planning for the future of the past: experiences with cultural

Municipal Heritage Planning Issues in Canada. Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme Symposium.

March 27th 2010, Ottawa. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme,

Carleton University.

1

Planning for the Future of the Past:

Experiences with Cultural Heritage Resource Management in a

Municipal Context

Marcus R. Létourneau, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP

(Presentation delivered: March 27, 2010; Text updated: March 10, 2011)

Introductions

First, I would to thank Carleton for inviting me to

present today and to share my experience with cultural heritage resource management (CRM) in a

municipal context.i It is an honour to be sharing the

podium with my fellow speakers today.

There are four parts to my presentation:

The Challenge with Heritage;

CRM – a basic overview;

The City of Kingston – an overview; and,

CRM in the Kingston Context.

This talk overlaps in several aspects with some of the talks you have heard today. However, this

presentation differs in that it focuses on the municipal

experience. So to begin, I would like to talk about

some of the challenges of practicing heritage

planning in Ontario.

The Challenge with Heritage

Cultural heritage is not without its issues. The

cartoon on the screen shows a couple of Vikings

looking at a sign, swearing, and stating “It is a heritage district.” (Figure 1.) I particularly like this

cartoon as it epitomizes how many people view

heritage conservation. There many myths concerning

cultural heritage programs which perpetuate an

environment where cultural heritage is seen a „nice

frill‟ but not really important to community

development. This is accentuated in times of

economic uncertainty when municipalities and community organizations are forced to take a critical

look at their respective finances. As Walter Jamieson

notes:

Many small towns in Canada are suffering from

serious economic problems. These communities have

lost population, their tax base has been reduced, businesses have closed or moved away, the physical

environment is deteriorating, the community‟s spirit

is low, and the agricultural base is challenged by

world markets and technology. (Jamieson, 1993, 90.)

While Jamieson‟s comments date from 1993, they are

still relevant, particularly in light of the current

economic situation. However, economics is not the

only issue with heritage programs. As one who works in the field, I have also heard criticisms that have

identified heritage programs as elite driven, not

rigorously researched, not based on historical

evidence, and infringing upon individual property

rights. And it is important to state that some of the

criticisms are merited; I personally believe that

members of the heritage community can do more to

engage our communities and a new rigor must be introduced to the more bureaucratic processes which

govern how heritage is addressed by most

municipalities, particularly as the appeal processes

have become more charged. It is for these reasons, I

am an advocate for a new understanding of how

municipalities approach cultural heritage: cultural

resource management or CRM.

There is an excellent book called Giving Preservation

a History by Page and Mason, which examines the

experience, good and bad, of heritage programs in the

United States. Within this book, a key question is

posed. “What are the origins of heritage planning,

and what are its implicit assumptions?” Page and Mason call into question some of the taken-for-

granted understandings of the heritage conservation




2

field.ii In particular, they note that heritage is often

positioned as a win-lose situation.

Figure 1: “It is a heritage district”

Adapted from : Delafons, 1999

It is a battle of good and evil, where sometimes

preservation prevails, and more often development

wins out. Preservation . . . works through the

Sisyphean efforts of well intentioned, public-minded

individuals. Those of us in the preservation field hold

dear to these cherished myths . . . (Page and Mason,

2004, 7.)

It is important to note that heritage planning often

developed from deliberate efforts that were not

always socially minded. These efforts could be racist,

xenophobic, classist, elitist, and preoccupied with

„significant properties.‟

Indeed, the elitist elements of heritage conservation

persist. In my own work, I have been involved in the

creation of a heritage conservation district in an area

of Kingston known as Old Sydenham Ward. The

local residents‟ association, while very supportive of

the project, expressed, what was to me, a troubling

sentiment in its newsletter.

“A pivotal question is – what does the proposed

designation of the district mean for property values

and property uses? Does this create an area that is

beyond the economic reach of many? Yes, but that is

the price of preservation. Like antiques or good art, the value ensures the preservation of the asset.

Heritage housing also retains value in market

downturns and is not as volatile as more speculative

housing stock. If heritage housing had no more value

than any other housing it would be, well, history.”

(Sydenham Ward Tenants and Ratepayers

Association, 2008, 5.)

I found this quote troubling for several reasons. First,

this is a neighbourhood with 30% rental

accommodation including affordable housing. One of

the key character defining elements as identified

within the District Study was the mix of rental and

owner occupied properties, something that has existed since the first buildings were constructed in

the early 19th century. Second, this form of public

statement only serves to reinforce perceptions of

NIMBYism and elitism.iii The Old Sydenham Area

is one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in Kingston,

and there are elements of the community who see this

process as another example of the “rich” working to

protect their interests. Lastly, it served to propagate the belief that heritage is an elite activity, and like art

and antiques, is something that can (and should) only

be available to a select few. The concept of “heritage

connoisseurship” continues to pervade the field.

Within the municipal context, there is also the challenge that some of the work we do as “heritage

conservation” is not actually heritage conservation. I

recently read an excellent book entitled Unreal

America by Ada Louise Huxtable. Within this work,

and drawing upon the example of Colonial

Williamsburg, Huxtable argues that what is

sometimes called heritage conservation is not. She

states:

Restoration is a difficult and unclear procedure at

best; unreality is built into the process, which

requires a highly subjective kind of cosmetic surgery

that balances life and death . . . . „Restoring back‟

means re-creating a place as someone thinks it was –

or would like it to have been – at a certain chosen moment, eliminating everything else that was not

there at that time . This usually means moving or

destroying a great deal of subsequent architectural

history - exactly the stuff that real history and art are

made of. (Huxtable, 1997,16)

Drawing upon the example of Colonial

Williamsburg, she demonstrates that the Capital

Building, as reconstructed, does not match the

archaeological findings. Essentially, the architects of

the reconstruction could not fathom that the builders

would construct an asymmetrical building, despite




3

what the physical evidence demonstrated. This idea

of “knowing what is heritage” pervades heritage

practice. Decisions are often made not on evidence or

research, but on aesthetic principles and

“understandings” of “proper” heritage appearances.

In my own experience, I watched an owner restoring

a heritage property initially be denied part of her project because the City‟s heritage committee did not

believe her house would have a specific window

pattern. After asking for a deferral, she returned with

physical evidence at the next meeting clearly

demonstrating that the window pattern had

previously existed. In this case, perception of what

was appropriate for a house of a specific age

influenced the decision-making process inappropriately. Ultimately, I think we need to

recognize that sometimes what we do may be good

planning, excellent architectural design, and great

community and urban development, but that it is not

really heritage conservation.

Heritage conservation practice is also hampered by

another serious issue. As practitioners we often only

talk to ourselves. I like the concept of “preaching to

the choir” to illustrate how we, as a field, often do not

do enough to effectively communicate why cultural

heritage is important to the wider audience. We need

to better engage those who are not only uninterested,

but also those who are actively opposed to heritage conservation. There needs to be a wider

understanding of the benefits of heritage

conservation. Without it, heritage conservation can

get lost in the myriad of other obligations often

experienced by homeowners and developers. Our

terms, language, and legislation can appear

intimidating and difficult to understand to outsiders,

and we, as a profession, need to take a more active role in telling people what we do and why it is

important.

Lastly, the heritage conservation field in Ontario,

since 2005, has become more litigious. In 1998, Frits

Pannekoek wrote a provocative article called “The Rise of the Heritage Priesthood” in Heritage

Preservation Forum. (Pannekoek, 1998.) In this

work, he argued that in the movement to

professionalize heritage and CRM as a discipline,

there was a greater exclusion of broader community

members who were seen to not have the appropriate

qualifications to provide comments on heritage

issues. In Ontario, this seems to have become the case where the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and

other judicial bodies have been placing greater

credence on professional qualifications. Indeed, in

reviewing Conservation Review Board (CRB), OMB,

and Court Decisions on heritage conservation matters

in Ontario, I found there is a greater focus on process

and qualifications of the professionals giving

evidence. In part, the changes to the Ontario Heritage

Act (OHA) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS),

while giving strength to the heritage conservation field, inadvertently have raised the stakes, so to

speak. Because there is no longer 180 days before

demolition and because heritage is now included as

an integral part of the planning process, property

owners are more inclined to bring a concerted

objection against heritage planning at the municipal

level. As one colleague of mine noted after a recent

CRB decision, he felt like he was at a criminal case rather than at a hearing to discuss heritage

significance. In addition, I have noted that good

heritage decisions are being lost on process issues. I

have read several OMB decisions, in particular,

which effectively state, “We understand there is

community interest, but no planning evidence was

provided, and we must make our decision based on

planning evidence.”

In order to address these challenges, the heritage

conservation field must adopt a new rigor and focus.

We must become transparent, systematic, and have a

clear process. This is why I am an advocate of

cultural heritage resource management, or CRM, at the municipal level.

CRM and what it can do for your community:

The concept of CRM is most widely known in

archaeological circles, but as a concept has

tremendous power and opportunity to help conserve

cultural heritage resources in our communities. As

Thomas King writes in his book, Thinking about Cultural Resource Management, CRM, as opposed to

traditional heritage planning, is a more

multidisciplinary approach integrating a wider variety

of skill sets and considerations combined with a

broader understanding of cultural heritage resources.

In my experience, heritage planning has remained

dominated by an architecturally-focused approach

that seeks to ensure the protection of significant buildings. This understanding has also been

expressed by scholars such as Robert Stipe, who

notes that there is an increasingly critical assessment

of heritage conservation as preoccupied with

protecting „stuff‟ at the expense of engaging people.

(Stipe, 2003, ix) However, precedents do exist for

broader approaches to heritage; Parks Canada has




4

developed a comprehensive CRM Policy that is

designed to be interdisciplinary and to address a wide

variety of heritage issues. (Parks Canada, 2009.)

While changes occurred to several pieces of Ontario

legislation and policy related to heritage issues in

2005 (the PPS and the OHA revisions), many

communities were (and some still are) unprepared to address the broader mandate of cultural heritage

expressed within these documents. There is also the

category of “intangible heritage” which many people

struggle with as a concept, but which is increasingly

being recognized as important as tangible heritage at

the national and international levels. The move to the

value-based approach to cultural heritage by the

Province of Ontario in 2005 was a good first step, but it requires engaging a wider variety of people than

has traditionally been considered or undertaken.

Nevertheless this values-based approach, which

reflects current international standards, not only

recognizes the past but also respects the cultural values of living peoples. As Thomas King notes,

there is a greater need to respect broader values and

voices concerning heritage issues. “When we ignore

such values, or insist on their expression only in

terms with which the dominant culture is

comfortable, we fuel frustration and anger.” (King,

2002, xvii) One has only to look at Deseronto,

Caledon, and Oka to see the results of what happens when municipalities and development proponents fail

to engage First Nations perspectives. On a less

drastic, but nonetheless still important scale, within

our communities, it is far too easy to write off

heritage advocates as „cranks‟ or members of

„hysterical societies.‟

Yet our cultural heritage is central to community

identity and development. As John Fowler wrote in

1982:

Properly collected and interpreted, information about

any cultural resource contributes to the „public good‟ in the same way as information from all other

humanities and human sciences, that is, it seeks a

better understanding of humanity, its history, and

behavior, and the environmental context in which

human action takes place. This in theory, is what

CRM and historic preservation is all about. (Fowler,

1982, 39.)

While Fowler was focused on archaeological

resources, his work does suggest the broader

importance of cultural heritage resources. A dynamic

CRM program is designed to contribute holistically,

speaking broadly to issues of sense of place, cultural

tourism, economic development, sustainability,

community development, and community

engagement. It also reflects the concept of “change

management” and bringing people together (not

always heritage people either) to discuss conflicting

views; it is not about museumization or preventing change. Very often, members of the heritage

community do not do enough to try to engage people

not interested in heritage; it is important to ensure

that we are not ”preaching to the choir.”

CRM allows communities to better prioritize and address heritage issues in advance; too much heritage

planning is reactive. From my own experiences, I

have found that I have sometimes become involved

in a discussion after the decision is made, and

become the “bad guy” who has to say that a project

cannot be undertaken as planned. Nevertheless, while

the practice of cultural resource management should

be proactive, it nonetheless requires that four elements be in place in order to facilitate informed

decision making affecting cultural heritage resources:

Inventorying of cultural heritage resources;

The evaluation of cultural heritage resources;

The consideration of cultural heritage value in

actions affecting conservation and presentation;

and

Monitoring and review.

Heritage processes should not and cannot be ad hoc.

CRM interacts with and, in my view, is inseparable

from other important elements of community

development:

Urban design;

Public Art;

Land Use Planning;

Architectural Guidelines;

Parks and Open Space Planning; and,

Tourism Development.

There is one caveat with the relationship between

tourism and cultural heritage. Heritage is not just a




5

brand to be exploited. Cultural heritage is an

important part of many tourism programs, and if

managed in a sustainable manner, can serve as a

major draw for communities. Nevertheless, there

must be a resistance to ossifying or Disneyfing the

heritage. One must always be aware that downtowns,

to be vital, must also be lived-in dynamic places. The alienation of the local population to gain tourist

dollars can ultimately destroy the resources we were

hoping to celebrate. Clare Mitchell from the

University of Waterloo was the primary author of a

article called “The Creative Destruction of Niagara-

on-the-Lake,”which examined how the market forces

in Niagara-on-the-Lake have actually partially

destroyed the heritage character of the community. (Mitchell, 2001, 285-299.) I had the unique

experience of visiting Salem, Massachusetts in

October. My family and I visited the sites, including

the Old Salem Burial Ground. For those who don‟t

know Salem, this is the burial ground where the

„witches‟ were buried and their memorial is located.

The image (Figure 2) shows what we found. As my

wife astutely noted, this did not seem like a place of rest. We watched, horrified, only a few minutes after

this picture was taken as one of the early tombstones

in this picture was smashed by a careless visitor who

was rushing to pass someone walking in the path.

Tourism must be balanced with a desire to

appropriately conserve the site; I like to use the term

“sustainable tourism” to describe how we should

balance commercial desires with best practice.

Figure 2: Salem Massachusetts , October 2006.

(Author’s Image)

It is this understanding of CRM that I bring to my

professional practice, and in the next part of the talk I will discuss the City of Kingston‟s heritage program

and how CRM is being integrated into our practices.

The City of Kingston – an overview

The City of Kingston has one of the oldest heritage

conservation programs in Canada. However, the professionalization of the program is only recent,

with the first part time heritage planner being hired in

2001, and the first full time heritage planner (myself)

in 2004.

The City of Kingston is located at the eastern end of Lake Ontario where Lake Ontario flows into the St.

Lawrence River. It is an amalgamated City, which

was formed on January 1, 1998 when the former City

of Kingston was combined with the former Township

of Kingston and the former Pittsburgh Township.

Each of the municipalities had their own distinctive

heritage programs with different policies, by-laws,

and degrees of community understanding and engagement.

The City of Kingston is notable for its significant

number of heritage resources. As the following

information demonstrates, there is a wide variety of

resources, with a number of different types of heritage recognitions and designations.

8 Ontario Heritage Act Designations + National

Historic Site Designation

1 Ontario Heritage Act Designations + National

Historic Site Designation + easement

13 National Historic Sites

26 Ontario Heritage Act Designations +

Easement

620+ Ontario Heritage Act Designations (Part IV

and V)

300+ „listed‟ properties (with 159 more in

process)

21 Building/Property Easements under the

Ontario Heritage Act

2 sites of Provincial Significance (Includes

Rockwood Hospital – partially designated)

Over 100 known archaeological sites, including

First Nations

Rideau Canal and Kingston Fortifications

UNESCO World Heritage property




6

Several Areas of Heritage Character

Currently, the staff contingent includes one senior

heritage planner, one junior heritage planner, a full

time equivalent in contract staff, plus students and interns. The 2009/2010 budget for the City of

Kingston allocated nearly $600,000 for new policy

development. It should be noted, however, that this is

more of an aberration than typical practice. In an

average year, the program is allocated an average of

~$80,000.

The City‟s heritage program has its origins in the

1950s and for many years was a leader in heritage

conservation. 1958 saw the establishment of

Kingston‟s heritage committee. In 1966 Margaret

Angus published the first edition of the Old Stones of

Kingston, one of the earliest books to highlight the

importance of built heritage. In 1970, the Kingston

Act was passed as the result of a private members bill. This Act, which allowed the City of Kingston to

protect built heritage resources of important, was a

direct precursor of the Ontario Heritage Act. Also in

the early 1970s, the Pittsburgh Township heritage

committee was created. It was this committee that

would play a pivotal role in the creation the first

Heritage Conservation District in Ontario, Barriefield

Village in 1979. In 1971, the 1st volume of the 7 volumes of the Buildings of Architectural and

Historic Significance was published. Kingston is also

unique as it served as the location for the only piece

of legislation to receive Royal Ascent outside the

provincial legislation, when the Ontario Heritage Act

was declared in the City in 1975. 1985 was a

particularly significant year for Heritage conservation

in the City of Kingston. In 1985, the Market Square Heritage Conservation District was created. In the

same year, the 4th volume set Buildings of Historic

and Architectural Significance for Pittsburgh

Township was completed. In the City, the 6th volume

of the 7 volumes of the Buildings of Historic and

Architectural Significance was published.iv

However, by the late 1980s, the program was stalling,

and by the middle of the 1990s, there was a notable

gap in the innovative heritage work in the City. This

was for several reasons, including political shifts both

provincially and locally. Between 1997 and 2005,

there were no designations and two de-designations;

policies and by-laws became outdated; and there was also a notable lack of support for the local heritage

committee. This was compounded by amalgamation

in 1998. It would not be until the early 2000s that the

program would again be revitalized.

The transformation of the program began in 2001,

when the City hired its first professional heritage

planner. Before this point, the support for the heritage

committee and the program itself was undertaken by

the Clerk‟s Office. Although this position was part-

time, it enabled the first foundational steps in shifting

the program from a purely volunteer base to a more holistic approach. 2004 saw the hiring of the first full

time heritage planner, a position that was followed in

2008 by the hiring of the second heritage planner.

Ultimately, it was these efforts to hire professional

staff, combined with the changes in provincial

legislation and policy, that have allowed for

significant efforts to be undertaken to move the

City‟s heritage program forward in a holistic, comprehensive way. A key part of this process has

been the introduction of CRM into the City‟s

operations.

CRM in the Kingston Context

Several key projects have been undertaken to

implement a CRM program within Kingston. Our

program is, in general, currently divided into four

general areas of focus:

Built heritage/Cultural Landscapes;

Archaeology;

First Nations; and,

Education and Community Outreach.

I will talk a little bit about we have been doing in

each of these areas.v

A number of ongoing projects are contributing

toward the goal of developing a more holistic

approach to CRM in a municipal context. While not

glamourous, it has included the development of new administrative processes along with some basic

foundational projects. These projects include (but are

not limited to) the following:

Creation of an evaluation template and GIS

based register;

Restart to the designation program (20 new

designations or updates since 2005);

New Heritage Conservation District in process – Old Sydenham HCD - ~550 properties;

New Official Plan Policies and heritage policies;




7

Creation of the City of Kingston Archaeological

Master Plan;

Education and Communication program;

Greater recognition of First Nations Issues; and,

Kingston City Hall NHS Cultural Heritage

Management Plan

I will talk about each of these in turn.

The evaluation template and the GIS based register

project grew out of changes to the Ontario Heritage

Act. With the requirements of Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, combined with Section 27

OHA requirements, municipalities now have a

greater obligation to ensure not only are that they are

systematically evaluating potential additions to their

respective registers, but also that they are maintaining

a register of heritage properties designated under the

Act (along with any other properties a Council

wishes to formally add to the register.) Our solution to address Regulation 9/06 was to develop, in concert

with several local consulting firms, an evaluative tool

to examine potential new additions to the City‟s

Heritage Properties Register. This template, along

with a paper-based register listing all properties

designated to date and several new “listed”

properties, was formally endorsed by Kingston City

Council in 2008. However, internally, City staff decided that we needed to make this information

available to a wider audience. To facilitate this, the

paper-based register (which was created in Excel)

was used as the foundation for the creation of a GIS-

based register. As part of this process, all Ontario

Heritage Act designation by-laws were digitized, and

new photos were taken of all properties. Drawing

upon the Historic Architectural Building Survey website as a model, the goal of this project is to not

only tell people what properties are on the Register,

but also why they are important. Currently, the

information has only been posted internally, and we

are currently in the testing phase, with a goal of

finishing the project and making a public launch later

this year or in 2011. The image on the screen shows

a sample of the data which is available for each property. (Figure 3.)

As part of this process of developing the City of

Kingston Heritage Properties Register, the City has

been re-examining those properties that were

identified to be of cultural heritage interest, but which were not designated. To date, nearly 160 properties

are being brought forward for formal addition on the

City‟s Register. This project was actually finished

just before this symposium, and it is hoped to be

brought forward to Kingston City Council before this

summer.vi

A renewed designation program is part of this effort

to develop a comprehensive CRM program. As noted

earlier in my talk, between 1997 and 2005, there were

no Ontario Heritage Act designations. Since 2005, we

Figure 3: Screen Capture from the City of Kingston

Cultural Heritage Layer on its GIS system, 2010

have designated or updated the designation by-law for over 20 properties. In addition, stemming from a

community request, the City has embarked on a new

Heritage Conservation District project. The Old

Sydenham Heritage Area is located near downtown

Kingston, in an area surrounded roughly by Barrie

Street, Johnson Street, and King Street. It includes

over 500 properties, including several National

Historic Sites, part of the UNESCO World Heritage property, a property of provincial interest, City Parks,

archaeological sites, and a number of previously

designated properties. This project represents a major

initiative for the City of Kingston, and will serve to

expand the City‟s built heritage inventory

significantly.

As part of the CRM program, a key understanding

was that the heritage program needs to be supported

by strong policies. Within the new City of Kingston

Official Plan, heritage is a key part of the document,

and not only has its own section, but is also woven

throughout the document. A key feature of this

document is the expanded definition of cultural heritage resources. The definition of cultural heritage

resources is as follows:




8

A human work or a place that gives evidence of

human activity or has spiritual or cultural meaning,

and which has been determined to have historic

value. Cultural heritage resources include both

physical and intangible heritage resources, protected

heritage properties, built heritage resources, cultural

heritage landscapes, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and both documentary and

material heritage. (City of Kingston, 2010, 9-10)

This expanded definition is intended to help to ensure

that a broad range of heritage resources are protected

through the process of change within the City.

Another major policy piece is the City of Kingston

Archaeological Master Plan. This document, which is

being finalized, presents a comprehensive overview

of the known and potential archaeological resources

in the City of Kingston.vii Designated to meet obligations under both the Provincial Policy

Statement, and the Ontario Heritage Act, the

document has been designed to provide clear

mapping of areas of archaeological potential and

areas of archaeological sensitivity. It provides

strategic direction and policies for ensuring that the

City is not only meeting its legal obligations, but also

becomes a leader in integrating archaeology in municipal operations. One of the ultimate goals is to

make some of the mapping readily available to allow

for proactive planning for archaeological issues, both

by City Staff and members of the community.

In addition, the City of Kingston, in its Official Plan,

states that it will be creating an Aboriginal Protocol for consultation with the First Nations. The City of

Kingston agreed to create the Aboriginal Protocol as

part of the Belle Island Agreement. This project grew

out of the recognition that there is now a greater

requirement for „Duty to Consult‟ by the Crown and

some municipalities are working proactively to

engage interested First Nations groups. In Kingston,

this was seen as important and the City has over 11000 years of First Nations presence. This protocol

is still in the very early stages and there is much work

to do.

As stated earlier in my talk, I believe that education

and community outreach is critical to the development and long term survival of a cultural

heritage program. If a community does understand or

appreciate what you are doing, you need to ask why

the program is in place. In Kingston, we have been

working to make people more aware and proud of the

City‟s heritage resources. Among the initiatives we

have undertaken are a new pamphlet program,

starting a yearly notice to heritage properties owners,

developing a heritage poster, re-launching our

heritage plaquing program with a newly designed

plaque, and participating in Doors Open. These are

small steps, but I would hope just the beginning. In

all honesty, I have found that it is the community outreach and education component of the CRM

program that is the hardest for senior management to

support, since it is often seen as outside the core

duties of heritage planners. Nonetheless, I believe it

is critical for the reasons I have previously

mentioned.

Lastly, I want to end my talk with an example CRM

in action within a municipality. The Kingston City

Hall National Historic Site Cultural Heritage

Management Plan was approved to proceed by

Council in 2007, funded in 2008, and started in 2009.

The purpose of the Cultural Heritage Management

Plan is to look holistically at the cultural heritage resources of our City Hall. This project, to date, has

seen the creation of a staff working team from a

number of different stakeholder departments

including (but not limited to) Planning and

Development, Cultural Services, Facilities

Management, the Clerk‟s Office, the Mayor‟s Office,

Communications and Accessibility. This group is

working to ensure that decisions within and around the site serve to conserve the site‟s cultural heritage

resources. It also is providing strategic direction for

the creation of the Management Plan itself. In support

of the Plan a number of consultants have been hired

to look at the history of the site, the site‟s

archaeology, the site‟s built heritage resources, and

the site‟s role as repository for a significant

proportion of the City‟s Civic Collection. Drawing upon the findings from these projects and public and

staff consultation scheduled later this year, the

Management Plan will be developed, with the goal of

providing a five year plan for managing the site.

There is still much work to do. A number of studies have been identified to be completed over the next

five years. These include the following:

Emergency Discovery Protocol;

Marine Archaeological Protocol;

Update to Market Square Heritage Conservation

District;




9

Update to Barriefield Heritage Conservation

District;

Cultural Heritage Landscape Study;

Cultural Heritage Master Plan;

Aboriginal Protocol;

New Heritage Conservation Districts; and,

Ontario Heritage Act By-law updates.

Also identified is the need for greater community

engagement, education, and empowerment combined

with greater internal staff education and engagement.

We also need to do some additional assessments of

the City Hall building focusing on Integrated Pest Management, and to find effective and meaningful

ways to put policy into action. Ultimately, the goal is

for Kingston to put in place a meaningful and

comprehensive CRM program, which serves to

effectively manage the City‟s cultural heritage

resources for many years into the future. In the end,

there is still much work to do and we are looking

forward to the challenge.

I would like to thank the Canadian Studies Heritage

Conservation Program here at Carleton for the

opportunity to speak today, and I would be pleased to

take any questions.

i It is noted that cultural heritage resource

management, cultural resource management, and

cultural heritage management are often used

analogously, despite there being slight differences in

meaning.

ii The term „Conservation‟ will be used throughout

this paper. It is noted that within the American

context, „Preservation‟ is often used analogously, but

has a different meaning in Canada.

iii NIMBY – Not in My Back Yard

iv Volume 7 would not be published until 2004 despite being completed in 1991. v It is recognized that this does not constitute a

holistic understanding of the cultural heritage field.

Notably, it does not address such topics as the

management of movable cultural objects or

intangible heritage (with the exception of the Cultural

Heritage Management Plan for Kingston City Hall

National Historic Site). However, these four were

chosen initially to help focus efforts at establishing a

solid foundation for moving forward. It also reflects a

realistic approach to address broader cultural heritage concerns with limited staff.

vi The addition of the 159 properties was formally

approved by Council later than expected. It received

approval in late 2010.

vii The Archaeology Master Plan was approved by

Kingston City Council May 2010.

Bibliography

City of Kingston. Official Plan. Kingston: City of Kingston, 2010. Delafons, J. Politics and Preservation: A Policy History of the Built Heritage, 1882-1992. New York: Routledge, 1999. Fowler, John. “Cultural Resource management.” M. Schiffer (ed) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. New York: Academic Press, 1982: 1-50. Huxtable, Ada Louise. Unreal America. New York: The New Press, 1997. Jamieson, Walter. “Planning for Small Town Cultural Tourism.” Cultural Tourism. ICOMOS, 1993 King, Thomas. Thinking about Cultural Resource Management. Lanham: Altamira Press, 2002. Mitchell, Clare et al. “The Creative Destruction of Niagara-on-the-Lake.” The Canadian Geographer. Vol. 45. No. 2. (2001): 285-299. Page, Max and Randall Mason (Eds.) Giving Preservation a History. New York: Routledge, 2004 Pannekoek, Frits. “The Rise of the Heritage Priesthood or the Decline of Community Based Heritage” Historic Preservation Forum. Vol. 12. No. 3. (Spring 1998): 4-10. Parks Canada. Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies: Part III - Cultural Resources Management Policy. http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng//docs/pc/poli/princip/sec3.aspx Accessed: May 20, 2009. Updated: 2009-04-15. Stipe, Robert. “Preface.” R. Stipe (ed) A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty First Century. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003: vii--xi




10

Sydenham Ward Tenants and Ratepayers Association. Fall 2008 Newsletter. Kingston: Sydenham Ward Tenants and Ratepayers Association, 2008. Legislation/Policy: Ontario Heritage Act. (Province of Ontario) Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. (Province of Ontario) Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. (Province of Ontario)

planning for the future of the past: experiences with cultural

Documents