The Conservation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas (Master&#39;s Thesis)

Paul Frater

The Conservation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas – Abstract Frater, Paul-Joseph, 2012. The Conservation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas. Master Thesis, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus. (Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Leo Schmidt). The main objective of this study is to initiate scholarly research in the subject of the conservation of Canadian ice hockey arenas, a field which has previously not been undertaken. Too large of an amount of heritage ice hockey arenas in Canada are currently threatened by demolition, abandonment, or alterations that destroy each building's character-defining elements. A primary reason for these irreplaceable losses stems from the non-existence of any overarching heritage policies and practices for the conservation of Canadian hockey arenas. The research and recommendations conducted in this study is an attempt to solve this problem, by laying down a conservation strategy with the overall goal to conserve these elements of Canadian life, culture, and identity for future generations. Usage of these recommendations will help ensure the continued existence and enjoyment of heritage ice hockey arenas for current and future generations. Potential heritage arenas were identified and individually analyzed. From this analysis a set of character-defining elements were identified to create best-practice standards and guidelines to ensure proper conservation measures in each arena. Furthermore, successful and unsuccessful examples of conservation efforts were highlighted to further develop best-practice standards. In addition to an architectural analysis, the cultural significance of ice hockey within Canada was discussed. For an overwhelming majority of Canadians, ice hockey is a defining symbol of Canada. Since the 1960s, Canadians have struggled to concretely define their identity. This paper suggests that Canadian identity is based upon the notion of community. Since arenas function in many locales as a community focal point, their cultural significance is further strengthened. KEY WORDS: Conservation, Preservation, Heritage, Ice Hockey, Arenas, Canada, Sport

The Conservation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas Master's Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (M.A.), World Heritage Studies Brandenburg Technical University, Cottbus (Germany) Faculty of Architecture, Civil Engineering, and Urban Planning Department of Building Conservation Submitted by: Paul-Joseph Frater Matriculation Number: 2516615 Academic Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Leo Schmidt Dr. Britta Rudolff March 2012 Statement of Authentication I hereby declare that the submitted material is original except as duly acknowledged in the text. I have not made use of any other resources other than those indicated. The material, either in full or in part, has not been previously submitted for grading at this or any other academic institution. I hereby also agree that the submitted material shall be automatically checked for plagiarism using specialized search services. Paul-Joseph Frater Berlin, 21 March 2012 2 The Conservation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas – Abstract Frater, Paul-Joseph, 2012. The Conservation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas. Master Thesis, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus. (Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Leo Schmidt). The main objective of this study is to initiate scholarly research in the subject of the conservation of Canadian ice hockey arenas, a field which has previously not been undertaken. Too large of an amount of heritage ice hockey arenas in Canada are currently threatened by demolition, abandonment, or alterations that destroy each building's character-defining elements. A primary reason for these irreplaceable losses stems from the non-existence of any overarching heritage policies and practices for the conservation of Canadian hockey arenas. The research and recommendations conducted in this study is an attempt to solve this problem, by laying down a conservation strategy with the overall goal to conserve these elements of Canadian life, culture, and identity for future generations. Usage of these recommendations will help ensure the continued existence and enjoyment of heritage ice hockey arenas for current and future generations. Potential heritage arenas were identified and individually analyzed. From this analysis a set of character-defining elements were identified to create best-practice standards and guidelines to ensure proper conservation measures in each arena. Furthermore, successful and unsuccessful examples of conservation efforts were highlighted to further develop best-practice standards. In addition to an architectural analysis, the cultural significance of ice hockey within Canada was discussed. For an overwhelming majority of Canadians, ice hockey is a defining symbol of Canada. Since the 1960s, Canadians have struggled to concretely define their identity. This paper suggests that Canadian identity is based upon the notion of community. Since arenas function in many locales as a community focal point, their cultural significance is further strengthened. KEY WORDS: Conservation, Preservation, Heritage, Ice Hockey, Arenas, Canada, Sport 3 Acknowledgement I would like to kindly thank: Prof. Dr. Leo Schmidt and Dr. Britta Rudolff for their support, patience, and guidance in their role as academic referees. Mr. Darryl Boynton of Hockey Canada for his enthusiastic support as well as introducing me to key contacts within the Canadian ice hockey world. My parents, Nancy-Anne Frater and Dr. Thomas Frater for instilling in me the ethics to always perform your best and to never give up, no matter what. This paper is dedicated to my brother Tom Frater, who in his role as an equipment manager for a junior ice hockey team is usually the first person to arrive at the arena and the last to leave. 4 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................10 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.0 Purpose of Study............................................................................................................12 Significance of Study......................................................................................................13 Scope and Limitations..................................................................................................14 Plan of Development....................................................................................................16 Methodology..................................................................................................................17 The Current Situation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas..........................19 2.1 Why Are Arenas Being Threatened?..........................................................................19 2.2 Potential Heritage Arenas............................................................................................27 3.0 Why Should Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas be Conserved?.....................57 3.1 Cultural Significance of Hockey in Canada..............................................................59 3.2 Increasing the Awareness of Architectural Conservation in Canada...................69 3.3 Altering the Perception that Canada has no History...............................................71 3.4 Economic Stimulation and Cost-Savings..................................................................79 4.0 Conservation Theory, Practices, and Examples.........................................81 4.1 Review of Conservation Theory.................................................................................82 4.2 Conservation in Action: Learning from the German Experience.........................87 5.0 Recommendations for Heritage Arena Conservation.............................94 5.1 Heritage Arena Conservation Network....................................................................95 5.2 Network of Heritage Arenas.......................................................................................97 5.3 'Friends of Heritage Arenas' Foundation..................................................................98 5.4 Criteria for Heritage Arena Status.............................................................................99 5.5 Best-Standards and Practices Guidelines................................................................100 5.6 Management and Action Plan..................................................................................106 5.7 Awareness, Education, and Promotion Plan............................................................111 5.8 Creation of a Heritage Arena Protection Act..........................................................113 6.0 Conclusion.....................................................................................................114 6.1 Sources Used.................................................................................................................117 6.2 Image Sources...............................................................................................................120 7.0 Appendices.....................................................................................................122 7.1 Appendix I: The Burra Charter..................................................................................122 7.2 Appendix II: Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines...........................................131 7.3 Appendix III: Heritage Conservation Procedures in Ontario..............................138 5 List of Illustrations Figure # 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Description Ontario Hockey League Arenas, Construction Dates Sault Memorial Gardens, pre-demolition Sault Memorial Gardens, post-demolition Year of construction of currently existing arenas in Canada Number of Arenas per Province Amount of Persons per Arena per Province Stannus Street Rink Galt Memorial Gardens Galt Memorial Gardens William Allman Memorial Arena William Allman Memorial Arena William Allman Memorial Arena William Allman Memorial Arena Windsor Arena Windsor Arena Bishop's College School Arena Bishop's College School Arena Varsity Arena Varsity Arena Varsity Arena Varsity Arena Halifax Forum Halifax Forum Aréna Ronald Caron South Porcupine Arena Belleville Memorial Arena Belleville Memorial Arena Belleville Memorial Arena Belleville Memorial Arena Aréna Jacques Plante Aréna Jacques Plante Stade Louis-Philippe-Gaucher Stade Louis-Philippe-Gaucher Stade Louis-Philippe-Gaucher Stade Louis-Philippe-Gaucher McIntyre Community Building McIntyre Community Building Auditorium de Verdun Auditorium de Verdun Aréna de Grand-Mère Aréna de Grand-Mère Kamloops Memorial Arena Kamloops Memorial Arena North Sydney Forum North Sydney Forum North Sydney Forum North Sydney Forum Page # 21 22 22 24 26 26 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 6 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Brampton Memorial Arena Brampton Memorial Arena Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Coronation Arena Ted Reeve Community Centre Lady Beaverbrook Rink Estevan Civic Auditorium Port Credit Arena Moose Jaw Civic Centre St. Michael's College School Arena South Side Arena Coquitlam Sports Centre West Vancouver Ice Arena Pacific National Exhibition Agrodome Pacific National Exhibition Agrodome Five-Dollar Bill of Canada Regional Breakdown, Ice Hockey as a Canadian Symbol Income Brackets, Ice Hockey as a Canadian Symbol The 4Ps of Marketing as Architectural Conservation Front Street, Toronto (1804) Front Street, Toronto (1890) Front Street, Toronto (2009) King Street, Toronto (1875) King Street, Toronto (2010) Downtown Toronto (1932) Downtown Toronto (2008) Maple Leaf Gardens (1934) Maple Leaf Gardens (2008) Canadian approach to conserving vernacular architecture German approach to conserving vernacular architecture Conservation Flow Chart The Burra Charter Process Staedtisches Turnhalle Cottbus, pre-renovation Staedtisches Turnhalle Cottbus, post-renovation Staedtisches Turnhalle Cottbus, pre-renovation Staedtisches Turnhalle Cottbus, post-renovation Olympiastadion Berlin Olympiastadion Berlin Greenhouse Bauhaus Main Building Haus Muche Galt Arena Gardens, original seating Galt Arena Gardens, replacement seating Galt Arena Gardens, original doors Galt Arena Gardens, replacement doors Budapest Ice Stadium, ticket booth Galt Arena Gardens, ticket booth 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 66 67 67 70 71 72 72 73 73 74 74 75 75 78 78 82 85 88 88 89 89 91 91 92 93 94 102 102 103 103 104 104 7 Key Terms and Definitions Conservation: all actions or processes that are aimed at safeguarding the characterdefining elements of a cultural resource so as to retain its heritage value and extend its physical life. This may involve Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, or a combination of these actions or processes. Preservation: the action or process of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the existing materials, form, and integrity of a historic place or of an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Preservation can include both short-term and interim measures to protect or stabilize the place, as well as long-term actions to retard deterioration or prevent damage so that the place can be kept serviceable through routine maintenance and minimal repair, rather than extensive replacement and new construction. Rehabilitation: the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of a historic place or an individual component, through repair, alterations, and/or additions, while protecting its heritage value. Rehabilitation can include replacing missing historic features. The replacement may be an accurate replica of the missing feature, or it may be a new design that is compatible with the style, era, and character of the historic place. Restoration: the action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of a historic place or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value. Restoration includes the removal of features from other periods in its history and the reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. Restoration must be based on clear evidence and detailed knowledge of the earlier forms and materials being recovered. Heritage value: the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present or future generations. The heritage value of a historic place is embodied in its character-defining materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings. Character-defining elements: the materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings that contribute to the heritage value of a historic place, which must be retained in order to preserve its heritage value Intervention: any action, other than demolition or destruction, that results in a physical change to an element of a historic place. Minimal intervention: the approach which allows functional goals to be met with the least physical intervention. 8 Maintenance: routine, cyclical, non-destructive actions necessary to slow the deterioration of a historic place. It entails periodic inspection; routine, cyclical, nondestructive cleaning; minor repair and refinishing operations; replacement of damaged or deteriorated materials that are impractical to save. Standards: Norms for the respectful conservation of historic places. Cultural significance: aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Use: the functions of a place, as well as the activities and practices that may occur at the place. Compatible use: a use which respects the cultural significance of a place. Such a use involves no, or minimal, impact on cultural significance. 9 1.0 Introduction No other events in the world bring the people of our planet together as do sporting events. Rituals such as the World Cup of Football and the Olympic Games act as one global common denominator that bring humanity together on a regular basis. The spirit of sport knows neither boundaries nor borders, nor class or cultural divisions. There are no comparable events that simultaneously connect the global population with each other at one single given time as do major international sporting events. The cultural significance of this event of global connectivity and relationship between the peoples of the planet, united together through one common denominator, sport, can not be underestimated. In a world where so many things divide human society, it is an absolute must to recognize and celebrate the events and things that bring humans together. Moreover on a national level it can be easily argued that during such global sporting events the inhabitants of each individual country are united together in a way that does not occur on any other level. Political differences no longer matter—the only thing that matters is cheering on one's country to victory. Despite the enormous cultural significance that sport plays within the realm of culture, the current focus towards the heritage of sport is shockingly non-existent. This fact holds true on all levels, be it international, national, or local. Of the approximately 900 various sites around the world that are inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, none are directly related to sport. The question why aspects of human togetherness and connectivity are not recognized and celebrated simply baffles the mind. So often we remember dates and sites that have divided human society throughout history such as wars, battlefields, and uprisings, but why is it that moments of global celebration and peace are given the cold shoulder by the academic community, in particular within the field of cultural heritage preservation. Not only does this lack of attention exist on the international level, but is also holds true on both national and local levels. 10 In Canada, despite the far-reaching popularity of ice hockey as well as the role it plays in shaping Canadian identity and culture, the attention given towards preserving the places where the sport itself takes place is next to nil. The aim of this paper is to reverse this trend. This paper is an investigative study of the topic of the conservation of Canadian ice hockey arenas with the end goal of developing best-practice standards and guidelines to ensure their proper conservation. The cultural significance of Canadian ice hockey arenas is demonstrated and explained within this academic paper, primarily within the context of how ice hockey is a defining image within Canadian identity. The question of Canadian identity has been a very difficult question to answer by cultural theorists and to date has not yet been fully defined. Within this paper, the hypothesis of the notion of community has been suggested as a cornerstone that defines Canadian identity, which in itself represents a major breakthrough in answering the question of what composes Canadian culture. The development of best-practice standards and guidelines for the conservation of Canadian ice hockey arenas also represents another major breakthrough since such work had not been previously conducted in any shape or form. Canadian ice hockey arenas, as a symbol of Canada, constitute a major part of the country's identity and steps to ensure their safeguarding and survival is akin to conserving an important element of the Canadian soul, psyche, and spirit. On an international level, this work also represents one of the first major attempts to define and develop approaches for the conservation of sport stadiums. Surprisingly, very little work has been conducted on not only examining the cultural significance of sport, but in terms of architectural conservation, systematic attempts at developing guidelines and strategies for dealing with the conservation of sporting places are next to nonexistent. It is hoped that this study will lead to the development of other sporting stadium specific studies such as baseball stadiums in the United States or football stadiums in Germany. 11 1.1 Purpose of Study Too large of an amount of heritage ice hockey arenas in Canada are currently threatened by demolition, abandonment, or alterations that destroy each building's characterdefining elements. The recent conversion of Toronto's Maple Leaf Gardens ice hockey arena, perhaps the most famous building in all of Canada, into a supermarket is the most glaring example of the irreplaceable loss of Canadian identity. For many Canadians, such a conversion is akin to the Taj Mahal being converted into an amusement park. The end goal of saving these arenas from irreplaceable lost is the main purpose of this study. A primary reason for these irreplaceable losses stems from the non-existence of any overarching heritage policies and practices for the conservation of Canadian hockey arenas. The research and recommendations conducted in this study is an attempt to solve this problem, by laying down a conservation strategy with the overall goal to conserve these elements of Canadian life, culture, and identity for future generations. Usage of these recommendations will help ensure the continued existence and enjoyment of heritage ice hockey arenas for current and future generations. The current pattern of irreplaceable loss must be stopped at once—too many of Canada's cultural icons have been destroyed, leaving behind only faint memories of what once existed. The intended audience of this paper is threefold and aims to be more practical in nature, by explaining the what, why, and how of arena conservation to a large and broad audience. Firstly, this paper is directed towards the heritage community to convince them of the importance of sporting places as a cultural good. The second intended audience of this paper are those who are unfamiliar with Canada and its cultural identity and thereby introduce them to a deeper look into the Canadian spirit. Lastly, but most importantly, the major intended audience of this paper is directed towards those in Canada, who may not be necessarily be engaged within the heritage sector, but whose decisions may influence the continued survival of heritage hockey arenas. Such individuals include local and regional politicians, community groups, ice hockey organizations, and perhaps most importantly, those who work at such ice hockey arenas. 12 1.2 Significance of Study This study represents the first systematic attempt in the analysis of Canadian hockey arenas as an object of cultural value. Furthermore, this study is also the first that looks at these arenas as an object of aesthetic beauty and outlines a strategy to ensure their proper conservation and continued use for current and future generations. Moreover, this study tackles the quintessential Canadian question of what constitutes Canadian identity. This question is at the forefront of discussion within Canada, and up to now has never been clearly defined. This work not only represents the initiation of studies within conservation of arenas, but also on a far greater scale, opens the door to further scholastic research on sporting places in general. Countless research has been conducted on medieval towns, baroque palaces, and Gothic brickwork, yet the field of analyzing sporting places opens up a brand new direction within heritage conservation. It is the initiation of a new thematic approach which makes this study significant, not just within Canada, but also on an international scale. Could this work open the doors for other countries to look at sport stadiums and arenas? Baseball stadiums in the United States, cricket stadiums in India, and football stadiums throughout the entire world—the possibilities for further research and approaches are great. Specifically within the area of the conservation of sporting places, the only notable work that has been previously conducted was a 2002 study conducted by the German chapter of ICOMOS, which addressed the historic Olympiastadion in Berlin, site of the 1936 Summer Olympic Games, as well as the Olympiastadion in Munich, site of the 1972 Summer Olympic Games. The lack of energy directed towards conserving sporting places is somewhat shocking given the popularity of sports and sporting events. Why is this so? Is sport considered to be a 'low-brow' cultural element? Are sporting stadiums perceived to be an unimportant or visually insignificant type of architecture? Or is it that the value that these buildings hold has not been yet fully appreciated? 13 1.3 Scope and Limitations The undertaking of this study was faced with two major challengers, firstly the lack of previous systematic attempts in dealing with the architectural conservation of sporting places in any shape or form, and secondly a lack of scholastic inquiry into the cultural significance of sport within society. Although this lack of information presented a great challenge, it at the same time represented an opportunity, primarily to enter into a field of research that had not been touched. Due to the extremely large land mass of Canada, a study of various arenas all across the country was not possible. Instead, the majority of arenas analyzed in this paper are located in the South-Western region of the Province of Ontario. Despite its large size, Canadian culture is relatively homogeneous throughout the country's provinces and territories and as such, it can be assumed that problems faced by arenas in Ontario are similar to problems faced by arenas in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. Despite the wide array of Canadian arenas several commonalities can be identified. Such commonalities include specific character-defining elements such as seating, roofstructure, and exterior cladding. For the purpose of this paper, rather than categorizing arenas together based on specific architectural attributes, the approach of grouping arenas together based on their size was utilized. This was done because one of the biggest factors for the continued usage of an arena is often its size. Arenas in medium-sized and large-sized cities are primarily used by professional teams, whose main concern is revenue generation. This aspect of revenue generation is perhaps the largest threat to the continued existence of arenas used by professional teams. Smaller arenas however are a different story altogether as their usage is primarily community-based and moreover are funded by the local community itself. As such, the continued existence of smaller arenas is more probable than the continued existence of larger arenas. For this reason, the focus of this study is directed more towards smaller arenas simply because the chance to conserve them is far greater. Summing up, what links arenas together is their size, rather than their geographical location, and arenas of a smaller size are the focus of this study. 14 Since the goal of this paper is to save these arenas by promoting their continued usage, strategies to balance the needs of the present and future with the aesthetic considerations involved in conserving the needs of the past is a main priority. Strategies at developing methods for adaptive re-usage of these arenas (i.e. conversion of Toronto's Maple Leaf Gardens into a supermarket) will not be investigated since such conversions are unwelcome in terms of conservation. This paper does not go into the technical details of certain construction elements such as how to clean masonry or how to replace timberframe roof structures. Rather the paper focuses on highlighting the character-defining elements which need to be considered when conducting conservation work and suggests that technical experts who are well trained in specific fields (such as masonry work) are sourced to ensure a quality job. A major section of this paper includes recommendations to ensure proper conservation work not just on an aesthetic level, but also on an organizational level. Suggestions to create a network of Heritage Arenas as well as a Heritage Arena Conservation Working Group were introduced as well as plans for the management of these heritage arenas and a plan to create awareness of these arenas. In heritage conservation, a management plan is a crucial element in any conservation project, not only in terms of getting the job done, but ensuring that conservation practices are continued throughout the future. Moreover, an education and awareness creation plan is also crucial in order to promote the concept and importance of heritage conservation to the general public. If communities are not properly informed of the inherent value within heritage conservation, many efforts in saving these arenas could ultimately fail. In addition to these organizational elements, this paper also suggests the creation of a Heritage Arena Protection Act by the Government of Canada to legislate the conservation of heritage arenas. Currently two similar parliamentary acts exist, namely the Heritage Railway Protection Act and the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. The passing of such an act by the Government of Canada would be a major victory in the fight to conserve heritage arenas, since doing so would be a legal requirement. 15 1.4 Plan of Development Section Two of this paper is an analysis of the current situation of Canadian ice hockey arenas and highlights reasons why they are threatened by loss and destruction. Furthermore a selection of potential heritage arenas in Canada was identified. Putting this section at the beginning was a conscientious decision, as several readers of this paper may have never been to a hockey arena in their life. Moreover, since these arenas are the primary subject of this paper, it made more sense to introduce them first rather than explain why they must be saved at the beginning of the paper. Section Three argues why these arenas must be conserved. Firstly, the cultural significance of these arenas is raised. Secondly, by conserving these arenas, the awareness of architectural conservation in Canada can be raised and can furthermore alter the general perception that Canada has no history. Thirdly, the economic stimulation that would occur through arena conservation is argued as well as how conserving arenas can save money compared to building new structures. Perhaps it is this practical point alone which could influence opponents to heritage conservation. Section Four consists of a theoretical introduction to architectural conservation theory, intended for those with a minimal knowledge on the subject. introduction, three conservation case studies are demonstrated. Following this These case studies analyze three different sporting places in Germany that can be seen as good conservation examples, acting as a benchmark to which should be achieved when conserving Canadian ice hockey arenas. Section Five is perhaps the most important part of this paper because it shows what needs to be done and how it can be done. The recommendations given in this section are practical, realistic, and action-driven to bring heritage arena conservation from the conceptual stage and into the execution phase. 16 1.5 Methodology Instead of following a linear pattern of development, this paper was constructed as a puzzle. Different pieces were individually developed and were then brought together to form the entire picture. One piece of the puzzle is this paper's assessment of ice hockey as a core element in defining Canadian identity, a difficult task since Canadian identity has never been concretely agreed upon. In order to establish the cultural significance of ice hockey, a definition of what constitutes Canadian identity had to first be developed, discussed, and argued. From the suggested definition of what Canadian culture and identity is, the role that ice hockey plays in supporting, reaffirming, and promoting this definition was demonstrated. This was done by analyzing soft data, such as writings from Canadian cultural theorists, as well as hard data, such as Ipsos-Reid polls which asked Canadians to define symbols what they felt were Canadian. Another piece of the puzzle was a physical analysis of the arenas. Since no other work on ice hockey arenas had been previously conducted, not even a list of heritage arenas, this aspect proved to be the most challenging. The first step was to visit a few arenas that I personally knew of within my home region. These were arenas that I myself had played ice hockey in (i.e. Brampton Memorial Arena) or had visited as a spectator (i.e. William Allman Memorial Arena, Galt Arena Gardens) and could remember them as being “old”. Further potential heritage arena candidates were suggested to me by various friends who have visited a great deal of arenas over their lives and could suggest a few others. As I visited each arena, I looked at the buildings objectively and subjectively, analyzing them as one would analyze a renaissance cathedral or a 1920s Bauhaus construction. I looked for various elements, patterns, and construction forms from which arenas could be artistically defined and categorized. From this list of elements, I determined which details are worthy of consideration to conserve (i.e. facade, seating, roof structure) vs. elements which could be problematic or are unnecessary to conserve (such as the arena's changing rooms). 17 In addition to looking at the physical characteristics of the arenas, I looked at why certain arenas were threatened and why certain ones were not threatened. A common theme in arenas that were threatened was the arena size. In nearly all cases, the continued existence of larger arenas was in greater danger than smaller arenas. Moreover, reasons why certain character-defining elements of each arena were looked at to determine why specific elements were in danger of being changed or altered. Now that the problems had been identified, it was time to look at developing solutions. Since no work had been previously been conducted in conserving ice hockey arenas, it was required to look at other solutions which had been done in similar situations, and see if any of the solutions could be utilized in conserving heritage arenas. For example, the State of Washington had conducted two exhaustive studies on Heritage Barn conservation and Heritage Theatre conservation, two specific types of construction which are related to ice hockey arenas. Furthermore, a handful of good examples of sporting place conservation could be located in Germany, one of the leading countries in architectural conservation. In addition to these few examples, the German attention to detail in conserving the 1920s Bauhaus buildings in Dessau served as an example to which other projects should follow. Parallels between the work conducted in Dessau and the work to be conducted in Canada can be drawn, primarily in that the facade of these buildings is not their only feature, but rather of all the smaller elements within the buildings. In both cases, specific attention to smaller details is the higher priority. Any good hockey player is able to examine the playing surface and develop a strategy to score a goal and win the game. The same was true when examining the “playing surface” of the current realities within Canada, and to develop arguments for conservation, as well as creating recommendations and strategies for arena conservation. Working groups that connect various stakeholders together were formulated, as were plans for awareness raising. Moreover a management planing framework mechanism, based upon the Parks Canada project management cycle was developed. This assessment of the playing field will lead to the scoring of a few goals, and win the conservation game for heritage arenas. 18 2.0 Current Situation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas Despite the strong cultural symbolism of hockey in Canada, the survival of several Canadian hockey arenas are in jeopardy. Within the past few years, too many of Canada's ice hockey arenas have either been simply abandoned and/or demolished, or characterdefining elements have been altered or replaced without proper consideration to historical authenticity. Reasons for this situation are as follows: 1. Lack of awareness of the cultural value that heritage arenas possess 2. Newer arenas are perceived to be better 3. Lack of a general policy concerning the conservation of Canadian hockey arenas 4. Older arenas are poorer in revenue generation (i.e. lack of private boxes, less seating, amenities, perceived vision of less comfort) 5. Decrease in the participation of youth enrollment in hockey (high fees) 6. Budgetary constraints (how many arenas to finance) 7. Arenas are turning away from single use to multiple use Creating a conservation policy as well as awareness plan for hockey arenas will address and solve several of the aforementioned realities. Furthermore and most importantly, the best guarantee to ensure the longevity of an arena is to keep the building functioning as an arena. For this paper, arenas were grouped together on the basis of their size rather than on their architectural typology. This approach was done because it was discovered that the size of the arena is often the deciding factor for keeping it in use (i.e. larger arenas are in a greater threat to be abandoned than smaller arenas). Small-Sized Arenas Medium-Sized Arenas Large-Sized Arenas The manner in which arenas are being threatened can be classified into two groups. The first group are arenas whose continued existence is at stake and the second group are arenas whose continuing existence is not in jeopardy, but are under threat of improper updates or removal of character-defining elements. 19 Threat of discontinued use Threat of removal of character-defining elements The overwhelming majority of arenas whose very existence is in jeopardy are medium and larger-sized arenas that are used by professional and semi-professional hockey teams. The reason for this is purely economic as newer arenas are seen to be better in revenue generation as certain amenities such as private VIP boxes do not exist in older arenas, and in several cases adding in such private boxes are hindered due to space restrictions. Furthermore, some of these arenas simply don't hold enough fans as a newer arena could. Sadly in the case of professional hockey teams, concerns of cultural heritage conservation are a minuscule afterthought when profit maximization is the team's primary concern. Within the business model of several teams, possession of an old arena is viewed to be a liability, rather than an asset. Interestingly enough in the United States for several baseball teams, the opposite is true – old stadiums are viewed as an asset, even to the point that several brand new stadiums that have recently been built were designed to evoke an image of the past. Within the category of 'large-sized arenas', arenas used by Canadian teams in the highest professional ice hockey league, the National Hockey League (NHL) are the benchmark, with seating capacities ranging from 15,000 to 20,000. In terms of conservation, the loss of large-sized arenas in Canada within the past fifteen years has been disastrous. Notable examples are the closing of Toronto's Maple Leaf Gardens, constructed in 1931, and its conversion into a supermarket in 2011, the conversion of the Montréal Forum in 2001 into a movie theatre, as well as the demolition of the Winnipeg Forum in 2006. Interestingly enough, despite the designation of Maple Leaf Gardens and the Montréal Forum as National Historic Sites of Canada, this fact held no weight in preserving each building's authenticity. What does this say about the strength of Canadian heritage laws? What is the point of even having historic designations if the integrity of the listed building is permitted to be permanently destroyed? Sadly, since no large-sized arenas in Canada that possess any historical value whatsoever no longer exist, this category of arena is sadly excluded within this paper. 20 For the category of medium-sized arenas (seating capacity between 2,000 and 10,000), an analysis of arenas used by teams in the Ontario Hockey League was conducted. Of the 20 teams in the league, 17 are located in the Province of Ontario. These arenas were analyzed and ranked according to the year in which they were constructed: Team Arena Name Year Built Niagara Gatorade Garden City Complex 1932 Kitchener Kitchener Memorial 1951 Sudbury Sudbury Community Centre 1951 Peterborough Peterborough Memorial Arena 1954 Ottawa Ottawa Civic Centre 1967 Belleville Yardmen Arena 1978 Owen Sound Bayshore Community Centre 1983 Barrie Barrie Molson Centre 1995 Mississauga Hershey Centre 1998 Brampton Powerade Centre 1998 Sarnia RBC Centre 1998 Guelph Sleeman Centre 2000 London John Labatt Centre 2002 Sault Ste. Marie Essar Centre 2006 Oshawa General Motors Centre 2006 Kingston K-Rock Centre 2008 Windsor WFCU Centre 2008 Of these 17 arenas, the top five in the list could be viewed as potential heritage arenas, due to their age. A building's age can deem it worthy as historical, however a further investigation of the authenticity of the character-defining elements of each of these arenas is necessary in order to determine if their original fabric still exists, or what percentage still exists, thereby deeming them for consideration as a heritage arena. Of the recently constructed OHL arenas, all of them replaced a previously-existing structure, which in turn led to the demise of these historic buildings. Of particular interest is the WFCU Centre in Windsor and the Essar Centre in Sault Sainte Marie as these constructions signaled the end of two very historical arenas, the Windsor Arena (1924) and the Sault Memorial Gardens (1949). 21 The Sault Memorial Gardens represents an interesting case, as many arenas in Canada bear the word 'Memorial' in their name. Following the end of the Second World War, it was common practice to utilize arenas as a memorial to remember and honour those who had fallen in battle. For such arenas, their loss not only represents the loss of a historical building, but perhaps more significantly, represents the desecration of a place of remembrance. The following two photos depict the Sault Memorial Gardens before and after its demolition. 22 The third category of arenas which can be identified are small-sized arenas. The main difference between these arenas in comparison to medium-sized and large-sized arenas is that their primary usage is community-based, meaning that the teams that play there are youth teams or local teams. Because of this position, these arenas do not face the pressures of revenue generation as is the case of medium-sized and large-sized arenas. Since funding and support for these arenas is centred in the community itself, the chances for the continued usage of these arenas is greater than other arenas. As a result, the likelihood that these smaller arenas will be continued to be used is higher, and as such the chance to conserve them is more realistic. Since continued usage of an arena is the most detrimental factor in heritage conservation, the focus of this research paper is directed more towards small-sized arenas. Locating and identifying potential heritage arenas in the small-sized arena category proved to be a bit of a challenge, primarily due to the lack of written material about them. Even though ice hockey is extremely popular within Canada, not a single book has ever been written about hockey arenas. Moreover despite the great advancements of cultural heritage preservation in Canada, a pan-Canadian strategy and systematic plan that promotes and outlines arena preservation does not exist. The first logical step in tackling this problem would be the development of an inventory of Canadian arenas. Such an inventory would be useful in identifying target arenas to be conserved as well as finding commonalities between various arenas such as the time period when constructed and the style of architecture utilized. These commonalities can be used to develop an efficient management and conservation plan. Since no such inventory has been undertaken a broad and overarching analysis of the current stock of heritage arenas in Canada does not currently exist. Some data regarding Canadian arenas do however exist. In 2005 a national arena census was conducted by the Canadian Recreational Facilities Council (CRFC). The CRFC census, whose primary goal was to identify challenges facing arena operators in Canada such as rising energy costs and the reduction of greenhouse gases, does provide useful data which can be utilized in the first steps to develop an inventory of Canadian arenas. 23 Surveys were sent out to the 2,486 arenas that were operating in Canada in 2005 to gather information such as: – construction year – type of facility – months of operation – facility ownership – seating capacity – energy costs – refrigeration process – energy efficient measures – refrigeration plant renovations – future facility renovations Approximately 48% of arenas completely answered the CRFC survey. 1,857 of 2,486 arenas (74.7%) supplied dates of construction of their respective facility (CRFC, 2006, p. 10). This construction data was then categorized by decade of construction (i.e. 1950s, 1960s, 1970s). From the supplied data, the following graph can be created: Year of construction of currently existing arenas in Canada 800 756 Number of constructions 700 600 500 400 363 300 257 200 100 168 137 94 72 0 Pre 1950 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 24 From this chart we can easily see that the overwhelming majority of currently existing arenas in Canada were constructed during the 1970s. Of particular interest for the study of preservation of Canadian arenas is the low amount of arenas constructed before the 1950s that are still in operation today. Even arenas constructed in the 1950s constitute a low percentage of the total share of existing arenas. Also of interest is the dramatic drop in arena constructions after the 1980s. What are the reasons for this? Is it that within the past few decades there is less of a demand to construct new arenas (i.e. declining numbers of participants in ice hockey and lacrosse) or could it be that arenas with multiple ice surfaces offset the need to construct more arenas with a single ice surface? From this data, concrete trends can be identified, namely the percentage of arenas in Canada that could be considered as a ''heritage arena''. The question of what defines a heritage arena is a difficult one to answer. Under what criteria can an arena be defined as 'historic'? If a n arbitrary cut-off time is used, then what should be the cut-off line? This question will be raised and discussed in detail later in Chapter Five: Recommendations and Considerations. Within the survey, a breakdown of the number of arenas in each province was given. Naturally provinces such as Ontario and Québec had the most amount of arenas since they are the two most populous provinces in Canada. This data however does not paint a full representation of arena distribution within Canada. Using population statistics from the 2005 Canadian Census, the statistic of “Persons per Arena” was generated. This new statistic led to an interesting conclusion that, in general, provinces with the lower absolute population had a higher “density” of arenas (i.e. Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island) and the higher populated provinces had a lower “density” of arenas (of particular note is British Columbia). This data could be used as a further argumentation for the conservation of arenas in areas where the amount of arenas per person is lower. 25 Number of Arenas per Province 800 724 700 600 500 434 400 327 308 300 183 200 196 87 100 62 81 20 27 10 14 0 British Columbia New Brunswick Northwest Territories Nunavut Alberta Manitoba Newfoundland Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island Saskatchewan Ontario Québec Yukon Amount of persons per arena by Province 25000 22933 20000 17470 17305 15000 11579 10787 10000 8598 8297 6012 5115 5000 2170 3030 3039 2279 0 British Columbia New Brunswick Northwest Territories Nunavut Alberta Manitoba Newfoundland Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island Saskatchewan Ontario Québec Yukon 26 2.1 Potential Heritage Ice Hockey Arenas The following list is a start in distinguishing potential heritage arenas. This list was developed from existing CRFC data on arena construction dates. All arenas constructed in Canada before 1967 (Canada's 100th birthday) were considered and photographic material of each arena was searched for. Upon an analysis of arena photographs that could be located, arenas were selected on the basis of their historical authenticity and architectural significance. Arena Name Location Year Built Stannus Street Rink Galt Memorial Gardens William Allman Memorial Arena Windsor Arena Bishop's College Arena Varsity Arena Windsor, Nova Scotia Cambridge, Ontario Stratford, Ontario Windsor, Ontario Lennoxville, Quebec Toronto, Ontario (1897) (1922) (1924) (1924) (1925) (1926) Halifax Forum Aréna Ronald Caron South Porcupine Arena Belleville Memorial Arena Aréna Jacques Plante Halifax, Nova Scotia Saint-Laurent, Québec Timmins, Ontario Belleville, Ontario Shawinigan, Québec (1929) (1929) (1930) (1929) (1937) Stade Louis-Philippe-Gaucher McIntyre Community Building Auditorium de Verdun Aréna de Grand-Mère Kamloops Memorial Arena Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec Timmins, ON Montréal, Québec Grand-Mère, Québec Kamloops, British Columbia (1938) (1938) (1939) (1944) (1946) North Sydney Forum Brampton Memorial Arena Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Coronation Arena Ted Reeve Community Centre North Sydney, Nova Scotia Brampton, Ontario Kitchener, Ontario Edmonton, Alberta Toronto, Ontario (1947) (1950) (1951) (1953) (1954) Lady Beaverbrook Rink Estevan Civic Auditorium Port Credit Arena Moose Jaw Civic Centre St. Michael's College School Arena Frederiction, New Brunswick Estevan, Saskatchewan Mississauga, Ontario Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Toronto, Ontario (1955) (1959) (1959) (1960) (1961) South Side Arena Coquitlam Sports Centre West Vancouver Ice Arena Pacific National Exhibition Agrodome Edmonton, Alberta Coquitlam, British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia (1961) (1961) (1964) (1966) 27 Stannus Street Rink – Windsor, Nova Scotia (1897) 28 Galt Memorial Gardens – Cambridge, Ontario (1922) 29 William Allman Memorial Arena, Stratford, ON (1924) 30 31 Windsor Arena – Windsor, Ontario (1924) 32 Bishops College Arena – Lennoxville, Québec (1925) 33 Varsity Arena – Toronto, Ontario (1926) 34 35 Halifax Forum – Halifax, Nova Scotia (1929) 36 Aréna Ronald Caron – Saint-Laurent, Québec (1929) South Porcupine Arena – Timmins, Ontario (1930) 37 Belleville Memorial Arena – Belleville, Ontario (1929) 38 39 Aréna Jacques Plante – Shawinigan, Québec (1937) 40 Stade Louis-Philippe-Gaucher – Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec (1938) 41 42 McIntyre Community Building – Timmins, ON (1938) 43 Auditorium de Verdun – Montréal, Québec (1939) 44 Aréna de Grand-Mère – Grand-Mère, Québec (1944) 45 Kamloops Memorial Arena – Kamloops, British Columbia (1946) 46 North Sydney Forum – North Sydney, Nova Scotia (1947) 47 48 Brampton Memorial Arena – Brampton, Ontario (1950) 49 Kitchener Memorial Auditorium – Kitchener, Ontario (1951) 50 Coronation Arena – Edmonton, Alberta (1953) Ted Reeve Community Centre – Toronto, Ontario (1954) 51 Lady Beaverbrook Rink – Frederiction, New Brunswick (1955) Estevan Civic Auditorium – Estevan, Saskatchewan (1959) 52 Port Credit Arena – Mississauga, Ontario (1959) Moose Jaw Civic Centre – Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan (1960) 53 St. Michael's College School Arena – Toronto, Ontario (1961) South Side Arena – Edmonton, Alberta (1961) 54 Coquitlam Sports Centre – Coquitlam, British Columbia (1961) West Vancouver Ice Arena – Vancouver, British Columbia (1964) 55 Pacific National Exhibition Agrodome – Vancouver, BC (1966) 56 3.0 Why Should Heritage Hockey Arenas be Preserved? Before analyzing the 'whats and hows' of Canadian heritage arena conservation, the question of why to conserve Canadian arenas must be answered. For many in Canada a common response would likely be “of course, it makes complete sense” or “it's about time that such work is being done”. Such responses are the result of the deep, sentimental relationship between the majority of the Canadian population and the game of hockey, and on a deeper level, humanity's emotional and psychological relationship with feelings of nostalgia. Unfortunately arguments for conservation cannot solely be based upon human emotions and sentiments. Concrete arguments must be developed in order to make a strong case for conserving heritage arenas, not just for those who are unfamiliar with the topic, but most importantly to convince those individuals and groups who see little value in conserving arenas. At the forefront of any conservation project is the question of why? In the majority of cases two opposing groups exist, those in favour of conservation and those against. Heritage conservers are naturally in favour, and as conservers one of their primary objectives should be to validly convince the naysayers of the importance and value of cultural heritage conservation projects. Before developing strong arguments in favour of conservation, one must understand the reasons why certain individuals are opposed to conservation measures. Is their reluctance or skepticism based upon intangible factors such as failing to grasp the general importance of conservation or a disagreement of the value of a specific site, or are tangible factors at play such as the costs required to properly conduct good conservation work or the idea that conservation hinders development and progress? With these questions in mind, several valid and strong arguments in favour of the conservation of Canadian heritage arenas can be identified. Of these arguments, the top four were selected for further analysis and discussion. 57 In every heritage project it is essential to establish the cultural significance of the object(s) in question. This is necessary in order to determine the value and significance that specific objects and sites hold. What exactly does cultural significance entail? As defined by the Burra Charter, cultural significance is the “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations” (ICOMOS 2000, p. 17) and “is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects” (ICOMOS 2000, p. 17). Furthermore, the Burra Charter states that “places that are likely to be of significance are those which help an understanding of the past or enrich the present, and which will be of value to future generations” (ICOMOS 2000, p. 17). The following figure depicts the four main values which determine an object's cultural significance: Aesthetic value Social value Cultural Significance Historic value Scientific value The values which determine cultural significance are defined (ICOMOS 2000, p. 17) as: Aesthetic value - includes aspects of sensory perception for which criteria can and should be stated. Such criteria may include consideration of the form, scale, colour, texture and material of the fabric; the smells and sounds associated with the place and its use. Historic value - encompasses the history of aesthetics, science and society, and therefore to a large extent underlies all of the terms set out in this section. Scientific value - rarity, quality or representativeness, and on the degree to which the place may contribute further substantial information. Social value - embraces the qualities for which a place has become a focus of spiritual, political, national or other cultural sentiment to a majority or minority group. 58 3.1 Cultural Significance of Hockey in Canada Conserving heritage arenas in Canada constitutes the conservation of a truly Canadian symbol. To someone who is not familiar with Canada, this may sound like a strange concept, however the sport of ice hockey is an essential component of Canadian culture and identity and is part of the Canadian soul. It is more than just a game that is played during the long and harsh Canadian winter, hockey represents a deeper, spiritual connection for Canadians that binds people together across the large, expansive territory. Bonds that stretch from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean to the Arctic Ocean, from sea to sea to sea. Bonds that unite together the English and the French, as well as Canada's indigenous people. Bonds that bridge the youth with the elderly, new Canadians and old Canadians. In short, ice hockey connects all Canadians with the past, the present and the future. Throughout the vast land that is Canada, in nearly all of her towns, villages, and cities, neighbourhoods and communities, three central institutions can typically be found: a school, a place of worship, and an arena. In the overwhelming majority of small Canadian towns and cities, the arena is the most visible element within that town's landscape as not only is the arena generally one of the largest buildings withing the community, but is also at the same time usually the most visited building in the community, acting as an anchor and focal point. Serving as both an educational institution as well as a place of worship, the arena is the place where people in small towns generally go to meet with one another. It is this function as a centre of the community that is the symbolic core value of an arena. Previously, places of worship served this function, however this is generally no longer true—sport has replaced religion within the soul of the Canadian nation. The arena does not divide people by religious belief, socio-economic level, or skin-colour—but rather unites members of a community through the simple idea that we're all cheering for the same team. At the arena, it does not matter what job you do or to which God you pray, all that matters is that your team wins. 59 The honourable Ken Dryden, who was an all-star goaltender for the Montréal Canadiens hockey club during the 1970s, is also a famous author and politician in Canada. In his book “Home Game: Hockey and Life in Canada”, Dryden tackled the relationship between hockey and Canadian life. He specifically makes reference to the bonds, albeit fragile, that connect Canadians across the large and remote landscape (Dryden, 1989, p. 18): “Canada is such an improbable country. ... The land separates and disconnects, place from place, person from person. What links it all together seems so hopelessly overmatched. The broad winding rivers that brought in fur traders, the rulerstraight railway lines that brought settlers in and their grain out, the highways, the power lines, the TV antennae and TV dishes—such fragile threads to bind this farflung land and its people. All serve to connect in some way, but these cannot create the bond. What ties us together must be a feeling that travels the waters and pavement and airwaves and steel: things we have in common, things we care about, things that help us make sense out of what we are.” Dryden further explains (1989, p. 10) how the sport of ice hockey acts as one of the very ties that bond Canadians together: “Hockey, after all, is people and places. Look at those people hard enough and long enough, listen to them, and they will tell you stories—about themselves, about Canada. What they hope and want and fear; what matters to them and what doesn't. They will tell you about being parents and being kids, about having dreams and fantasies, about growing up and what it takes to make it to the top. ... They will tell you about living and competing in a global world and being changed in the process; and of the need sometimes to escape that world and be someone else, creating your own rules and regulations—about the magic of play. And in so many ways they will tell you about the joy of getting together, about the need for community. In lives filled with division, by age, income, status, neighbourhood, technology, distance, language, culture, they will tell you about the links they feel, about the feelings that bind us together." How this simple idea of community, teamwork, and connectivity relates to Canadian identity requires analysis, explanation, and interpretation. Founded as a nation in 1867 Canada is a relatively young country. Her current international borders have only existed since 1949, and her most famous symbol, the flag, was only designed in 1965. Moreover, Canada's constitution was only ratified in 1982. Not only is Canada a young country, it is also one of the world's most multicultural thanks to the waves and waves of immigrants who built the country into one of the world's best. 60 Chances are if someone who has never been to Canada is asked what images come to mind when they hear the word Canada perhaps they would answer with images such as a large, vast nation, rich with natural resources, and filled with snow and mountains and trees. Although this is true, there are other images and realities of Canada that are not associated with the country. The image of Canada as a diverse, vibrant, and multicultural society rarely hits the radar of people living outside of its borders. People are amazed to find out that Toronto is the world's most multi-culturally diverse city, even more so than New York City. During my M.A. studies at TU Cottbus in Germany, my classmates came from all over the world, with all continents of our planet represented. A global microcosm of nations and peoples united together through common interests. After our lectures had finished for the day, we would often get together at the campus pub to talk and discuss about our home countries. Since we were all students of Cultural Heritage Preservation, naturally the topic of culture and identity would be a common theme in our talks. It is from these talks that I asked myself such questions of what is Canadian? What is our identity? What are Canadian symbols? Within Canada such questions have been and continue to be the focus of a great deal of discussion and debate. One can tune into the public national radio sender, the CBC, and chances are that one will hear a program on the subject of “Canadianess” – Who are we? What defines us? How can we be described? Are we a nation that is without an identity? Or does our lack of identity form part of our identity? As a young and diverse country, defining what exactly constitutes Canadian identity is an extremely difficult question to answer. Within Canada, such a question has been discussed for decades and is still at the forefront of national debate. Canadian identity has never been clearly defined nor answered. The only concrete decision that has been reached when defining Canadian identity is that it is a very difficult question to precisely answer. This is not just due to Canada's relatively young age but most importantly in the historical development of Canada, starting from her settlement and founding and the path it has taken to become one of the world's greatest countries of today. Canada, like 61 the rest of the countries in the so-called ''new world'' was primarily settled by waves and waves immigrants in search of freedom, peace, and a better life for themselves and for their children. Current thought and opinion, especially that of the Canadian Government (1998, p. 4-5), is that Canada's diversity is its identity: “Diversity is the thread that weaves Canada's rich culture together. It is a fundamental characteristic of our society and of what it means to be Canadian. It provides us with the necessary foundation to continue to shape a modern country that fosters creativity and excellence.” What does this mean however ''to be Canadian“? This question is even made more difficult to answer not only due to Canada's diverse ethnic composition, but also the diversity across the land—from Newfoundland in the East, to British Columbia in the West, to Nunavut in the North. Sherbert makes the point of cultural plurality, stating that ''instead of a universal Canadian identity, the universal is now seen as a contested site of power: the power to represent a whole society or national identity” (Sherbert, 2006, p. 2) He further points to cultural poesis, which can be referred to as the making of culture, or the tension between making and being made by culture at the same time (Sherbert, 2006, p.2). Such a tension definitely exists in Canada since it is a constantly changing land, and in constant search of defining its identity. Since this is the case, Canadian identity should be based upon something intangible such as a value, a value that relates to all Canadians past, present, and future and a value that crosses all cultural backgrounds and is omnipresent within the Canadian soul. The answer to defining Canadian identity can be found within the meaning of the word Canada: COMMUNITY. The origin of the name Canada stemmed from early contact between French explorers and the Algonquin people. The French were able to speak some Algonquin, and the Algonquin were able to speak some French. The French explorers were keen on finding the name of the vast, unknown land in which they had arrived and asked the Algonquin what was this land called. The Algonquin answered ''Kanata''. The French, overjoyed with their findings, returned to Europe and labeled maps with the name 'Canada'. The name 'Kanata' however did not refer to the entire land, but rather referred to the 62 Algonquin word for ''settlement/village/community'' as the Algonquin understood the question in reference to their group and not the entire land. The idea of community rather than individuality is strongly evident throughout the historical development of Canada. The construction of the railroad in Canada is widely considered to be one of the most important factors which shaped and influenced the early development of Canada. Its construction can be compared to the notion of team sport: success and realization of the goal is achieved not through individual glory but rather through the cooperation and efforts of the group. The true champions are those groups or teams who achieve their common goal together rather than through the performance of one individual. During the westward expansion and settlement of Canada of the late 19 th century, plots of land were given free of charge to anyone who wanted them. These first settlers in Canada's central regions primarily consisted of, but not limited to, Ukrainians and Russians, Poles, Swedes, and Germans. The early life was challenging, settling into an unknown land and in an area where nothing at all really existed, no state institutions such as a police force, schools, or hospitals, no roads, no shops, just open land that was free for all who dared to dream. Everything had to be built from the start. Survival was dependent on hard work as well as cooperation with one's neighbour. This aspect of cooperation was called ''settler mentality'' and this mentality still exists to an extent within Canada today, particularly in Canada's hinterland. Again, like the construction of the railroad, survival was dependent on the group rather than the individual. From the early settlement of the land, to the cultural mosaic that Canada is today, and to Canada's role on the international level, Canadians believe in helping one another and that the greater good is individual. best achieved through the group rather than through the It is clearly this point of community which makes the conservation of Canadian hockey arenas so utterly important due to their function as a centrepoint of the communities in which they serve. 63 Dryden strengthens this argument by stating the arena is the lifeblood of small communities scattered in the Canadian hinterland (1989, p.23). He claims that: Each community needs a place to gather, to act and feel like a community, to remind itself why it is a community, to strengthen its resolve to fight those forces that threaten its existence. A local arena is spirit-building, and in a time of enormous change, every bit of spirit that can be mustered is needed. Conserving arenas in smaller Canadian communities is not just simply conserving a historical building, but in some cases it is a question of saving the entire community altogether. Dryden talks about communities that have lost their arenas and what the loss represents (1989, p.15). A community without an arena is a community without a centre, and a community without a centre, is a community that dies. A specific example of the small village of Fielding, Saskatchewan is given to show this point of community downfall after the loss of the local arena. The first thing to go was our hockey rink. Then our curling rink went. Then our grocery stores started to go and gradually the school went and then our post office. All we have left now is a community hall which gets used once or twice a year. ... Three families live in Fielding now and the rest is all deserted empty buildings. ...We know of other towns that have lost their rinks. They die overnight. It's the grand central gathering place for the young and old. The young come to skate and the older citizens come in to watch. The arena is the gathering place for the winter months. Such examples clearly portray the hard significance that arenas play in Canadian life, especially as their function as a meeting place for the community. Since Canadian identity can be based upon the notion of community, it is clearly evident through the example given by Dryden that a community without a focal point dies. Losing an arena does not just merely signify the loss of a community building, but in this sense represents the theft of a community's identity. Conserving the community arena is akin to conserving the life of the community itself. 64 The official stance of the Canadian Government (1998, p. 1) towards the relationship between cultural identity and future prosperity states that … culture and heritage are more important than ever. It is by knowing who we are and where we come from, by creating and communicating our stories, by connecting to each other, and by building and strengthening our communities that we reach out to the world with confidence. It is by being rooted in 'a sense of place, a sense of being' that Canadians will prosper, that our communities will thrive, and that we will marshal the forces of globalization and technology to our benefit. The key point to be examined in the Canadian Government's policy is their view of how being rooted in a sense of place will afford Canada's communities to thrive. Comparing this point to the example of Fielding, Saskatchewan shows that when the sense of being is torn away, the community fails. Thus, the Government's stance is true, however in a typical Canadian fashion, positive examples are used, rather than negatives. It is this element of community survival that demonstrates the absolute importance of conserving arenas, not just in terms of their historical or age value, but rather on a deeper, spiritual level that the arena comes to symbolize within the soul of the Canadian hinterland. The question at hand is not just merely conserving a simple physical structure where a sport is played, the question is far, far deeper. It is a question of preserving the very values of what Canada is, as well as preserving an aspect of the country's identity, culture, and soul. It is about preserving the Canadian way of life, the Canadian mentality of connectedness and helping one another, the Canadian attitude of cooperation and togetherness. It is indeed some of these attributes that has made Canada “one of the most open, resilient, creative, and caring societies on earth” (Government of Canada, 1998, p.4). Similar to the example of Fielding, Saskatchewan the death of the community arena triggered the eventual death of the community, the question needs to be asked if Canada fails to preserve the core elements that bind Canadians together and the institutions that symbolize Canadian identity, will this in turn lead to the death of Canadianess? 65 The past few pages have discussed the notion of Canadian identity based on the value of community, and how this value of community is related to the connecting force that arenas play within Canadian life. How the sport of ice hockey is symbolic within Canadian society and the values attributed within hockey and their relationship to Canadian culture will now be examined. If someone from outside of Canada were to ask how symbolic and important hockey is to Canadians, the question could easily be answered by showing him/her the Canadian FiveDollar bill, which depicts a winter scene that can be typically found throughout the country: a child on a toboggan, a parent skating with a child, and most prominently, children playing hockey. Also on the bill is a quote from the famous children's book ''The Hockey Sweater'' written by Roch Carrier: The winters of my childhood were long, long seasons. We lived in three places – the school, the church and the skating-rink – but our real life was on the skating-rink. The fact that Canada's standard issue currency depicts such a scene clearly demonstrates just how important hockey is to a great deal of the Canadian population. A 2007 IpsosReid survey conducted on behalf of the Dominion Institute confirmed this fact. The 66 conducted survey analyzed Canadian symbols and the extent that Canadians felt attached to such symbols. The survey results (Ipsos Reid, 2007, p. 6) indicated that 73% of Canadians felt attached to the sport of ice hockey, as a symbol of Canada trailing only the beaver (74%) and the maple leaf (87%). The following table shows the survey findings for attachment to ice hockey as a national symbol within the various regions of Canada. British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan / Manitoba Ontario Québec Atlantic 78 % 81 % 76 % 75 % 60 % 73 % It is interesting to note that attachments to ice hockey are relatively similar throughout Canada, with the exception of the province of Québec. The survey also broke down the results by household income: < $30,000 $ 30,000 → $60,000 > $ 60,000 67 % 72 % 77 % What is interesting to note is that as household income increased, attachment to the sport of ice hockey increased. A further signifier of hockey's importance within the hearts of Canadians was a 2003 competition conducted by the national broadcaster, the CBC, titled ''The 100 Greatest Canadians''. The competition was performed as a television show that lasted two months in duration and citizens of Canada were invited to nominate who they felt was the greatest Canadian, past or present. Former hockey coach and current hockey commentator Don Cherry was voted by the Canadian population, ending up in seventh place as the greatest Canadian, much to the chagrin of the Canadian academic community. Cherry placed higher than noteworthy figures such as Sir John A. McDonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada and Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone. 67 Several countries honour their military and war heroes in high regard, however in Canada this status is usually reserved to hockey heroes. Canadian idolation of hockey stars could stem from the fact that Canada is not a country based upon military conquests. Rather, Canadian conquests are usually conducted on the skating rink. One notable example is the 1972 Summit Series, which was an eight-game competition between the two great hockey superpowers, Canada and the Soviet Union. The first four games were played in Canada and the last four games played in the Soviet Union. National pride was on the line, and especially during the era of the Cold War, the series carried an even greater importance. Rather than fighting the Soviets in the space, armaments and nuclear race, as was done by the United States of America, the Canadians fought the Soviets with sticks and pucks on a frozen surface. As the series entered into the eighth game, with each country claiming three wins apiece as well as one tied game, the final matchup between these two superpowers represented a true 'cold war'. In the dying seconds of the game, which was tied five-to-five, Paul Henderson scored the game winner, lifting the Canadians to victory and sending the country into a frenzy, and a new national hero was born. The concept of using sport as war is not a new concept. The sport of lacrosse, which is Canada's national sport, was played between warring indigenous tribes to settle their differences. The game itself was the war. Whoever won the game between the two groups was the winner of the war. One can just imagine how different the world would be today if the concept of deciding differences was achieved through the playing of a game was used rather than through destruction and slaughter. In this sense arenas can be seen as the contemporary battlefield. It can be argued that since Canada's foundation in 1867 the most blood spilled on Canadian soil has been at the hockey rink, since Canada has they very fortunate history to have never experienced the horrors of war in its own country. 68 3.2 Increasing the Awareness of Architectural Conservation in Canada Currently the notion of heritage conservation is only known and understood by a small segment of the Canadian population. Through the conservation of heritage arenas, the general awareness of architectural conservation amongst the Canadian population can be drastically increased due to the large demographic of hockey lovers in the country. Since hockey is so important and widely loved by a large segment of the Canadian population, preserving something that people are familiar with, such as arenas, would expose these people to the concept of heritage conservation. Through this exposure, awareness is increased. Increased awareness can only result in stronger and more decisive action in preserving the built heritage of Canada. Awareness of architectural conservation needs to be further promoted in Canada and this can be done in conjunction with the promotion of heritage arenas. By reaching out to a new target group, heritage conservators are able to 'market' the concept of architectural conservation. Approaches from the field of marketing can be utilized to achieve this goal. In this sense, the product is heritage conservation and the customer is the general population, specifically those who are unaware of heritage conservation. This group can be referred to as the market segment. Market segmenting is the division of groups that define the market place, identifying specific needs and wants. A specific approach in market segmentation is called the top-down approach, where the total population is divided into segments. The segment that should be the goal is the common hockey fan. Another basic tenet of marketing is called the marketing mix, and is commonly known as “the 4 Ps”. The four Ps are: Product, Price, Promotion, Placement. Product is the good or service produced, Price is the amount the customer pays for the product, Place refers to where the product can be purchased, and finally Promotion represents the forms of communication utilised such as advertising and public relations. Although this model is utilised for the marketing of goods, this model can also be used for the marketing of ideas, especially in the promotion of architectural conservation in 69 Canada towards the large segment of hockey fans through the preservation of heritage arenas. The marketing mix can be reworked to be utilized in a marketing campaign for the conservation of heritage ice hockey arenas, depicted as follows: Product Architectural conservation Price What people are willing to pay for heritage projects (i.e. donations, increased taxes) Place Heritage arenas, professional hockey games Promotion Direct marketing, targeted marketing Of special consideration for this reworked model is the Price category. What differs from a standard marketing mix is that products have a set price, however in terms of heritage conservation one is not selling a product but rather a concept, and a concept that cannot be given a fixed price. In this sense the price will refer to what people would be willing to pay for heritage projects, either through donations or increased funding by governments, which would either require a tax increase or a cut in other services. In Chapter 5 of this paper, recommendations for heritage conservation are provided. One of the recommendations specifically outlines an awareness, education, and promotion plan. The promotion plan continues with the concept of raising the awareness of heritage arena conservation and gives specific strategies on how to do so, such as the distribution of heritage arena hockey cards at games, broadcasting of heritage clips during National Hockey League broadcasts, and a national competition to select the best heritage arena in the country. 70 3.3 Altering the Perception that Canada has No History A common belief amongst the general Canadian population is that Canada has no history. One of the reasons for this sentiment could stem from the fact that very little buildings of age exist in the country. Since people are not surrounded by the past, it can be easily understood that such a sentiment exists. With the exception of Québec City, one cannot walk down old streets interrupted by the presence of new buildings. In terms of built heritage the sad fact is that very little remains of the past. The vernacular architecture of the past centuries has been nearly wiped out in the majority of Canadian cities, especially in Toronto where a great majority of the city's downtown buildings were demolished in the name of' ''progress'' or were seen to be unimportant. As a result, the current urban landscape of many of Canada's city look nothing like they did 100 years ago. The following photos comparing Toronto then and now quite clearly depict the radical transformation of its urban landscape. Front Street (1804) 71 Above: Front Street (1890) Below: Front Street (2009) 72 above: King Street, East of Yonge (1875) below: King Street, East of Yonge (2010) 73 above: Downtown Toronto (1932) below: Downtown Toronto (2008) 74 Above: Maple Leaf Gardens (1934) Below: Maple Leaf Gardens (2008) 75 The fact that Canada has no history is of course extremely false. Canada has a long and rich history, spanning back thousands and thousands of years. Canada's indigenous people have inhabited the rich land that is presently Canada since the last ice age. European contact in Canada occurred five centuries before Columbus' 'discovery' of America, when the Vikings landed in Vinland, which is now present day Newfoundland. When people refer to Canada not having a past, aspects of indigenous history and culture is not what is in their minds, they are referring to their immediate surroundings, in particular to the historical built urban landscape exists of Canada's cities and towns. When one walks through the streets of downtown Toronto, amongst the impressive highrise architecture, every now and then a building from the late 19 th / early 20th century can be found. What was once seen as a disposable resource in the past, is now treasured today. The same should be true with the arenas of Canada. Older arenas are perceived to be a disposable resource and that newer is better. By conserving just one arena, part of the historical landscape is preserved, something that Canada has been poor at doing in the past, as is clearly depicted in the previously shown photos. Through the presence of historical buildings, we are reminded that Canada does indeed have a past. If historical buildings are continued to be torn down, the only thing that will exist is the question of “why did the past generations allow something like this to happen?” A responsibility of today's generation is to change this reality for the following generations. The words of William Morris (in Bridgewood, 2009, p.10), who was one of the pioneers of conservation wrote in his 1877 manifesto for the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings: These buildings do not belong to us … they have belonged to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not … our property, to do as we like with. We are only trustees for those that come after us. Within Canada the trend of treating common heritage buildings as a disposable resource unfortunately continues until the present day. Rather than playing the role of the caretaker of the past generations, the destruction of the past continues at an alarming rate. 76 The two photos on the following page demonstrate the attitudes held towards safeguarding the everyday historical architecture of the urban landscape in Canada and in Germany. The Canadian photo depicts a scene from the author's hometown of Orangeville, Ontario. A building that formed part of the historic landscape of the town's main thoroughfare was found to be structurally unfit. Instead of making the necessary adjustments to make the building safe, the decision was made to demolish the building, and as we can easily see in the photo, the owner of the property is obviously overjoyed at such an action (most likely as he can build a new building that can generate higher rental income). Comparing this photo with the one underneath, an absolutely opposite approach to conserving common elements of the built historical urban landscape within Germany is shown. The photo was taken in the city of Cottbus, which was home to the author during his master's studies. One can easily see in the photo the poor condition of the building—there is no roof, the floors have collapsed, and only a small portion of the façade remains. Despite what appears to be a helpless building that should be knocked down, great efforts have been made at saving what is left, particularly through the installation of supporting beams to ensure that what remains of the façade does not collapse. The building in question is in itself nothing special, it is merely one of the buildings that form part of the city's historical built landscape. Yet despite this fact, one can only admire the efforts that have been undertaken to safeguard this small piece of the city's urban landscape. In a young country such as Canada, combined with the reality that few of the country's original buildings in downtown cores still survive intact, such a loss of any building that contributes to a community's historical landscape is absolutely unacceptable. If Canada fails to preserve its 100 year old buildings, they will never have the chance to become 400 years old. Through the preservation of the individual elements that compose the landscape, the 'historic feel' of a community is preserved, which would likely lead to an alteration in the public's perception of the fact that Canada has no history. 77 above: the Canadian attitude towards safeguarding the historical urban landscape below: the German attitude towards safeguarding the historical urban landscape 78 3.4 Economic Stimulation The economic benefits that can be achieved through heritage conservation is another reason in favour for conserving heritage arenas. Benefits to the economy that can be realized are numerous, in particular to local economies. The main engine for stimulation can be explained with an economic term known as the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is the theory that for each dollar spent, thirteen dollars are created within the overall economy. For example if one purchases a cup of coffee for one dollar, thirteen dollars are created through the multiple intermediaries amongst the entire economic chain. To further explain, from this one dollar spent on coffee, let us assume that the coffee shop owner receives 60 cents in profit and 40 cents go to producing the coffee, which includes items such as rent, utilities, labour, cost of coffee and so on. Each of the related intermediaries along this chain earn a portion, and with this portion continue the chain by spending on other goods and services, thereby fueling the cycle of economic distribution. economy. It is this mechanism of economic distribution that fuels the market When people spend, the economy strengthens, and when people save, the economy suffers. How this mechanism within the market economy is related to heritage conservation can be easily answered in the following question of either to conserve a building or to construct an entirely new building. In a heritage conservation project, the greatest costs are usually those of labour, whereas in a new construction, not only do labour costs exist, but so do the costs of building materials. Since it can be assumed that a great deal of building materials such as steel and lumber are outsourced from outside of the community, this results in money being sent outside of the community, rather then staying within the region. A common misconception is that conservation costs far more more than a new construction. Although the initial costs may demonstrate this, the costs in the long run to the local economy are higher due to capital outflows which cannot be utilized within the multiplier effect towards the local economy. 79 The question of job creation is also an economic benefit that can be achieved through conservation projects because they require specialized and highly skilled craftspeople such as carpenters, masons, and artisans. An increase in the number of conservation projects will require more trained workers, which leads to a stronger workforce and then to a stronger and more diversified economy. In Canada's economic and industrial heart, which is known as the Golden Horseshoe and is located around Toronto, manufacturing jobs are being lost on a daily basis and will unlikely be replaced. These jobs are good paying and provided a good life for several families. A sad reality is that not only are these jobs disappearing, there is little to no discussion at the current moment by political and economic leaders as to what will be done to replace these lost jobs. One way to create new jobs is through heritage conservation projects. The retraining of affected workers could ease some of the burden and help in the prevention of a decreasing economy. Heritage conservation projects have proved to be successful in aiding economically depressed areas. One particular example is the historical reconstruction of the Fortress of Louisbourg in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia. Constructed by the French between 1720 and 1740, the Fortress of Louisbourg was one of the largest fortifications constructed by Europeans in North America. In 1758, during the Seven Years' War, the fortress was captured and demolished by the British. In the 1960s the fortress was partially reconstructed by local unemployed coal miners who were retrained in 18 th century French stone masonry. Jobs were created in an economically depressed area, and now the site is used as a living history museum, providing interpreter jobs for local residents as well as bringing in tourism income for the local region. 80 4.0 Conservation Theory “Therefore, when we build, let us think that we build for ever. Let it not be for present delight, nor for present use alone; let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for, and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that a time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say as they look upon the labor and wrought substance of them, “See! This our fathers did for us.” For, indeed, the greatest glory of a building is not it its stones, or in its gold. Its glory is in its Age.” --John Ruskin, 1849. What exactly does heritage conservation mean? Are preservation and conservation the same thing? For many, the differences are not clear, as the expressions both conjure the image of protection, be it saving something from destruction, or keeping something alive. Parks Canada defines conservation as “all actions or processes that are aimed at safeguarding the character-defining elements of a cultural resource so as to retain its heritage value and extend its physical life” (Parks Canada, 2003, p.2). The ICOMOS Education and Training Guidelines state: “the object of conservation is to prolong the life of cultural heritage and, if possible, to clarify the artistic and historical messages therein without the loss of authenticity and meaning” (ICOMOS, 1993, p.2). Furthermore, the Deschambault Declaration defines the aims of conservation as: “proper maintenance, consolidation, repair, safeguarding and restoration, to prevent the deterioration and, at worst, the destruction of national heritage” (ICOMOS, 1982, p.3). Within heritage conservation, there exist three primary actions that can be utilized in approaches to conserving a building. These actions are 'Preservation', 'Rehabilitation', and 'Restoration'. To sum up, conservation is the overarching approach to protecting a cultural resource, and preservation is an underlying approach within the entire protection mechanism. The primary aim of conservation is ensuring that sites of cultural heritage are maintained for the future and that the authenticity and meaning of sites is respected. 81 The following chart graphically depicts the overarching concept of conservation and its three sub-branches of preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Conservation Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration To maintain a building's current form through careful maintenance and repair To repair a building and make it usable again, but preserving the features which are historically significant To bring a building back to its original form using materials that are similar to the original building materials Parks Canada (2003, p. 3) in its Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada uses the following definitions for preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration: Preservation: the action or process of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the existing materials, form, and integrity of a historic place or of an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Preservation can include both shortterm and interim measures to protect or stabilize the place, as well as long-term actions to retard deterioration or prevent damage so that the place can be kept serviceable through routine maintenance and minimal repair, rather than extensive replacement and new construction. Rehabilitation: the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of a historic place or an individual component, through repair, alterations, and/or additions, while protecting its heritage value. Rehabilitation can include replacing missing historic features. The replacement may be an accurate replica of the missing feature, or it may be a new design that is compatible with the style, era, and character of the historic place. 82 Restoration: the action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of a historic place or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value. Restoration includes the removal of features from other periods in its history and the reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. Restoration must be based on clear evidence and detailed knowledge of the earlier forms and materials being recovered. The establishment of preservation standards, criteria, and best-practices as well as their realization and implementation is perhaps one of the most critical elements of historic preservation. Such standards define a benchmark that should be achieved to ensure proper and quality conservation methods. These standards not only include the aesthetic considerations of a building's character defining elements, but also define the policies that frame and manage the designation of cultural and historic sites. Within the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Preservation of Historic Sites, the following general standards are recommended (Parks Canada, 2003, p. 24-5): General Standards (all projects) 1. Conserve the heritage value of a historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact or repairable character-defining elements. Do not move a part of a historic place if its current location is a character-defining element. 2. Conserve changes to a historic place which, over time, have become character-defining elements in their own right. 3. Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. 4. Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and use. Do not create a false sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. 5. Find a use for a historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character-defining elements. 6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize a historic place until any subsequent intervention is undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbance of archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of information. 83 7. Evaluate the existing condition of character-defining elements to determine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. 8. Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair characterdefining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character-defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. 9. Make any intervention needed to preserve character-defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place, and identifiable upon close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. Additional Standards Relating to Rehabilitation 10. Repair rather than replace character-defining elements. Where characterdefining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair, and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. Where there is insufficient physical evidence, make the form, material and detailing of the new elements compatible with the character of the historic place. 11. Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating any new additions to a historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. 12. Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of a historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. Additional Standards Relating to Restoration 13. Repair rather than replace character-defining elements from the restoration period. Where character-defining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. 14. Replace missing features from the restoration period with new features whose forms, materials. These standards by Parks Canada should form the basis of how to proceed with any conservation work for heritage arenas, especially when projects follow the sequence of investigations and actions framework listed within the ICOMOS Burra Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. A graphical depiction (ICOMOS, 2000, p. 15) of this sequence follows on the following page: 84 The Burra Charter Process Understand significance IDENTIFY PLACE AND ASSOCIATIONS Secure the place and make it safe GATHER AND RECORD INFORMATION ABOUT THE PLACE SUFFICIENT TO UNDERSTAND SIGNIFICANCE Documentary Oral Physical ASSESS SIGNIFICANCE PREPARE A STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Develop policy IDENTIFY OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM SIGNIFICANCE GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING THE FUTURE OF THE PLACE Owner/manager's needs and resources External Factors Physical Condition DEVELOP POLICY Identify options Consider options and their impact on significance Manage PREPARE A STATEMENT OF POLICY MANAGE PLACE IN ACCORDANCE OF POLICY Develop strategies Implement strategies through a management plan Record place prior to any change The whole process is iterative. Parts of it may need to be repeated. Further research and consultation may be necessary. Sequence of investigations, decisions and actions MONITOR AND REVIEW 85 The most important guideline in the conservation of hockey arenas is the concept of minimal intervention. Minimal intervention is the practice to alter character-defining elements as little as possible, and strives for making repairs as necessary and a regular system of maintenance and care to preserve elements in their original form. Authenticity of elements is important as these are the objects that constitute to the overall feeling of the place and create historical value. Summing up, less intervention creates greater historical value. When elements are replaced with unsuitable substitutions, the historical value of the building is lost. As such, any replacements or additions should respect the historical authenticity of the arena. Another aspect of conservation is the notion of meaning, which is the interpretation of historical attitudes and sensibilities in historic preservation as well as interpretations of objects, sites, and buildings at any given place. Moreover, the social and historical contexts of buildings and sites convey information about the people who lived at a particular place and particular time. When analyzing the meaning of a building or site, three positions can be used. The first position is that of age-based merit which holds the belief that anything over a certain age has historic merit. A second position is appearance-based merit, which states that specific styles of the past should be kept. The third position is value based in that everything new is bad and everything old is good. Meanings and interpretations however are dynamic and change over time and differ from place to place. What one may see as positive, another may see as negative. Current sensibilities may not be the same as those of prior generations or those of future generations. What one sees as important today, may not necessarily be important tomorrow, or vice-versa, some things that are viewed as insignificant today may be viewed as a treasure by the following generations. Conservation efforts should be measured not just on the cultural value of a building, but also on the use-value of a building. In other words, arenas should stay in use as an arena. A main goal of arena conservation is that the arena is continued to be used. 86 4.2 Conservation Experience in Action: Learning From the German As a country that has a long tradition of producing high quality products, Germany also has a long tradition of architectural conservation. When we hear the name 'Porsche' associations of precision craftsmanship and cutting-rate design immediately come to mind. The same “Made in Germany” quality work that goes into manufacturing a Porsche is also true in the conservation and rehabilitation of heritage buildings in Germany. As a Canadian living in Germany, I was able to first-hand experience the German approach to conserving the past. Instead of reading about something in a book, I was able to have a true hands-on experience. From these experiences, I have included three short case studies that look at various conservation projects in Germany from which “Canadian hockey arena conservation” can learn from. These topics are as follows: Case 1: Staedtische Turnhalle, Cottbus (1873) Case 2: Olympiastadion Berlin (1936), Olympiastadion Munich (1972) Case 3: Bauhaus, Dessau These short case studies looked at three examples of conservation in action, specifically at projects in Germany that can act as references from which to build a strong Arena Conservation policy and strategy. The Staedtische Turnhalle (Public Gymnasium) of Cottbus was built in 1873 and was renovated in 2005. Overall, the work completed on this building was conducted in a very good fashion with a great deal of attention towards preserving the building's historical elements, yet at the same time brought a 130-year old into present needs. At first glance, the overall impression is that the building looks fantastic, however when comparing the before and after photos on the following page, one element that stands out is the building's brick facade. The brickwork was cleaned too well, to the point that the historical patina was removed. Although this element is a difficult decision to define what is correct and what is not, however in terms of minimal intervention, the process of “scraping” is a process that should be avoided as we cannot initially notice if the bricks are indeed original or if they are new. 87 Staedtisches Turnhalle Cottbus (1873). Above: pre-renovation. Below: post-renovation 88 Staedtisches Turnhalle Cottbus (1873), interior. Above: pre-renovation. Below: post-renovation. 89 In 2001 Germany was selected to host the 2006 Football World Cup by FIFA, the governing body of football. One of the requirements that FIFA places on the host nation is that the stadiums to be used within the championship are up to a specific standard defined by FIFA. As a result, Germany had to analyze and assess the readiness of their stadiums and what needed to be done to fulfill FIFA's requirements. Two architecturally significant stadiums, the Berlin Olympiastadion, location of the 1936 Sumer Olympics, and the Munich Olympiastadion, location of the 1972 Summer Olympics were the focus of a 2002 report undertaken by the German ICOMOS Committee to discuss the direction what these stadiums should take in terms of fulfilling the criteria as defined by FIFA, yet respecting their historical authenticity. This report, as a matter of fact, is the only work of note that had ever been conducted on the theme of Conservation of Sporting Places. After a great deal of discussion, it was decided to make the necessary adjustments for the Berlin Olympiastadion, while at the same time undertaking a meticulous preservation and rehabilitation of the building's character-defining elements. For the Munich Olympiastadion, it was however felt that making the necessary upgrades to the stadium would destroy too much of the stadium's authenticity and character-defining elements, and that a new football stadium would be built at another location in the city. From these two examples, which dealt with the continued use of large stadiums, Canadian hockey arenas can learn that it is possible to balance the needs of today and tomorrow with the historical authenticity of the arena's past (in the case of the Berlin Olympiastadion) and secondly, certain constructions are better to be left as they are and not to be simply demolished (as in the case of the Munich Olympiastadion). As previously mentioned in this paper, no large-sized arenas that possess any heritage value no longer exist in Canada, however the German lesson could prove as a motivator for the few medium-sized arenas with heritage value in Canada that still exist to think twice before abandonment and demolition. 90 Above: Olympiastadion Berlin (1936, 2006). Preservation of exterior historical character-defining elements. Below: Olympiastadion Berlin (1936, 2006). Balancing the past with the needs of the future. 91 The third case looked at the restoration work that was done at the Bauhaus buildings in the city of Dessau. Emerging in the 1920s, the Bauhaus was one of the most influential design and architecture movements of the 20th Century. What makes the restoration work conducted in Dessau interesting for the conservation of Canadian ice hockey arenas is the attention to detail that was given to preserving and rehabilitating the individual character-defining elements of Bauhaus buildings. Parallels between the Bauhaus buildings and Canadian ice hockey arenas can be made in the sense that the individual elements that consist within each building are essential parts in determining the whole. In the German language, there exists a word called “Gesamtkunstwerk”, which can be translated into English as “the entire work of art”. In both cases, the facades are just one part of the entire building, however it is the presence of the various elements that contribute to the overall artistic value of the building. One remarkable example of the attention to detail that was given in rehabilitating the Bauhaus buildings is the sourcing of original windows. In one case, some of the original windows had been removed and reused in the construction of a greenhouse. The windows were located, and were reinstated back into the central Bauhaus building. 92 Another fine example of a historical restoration in Dessau is the Haus Muche. Initially constructed in 1926, several changes to the building as well as drastic deterioration occurred over the years, however through precise research and quality craftsmanship, the building was reinstated into its original glory. These changes can be seen below. 1927 1998 2002 93 5.0 Recommendations for Heritage Arena Conservation The following eight recommendations have been developed after a careful and thoughtful analysis of the current state of heritage arenas in Canada and what exactly should be done to best preserve them. The aim of these recommendations is to act as a catalyst for further action and to draft a blueprint for an overall concept and strategy for heritage arena conservation. Currently existing problems were looked at and answers to solve these problems were developed. Furthermore needs, goals, and specific actions have been identified and used during the developmental stages of these eight recommendations. Instead of mere words, the following recommendations indicate the direction which must be taken and outlines what should be done in order to ensure the conservation of one of Canada's most important symbols. A primary need is the establishment of an overarching action-group to oversee the facilitation of a framework for heritage arena conservation in Canada. Since nothing of of a common strategy to deal with arena conservation exists, the creation of a working group is the first logical step in policy development as well as defining best-practice standards and guidelines. Almost all of the recommendations in this section deal with organizational aspects such as developing networks, management, and promotion, with the exception of the fourth recommendation which deals specifically with the aesthetic considerations that must be taken into account when conserving heritage arenas. This recommendation serves as the second most important since it is the aesthetics of the heritage arena which give visitors the living experience of the past. The realization and implementation of these recommendations is absolutely necessary to achieve the desired outcome of best-quality arena conservation, in terms of aesthetics, organization, management, as well as promotion and awareness raising. It is hoped that by engaging various parties and expertise together, dialogue is created to thereby reach a common consensus that is mutually beneficial for all involved parties, particularly in balancing the need for preserving the past with the requirements of today and tomorrow. 94 Recommendation 1: Creation and establishment of a “Heritage Arena Conservation Network” to examine and manage regulatory issues related to arena preservation and use The first and foremost action that needs to be done in the fight to conserve Canadian heritage arenas is the creation and establishment of a ''Heritage Arena Conservation Network''. The network is to consist of members of eight groups whose purpose and function are related to arenas, hockey, and conservation. The following diagram groups each member of the network by their respective affiliation and interest: Hockey Hockey Canada Conservation Local, Provincial, Federal Heritage Organizations Arenas Canadian Recreational Facilities Council National Hockey League Heritage Canada Network of Heritage Arenas ICOMOS Friends of Heritage Arenas Members from the Hockey community should includes representatives from Hockey Canada, which is the umbrella organization for youth hockey in Canada, as well as a representation from the National Hockey League (NHL), which is the highest professional hockey league within North America. Also to be included are conservation experts from municipal, provincial, and federal organizations within Canada, as well as representation from an international organization such as ICOMOS (International Council of Museums and Sites). The presence of an international member could aid in the step of international cooperation and transfer of knowledge. 95 Last but not least to be included in the network are those on the front-line, those who work on-site at the various arenas throughout Canada. Representation from arena managers would be addressed with the presence of a delegate from the Canadian Recreational Facilities Council, which is an umbrella organization of sporting facilities within Canada. Additionally, representation from the proposed Network of Canadian Arenas and proposed Friends of Heritage Arenas network is also vital. The Heritage Arena Conservation Network would be responsible for not just the development of criteria and strategies, but most importantly, for the implementation of these strategies, in particular to oversee the realization of the other recommendations that are given within this paper. Such a network will create a strong leadership role to coordinate and consolidate the task of Heritage Arena Conservation and will simplify and streamline procedures within the steps of heritage administration through the identification of common goals and procedures as well as reduce duplication. The resulting network is depicted as follows: Hockey Canada Canadian Recreational Facilities Council Heritage Canada Foundation ICOMOS Heritage Arena Conservation Network Network of Heritage Arenas Friends of Heritage Arenas National Hockey League Local, Provincial, Federal Heritage Organizations 96 Recommendation II: Creation and establishment of a Network of Heritage Arenas The second recommendation is the creation and establishment of a ''Network of Heritage Arenas” that would connect the various heritage arenas across Canada together (and potentially around the world). Linking together historic sites with a common theme is frequently done within Europe, particularly in Germany where numerous networks exists such as the networks of Gothic Brick Churches, historic Windmills, and Industrial Heritage. Criteria for inclusion in the network must be defined, and these criteria must be fulfilled since the network is to stand for the best of heritage hockey arenas in Canada. Each individual arena is part of the whole, and the backbone of the network is built upon individual anchor points. These individual anchor points are afforded the opportunity to increase their profile by confirming their status as important and authentic. Member arenas would achieve a sense of status and prestige, due to their select inclusion to the network. This status could boost the amount of arena preservation due to other arenas seeking to become members of the club. Networks of related sites possess numerous benefits and advantages, both internal and external. Perhaps the most positive outcome of such networks is the sharing of knowledge and know-how amongst various members of the network. An additional benefit is the identification of common goals and procedures as well as the development of common standards and guidelines for conservation. Moreover, such a network would help in raising awareness for heritage arenas. Other advantages include profile / status, publicity, dialogue, knowledge, potential tourism as well as the sharing of knowledge, concepts, and solutions to problems. 97 Recommendation III: “Friends of Heritage Arenas” Foundation Sports fans are truly fanatics. One needs to only look at the supporters of the football club FC Union Berlin to understand this. Supporters of this club are well-known not just for their love of their team, but in particular the measures at how they demonstrate their support. In 2008 the team's stadium, Die alte Försterei, was renovated completely by club supporters who volunteered their time and labour in order for team management to save on construction labour, thus freeing up capital to purchase better players. Another well known fan action by FC Union Berlin supporters was the '' Blut für Union'' (Blood for Union) campaign. In Germany, people are paid by hospitals for giving blood. The Blood for Union campaign was an organized fan event where club supporters gave their blood to hospitals en masse, and the resulting money was given to the club. Supporters of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team are also somewhat fanatic in their loyalty. For instance each home game has been sold out since 1947, despite the club's lack of a championship win in nearly 45 years. Such fan support could assist in heritage arena conservation though their organization and representation through a 'Friends of Heritage Arenas Foundation'. Members of such a foundation can assist in three ways. First and foremost is through donations and fundraising as several fans have very deep pockets and could help finance conservation projects. Secondly, members of the foundation could volunteer their time and services with labour and expertise on some aspects of the physical and organization duties required in a heritage conservation project. This saves money, which is extremely helpful, since heritage funding is not the highest. Thirdly members can help spread the word of the heritage arena program since word-of-mouth advertising is considered to be the best form of marketing. Since awareness and education is one of the primary goals of conservation, having such individuals to assist in these goals can prove to be a strong asset in the struggle for heritage conservation. Fans are the most important target audience to reach since it is they who are the people who are visiting arenas, but are also those who are more likely to appreciate and understand the significance of heritage arenas. 98 Recommendation IV: Establishment of Criteria to Determine Heritage Arena Status What are the defining characteristics of an arena that would classify it as a heritage arena? There are two initial characteristics that could be used to assess a potential heritage arena, namely the age of the arena as well as its architectural significance. From these two initial criteria, the deciding criteria that is of greatest importance to conservation is the degree of authenticity of each arena's character-defining elements. Architectural Significance Age Value Authenticity These criteria however can be difficult to concretely define as their interpretation is variable. For example, what exactly is architectural significance? What makes the design of one arena more interesting or significant than another arena? Taste is subjective and beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. For certain individuals, a certain arena may be of interest for its design, whereas another may view the same arena as having no interest. The second criteria to be discussed is that of the age value of an arena. How old should an arena be in order for it to be deemed as a potential candidate for heritage arena status? Interestingly enough, the Ontario Heritage Age does not define a minimum age for sites to be considered for heritage designation. To what degree of authenticity of an arena's character-defining elements should be present in order for it to be deemed as historically authentic? Again, another criteria which is problematic in order to create a concrete definition. 99 Recommendation V: Development of a set of Best-Standards Practices to provide sound, practical guidance to achieve good conservation practice of Heritage Arenas Every building consists of several character-defining elements which influence the aesthetic composition of the overall picture. How to deal with these character-defining elements within a conservation project is the most important question that needs to be answered. The conservation of arenas poses an interesting situation, as it can be argued that the inside of the building is more significant that the outside. Usually, when we look at a building, we see just its facade, however with arenas the interior of the building is its soul and is instrumental in shaping the spirit and atmosphere of the place. Because of the importance that an arena's interior has in shaping its 'identity', conservation efforts must not include an assessment of the arena's facade, but most importantly, must include an assessment of the arena's interior character-defining elements. After a careful analysis of the various elements that make up the entire arena, the following character-defining elements were deemed as items that must be considered in the conservation of arenas: Exterior Facade Exterior Lighting Fixtures Seating Character-Defining Elements Scoreboards Interior Elements (i.e. structure) Advertisements (yes or no) Signage and Typefaces Arena Name (i.e original name vs. corporate branding) 100 The most important guideline in the conservation of hockey arenas is the concept of minimal intervention. Minimal intervention is the practice to alter character-defining elements as little as possible, and strives for making repairs as necessary and a regular system of maintenance and care to preserve elements in their original form. Authenticity of elements is important as these are the objects that constitute to the overall feeling of the place and create historical value. Summing up, less intervention creates greater historical value. When elements are replaced with unsuitable substitutions, the historical value of the building is lost. As such, any replacements or additions should respect the historical authenticity of the arena. Specific examples of conservation measures when dealing with character-defining elements will be highlighted using the Galt Arena Gardens in Cambridge, Ontario as a point of reference. Built in 1922, the arena claims to be the oldest operational arena in Canada. In 1997, the arena was renovated, with an end result of both good and bad decisions in terms of retaining the arena's historical authenticity. The restoration of the Galt Arena Gardens facade sets a very good benchmark for other arenas to follow (see Image 8, p. 29). However, a further investigation of the strategy undertaken to deal with other character-defining elements are examples that should NOT be followed. For instance, the arena's original wooden seating was replaced with plastic seats. Another poor decision was to replace the entrance doors with a substitute that does not accurately reflect the original doors and the overall aesthetics of the arena's original design. Similar decisions to reframe the box office and concessions booths with aluminum framing, rather than repairing the original wooden framing have decreased the arena's historical value and authenticity. Photographic examples which compare the original with the new will be shown on the following three pages. 101 Above: Galt Arena Gardens, original seating Below: Galt Arena Gardens, replacement seating 102 Above: Galt Arena Gardens, original doors Below: Galt Arena Gardens, replacement doors 103 Above: Budapest Kisstadion Ice Hockey Arena, ticket booth (example used for demonstrational purposes). Below: Galt Arena Gardens, replacement ticket booth 104 General guidelines and recommendations for the conservation of certain characterdefining elements such as windows, brickwork, and structural systems have been defined by Parks Canada (2003, p. 24-145) in their publication “Standards and Guidelines for the Preservation of Historic Sites in Canada”. The guidelines which relate to certain character-defining elements in hockey arenas can be found in Appendix II of this paper. Since one of the primary goals of conserving Canadian ice hockey arenas is their continued use, a strategy to balance the needs of respecting each arena's historical authenticity with the needs of today and tomorrow is of great importance. Moreover questions of current safety, fire, and accessibility codes must be worked into the mix. 105 Recommendation VI: Development and implementation of a Management and Action Plan for the Conservation of Heritage Arenas Every business and organization requires business and management planning to ensure the positive direction and goal achievement of each entity. The same is true for the management of cultural heritage sites. As such another recommendation is the development and implementation of a Heritage Conservation Action Plan which lays down policies and guidelines for dealing with the conservation of Heritage Arenas. Within this plan a set of best-practice solutions must be identified and defined. The “purpose of a management system is to ensure the effective protection of the nominated property for present and future generations” and that “an effective management system depends on the type, characteristics and needs of the nominated property and its cultural and natural context.” Paragraph 111 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines further defines that an effective management system should include the following common elements: a) a thorough shared understanding of the properties by all stakeholders; b) a cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback; c) the involvement of partners and stakeholders; d) the allocation of necessary resources; e) capacity-building; and f) an accountable, transparent description of how the management system functions. The Parks Canada document ''Parks Canada Guide to Management Planning'' provides a very detailed and straightforward explanation on how to develop an effective management planning system for sites of cultural heritage. Of particular interest is their Management Planning Cycle, which consists of seven elements: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. "State of" Report Scoping Document Management Plan Field Unit Business Plan "Monitoring Annual Implementation Reports Internal Analysis 106 The management plan is just one part of the entire management planning cycle. A management plan alone is a useful document, however it alone cannot be truly effective in ensuring the delivery of required results. The management plan must be included within the Planning Cycle. The plan's position within the entire chain of the planning cycle is graphically depicted below: Internal Analysis Scoping Document Management Plan - Based on ''State of'' Report - Identify issues/opportunities - Propose management direction - Present an integrated vision - Identify key strategies and areas - State objectives and actions to achieve desired results ''State of'' Report Monitor - Assess condition and trends for all indicators - Assess effectiveness of management actions - condition of heritage resources, visitor experience, public education - results of management actions Field Unit Busines Plan Annual Implementation Reports - Report on performance in achieving desired results The project planning cycle starts with the development of a vision statement that portrays the future goals and desired state of the heritage site as well as encompassing all of the elements of the mandate. The vision statement forms the basis for developing key strategies that outline the direction for protection, public education, and visitor experience, and so on. The vision statement helps communicate why a site of cultural heritage is significant as well as defining the desired long-term state of a protected heritage place. It is also acts as the foundation for management and planning teams to address day-to-day management of the heritage site. 107 Parks Canada defines an an affective vision statement as (2008, p. 42): – – – – – – vivid and conveys the special character of the place short (its length is a paragraph to a page) passionate and inspirational, so that it can be easily embraced by staff, stakeholders and the public stated in terms of results for all mandate elements broadly understood and supported by the local area residents and key stakeholders clear and written in language that promotes understanding and ensures its longevity Key strategies are an important tool within management planning as they translate the underlying vision of the management plan into a concrete strategic direction as well as developing a focus on management approaches needed to address issues for heritage protection, visitor experience, and public education. During the stages of developing a management plan, key strategies provide a framework for setting objectives, targets and actions for cultural heritage sites. Moreover, key strategies clarify the issues and opportunities for heritage sites as well as establish clear statements that are results–based and define the priorities to achieve results. Management plans that use key strategies that are interrelated help ensure that actions for protection are mutually supportive, thereby avoiding the understatement of values or in some cases conflicting values. Monitoring is another crucial element of the management planning cycle and consists of the two aspects of 'effectiveness' and 'conditions'. Effectiveness monitoring looks at completed past actions and if these actions achieved the defined set of desired goals. Condition monitoring looks to answer the question of the current state of a cultural heritage site. In the case of developing a management plan for Canadian Heritage Arenas, obviously the first step would be the development of a system that defines condition monitoring since the current state of the arenas must first be analyzed. Parks Canada's approach to condition monitoring (2008, p. 24) is achieved through the “ongoing process of collecting and analyzing data on a suite of carefully selected monitoring indicators in a rigorous and consistent manner, and comparing and reporting the results to pre-identified management targets.” Such monitoring indicators would need to be developed for the monitoring of Canadian heritage arenas, and could be based upon the future development of best-practice standards and guidelines. 108 Another element of Parks Canada's system of management cycle planning (2008, p. 55) is the scoping document. The scoping document is used to define the scope and context of planning programs within management plans and contains the following elements: – – – – – – – – – Planning context Proposed vision elements Significant issues and challenges Anticipated management approach Key strategies Area approach Consultation / public engagement Financial considerations Planning program schedule Parks Canada also has a policy of reviewing their management plans each five years and uses a decision tree (2008, p. 28) to determine which steps should be undertaken depending upon their review. Internal Analysis Five-Year Review Scoping Document Reccomends that plan remains in force Recommends ammendments Recommends new plan No amendments tabled Amendments approved by Minister and tabled New plan approved by Minister and tabled 109 Parks Canada's 'Principles of Management Planning' (2008, p. 10-11) are also a cornerstone of the realization of proper management planning. These principles include: Integration — Management planning focuses on an integrated delivery of the Parks Canada mandate Results-based — Management plans provide a vision for protected heritage places, articulate that vision through strategic objectives, set out actions to achieve that vision and provide a basis for monitoring and reporting on progress. Engagement — The management planning process recognizes the role and value of partners, constituents and stakeholders, and engages them in a way that responds to their needs and expectations. Fiscal responsibility — Management plans are developed and implemented in a manner that is fiscally responsible and builds on realistic expectations for implementation within the expected financial resources of the field unit. Clarity and brevity — Management plans and all ancillary public documents are written in clear, concise and plain language. Timeliness — Everyone involved in the management planning process has a role to play in ensuring that plans are developed, reviewed and implemented in a timely and effective manner. The previously demonstrated elements of Parks Canada's Management Planning Cycle can be utilized as a model in the development of a management and action plan for Canadian Heritage Arenas. One of the key advantages of the planning cycle is that it is a cycle, rather than a stand-alone system that stops after one document is created, specifically the management plan itself. A planning cycle ensures that sites of cultural heritage significance are continuously monitored and reviewed to ensure that desired goals are being completed and achieved and moreover to assess any new threats or opportunities that may arise over the course of a five-year period. 110 Recommendation VII: Awareness, Education, and Promotion Plan Another recommendation for the conservation of Canadian heritage arenas is the creation of an awareness, education, and promotion plan. This recommendation builds upon the ideas and goals identified within Section 3.2 (Increasing the Awareness of Architectural Conservation in Canada) by introducing the actions that can be undertaken to increase awareness of Canadian Heritage Arenas as well as public education through promotional measures. Although the proposed promotion measures have been formulated to directly increase awareness and public education of heritage arenas, these measures have a secondary and indirect on increasing awareness of the general idea of heritage conservation. Recommendation II of this chapter suggests the creation of a network of heritage arenas to facilitate the exchange of know-how and solutions between arenas. Such a network is also beneficial for awareness-raising as arenas belonging to the network achieve status through their classification as a heritage arena. This status can be displayed through a sign or marking at each designated arena. In this sense, a logo designating heritage arenas should be developed. This will not only promote the arena as a heritage arena, but would also indirectly promote the concept of heritage arena conservation. Each year the Canadian public television broadcaster holds a competition called “Hockeyville”. The Hockeyville competition is done in conjunction with the annual 'Hockey Day in Canada' celebrations, which have established themselves to be a day of togetherness and celebration during the long and harsh Canadian winters. Residents of communities across Canada submit their town to be entered into the competition. From the entries a short-list of finalists is created, which is then voted upon by the general public. The winning community receives the honour of being dubbed Hockeyville during the annual Hockey Day in Canada celebrations and for one day the community is at the centre of national attention. A similar competition to select Canada's best heritage arena could be developed, thereby raising awareness of the concept of heritage arenas. 111 Many people in Canada are avid collectors of hockey cards, similar to the worldwide phenomenon of sticker albums for football. Using this niche of the society, a set of hockey cards which depict the various heritage arenas in Canada could be developed. Such a set of cards could be distributed at hockey games or even could be included in the regular set of yearly hockey cards that collectors so love. The front side of each card would show a photo of a heritage arena and the reverse side would have information about the arena itself. Further information on each card could direct people to a website that is specifically built to showcase the heritage arena movement. A website showcasing heritage arenas should also be built which not only outlines the importance of conserving heritage arenas, but could also be utilized as a springboard to increase awareness of heritage conservation in general. Not only does such a website for arenas not exist, a book about Canadian arenas in general does not exist. This in itself is truly shocking as in Canada one can find literally hundreds of books about the sport of ice hockey. Such a book would not only be a top-seller, it would also promote conservation and heritage arenas, much like the other promotion measures. An exhibition dedicated to Canadian arenas to be held at either a museum or at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto would act as a further promotional tool for increasing awareness and public education. A reality more shocking than the lack of any books or written material dealing with Canadian arenas is that such an exhibition has not yet been done, especially by the Hockey Hall of Fame. Stories about individual players and teams are plentiful, but little to no attention is paid to the actual location of where legends are made. The realization of the aforementioned promotional methods would drastically increase public awareness and education of not only heritage arenas, but heritage conservation in general through exciting and non-conventional methods that would captivate the attention of the Canadian people. 112 Recommendation VIII: Creation of a Heritage Arena Protection Act The creation of a Heritage Arena Protection Act to be passed by the Canadian Parliament is an absolute must in the goal of conserving Canadian heritage arenas. Two similar federal acts to designate and preserve historically significant symbols of Canada currently exist, the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, which was passed in 1998, and the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, officially known as Bill S-125, was passed in 2008. Bill S-125 is a federal act to designate and preserve Canadian lighthouses that are deemed to be historically significant. Designated heritage lighthouses will require public consultation before any alterations or proposed demolitions. Moreover the Bill requires designated lighthouses to be maintained in accordance to national and international standards of heritage conservations. Criteria to designate heritage lighthouses was the task of the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada agency. The minister was also responsible for establishing an advisory committee to assist in the evaluation of candidate sites. Individual lighthouses could also be nominated by the public if a petition signed by 25 Canadian citizens was presented. The 'Heritage Arena Protection Act' should follow the currently existing Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act and Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act in terms of structure, ruling, and procedures. 113 6.0 Conclusion Despite the enormous cultural significance that sport plays within the realm of culture, the current focus towards the heritage of sport is shockingly non-existent. Up to now, very little has been done in the analysis of sporting places as an object of cultural significance and moreover recognizing sporting places in terms of their aesthetic beauty and architectural significance. Furthermore, approaches to conserving sports stadiums and arenas are far and few between. This fact holds true on all levels, be it international, national, or local. This paper aims to reverse this trend and get the ball rolling on the conservation of sporting places, specifically the conservation of Canadian ice hockey arenas, an area up until now, had not been addressed in any shape or form. In Canada, despite the far-reaching popularity of ice hockey as well as the role it plays in shaping Canadian identity and culture, the attention given towards preserving the places where the sport itself takes place is next to nil. Too large of an amount of heritage ice hockey arenas in Canada are currently threatened by demolition, abandonment, or alterations that destroy each building's character-defining elements. The current pattern of irreplaceable loss must be stopped at once—too many of Canada's cultural icons have been destroyed, leaving behind only faint memories of what once existed. The end goal of saving these arenas from irreplaceable lost is the main purpose of this study. A primary reason for these irreplaceable losses stems from the non-existence of any overarching heritage policies and practices for the conservation of Canadian hockey arenas. The research and recommendations conducted in this study is an attempt to solve this problem, by laying down a conservation strategy with the overall goal to conserve these elements of Canadian life, culture, and identity for future generations. As a matter of fact, this study represents the first systematic attempt in the analysis of Canadian hockey arenas as an object of cultural value and furthermore, this study is also the first that looks at these arenas as an object of aesthetic beauty and outlines a strategy to ensure their proper conservation and continued use for current and future generations. 114 After a careful and thoughtful analysis of the current state of heritage arenas in Canada and what exactly must be done to best conserve them, eight recommendations were developed to best address all issues surrounding arena conservation and how to best implement a working and viable strategy that ensures their continued survival. Currently existing problems were looked at and answers to solve these problems were developed. These recommendations set in place a strategy to address organizational aspects such as developing networks, management, and promotion as well as the aesthetic considerations that must be taken into account when conserving heritage arenas. The aim of these recommendations is to act as a catalyst for further action and to draft a blueprint for an overall concept and strategy for heritage arena conservation and include the: 1. Formation of a “Heritage Arena Conservation Network” 2. Creation of a 'Network of Heritage Arenas' 3. Initiation of a 'Friends of Heritage Arenas' foundation 4. Definition of 'Criteria for Heritage Arena Status' 5. Establishment of 'Best-Standards and Practices Guidelines' 6. Execution of a 'Management and Action Plan' 7. Implementation of an 'Awareness, Education, and Promotion Plan' 8. Passing of a 'Heritage Arena Protection Act' The realization and implementation of these recommendations is absolutely necessary to achieve the desired outcome of best-quality arena conservation, in terms of aesthetics, organization, management, as well as promotion and awareness raising. It is hoped that by engaging various parties and expertise together, dialogue is created to thereby reach a common consensus that is mutually beneficial for all involved parties, particularly in balancing the need for preserving the past with the requirements of today and tomorrow. This work not only represents the initiation of studies within conservation of arenas, but also on a far greater scale, opens the door to further scholastic research on sporting places in general. 115 On an international level, this work also represents one of the first major attempts to define and develop approaches for the conservation of sport stadiums. Surprisingly, very little work has been conducted on not only examining the cultural significance of sport, but in terms of architectural conservation, systematic attempts at developing guidelines and strategies for dealing with the conservation of sporting places are next to nonexistent. It is hoped that this study will lead to the development of other sporting stadium specific studies such as baseball stadiums in the United States or football stadiums in Germany. It is the initiation of a new thematic approach which makes this study significant, not just within Canada, but also on an international scale. This paper did not just develop a working strategy that addresses the best-practice approaches and implementation plans to conserve Canadian ice hockey arenas, this study also deeply investigated questions of Canadian identity and culture. Specifically the cultural significance of Canadian ice hockey arenas is demonstrated and explained within this academic paper, primarily within the context of how ice hockey is a defining image within Canadian identity. The question of Canadian identity has been a very difficult question to answer by cultural theorists and to date has not yet been fully defined. Canada, as a young, large, and diverse country, has struggled to exactly define what is Canadian. Within this paper, the hypothesis of the notion of community has been suggested as a cornerstone that defines Canadian identity, which in itself represents a major breakthrough in answering the question of what composes Canadian culture. The symbolic relationship between hockey arenas and the notion of community make their conservation an major priority in conserving an aspect of Canadian culture. Far too many of Canada's historical buildings have been forever lost, and this pattern must immediately stop. As guardians of the past and the future, failure to conserve our heritage is not just a spit in the face of those who built Canada, but more importantly is not the legacy that we should leave to those who will inherit Canada. The decision is in our hands to shape the past, present, and future. 116 List of Sources Used Bridgwood, Barry, 2009. History, Performance and Conservation. New York: Taylor & Francis. Canadian Recreational Facilities Council, 2006. National Arena Census. Toronto: CRFC. Chatfield-Taylor, Adele, 1995. ''From Ruskin to Rouse,'' in Historic Preservation: Forging a Discipline, ed. Beth Sullebarger. New York: Preservation Alumni. Corsana, Gerard, 2005. Heritage, Museums and Galleries. Milton Park: Routledge. Council of Europe, 1975. European Charter of the Architectural Heritage. ??. Cuthbert, Chris, 1997. The Rink: Stories from Hockey's Small Towns. Toronto: Penguin Books. Denhez, Marc, 1970. Heritage Fights Back. Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside. Dryden, Ken, 1989. Home Game: Hockey and Life in Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Duplacey, James, 1998. Total Hockey. New York: National Hockey League. Edson, Gary, 1987. Museum Ethics. London: Routledge. Edson, Gary, 1996. The Handbook for Museums. London: Routledge. Erder, Cevat, 1987. Our Architectural Heritage: From Consciousness to Conservation. Paris: UNESCO. Government of Canada, 1998. Connecting to the Canadian Experience: Diversity, Creativity and Choice. Ottawa: Ministry of Public Works and Government Services. Government of Ontario, 2006. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario. Gruneau, Richard, 1994. Hockey Night in Canada: Sport, Identities and Cultural Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gzowski, Peter, 1998. Canada on Ice. Toronto: Penguin Books. Hubbard, R.H., 1975. Preserving the Canadian Heritage. Ottawa: The Royal Society of Canada. 117 ICOMOS Australia, 2000. The Burra Charter – The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Burwood: ICOMOS Australia. ICOMOS Germany, 2002. Sport-Stätten-Kultur ICOMOS – Sports-Sites-Culture. München, ICOMOS, 1982. Charter for the Preservation of Québec's Hertiage (Descambault Declaration). Paris: ICOMOS. ICOMOS, 1993. Guidelines for Education and Training in the Conservation of Monuments, Ensembles and Sites. Paris: ICOMOS. ICOMOS, 2005. The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps – an Action Plan for the Future. Paris: International Secretariat of ICOMOS. ICOMOS, 2007. The Soviet Heritage and European Modernism. Berlin: hernirk bäßler verlag. Ipsos Reid, 2007. Seven in Ten (69%) Say Common History, Heroes and Symbols Make Canada a Successful Society. Toronto: Ipsos Reid. Irwin, J. Kirk, 2003. Historic Preservation Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. Jones, Martin, 2002. Hockey's Home Halifax-Dartmouth: The Origin of Canada's Game. Halifax: Nimbus Publishing. Morale, Belinda, 1998. Heritage Preservation and Conservation Procedures for Local Governments. Toronto: ICURR. Nerdinger, Winfried, 2006. Architektur + Sport: Vom antiken Stadion zur modernen Arena. Wolfratshausen: Edition Minerva. Markgraf, Monika, 2011. Denkmalpflege der Moderne. Ludwigsburg: Wüstenrot Stiftung. Orbaşli, Aylin, 2008. Architectural Conservation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Parks Canada, 2000. National Historic Sites of Canada: System Plan . Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Parks Canada, 2003. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Parks Canada, 2008. Parks Canada Guide to Management Planning . Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. 118 Pearce, David, 1989. Conservation Today. London: Routledge. Pevre, Geoff, 1996. Mondo Canuck: A Canadian Pop Culture Odyssey. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada. Podnieks, Andrew, et. al., 2002. Kings of the Ice. Richmond Hill: NDE Publishing. Quantrell, Jim, 2000. A Part of our Past: Essays on Cambridge's History. Cambridge: City of Cambridge Archives. Russell, Peter, 1966. Nationalism in Canada. Toronto: McGraw Hill. Rypkema, Donovan D, 1994. The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Schmidt, Leo, 2008. Architectural Conservation: An Introduction. Verlag GmbH. Berlin: Westkreuz- Sherbert, Garry, 2006. Essays on Canadian Culture. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press. Swanke Hayden Connell Architects, 2000. Historic Preservation: Project Planning & Estimating. Kingston, MA: R.S. Means Company, Inc. Tyler, Norman, 2000. Historic Preservation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, 2008. Heritage Barns: Statewide Survey and Physical Needs Assessment. Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, 2008. Historic Theatres: Statewide Survey and Physical Needs Assessment. 119 Image Sources # Source 01 Paul-Joseph Frater 02 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Sault_Memorial_Gardens_1.jpg 03 http://dcnonl.com/images/archives/2006/08/10/151.jpg 04 Paul-Joseph Frater 05 Paul-Joseph Frater 06 Paul-Joseph Frater 07 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StannusStreetRink2008.png 08 Paul-Joseph Frater 09 Paul-Joseph Frater 10 Paul-Joseph Frater 11 Paul-Joseph Frater 12 Paul-Joseph Frater 13 Paul-Joseph Frater 14 http://windsorite.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/barn-570x233.jpg 15 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/3007265254_75e2d24894_o.jpg 16 Suzy Hall, Bishop's College School 17 Suzy Hall, Bishop's College School 18 Paul-Joseph Frater 19 Paul-Joseph Frater 20 Paul-Joseph Frater 21 Paul-Joseph Frater 22 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Halifax_NS_Forum_2.jpg 23 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Halifax_NS_Forum_1.jpg 24 http://www.cegep-st-laurent.qc.ca/cegep/files/2010/03/Ar%C3%A9na-Ronald-Caron-1930.jpg 25 http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6032/5915183363_777b56f0ed_b.jpg 26 http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5008/5373989455_c9a820c964_o.jpg 27 http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5201/5374589764_21f60d4e60_o.jpg 28 http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3596/3314924695_a86ff3aafb_b.jpg 29 http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5006/5374605590_85317a30da_o.jpg 30 http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/11797/jacques_plante_arena.jpg 31 http://www.roamingtherinks.com/photos/Arena-Jacques-Plante/Jacques%20Plante%20ice%20level %20fixed.jpg 32 http://www.ville.st-hyacinthe.qc.ca/images/loisirs/activites/sports/Gaucher-jour-2657_l.jpg 33 http://www.roamingtherinks.com/lp%20guacher%20outside%20fixed.jpg 34 http://www.qmjhlarenaguide.com/sthyacinthe2.jpg 35 http://www.qmjhlarenaguide.com/cocacola.jpg 36 http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/jeffisgr8t-1122314.jpg 37 http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/jeffisgr8t-1122314.jpg 38 http://sportreestr.ru/upload/iblock/f1a/verdun_auditorium_1.jpg 39 http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3203/3030927456_3d6c635d5a_z.jpg?zz=1 40 http://www.roamingtherinks.com/photos/Arena-Grand-Mere/Grand%20Mere%20outside %201%20fixed.jpg 41 http://www.roamingtherinks.com/photos/Arena-Grand-Mere/Grand%20Mere%20warmups %20fixed.jpg 42 http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101028165753/icehockey/images/thumb/5/5c/ KamloopsMemArena.png/400px-KamloopsMemArena.png 43 http://www.picturekamloops.com/Sports-and-Tournament/Arenas-MemorialArena/P1141966smug2/495885764_5qAwA-M-1.jpg 44 http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/forum6.jpg 45 http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/forum1.jpg 46 http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/forum3.jpg 120 47 http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/forum5.jpg 48 Paul-Joseph Frater 49 Paul-Joseph Frater 50 http://www.flickr.com/photos/55976115@N00/324850125/ 51 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/2292495975_676df5898a.jpg 52 http://www.edmontonjournal.com/5647673.bin?size=620x400s 53 http://oneillrealestate.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ted-Reeve-Arena.jpg 54 http://www.connectionsmagazine.ca/uploads/stories/309/photos/236/Exterior.jpg 55 http://www.ohlarenaguide.com/estevan.jpg 56 http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6146/6197030556_1fc532466d_b.jpg 57 http://www.ohlarenaguide.com/moosejaw.jpg 58 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/84/Saint_mikes_arena.JPG/1280pxSaint_mikes_arena.JPG 59 http://v3.cache3.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/6828167.jpg 60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coquitlam_Sports_Centre.jpg 61 http://archives.westvancouver.ca/destinationstimewalk/images/routes/dundarave/ sites/1143.WVML.MCP.COL.jpg 62 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Pne-agrodome.jpg 63 http://www.flickr.com/photos/squeakymarmot/6135406662/sizes/l/in/photostream/ 64 Paul-Joseph Frater 65 Paul-Joseph Frater 66 Paul-Joseph Frater 67 Paul-Joseph Frater 68 http://www.toronto.ca/culture/history/images/ch3/York_1804_Hale.jpg 69 http://readwritestroll.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/GooderhamBuilding1890s.jpg 70 Paul-Joseph Frater 71 http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_jamieb/20100902carriage.jpg 72 Google Street View 73 http://2nddrafts.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/2011_07_03_f1244_it10002.jpg%3Fw%3D500%26h %3D391 74 http://www.snaphappyross.co.uk/americas/canada/toronto/02downtowntoronto.jpg 75 http://www.toronto.ca/archives/images/f1244_it3185.jpg 76 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/ Maple_Leaf_Gardens,_east_side.JPG/799px-Maple_Leaf_Gardens,_east_side.JPG 77 http://www.citizen.on.ca/images/2007-08-09/015p1_xlg.preview.jpg 78 Paul-Joseph Frater 79 Paul-Joseph Frater 80 Paul-Joseph Frater 81 Ulrich Sasse 82 Paul-Joseph Frater 83 Ulrich Sasse 84 Paul-Joseph Frater 85 http://img.fotocommunity.com/images/Deutschland/Berlin/Olympiastadion-Berlin-a24591143.jpg 86 http://img.fotocommunity.com/images/CharlottenburgWilmersdorf/ Olympiastadion/Olympiastadion-a24275915.jpg 87 Markgraf 2009, p. 109 88 Paul-Joseph Frater 89 Markgraf 2011, p. 206 90 Paul-Joseph Frater 91 Paul-Joseph Frater 92 Paul-Joseph Frater 93 Paul-Joseph Frater 94 Paul-Joseph Frater 95 Paul-Joseph Frater 121 The Burra Charter (Charter for Places of Cultural Significance) The Burra Charter provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance (cultural heritage places), and is based on the knowledge and experience of Australia ICOMOS members. The Charter sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, or undertake works to places of cultural significance, including owners, managers and custodians. The Charter can be applied to all types of places of cultural significance including natural, indigenous and historic places with cultural values. The Burra Charter advocates a cautious approach to change: do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it usable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained. Article 1. Definitions For the purposes of this Charter: 1.1 Place means site, area, land, landscape, building or other work, group of buildings or other works, and may include components, contents, spaces and views. 1.2 Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects. Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups. 1.3 Fabric means all the physical material of the place including components, fixtures, contents, and objects. 1.4 Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance. 1.5 Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of a place, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction. 122 1.6 Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration. 1.7 Restoration means returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material. 1.8 Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric. 1.9 Adaptation means modifying a place to suit the existing use or a proposed use. 1.10 Use means the functions of a place, as well as the activities and practices that may occur at the place. 1.11 Compatible use means a use which respects the cultural significance of a place. Such a use involves no, or minimal, impact on cultural significance. 1.12 Setting means the area around a place, which may include the visual catchment. 1.13 Related place means a place that contributes to the cultural significance of another place. 1.14 Related object means an object that contributes to the cultural significance of a place but is not at the place. 1.15 Associations mean the special connections that exist between people and a place. 1.16 Meanings denote what a place signifies, indicates, evokes or expresses. 1.17 Interpretation means all the ways of presenting the cultural significance of a place. Conservation Principles Article 2. Conservation and management 2.1 Places of cultural significance should be conserved. 2.2 The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place. 2.3 Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance. 123 2.4 Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state. Article 3. Cautious approach 3.1 Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. 3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture. Article 4. Knowledge, skills and techniques 4.1 Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place. 4.2 Traditional techniques and materials are preferred for the conservation of significant fabric. In some circumstances modern techniques and materials which offer substantial conservation benefits may be appropriate. Article 5. Values 5.1 Conservation of a place should identify and take into consideration all aspects of cultural and natural significance without unwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others. 5.2 Relative degrees of cultural significance may lead to different conservation actions at a place. Article 6. Burra Charter process 6.1 The cultural significance of a place and other issues affecting its future are best understood by a sequence of collecting and analysing information before making decisions. Understanding cultural significance comes first, then development of policy and finally management of the place in accordance with the policy. 6.2 The policy for managing a place must be based on an understanding of its cultural significance. 6.3 Policy development should also include consideration of other factors affecting the 124 future of a place such as the owner’s needs, resources, external constraints and its physical condition. Article 7. Use 7.1 Where the use of a place is of cultural significance it should be retained. 7.2 A place should have a compatible use. Article 8. Setting Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate visual setting and other relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place. New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate. Article 9. Location 9.1 The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. A building, work or other component of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival. 9.2 Some buildings, works or other components of places were designed to be readily removable or already have a history of relocation. Provided such buildings, works or other components do not have significant links with their present location, removal may be appropriate. 9.3 If any building, work or other component is moved, it should be moved to an appropriate location and given an appropriate use. Such action should not be to the detriment of any place of cultural significance. Article 10. Contents Contents, fixtures and objects which contribute to the cultural significance of a place should be retained at that place. Their removal is unacceptable unless it is: the sole means of ensuring their security and preservation; on a temporary basis for treatment or exhibition; for cultural reasons; for health and safety; or to protect the place. Such contents, fixtures and objects should be returned where circumstances permit and it is culturally appropriate. 125 Article 11. Related places and objects The contribution which related places and related objects make to the cultural significance of the place should be retained. Article 12. Participation Conservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of people for whom the place has special associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place. Article 13. Co-existence of cultural values Co-existence of cultural values should be recognised, respected and encouraged, especially in cases where they conflict. Conservation Processes Article 14. Conservation processes Conservation may, according to circumstance, include the processes of: retention or reintroduction of a use; retention of associations and meanings; maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation and interpretation; and will commonly include a combination of more than one of these. Article 15. Change 15.1 Change may be necessary to retain cultural significance, but is undesirable where it reduces cultural significance. The amount of change to a place should be guided by the cultural significance of the place and its appropriate interpretation. 15.2 Changes which reduce cultural significance should be reversible, and be reversed when circumstances permit. 15.3 Demolition of significant fabric of a place is generally not acceptable. However, in some cases minor demolition may be appropriate as part of conservation. Removed significant fabric should be reinstated when circumstances permit. 126 15.4 The contributions of all aspects of cultural significance of a place should be respected. If a place includes fabric, uses, associations or meanings of different periods, or different aspects of cultural significance, emphasising or interpreting one period or aspect at the expense of another can only be justified when what is left out, removed or diminished is of slight cultural significance and that which is emphasised or interpreted is of much greater cultural significance. Article 16. Maintenance Maintenance is fundamental to conservation and should be undertaken where fabric is of cultural significance and its maintenance is necessary to retain that cultural significance. Article 17. Preservation Preservation is appropriate where the existing fabric or its condition constitutes evidence of cultural significance, or where insufficient evidence is available to allow other conservation processes to be carried out. Article 18. Restoration and reconstruction Restoration and reconstruction should reveal culturally significant aspects of the place. Article 19. Restoration Restoration is appropriate only if there is sufficient evidence of an earlier state of the fabric. Article 20. Reconstruction 20.1 Reconstruction is appropriate only where a place is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the fabric. In rare cases, reconstruction may also be appropriate as part of a use or practice that retains the cultural significance of the place. 20.2 Reconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection or through additional interpretation. 127 Article 21. Adaptation 21.1 Adaptation is acceptable only where the adaptation has minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place. 21.2 Adaptation should involve minimal change to significant fabric, achieved only after considering alternatives. Article 22. New work 22.1 New work such as additions to the place may be acceptable where it does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation. 22.2 New work should be readily identifiable as such. Article 23. Conserving use Continuing, modifying or reinstating a significant use may be appropriate and preferred forms of conservation. Article 24. Retaining associations and meanings 24.1 Significant associations between people and a place should be respected, retained and not obscured. Opportunities for the interpretation, commemoration and celebration of these associations should be investigated and implemented. 24.2 Significant meanings, including spiritual values, of a place should be respected. Opportunities for the continuation or revival of these meanings should be investigated and implemented. Article 25. Interpretation The cultural significance of many places is not readily apparent, and should be explained by interpretation. Interpretation should enhance understanding and enjoyment, and be culturally appropriate. 128 Conservation Practice Article 26. Applying the Burra Charter process 26.1 Work on a place should be preceded by studies to understand the place which should include analysis of physical, documentary, oral and other evidence, drawing on appropriate knowledge, skills and disciplines. 26.2 Written statements of cultural significance and policy for the place should be prepared, justified and accompanied by supporting evidence. The statements of significance and policy should be incorporated into a management plan for the place. 26.3 Groups and individuals with associations with a place as well as those involved in its management should be provided with opportunities to contribute to and participate in understanding the cultural significance of the place. Where appropriate they should also have opportunities to participate in its conservation and management. Article 27. Managing change 27.1 The impact of proposed changes on the cultural significance of a place should be analysed with reference to the statement of significance and the policy for managing the place. It may be necessary to modify proposed changes following analysis to better retain cultural significance. 27.2 Existing fabric, use, associations and meanings should be adequately recorded before any changes are made to the place. Article 28. Disturbance of fabric 28.1 Disturbance of significant fabric for study, or to obtain evidence, should be minimised. Study of a place by any disturbance of the fabric, including archaeological excavation, should only be undertaken to provide data essential for decisions on the conservation of the place, or to obtain important evidence about to be lost or made inaccessible. 28.2 Investigation of a place which requires disturbance of the fabric, apart from that necessary to make decisions, may be appropriate provided that it is consistent with the policy for the place. Such investigation should be based on important research questions which have potential to substantially add to knowledge, which cannot be 129 answered in other ways and which minimises disturbance of significant fabric. Article 29. Responsibility for decisions The organisations and individuals responsible for management decisions should be named and specific responsibility taken for each such decision. Article 30. Direction, supervision and implementation Competent direction and supervision should be maintained at all stages, and any changes should be implemented by people with appropriate knowledge and skills. Article 31. Documenting evidence and decisions A log of new evidence and additional decisions should be kept. Article 32. Records 32.1 The records associated with the conservation of a place should be placed in a permanent archive and made publicly available, subject to requirements of security and privacy, and where this is culturally appropriate. 32.2 Records about the history of a place should be protected and made publicly available, subject to requirements of security and privacy, and where this is culturally appropriate. Article 33. Removed fabric Significant fabric which has been removed from a place including contents, fixtures and objects, should be catalogued, and protected in accordance with its cultural significance. Where possible and culturally appropriate, removed significant fabric including contents, fixtures and objects, should be kept at the place. Article 34. Resources Adequate resources should be provided for conservation. 130 Standards & Guidelines - Exterior Wood 1 Recommended Not Recommended Preserving exterior wood features — such as siding, corner boards, brackets, columns, window and door surrounds or architraves, cornices, pediments and balustrades; and their paints, finishes and colours — that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Removing or radically changing exterior wood elements that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Documenting the form, type and colour of coatings such as paint; and the condition of exterior wood features prior to beginning project work. Undertaking project work that will have an impact on character- defining exterior wood elements without first documenting their existing character and condition. Inspecting painted exterior wood surfaces to determine whether repainting is necessary or if cleaning is all that is required. Removing paint that is firmly adhering to and thus protecting exterior wood surfaces. Removing damaged or deteriorated paint to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible (scraping and sanding by hand), then repainting in kind. Using destructive paint removal methods such as propane or butane torches, sandblasting or water-blasting. These methods can irreversibly damage exterior woodwork or cause catastrophic fires. Retaining sound exterior wood or deteriorated exterior wood that can be repaired. Replacing wood elements that can be repaired. Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of exterior wood elements where there are surviving prototypes. The new work should match the old in form and detailing. Using replacement material that does not match the historic wood element. Repairing, stabilizing and conserving fragile wood from the restoration period using welltested consolidants, when appropriate. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible and identifiable upon close inspection for future research. Removing wood from the restoration period that could be stabilized and conserved; or using untested consolidants and untrained personnel, thus causing further damage to fragile historic materials. 1 Parks Canada, 2003, p. 78-83. 131 Standards & Guidelines - Exterior Masonry 2 Recommended Not Recommended Preserving masonry elements such as walls, brackets, railings, steps, columns, window and door surrounds or architraves, cornices, pediments, balustrades; and details such as jointing, tooling and bonding patterns, coatings and colour that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Removing or radically changing masonry elements that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Cleaning masonry using recognized preservation methods and only when necessary to halt deterioration or remove heavy soiling or graffiti. Cleaning masonry surfaces when they are not heavily soiled in order to create a new appearance, thus needlessly introducing chemicals or moisture into the materials . Cleaning masonry surfaces using the gentlest method possible, such as low-pressure water and detergents, using natural bristle brushes. Blasting brick or stone surfaces using dry or wet grit sand or other abrasives that permanently erode the surface of the material and accelerate deterioration. Retaining sound exterior masonry or deteriorated exterior masonry that can be repaired. Replacing or rebuilding masonry that can be repaired. Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of masonry elements where there are surviving prototypes. The new work should match the old in form and detailing. Replacing an entire masonry element such as a column when limited replacement of deteriorated and missing components is appropriate. Repairing masonry walls and other masonry elements by repointing the mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration such as disintegrating mortar, cracks in mortar joints, loose bricks, damp walls or damaged plaster work. Removing non-deteriorated or acceptable mortar from sound joints, then repointing the entire building to achieve a uniform appearance. Repairing stucco by removing the damaged material and patching with new stucco that duplicates the old in strength, composition, colour, porosity and texture. Removing sound stucco or repairing with new stucco that is stronger than the characterdefining material or does not convey the same appearance. 2 Parks Canada, 2003, p. 84-91. 132 Standards & Guidelines - Architectural Metals 3 Recommended Not Recommended Preserving architectural metal elements — such as cladding, columns, capitals, brackets, window hoods, cornices, balustrades or stairways; and their finishes and colours — that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Removing or radically changing architectural metal elements that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Using the gentlest cleaning methods for cast iron, wrought iron and steel — hard metals — in order to remove excessive paint build-up and corrosion. If hand scraping and wire brushing prove ineffective, low-pressure grit blasting may be used as long as it does not abrade or damage the surface. Removing the character-defining patina of metal. The patina may be a protective coating on some metals, such as bronze or copper, as well as a significant character-defining finish. Applying an appropriate protective coating such as lacquer or wax to an architectural metal element such as a bronze door that is subject to heavy pedestrian use. Failing to assess pedestrian use or new access patterns so that architectural metal elements are subject to damage by use or inappropriate maintenance such as salting adjacent sidewalks. Re-applying appropriate paint or other coating systems after cleaning in order to decrease the corrosion rate of metals or alloys. Failing to re-apply protective coating systems to metals or alloys that require them after cleaning so that accelerated corrosion occurs. Retaining sound architectural metal elements or deteriorated architectural metal elements that can be repaired. Replacing architectural metal elements that can be repaired. Repairing and stabilizing deteriorated architectural metal elements by structural reinforcement, weather protection or correcting unsafe conditions, as required, until any additional work is undertaken. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible. Removing deteriorated architectural metal elements that could be stabilized, repaired and conserved; or using untested consolidants and untrained personnel, thus causing further damage to fragile elements. Replacing in kind an entire architectural metal feature from the restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair — if the overall form and detailing are still evident — using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples could include cast iron porch steps or roof cresting. The new work should be unobtrusively dated to guide future treatment. Removing an architectural metal feature from the restoration period that is irreparable and not replacing it. 3 Parks Canada, 2003, p. 92-96. 133 Standards & Guidelines - Roofs 4 Recommended Not Recommended Preserving roofs — and their functional and decorative elements — that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Damaging or destroying roofs that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building so that, as a result, the heritage value is diminished. Retaining sound roofs or roof elements, or deteriorated roofs or roof elements that can be repaired. Stripping the roof of sound character-defining material such as slate, clay tile, wood and architectural metal. Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of roofs where there are surviving prototypes. The new work should match the existing elements in form and detailing. Using replacement material that does not match the historic roof or roof element. Repairing a roof by reinforcing the characterdefining materials that comprise roof elements. Repairs will also generally include the limited replacement in kind — or with a compatible substitute material — of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of elements when there are surviving prototypes such as cupola louvers, dentils, dormer roofing; or slates, tiles or wood shingles on a main roof. Using a substitute material for the replacement part that neither conveys the appearance of the surviving parts of the roof, nor is physically or chemically compatible. Replacing in kind an entire element of the roof that is too deteriorated to repair — if the overall form and detailing are still evident — using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the element. Examples can include a large section of roofing or a dormer or chimney. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Removing an element of the roof that is irreparable, such as a chimney or dormer and not replacing it; or replacing it with a new element that does not convey the same appearance Repairing a roof from the restoration period by reinforcing the materials that comprise roof features. Repairs will also generally include the limited replacement — preferably in kind — of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of features when there are surviving prototypes. The new work should be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment. Replacing an entire roof feature from the restoration period such as a cupola or dormer when the repair of materials and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts are appropriate. 4 Parks Canada, 2003, p. 97-101. 134 Standards & Guidelines - Windows 5 Recommended Not Recommended Preserving windows and their functional and decorative components — such as frames, sashes, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hoodmoulds, panelled or decorated jambs and mouldings, interior and exterior shutters and blinds — that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Changing the character-defining appearance of windows through the use of inappropriate designs, materials, finishes or colours that noticeably change the sash, depth of reveal and muntin configuration; the reflectivity and colour of the glazing; or the appearance of the frame. Retaining sound windows and window elements or deteriorated windows and window elements that can be repaired. Replacing windows that can be repaired. Peeling paint, broken glass, stuck sashes or high air infiltration are NOT, in themselves, indications that windows are beyond repair. Repairing window frames and sashes by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Such repair may also include replacement in kind — or with a compatible substitute material — of those parts that are either extensively deteriorated or are missing, when there are surviving prototypes such as architraves, hoodmolds, sashes, sills and interior or exterior shutters and blinds. Using substitute material for the replacement part, that neither conveys the same appearance as the surviving parts of the window, nor is physically or chemically compatible. Replacing in kind an entire window that is too deteriorated to repair using the same sash and pane configuration and other design details. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible when replacing windows deteriorated beyond repair, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Removing a character-defining window that is irreparable and blocking it in; or replacing it with a new window that does not convey the same appearance. Designing and installing new windows when the historic windows (frames, sashes and glazing) are completely missing. It may be a new design that is compatible with the style, era and character of the historic place; or a replica based on physical and documentary evidence. Introducing a new design that is inconsistent with the style, era and overall historic character of the building . 5 Parks Canada, 2003, p. 102-106. 135 Interior Spaces, Features and Finishes 6 Recommended Not Recommended Preserving circulation patterns or interior spaces — such as lobbies, reception halls, entrance halls, double parlours, theatres, auditoriums and industrial or commercial spaces — that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Removing or radically changing masonry elements that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Preserving interior features and finishes that are important in defining the character of the building, including columns, cornices, baseboards, fireplaces and mantels, panelling, light fixtures, hardware and flooring; wall paper, plaster, paint and finishes such as stencilling, marbling and graining; and other character-defining decorative materials that accent interior features and provide colour, texture and patterning to walls, floors and ceilings. Removing or radically changing features and finishes that are important in defining the overall character of the building. Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of interior features and finishes where there are surviving prototypes. The new work should match the old in form and detailing. Replacing an entire interior feature or finish when limited replacement of deteriorated and missing components is appropriate. Designing and installing a new interior feature or finish if the historic feature or finish is completely missing. This could include missing partitions, stairs, elevators, lighting fixtures and wall coverings; or even entire rooms if all historic spaces, features and finishes are missing or have been destroyed by inappropriate “renovations.” It may be a new design that is compatible with the character of the historic place; or a replica based on physical and documentary evidence. Introducing a new interior feature or finish that is incompatible with the scale, design, materials, colour and texture of the surviving interior features and finishes. Repairing interior features and finishes by reinforcing the character-defining materials. Repair will also generally include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material. Replacing an entire interior feature such as a staircase, panelled wall, parquet floor or cornice; or finish such as a decorative wall covering or ceiling, when repair of materials and limited replacement of such parts is feasible. 6 Parks Canada, 2003, p. 118-124. 136 Standards & Guidelines - Structural Systems 7 Recommended Not Recommended Preserving structural systems and individual features of systems — such as load-bearing wood, brick, or stone walls, trusses, post-andbeam systems, summer beams, cast iron columns or above-grade stone foundation walls — that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Removing, covering or radically changing visible features of structural systems that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the building. Retaining sound structural systems or deteriorated structural systems that can be repaired. Replacing or rebuilding structural systems that can be repaired; e.g., demolishing a loadbearing masonry wall that could be augmented and retained and replacing it with a new wall, using the masonry only as an exterior veneer. Repairing deteriorated structural systems in such a way that repairs are physically and visually compatible. Removing deteriorated structural system elements that could be stabilized, repaired and conserved; or using untested consolidants and untrained personnel, thus causing further damage to fragile elements. Repairing the structural system by augmenting or upgrading individual parts or features. For example, weakened structural members such as floor framing can be paired with a new member, braced or otherwise supplemented and reinforced. Upgrading the building structurally in a manner that diminishes the character of the exterior (such as installing strapping or channels, or removing a decorative cornice) or that damages interior features or spaces. Replacing in kind — or with a substitute material — those portions or features of the structural system that are either extensively deteriorated or are missing when there are surviving prototypes such as cast iron columns, roof rafters or trusses, or sections of loadbearing walls. Substitute material should convey the same form, design and overall appearance as the character-defining element; and at least be equal to its load-bearing capabilities. Installing a visible replacement feature that does not convey the same appearance, e.g., replacing an exposed wooden beam with a steel beam. 7 Parks Canada, 2003, p. 125-129. 137 Ontario Heritage Conservation Legislation and Procedures The following section will provide a detailed explanation of the existing framework of cultural heritage preservation legislation and procedures in Canada at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels as well as those programs on the international level. Since laws and regulations differ across Canada, the Province of Ontario will be used as a guideline when examining cultural heritage preservation at the municipal and provincial level. The primary rationale behind this decision is that the Province of Ontario is Canada's most populous province, home to more than one-third of Canada's inhabitants. Moreover, the majority of arenas analyzed within this study are located within the Province of Ontario. Since the primary goal of this paper is to develop a practical framework for the preservation of Canadian arenas to be used by local communities, a multi-provincial analysis of the existing heritage conservation framework within each province is too large of a focus. Although the laws and regulations of cultural heritage preservation differ from province to province, it can be assumed that the general objectives are relatively similar. The following information is directly taken from the Ontario Heritage Toolkit report titled ''Designating Heritage Properties in Ontario.'' 138 The Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act provides a framework for the conservation of properties and geographic features or areas that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding and appreciation of the history of a place, an event or people. These properties and features or areas contain built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, heritage conservation districts, archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential that have cultural heritage value or interest. These are the cultural heritage properties that are important in our everyday lives, give us a sense of place, and help guide planning in our communities. The conservation of cultural heritage properties encompasses a range of activities directed at identification, evaluation, conservation and celebration. Properties can be protected for the long term under the Ontario Heritage Act through municipal designation bylaws and heritage conservation easement agreements. In 2005 the Ontario Heritage Act was strengthened to provide greater protection for Ontario's cultural heritage, and also introduced a broader, more important role for Municipal Heritage Committees. As a result, municipal heritage committees now play a more crucial role in municipal decision-making. Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value8 A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 8 Designating Heritage Properties in Ontario, 2006, p. 15-18. 139 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. Designating Heritage Properties in Ontario9 There are six key steps to designating an individual property under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. These include: 1. Identifying the property as a candidate for designation; 2. Researching and evaluating the property; 3. Serving Notice of Intention to Designate, with an opportunity for objection; 4. Passing and registering the designation bylaw; 5. Listing the property on the municipal register; and 6. Listing on the provincial register. Once designated, the property is also eligible for listing on the Canadian Register of Historic Places. 9 Designating Heritage Properties in Ontario, 2006, p. 7-11. 140 Step 1: Identifying the property Identifying local heritage resources is the first step toward conserving and protecting them. Properties of cultural heritage value or interest are usually identified by Municipal Heritage Committees, or through a local community process such as an inventory of cultural resources, a municipal cultural planning process, or a community planning study. The Ontario Heritage Act allows property that has not been designated, but that municipal council believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest, to be listed on the municipal register. Many of these listed properties are eventually recommended for designation. A property can also be recommended for designation by a property owner, or through the suggestion of an individual or group in the community. In some cases, this can occur because a property is threatened with demolition. Initiating a designation is one way of protecting a threatened heritage property to allow more time for considering alternatives. Step 2: Researching and evaluating the property Careful research and an evaluation of the candidate property must be done before a property can be recommended for designation. Criteria are set out in a regulation made under the Ontario Heritage Act to determine whether property is of cultural heritage value or interest. See the Ministry of Culture’s Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities for further information on this process – this guide provides advice on evaluating properties to determine their cultural heritage value or interest. A designation report should be prepared for council’s consideration, containing the written statements and descriptions required to support the designation. These are discussed in more detail in the next section. Before deciding whether or not to proceed with a designation, council must consult with its Municipal Heritage Committee (where one has been established). A Municipal Heritage Committee is instrumental in ensuring that all relevant heritage information is considered and assisting in the evaluation of the property. 141 Step 3: Serving Notice of Intention to Designate If council passes a motion to proceed with designating a property, it must notify the owner as well as the Ontario Heritage Trust (formerly called the Ontario Heritage Foundation) and publish a Notice of Intention to Designate in a local newspaper. Under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the notice to the owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust must include the following: • The Description of Property so that it can be readily ascertained; • The Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest , which identifies the property’s heritage significance; • The Description of Heritage Attributes outlining the particular features that should be protected for the future; and • A statement that notice of objection to the designation must by filed with the municipality within 30 days after the date of publication of the newspaper notice. The notice in the newspaper must include the same information as above, except the Description of Heritage Attributes . The newspaper notice could include a statement that further information respecting the proposed designation is available from the municipality. If no objections are filed with the municipality within 30 days after the date of the publication of notice in the newspaper, council can proceed to pass a bylaw designating the property. If an objection to a designation is filed with the municipality within the 30-day period, council must refer the objection to the Conservation Review Board (CRB) for a hearing. The Ontario Heritage Act mandates this tribunal to conduct hearings and make recommendations to council regarding objections to proposals to designate, as well as other council decisions under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 142 Following the hearing, the CRB writes a report to council with its recommendation on whether or not the property should be designated. Council is not bound to follow the recommendation of the CRB, however. After considering the CRB recommendation, council may decide to go ahead with the designation, or to withdraw its intention to designate. Step 4: Passing and registering the heritage designation bylaw Once council decides to proceed with designation, it may then pass a designation bylaw. A copy of the bylaw, with the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and the Description of Heritage Attributes, is registered on the title of the property at the local land registry office. Notice that the bylaw has passed is given to the property owner and to the Ontario Heritage Trust, and is published in the newspaper. Step 5: Listing the property on the municipal register Under section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, designated properties must then be listed on the municipal register of property that is of cultural heritage value or interest, kept by the municipal clerk. The listing includes the following: • Legal Description of the property; • Name and address of the owner; • Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest; and • Description of Heritage Attributes of the property. Step 6: Listing on the provincial register Once a property has been designated and notice has been given to the Ontario Heritage Trust, the property is then listed on the provincial register of heritage properties. This register, which can be accessed at www.culture.gov.on.ca, is a valuable resource tool for learning about and promoting heritage properties across the province. It also sets heritage properties in a provincial context. Municipalities, heritage groups and members of the public can search by keyword, property type or municipality to learn what properties have been protected in Ontario. 143 When a property on the register becomes a candidate for protection under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, research about the property’s history and cultural associations, and a physical site analysis are undertaken. • Community Context: Knowledge of the history, achievements and aspirations of the community gives perspective to what cultural heritage value or interest may be held by the property. • Historical Research: Historical research involves consulting land records, maps, photographs, publications, archival materials and other documentation to learn the history and cultural associations of the property. A preliminary site visit can be useful in formulating research questions about the property. • Site Analysis: A site analysis can involve photographs, measurements, observation and analysis of the physical characteristics of the property. The historical research findings compared with the physical evidence should ensure collaboration in the known information about the property. Ontario Regulation 9/06 must be applied to properties being considered for designation under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Screening properties for potential protection in accordance with the criteria in the regulation is a higher evaluation test than required for listing non-designated properties on the register. The evaluation approach and categories of Design/Physical Value, Historical/Associative Value, and Contextual Value set out in the regulation, however, are useful to consider when developing a preliminary rationale or criteria for listing properties. This also will provide continuity in the evaluation or properties on the register that may later be considered for designation under section 29. The Ontario Heritage Act requires that the register include all properties that are protected by the municipality (under section 29) or by the Minister of Culture (under section 34.5). OHA, ss. 27(1.1) For these properties there must be: 144 • a legal description of the property; • the name and address of the owner; and • a statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and a description of the heritage attributes. The Ontario Heritage Act allows a municipality to include on the register property that is not designated but considered by the municipal council to be of cultural heritage value or interest. There must be sufficient description to identify the property. OHA, ss. 27(1.2). A municipality may consider including properties on the register that are protected by heritage conservation easements and/or recognized by provincial or federal jurisdictions. The rationale or selection criteria used to survey the community and compile the register should be clearly stated. Non-designated properties listed on the municipal register of cultural heritage properties and newly identified properties may be candidates for heritage conservation and protection. Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities to pass bylaws for the protection (designation) of individual real properties that have cultural heritage value or interest to the municipality. Heritage designation is a protection mechanism with long-term implications for the alteration and demolition of a cultural heritage property. Individual properties being considered for protection under section 29 must undergo a more rigorous evaluation than is required for listing. The evaluation criteria set out in Regulation 9/06 essentially form a test against which properties must be assessed. The better the characteristics of the property when the criteria are applied to it, the greater the property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and the stronger the argument for its long-term protection. To ensure a thorough, objective and consistent evaluation across the province, and to assist municipalities with the process, the Ontario Heritage Act provides that: The council of a municipality may, by bylaw, designate a property within the municipality to be of cultural heritage value or interest if, (a) where criteria for determining whether property is of cultural heritage value or interest have been prescribed by regulation, the property meets the prescribed criteria; 145 Regulation 9/06 prescribes the criteria for determining property of cultural heritage value or interest in a municipality. The regulation requires that, to be designated, a property must meet “one or more” of the criteria grouped into the categories of Design/Physical Value, Historical/ Associative Value and Contextual Value. This does not mean that the property is only evaluated within “one” category or must meet a criterion in each category in order to allow for protection. When more categories are applied, more is learned about the property and its relative cultural heritage value or interest. As a result, a more valid decision regarding heritage conservation measures can be made. Council must be satisfied that the property meets at least one of the criteria set out in Regulation 9/06 before it can be designated under section 29. Regulation 9/06 was developed for the purposes of identifying and evaluating the cultural heritage value or interest of a property proposed for protection under section 29. Through the evaluation process of Regulation 9/06, it should be possible to: • Recognize a property that warrants long-term protection under section 29, and give reasons; • Recognize a property for which levels of heritage conservation, other than section 29, are more appropriate; • Determine that a property has no cultural heritage value or interest to the jurisdiction; • Formulate the statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property, as required in a section 29 designation bylaw; and, • Identify clearly the physical features or heritage attributes that contribute to, or support, the cultural heritage value or interest, as required in a section 29 designation bylaw. A successful municipal cultural heritage conservation program starts with meeting the standards of Regulation 9/06. Many municipalities have methods for evaluating the cultural heritage value or interest of a property being considered for protection. Existing or new evaluation models must apply the criteria specified in Regulation 9/06. Existing 146 evaluation models may have to be revised to take into account the mandatory criteria set out in the regulation. It is advisable that an approach or modelto apply the criteria be adopted as a standard municipal procedure or policy. The adoption of a policy or standard practice enables council, municipal heritage committees, municipal staff including planning and building officials, land use planners, heritage organizations, property owners and the public to apply the criteria in a consistent and defensible manner. Under the Ontario Heritage Act, a municipal heritage committee can be appointed to advise council on matters relating to the Act and other heritage conservation matters. This can include compiling the register of cultural heritage properties and using criteria for evaluating the cultural heritage value or interest of a property. By using a committee, the objectivity of the evaluation is maintained. For municipalities without a municipal heritage committee, others such as heritage planning staff, municipal staff, community or heritage organizations, a heritage expert, or an individual who understands the purpose of evaluating the cultural heritage value or interest of a property, could undertake the evaluation. Knowledge of the heritage of the community and expertise in cultural heritage properties are recommended. The municipal evaluation criteria should be such that, whoever undertakes the evaluation, there is a reasonable expectation that the process will lead to valid decisions about the heritage conservation of the property. Ultimately, a municipal designation bylaw and its statement of cultural heritage value or interest is subject to appeal and must be defensible at the Conservation Review Board. Council has the final decision on whether to proceed with protection under the Ontario Heritage Act. When council refuses to issue a demolition permit for a designated property, the matter can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, which makes the final decision. 147 Protection for a Threatened Property10 Sometimes, it is only when a property is threatened that a community recognizes its value. Municipal councils can use the Notice of Intention to Designate as a way of preventing the demolition or alteration of a threatened property that may be worthy of designation. This gives council an opportunity to consider the significance of the property, and alternatives to alteration or demolition, before the damage is done. If a Notice of Intention to Designate is issued for a property, the property will be subject to certain interim protections. Any existing permit that allowed for the alteration or demolition of the property, including a building permit or a demolition permit, becomes void. Any proposed demolition or alteration affecting the property’s heritage attributes will require council’s consent. The owner’s consent is not required for a designation to proceed. In some cases, council may have to act in the public interest to conserve a significant property, despite objections by the owner. The owner can then appeal to the Conservation Review Board, which provides a recommendation back to council. 7.1.6 Making Alterations to Designated Property11 The alteration process under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act helps to ensure that the heritage attributes of a designated property, and therefore its heritage value, are conserved. If the owner of a designated property wishes to make alterations to the property that affect the property’s heritage attributes, the owner must obtain written consent from council. This applies not only to alterations of buildings or structures but also to alterations of other aspects of a designated property, such as landscape features or natural features, which have been identified as heritage attributes. In general, this should be a cooperative process, where a property owner submits an application for the 10 Designating Heritage Properties in Ontario, 2006, p. 10. 11 Designating Heritage Properties in Ontario, 2006, p. 24-25. 148 proposed work, and receives advice and guidance from the Municipal Heritage Committee and/or municipal staff. Council makes the final decision on heritage permit applications unless this power has been delegated to municipal staff under Section 33(15) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The process for alterations is described below and outlined in a flowchart provided in the appendix: 1. Application to Council: The owner applies to council to alter the property. All relevant information, including a detailed plan, must be included. When all the information required by Council has been received, notice of receipt of the complete application is sent to the owner. Some municipalities have formalized the heritage alteration permit process to facilitate changes to designated properties. 2. Review of Application: Council reviews the application and seeks the advice of its Municipal Heritage Committee, where one has been established. In some municipalities, applications for alterations are sent directly to the committee or to municipal staff. 3. Decision: Within 90 days after notice of receipt of the complete application has been sent to the owner, council or its delegate decides whether to consent to the alteration, to consent with terms and conditions, or to refuse the application altogether. Council notifies the applicant of its decision. 4. Referral Process: If the owner objects to council’s decision, the owner may apply to council for a hearing before the Conservation Review Board. Applications must be made within 30 days of receipt of council’s decision. Council must then refer the matter to the Review Board for a hearing and publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The Review Board then holds the hearing to review the alteration application. 149 5. Final Decision: Following the hearing, the Conservation Review Board prepares a report including its recommendation to council. After considering the report, council decides whether to confirm or alter its original decision. The final decision rests with council. Council notifies the applicant and any other parties to the hearing, of its final decision. Preventing Demolition of Heritage Properties12 As of April 2005, designation under the Ontario Heritage Act gives council the power to prevent the demolition of a building or structure on a heritage property. If the owner of a designated property wishes to demolish or remove a building or structure, the owner must obtain written consent from council. The process, under section 34, 34.1 & 34.3 of the Ontario Heritage Act, is as follows: 1. Application to Council: The owner applies to council for a permit to demolish or remove the building or structure. 2. Review of Application: Council has 90 days to review the application and seek the advice of its Municipal Heritage Committee, where one has been established. In many cases, an alternative to demolition can be negotiated with the owner and agreed to at this stage. Council, with the aid of its Municipal Heritage Committee and concerned citizens, has an opportunity to work with the property owner toward a means to conserve the threatened property. Depending on the circumstances, there are several approaches: • Sharing information with the owner about the property’s heritage value and the benefits of heritage conservation; • Exploring ideas about how the building or structure might contribute to a proposed development or future use of the site; 12 Designating Heritage Properties in Ontario, 2006, p. 28-29 150 • Suggesting alternative uses for the building or the property; • Providing an opportunity for the owner to sell the heritage property to the municipality or a purchaser who will conserve it; or • Expropriating the property. 3. Decision: Within the 90 day period,3 and after considering the advice of the Municipal Heritage Committee, council must decide whether to refuse the application, consent to it, or consent with terms and conditions. If council does choose to allow the demolition, it is advisable to include terms and conditions. For example, council can require that the owner obtain a building permit for a replacement building on the property. This helps to prevent valuable heritage structures from being replaced by vacant lots. The owner would need to apply for the building permit through the normal municipal process, and will only receive such a permit for a new building that meets applicable zoning and other requirements. At minimum, council should require full documentation of a heritage building or structure prior to its demolition, as well as documentation of any other heritage resources on the property that may be affected. Council notifies the applicant and the Ontario Heritage Trust of its decision. Council also publishes its decision in a local newspaper. 4. Appeal Process: An owner may appeal council’s decision to deny the permit, or to consent to it with conditions, to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). An appeal must be made within 30 days of receipt of council’s decision. The appeal must set out the reasons for the objection to the decision. The appeal must also be accompanied by the fee prescribed under the Ontario Municipal Board Act. Following receipt of the notice of appeal, the OMB gives notice of the hearing date and then holds the hearing. A member of the Conservation Review Board (CRB) may be appointed to sit on the panel of the OMB hearing the appeal. 151 Listing on the Canadian Register of Historic Places Once designated, the property also becomes eligible for nomination and listing on the Canadian Register of Historic Places. While listing to the Canadian Register is recommended, it is not a requirement of the Ontario Heritage Act. The province will nominate a designated property to the Canadian Register when the municipality has provided the necessary documentation. This documentation is provided as part of a request for nomination, which can be completed online. The Canadian Register of Historic Places, developed under the Historic Places Initiative, a federal-provincial-territorial partnership, is an online register of locally, provincially and federally recognized heritage properties from across Canada. Inclusion on the Canadian Register is honorific and does not place additional controls on a property. It provides communities with the opportunity to build awareness, understanding and support for their cultural heritage resources by making information on these resources available in an accessible format. In Ontario, properties and districts that have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act are eligible for listing. Municipalities must formally request the nomination of their designated properties and provide additional documentation on the heritage property. This request and documentation can be submitted online. Properties owned or recognized at the provincial and federal levels will be nominated to the Canadian Register through the Ministry of Culture and the federal government. In order to nominate a property to be listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places, a well-written Description of Property, Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and Description of Heritage Attributes as well as a Statement of Significance, are required. Theses elements are described in detail here. 1. Description of Property – describes what will be designated so that the property can be readily ascertained. The Description of Property describes the general character of the property and identifies those aspects of the property to which the designation 152 applies. In addition to providing information so that the location of the property can be identified (i.e. municipal address and neighbourhood if appropriate), it should outline the principal resources that form part of the designation (i.e. buildings, structures, landscapes, remains, etc.) and identify any discernible boundaries. The Description of Property should be no longer than two or three sentences. 2. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest – describes why the property is being designated. The Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest should convey why the property is important and merits designation, explaining cultural meanings, associations and connections the property holds for the community. This statement should reflect one or more of the standard designation criteria prescribed in the designation criteria regulation under the Ontario Heritage Act (Ontario Regulation 9/06). These criteria include: • Design or physical value , meaning that the property – Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method; or – Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; or – Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. • Historical or associative value , meaning that the property – Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community; or – Yields, or has potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture; or – demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. • Contextual value, meaning that the property – Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area; or – Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or 153 – Is a landmark. The Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest should provide sufficient information to explain the significance of the property but should be no longer than two or three paragraphs, explaining the core aspects of the property’s cultural heritage value. It should not provide a broad history of the property, but should focus on what makes the property important. A detailed description of the property’s history can be included in the broader designation report and kept on file with other supporting documentation. 3. Description of Heritage Attributes – lists the key attributes of the property. It is not an exhaustive account of the property’s heritage attributes. The identification of heritage attributes is a selective process. Only those principal features or characteristics that together characterize the core heritage values of the property should be included. Heritage attributes should be identified and described in relation to the heritage value that they contribute to. Where more than one value has been outlined in the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest , more than one list should be provided to distinguish between the attributes associated with each value. Only attributes that relate to the values described in the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest should be included. Heritage attributes include, but are not limited to: • Style, massing, scale or composition; • Features of a property related to its function or design; • Features related to a property’s historical associations; • Interior spatial configurations, or exterior layout; • Materials and craftsmanship; or • Relationship between a property and its broader setting. 154 Paul-Joseph Frater M.A. Candidate, World Heritage Studies Born 1979 in Canada and lives in Berlin since 2004. Paul loves Bauhaus design, Sovietera architecture, and of course, stadiums. bicycles Restoring antique and collecting automobile number plates are his hobbies. Previous studies in Anthropology, Business, and International Innovation Management. paul.frater@gmail.com www.globalvillager.ca 155

Log In

The Conservation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas (Master's Thesis)

The Conservation of Canadian Ice Hockey Arenas (Master's Thesis)

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS