Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish
Are they actually concrete lintels, or just some decorative element added at some point? I can't put my finger on any really early photos. I wonder if the ground floor windows were enlarged at some point, necessitating extra support for the structure above, perhaps when the building gained a commercial function. But I agree, it's not the way we respect historic buildings today.
You can see that they were present in 1965:
from: https://kitchissippi.com/2016/10/27/...f-magee-house/
...while the current photos show that at least the columns faces were faux:
from: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local..._autoplay=true |
The stucco sign fronts leaked and held water against the stone construction, causing stone and existing 'lintel' to fail (which was likely an under-sized, cast-iron angle), at which time the owner put some formwork up, cast concrete behind the formwork, encapsulating everything into the mess you see there, including at the deteriorated jambs between the windows and the door. This is instead of properly removing and replacing the deterioration (which arguably would have entailed replacing much of the whole elevation). I estimate the windows weren't that large size in the original construction, and were enlarged for a new storefront in the '40's.
So to sum up the repairs required at this moment:
1. Shore the interior structure 100% (remove whatever leftover ceiling and wall finishes there were, to install shoring). Find someone crazy enough to do that work.
2. Shore/brace the exterior walls, keeping the wellington north sidewalk and perhaps drive lane closed for 1-2 years.
3. Remove and replace deteriorated stone. 100% of the west elevation, 75% of the south elevation, and the east elevation is just as wonky as the west elevation was, therefore most of that as well.
4. Remove and replace the interior wood framing.
5. Replace the roof including the mansard and fascia.
6. Remove and replace the windows, while you're at it.
What the hell are you left with? The tin shingles I suppose will be 'original', probably from the 40's as well, the last time they were replaced. Nothing original of Ms. Mcgee, of course. So WHY keep it in place?
There's an argument to be made that people love their heritage, simply for the ridiculous argument of street-front aesthetic. Clearly nobody cares about the real heritage from the people who actually lived in these buildings, otherwise facadism wouldn't be a thing.
Solution: Clear this thing up ASAP to allow life to return to normal. Require the owner to rebuild the house exactly as it was, or if facadism wins-out, build a cheap condo with a stone facade to match this one. Voila! Finito!
Also if you ask me, people like a nice heritage facade facing business district. This doesn't seem like a stretch to just require new construction to include clay brick or stone masonry, much like our cheap townhouse construction in suburbia with the vinyl siding on the sides and back. You're not fooling anyone, but at least we feel more very heritage.
"Oh my god the heritage is all lost!" is not really an argument when it's just the front facade we care about. Especially when we're at a point where full renewal of most of these buildings is now required. What does the definition of heritage become when the thing is replaced to match existing?
Prev
Owner/architect boils the development approval process down to 'rigmarole' and the local councillor is watching somebody like this closely and wants sensitive heritage treatment.
Linear Mode
