulation began, i n l i g h t of the new powers at the municipality's d i s p o s a l . An i n i t i a l organizational a l l i a n c e would be formed between the C i t i z e n s ' Heritage Committee and planning s t a f f i f one had not been created previously. This informal a l l i a n c e would gradually evolve into two separate structures. The informal advice of the C i t i z e n s ' Heritage Committee would be channelled into a more broadly-based Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee to advise C i t y Council on Heritage matters. The s t a f f person(s) assigned part-time responsi-b i l i t y f o r heritage would become more involved and develop a more s p e c i a l i z e d r o l e - that of the Heritage Planner. 82 The Role of the Heritage Planner: Functions The following functions are common to the Heritage Planners surveyed: 1. To help develop and implement p o l i c y with respect to heritage conserva-t i o n . 2. To act as l i a i s o n between the Heritage Advisory Committee and Planning Department and provide technical support to both. 3. To handle outside l i a i s o n with community p r o v i n c i a l and federal contacts i n the heritage conservation f i e l d . 4. To coordinate the work of consultants working on design or planning pro-je c t s r e l a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y or p e r i p h e r a l l y to heritage matters. For example, N.I.P., Area Plans, Downtown Development Plans, etc. 5. To monitor development applications which a f f e c t designated or p o t e n t i a l heritage s i t e s or t h e i r environs. 6. To work with other C i t y departments p r i m a r i l y (and with consultant, community p r o v i n c i a l and federal contacts, when needed) to carry out heritage p o l i c y . 7. To supervise an Inventory of Poten t i a l H i s t o r i c Sites and prepare assess-ments of p o t e n t i a l heritage s i t e s . 8. To carry out pu b l i c r e l a t i o n s work on behalf of the City's Heritage P o l i -cy. Involving lectures, tours, p u b l i c a t i o n s , etc. 9. To use the mechanisms discussed previously to stop, a l t e r or encourage development of or around heritage s i t e s . 83 Categories The Heritage Planner as described i n t h i s thesis f a l l s into several categories: 1) The coordinator of a team of s p e c i a l i s t s working e x c l u s i v e l y on heritage matters, separate from the Planning Department and municipal bureaucracy but working c l o s e l y with them. 2) Part of a s p e c i a l i z e d team working excl u s i v e l y on heritage matters within the Planning Department. Example: Quebec C i t y . 3) One or two positions working e x c l u s i v e l y on heritage matters within the Planning Department. Examples: Winnipeg (2 positions) Calgary ( 1 + 3 contract) Edmonton ( 1 + 4 contract) Ottawa ( 1 + 1 support p o s i t i o n ) . 4) Part-time r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r heritage matters within the Planning Depart-ment . Examples: V i c t o r i a (50%) Vancouver (50%) Saint John, New Brunswick (20% to 50%). 5) Part-time r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r heritage matters outside of the Planning Department. Example: Ha l i f a x (Building Department). The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of these respective p o s i t i o n s have been described i n the p r o f i l e s of Chapter Two. 84 Location within the bureaucracy The appropriate l o c a t i o n f o r the Heritage Planner w i l l depend i n part on the s i z e and f i n a n c i a l resources of the community, the e x i s t i n g organizational structure within the bureaucracy, the p o l i t i c a l climate, the planning p r i o r i -t i e s and the effectiveness of a heritage lobby, a l l of which are i n t e r r e l a t e d . Assuming that a l l these factors are favourable, a small community would not n e c e s s a r i l y require a f u l l - t i m e Heritage Planner, but could r e l y on the re-sources of the l o c a l Heritage Society, Planning Department, a paid consultant, the consultative resources of p r o v i n c i a l h i s t o r i c conservation d i v i s i o n s , the l o c a l Heritage Advisory Committee or combinations of the above. This sequence also i l l u s t r a t e s a pattern of development p r i o r to the establishment of a Heritage Planner i n larger centres as described i n the p r o f i l e s of Chapter Two. Committee of Citizens - Heritage Society Planning Department/Planning Commission Consultant (Private) Consultant (Public) with P r o v i n c i a l Agency Heritage Advisory Committee Heritage Planner Heritage D i v i s i o n . 2 Ontario, f o r example, has over 120 l o c a l Heritage Advisory Committees but only two municipal Heritage Planners, as defined i n t h i s t h e s i s . There i s , however, a very active resource i n the P r o v i n c i a l H i s t o r i c Conservation Branch which can provide expertise and support to these communities. In Toronto, the Heritage Planner i s i n charge of a Heritage D i v i s i o n which i s part of the Toronto H i s t o r i c a l Board. This d i v i s i o n i s not part of the municipal planning bureaucracy but works c l o s e l y with i t . The l o c a t i o n of the Heritage Planner i n t h i s instance affords a degree of autonomy from other workload or p o l i t i c a l pressures which might otherwise occur i f they 85 were part of a regular Planning Department. Is i t better to be close at hand or at arm's length? The advantage of being a part of the Planning Department l i e s i n the a b i l i t y to i n i t i a t e or influence p o l i c y decisions and to oversee the implementation of programs by any municipal department which might p o s i t i v e l y or adversely a f f e c t the muni-c i p a l i t y ' s heritage. The disadvantage l i e s i n being under the influence of Ci t y Council and the municipal administration. In the i n i t i a l stages of the evolution of a municipal heritage conscious-ness and program, as indicated i n the p r o f i l e s of Chapter 2, a period of uncertainty can occur when the new Heritage Planner w i l l attempt to define a niche within C i t y H a l l . In Vancouver, the f i r s t Heritage Planner was h i r e d under a short-term summer contract which was eventually extended f o r one year. It was only a f t e r four years that the p o s i t i o n was formally recognized as a planning function and t i t l e d Heritage Planner. Even at that point, the p o s i t i o n was s t i l l not made permanent. The Heritage Planner for Ottawa was also h i r e d under a one year contract. The positions i n Vancouver and Ottawa are now f u l l - t i m e plan-ning functions although the Planner i n Vancouver has a d d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i -t i e s apart from heritage. The Heritage Planner f o r Calgary was h i r e d more recently and again, for a one year contract. While the p o s i t i o n i n Calgary i s within the planning bureaucracy i t has a degree of autonomy because of the l o c a t i o n within a Special Projects D i v i s i o n . It i s not possible to state where the optimal l o c a t i o n for the Heritage Planner should be. There are advantages to being with the Planning Department and to being apart from i t . This varies with the periods i n the evolution of municipal consciousness with respect to heritage; with d i f f e r e n t locations across Canada; and with d i f f e r e n t bureaucratic structures. The creation of a new function within the Planning Department i s not 86 d i f f e r e n t from the s t a r t of a new function within any established bureaucracy. There i s an i n i t i a l period of uncertainty and confrontation as i t attempts to prove and assert i t s e l f . Gradually, the function and the personnel i t encomp-asses, w i l l entrench i t s e l f i n p o l i c y and procedures. 87 Education The Heritage Planners surveyed have varied academic backgrounds as f o l -lows: Architecture (Quebec Cit y , Winnipeg, Ottawa - Second generation) Planning ( V i c t o r i a , Vancouver - Third generation, St. John, Toronto) (Art)History (Ottawa - F i r s t generation, Vancouver - F i r s t generation) P o l i t i c a l Science (Calgary). These categories are not mutually exclusive, as some Heritage Planners have a series of degrees or experience i n two or more areas at undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate l e v e l s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to see that i n c i t i e s such as Ottawa and Vancouver, where there has been more than one Heritage Planner, the f i r s t person i n that p o s i t i o n tended to have a more academic background r e l a t e d to Art or Ar c h i -t e c t u r a l History, while the people who followed tended to have more technical backgrounds. This i s consistent with the evolution of the ro l e of the Heritage Planner as i t moved from concerns r e l a t e d to the Inventory and Evaluation of H i s t o r i c Resources to the development and implementation of p o l i c y r e l a t e d to heritage conservation programs. 88 The Future: Opportunities and Constraints The opportunities f o r the Heritage Planner are unlimited i n that there i s a great deal to be done and many techniques l e f t to be t r i e d . The populari-ty of the conservation movement may fade, however, following the "Attention 4 Cycle" described by Downs with respect to ecology. 1) Pre-problem stage 2) Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm 3) Realization of costs of s i g n i f i c a n t progress 4) Gradual decline of intense p u b l i c i n t e r e s t 5) Post-problem stage. The 'post-problem stage" may see the abandonment of the heritage planning function or i t s entrenchment as part of the regular municipal planning s t r u c t -ure . As the perceived worth of heritage a c t i v i t y changes i n the mind of the community, so w i l l the r o l e of the Heritage Planner. While i t has taken a long time to demonstrate the economic, s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l arguments i n favour of heritage conservation, i t i s also c l e a r that they w i l l need to be defended continually. The Heritage Planner w i l l always be i n a defensive p o s i t i o n because of the influence of the "Corporate Group" described as follows: "Every c i t y has i t s Chamber of Commerce, Board of Trade, or an equivalent organization of business i n t e r e s t s , and these or-ganizations have a long t r a d i t i o n of involvement i n c i t y gov-ernment and p o l i t i c s . They have a continuity over time that most other organized groups do not have, and ready access to the kind of d e t a i l e d information that i s most l i k e l y to im-press elected and appointed c i t y o f f i c i a l s . Given the back-ground and experience of large proportions of elected o f f i c i -a l s , there i s an obvious a f f i n i t y between them and t h i s kind of corporate group actor, an a f f i n i t y that provides jthe l a t t e r with comparatively easy access to p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s . " This i s not to imply that the "Corporate Group" w i l l always have predom-inant influence at Council, but that heritage planning w i l l always have an advocacy r o l e within the municipal administration and without ( i . e . i n the 89 community) i n ensuring that the arguments i n favour of heritage are presented  and also i n creating a l l i a n c e s f o r support. Tourism A r e l a t i o n s h i p appears to e x i s t between an active heritage program (as seen through the existence of one or more Heritage Planners and the Municipal Heritage Programs they help administer) and tourism. For example, Quebec C i t y , with a very active program as described i n Chapter Two, derives approximately 36% of i t s Canadian t o u r i s t d o l l a r s from h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l v i s i t s . 90 Implications, of t h i s Thesis The greatest p o t e n t i a l f or heritage conservation exists at the municipal  l e v e l . While the opportunity provided by recent p r o v i n c i a l enabling heritage l e g i s l a t i o n has played an important r o l e , i t i s not the end but only part of a process of p r i v a t e and public activism i n the ongoing heritage conservation movement. The s e n s i t i v i t y of municipal p o l i t i c s to l o c a l i n t e r e s t groups provides an opportunity for responsive and creative approaches to heritage conservation, which are not possible at the p r o v i n c i a l or federal l e v e l . When designation at the municipal and even p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l does occur, i t tends to be of p u b l i c l y owned s i t e s , or p r i v a t e l y owned s i t e s where there i s no loss or p o t e n t i a l loss of development revenue. Designation w i l l only be as a t t r a c t i v e as competing opportunities permit i t to be. It w i l l be neces-sary, therefore, to r e l i e v e pressure f o r development by downzoning to a point where i t i s f i n a n c i a l l y a t t r a c t i v e to keep and upgrade e x i s t i n g older s t r u c t -ures. Where t h i s cannot be done because of speculative i n t e r e s t i n current or anticipated zoning, some form of compensation/incentive needs to be offered. The r e s u l t s of t h i s thesis have shown the l i m i t e d extent to which t h i s i s currently being done across Canada. In the absence of opportunities f o r development at a "higher use" ( i n terms of density or type of use) the option of conservation might seem a t t r a c t -ive, depending on the attitudes of the property owner and the community. At t h i s point, " s o f t " incentives such as moral suasion, plaques, p u b l i c i t y , pub-l i c amenities, paint-up programs, etc., can best be used to influence property owners towards conservation. It can also be demonstrated to commercial prop-erty owners that there are opportunities for p r o f i t by v i r t u e of c o l l e c t i v e l y r e v i t a l i z i n g a heritage d i s t r i c t . The opportunity cost of preservation i s a function of the e x i s t i n g market, the development p o t e n t i a l and the expectation that e i t h e r of the two w i l l change. As the actual or perceived opportunity f o r p r o f i t through upward development increases, the "harder" or more expensive i n money and time, the incentives w i l l have to be. The p o t e n t i a l f o r heritage planning i n Canada continues to be r e s t r i c t e d by two shallow perspectives. One, i s that of the private sector which refuses to recognize that p r o f i t s can be derived from r e v i t a l i z a t i o n . The second i s that of the public sector which believes that zoning and l e g i s l a t i v e " s t i c k s " are the only means f o r preservation. Where p r o f i t s (or p r o f i t s substantial enough to entice the private sector) cannot be made from r e v i t a l i z a t i o n i t i s the r o l e of the public sector to help with " c a r r o t s " and investment of i t s own. The Heritage Planner can show both the opportunities of heritage conserv-ation and how to r e a l i z e them. 92 Summary Canadian m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have concentrated on the l i m i t e d p o t e n t i a l and scope of Heritage Designation. Designation w i l l not work without the coopera-t i o n of the private sector and only as long as economic arguments i n favor of conservation are v a l i d . I f they are no longer v a l i d , designations can be re-voked. The s o l u t i o n i s to negotiate with those incentives which are a v a i l a b l e to the municipality and appropriate f o r the s i t u a t i o n . This negotiation can  best be c a r r i e d out at the municipal l e v e l and by the Heritage Planner. It i s apparent from t h i s survey that i n general, Canadian m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have not approached t h e i r p o t e n t i a l i n terms of encouraging the p r i v a t e sector through incentive mechanisms currently at t h e i r disposal. The federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments can best serve preservation by helping the municipality with i t s incentives or lessening the need f o r them by removing competing pro-grams and l e g i s l a t i o n . For example, the Federal Government can help by chang-ing the National Building Code to by sympathetic to heritage structures and by providing more funds to the Heritage Canada Foundation to promote heritage awareness on a national l e v e l and intervene i n conservation areas that need public investment and demonstration projects. The p r o v i n c i a l governments can help by enabling.the municipality to dev-elop and use the incentive mechanisms l i s t e d and by creating Heritage Trusts to use public funds where the p r i v a t e market i s hesitant to invest, to help out p r i v a t e investment i n conservation, and to seed the Revolving Funds of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Epilogue The Power - Negotiation The Tool - Incentives The Agent - The Heritage Planner The Process - Heritage Planning The Goal - Preservation P o l i c y Recommendations The conservation of Canada's heritage has been and w i l l continue to be l a r g e l y determined by the private sector i n terms of r e s i d e n t i a l and commerc-i a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . A major emphasis of the Heritage Planner should be to encourage that sector through the development and administration of incentive mechanisms. Negotiation and moral suasion should begin early i n the process of attempting to conserve heritage resources e i t h e r with or without designa-t i o n . Every c i t y i n Canada has, to varying degrees, the capacity to implement a program for heritage preservation. Of the mechanisms described i n Chapter 3, h a l f require no s p e c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n or a complicated administra-t i v e structure or a large f i n a n c i a l commitment. While the pursuit of contin-ued changes i n federal tax and b u i l d i n g regulations or the rewording of p r o v i n c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n are necessary i n the long run, t h e i r pursuit should not be used as a smoke screen for i n a c t i o n on the part of municipali-t i e s . Direct f i n a n c i a l intervention must be accepted as part of any municipal program. There w i l l be i n i t i a l costs which can be eventually recaptured. The province can help by providing seed money f o r municipal heritage revolving funds. 94 Footnotes ^ B r i t i s h Columbia Department of The P r o v i n c i a l Secretary and Government Services, Methods and Means i n Municipal Heritage Conservation (Vancouver: Price P r i n t i n g Limited, n.d.). Ontario Department of Culture and Recreation, Designation Handbook (Toronto: Queen's Pr i n t e r , 1974). 2 George Kapelos, a t a l k presented to the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Architecture i n Canada, V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia, May 1981. 3 These observations are not based d i r e c t l y on the survey r e s u l t s but from personal contact with the respondents or inference from the t i t l e and duties as described i n the responses to questionnaires. 4 Anthony Downs, "Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue-Attention Cycle", The Public Interest (1972-1973). ^D.J. Higgins, Urban Canada: Its Government and P o l i t i c s (Toronto: Macmillan and Company, 1977): 1977. ^Geor^ge Gait, "Heritage and Tourism", Heritage Canada (Spring 1976): 18. 95, SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS AND REPORTS Ast l e s , A l l e n P. "The evolution and Role of H i s t o r i c and A r c h i t e c t u r a l Preservation within the North American C i t y . " Master's Thesis, Geography Department, Simon Fraser University, 1972. Bever, T. The Economic Benefits of H i s t o r i c Preservation. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, United States Department of the I n t e r i o r . Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1978. Birmingham and Wood et a l Maple Tree Square Phase I Restoration Report: A  Case for Renewed L i f e i n the Old Ci t y. Vancouver, B.C.: Planning Department, 1969. Boddy, Trevor. "An Evaluation Process of Calgary's H i s t o r i c Resources." Draft Paper. Calgary, Alberta: Planning Department, 1981. Boon, C. et a l "Recycling Valuable Buildings." Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary, January, 1975. Bowers, Judith. " H i s t o r i c Preservation i n the C i t y of Vancouver." Law Faculty, U.B.C., 1975. Bradshaw, J . Heritage Conservation - A General Bibliography. V i c t o r i a , B.C. Heritage Conservation Branch. 1979. B r i t i s h Columbia Dept. of Culture and Recreation. "What i s Heritage Designation?" V i c t o r i a , B.C.: The B r i t i s h Columbia Dept. of Culture and Recreation, 1974. B r i t i s h Columbia Dept. of the P r o v i n c i a l Secretary and Government Services. Methods and Means i n Municipal Heritage Conservation. Vancouver: Price P r i n t i n g Limited. B.C. Heritage Conservation Branch. Department of the P r o v i n c i a l Secretary. Nelson: A proposal f o r Urban Heritage Conservation. Victoria,B.C.,1981. B.C. Heritage Trust. Something Old ... Something New. Heritage Area R e v i t a l i z a t i o n Program. V i c t o r i a : B.C. Heritage Trust. 1980. Calgary, Alberta. Heritage Conservation: Report of the Ad Hoc Heritage  Committee. Calgary: Planning Dept., 1976. Calgary, Alberta. Municipal Heritage Conservation Framework. Calgary: Planning Dept., 1979. Calgary, Alberta. "Restoration and R e v i t a l i z a t i o n of the Stephen AVenue  Mal l . " Calgary: Chamber of Commerce. 1980. Cobett, M. et a l . Splendid Survivors San Francisco's Downtown A r c h i t e c t u r a l  Heritage. San Francisco, C a l i f o r n i a : C a l i f o r n i a L i v i n g Books, 1980. Coopersmith, Penina and H a l l , R.C. Heritage by Design: Urban Prospects Series. Ottawa: Mini s t r y of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s . Macmillan and Co., 1976. 96 Costonis, John. Space A d r i f t : Landmark Preservation and the Market-PIace. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : U n iversity of I l l i n o i s Press, 1974. Denhez, Marc. Heritage Fights Back. Toronto, Ontario: Fitshenry and Whitside, 1978. Denhez, Marc. Protecting the B u i l t Environment of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1979. Denhez, Marc. "Protecting the B u i l t Environment of Manitoba." Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1979. Denhez, Marc. "What Price Heritage, Protection of Heritage Sites and the Obligation to Compensate Owners." Ottawa, 1980. Dobby, A l l a n . Conservation and Planning. London, England: Hutchinson and Company, 1978. Downs, Barry and Archambault A r c h i t e c t s . Park S i t e 19. A F e a s i b i l i t y Study. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1979. Edmonton, Alberta. "Agreement re the Old Strathcona Heritage Conservation Area between the C i t y of Edmonton, the Old Strathcona Foundation and Heritage Canada." Edmonton: Planning Dept., n.d. Edmonton, Alberta. " H i s t o r i c Preservation." Edmonton: Planning Department, 1979. Falkner, Ann. Without Our Past. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977. Fawcett, Jane, Ed. The Future of the Past. Attitudes to Conservation 1174 - 1974. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976. Fenton, Barry. "Heritage Preservation i n Vancouver." Vancouver: Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, U.B.C. Architecture Library, n.d. Gait, George. "Conserving a National Asset: The Continued Use of Canada's E x i s t i n g Buildings." The Heritage Canada Foundation. Ottawa, 1980. Gait, George. Investing i n the Past: A report on the p r o f i t a b i l i t y of heritage conservation. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1974. Goshulak, Howard. "Preserving the Past for the Future." Master's Thesis. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 1980. Hagman, Donald and Misczynski, Dean. Windfalls for Wipeouts. Chicago, I l l i n o i s : American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , 1979. Halifax, N.S. An Evaluation and Protection System f o r Heritage Resources i n  Halif a x . H a l i f a x : C i t y Planning Dept., 1978. Harvey, John. The Conservation of Buildings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972. Heritage Canada. "Alberta Heritage L e g i s l a t i o n . " Canadian Heritage L e g i s l a -t i o n Series. Ottawa, Ontario: Heritage Canada, 1974. 97 Heritage Canada. "Annual Reports." Ottawa: Herigage Canada, 1976-80. Heritage Canada. B r i t i s h Columbia Heritage L e g i s l a t i o n . Canadian Heritage L e g i s l a t i o n Series. Ottawa, Ontario: Heritage Canada, 1974. Heritage Canada. "A Brown Paper on Heritage L e g i s l a t i o n : Proposals by  Heritage Canada." Ottawa, Ontario: Heritage Canada, 1974. Heritage Canada. "The Heritage Area Conservation Program of Heritage Canada." Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1977. Heritage Canada. Investing i n the Past: A Report on the P r o f i t a b i l i t y of Heritage Conservation. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1974. Heritage Canada. "Manitoba Heritage L e g i s l a t i o n . " Canadian Heritage L e g i s l a -t i o n Series. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1974. Heritage Canada. "New Brunswick Heritage L e g i s l a t i o n . " Canadian Heritage L e g i s l a t i o n Series. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1974. Heritage Canada. New L i f e f o r Old Buildings. Proceedings of a B.C. and Yukon Heritage Conference. Feb. 10-12, 1977. Vancouver: Community Arts Council of Vancouver, 1978. Heritage Canada. "Newfoundland Heritage L e g i s l a t i o n . " Canadian Heritage L e g i s l a t i o n Series. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1974. Heritage Canada and Shippard, Burt and Associates. "St. John's Heritage Conservation Area." Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1976. Heritage Canada. What's On In Canada. Proceedings of Conference on Area Conservation. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, March 21, 19 74. Heritage Canada. Winnipeg's H i s t o r i c Warehouse Area. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1975. Huot, William. "Compensation f o r Designation." V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Heritage Conservation Branch, Department of the P r o v i n c i a l Secretary and Government Services, 1979. Huot, William.. "Municipal Heritage Designation." V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Heritage Conservation Branch, Department of the P r o v i n c i a l Secretary and Government Services, 1980. Huto, William (Ed.) " J u d i c i a l Decisions Related to Municipal Heritage Conservation." V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Heritage Conservation Branch, Department of the P r o v i n c i a l Secretary and Government Services, October, 1979. Huot, William and Crabtree, T. "Municipal Programs to A s s i s t Heritage Property Owners." V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Heritage Conservation Branch, Department of the P r o v i n c i a l Secretary and Government Services, 1980. Kalman, Harold. The Evaluation of H i s t o r i c Buildings. Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1980. 98 Kapelos, George. "Heritage Conservation Planning i n Ontario." Toronto, Ontario; Department of Culture and Recreation, (1980). K e l l y , Ken. "Our Reusable St r u c t u r a l Heritage." Master's Thesis, Kingston: Queen's University, 1977. Lang, R. and Armour, A. Sourcebook. Energy Conservation i n Twenty Canadian  C i t i e s . C i t y of Toronto, 1980. Lazear, Stuart. Heritage Centretown. Ottawa: Centretown C i t i z e n s Planning Committee, 1974. Leaning, John. The R e v i t a l i z a t i o n of Older Residential D i s t r i c t s . Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing, (1975). Moodie, Robert James. "Gastown: Past, Present and Future." Master's Thesis, U.B.C. Vancouver, 1971. Morrison, J . H i s t o r i c Preservation Law. National Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation. Washington, D.C: The Preservation Press, 1965. McNulty, R.H. and Kliment, S.A. (Ed.s) Neighborhood Conservation - A Handbook  of Methods and Techniques. New York: Whitney Library of Design, 1976. National Trust for H i s t o r i c Preservation. Economic Benefits of Preserving  Old Buildings. Washington, D.C: The Preservation Press, 1975. National Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation: H i s t o r i c Preservation Law: An  Annotated Bibliography. National Trust for H i s t o r i c Preservation. Washington, D.C: The Preservation Press, 1975. National Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation. Legal Techniques i n H i s t o r i c Preservation. Papers from the Conference i n Washington, D.C, May 1971. National Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation, 1972. National Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation. Old and New Architecture - Design  Relationships. The Preservation Press. Washington, D.C, 1980. Ontario Department of Culture and Recreation. A r c h i t e c t u r a l Conservation and  the Ontario Heritage Act. Toronto, Ontario: Queen's P r i n t e r , n.d. Ontario Department of Culture and Recreation. Designation Handbook. Toronto, Ontario: Queen's Pr i n t e r , 1974. Ontario Department of Culture and REcreation. "Five Studies: Planning f o r Downtown Conservation." Toronto, Ontario: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1978. Ontario Department of Culture and Recreation. Guidelines on the Designation of Buildings of A r c h i t e c t u r a l and H i s t o r i c Importance. Toronto, Ontario: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1977. Ontario Department of Culture and Recreation. Guidelines on the Designation of Heritage Conservation D i s t r i c t s . Toronto, Ontario; Queen's P r i n t e r , 1977. Ottawa, Ontario. Sandy H i l l Heritage Study. Ottawa: Planning Department, 1975. 99 Ottawa Research Foundation. Conservation of Heritage Buildings i n the  National Capital Region. Ottawa: n.d. Papageorgieu, A. Continuity and Change: Preservation i n C i t y Planning. New York: Praeger Press, 1971. Rogers, Ian. Canadian Law of Planning and Zoning. Toronto, Ontario: Carswell Company Limited, 1980. Rogers, Ian. The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations. Toronto, Ontario: Carswell Company Limited, 1971. S e e l i g , Michael Y. "The r o l e of heritage conservation i n planning." Vancouver: January, 1980. Seelig, Michael Y. Time Present and Time Past: Proposals f o r Area Conservation  i n Vancouver. Vancouver: Dept. of S o c i a l Planning, June, 19 73. Sheppard,Burt and Associates and Arends and Associations. St. John's Heritage  Conservation Area Study. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, De c , 1976. Society f o r the Preservation of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Resources i n Calgary. Stephen Square: A Design Concept f o r an H i s t o r i c a l D i s t r i c t i n Calgary" Ottawa: Heritage Canada, Oct., 1976. Sommers, M.J. "Renewed L i f e f o r Gastown." Master's Thesis, U.B.C., 1970. Strathcona H i s t o r i c a l Group. "Strathcona: The Asset of Heritage: A Place f o r the Future." Edmonton, Alberta: Strathcona H i s t o r i c a l Group, 1973. Strongitharm, Dean. "Heritage Conservation: A Guideline to P o l i c i e s and Programs." V i c t o r i a : Planning Department', 1979. St. John, N.B. Proposal C a l l f o r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n and innovative Re-Use. Saint John, New Brunswick: Community Planning Branch, 1980. Thompson, William. Winnipeg's H i s t o r i c Warehouse Area: Its R e v i t a l i z a t i o n  through Conservation. Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 1976. Thorncroft, M.E.T. "The Economics of conservation." London, England: Royal I n s t i t u t i o n of Chartered Surveyors, 1975. Toronto, Ontario. The Management of H i s t o r i c a l Resources. Toronto: Metro Planning Commission, 1973. UNESCO. "Recommendation Concerning the Preservation of C u l t u r a l Property Endangered by Public and Private Works." Paris, 1968. UNESCO. "Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of H i s t o r i c Areas." Nairobi, 1976. UNESCO. "Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and S i t e s . " Paris, 1962. U.S. Department of the I n t e r i o r , Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. Tax Incentives f o r R e h a b i l i t a t i n g H i s t o r i c Buildings. pamphlet. H.C.R. S. Publ i c a t i o n #31, 1980. 100 Vancouver, B.C. Gas town E conomi c Study: 1966-1974. Vancouver; Planning Dept., Sept. 1975. Vancouver, B.C. "Heritage Buildings and Non-Conforming Uses." Vancouver: Dept. of the C i t y Manager, Sept. 28, 1976. Vancouver, B.C. "The Impact of F i r e and Building By-laws on E x i s t i n g Buildings." Vancouver: Dept. of the Ci t y Manager, May 2, 1978. Vancouver, B.C. "Monetary and Non-Monetary Compensation f o r Heritage Designa-t i o n . " Vancouver: Dept. of the C i t y Manager, Oct. 3, 1978. Vancouver, B.C. "Statement of Purpose f o r the Heritage Advisory Committee." Vancouver: Planning Department, May 9, 1977. Vancouver, B.C. "Transfer of Development Rights and Facade Easements." Vancouver: Dept. of the C i t y Manager, October 7, 1976. Vancouver, B.C. Vancouver's Heritage 2 Twenty-five buildings and the task  ahead. Vancouver: Planning Department, Sept. 1975. Vancouver, B.C. Vancouver's Heritage 1 Twenty-twO Buildings and two H i s t o r i c  Areas. Vancouver: Planning Department, Dec. 1974. V i c t o r i a , B.C. " C i t y of V i c t o r i a Heritage Conservation." V i c t o r i a : Planning Department, 1977. V i c t o r i a , B.C. "Heritage Conservation: A Guideline to P o l i c i e s and Programs." V i c t o r i a : Planning Dept., Jan. 15, 1981. V i c t o r i a , B.C. "Heritage Conservation Report." (Central Area). V i c t o r i a : Planning Department, March 1975. V i c t o r i a , B.C. Heritage Recycle Report. V i c t o r i a : Planning Dept., n.d. V i c t o r i a , B.C. "Heritage Conservation." pamphlet. V i c t o r i a : Jan. 1977. Wesley, L. and Huot, W.J. Heritage Conservation Through the Use of R e s t r i c t - ive Covenants. Heritage Conservation Branch. V i c t o r i a , 1980. Winnipeg, Man. "Heritage Conservation: A Report on Fi n a n c i a l Incentives and Assistance." Winnipeg: Department of Environmental Planning, March 20, 1980. Winnipeg, Man. H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Preservation Study. Winnipeg; Department of Environmental Planning, n.d. Winnipeg, Man. "The H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Restoration Area: A B r i e f History. Winnipeg: Department of Environmental Planning, 1980. Winnipeg, Man. "Winnipeg: Heritage Area Conservation." 1974-1980. Informa- t i o n Winnipeg. Winnipeg: Department of Environmental Planning, A p r i l 1980. Zi e g l e r , Arthur J r . H i s t o r i c Preservation i n Inner C i t y Areas. A Manual of Practice. Pittsburgh, Penn. Ober Park Associates, 1974, 101 Z i e g l e r , Arthur J r . et a l . Revolving Funds f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation: A Manual of Practice. Pittsburgh, Penn. Ober Park Associates, 1975. 102 PERIODICALS Berku, D. "Saving Montreal." C i t y Magazine, 1 ( A p r i l 1975): 38-46. Bland, John. "A Possible Programme for the Preservation and Restoration of Quebec." Community Planning Review, XIII, No. 3. 1963, pp. 6-17. Boddy, Trevor. "Lost A l b e r t a . " Forum 1, The Journal of Western Canadian Architects (1981): 8. Brook, Charles. "The Renewal of Old Winnipeg." Forum 1 (1981): 14. Brook, Charles. "Showdown i n Winnipeg." Heritage Canada, 5 (February 1979): 20. Brook, Charles. "Winnipeg's Market - New L i f e f o r an Old Area." Canadian  Heritage (October 1980): 44-46. Bruegmann, Robert. "The Paradoxes of Preservation: What Price Preservation." Planning,Journal of The American Planning Association, (June 1980): 13-16. C a n t e l l , T. "Why Conserve." The Planner, 61 (January 1975): 6-10. Chapman, B. "The Growing Pu b l i c Stake i n Urban Conservation." i n Economic  Benefits of Preserving Old Buildings. National Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation. Washington, D.C: The Preservation Press, 1975, pp. 9-13. Cooper, A. "Zoning: A Neglected Tool for Preservation.':' i n Economic Benefits  of Preserving Old Buildings. National Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation. Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1975, pp. 45-48. Costonis, John J . "The Costs of Preservation." Forum. Jan-Feb. 1974, pp. 61-67. Demmings, S. and Mason, G. "Transfer of Development Rights i n the Preservation of a Centre-City Neighborhood." Urban Forum, (November/December 1977): 10-12. Denhez, Marc. "In the Wake of the Tegone Mess." Heritage Canada, 5 (February 1979): 32-34. Denhez, Marc. " L e g i s l a t i o n . " Heritage Canada, 2 (Spring 1976): 4. Denhez, Marc. "The Law." Heritage Canada Annual Report, (1975-1976): 7. Denhez, Marc et a l . "Conserving Neighborhoods and Landmarks: The Canadian Problem." Urban Forum, (March 1976). Denhez, Marc et a l . " V i a b i l i t y and Parameters of Heritage Conservation Planning." CIP Forum, (March 1976). Gait, George. "Heritage and Tourism." Heritage Canada, (Spring 1976): 18. F i r t h , Lee. "St. John's Street Fighter." Heritage Canada, (Winter 1978): 25. Gait, George. "There's Money i n Old Buildings." Heritage Canada, 2 (Winter 1976): 32-33. 103' Heritage Canada. "Area Conservation." Heritage Canada, (Summer 1976): 44. Heritage Canada. " P r o f i l e s - Market Square." Heritage Canada, (Aug. 1978): 29. ; Humphreys, Barbara. "Heritage by Computer." Habitat, 20 (Summer/Fall 1977): 44-47. Knight, James. "Conservation Areas." Heritage Canada, 4 (June 1978): 45. Lambert, Barbara. "On the Waterfront - The Story of Halifax's Oldest Buildings." Heritage Canada, (Summer 1977): 21. Lehrman, Jonas. "Recycling i n Winnipeg." The Canadian A r c h i t e c t , (May 1979): 24-29. L e i b e l , M. "The Williams B u i l d i n g . " C i t y Planning 1 (Dec. 1978): 14. O'Dea, S. "St. John's: H i s t o r i c Preservation L e g i s l a t i o n . " Heritage Canada, 2 (Winter 19 76). Page, C. "Saving the Past f o r the Future." E k i s t i c s , 271 (July/August 1978), 283-284. P h i l l i p s , R.A.J. "Heritage Canada and What i t Means." Canadian Geographical  Journal, November 1973. P h i l l i p s , Robert A.J. "How We Started." Heritage Canada, 4 (June 1978), 40. P h i l l i p s , Robert A.J. et a l . "Planning f o r Older Communities." Forum. Journal of Canadian In s t i t u t e of Planners, (March 1976). Runnels, Rory. "The Warehouse D i s t r i c t . " Winnipeg Magazine, August 1980, pp. 27-29. Ruskin, Olga. "Carolyn Smyly: Heritage Defender." ( V i c t o r i a ) Western  Li v i n g A p r i l 76, p. 46. Seline, W. "Tax Increment Financing: A Key Preservation T o o l . " i n Economic  Benefits of Preserving Old Buildings. National Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation: Washington, D.C. The Preservation Press, 1975, pp. 49-52. Sikstrom, Brian. " I n i t i a t i o n into V i c t o r i a ' s Heritage." P.I.B.C. News 22/3 (Nov. 1980): 13, 14. Warren, Ann. "Converting Past Grandeur to the Present Tense." Enterprise  West, p. 12-19. Watkins, N. "The Preservation of Heritage Buildings." Forum 1 (1981); 2. 104 NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Barnett, V i c k i . "Relics from the past get new lease on l i f e , " Calgary  Herald, 22 February 1979, p. Gl. Beyer, Hubert. "Heritage abuse feared." Times Colonist, ( V i c t o r i a ) , 7 October 1980, p. 13. Bla i n , Joanne. "Conservation f o r o l d time's sake." Vancouver Sun, 24 Jul y 1980, Section E. Gidney, Norman. "Heritage Pressure: too much, too f a s t ? " Times Colonist, ( V i c t o r i a ) , 5 September 1980, p. 39. Khouri, J . "The Rising Cost of Tearing Down." Vancouver Sun, 29 October 1977, p. A6. McAlpine, Mary. "Urban conservation: Heritage plaque or wrecking b a l l . " Vancouver Sun (Feb. 1978). Porter, D. "Beyond the Radiant C i t y . " Vancouver Sun, 28 March 1981, p. A5. 105 INTERVIEWS Body, Trevor. V i c t o r i a , B.C. Interview, A p r i l 1981. Fleming, Rhonna. Vancouver, B.C. Interview, March 1981. Kel l y , Kenneth. Winnipeg, Manitoba,Interview, October 1980. Lafreniere, A l a i n . Winnipeg, Manitoba,Interview, October 1980. O'Dea, S. V i c t o r i a , B.C. Interview, A p r i l 1981. Ol i v e r , Nancy. V i c t o r i a , B.C. Interview, A p r i l 1981. Phipps, Tom. Vancouver, B.C. Interview, February 1981. 106 APPENDIX A LEGISLATION Federal B r i t i s h North America Act. H i s t o r i c Sites and Monuments Act. S.C. 19 72, .c.39. National Housing Act. R.S.C. 1970, c.N-10 as amended. - Income Tax Act. S.C. 1970-71-72. - National Housing Act. S.C. 1972. P r o v i n c i a l  B r i t i s h Columbia: Archaeological and H i s t o r i c Sites Protection Act. S.B.C. 1972, c.4. Municipal Act (Amendment). S.B.C. 1973, c.59. Heritage Conservation Act. S.B.C. 1977, c.37. Municipal Act. S.B.C. 19 79, c.64. Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1974, c.137. Alberta: Alberta Heritage Act. S.A. 1973, c.5. Alberta H i s t o r i c a l Resources Act. S.A. 1973, c.5. Planning Act. S.A. 1968, c.26 as amended. Municipal Government Act. S.A. 1967, c.45 as amended. Alberta Heritage Amendment Act. S.A. 1975, c.37. Alberta H i s t o r i c a l Resources (Amendment) Act. S.A. 1978, c.4. Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Heritage Act. S.S. 1974-75, c.45. Planning Act. S.S. 1970-71, c.23 as amended. Urban Municipality Act. S.A. 1968-69, c.16 as amended. Urban and Rural Planning and Development Act. S.S. 1968-69, c.17 as amended. Heritage Property Act. S.S. 1979-80, c.88. 107 H i s t o r i c Sites and Objects Act. R.S.M. 1970, C.H70. Manitoba: Heritage Manitoba Act. S.M. 1974, c.42. Planning Act. S.M. 1975, c.29. Municipal Act. S.M. 1974, c.34. Planning Act. C.C.S.M., C.P80. C i t y of Winnipeg Act. S.M. 1971, c.105. City of Winnipeg Act. S.M. 1977, c.64. Ontario: Ontario Heritage Foundation Act. S.O. 1970, c.65. Archaeological and H i s t o r i c S i t e s Protection Act. R.S.O. 1970, ;c.26. Ontario Herigage Act. S.O. 1974, c.122. Planning Act. R.S.O. 1970, c.349. Municipal Act. R.S.O. 1970, c.247. Ci t y of Ottawa Act. S.O. 1973, c.367. City of Toronto Act. S.O. 1969, c.347. Quebec: H i s t o r i c or A r t i s t i c Monuments Act. S.Q. 1922, c.30. Act Respecting Royale at Quebec. S.Q. 1967, c.54. H i s t o r i c Monuments Act. S.Q. 1963, c.34. Cul t u r a l Property Act. S.Q. 1972, c.19. Ci t y and Towns Act. S.Q. 1974, c.118. Newfoundland: City of St. John's Act. S.NFLD. 1976, c.256. Nova Scotia: An Act to Provide f o r the Protection of H i s t o r i c a l Objects. S.N.S. 1970, c.8. Heritage Property Designation Act. S.N.A. 1976, c . l l . Act to Provide for the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Preservation and Protection of Heritage Property. S.N.A. 1980, c.8. 108 Municipal Act. S.N.A. 1967, c.192. Town Planning Act. S.N.A. 1967, c.198. C i t y of Hal i f a x Charter. S.N.A. 1963, c.52. New Brunswick: H i s t o r i c Sites Protection Act. R.S.N.B. 1973, c.H-6. Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Act. N.B.A. 1978, c.M-21.1. Municipal Heritage Preservation Act. N.B.A. 1978, c.M-21.1. Prince Edward Island: C i t y of Charlottetown Act. S.P.E.I. 1976, c.3. Municipal Bylaw No. 6825 the "Designation of H i s t o r i c a l D i s t r i c t , Downtown V i c t o r i a . " C i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1975. Bylaw No. 6899 the "Emergence Meadure Bylaw." C i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1976. Bylaw No. 7371 the "Heritage Houses Financial Compensation Bylaw." C i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1977. Bylaw No. 5304 the "Zoning and Development Bylaw -- Heritage Structures." C i t y of Vancouver, 1979. Bylaw No. 2823 the "Bylaw e s t a b l i s h i n g the Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Board." C i t y of Edmonton, 1966. Bylaw No. 1474/77 the "Heritage Building Bylaw." C i t y of Winnipeg, 1977. Bylaw No. 2032/78 the "Heritage Building Procedural Bylaw." C i t y of Winnipeg, 1978. Bylaw No. 2048/78 the " H i s t o r i c Winnipeg Restoration Area Bylaw." C i t y of Winnipeg, 1978. Bylaw No. 16502 the "Winnipeg Zoning Bylaw." C i t y of Winnipeg, 1978. Bylaw No. 135-78 the "Zoning Amendment to Include Heritage Areas." C i t y of Ottawa, 1978. Bylaw No. 123-75 the "Demolition Control Area Bylaw." C i t y of Ottawa, 1977. Bylaw No. 294-79 "Site Plan Control Area Bylaw. C i t y of Ottawa, 1979. Bylaw No. 79-74 "Design Review Committee." C i t y of Ottawa, 1974. Bylaw No. 21006 "A Bylaw to es t a b l i s h the Toronto H i s t o r i c a l Board." C i t y of Toronto, 1960. 109 Bylaw (Reglement) 2395 Instituant l a Commission d'Urbanisme et de Conservation de Quebec, C i t y of Quebed, Ju l y 26, 1976. "St. John C i t y Centre Preservation Area Bylaw." C i t y of St. John, proposed 1981. "Zoning Bylaw." C i t y of St. John's, 1973. "Heritage Bylaw." C i t y of St. John's, 1977. Ordinance No. 123 "An Ordinance to e s t a b l i s h the Halifax Landmarks Commission." C i t y of Halifax, 1970. "Heritage Bylaw." Ci t y of Charlottetown, 1979. 110 APPENDIX A Continued FRANCE 1789 Revolution Creation of National Museums 1837 Commission des Monuments Historiques 1852 Loi du 26 mars [protection of great v i s t a s ) 1889 Lois du 30 mars (protection of buildings and s i t e s ) 1910 Loi du 20 a v r i l (protected the area around an h i s t o r i c building) 1913 Loi du 31 decembre (grants and tax provision) 1930 Loi du 2 mai (protected up to 500 m around l i s t e d building) 1943 Loi du 10 j u i n (compensation and protection areas within town plans) 1962 Malraux Law (secteurs sauvegardes) I l l APPENDIX A Continued GREAT BRITAIN 1560 Elizabethan Proclamation 1882 Ancient Monuments Protection Act (Stonehenge protected) 1900 Ancient Monuments Protection Act (no longer just p r e - h i s t o r i c ) 1907 National Trust Act 1910 Housing and Town Planning Act (conservation part of planning) 1913 Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act 1931 Ancient Monuments Act (protected t e r r i t o r y around a monument) 1932 Town § Country Planning Act (preserve buildings i n groups) 1935 H i s t o r i c Buildings § Ancient Monuments Act 1937 C i t y of Bath Act (protected c i t y ) 1937 Formation of the "Georgian Group" a f t e r destruction of Adelphi Terrace 1944 Town & Country Planning Act ( l i s t e d buildings) 1947 Town § Country Planning Act (protected n o n - l i s t e d as well as l i s t e d buildings) 1953 H i s t o r i c Buildings and Monuments Act (state a i d to o f f s e t costs of taxation and maintenance) 1957 C i v i c Trust established 1967 C i v i c Amenities Act (introduced conservation areas as part of l o c a l planning) 1972 Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act enabled l o c a l planning a u t h o r i t i e s to control the demolition 1974 Town § Country Amenities Act (schemes of enhancement f or conservation areas) 112 APPENDIX A Continued UNITED STATES 1906 A n t i q u i t i e s Act 1931 Charleston, South Carolina established h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t zoning 1933 H i s t o r i c American Buildings Survey 1937 National Survey of H i s t o r i c Sites and Buildings 1937 New Orleans established h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t zoning 1949 National Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation 1961 Housing Act (provided f o r heritage programs) 1965 Housing Act (as above) 1966 National H i s t o r i c Preservation Act (matching grant to States f o r % the cost of State inventories, etc.) Advisory Council on H i s t o r i c Preservation (to review and comment on federal projects) 1976 Amendments to National H i s t o r i c Preservation Act (1966) 1976 Tax Reform L e g i s l a t i o n (provided incentives f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ) 113 APPENDIX A Continued CANADA 1919 H i s t o r i c Sites and Monuments Board 1953 H i s t o r i c Sites and Monuments Act 19 70 Start of the Canadian Inventory of H i s t o r i c Building 1973 Incorporation of Heritage Canada 1973 National Housing Act and creation of the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and the Residential R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program 114 APPENDIX B THE QUESTIONNAIRE ! I . YOUR CURRENT ROLE Name . C i t y — - - ; . Job T i t l e O r g a n i z a t i o n Please b r i e f l y d i s c u s s your job as i t r e l a t e s to h e r i t a g e p r e s e r v a -t i o n . I f your job d e s c r i p t i o n s p e c i f i e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h e r i -tage a c t i v i t i e s , please a t t a c h a copy t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . -Please l i s t the c i t y departments/ agencies t h a t p l a y key r o l e s i n the c i t y ' s h e r i t a g e p r e s e r v a t i o n a c t i v -i t i e s and d e s c r i b e how you i n t e r a c t , i f at a l i i - •- • — - " - — — ' , Are there other s t a f f members who share r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r pre-s e r v a t i o n programs? Please l i s t t h e i r names and t i t l e s . I f poss-i b l e , please r e l a y a copy of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o them. Who are you r e s p o n s i b l e to? How i s your p o s i t i o n viewed by the h e r i t a g e community? . In what ways do you f e e i the h e r i -tage planner can make t h e i r most important c o n t r i b u t i o n ? . What do you f e e l are the major l i m i t a t i o n s of your p o s i t i o n ? I f you were r e d e f i n i n g the h e r i t -age r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of your pos-i t i o n , what would you change/add/ d e l e t e ? How long have you worked with t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n ? - • • — . How much of your time i s devoted to h e r i t a g e r e l a t e d programs? - 100$ 5C# 25% or l e s s II. BACKGROUND These questions attempt to i d e n t i f y the key events l e a d i n g to the i n v o l -vement of your o r g a n i z a t i o n i n pre-s e r v a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . What were the i s s u e s which were i n -strumental i n m o b i l i z i n g c i t i z e n a c t i v i t y , (say, the d e m o l i t i o n of a h e r i t a g e b u i l d i n g ) . How was l o c a l government drawn i n t o the ar e a of c o n s e r v a t i o n and when. Please check those of the f o l l o w -in g t h a t apply and i n d i c a t e the year appointed. C i t i z e n committee or task f o r c e (Year ) Combined s t a f f and c i t i z e n committee or task f o r c e (Year ) He r i t a g e A d v i s o r y Committee of C o u n c i l (Year ) Committee of department heads or other s t a f f (Year ) J o i n t i n t e r - c i t y or c i t y / r e g i o n committee (Year ) Other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c -t u r e (Please s p e c i f y ) -ee~ A s t a f f member assigned f u l l or part-time r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r h e r i t a g e p r e s e r v a t i o n ? r e s p o n s i b l e t o When, i f at a l l , was a p o l i c y form-a l l y adopted by C o u n c i l with r e s -pect t o Heritage P r e s e r v a t i o n ? Who were the p r i n c i p a l p a r t i c i p -ants i n the development of the f i r s t h e r i t a g e p o l i c i e s put before C o u n c i l ? I I I . HERITAGE PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES Has an Inventory of h e r i t a g e r e -sources been c a r r i e d out? Is there a " h e r i t a g e l i s t " of s i g -n i f i c a n t b u i l d i n g s , s i t e s and areas? Is there a program f o r d e s i g n a t i n g m u n i c i p a l h e r i t a g e b u i l d i n g s , s i t e s and areas? (Please e l a b o r a t e and send m a t e r i a l , i f a v a i l a b l e ) . I f so, how many have been designated? What have been the major b a r r i e r s to d e s i g n a t i o n . Which aspects of a h e r i t a g e program seem most c r i t i c a l i n your judgement. What documents have been prepared f o r the m u n i c i p a l i t y with r e s p e c t to h e r i t a g e p r e s e r v a t i o n ? Please l i s t i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l order. Have c o n s u l t a n t s been used? Yes. Proposed. No. What are the powers of the munici-p a l i t y with r e s p e c t to h e r i t a g e p r e s e r v a t i o n e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n -d i r e c t l y through such t h i n g s as a Maintenance and Occupancy By-law' or a Demol i t i o n C o n t r o l By-law. Please l i s t the by-laws and s t a t e the source of p r o v i n c i a l e n a b l i n g l e g -i s l a t i o n , (e.g. Planning Act, Her i t a g e A c t ) . What have been the main types and sources of a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d by the c i t y with r e s p e c t to h e r i t a g e p r e s e r v a t i o n . Please check those that apply. Source F i n a n c i a l T e c h n i c a l Information Other C i t i z e n groups . P r o v i n c i a l Government . F e d e r a l Government Heritage Canada Foundation U n i v e r s i t y — L o c a l i n d u s t r y / business -Other (please s p e c i f y ) (Heritage T r u s t s , Foundations, Funds, e t c . J i How i s h e r i t a g e p r e s e r v a t i o n gen-e r a l l y p e r c e i v e d i n your c i t y at t h i s time? Please check one f o r each column. Urgent concern S i g n i f i c a n t concern Neutral Minor concern By C i t y By admini- Population s t r a t i o n at l a r g e Not an i s s u e STATUS GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS JURISDICTION I n c e n t i v e Mechanism (Explanation) Have T r i e d ( I n s e r t date) Being Not Con- C o n s i -s i d e r e d dered Not A p p l i . cable Very Efl'ec-: t i v e E f f e c -t i v e Margin-a l l y E f f e c -t i v e I n e f f e c t i v e - Don't Know Too E a r l y t o E v a l u -Implemented By E n a b l i n g L e g i s l a t i o r Z o n i n g / L e g i s l a t i v e i 11. Zoning I n c e n t i v e s ( r e l a x a t i o n of r e s t r i c t i o n s or s p e c i a l bonuses as i n the case of .... 12. T r a n s f e r of Development P o t e n t i a l . h |N F i n a n c i a l • h 13. Tax f r e e z e on r e h a b i l i t a t e d com-m e r c i a l p r o p e r t y . 14-. Reduced p r o p e r t y assessment. 1 j ; ; 15. Tax Increment F i n a n c i n g ( t o use increa s e d taxes r e s u l t i n g from H e r i t a g e Designation) i i ! l b . H eritage R e v o l v i n g fund ! 17. Value Capture (from new develop-ment). i 1 IB. Loans or urants t o owners 01 r e s -i d e n t i a l h e r i t a g e p r o p e r t i e s . 1 ! j 19. Mortgage guarantees. zu. purchase or p r o p e r t y . 1 I 21. Purchase or facade easements. 1 2i;. purcnase ana r e s a l e or prbpeftyr with r e s t r i c t i v e convenants. 1 i i Please e l a b o r a t e on any other i n c e n t i v e mechanisms which you have used but which are not mentioned here. 1 —1 Thank you f o r your time. i • 122 Appendix: Profile Sheet for Significant Incentive Mechanisms  City: . Name of Measure: Implemented by (department, etc.): Objectives of the measure: Description of the measure: Source and amount of funding for measure (if available): Sites preserved: Financial saving (actual, projected, etc.): Limitations, constraints, problems experienced: Please append relevant documents. 123 APPENDIX C ADDRESSES OF MUNICIPAL HERITAGE PLANNERS 124 Penina Coopersmith, Heritage Planner Planning Department C i t y H a l l Box 2100 CALGARY, Alberta T2P 2M5 Mr. R. Kilstrom, Heritage Planner Planning Department 13th Floor, Phipps McKinnon Building 10020 - 101A Avenue EDMONTON, Alberta T5J 3G2 Ms. J . P h i l l i p s , Planner C i t y H a l l Box 1749 HALIFAX, Nova Scotia B3J 3A5 Mr. A. C h u r c h i l l , Heritage Coordinator Department of Development C i t y H a l l Box 1749 HALIFAX, Nova Scotia B3J 3A5 A. Lafreniere, Heritage Planner Planning Department C i t y H a l l 111 Sussex Drive OTTAWA, Ontario KIN 5A1 Mr. K. Ke l l y Community Planning Branch Department of Community Planning and Development P.O. Box 1971 SAINT JOHN, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 Ms. Marcia Cuthbert, Head Preservation Section Toronto H i s t o r i c a l Board Stanley Barracks,Exhibition Place TORONTO, Ontario M6K 3C3 Mr. Tom Phipps, Heritage Planner Planning Department C i t y H a l l 453 West 12th Avenue VANCOUVER, B.C. V5Y 1V4 125 Brian Sikstrom, Heritage Planner Planning Department C i t y H a l l No. Centennial Square VICTORIA, B.C. V8W 1P6 Francois Varin D i v i s i o n du Vieux-Quebec et du Patrimoine Commission d'Urbanisme et de Conservation de Quebec CP 700 Hotel de V i l l e VILLE DE QUEBED, P.Q. G1R 4S9 C. Brook and S. Barber Department of Environmental Planning C i t y of Winnipeg 100 Main Street WINNIPEG, Manitoba R3C 1A5 126 APPENDIX D THE CURRENT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE HERITAGE PLANNER FOR EDMONTON L i a i s e with the Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Board and/or a h i s t o r i c a l resources foundation, the Old Strathcona Foundation, any other heritage organiza-tions, p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups, a l l C i t y departments, senior l e v e l s of government, and the private sector f o r a l l matters with any h i s t o r i c preservation content. Develop and administer a heritage conservation program to preserve the City's a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y and h i s t o r i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s i t e s . Administer and/or conduct a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l research as may be necessary to implement the heritage conservation program. Monitor applications f o r development permits and rezonings, advise the Development O f f i c e r on such applications when they a f f e c t a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l resources, and p a r t i c i p a t e i n negotiations with developers and/or owners of s i t e s containing a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c resources who wish to a l t e r or demolish such resources, both at the pre-application and development permit a p p l i c a t i o n stages. Such negotiations w i l l i n -clude evaluation of various preservation incentives such as density bonuses and density transfers on a case-by-case basis and w i l l include recommendations from the Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Board. Advise the Development O f f i c e r on development permit applications f o r s i t e s which are adjacent to a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y and h i s t o r i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s i t e s , and p a r t i c i p a t e i n negotiations concerning such s i t e s to ensure compatability between new developments and heritage b u i l d i n g s . Act as a l i a i s o n between owners and developers and the C i v i c Administra-t i o n to resolve problems imposed i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of normal standards to heritage properties by the development control and b u i l d i n g inspect-ion processes. 127 7. Provide consultative services i n the preparation of General Municipal Plans, Area Redevelopment Plans, and Area Structure Plans f o r areas containing a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c resources, coordinate heritage-r e l a t e d matters between such plans, recommend appropriate heritage p o l i -cies and proposals f o r and act as a heritage resource person for such plans. 8. P a r t i c i p a t e i n the development of land use control p o l i c i e s and regula-tions as they a f f e c t the preservation of a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l resources. 9. Prepare urban design guidelines to ensure the c o m p a t i b i l i t y of a r c h i t e c t -u r a l and h i s t o r i c resources with e x i s t i n g streetscapes and new develop-ments . 10. Undertake the coordination of economic and functional f e a s i b i l i t y studies for a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c resources considered f o r purchase by the C i t y . 11. Coordinate the municipal designation process with the Edmonton H i s t o r i c -a l Board, C i t y Council, the C i t y Law Department, and Alberta Culture. 12. Insure that designated a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c resources are inspected p e r i o d i c a l l y f or conformance with designation requirements and for evalu-ation of t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l condition. 13. Advise on and prepare resolutions to the Alberta Urban M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Association, Confederation of Canadian M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and s i m i l a r agencies with regard to heritage matters. 14. Review p r o v i n c i a l h i s t o r i c a l resources l e g i s l a t i o n and planning l e g i s l a -t i o n , advise the C i v i c Administration as to t h e i r e f f e c t or implications, and make recommendations to the C i v i c Administration on the need f o r amended and/or addi t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n . 15. Administer a heritage program budget, with the advice of the Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Board, which w i l l fund a c t i v i t i e s such as the h i r i n g of con-sultants for s p e c i a l projects,, the p r i n t i n g of brochures and reports, t r a v e l to heritage conservation courses and conferences, photography, advertising, etc. 16. Supervise consultants and other subordinate s t a f f as may be required to implement a heritage conservation program and other C i v i c p o l i c i e s on heritage conservation. 17. A s s i s t owners of heritage buildings to obtain grants and loans for the r e s t o r a t i o n and/or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of t h e i r properties. 18. Coordinate the completion and maintenance of an inventory and evaluation system f o r the City's a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c resources, i n cooperation with Alberta Culture, the Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Board, and a l l appropriate C i t y departments. 19. Develop and coordinate a p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s program designed to increase p u b l i c awareness of the benefits of heritage conservation, to be accomp-l i s h e d i n conjunction with the Edmonton H i s t o r i c a l Board and any other heritage-related organizations. 20. Develop and coordinate an information resource centre on heritage conserv-ation, to be a v a i l a b l e for use by p u b l i c groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . CHEF DE DIVISION 1 RECHERCHE ET INVENTAIRE TACHES ET RESPONSABILITES . Realiser les inventaires; . Mettre en place et gerer un centre de documentation; . produire l a recherche hi s t o r i q u e permettant d ' e c l a i r e r les projets de restauration, de construction ou de reamenagement et les etudes d'urbanisme; . elaborer, encadrer et suivre des projets de f o u i l l e s archeolog-iques; . p u b l i e r l e r e s u l t a t des travaux de recherche SECRETARIAT ETUDE ET PLANIFICATIONS TACHES ET RESPONSABILITES . Produire ou encadrer et suivre toutes le etudes d'urbanisme menees dans le Vieux-Quebec ou affectant toute composante pat-rimoniale du t e r r i t o i r e de l a vi11e; . i d e n t i f i e r les p r i o r i t e s et les strategies d'intervention; . elaborer les programmes appro-pries de mise en oeuvre; . coordonner l a conception et l a mise en oeuvre de projets d' ensemble impliquant plusieurs intervenants; . mettre sur pied des programmes d'information, de s e n s i b i l i s a -t i o n et de reconnaissance pour l a mise en valeur de biens pat-rimoniaux dans l a v i l l e . ARCHITECTURE ET OPERATIONS TACHES ET RESPONSABILITES . Gerer le permis de constr-u i r e (analyse, s u i v i , i n -spection) ; . produire les analyses struct-urales et architecturales et les cahiers de charge requis pour e c l a i r e r les projets de restauration, de reconstruct-ion ou de reamenagement et les etudes d'urbanisme; ..encadrer et p a r t i c i p e r a. l a conception des projets d' intervention specifiques de l a V i l l e sur le m i l i e u phys-ique; . encadrer les programmes pub-l i c s d'intervention a f f e c t -ant 1'aspect physique des composantes patrimoniales de l a V i l l e de Quebec; . produire des devis r e l a t i f s S. des aspects specifiques de l a restauration et de l a mise en valeur. > a tn (Z) n 73 l—i T3 H > i—i H O 73 z n o O l—i m •x m o a > 73 i—i < H n ra G 2; •a I—I a o i—1 n z X H a m -< G O < m G G X m ra G n tn 03 . ra n a H a G CO 130 APPENDIX f A PROFILE OF REGINA 1981 (Lt) - Regina does not have a heritage program as yet, but the new Saskatchewan Heritage Property Act (1981) enables i t and a l l Saskatchewan mu n i c i p a l i t i e s to designate i n d i v i d u a l heritage properties and conservation areas. A municipality can designate any area as a heritage conservation d i s t r i c t a f t e r preparing a municipal development plan f o r that area and obtaining ap-proval from the Saskatchewan Heritage Property Review Board (formerly the Saskatchewan Heritage Advisory Board). Unlike the B.C. Act, municipal heritage property designation i s deemed not to i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t the value of the property. Designated municipal and heritage properties are also e l i g i b l e f o r exemption by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from the a p p l i c a t i o n of any p r o v i s i o n i n f i r e and b u i l d i n g code regulations. While t h i s Act enables the municipality to designate with le g a l and f i n -a n c i al immunity, i f the property owner objects to the designation, they can appeal repeatedly before, during and a f t e r designation. The arguments for compensation w i l l s t i l l need to be addressed and w i l l require the search f or incentives to accompany designation as i t has and i s being done across Canada. 131 APPENDIX G THE CASE OF ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND The purpose of designation i s the long-term protection of the designated property. This, however, i s not ne c e s s a r i l y true. The case of the St. John's Conservation D i s t r i c t i l l u s t r a t e s the importance of economic v i a b i l i t y and op-portunity i n both creating and then eroding a municipally designated conserva-t i o n area. The St. John's Conservation D i s t r i c t was i n i t i a l l y studied with the help of a grant from the Heritage Canada Foundation as part of t h e i r Area Conserva-t i o n Program. The study was supported by the Newfoundland H i s t o r i c Trust, the Community Planning Association of Canada, and most s i g n i f i c a n t l y by the merch-ants of the area. The Conservation D i s t r i c t was created i n 1977 through municipal bylaw and p r o v i n c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n created s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h i s area. This leg-i s l a t i o n was subsequently extended for the rest of the province. The St. John's Heritage Foundation was created, i n a manner s i m i l a r to the Old Strathcona Foundation i n Edmonton, to oversee the area. The borders of the area are now i n the process of being redrawn to re-move some of the designated buildings and there have been attempts to de-designate the enti r e area.^ The reason f o r t h i s i s the pressure for large development close to the downtown core r e s u l t i n g from off-shore o i l discover-i e s . The economics of r e v i t a l i z a t i o n i n a designated conservation d i s t r i c t are no longer as a t t r a c t i v e as they were. This example i l l u s t r a t e s the f r a g i l i t y of economic arguments i n favour of heritage conservation. It appears that the arguments are v a l i d only as long as opportunities for p r o f i t are consistent with current land use. I f there i s a p o t e n t i a l for a much "higher and b e t t e r " use, i n fac t , or even anticipated, then the property w i l l not be secure. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce i n Regina was designated by the province and subsequently de-designated i n 132 1980 to accommodate the Cornwall Centre, a downtown redevelopment project part-2 l y sponsored by the province. Shane O'Dea Interview, V i c t o r i a , B.C. May 1981. Frank Korvemaker Interview, Regina, Sask. June 1980. 133 APPENDIX H DEFINITIONS Heritage For the purpose of t h i s study "Heritage" means " . . . s i t e s , structures, b u i l d i n g , areas and environments of h i s t o r i c , a r c h i t e c t u r a l or c u l t u r a l i n t e r -e s t . " 1 Heritage i n i t s broadest sense can include anything from the past... something transmitted by or. acquired from a predecessor: INHERITANCE, LEGACY 2 ( r i c h - of fo l k l o r e ) (a - shrine . . . ) . Heritage Planning Heritage Planning i s any a c t i v i t y r e l a t e d to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , evalua-t i o n , designation or preservation of the urban, b u i l t environment of the municipality. Synonyms No d i s t i n c t i o n i s drawn between the following terms: Preservation and Conservation; Heritage, H i s t o r i c or C u l t u r a l Resources. This i s not to say that differences between these terms have not been ex-pressed, but that they are often interchanged i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Conservation "Conservation can be defined i n two categories - natural conservation which would include land, a i r , water, w i l d l i f e and so on, and the man-made en-vironment which would include conservation of energy, concern f o r neighbour-hoods, h i s t o r i c conservation and any other man-made area of s o c i a l , economic and c u l t u r a l importance to mankind. Cul t u r a l conservation or preservation i s 3 a very l i m i t e d aspect of the man-made environment." Preservation "The objective i s not "preservation" i n the narrow, t r a d i t i o n a l sense, but preservation i n i t s most enlightened sense, when i t ceases to be the goal of some spe c i a l i n t e r e s t group and becomes the proper goal of the enti r e c i t y . 134 The goal i s not preservation, the goal i s the c i t y . . The means i s preserva-t i o n . " 4  Preservation Preservation i s the a c t i v i t y of preserving or protecting heritage re-sources by the numerous mechanisms outlined i n the questionnaire. Preserva-t i o n can imply s t r i c t l e g i s l a t e d protection or encouraging sympathetic exter i o r renovation as part of a program designed f o r something other than h e r i t a preservation. """City of Halifax "An Evaluation and Protection System f or Heritage  Resources i n H a l i f a x . " October 1978. 2 Webster's T h i r d New International Dictionary, 1976. 3 Skolnik, A. i n New L i f e f o r Old Buildings. Proceedings of a B.C. and Yukon Heritage Conference. Feb. 10-12, 1977. Vancouver. Community Arts Council of Vancouver, 1978. p.16. Cobett, M. et a l . Splendid Survivors San Francisco's Downtown  Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Heritage. C a l i f o r n i a L i v i n g Books, San Francisco, C a l i f o r n i a . 1980. p.3. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095128/manifest

Comment

Related Items