Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Sacred Heart Convent
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Heritage Kitchener moves to save Sacred Heart convent from demolition

[Image: B821925764Z.1_20150410193305_000_GQ11F9R...allery.jpg]
Sacred Heart convent
David Bebee,Record Staff
Heritage Kitchener would like to save the Sacred Heart convent which could be demolished to make way for parking spaces.


Waterloo Region Record
By Catherine Thompson
KITCHENER — In a bid to save Sacred Heart convent from demolition, Kitchener's heritage committee has moved to designate the convent, as well as Sacred Heart church and other associated buildings, as a heritage property.
The property at Moore Avenue and Shanley Street contains Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church, the two-storey former convent building, the church rectory and what was once the pastor's house. The Diocese of Hamilton, which owns the 0.5-hectare property, applied last month to the city for a permit to demolish one building — the convent — to create about 20 parking spaces.
The diocese met with city staff, and said it no longer has any use for the convent building, which has been vacant since at least 2009, and needs the parking, since there are only seven parking spots on the property. The church uses parking at the former Sacred Heart school next door, but that could disappear as the school board is looking to dispose of the school property.
....
The convent was built in 1927 in a style that echoes the buff brick and the design of the church, but in a more conservative style, said Leon Bensason, Kitchener's co-ordinator of heritage planning.
But the whole complex of buildings, taken together, is a unique physical testimony to the city's heritage, Bensason noted:
•The church is pivotal in the history of the Polish community in Kitchener and contains a number of plaques the Polish-Canadian Congress says are of historic value for Polish Canadians. It was designed by noted Toronto architect Arthur Williams Holmes.
• The convent housed the School Sisters of Notre Dame, who taught at the Catholic school next door on Moore Avenue.
• The church operated nearby Mount Hope Cemetery from 1918-1958.
The original buildings are all in place, and the complete complex of buildings and properties, and the interrelationships between them, are "uniquely significant within the city" and possibly in the region, Bensason said.
"It tells the story of that parish, that was established in 1912. Without the convent, that piece of the history is missing," Bensason said.
The diocese views the matter differently. The nuns left in 1985, and though other Catholic groups have used the convent over the years, the diocese hasn't been able to find a user since 2009, Kroetsch said.
"We recognize the church for sure," he said. "It's a parish that has been there for a long time; it's part of the fabric, if you will, of the Catholic community. The convent was simply a residence for the Sisters of Notre Dame. They had several in the city. … In speaking even with the sisters who left in 1995, they don't see any great merit in the building themselves."
Engineers hired by the diocese say the convent is in fair to good condition, though windows, doors and roof are in poor condition. They estimate it would cost at least $1.7 million to fix it up, a figure Bensason questions.
Because the site is central, and close to the future LRT, city staff thought the building might be converted for another use, and contacted housing officials with the Region of Waterloo, who toured the convent.
Former convents have been successfully converted, and there are groups locally with proposals to fund affordable housing who are looking for suitable buildings or sites, housing officials told the city.
City heritage officials asked the diocese if it would work with the city to find an alternative to tearing the convent down. The diocese replied that it would not withdraw its application for a demolition permit, but would be willing to delay demolition for three to four months.

Council considers the heritage committee's proposal to designate on Monday.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5552...emolition/
We just recently went over a similar discussion with the laundromat, so there is no need to rehash those points.

We did talk about "ugly and mediocre" architecture, and as heritage preservation as a means to countenance this. Ironically, I think those words are particularly apt phrase for describing the structure above. I hope the Heritage Committee would focus more on truly remarkable properties, like say, the old prison which currently has a parking lot inside, and less time chasing cases of dubious historical or architectural value.
I don't know the building well enough to say.  It does seem "off" to me to tear down a building like this for parking, but I have no sense of the economics of converting it into, for example, subsidized housing.  This is a case where I'd like to see the City put its money where its mouth is - if they want the building preserved, they should purchase it from the Diocese and work with them on a solution for their parking issue.

Looking at streetview, I'd wonder whether the Diocese couldn't sell the convent and try to buy the house next to the Rectory to demolish for additional parking?  That would seem less disruptive, imho. 

Edit:  I see from the article that the sale of Sacred Heart school is also anticipated, so I would wonder why the Diocese couldn't work a deal to purchase a portion of the school's parking lot for its use in future?  Again, assuming that the Convent is actually a building worth saving and repurposing, which I do not know.
(04-11-2015, 10:21 AM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]It does seem "off" to me to tear down a building like this for parking,

This I agree with, but not because the building has any heritage value. I would generally oppose taking down a centrally located building for parking even if had been built just yesterday.
(04-11-2015, 10:21 AM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know the building well enough to say.  It does seem "off" to me to tear down a building like this for parking, 

When I read the article, it sounds more like they are trying to avoid the maintenance legacy of the property by tearing it down.  
Seems like a wasted opportunity for the church to build or permit affordable housing instead of just having another parking lot. From a cursory read of the bible I think helping the poor is a pretty big theme but I didn't see anything in there about parking lots so I dunno... I'm sure there are enough people seeking affordable housing that don't own cars that could live there. To me the building looks kind of unremarkable so I'm not sure about its heritage value but given how much people value parking for free in this region I don't have high hopes that it won't be paved over in a years time or less.
(04-11-2015, 04:08 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-11-2015, 10:21 AM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]It does seem "off" to me to tear down a building like this for parking,

This I agree with, but not because the building has any heritage value. I would generally oppose taking down a centrally located building for parking even if had been built just yesterday.

This.  I hoped in central neighbourhoods we were going in the opposite direction, building on top of parking, not the other way around.
This building and the others on the site were added to the index of non-designated properties of heritage value a few years ago. At the time, the statement of significance identified many heritage and architectural attributes of each building, specifically this one.

I think it's unfair to identify this building as "ugly." Aspects of the architectural style were identified as being of value (by people who probably know more about this sort of thing than I), and specific heritage value was attributed to it. I personally find it only mildly attractive, but infinitely more attractive than a surface parking lot. I can say with confidence (I used to live directly across the street) that its absence would significantly detract from Moore's streetscape. I really hope they designate, and that some other use (affordable housing or anything else) can be found.
(04-13-2015, 11:58 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I personally find it only mildly attractive, but infinitely more attractive than a surface parking lot.

So are you suggesting that the threshold to become a heritage structure in KW is "better than a surface parking lot"?  Tongue

p.s. I usually defer to the experts, but not in this case. Time and time again they have missed the mark. This is a clear case of a committee which has become overzealous in its mandate.
[quote pid='6553' dateline='1428943275']
So are you suggesting that the threshold to become a heritage structure in KW is "better than a surface parking lot"?  Tongue

p.s. I usually defer to the experts, but not in this case. Time and time again they have missed the mark. This is a clear case of a committee which has become overzealous in its mandate.
[/quote]

What I'm saying is that aesthetics are not a criterion for heritage status. I don't feel at all comfortable saying "this is ugly [to me], and so not worth preserving." In this case, heritage and architectural attributes have been identified.

Can you give some examples of those times at which they have missed the mark? It's not clear at all to me that it's overzealous for the heritage committee to oppose razing a building which they have previously identified as having heritage value.
(04-13-2015, 12:57 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]It's not clear at all to me that it's overzealous for the heritage committee to oppose razing a building which they have previously identified as having heritage value.

That is not what they are doing. I oppose taking the building down too. What they are doing is designating it last minute as of heritage value, when it is clear that it doesn't make the grade either historically or architecturally.


Quote:Can you give some examples of those times at which they have missed the mark?

About half the structures in the report that declared the Macintosh Dry Cleaning heritage were not added to the registry so that alone provides many examples. The Barra Castle was another such mistake though I don't remember how far it got within the committee.
(04-13-2015, 01:31 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]That is not what they are doing. I oppose taking the building down to. What they are doing is designating it last minute as of heritage value, when it is clear that it doesn't make the grade either historically or architecturally.

About half the structures in the report that declared the Macintosh Dry Cleaning heritage were not added to the registry so that alone provides many examples. The Barra Castle was another such mistake though I don't remember how far it got within the committee.

Here's an honest question for anyone who can answer: what are the reasons a demolition permit can be denied? That the building is designated is one...what are some others? I think you should be more hesitant to say that something is "clear." It's your opinion that it is not of heritage value, but the fact is that other people (some of whom are expert in this area) disagree.

Doesn't it make sense that the heritage committee would be in favour of preserving buildings, and would tend to err on the side of protecting more buildings than a layman might deem worthy?
(04-13-2015, 12:41 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2015, 11:58 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I personally find it only mildly attractive, but infinitely more attractive than a surface parking lot.

So are you suggesting that the threshold to become a heritage structure in KW is "better than a surface parking lot"?  Tongue

p.s. I usually defer to the experts, but not in this case. Time and time again they have missed the mark. This is a clear case of a committee which has become overzealous in its mandate.

Which is exactly why I refuse to defer to them, or even call them experts.

I too think a ton of the properties they've designated are a complete reach
(04-13-2015, 01:53 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Doesn't it make sense that the heritage committee would be in favour of preserving buildings, and would tend to err on the side of protecting more buildings than a layman might deem worthy?

When done judiciously yes; the heritage committee, on the other hand, takes this so far that city council and people in general just tune them out.
The Diocese will withdraw its request to demolish and the issue of heritage designation will be deferred, pending discussions to see if a mutual agreement can be reached regarding the former convent. The representative from Heritage Kitchener said that, whether or not an agreement can be reached to re-purpose the former convent, that they would return to the City for the heritage designation. The Bishop seemed taken aback by this last bit and told Council that he would continue to oppose designation if an agreement were reached. There also seems to be some discrepancy about the condition of the former convent, with the Bishop making it sound as though it were in rough shape. On the City side, the view seems to be that the former convent is a good prospect for re-purposing into affordable or assisted housing.

One thing I did not realize is that the Church owns the two houses on Shanley St next to the Rectory. I don't know what use the Church makes of them, but I would have thought they could be torn down to expand parking for the Church, especially if they were to sell the former convent to the City or a developer.
Pages: 1 2