Heritage or derelict

Council weighs the future of Picton laneway structure

It is a conflict that pits the past against the future—a struggle between private ownership and the community’s interest in seeing its architectural heritage preserved and respected.

Victor and Rosemary Smith own the Allison Block building on Main Street in Picton.

The building is about 150 years old and was a prominent part of Victorian-era Main Street. According to the Ontario Heritage Properties Database, the architectural interest is in the “centre front facade with two storefronts separated by an entrance to upper floors.”

The Smiths want to rebuild the back part of the building to make it useable for commercial and residential purposes, including a courtyard and improved back entrance and laneway.

To make way for the renovation the Smiths want to demolish the existing fieldstone back building. Its distinctive wall forms a laneway between the Allison Block and the Royal Hotel.

The Smiths were aware that the property was designated as a heritage resource when they purchased it two years ago. Originally, they believed they could restore and renovate the fieldstone back building.

However, when the couple took a closer look at the back of the building, they discovered that its condition was worse than they had anticipated.

The existing stone is in bad shape, said Smith, and the repairs to the foundation are costly. He said the building was falling apart, made worse by past repairs and a demolition on the west side of the structure.

Trying to preserve the existing walls would technically difficult, and add between $50 and $100,000 to the $200,000 the Smiths already plan to spend on improving the property, including building and landscaping. He also pointed out that even if the walls were kept, it would be hard to make them look good.

Victor Smith is an architect and headed architecture and engineering firm for some years.

“Anything is possible given the time and money,” Smith explained. “We expect that we would have to underpin those existing walls to retain them. The result is something that is going to look kind of strange and be more expensive than a new building.”

Smith wants to maintain the historic context in a new building by trying to match the limestone character of the local stone. He says a new back building would make the whole property safer and more energy efficient. It would also increase its attractiveness.

The current structure, he says, has been vacant for decades, not even visited by tourists after its designation.

“It’s a derelict building, and it’s not useable,” said Smith. “One of our concerns is that back laneway. It’s not very attractive, certainly, and I think it could be vastly improved. We want to create an attractive rear façade.”

Leigh Moore worries that by tearing down those walls, the Smiths will be erasing an important part of Picton’s heritage. Moore is a member of the County’s Heritage Advisory Committee (PEHAC).

PEHAC is recommending to council that it deny the Smiths a demolition permit for the project—that other options exist to restore and renovate the structure for the owner’s purposes.

Moore noted in his presentation to a committee of council last week that the Allison Block, originally known as the Chapman Striker Building, was home to Teasel’s Drug Store for many years—Ontario’s oldest pharmacy until its closure this summer.

The Historical Architectural Survey of Prince Edward (HASPE), a survey published in 1980 as the basis for The Settler’s Dream, PEHAC’s premier reference to historical County structures, says that the stone back building is a significant architectural feature of the building.

Moore said it was possible that the stone structure predated the rest of the building, as a surviving outbuilding of the Mansion House, which burned down in 1858.

ERA Architects, a company working with PEHAC to study a heritage district designation in downtown Picton, said that the rear stone wall contributes to the building’s heritage value, and especially the heritage value of the laneway beside it.

PEHAC also commissioned former member Ernie Margetson, an engineer, to look at the walls. Margetson concluded that the damage could likely be fixed with proper drainage, and couldn’t see why the walls couldn’t be incorporated into a renovation plan.

Moore said the Smiths’ proposal simply didn’t support the preservation of County heritage.

“Knocking down a part of a building and using the elements is not preservation,” said Moore. “It was [PEHAC’s] belief that those walls can be preserved and incorporated into a new building.”

In his presentation to the Committee of the Whole, Moore accented this point with a slide in his presentation featuring a photograph of the Pentecostal Church which was torn down last summer, along with the words “demolition is not adaptive reuse.”

After a short discussion the Committee of the Whole, in a divisive 7-8 motion, dismissed PEHAC’s recommendation, then moved on to other business. It was not clear if anything was decided.

“We’re not entirely sure what the outcome of the meeting was ourselves, we’ve requested a clarification but we’ve not heard anything,” said Smith. Moore was no less confused by council’s nondecision. The Smiths will have to bring forward a new motion, this time requesting a demolition permit directly from council. It’s unclear when this will happen, or if PEHAC will still have an opportunity to prevent it.