StandardS and GuidelineS for the Conservation of historiC PlaCes in Canada

StandardS and GuidelineS for the Conservation of historiC PlaCes in Canada
Standards and Guidelines
for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada
A Federal, Provincial and Territorial Collaboration
Second Edition
Standards and Guidelines
for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
A Federal, Provincial and Territorial Collaboration
Second Edition
Front Cover photograph:
The Jones Falls lockstation is part of the Rideau Canal waterway in Ontario, a national historic site of Canada and a world heritage site.
The site contains known archaeological resources, buildings and engineering works situated in a cultural landscape.
Back Cover photographs:
Clockwise, from top left: Lunenburg, NS; Beechey Island, NU; Britannia Mines, BC; Quebec City, QC
Compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
does not, in and of itself, confer immunity from legal obligations.
The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is a pan-Canadian
collaboration. The participating governments are:
Catalogue Number R62-343/2010E-PDF
ISBN 978-1-100-15953-9
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre :
Normes et lignes directrices pour la conservation des lieux patrimoniaux au Canada (Deuxième édition)
www.historicplaces.ca
CONTENTS
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Preface and Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Chapter 1:The Conservation Decision-Making Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Chapter 2:The Conservation Treatments: Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration. . . . . . 15
Chapter 3:The Standards for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Chapter 4:The Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.1 Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.1.1 Evidence of Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.1.2 Evidence of Traditional Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.1.3 Land Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1.4 Spatial Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.1.5 Visual Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.1.6 Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1.7 Ecological Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.1.8 Vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.1.9 Landforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.1.10 Water Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.1.11 Built Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.2 Guidelines for Archaeological Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.2.1 Archaeological Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.2.2 Sites in Urban Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.2.3 Industrial Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.2.4 Sites in Cultural Landscapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.2.5 Sites in Protected Natural Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.2.6 Sites Underwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.2.7 Rock Art and Culturally-modified Trees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.2.8 Culturally-sensitive Places. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.3 Guidelines for Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.3.1 Exterior Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.3.2 Interior Arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.3.3 Roofs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.3.4 Exterior Walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.3.5 Windows, Doors and Storefronts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.3.6 Entrances, Porches and Balconies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
4.3.7 Interior Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.3.8 Structural Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
4.3.9 Mechanical and Electrical Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
4.4 Guidelines for Engineering Works, including Civil, Industrial and Military Works. . . . . . . 191
4.4.1 Constructed Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
4.4.2 Functional Arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
4.5 Guidelines for Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
4.5.1 All Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
4.5.2 Wood and Wood Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
4.5.3 Masonry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
4.5.4 Concrete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
4.5.5 Architectural and Structural Metals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
4.5.6 Glass and Glass Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
4.5.7 Plaster and Stucco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
4.5.8 Miscellaneous Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
References
Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Photo Credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
FOREWORD
Canada’s historic places are a living
legacy for all Canadians. Ensuring a
future for these treasures will allow the
next generations to use these exceptional places in ways both old and new.
This revised edition of the Standards
and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada constitutes
an essential tool to guide decisions that
will give historic places new life while
protecting their heritage value.
The 2003 version of the Standards and
Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada has been a
tremendous success. It has been adopted
by government bodies and major municipalities across Canada, thereby helping
to create a culture of conservation to
preserve Canada’s unique and irreplaceable heritage for successive generations.
Since then, regular use in the field by
federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, heritage conservation
professionals, heritage developers and
many individual Canadians has provided
the practical experience and insights to
formulate additional guidance on categories of historic places such as cultural
landscapes, archaeological sites, modern
buildings and engineering works.
The development of this 2010 edition of
the Standards and Guidelines has built
on the strong foundation of the initial
version using a similar collaborative,
pan-Canadian approach. New categories
and topics have been added and best
practices updated. This federal, provincial,
territorial collaboration ensures that the
unique experiences of Canada’s primary
departments and organizations responsible for heritage were reflected in this
important tool.
On behalf of Parks Canada, I am proud to
adopt the 2010 edition of the Standards
and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada. This document will guide Parks Canada and its
partners in heritage stewardship across
the country and in the establishment of
world class conservation practices that
help conserve our national treasures and
ensure that Canadians can learn about —
and have extraordinary experiences of
discovery at — these historic places.
Alan Latourelle
Chief Executive Officer
Parks Canada
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
v
Preface and Acknowledgements
The primary purpose of the Standards
and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada is to provide
sound, practical guidance to achieve good
conservation practice. This document
establishes a consistent, pan-Canadian
set of conservation principles and
guidelines that will be useful to anyone
with an interest in conserving Canada’s
historic places. It also provides guidance to those interested in applying for
financial incentives for the conservation
of historic places.
The intent of the document is not to
replace the role of conservation practitioners or provide detailed technical
specifications appropriate to every
situation. Instead, it offers results-oriented
guidance for sound decision-making
when planning for, intervening on, and
using an historic place.
The Standards and Guidelines have
already been adopted by a number of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal
authorities as a benchmark for assessing
proposed conservation interventions
on the character-defining elements of
an historic place. When adopted by a
government or funding organization,
the Standards and Guidelines may form
the basis for review and assessment of a
conservation project before the project
starts, and again upon completion.
Since their publication in 2003, the
Standards and Guidelines have become
an essential tool for heritage conservation across Canada. Together with the
Canadian Register for Historic Places, the
practice of heritage conservation has been
transformed, opening the door to new
tools and programs that support the continued use and enjoyment by Canadians
of the historic places around them.
vi
Changes since the
last edition
This second edition of the Standards
and Guidelines expands and clarifies the
information contained in the original 2003
edition. The revisions in this edition:
n
Address comments received from
users of the first edition of the
Standards and Guidelines;
n
Clarify the relationship between
the Standards and Guidelines and a
Statement of Significance;
n
Better explain the conservation
decision-making process;
n
Provide interpretation of the fourteen
Standards to clarify these important
principles;
n
Add guidance for typical
sustainability-related interventions;
n
Address new topics such as cultural
landscapes, including heritage
districts;
n
Address recent heritage, including the
specific issues of conserving modern
materials and assemblies;
n
Improve the guidance provided for
engineering works; and
n
Provide a more comprehensive set of
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
generally, and in a specific setting.
Acknowledgements
In 2003, the publication of the Standards
and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada provided, for
the first time, all levels of government,
conservation specialists, contractors and
individuals with a pan-Canadian set of
principles and guidelines for the conservation of buildings, archaeological sites,
landscapes and engineering works.
This second edition of the Standards and
Guidelines builds on this initial version. It
was made possible by concerted analysis and review in order to update and
enhance a document that has become
an essential reference in the Canadian
conservation world.
The second edition of the Standards
and Guidelines was produced thanks
to the efforts of many individuals. In
particular, I would like to acknowledge
the guidance and direction of Claude
Charbonneau, chair of the Standards
and Guidelines Standing Committee,
and the participation of its members
representing the federal government
and all provincial and territorial jurisdictions across Canada. The Standing
Committee members were: for the
Federal Government, Christiane Lefebvre,
Shannon Ricketts and Geneviève
Charrois; for Newfoundland and Labrador,
George Chalker; for Nova Scotia, Jeffrey
Reed; for Prince Edward Island, Darin
MacKinnon; for New Brunswick, Jim
Bezanson and Carlo Laforge; for Québec,
Gérald Savoie and Chantal Grisé; for
Ontario, Deborah Hossack; for Manitoba,
Susan Boissonneault and Marnie Gartrell;
for Saskatchewan, Bernard Flaman, Ann
De Mey, Bruce Dawson and Liberty
Walton; for Alberta, Tom Ward; for
British Columbia, Bob Parliament; for
Yukon, Doug Olynyk and Brent Riley;
for Northwest Territories, Tom Andrews;
and for Nunavut, Ashley Fleischer and
Shamus MacDonald.
I would also like to thank the consulting team without whom this document
would have never come to fruition. The
core team that helped coordinate, write,
edit and select photos for the second
edition was headed by Susan Ross,
conservation architect, at the Heritage
Conservation Directorate (HCD) of Public
Works and Government Services Canada
and included architect Susan Coles,
engineer Bob Kirkhope, landscape architect Marie-Claude Quessy of HCD, and
archaeologist Virginia Sheehan of Parks
Canada. Engineer John G. Cooke, P.Eng,
RSW, and architect Michael McClelland,
OAA, FRAIC, took part in the review of
the second edition from the private sector
perspective. Additionally, a working group
on cultural landscapes was formed under
the leadership of Joann Latremouille.
This group was comprised of Susan
Buggey, Lyle Dick, James Douglas,
Chantal Prud’homme, Wendy Shearer
and John Zvonar. In addition to leading
this working group, Joann Latremouille
provided an inspired draft version of
the revised Guidelines for Cultural
Landscapes before her untimely passing
in August, 2008. Lastly, I would like to
acknowledge Christophe Rivet of Parks
Canada who initiated the development,
testing and review of the new Guidelines
for Archaeological Sites.
I hope that you will find this new edition
of the Standards and Guidelines useful
in your daily activities as stewards and
promoters of good conservation practice
in Canada.
Larry Ostola
Director General
National Historic Sites Directorate
Parks Canada
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
vii
INTRODUCTION
Whether you live in a town or city, you
are likely not far from one of Canada’s
historic places. These legacies became
historic places when an authority
formally recognized their heritage value
and character-defining elements, or when
they were nominated to the Canadian
Register of Historic Places.
and Aboriginal levels may review and
formally recognize historic places within
their respective authority. These agencies keep records of formally recognized
sites and recently collaborated to create
the Canadian Register of Historic Places
(CRHP), a web-based record of historic
places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca).
The Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
is a tool to help users decide how best to
conserve historic places. But to do so first
requires an understanding of the historic
place in question and why that place
is significant. In other words, what is it
about the historic place that is important
to conserve? For the answer, we look to
its values.
The CRHP provides the base information against which the Standards and
Guidelines can be applied. The publication of a value statement (referred to as a
Statement of Significance, or SoS, in the
CRHP) identifies the heritage value of
an historic place and lists the characterdefining elements that must be retained to
preserve this value. The SoS allows professionals, planners, and the public at large
to understand a community’s recognition
and valuation of the historic place.
Conservation practitioners operate in
what is referred to as a ‘values-based
context’ using a system that identifies
and manages historic places according to
values attributed through an evaluation
process. These values generally include
the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural,
social and/or spiritual importance of a
place, and:
n
May be singular or multiple;
n
Are subjective, wide-ranging, and
can overlap;
n
Can be differently assigned by
different groups, and may even
change over time.
How can you establish the heritage value
of an historic place? Values are usually
identified by a community associated with
a site, making the identification and management of historic places more publicly
accessible. Canadian jurisdictions at the
federal, provincial, territorial, municipal
viii
Anyone carrying out an intervention at an
historic place must be mindful of its overall heritage value, using the documented
character-defining elements as a starting
point and guide. This understanding,
along with the Standards and Guidelines,
provides both a conceptual and practical framework for how interventions
should be carried out. While the public is
increasingly engaged in the evaluation
and management of historic places, there
remains a need for skilled conservation
specialists, especially when it comes to
physical interventions to historic places.
The Statement of Significance and the
Standards and Guidelines relate respectively to the phases of understanding and
planning of the conservation decisionmaking process. When used together, the
two become powerful tools in a valuesbased system that help ensure the conservation and ongoing use of historic places
in the life of communities.
Overview of the
Standards and
Guidelines
The Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
contains four chapters:
Chapter 1: The Conservation
Decision-making Process includes a
description of the conservation decisionmaking process, a step-by-step guide to
understanding, planning and intervening
on an historic place as part of an ongoing
cycle of use, maintenance, repair, and
adaptation.
Chapter 2: The Conservation
Treatments introduces and explains the
three conservation treatments: preservation, rehabilitation and restoration, as well
as the notion of primary treatment.
Chapter 3: The Standards for the
Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada introduces and explains the
fourteen standards, with interpretations
and illustrated examples.
Chapter 4: The Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada forms the bulk of the document.
The Guidelines are intended to assist in
applying the Standards and determining
whether their intent has been met in
the context of specific interventions to
historic places. There are five principal
sections. The first four correspond to main
categories of historic places (cultural
landscapes, archaeological sites, buildings and engineering works) and the
fifth, to materials.
The final section, References, includes
a glossary of terms used in the Standards
and Guidelines, a selected bibliography
and the photo credits. Although the
language of the Guidelines is intended
for non-experts, certain terms may be
unfamiliar. For this purpose, the glossary
defines the words that appear in italics.
1
The Conservation
Decision-making
Process
1
The Conservation
Decision-making
Process
Conservation activities can be seen as a
sequence of actions — from understanding the historic place, to planning for its
conservation and intervening through
projects or maintenance. Because conservation is an ongoing and cyclical process,
people involved in conservation must
often retrace their steps to re-examine
their approaches, namely, to assess the
impacts of planned interventions on
character-defining elements, or to obtain
additional information.
Understanding an historic place is an
essential first step to good conservation practice. This is normally achieved
through research and investigation. It is
important to know where the heritage
value of the historic place lies, along with
its condition, evolution over time, and past
and current importance to its community.
The traditional practices associated with
the historic place and the interrelationship
between the historic place, its environment and its communities should also
be considered. The understanding phase
can be lengthy and, in some cases, may
run in parallel with later phases as the
understanding of the place evolves and
continues to inform the process. The
information collected in this phase will
be used throughout the conservation
decision-making process and should
remain accessible.
Planning is the mechanism that links
a comprehensive understanding of an
historic place with interventions that
respect its heritage value. Planning should
consider all factors affecting the future
of an historic place, including the needs
of the owners and users, community
interests, the potential for environmental
impacts, available resources and external
constraints. The most effective planning
and design approach is an integrated
one that combines heritage conservation
with other planning and project goals,
and engages all partners and stakeholders
early in the process and throughout.
For historic places, the conservation planning process also needs to be flexible to
allow for discoveries and for an increased
understanding along the way, such as
information gained from archaeological
investigations or impact assessments. It is
important to maintain a firm sense of the
larger picture over the long term, and not
to emphasize particular character-defining
elements at the expense of others.
Intervening on an historic place, that
is, any action or process that results in a
physical change to its character-defining
elements, must respect and protect its
heritage value. Interventions can include:
n
Preservation actions that are part of
the ongoing maintenance of an
historic place;
n
Rehabilitation activities related to a
new use or code upgrades;
n
Restoration activities associated with
the depiction of an historic place at a
specific period in its history.
Intervening on archaeological sites may
focus on:
n
Preserving the physical integrity of
fragile elements;
n
Recording them;
n
Providing access for public visitation;
n
Integrating them into a new structure.
These three phases can further be defined
through a series of steps. Although
presented sequentially, these steps
should be revisited regularly as part of
the ongoing conservation decisionmaking process.
UNDERSTANDING
Refer to Heritage Value and
Character-defining Elements
An historic place’s heritage value and
character-defining elements are identified
through formal recognition by an authority or by nomination to the Canadian
Register of Historic Places. If this has not
yet been done, the first essential step in
any conservation project is to identify and
describe the character-defining elements
that are important in defining the overall
heritage value of the historic place. The
essence of these elements is captured
in a Statement of Significance (SoS) or
equivalent document. For assistance
in writing a SoS, consult the document
Writing Statements of Significance at
www.historicplaces.ca.
Investigate and Document Condition
and Changes
On-site investigation as well as archival
and oral history research should be carried out as a basis for a detailed assessment of current conditions and previous
maintenance and repair work. Known
changes should be documented in a chronology or report. If no existing plans are
found, then a photographic survey should
be carried out and drawings or sketches
prepared to record current conditions.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
3
PLANNING
The Standards and Guidelines apply particularly to these three steps
of the conservation decision-making process: Determine the Primary
Treatment, Review the Standards and Follow the Guidelines.
DETERMINE
THE PRIMARY
TREATMENT
REVIEW THE
STANDARDS
PRESERVATION REHABILITATION
Additional
Standards for
Restoration
(13-14)
GENERAL GUIDELINES
Additional
Guidelines for
Rehabilitation
4
RESTORATION
G E N E R A L S TA N D A R D S 1 – 9
Additional
Standards for
Rehabilitation
(10 –11–12)
FOLLOW THE
GUIDELINES
Maintain or Select an Appropriate
and Sustainable Use
If the use of an historic place is part of
its heritage value, every effort should be
made to retain that use. Otherwise, a use
compatible with its heritage value should
be found. It is important to find the right
fit between the use and the historic place
to ensure this use will last and provide a
stable context for ongoing conservation. A
viable use better guarantees the long-term
existence of an historic place and limits
deterioration caused by human activity
and the environment.
Additional
Guidelines for
Restoration
Identify Project Requirements
Defining the needs of existing or future
users and determining the scope and
cost of conservation work are essential in
establishing realistic objectives. It may be
necessary to define priorities and organize
the work in logical phases. Contemporary
considerations such as health and safety,
security, accessibility and sustainability,
and changes in use can substantially impact on the heritage value and characterdefining elements of an historic place. It is
important to assess these considerations
together with all the other functional
goals of the project, including upgrades to
improve performance.
Determine the Primary Treatment
Based on the requirements identified
above, the next step is to determine the
conservation approach. To do so, it helps
to determine a primary treatment. While
any conservation project may involve aspects of more than one of the three conservation treatments, it helps to decide
during the planning stage whether the
project primarily falls under Preservation,
Rehabilitation or Restoration. A clear idea
of the project’s primary focus or objective
and the heritage value of the historic
place will contribute to the success of the
conservation project. The conservation
treatments and selection of a primary
treatment are explained in more detail
in Chapter 2.
The Conservation Decision-making Process
Review the Standards
The Standards, which are the principles
at the heart of this document, are central
to the process of preserving, rehabilitating or restoring an historic place in a
consistent manner. Because they provide
the broader philosophical basis for
conservation, it is important to review the
Standards before the Guidelines. Note
that the Standards are interrelated and
should all be considered.
Nine General Standards (1 to 9) apply
to all conservation projects. These
nine standards also correspond to the
standards for a Preservation project. This
reflects that Preservation is core to all
conservation projects because it extends
the physical life of an historic place
through proper care and maintenance.
Three Additional Standards (10, 11 and 12)
relate to Rehabilitation. All three must be
considered in a Rehabilitation project, in
addition to the nine General Standards.
Two Additional Standards (13 and 14)
relate to Restoration, both of which must
be considered in a Restoration project, in
addition to the nine General Standards.
The Standards are explained in more
detail in Chapter 3.
Follow the Guidelines
To ensure that conservation is based on
a thorough understanding of an historic
place and its character-defining elements,
the Guidelines always recommend
documenting and assessing the form,
materials and condition of an historic
place and its character-defining elements
before any intervention decision and
subsequent work.
Key Definitions
Historic Place: a structure, building, group of buildings, district, landscape,
archaeological site or other place in Canada that has been formally recognized
for its heritage value.
Heritage Value: the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual
importance or significance for past, present and future generations. The heritage
value of an historic place is embodied in its character-defining materials, forms,
location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings.
Character-defining Element: the materials, forms, location, spatial
configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings that contribute to
the heritage value of an historic place, which must be retained to preserve
its heritage value.
Similar to the Standards, General
Guidelines apply to all conservation projects. The General Guidelines also correspond to the Guidelines for a Preservation
project. Additional Guidelines relate to
Rehabilitation and Restoration, and where
applicable, should be followed in addition
to the General Guidelines.
There are specific Guidelines for four
categories of historic places: Cultural
Landscapes, Archaeological Sites,
Buildings, and Engineering Works. These
sections are divided into separate subsections that provide guidance on characterdefining elements, such as landforms or
windows. A fifth category of guidelines
addresses the Materials that may be part
of all these historic places.
The Guidelines should not be used in
isolation. There may be heritage value in
the relationships between cultural landscapes, archaeological sites, buildings, or
engineering works. These values should
not be compromised when undertaking a project on individual characterdefining elements of an historic place. The
Guidelines are explained in more detail in
the introduction to Chapter 4.
INTERVENING
Undertake the Project Work
The project work is a critical phase in the
conservation process. It is equally important to have well-supervised people with
the right skills undertake the work as it is
to determine the right work to undertake.
Every effort should be made to familiarize
those working on the project with the
planned conservation approach and to
ensure they understand the scope of the
project. Hiring processes for consultants
and contractors should identify the need
for heritage expertise and experience.
Carry out Regular Maintenance
While significant interventions may be
necessary in a conservation project,
the best long-term investment in an
historic place is adequate and appropriate maintenance. It helps to develop
and implement a maintenance plan that
includes a schedule for regular inspection
to proactively determine the type and
frequency of necessary maintenance
work. This assures a high degree of
user satisfaction with the historic place,
slows the rate of deterioration, and
maximizes the long-term protection
of heritage value.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
5
Applying the
Conservation
Decision-making
Process to the grier
block, a Small Early
Twentieth Century
Commercial Building
The Grier Block is a large, two-story
commercial building prominently located
within the historic commercial district
of Fort Macleod, Alberta. Built in 1902,
the building is notable for its imposing
pressed metal front façade, a pre-fabricated system manufactured by the Mesker
Brothers of St. Louis, Missouri, that was
once widespread across North America
but rare in western Canada. Historically
home to a wide range of retail businesses,
professional offices, and community
organizations such as the Masons, the
Grier Block is also significant for its role in
the development of Fort Macleod prior to
the First World War, then one of southern
Alberta’s fastest-growing communities.
The Grier Block continues to be fully occupied by a variety of businesses on the
main floor and tenants in the rehabilitated
second floor residential suites.
UNDERSTANDING
Identify heritage value and
character-defining elements
The heritage value of the Grier Block is
identified in the Statement of Significance
on the Canadian Register of Historic
Places. Its heritage value lies in its
“association with the development of the
business district of [Fort] Macleod” and as
an important example of “new construction materials for commercial and public
buildings at the turn of the twentieth
century.” The building’s character-defining
elements include the pressed metal façade,
with its prominent cornice and classical
details such as egg-and-dart mouldings,
engaged columns, and urns; and the brick
masonry walls and sandstone window sills
on the north and west elevations.
6
1906 photograph of Grier Block (at right) from southeast.
Investigate and document
conditions and changes
Investigation of a small-town commercial
building such as the Grier Block would
include research into its construction,
historical uses, and evidence of major alterations. This information might be found
in historic photographs, architectural
plans, and other information from such
sources as municipal tax rolls and other records, local archives and museums, former
owners and tenants, and members of the
community. A detailed physical inspection
of the building would look for evidence of
these documented (and undocumented)
changes and establish the building’s
overall condition. Professional expertise
helps in assessing the state of a building’s
character-defining elements and overall
condition and is essential where a building
has experienced structural problems or
is to undergo a major change of use that
might trigger new building code requirements. The inspection results should be
documented in a written report accompanied by drawings and photographs to
guide future planning and interventions.
In the case of the Grier Block, no original
blueprints of the building existed, but the
historic design was recorded in old photographs and could be compared to pressed
metal elements of Mesker facades
elsewhere. The major alterations lay in the
storefronts themselves, where the original
recessed entrances typical of the period
had been replaced by elements dating
from the 1960s — a common occurrence
with commercial buildings in communities both small and large. Inspection of
the building by a conservation architect
determined that, despite an early fire,
the brick exterior walls and wood frame
interior were essentially sound.
Circa 1910 photograph of Grier Block storefront,
south bay. Photographs like this were an
indispensable resource in developing the
storefront restoration plans.
The Conservation Decision-making Process
PLANNING
Select an appropriate and
sustainable use
The owners had determined that continued
use of the main floor by commercial tenants combined with residential occupancy
on the second floor was most appropriate
in the context of Fort Macleod’s historic
main street. Local demand for commercial
space is steady, and second floor residential suites provide additional income,
enhance security, and contribute to activity
within the historic district. With these uses
already well established in the Grier Block,
the physical requirements of the historic
building would remain fundamentally unchanged even though substantial upgrades
would be needed to meet current building
codes, provide better energy efficiency, and
meet tenant requirements.
Before rehabilitation: east façade, looking southwest.
Identify project requirements
The rehabilitation goals for the Grier
Block were to ensure the integrity of
the building envelope, improve energy
efficiency, and enhance the building’s
appeal to commercial and residential tenants in conjunction with the conservation
of heritage value.
Although structurally sound overall,
the rehabilitation was comprehensive
in scope and included replacement of
the roof membrane; replacement of the
badly deteriorated windows with wood
frame units matching the configuration of the original windows; masonry
repairs; removal, cleaning, repainting and
reassembly of the pressed metal façade;
and restoration of the missing storefronts
based on historic photographs.
The extensive interior work consisted
of the addition of insulation and vapour
barrier to the perimeter walls; complete
upgrades to the building’s electrical
and mechanical systems; refinishing
and replacement, where required, of the
original wood floors; removal and reinstallation of original pressed metal ceilings for
fire-rating purposes; and minor alterations
to the floor plan to accommodate new
functional requirements.
East façade after restoration of storefronts and preservation of pressed metal façade.
Maintenance (repainting) in progress.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
7
Determine the Primary Treatment
The primary conservation treatment of
the Grier Block was determined to be
rehabilitation, since the wide-ranging
interventions all aimed at enabling the
continued commercial and residential
use of the building while protecting its
heritage value. Within a rehabilitation
approach, the conservation program
included the retention and repair of existing historic fabric such as the pressed
metal façade (preservation); the alteration
of existing elements and addition of new
ones, such as the construction of fire-rated
walls (rehabilitation); and the accurate
representation of missing elements
through reinstatement of the storefronts
to the original design (restoration).
Review the Standards
The general standards 1 to 9 and
additional standards for Rehabilitation
10 to 12 apply to rehabilitation projects
such as the Grier Block. The restoration
component of the work, rebuilding of
the missing storefronts, was guided by
Standards 13 and 14 for Restoration.
Each aspect of the conservation program
was referred to the applicable standards
to identify interventions that optimized
the conservation of heritage value while
satisfying the project requirements
within the resources available.
Follow the Guidelines
The appropriate Guidelines for Buildings
(4.3) and Materials (4.5) were consulted
for each intervention on the Grier Block.
For example, the guidelines for Exterior
Walls and Structural Systems (Buildings)
and the guidelines for All Materials and
Masonry (Materials) directed the conservation of the exterior brick masonry and
the addition of insulation. The Additional
Guidelines for Rehabilitation found
throughout the Buildings section provide
guidance on interventions related to
sustainability, health, safety and accessibility requirements.
8
Detail of pressed metal facade after rehabilitation, showing the hallmarks of the original Mesker design.
The work consisted of the following: removal of the metal panels, carefully identifying their original locations;
removal of multiple layers of paint using a chemical bath; recoating with an epoxy-based paint system; and
reinstallation in the original locations on furring strips according to a rain screen principle.
The Conservation Decision-making Process
INTERVENING
Undertake project work
Conservation of the Grier Block progressed over nearly a decade, beginning
with the rehabilitation of the retail bays
and residential suites as revenue generators. Restoration of the pressed metal
storefront was instrumental in the initial
rehabilitation of the main floor commercial
areas, which was followed by rehabilitation of the retail bays one-by-one, as
resources and tenant opportunities
presented themselves. The comprehensive rehabilitation plan prepared by a
conservation architect and the construction expertise of the building owners
contributed greatly to the successful
and cost-effective implementation of the
conservation program.
Carry out regular maintenance
Conservation is an ongoing process. In
southern Alberta, where wind-driven
sand scours paint and exposed wood
and intense freeze-thaw cycles crumble
masonry, regular maintenance is an
important part of preserving the Grier
Block’s character defining elements and
extending the service life of building
systems and fabric. A maintenance plan
helps with this, and it is good conservation practice to document both periodic
rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance,
and to store these documents in a wellidentified, appropriate location.
Left: North façade window prior to rehabilitation showing eroded mortar joints, cracking due to frost
action within the wet wall, and delamination of the sandstone sill.
Right: North façade window, after replacement with new wood units and repointing mortar joints and replacing
damaged bricks with salvaged historic brick matching the original. The replacement sandstone
sill reproduces the rock-faced appearance of the original unit but introduces a slope to improve drainage.
(A drip edge is to be added.) Since the original quarry no longer exists, the stone itself is from a different
source but is of the same type (“Paskapoo” sandstone) typical of buildings in Fort Macleod and southern
Alberta generally. This specimen, selected to avoid the flaws that often contribute to delamination in this
type of stone, will weather to a colour closer to that of the original element.
The decision was made to not remove the paint on the brick at this time, since it was weathering away
of its own accord and appeared to be causing no moisture-related distress within the wall.
Left: Interior of west (rear) wall of north retail bay, showing as-found condition of load-bearing masonry after
removal of the lath and plaster interior finishes for inspection purposes. Uncontrolled runoff from the roof had
saturated the wall, washed out the mortar, and caused localized collapse around the window opening.
Right: Rear wall after masonry repairs. The 2x6 stud wall for insulation creates a small cavity to allow for the
evacuation of any potential moisture.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
9
How private property
owners can preserve
a heritage district:
the case of GrandPré Rural Historic
District, Nova Scotia
Grand-Pré Rural Historic District, located
on the shores of the Minas Basin of the
Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia, is one of the
oldest settlements and evidence of land
use patterns of two cultural groups of
significance: the Acadians and the New
England Planters. Commemorated as the
centre of Acadian settlement from 1682
to 1755, the site is strongly identified
with the 1755 –1762 deportation of the
Acadians. In 1995, the site was declared
Canada’s first rural historic district.
The district includes the Villages of
Grand-Pré, Hortonville and North GrandPré, as well as the surrounding farmlands,
vast stretches of tidal marshes — much
of which was dyked to create arable
land — and orchards extending to the
uplands. Grand-Pré Rural Historic District
is a good example of an organically
evolved cultural landscape that illustrates
the dynamics of human interaction with
the landscape namely the successive
occupations of different cultural groups.
This unique rural landscape reflects the
overlay of one cultural tradition onto
another and contains archaeological
evidence of Mi’kmaq, Acadian and New
England Planter peoples.
Contemporary agricultural activities by property
owners at Grand-Pré continue traditional practices.
10
Grand-Pré Rural Historic District is an evolved cultural landscape.
UNDERSTANDING
Refer to Heritage Value and
Character-defining Elements
As there may not be any Statement of
Significance (SoS) for individual properties
in a historic district, owners should refer
to the heritage value of the historic district identified in the SoS on the Canadian
Register of Historic Places. In the case
of the Grand-Pré Rural Historic District,
this document indicates that its heritage
value of resides “in the blending of natural
and built features, and in the retention
and development of land use patterns
originating with the Acadians (particularly in the spatial distribution of arable
land, orchards, dykelands, and residential
hamlets).” Its character defining elements
include those related to “the preponderance of agricultural land use; the organization of the landscape into three primary
zones (i.e. dyked marshlands, uplands,
and open fields); the circulation patterns
evident in pathways, roadways and the
railway line which follow topographical
features that create the informal boundaries of the three zones; the gently rolling
topography of the dyked marshlands; and
the system of drainage and dykes bordering the tidal flats.”
Investigate and Document Condition
and Changes
At this stage, the owner should contact
and seek guidance from the relevant
authority, in this case the Nova Scotia
Special Places Program. Dialogue will
confirm whether or not any information
is available for the property in question. Subsequent discussions between
parties will help the owner recognize and
understand the characteristics specific to
the site and to identify character-defining
elements. Research should focus on the
site’s history, including the introduction
of elements to the site and any evidence
of significant alterations. This information
can be obtained from town records, local
archives and museums, through period
photographs, site surveys, and insurance
maps. Oral history obtained through
former owners, tenants and other knowledgeable community members is also
useful. The relationship between different
components of past landscapes can be
studied through the use of archaeology.
The Conservation Decision-making Process
Identify Project Requirements
At this phase of the project, the owner
and relevant authority should have a
good understanding of the scope of work
and know the potential impacts on the
character-defining elements of the site.
When a project is planned in a zone identified as having archeological potential,
most provinces or territories request or
require that an archaeological investigation be undertaken prior to beginning
the work.
The system of drainage and dykes bordering the tidal flats is a character-defining element of Grand-Pré
Rural Historic District.
Based on this research, if parts of the
site are found to have archaeological
potential, or to contain character-defining
elements, careful site investigation should
be undertaken by experts to determine
its physical condition. Together, expert
and local knowledge will help to properly
evaluate and articulate recommendations
for conservation needs. A written report
amply illustrated with drawings and
photographs should be prepared to guide
future planning and interventions.
Because the district is an evolved
cultural landscape, it is important that any
character-defining element related to the
successive occupations of the district be
protected; for example, dyke facings from
the 20th century.
PLANNING
Maintain or Select an Appropriate
and Sustainable Use
It is important that private owners
confirm that the proposed use is appropriate and sustainable over the
long term to minimize the impact on
the heritage values expressed through
the character-defining elements. For
example, the continued use of traditional
agricultural activities by property owners
in Grand-Pré have made it the place it is
today: a place that still boasts many of
the character-defining elements of the
original settlement. For this reason, many
of these activities can still be performed
while their impacts on the characterdefining elements of the historic place
are mitigated.
Determine the Primary Treatment
It is expected that most interventions by
private landowners will relate primarily to
agricultural land use. Such interventions
fall under Preservation as these projects
continue a traditional practice that has
existed for 300 years and contribute to
protecting character-defining elements.
In other cases, the primary conservation treatment would be considered
Rehabilitation, such as the construction
of a new barn.
Review the Standards
For a Preservation project, the General
Standards 1 to 9 must be considered
and applied where appropriate; for a
Rehabilitation project, Standards 1 to
12 must be considered. Each standard
should be reviewed in relation to the
proposed work and the potential impact
on the heritage value and character defining elements. The chosen approaches
must balance the needs of the proposed
land use development and the protection
of the heritage value of the site.
The Acadians built aboiteaux as part of the system of
drainage and dykes.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
11
Follow the Guidelines
For each intervention in the district,
the appropriate Guidelines for Cultural
Landscapes and Guidelines for
Archaeological Sites should be consulted.
For example, if a character-defining
element of the historic district, such as
a pathway, is affected by the intervention, then the guidelines for Circulation
should be consulted. If archaeological
remains are anticipated or encountered,
the general guidelines for Archaeological
Sites should be consulted as well as
the guidelines for Sites in a Cultural
Landscape.
INTERVENING
The spatial organization of orchards contributes to the heritage value of the historic district.
Undertake the Project Work
It is important that people who undertake
the project work have the necessary
knowledge and skills. A phased implementation of the work is critical, keeping
in mind that Preservation (Stabilization) of
the character-defining elements of the site
should be the first priority.
Carry out Regular Maintenance
Maintenance is an important part of the
Preservation process. Regular maintenance will preserve character defining
elements and extend the service life of
functional components.
Site investigation has found archaeological evidence of Mi’kmaq, Acadian and New England Planter peoples.
12
The Conservation Decision-making Process
2
The Conservation Treatments:
Preservation, Rehabilitation
and Restoration
2
The Conservation
Treatments: Preservation,
Rehabilitation and
Restoration
The overarching term for protecting
historic places in Canada is Conservation,
which is described as: all actions or
processes aimed at safeguarding the
character-defining elements of an historic
place to retain its heritage value and
extend its physical life. This may involve
Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration,
or a combination of these actions or
processes. Reconstruction, or reconstitution of a disappeared historic place, is not
considered conservation and is therefore
not addressed in this document.
Selecting a primary
treatment
While any conservation project may
involve aspects of more than one of
these three conservation treatments,
it is important to decide during the
planning stage whether the project falls
under Preservation, Rehabilitation or
Restoration. A clear idea of the project’s
primary focus or objective, as provided
in a conservation plan, and the heritage
values of the historic place will contribute
to the success of a consistent and coherent conservation project.
Once the primary treatment type is
established, it is important to refer
consistently to the standards related to
that treatment type for the overall project.
If a different treatment is required for
certain character-defining elements, then
the related standards will guide interventions on those elements. For example,
in a project where rehabilitation is the
primary treatment, it may be appropriate
to preserve certain character-defining
elements, such as repairable original
windows or archaeological soil layers,
The Swift Current Creek Petroglyph Boulder in Saskatchewan is an outstanding example of precontact rock
art dating from at least 1,200 years ago. The pictographs are executed in rarely seen black pigment. One of
the best preserved petroglyph sites in Saskatchewan, it is notable for its bison carvings and the occurrence of
both petroglyphs and pictographs on the same rock. In order to maintain the fine condition of the petroglyphs,
the boulder’s physical properties were analyzed to assess possible preservation methods. Maintaining the
confidentiality of the location of the site also helps protect against unauthorized activities.
or to restore certain missing or altered
elements, such as a hedgerow or water
wheel. In those cases, the Preservation
or Restoration standards apply. The
interventions specific to those characterdefining elements can be considered as
secondary treatments.
Preservation
Preservation involves protecting, maintaining and stabilizing the existing form,
material and integrity of an historic place
or 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 stave off
deterioration or prevent damage. This
will keep the place serviceable through
routine maintenance and small repairs,
rather than inoperable during intrusive
interventions, extensive replacement and
new construction. In archaeological sites,
Preservation can consist of creating or
maintaining a stable environment for the
character-defining elements to extend
their physical life.
Consider Preservation as the primary
treatment when:
(a) Materials, features and spaces of the
historic place are essentially intact
and convey the historic significance,
without extensive repair or
replacement;
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
15
(b) Depiction during a particular period in
its history is not appropriate; and,
(c) Continuation or new use does not
require extensive alterations
or additions.
Preservation tends to be the most cautious of the conservation treatments and
retains the most materials. It is therefore
more appropriate when heritage values
related to physical materials dominate.
A plan for Preservation should be developed before work is undertaken.
The nine General Standards (see Chapter
3) and the General Guidelines (see
Chapter 4) relate directly to Preservation.
Since protecting, maintaining and
stabilizing are at the core of all conservation projects, the General Standards and
General Guidelines must be considered,
and applied where appropriate, to any
conservation project.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation involves the sensitive adaptation of an historic place or individual
component for a continuing or compatible
contemporary use, 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 compatible with the style,
era and character of the historic place.
In the context of archaeological sites,
Rehabilitation allows their compatible use
through actions aimed at communicating
and conveying their heritage value.
Consider Rehabilitation as the primary
treatment when:
(a) Repair or replacement of deteriorated
features is necessary;
(b) Alterations or additions to the historic
place are planned for a new or
continued use; and,
(c) Depiction during a particular period in
its history is not appropriate.
Rehabilitation can revitalize historical relationships and settings and is therefore more
appropriate when heritage values related to
the context of the historic place dominate.
A plan for Rehabilitation should be developed before work begins.
Three Additional Standards (10–11–12)
relate to Rehabilitation and all three
must be considered, and applied where
appropriate, to a Rehabilitation project,
in addition to the nine General Standards
(see chapter 3). Both the General
Guidelines and the Additional Guidelines
for Rehabilitation must also be considered, and applied where appropriate, to
any Rehabilitation project (see chapter 4).
Restoration
Restoration involves accurately revealing,
recovering or representing the state of an
historic place or individual component
as it appeared at a particular period in
its history, while protecting its heritage
value. Restoration may include removing
non character-defining features from
other periods in its history and recreating
missing features from the restoration
period. Restoration must be based on
clear evidence and detailed knowledge
of the earlier forms and materials being
recovered. Restoration does not apply to
archaeological sites because archaeology
does not favour one period over another.
The value lies partly in the information
the sites contain. In a cultural landscape,
the difference must be clearly understood
between ecological restoration and
restoration as a heritage conservation
treatment. For ecological restoration,
The Hartland Covered Bridge, crossing the St. John River at Hartland, NB, is the world’s longest covered bridge. It is significant for its structural qualities, contributions to
transportation and as a symbol of the heritage of covered bridges in New Brunswick. The present bridge is a standard covered bridge structure composed of a Howe truss
superstructure enclosed with vertical unpainted weatherboard siding. When the New Brunswick Department of Transportation recently rehabilitated the bridge by
installing a fire suppression system, care was taken to ensure that this new system was barely visible in the upper structural system.
16
THE CONSERVATION TREATMENTS
consult the Principles and Guidelines
for Ecological Restoration in Canada’s
Protected Natural Areas (Parks Canada
and the Canadian Parks Council, 2008).
Consider Restoration as the primary
treatment when:
(a) An historic place’s significance during
a particular period in its history
significantly outweighs the potential
loss of existing, non character-defining
materials, features and spaces from
other periods;
(b) Substantial physical and documentary
or oral evidence exists to accurately
carry out the work; and,
(c) Contemporary additions or alterations
and are not planned.
Key Definitions
Conservation: all actions or processes that are aimed at safeguarding the
character-defining elements of an historic place 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 an historic place, or of an individual
component, while protecting its heritage value.
Rehabilitation: the action or process of making possible a continuing or
compatible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component,
while protecting its heritage value.
Restoration: the action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or
representing the state of an historic place, or of an individual component, as it
appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value.
Restoration is most appropriate when
strong associative or symbolic values
have been obscured and can be revealed
through removals, repairs and replacements based on historical evidence.
Before the work begins, the restoration
period must be selected and justified and
a plan for Restoration developed. The use
of traditional methods and techniques
should be encouraged, where possible,
in a restoration project.
Restoration is rarely used today as the
primary treatment for an entire historic
place, but rather as a secondary treatment
for specific character-defining elements.
If changes to an historic place have acquired value over time, then Preservation
or a combination of Preservation and
Rehabilitation would be more appropriate.
In addition to the nine General Standards,
two Additional Standards (13 –14) relate
to Restoration. These eleven standards
must be considered, and applied where
appropriate, to a Restoration project (see
chapter 3). The General Guidelines and
Additional Guidelines for Restoration
must be considered, and applied where
appropriate, to any Restoration project
(see chapter 4).
Chiefswood, birthplace of famed poetess, E. Pauline Johnson, is in Ohsweken, ON, in the Six Nations of the
Grand River Territory. It was built between 1853 –1856 by her father, Mohawk Chief George H. M. Johnson,
a leading figure of the Six Nations. Located on a knoll overlooking the Grand River, the Italianate-style house,
set back from the county highway, represents the Johnson family’s interpretation of a rural Picturesque estate.
The meadow and summer kitchen, two of the site’s character-defining elements, were removed in the 1960s
and replaced with a manicured lawn. On the basis of both documentary and physical evidence, the summer
kitchen was rebuilt and the meadow restored using native plant species.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
17
3
The STANDARDS
for the Conservation
of Historic Places
in Canada
3
The Standards for the
Conservation of
Historic Places
in Canada
The Standards for the Conservation
of Historic Places in Canada promote
responsible conservation practices to
help protect Canada’s historic places.
They provide a philosophical approach
to conservation work. While neither
technical nor case-specific, they offer a
framework for making essential decisions
about which character-defining elements
of an historic place should be preserved
and which ones can be altered while
protecting heritage value.
These Standards are, in fact, principles
that express the collective wisdom that
has accumulated in heritage conservation
practice. They are rooted in practical and
theoretical arguments that evolved as the
field of conservation developed over the
years. Working from these basic principles gives consistency and an ethical
foundation to the decisions that must be
made when conserving an historic place.
The Standards are to be broadly applied
throughout the conservation process
and read as a whole, because they are
interconnected and mutually reinforcing.
Conservation is a case-by-case pursuit,
based on an understanding of the specific
values of an historic place. While the
applicability of each standard is unique to
each case or intervention, nevertheless,
there is a consistency in applying the
standards to different types of places.
Chapter 4, which forms the bulk of this
document, provides detailed guidelines
for four categories of historic places
and materials.
Because the standards are basic principles to be applied using a reasoned
process unique to each historic place, it is
important to fully understand their meaning. This chapter explains the meaning
of each standard and gives examples for
their application. Because many of the
standards describe multiple principles, it
is important to consider every sentence in
a standard. The individual principles associated with each standard are separated
into part (a), (b), etc. The explanations
that follow further define each separate
principle.
The first nine standards relate to
Preservation, which is at the core of
all conservation projects. As such,
these general standards must be
applied to all conservation projects
regardless of treatment type. Three
additional standards are specific to
Rehabilitation projects — Standards
10, 11 and 12 — and two additional standards are provided for
Restoration — Standards 13 and 14.
Repairing or Replacing?
Standards 8, 10 and 13 are related standards; each one describes the
importance of repairing before replacing for each of the three treatment
types based on the condition of the character-defining elements and
the type of evidence available.
• Standard 8, in the context of Preservation, where the condition allows more for
repair than replacement, assumes that material evidence is available to use as
a basis when part of a character-defining element needs to be replaced;
• Standard 10, in the context of Rehabilitation, permits compatible,
distinguishable new elements to be inserted when replacing elements too
deteriorated to repair;
• Standard 13, in the context of Restoration, requires that replacement elements
be based on evidence from the restoration period.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
21
The
Standards
The Standards are not
presented in a hierarchical
order. All standards for
any given type of treatment
must be considered, and
applied where appropriate,
to any conservation project.
General Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation
and Restoration
1. Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove,
replace or substantially alter its intact or repairable characterdefining elements. Do not move a part of an historic place if its
current location is a character-defining element.
2. Conserve changes to an historic place that, 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 an historic place that requires minimal or no change
to its character-defining elements.
6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize an historic place until any
subsequent intervention is undertaken. Protect and preserve
archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for
disturbing archaeological resources, take mitigation measures
to limit damage and loss of information.
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
character-defining 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 on close inspection. Document any intervention for
future reference.
22
the Standards
Additional Standards Relating to Rehabilitation
10. Repair rather than replace character-defining elements. 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. 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 an 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 an 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 and detailing are based on sufficient
physical, documentary and/or oral evidence.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
23
Standard 1
(a) Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. (b) Do not remove,
replace or substantially alter its intact or repairable character-defining
elements. (c) Do not move a part of an historic place if its current
location is a character-defining element.
Part (a) states that the overarching objective of heritage conservation is to conserve
heritage value. If an historic place has been formally recognized, the designating
authority will likely have prepared a document outlining the place’s values, such as a
Statement of Significance. These values are embodied in character-defining elements.
Part (b) outlines how to conserve heritage value by minimizing changes to characterdefining elements. Identifying character-defining elements helps guide where necessary interventions should and should not take place.
Part (c) addresses the wholeness of a place and reinforces that spatial relationships
can be character-defining. In a garden, for example, moving a central feature to another
location affects the heritage value of the entire landscape. In an archaeological site,
location may be critical to understanding other elements that are now missing. In an
engineering work, machinery moved from its original position can lose part of its
meaning, thus diminishing its heritage value.
The character-defining interior features and finishes,
such as the birch floors, window frames and views
of the city at Habitat 67 in Montreal, have been
carefully maintained, repaired and retained.
Centuries ago, the inland Inuit, or Kivallirmiut, recognized the hunting potential of the annual fall crossing of
massive herds of caribou and began establishing seasonal camps along the Kazan River. Today Fall Caribou
Crossing NHSC in Nunavut, is noted not only for its archaeological remains and former importance to the
Kivallirmiut, but also for its natural landscape, continued use as a hunting area and the vitality of the oral
history and traditions of the people who know it best. Moving any of these stones would impair heritage value.
24
the Standards
Standard 2
Conserve changes to an historic place that, over time, have become
character-defining elements in their own right.
It is natural and necessary for places to evolve, reflecting changes in the community
and culture of that they are a part. Places may be modified for reasons of taste, for
the changing nature of their use, or to adapt to evolving conditions and technologies.
Changes that mark significant changes, or that are considered expressions of their time,
may be deemed to have a value in their own right.
Factories and other industrial works are constantly adapted. Retaining these adaptations may be important in telling the story of changing technology or the growth of a
particular industry. Commercial and residential interiors were often changed with new
ownership or passing trends. For example, a 1950s cafeteria in a 1910 office building
may have its own distinct value as part of the evolution of that historic place.
A fine old storefront that has been modernized may have lost its heritage value.
However, some changes may have acquired value, such as an art-deco stainless steel
over-cladding or a marquee added to a popular urban theatre. Not every change to an
historic place has heritage value, but those that do should be identified in a Statement
of Significance. For historic places that were formally recognized some time ago, the
process of determining if there is heritage value associated with later changes is an
important step in the conservation process.
The lean-to is a character-defining element that
shows the evolution of the Addison Sod House
in Saskatchewan from a rustic sod dwelling to a
comfortable home. Removing the later changes
to restore the house to an earlier period would not
be appropriate because it would remove elements
that have heritage value.
Over the years, several landscape architects and architects have made specific contributions to the evolving
functions of Vancouver’s Stanley Park. These include the play areas, totem groupings and aquarium that
are now integral to the park’s heritage value.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
25
Standard 3
Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal
intervention.
Minimal intervention in the context of heritage conservation means doing enough,
but only enough to meet realistic objectives while protecting heritage values.
Minimal does not mean, doing little or nothing, or the least possible. In fact, enough
intervention to arrest and correct deterioration, meet codes, or introduce new services,
can be quite extensive. Determining minimal intervention is a matter of rigorous
assessment, options analysis and creativity to identify the intervention that balances
technical and programmatic requirements with protecting heritage value.
When the windows of Lefurgey House in
Summerside, PEI were damaged in a fire, instead of
replacing the entire windows, only the broken glass
was replaced. The replacement glass, salvaged from
a nearby house that was replacing its windows, had
similar properties and wavy appearance.
The application of Standard 3 varies depending on the nature of the character-defining
element. In a landscape where value resides in living things that mature and die,
substantial replanting may be necessary. In the case of an historic bridge that is
unable to support current traffic loads, minimal intervention might well mean
significant interventions to assure public safety.
For archaeological sites, minimal intervention calls for striking a balance between
gaining knowledge from investigations and preserving the resources in situ. A certain
level of intervention is often necessary to sufficiently understand the heritage value of
the archaeological site and to determine the best preservation approach. This can be
achieved by selecting the most appropriate and effective research methodology for a
specific project such as targeting only necessary excavations and using non-intrusive
means of investigation, when appropriate.
Minimal intervention has different meanings for Preservation, Rehabilitation and
Restoration. In the context of Preservation, it means undertaking sufficient maintenance
or repairs to ensure the longevity of the place while protecting heritage value. In the
context of Rehabilitation, it might mean limiting the proposed new use, addition or
changes. In a Restoration, minimal intervention is a delicate balance between removals
and recreations to represent the historic place’s condition at a specific time in its history.
The extensive damage caused by Hurricane Juan to the Halifax Public Gardens required substantial replanting.
The large scope of work is still considered a minimal intervention because any less work would have negatively
affected the heritage value of the place.
26
the Standards
Standard 4
(a) Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and
use. (b) 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.
Part (a) of this standard requires us to respect the historic place and to conserve, as
best we can, the physical evidence that conveys the significance of the historic place,
including its contribution to a specific context and to the social history associated
with its uses.
Part (b) discourages the creation of additions that falsify the story of a place. There
is always a high risk of loss of authenticity when adding elements from other
places or eras.
The materials removed from historic places are often salvaged and reused. Careful consideration must be given to how and where this is done. For example, using a salvaged
lamppost from an historic landscape with identifiable characteristics at another site
does not conform to the standard. On the other hand, using recycled bricks of the same
age and appearance, or reusing identical windows within a building are appropriate
from both conservation and sustainability standpoints. Where it is deemed critical to the
honesty of the work, such additions can be rendered distinguishable in a discreet way.
The original plans for the Margaret Marin Residence
in Edmonton indicate a decorative upper balcony
that was never built. During recent renovations, it
was decided not to construct this balcony because
it would have conveyed a false sense of historical
development.
The Old Strathcona Provincial Historic Area in Edmonton is a diverse historic district. The individuality of each
building and evidence of the era of its construction has been maintained. Earlier simply constructed wood
buildings stand alongside later more sophisticated masonry buildings and modern infill structures.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
27
Standard 5
Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no change to its
character-defining elements.
Standard 5 advocates maintaining the use of the place or finding a new viable use
that has little impact on its character-defining elements. It is important to find the
right function for an historic place to ensure a long-term, stable context for
conserving heritage value.
If the current use is a character-defining element, maintaining this use is in accordance with the standard, as long as growth or technological change does not become
destructive to its character-defining elements. If maintaining the original use leads to
the removal or significant alteration of character-defining elements, the owners and
users may need to consider a compatible new use for the historic place.
Finding a new use depends on an analysis of heritage value and physical compatibility
with the historic place and its likeliness to provide a lasting, new life for the historic
place. Using an old jail as a youth hostel may initially seem like an unusual concept,
but it illustrates resourceful, clear-sighted functional analysis as the generator of
good reuse: both jails and hostels provide a lot of small rooms for sleeping.
Despite changing requirements in education, the
Lunenburg Academy in Nova Scotia remains in its
original building and setting. The Academy was
designed using green space, natural lighting and
ventilation in a way that is still valid for school
use today.
Old buildings are often considered as venues for museums or galleries, but if strict interior environmental conditions are required for that function, complex and potentially
destructive interventions may be needed. New uses that require substantial alteration
of character-defining elements do not conform to the standard.
In the case of archaeological sites, the intention is seldom to use the archaeological
site itself, but rather the space that contains it. It is therefore important that a new
use requires minimal intervention and does not alter the character-defining elements
that are often submerged or buried underground.
After serving the community for many years as a primary school, the
Charlotte Street School in Fredericton now has a new community use
as the Charlotte Street Arts Centre. This use required little change to the
building’s layout and character. Classrooms were maintained to serve as
open art studios, dance and music studios and an art gallery. The existing
wide corridors and staircases, as well as the classrooms and other
spaces, fit the new needs well.
28
This Dawson City building, originally built to be the temporary location
for the government telegraph office, was rehabilitated into
housing units.
the Standards
Standard 6
(a) Protect and, if necessary, stabilize an historic place until any subsequent
intervention is undertaken. (b) Protect and preserve archaeological resources
in place. Where there is potential for disturbing archaeological resources,
take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of information.
While Standard 5 reinforces the need for an appropriate and sustainable use, part a) of
Standard 6 recognizes that there may be a period of vacancy in the life of any historic
place, such as a period of inaction at a former industrial site or farm.
Mothballing, the temporary closure of an historic place with measures to protect it from
vandalism and weather, is a process that requires planning and continual monitoring.
For a landscape, mothballing might include taking measures to diminish the risk of
insect infestation or plant disease. Archaeological sites can be particularly vulnerable
because the resources are often not visible.
Part b) acknowledges a responsibility to protect archaeological resources, but also
reinforces the message that they must be protected and preserved in situ. This is a
highly regulated aspect of conservation: one must identify and engage the authority
having jurisdiction. The information required to best preserve and protect the site is
gained from a variety of archaeological interventions. A strategy to recover the information using the most appropriate and effective methods needs to be developed in an
effort to strike a balance between gaining knowledge from investigations and
preserving the resources in situ.
Nearby archaeological resources were protected
when stabilizing the Prince of Wales Fort in
Manitoba. Strategically placed archaeological
investigations on the surface of the ramparts
established the extent of artifacts, including
their depth below the surface.
These buildings, along with others at St.Luke’s Anglican Rectory and Church in the Yukon, were temporarily
stabilized using a variety of measures including adding sandwich bracing, cable bracing, heavy frames, roll
roofing, and covering door and window openings in order to keep out snow and rain. Stabilization allows
the structures to be adequately researched and their eventual restoration to be planned.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
29
Standard 7
(a) Evaluate the existing condition of character-defining elements to
determine the appropriate intervention needed. (b) Use the gentlest means
possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking
an intervention.
Part (a) of Standard 7 refers to a comprehensive examination and assessment of the
physical place. Determining if an intervention is needed, and what an appropriate intervention might be, requires an understanding of the physical condition and behaviour
of the character-defining elements and the historic place as a whole. The cause and
extent of any decay should be based on evidence from a site investigation.
Ground-penetrating radar was used at McPherson
House in Fort Simpson, NT; this guided archaeological
excavations limiting the impact on the site.
If the condition evaluation reveals a weakness that threatens the historic place’s longterm survival, the standard requires assessments and options analysis to determine the
appropriate course of action. This standard, in combination with Standard 3, usually
leads to intervening only where the existing condition is actively causing
further deterioration or weakening the asset.
Part (b) addresses the course of action once it is clear that an intervention is needed.
The gentlest means to achieve a reasonable level of conservation should be
selected. This includes the technique or methodology itself and the extent of the
intervention being considered.
Investigations themselves are forms of intervention and as such should follow a
minimal intervention approach. Investigations should begin with observation
and non-invasive probes followed by careful sampling and physical openings or
selective disassembly if required. The objective is to obtain enough evidence
without unnecessarily disturbing the historic place.
A condition assessment and evaluation undertaken before an intervention at Belvedere Cemetery in St.John’s
Ecclesiastical District, would reveal that the well-aged and weathered patina found on the grave markers is
not damaging. It is in fact a character-defining element of this historic place and should be preserved.
30
the Standards
Standard 8
(a) Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis. (b) Repair
character-defining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized
conservation methods. (c) Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or
missing parts of character-defining elements, where there are surviving
prototypes.
This standard introduces the basic hierarchy of interventions. Maintain first, then repair
rather than replace the deteriorated parts of character-defining elements. If the replacement of a part is the only option, it should be done in kind. This approach is closely tied
to minimal intervention (Standard 3).
Part (a) of this standard promotes the ongoing maintenance of an historic place, an
essential but often undervalued aspect of conservation. Rigorous maintenance reduces
long-term costs as well as the frequency of major interventions.
When restoring decorative plaster in the Walker
Theatre in Winnipeg, moulds were made of existing
plaster elements. The deteriorated plaster was then
patched and repaired using the moulds to match
the original.
Part (b) emphasizes the use of recognized conservation methods when carrying out
repairs. Past experiences in conservation offer many cases where the application of unproven new materials or techniques resulted in more damage than good. Techniques and
materials must have proven track records and be based on research, analysis and review.
Part (c) introduces the concept of replacement in kind. In kind is defined as: with the
same form, material and detailing as seen in the existing elements. If the characterdefining element is a wood shingle, the standard states that it must be replaced with
a wood shingle, and not an asphalt shingle.
Replacement in kind may sometimes be difficult, and substitute materials may be
necessary when the original materials are damaging to character-defining elements or
hazardous to public health. Some mid-20th century materials are no longer made or
cannot be manufactured in small batches. In a place where the heritage value depends
on a material that is no longer available, the ongoing loss of the material will eventually
lead to a difficult choice: accepting breakage or replacing the entire material or assembly with one that is physically and visually compatible with the original.
A condition assessment of the exterior walls and
frame of this Storehouse at Fort Langley, BC found
extensive deterioration of some timbers, which
required replacement in kind. The dimensions,
hewn finish and species of wood used in the
repairs matched those replaced. The photograph
shows part of one storehouse wall after the repairs
were completed, but before the new timbers were
whitewashed.
Wrecks at Red Bay NHSC, NL, such as this Basque Period wreck, are reburied using sand and tarp to ensure
their long-term preservation. Their condition is periodically assessed through monitoring.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
31
Standard 9
(a) Make any intervention needed to preserve character-defining elements
physically and visually compatible with the historic place and identifiable
on close inspection. (b) Document any intervention for future reference.
Part (a) of this standard speaks to balancing the need for an intervention to be appropriate in physical and visual terms and subtly distinguishable. Compatibility can allow
for some variation in the finish or patina, which will serve as the distinguishing factor.
Generally, repair and replacement work only needs to be identifiable on close inspection. However, honesty requires that new work be clearly distinguishable from the
old by subtle visual means or by date stamping in inconspicuous locations.
Part (b) emphasizes the requirement for documentation to help future decision
makers better understand the historic place. It is important to keep good records
of all conservation work, including maintenance, and to plan for easy retrieval of
that data in the future.
While the main reason for making interventions identifiable is honesty, it is also
a means of keeping a record of the place. The historic place itself is its own best
document.
The new pieces of stone on the Wellington Wall
at the Parliament Grounds in Ottawa are clearly
visible on close inspection due to a different
tooling technique.
The grand residential estate at Parkwood in Oshawa is a cultural landscape that covers 4.8 hectares. Aerial
photography was used to document the large-scale site during the conservation process.
32
the Standards
Standard 10
(a) Repair rather than replace character-defining elements.
(b) 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. (c) Where there is insufficient
physical evidence, make the form, material and detailing of the new
elements compatible with the character of the historic place.
This standard advocates restraint during a Rehabilitation project, recognizing that the
wholesale replacement of elements will inevitably have an impact on heritage value.
Rehabilitation is meant to preserve and not diminish the heritage value of a place;
a new use or a substantial reinvestment does not justify extensive replacement.
Part (a) discourages replacing elements that can be repaired. In a rehabilitation project,
more latitude is available in choosing the techniques and methods of repair. Modifying
a technically problematic detail may be required to ensure long-term performance. In
archaeological sites, elements are rarely repaired or replaced. However, in some cases,
this may be the most appropriate way to slow deterioration and prevent the loss of
heritage value.
Part (b) encourages replacing elements with in-kind versions, when the original is too
deteriorated to repair, but enough evidence is available to accurately reproduce the
element in kind.
Part (c) addresses the case of historic places in a more advanced state of disrepair,
or where significant elements or assemblies are missing. A rehabilitation project
must conserve the heritage value of the place despite the insertion of a new element.
Compatibility with the historic place is achievable through a range of approaches.
The new element could be discreet and compatible in form, material and detailing, or
contemporary in design, achieving compatibility through proportion, scale or massing.
In areas of Maplelawn and Gardens NHSC in Ottawa
where insufficient historical evidence existed, a
Rehabilitation approach was taken. New perennial
beds were designed using adjacent layouts and
historical information from other parts of the garden
as inspiration. This approach resulted in compatible
new beds that completed the garden and
strengthened its overall heritage value.
Addressing significant deterioration is an implicit goal of this standard. If deterioration
is not properly addressed, it can result in a loss of heritage value.
The character-defining elements of Doukhobor Dugout House NHSC in Saskatchewan, such as the window frames, had suffered visible deterioration from exposure
to the elements. A long-term repair solution was necessary to prevent further decay and to preserve the site’s heritage value.
Following the reinforcement treatment of treating the logs with preservatives, collapsed character-defining elements were reassembled based on records from
previous interventions and existing traces on the site.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
33
Standard 11
(a) Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when
creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new
construction. (b) Make the new work physically and visually compatible
with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the historic place.
In a rehabilitation project, additions or new construction may be needed to assure the
continued use of an historic place. Part (a) indicates that when this is the case, such
additions or new construction must not obscure, radically change or have a negative
impact on character-defining materials, forms, uses or spatial configurations.
Part (b) requires physical compatibility with the historic place. This includes using materials, assemblies and construction methods that are well suited to the existing materials.
New materials and assemblies should also have compatible service lives or durability,
so that maintenance and repair work can be undertaken concurrently. Not doing so can
lead to prematurely replacing adjacent historic materials for the sake of efficiency.
Part (b) also requires that additions or new construction be visually compatible with,
yet distinguishable from, the historic place. To accomplish this, an appropriate balance
must be struck between mere imitation of the existing form and pointed contrast, thus
complementing the historic place in a manner that respects its heritage value.
Part (b) also requires an addition to be subordinate to the historic place. This is best
understood to mean that the addition must not detract from the historic place or impair
its heritage value. Subordination is not a question of size; a small, ill-conceived addition
could adversely affect an historic place more than a large, well-designed addition.
These two additions in Montreal show the range of possibilities for successful additions to historic places. Although the addition to Shaughnessy House by the
Canadian Centre for Architecture has a larger footprint than the original building, it demonstrates a subtle approach, using compatible scale, proportions of openings,
materials and details, which acknowledges the original building. Pointe-à-Callière Museum of Archaeology and History illustrates a contrasting contemporary approach
where an archaeological site has been successfully integrated into a new design in ways that communicate the site’s heritage value.
34
the Standards
Standard 12
Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential
form and integrity of an historic place will not be impaired if the new
work is removed in the future.
Reversible interventions are those that can be removed at a later date without damaging the character-defining elements of the historic place. This is particularly important if
the intervention is related to a new use that may later change. For example, a temporary
access ramp could be constructed in a manner that allows for easy dismantling without
damaging an adjacent character-defining foundation wall or front garden. Reversible
interventions are not destructive. A proposal to tear down a wall and store the stone so
that it might someday be rebuilt is not a reversible intervention.
A sound addition can enhance the value of an historic place. An addition, in itself, can
be intended to last, and should be designed to be physically compatible. Although a
certain amount of irreversible change may be unavoidable, strategies to reduce the size
and impact of the addition should be explored. This can be achieved, for example, by
using existing window openings to insert a connecting door, or attaching an addition
to an elevation that is not character defining.
The dome of Melville City Hall was originally an
uninsulated, painted-metal covering that caused
persistent condensation problems. Applying
insulating polyurethane foam with aluminized
coating was a cost-effective solution that was
compatible with the historic metallic look of the
dome. If a more elaborate solution is contemplated
in the future, the polyurethane could be removed.
Interventions to accommodate rapidly evolving technologies or short-lived objectives
must be designed with particular attention to reversibility. If the new element is equipment that requires regular replacement, it is important to anticipate a large enough
access for future upgrades.
Space to temporarily house the Library of Parliament in the former Bank of Nova Scotia Building on
Sparks Street in Ottawa. The entire intervention was designed to be reversible.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
35
Standard 13
(a) Repair rather than replace character-defining elements from the
restoration period. (b) 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.
Part (a) of Standard 13 emphasizes repairing deteriorated elements from the restoration period. The act of repairing a character-defining element supports the goal of
authenticity.
Part (b) recognizes that elements may deteriorate beyond repair, but their deteriorated
state, or the state of adjacent surviving elements, may still contain sufficient physical
evidence to allow their accurate replacement. Replacing individual components is an
ongoing activity where the loss of small parts, such as decorative finials on a fence post,
is common. The value does not reside in a single one of these elements, but their
continual loss can eventually compromise the heritage value
of the whole.
These cast iron columns were uncovered and
restored when CentreBeam Place, in St. John,
was rehabilitated.
A preservation or rehabilitation project may also include elements of restoration, such
as work on an ornamental fountain in the centre of a formal garden. Any restoration
interventions must be based on clear physical, documentary or oral evidence and
detailed knowledge of the earlier forms and materials.
The rhythmic pattern created by the regular spacing of trees along the street is a character-defining element of
the Avenue of Trees in Surrey, BC that can be used as evidence to restore the row if a gap develops.
36
the Standards
Standard 14
Replace missing features from the restoration period with new features
whose forms, materials and detailing are based on sufficient physical,
documentary and/or oral evidence.
This standard applies mainly to projects where Restoration is the primary treatment
type and where the absence of character-defining elements from the restoration period
has a negative impact on the heritage value of the historic place. Recreating large
missing assemblies is challenging because of the extraordinary amount of evidence
required to avoid conjecture. Where resources are limited, the urge to restore should be
balanced with the practicality of replacing and later maintaining long-missing features.
The reconstruction of an entire historic place is not considered conservation and is
not addressed in this document. However, the recreation of a missing built feature in a
landscape or heritage district is best regarded as an addition to an historic place, and
would be subject to Standards 11 and 12.
In the restoration of the Capitol Theatre in Moncton,
photographic and physical evidence supported
restoring the interior decorative frescoes in their
original colours. Other elements, such as the
marquee, were reproduced from documentary
photos using new elements to match the forms,
materials and detailing.
Based on documentary evidence, including an 1880 engraving, the original fenestration of the Bideford Parsonage Museum in P.E.I. was restored and roof
finials replaced.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
37
4
The Guidelines
for the Conservation
of Historic Places
in Canada
These examples illustrate the four categories of historic places. Clockwise, from top left: Bar U Ranch in Alberta is a cultural landscape; Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine
Park contains underwater archaeological sites; the Hartt Boot and Shoe Factory in Fredericton is an example of an historic building; and Dredge No. 4 in Dawson City
is an engineering work.
4
The Guidelines
for the Conservation
of Historic Places
in Canada
Those caring for historic places must
make specific decisions on how to
conserve them, based on a thorough
understanding of their heritage value
and character-defining elements. The
Guidelines provide direction on how to
interpret and apply the Standards for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
to selected aspects of the conservation
of historic places. The Guidelines provide
sound and practical guidance to those
involved in conservation planning, bringing them one step closer to an intervention, yet stopping short of recommending
specific methods or products.
The Guidelines should be consulted
throughout the conservation decisionmaking process. All stakeholders in a
conservation process — owners, managers
and developers of historic places, conservation professionals and contractors,
and regulatory authorities — will benefit
from them. The Guidelines are not meant
to give case-specific advice or address
exceptions or rare examples. Ultimately,
it is the responsibility of the owner and
the conservation team to understand
the particular case and make detailed
conservation decisions for the specific
historic place.
To cover any and every type of historic
place, separate Guidelines are provided
for four broad categories of historic places: Cultural Landscapes, Archaeological
Sites, Buildings and Engineering Works.
Any given historic place may be a mix
of these four categories. A thorough
understanding of the site will indicate
what mix of guidelines could apply to a
given project or maintenance activity. All
relevant guidelines should be consulted.
The introductions to the sections for each
category of historic place should be read
first, followed by those guidelines relevant
to the given work.
Because materials are common among
the different categories of historic places,
a fifth category, Guidelines for Materials,
addresses the materials that may be
part of each. For example, advice related
to conserving the wooden shingles of
a roof will be found in the Guidelines
for Buildings under Roofs, and in the
Guidelines for Materials under Wood
and Wood Products.
Applying the Guidelines
The Guidelines should be consulted
only when the element to be intervened
upon has been identified as a characterdefining element in a Statement of
Significance or equivalent document.
The General Guidelines apply to all
interventions, whether the primary
treatment is Preservation, Rehabilitation
or Restoration. There are additional
guidelines for Rehabilitation and
Restoration projects.
The Guidelines are presented in an
ascending sequence of lesser to greater
intervention — from documenting, to
maintaining, repairing, and replacing
character-defining elements. Because the
expressed objective of the Standards is to
conserve the heritage value of an historic
place, projects should focus on the first
activities in the sequence of Guidelines;
that is, applying the standard of minimal
intervention and resorting to the last
activities in the sequence only when essential functional goals cannot otherwise
be met.
The Guidelines use a Recommended
and Not Recommended format.
Approaches or techniques that are
consistent with the Standards for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
are listed in the Recommended column
on the left. The Not Recommended
column on the right identifies actions
or approaches that do not conform to
the Standards. In cases where a nonrecommended action does not enrich
the understanding of the advice offered,
the Not Recommended column remains
blank. The guidelines are numbered for
easy referencing. For example, the ninth
guideline under 4.3.4, Exterior Walls, can
be identified as guideline 4.3.4.9.
General Guidelines
for Preservation,
Rehabilitation and
Restoration
The Guidelines always begin with a
recommendation on understanding the
character-defining element and how it
contributes to the heritage value of the
historic place.
Next are recommendations on documenting the character-defining elements
before beginning project work. An overall
assessment of their physical condition,
using methods that respect the principle
of minimal intervention, should always
begin at this level.
Recommendations are then presented on
protecting and maintaining elements, with an emphasis on recognized
conservation methods, and daily, seasonal
and cyclical maintenance. Protection
generally represents the least degree of
intervention.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
41
Then, recommendations are provided on
retaining sound elements and elements
that can be repaired, rather than removed
or replaced.
Recommendations on stabilizing
fragile and deteriorated elements follow.
This typically involves interim structural
reinforcement, weather protection or
correcting unsafe conditions, as required,
until any additional work is undertaken. A
limited amount of repair and replacement may be acceptable at this point for
extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of an element, if the repair focuses on
using limited reinforcement or well-tested
consolidants, or if the replacement is
done in kind , where there are surviving
prototypes. See the info-box below on
Replacing Character-Defining Elements.
Note that in the context of specific
historic places and associated characterdefining elements, the verb “repair” may
not be suitable. For example, as part of the
restoration of vegetation features of a cultural landscape, the verbs “re-establish”,
“reinstate” or “rejuvenate” may be more
appropriate.
Additional Guidelines
for Rehabilitation
In each section of the Guidelines, additional guidelines are provided for work
that relates to additions or alterations to
accommodate an expanded program or
a new use, and the application of current
codes and standards to meet the requirements of health, safety, security, accessibility and sustainability.
Additions or Alterations to an
Historic Place
The construction of an exterior addition in
an historic place may seem essential for a
proposed new use, but the Guidelines emphasize that such new additions should
be avoided, if possible, and considered
only after it is determined that those
needs cannot be met on another site or by
altering secondary, non character-defining
interior spaces. An addition should be
42
designed so that the heritage value of
the historic place is not impaired and
its character-defining elements are not
obscured, damaged or destroyed. The
addition should be physically and visually
compatible with, subordinate to, and
distinguishable from the historic place as
stated in Standard 11.
The guidelines on Additions or Alterations
found under the Additional Guidelines for
Rehabilitation Projects apply to additions
that range in size from a new building
in a heritage district, to a new wing or
storey on an existing historic building, to
a new element like an interior partition
or handrail. While the same principles of
minimal intervention, compatibility and
reversibility apply regardless of size, the
ultimate goal is to protect heritage value.
In a Rehabilitation project, some alterations to an historic place may be needed
to assure its continued use. There is a
need to find creative solutions that balance health, safety, security, accessibility,
sustainability and other regulations, and
the preservation of the character-defining
elements of an historic place.
Health, Safety and Security
In undertaking work on historic places,
consider the impact that compliance with
current health and safety codes (public
health, occupational health, life safety, fire
safety, electrical, seismic, structural and
building codes) and increased security
requirements will have on an historic
place’s heritage value and character-defining elements. Special coordination with
the proper code officials may be required.
It is often necessary to look beyond the
‘letter’ of code requirements to their
underlying objective; most modern codes
allow for alternative approaches and reasonable variance to achieve compliance.
Some historic materials (for example,
insulation, lead paint, etc.) contain toxic
substances that are potentially hazardous to people. Careful investigation and
analysis may determine that some form
of abatement is required. All workers
involved in the encapsulation, repair or
removal of known hazardous materials
should be adequately trained and wear
proper protective gear as required by
applicable legislation. Finally, a maintenance protocol for historic places known
to contain such materials should be
developed to include proper warnings
and precautions.
Increased concerns about security within
or around buildings and public places can
also lead to introducing new measures,
such as equipment and barriers that
should be carefully planned to reduce
their impact on the heritage value of an
historic place. Approaches based on the
objectives of minimal intervention and
compatibility should be developed for
these requirements.
Accessibility
Providing people of all ages, interests and
abilities with access to historic places is
highly desirable and a frequently mandated social goal. Generally, the solutions
that best balance accessibility needs with
heritage value are those that enhance the
use and appreciation of an historic place
for everyone. Work should be carefully
planned and undertaken so that impact
on an historic place’s heritage value and
character-defining elements is minimized:
the objective is to provide the highest
level of access with the lowest level of impact. To determine the most appropriate
solutions, accessibility and conservation
specialists, and users, should be consulted
early in the planning process.
Sustainability
The goals of environmental sustainability
should be balanced with heritage conservation objectives when making decisions
on sustainability-related interventions.
Environmental assessment, which is a
legislated requirement in many jurisdictions, identifies possible effects, intended
or unintended, on both ecological and cultural resources. Understanding the past
and current environmental characteristics
and performance of an historic place is
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
required to identify appropriate solutions.
Before adapting or retrofitting historic
places to make them more sustainable,
the first step should always be to identify
and evaluate character-defining features
to assess their inherent environmental
potential. Any decision to proceed with
resource-saving measures involving
energy, water or materials should include
a step where the environmental benefits
of these measures is weighed against
their impact on heritage value. Solutions
should be found that take advantage of
the inherent durability and adaptability of
most historic places.
Modifications undertaken to comply with
environmental assessment or to meet environmental objectives, such as protecting
the nesting area of an endangered species, should not result in the damage or
loss of an historic place’s heritage value.
To determine the most appropriate solutions to meet environmental objectives,
experts and officials should be consulted
early in the planning process. It may be
possible to develop systems, methods,
devices or technologies of equivalent or
superior effectiveness to those prescribed
by regulation to minimize the impact on
character-defining elements.
Additional Guidelines
for Restoration
In each section of the Guidelines, additional guidelines are provided for work that
relates to irreversible changes, including
removing elements from periods other than
the chosen restoration period and recreating missing features from the restoration
period. The preservation and restoration
of existing elements should be addressed
before considering work of this kind.
In a Restoration project, the goal is to
depict the appearance of an historic place
or an individual component as it appeared
at a particular period in its history (usually
the most significant). Thus, specific guidance is included on removing or altering
non character-defining features from
Replacing Character-Defining Elements
Replacement of all or parts of character-defining elements should only be considered
when repair is not possible, and if there is sufficient physical evidence to match the
forms, materials and detailing of a sound version of the same element. Replacement
may be required because an existing feature is so severely deteriorated or damaged
that repair is not possible, or because a feature is missing entirely. In all cases where
replacement is required, sound elements that may be part of a larger grouping
should be preserved. For example, a few brackets in a cornice, a few windows in
a factory or a few plantings in a flowerbed may be salvageable, even though the
overall character-defining element is severely damaged.
It is particularly important to understand the distinction between replacement
as part of rehabilitation or restoration, as described in Standards 10 and 13.
Replacement as Part of Rehabilitation
In a Rehabilitation project, replacing a character-defining feature that is beyond
reasonable repair may be appropriate if its essential form and detailing are still
evident. Replacing a feature that is missing, but known from physical, documentary and oral evidence, may be appropriate; however, accepting the loss and not
intervening is another possibility. (Where an important feature is missing, its
replacement is always recommended in these Guidelines as the preferred course
of action.) The approach for replacement work will depend on the overall design
approach and design intentions, and most particularly, on achieving a visual and
functional balance between the new work and the historic place. In some cases, the
preferred design approach will be replacement in kind ; in other cases, substitute
forms, materials or detailing may be appropriate. In both situations, the replacement
should be visually and physically compatible with, and distinguishable from, the
historic place. If the replacement is in kind, the work need only be distinguishable
on close inspection.
Replacement as Part of Restoration
In a Restoration project, replacement, as a rule, should be done in kind.
Recreating earlier forms, materials, textures, finishes, colours and detailing, and
patterns and relationships, can help recover or represent an historic place as it appeared at a particular period in its history. Success is largely a question of accuracy.
This requires scrupulous attention to the physical, documentary and oral evidence,
and careful monitoring of the replication process. The replacement work is normally
distinguishable only on close inspection or as part of the project documentation. If
there is insufficient physical, documentary and oral evidence to establish a reasonable level of accuracy, then Restoration is probably not an appropriate treatment.
periods other than the restoration period.
(Because this can result in considerable
change to an historic place, Restoration
should be undertaken only when the
place’s heritage value relates specifically
to a single period in its history.) Before
such materials, features, spaces, or finishes
from other periods are altered or removed,
they should be well documented.
Additional guidance on recreating missing features from the chosen restoration
period of an historic place is provided
below in the discussion on replacement
as part of a restoration project.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
43
Applying the Guidelines to Montmorency Falls, a Cultural
Landscape that includes Buildings, Engineering Works and
Archaeological Sites
Designated a historic site in 1994,
Montmorency Falls is a place of natural
beauty that includes tourism and recreational buildings and built features. In
addition to the river and 84 metre high
waterfall, the site includes exceptional
water and geomorphological features, and
six known archaeological sites, as well as
landscape elements, structures, buildings
and vestiges of 17th century agricultural
settlements, 18th century farmhouses,
19th century industry, and 19th and 20th
century tourism activities. Framed by a
partly wooded escarpment, the site is
located on two levels formed by a deep
crevasse: the plateau of the Montmorency
River and the basin of the falls at the St.
Lawrence River level. (Source: Site historique de la Chute-Montmorency, Canadian
Register of Historic Places.)
Refer to Heritage Value and
Character-defining Elements
According to the Quebec government’s
Statement of Significance (SOS) posted on
the Canadian Register of Historic Places,
“the heritage value of the Montmorency
Falls historic site resides in its historic
significance, which is linked to various
human activities and the surrounding
land.” The site’s character-defining
elements include features that relate to
its historic significance such as built elements that document the history of varied
human activities, vestiges of industrial
activities and archaeological sites and
potential archaeological resources that
remain buried.
44
The Montmorency Falls Historic Site is a natural site that includes the falls as well as archaeological sites,
landscape elements, structures, buildings and vestiges of 17th century agricultural settlements.
“The site’s heritage value also stems from
its outstanding landscape.” Characterdefining elements of its landscape include
natural features located upstream or
near Montmorency Falls, such as the
Montmorency River with its wooded
banks and the waterfall itself; water
resurgences and geological formations
visible at this location; park landscaping,
lookout belvederes, stairways and many
pathways; and views of the site itself and
the surrounding panoramas of the St.
Lawrence River, Île d’Orléans and Quebec
City. Finally, “the site’s heritage value also
rests on its ethnological significance due
to the diversity in cultural events that
are evoked.”
Conservation Treatments
and Standards
A wide variety of conservation work is
required for a complex historic place such
as the Montmorency Falls Historic Site.
This work would include Preservation,
through maintenance or small repairs
of character-defining elements, and
Rehabilitation for more major repairs, upgrades or additions to address public use,
codes and standards. The Restoration of
deteriorated or missing character-defining
elements is less common. Restoration is
associated with interventions on features
where the values are clearly related to a
specific period in the past. Depending on
the proposed intervention or activity, consult the General Standards (1 to 9) along
with the related Additional Standards
for Rehabilitation (10 to 12) or Additional
Standards for Restoration (13 and 14).
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes
As a site that has changed over time due
to human activities and one that is largely
valued today for its natural features, the
Montmorency Falls Historic Site is an
evolved cultural landscape. Protection
and conservation of natural features, such
as the hydrological and geomorphological systems and woods and ecosystems,
must be balanced with the conservation
and ongoing use of structures associated
with past and surviving farming, industrial
and tourism activities.
For example, for an intervention that
might affect the landscape, such as the
installation of elevated footpaths above
and below the falls along the cliffs, the
Guidelines for Visual Relationships,
Landforms, Spatial Organization,
Circulation, Ecological Features and
Water Features should all be considered.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
The SoS for Montmorency Falls Historic
Site refers to both known archaeological sites and potential archaeological resources that remain buried.
Archaeological sites provide evidence of
activities from pre-historic times, to early
European settlement and industrial uses.
Protecting and conserving archaeological
sites must be carefully balanced with
projects that address their interpretation
or public use.
Both known archaeological sites and those that remain buried are mentioned in the Statement of
Significance for the site.
homes as “monuments historiques cités”
(recognized historic monuments).
Protecting and conserving these buildings and their character-defining elements must be balanced with adaptation
or upgrades for new uses.
For example, for an intervention that
might affect a building, such as the
rehabilitation (including an addition)
and partial restoration of exterior and
interior elements of the Ste-Marie Chapel,
the guidelines for Exterior Form, Interior
Arrangement, Roofs, Exterior Walls,
Windows, Doors and Storefronts, and
Interior Features should all be considered.
In addition, the Guidelines for Materials
and the related Guidelines for Cultural
Landscapes that guide the treatment of
the building setting should be consulted.
For example, for an intervention that might
affect an archaeological site, such as the
maintenance of an exposed industrial
vestige by removal of vegetation, consult
the guidelines for Archaeological Sites as
well as the guidelines for Industrial Sites,
and Sites in Cultural Landscapes.
Guidelines for Buildings
The SoS for the Montmorency Falls
Historic Site identifies multiple buildings
as features related to its historic significance including Manoir Montmorency
and its outbuildings, St. Mary’s Anglican
Chapel, the guardhouse and Wolfe’s
house. It also identifies the Vézina and
Claude-Gilbert-et-Claire-Gagnon family
St. Mary’s Anglican Chapel.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
45
Guidelines for Engineering Works
The SoS for the Montmorency Falls
Historic Site refers to engineering works
at Montmorency Falls, including civil,
industrial and military works. These
works include the reconstructed 1759
British redoubt; the bridge spanning the
Montmorency Falls; the piers supporting
the 1856 bridge; and vestiges of industrial activities, including hydroelectric
installations at Montmorency Falls and
Marches-Naturelles Falls. Protecting
and conserving these works and their
character-defining elements must be
balanced with adaptation or upgrades
for new uses.
For example, for an intervention that
might affect an engineering work, such
as the stabilization and repair of the piers
supporting the bridge over the falls, the
guidelines for Constructed Elements
and Functional Arrangement should be
considered.
As well, the Guidelines for Buildings, the
Guidelines for Materials and the related
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes that
guide the treatment of the setting should
be consulted.
Guidelines for Materials
While specific materials are not identified
in the SoS, protecting and conserving
the materials found in the site’s various
buildings, built features and constructed
elements, including groups of buildings,
engineering works and park structures,
are essential for conserving these
structures and the overall site. Conserving
materials that are part of characterdefining elements may be necessary in
the ongoing maintenance, or in larger
conservation projects that address major
repairs. Both the general guidelines that
apply to all materials and the guidelines
that apply to the specific materials of
each character-defining element should
be consulted.
As this example illustrates, there is often
a strong overlap between the five sections
of the guidelines. The guidelines should
therefore be used in an integrated manner
that balances the conservation objectives
of a variety of resource types of historic
places with their specific heritage values
and character-defining elements. The
appropriate guidelines to follow should be
determined following an analysis of how
the character-defining elements can best
be protected in the context of a specific
conservation intervention.
For example, for an intervention that might
affect the materials of a character-defining
element, such as the repair and partial
replacement of a “tôle à la canadienne”
metal roof, the guidelines for All Materials
and Metals should be considered, in
addition to the appropriate guidelines for
Buildings, in this case, Roofs.
The bridge over the falls.
Remains of hydroelectric installations.
46
Elevated footpaths along the cliffs.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
4.1
Guidelines for
Cultural Landscapes,
including Heritage
Districts
Cultural landscapes are divided into three categories and also include heritage districts. Clockwise, from top left: Confederation Centre of the Arts in Charlottetown
is an example of a designed landscape; the Victoria Settlement in Alberta illustrates an organically evolved landscape; Xá:ytem (Hatzic Rock) in British Columbia is
an associative landscape; and the Winnipeg Exchange District is an urban heritage district.
4.1
Guidelines for Cultural
Landscapes, including
Heritage Districts
From its dense urban areas in the South
to the wide open expanses in the North,
the Canadian landscape exhibits countless contrasts and subtleties. Natural
forces and climatic conditions have
combined to form landscapes that are
uniquely different from one region to
another. Across this land, and across the
centuries, the peoples of Canada have
continually shaped these landscapes,
which today bear witness to their individual histories, traditions and lifestyles.
For the purposes of these guidelines,
a cultural landscape is defined as any
geographical area that has been modified,
influenced or given special cultural meaning by people, and that has been formally
recognized for its heritage value. Cultural
landscapes are often dynamic, living
entities that continually change because
of natural and human-influenced social,
economic and cultural processes.
Before undertaking project work affecting character-defining elements, a survey of their characteristics, conditions
and interrelationships should be prepared — such as the interrelationship between built features, water,
vegetation and viewscapes at Hatley Park near Victoria.
While the resulting forms may sometimes
be simple and other times complex,
there is a common language and approach developed for the conservation
of cultural landscapes. For example, a
widely accepted framework developed by
UNESCO places cultural landscapes into
three categories: designed; organically
evolved (vernacular); and associative
(UNESCO, Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention, 2008, Annex 3).
Cultural landscapes vary dramatically
in size and character — from heritage
districts, to prehistoric rock art sites, and
to designed landscapes, such as parks
and gardens. Indeed, cultural landscapes
can be as old as ancient land and water
routes, or as recent as a mid-20th-century
parkway system.
Regular, ongoing maintenance helps extend the life of
character-defining elements, and is an essential part
of the conservation program. Every year dedicated
volunteers spend thousands of hours caring for and
preserving the historic garden at Maplelawn and
Gardens NHSC in Ottawa.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
49
Heritage Districts
Applying the Guidelines
A heritage district is a cultural landscape.
The Canadian Register of Historic Places
(CRHP) defines a heritage district as
“a place comprising a group of buildings, structures, landscapes and/or
archaeological sites and their spatial
relationships where built forms are often
the major defining features and where
the collective identity has heritage value
for a community, province, territory or
the nation.” Heritage districts can be
urban or rural. Most heritage districts are
governed by municipal by-laws that are
complemented by guidelines to protect
their heritage value.
The Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes
are divided into 11 subsections: evidence
of land use; evidence of traditional
practices; land patterns; spatial organization; visual relationships; circulation;
ecological features; vegetation; landforms; water features; and built features.
These guidelines pertain to the elements
of a cultural landscape or to the spatial or
visual relationships between them. The
elements may have been introduced or
transformed by people or may be natural
with a recognized heritage value. Because
these elements are usually interrelated,
users should refer to other relevant
guidelines when conserving a cultural
landscape, to ensure that all characterdefining elements are protected, and
the heritage value of the historic place
preserved.
Different Canadian jurisdictions use different terms to identify heritage districts,
including: “historic district”, “heritage
precinct”, “heritage conservation area”,
and “secteur patrimonial” and “arrondissement historique” (French). Each jurisdiction provides its own definition of what
constitutes this type of historic place.
All treatment types apply to cultural
landscapes. However, restoration as a
primary treatment usually applies only to
designed cultural landscapes or organically evolved, relict landscapes for which
the heritage value relates to a specific
period in time. Restoration as a ‘secondary’ treatment can also apply to specific
character-defining elements in an organically evolved, continuing landscape or in
an associative landscape (See UNESCO
categories of cultural landscapes in the
Glossary).
Because cultural landscapes can also
contain buildings, engineering works and
archeological resources, reference should
be made to those guidelines when appropriate. Also refer to the Guidelines for
Materials, which encompass traditional as
well as modern construction and finishing
materials.
The importance of setting in the significance
of cultural landscapes
The setting often contributes to the significance of a cultural landscape and
may help explain its origins and subsequent development and evolution.
The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) defines the
setting of a heritage structure, site or area as “the immediate and extended
environment that is part of, or contributes to, its significance and distinctive
character” (ICOMOS, Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of
Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas, 22 November 2005, p. 2).
In a cultural landscape, the setting often corresponds to the visible boundaries
(whether natural or human-made) that encompass the site. In most cases, the
setting goes beyond the boundaries of the historic place and understandably,
interventions within the broader setting, such as the addition of a high-rise
building in the sight line of a heritage district, can affect its heritage value.
A good strategy for the preservation of the setting of an historic place is to
ensure that adjacent property owners are aware of its heritage value and how
interventions on their property can affect that value.
50
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
4.1.1
EVIDENCE OF
Land Use
These guidelines provide direction
when the evidence of a land use has
been identified as a character-defining
element of an historic place. They apply
specifically to the features that express
or support a past or continuing land use
when these features have been identified
in a Statement of Significance.
In the context of these guidelines, land
use refers to the human use of the natural
environment. It includes activities that
significantly modify aspects of the natural
environment into a built environment,
such as fields, pastures and settlements,
but also includes land uses that have a
lighter impact, such as hunting and trapping, maple syrup harvesting, or fishing.
Land use can evolve over time. When a
required change in land use demands
changes to the physical form of the
landscape, it is important to carefully assess the viability of the proposed changes
to avoid consecutive land use changes
that might gradually erode the heritage
value of the historic place. For example,
changing from an industrial use to a
residential use in a heritage district may
require changing the landscape character
or increasing the built density of the
historic place.
These guidelines provide general
recommendations for the conservation of
the features of a cultural landscape that
express or support a past or continuing
land use. While other guidelines focus
on specific evidence of land use, such
as built features or circulation, these
guidelines address land use as a general
consideration. Other relevant guidelines,
such as Land Patterns or Evidence of
Traditional Practices, should be consulted
when appropriate.
Buxton Settlement in Chatham, ON, survives today as a distinct cultural landscape that continues to function as a
rural agricultural community while preserving tangible reminders of its historic past. Tree lines and hedgerows are
character-defining elements that help define the historic agricultural land use. Preserving the evidence of land use
includes maintaining the tree lines and hedgerows and replacing those that are extensively deteriorated.
The huge and uncluttered lawn of the Parliament
Hill Grounds in Ottawa is an outstanding landscape
feature that expresses the symbolic importance of
Parliament Hill. It continues to be used for many
nationally significant events and ceremonies, including
the annual celebration of Canada Day.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
51
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
52
Not Recommended
1
Understanding land use and how it contributes to the heritage
value of the cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the environmental, economic and social
contexts that support past or continuing land uses. This can
include climate and ecological processes, available workforce
and markets, and consultation with practitioners and
community dwellers.
3
Documenting the evidence of past or continuing land uses and
any evolution in land use before beginning project work.
4
Assessing the overall condition of the feature that supports a
land use early in the planning process so that the scope of work
is based on current conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining a feature that supports a land
use by adopting non-destructive maintenance methods in daily,
seasonal and cyclical tasks to extend the life expectancy.
Allowing the features that support a land use to be
altered or lost by incompatible development or neglect.
6
Repairing deteriorated parts of a feature that supports a land
use, using recognized conservation methods.
Replacing a feature that supports a land use when that
feature can be repaired.
7
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of a feature that support a land use where there are surviving
prototypes.
Replacing an entire feature that supports a land use,
when limited replacement of deteriorated and missing
parts is appropriate.
8
Documenting all interventions that affect the land use and
ensuring that this documentation will be available to those
responsible for future interventions.
Undertaking interventions that will have an impact on
the evidence of past or continuing land uses, without
first understanding and documenting the values that
contribute to their meaning.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
9
Repairing an extensively deteriorated or missing feature that
supports a past or continuing land use by using non-destructive
methods and materials, such as regenerating a deteriorated
pasture at a designated farm site and reintroducing grazing
animals to maintain the meadow.
Replacing an entire feature that supports a past or
continuing land use, when repair or limited replacement
of deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
10
Replacing in kind an entire feature that supports a past or
continuing land use when that feature is too deteriorated to
repair, such as replanting a clear-cut woodlot with the same tree
species that was removed.
Replacing an irreparable feature with a new feature that
does not support the past or continuing land use.
11
Replacing a missing historic feature by designing a new built
or landscape feature that is compatible with the land use of the
cultural landscape, and is based on physical, documentary or oral
evidence.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
feature is incompatible, or based on insufficient physical,
documentary or oral evidence.
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
12
Designing a new feature when required by a new use that is
compatible with the past or continuing land use. For example,
building a visitor access road along the margin of a field and
woodlot in an historic farm site, so that both can continue to
function.
Adding a new feature that alters or obscures a
continuing land use, such as locating a visitor parking lot
in a character-defining farmyard.
Introducing a new feature that is incompatible in
function with the past or continuing land use.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
53
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
13
Repairing a deteriorated feature that supports the land
use from the restoration period using a minimal intervention
approach.
Replacing an entire feature that supports the land use
from the restoration period, when repair is possible.
14
Replacing in kind an entire feature from the restoration period
that is too deteriorated to repair, using the same configuration
and design details. The new work should be well documented to
guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable feature from the restoration
period and not replacing it, or replacing it with an
inappropriate new feature.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
15
Removing or altering non character-defining features that
support the land use from periods other than the chosen
restoration period.
Failing to remove non character-defining features from
another period that confuse the depiction of the chosen
restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
16
54
Recreating a missing feature that supports the land use from
the restoration period, based on physical, documentary and oral
evidence.
Installing a feature that was part of the original plan,
but was never actually built, or constructing a feature
thought to have existed during the restoration period,
but for which there is insufficient documentation.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
4.1.2
Evidence of
Traditional
Practices
These guidelines provide direction when
the evidence of a traditional practice has
been identified as a character-defining
element of an historic place. They apply
specifically to the features that express or
support a past or continuing traditional
practice when these features have been
identified in a Statement of Significance.
Traditional practices are based on the
close observation and understanding
of a local landscape by a cultural community who has a long association with
that place. These practices include the
beliefs, wisdom, activities, traditions and
skills derived from extended observations
of the land and its creatures, weather,
seasonality and other cycles, and spiritual
associations.
Traditional practices are passed down to
generations and provide a sense of continuity for the individuals in the cultural
community. The length of association
with a place may vary among peoples and
different cultural groups may value the
same cultural landscape. When planning
interventions that could affect the cultural
landscape, it is important to balance these
interests and ensure that the capacity to
express the traditional practices of each
community is respected.
Located south of Rankin Inlet, NU, Marble Island has a long history of diverse use. Inuit first came to the island
as seasonal hunters, followed by European explorers and then by Scottish and American whalers. Today, traces
of each group, such as stone tent rings, graves and kayak remnants, can be found among the summer vegetation.
Understanding the users’ traditional practices and how they have contributed to the heritage value of this
cultural landscape is essential to good preservation practice.
Any historic place may have been
influenced by traditional practices that
evolve over time; for example, stone
masonry traditions were transferred and
adapted through apprenticeship systems
from the Middle Ages to the present day.
Traditional practices may be the strongest
influence in determining heritage value,
even if evidence of any type of construction or human-generated change appears
insignificant. The natural landscape may
reflect traditional knowledge through
beliefs, oral traditions and practices known
only to the cultural community.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
55
Material features or landscape patterns or
forms that result from traditional practices
may be identified as character-defining
elements in a cultural landscape. In
Aboriginal cultural landscapes, the extent
to which such character-defining elements
can be identified will depend on how
much information the communities are
willing and able to share.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for the conservation of the
features of a cultural landscape that
express or support past or continuing
traditional practices. Other relevant
guidelines, such as Evidence of Land Use
or Land Patterns, should be consulted
when appropriate.
Victoria’s Chinese cemetery lies near the rocky shore of Harling Point. Here simple markers are found among
wildflowers in a setting selected according to the ancient concept of feng shui. Descendants of families buried
in this cemetery still visit the site to burn incense, leave offerings of food and artificial paper money following
traditional practices. All Preservation activities affecting character-defining elements on this site should only be
done after consulting the cultural community.
Preservation of the totems at Nan Sdins, Gwaii Haanas includes their stabilization, while continuing to allow their
gradual deterioration. The values associated with the totems include their eventual return to the earth.
56
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding traditional practices and how they contribute to
the heritage value of the cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the local environmental context, including
climate, prevailing winds, underlying topography and ecological
processes integral to traditional practices.
3
Documenting aspects of traditional practices prior to beginning
project work, including consulting with the cultural community
on the ways that traditional practices have changed over time.
4
Assessing the overall condition of the features that support
traditional practices early in the planning process, so that the
scope of work is based on current conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining the features that support
traditional practices by using non-destructive methods in daily,
seasonal and cyclical tasks in keeping with those practices.
Allowing the features that support traditional practices
to be altered or lost through incompatible development
or neglect.
6
Repairing or rejuvenating deteriorated parts of features that
support traditional practices using recognized conservation
methods. Where possible, conservation work should be done
according to traditional practices.
Replacing features that support traditional practices
when those features can be repaired or rejuvenated.
7
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of features that support traditional practices where there
are surviving prototypes. The new work should match the
old in form, location, orientation, materials, detailing and
craftsmanship.
Replacing an entire feature that supports traditional
practices, when limited replacement of deteriorated
and missing parts is possible.
8
Documenting all interventions that affect the features
that support traditional practices, and ensuring that this
documentation is available to those responsible for future
interventions.
Documenting only material features of the cultural
landscape, and neglecting to document the traditional
practices associated with them.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
9
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing or rejuvenating extensively deteriorated or missing
features that support traditional practices within the cultural
landscape, by using non-destructive methods and materials.
For example, using only native plant species significant to the
cultural community, when rejuvenating vegetation or ecological
features important to traditional practices.
Replacing an entire feature that supports traditional
practices when repair or rejuvenation is possible.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
57
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
10
Recommended
Not Recommended
Replacing in kind an entire feature that supports traditional
practices when that feature is too deteriorated to repair or
rejuvenate, such as replanting a clear-cut forest with the type
and mix of trees removed.
Replacing an irreparable feature with a new feature
that does not support the past or continuing traditional
practice.
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
11
Designing a new feature when required by a new use that does
not obscure, damage or destroy other features also important to
traditional practices.
Adding a new feature that detracts from, damages, or
destroys features that support traditional practices.
Introducing a new feature that is incompatible with
the past or continuing traditional practice.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
12
Repairing deteriorated features that support traditional
practices from the restoration period using a minimal
intervention approach. Where possible, repair activities should
be done according to traditional practices.
Replacing an entire feature that supports traditional
practices from the restoration period when repair is
possible.
13
Replacing in kind an entire feature from the restoration period
that is too deteriorated to repair or rejuvenate, using the same
configuration and design details. The new work should be well
documented to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable feature from the restoration
period and not replacing it, or replacing it with an
inappropriate new feature.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
14
Removing or altering non character-defining features from
periods other than the chosen restoration period that obscure
the historic features that support traditional practices within the
cultural landscape.
Failing to remove non character-defining features from
another period that confuse the understanding of
traditional practices during the chosen restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
15
58
Recreating a missing feature that supports traditional practices
from the restoration period, based on physical, documentary and
oral evidence.
Installing a feature that could have been important to
traditional practices, but was never implemented, or
introducing a feature thought to have existed during
the restoration period, but for which there is insufficient
documentation.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
4.1.3
land
Patterns
These guidelines provide direction when
land patterns have been identified as
character-defining elements of an historic
place. Land pattern refers to the overall
arrangement and interrelationship of the
larger-scale aspects of a cultural landscape, whether natural or human-made.
Land patterns help us understand how
naturally occurring elements, such as
forests, meadows, rivers, lakes, hills or valleys, fit together and fit with human-made
elements such as farm fields, pastures,
significant built features and major
circulation systems.
Historic aerial photography and maps
are important tools for describing land
patterns and their changes over time. As
well, consultation among communities,
Aboriginal groups and ecosystem specialists can help us understand the traditional
practices and natural processes that may
have shaped land patterns.
Because land patterns refer to the mutual
influences and interactions between
nature and humans and the interrelationships of large-scale elements, they can
be important character-defining elements
of a cultural landscape. Land patterns
are important for cultural landscapes
regardless of whether they are relatively
unchanged from their natural state, or
highly manipulated through human activity or natural events.
These guidelines provide general
recommendations for the conservation
of the land patterns of a cultural landscape. Other relevant guidelines, such
as Evidence of Land Use or Evidence of
Traditional Practices, should be consulted
when appropriate.
The overall arrangement of landscape may best be appreciated from an aerial perspective. The land patterns
created by the interrelationship of larger landscape components, such as the topography, cultivated fields and
human settlements of Neubergthal in Manitoba are often more obvious from the air.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
59
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
60
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the land patterns and how they contribute to
the heritage value of the cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the local environmental context, including
climate, prevailing winds, geology, underlying topography and
ecological processes.
3
Documenting the overall pattern of the landscape: the
size, configuration, proportion and relationship of its larger
components, such as forests, fields or subdivisions, and its
evolution and condition before beginning project work. This can
include identifying the values that contribute to the meaning
of land patterns, such as associations from Aboriginal oral
traditions, or the expression of cultural traditions that originated
from other countries.
4
Assessing the overall condition of the land patterns early in the
planning process so that the scope of work is based on current
conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining features that define land patterns
by using non-destructive methods in daily, seasonal and cyclical
tasks. This could include limiting the impact of ecological
processes, such as erosion, and monitoring sensitive areas.
6
Retaining sound land patterns or deteriorated land patterns
that can be repaired or rejuvenated.
7
Repairing or rejuvenating deteriorated parts of a feature
of the land pattern, using recognized conservation methods.
Repair may also include the limited replacement in kind of
those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of land pattern
elements. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible.
Replacing a feature of the land pattern when that
feature can be repaired or rejuvenated.
8
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
land patterns where there are surviving prototypes.
Replacing an entire feature of the land patterns when
limited replacement of deteriorated and missing parts
is possible.
9
Documenting all interventions that affect the land pattern,
and ensuring that this documentation will be available to those
responsible for future interventions.
Undertaking interventions that will affect land patterns
without first documenting and understanding their
characteristics, relationships, evolution, conditions,
intangible values and environmental context.
Allowing land patterns to be altered or lost by
incompatible development or neglect.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
10
Repairing or rejuvenating an extensively deteriorated or
missing feature that defines a land pattern, by using nondestructive methods and materials, such as regenerating
a deteriorated meadow.
Replacing an entire feature that defines a land pattern
when repair or limited replacement of deteriorated or
missing parts is possible.
11
Replacing in kind an entire feature that defines a land
pattern when that feature is too deteriorated to repair, such as
replanting a clear-cut woodlot. The replacement feature should
be as similar as possible to the original, both visually
and functionally.
Replacing an irreperable feature with a new feature
that does not respect the land pattern.
12
Replacing a missing historic feature by designing a new
feature that is compatible with the land patterns of the cultural
landscape, and is based on physical, documentary and oral
evidence.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
feature is incompatible with the land pattern, or based
on insufficient physical and documentary evidence.
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
13
Designing a new feature when required by a new use that does
not obscure, damage or destroy character-defining land patterns,
such as locating a new road along the edge of a forest.
Introducing a new feature that is incompatible in size,
scale or design with the land pattern.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
61
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
14
Repairing or rejuvenating a declining feature that defines
a land pattern from the restoration period using a minimal
intervention approach.
Replacing an entire feature that defines a land pattern
from the restoration period, when repair or rejuvenation
is possible.
15
Replacing in kind an entire feature that defines a land pattern
from the restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair,
using the same configuration and design details. The new work
should be well documented and unobtrusively dated to guide
future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable feature that defines a land
pattern from the restoration period and not replacing it,
or replacing it with an inappropriate new feature.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
16
Removing or altering non character-defining features from
periods other than the chosen restoration period, which intrude
on the land patterns.
Failing to remove non character-defining features from
another period that confuse the depiction of the land
patterns during the chosen restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
17
62
Recreating a missing feature important to the land patterns
that existed during the restoration period, based on physical,
documentary and oral evidence.
Installing a feature that was part of the original land
pattern, but was never actually built, or constructing a
feature of the land pattern that was thought to have
existed during the restoration period, but for which there
is insufficient documentation.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
4.1.4
Spatial
Organization
These guidelines provide direction when
spatial organization has been identified
as a character-defining element of an
historic place. Spatial organization refers
here to the arrangement of spaces in a
cultural landscape.
Landscape features, whether natural or
human-made, can define the volume of
an outdoor space. In small landscapes,
the vertical planes of an outdoor space
may be formed by vegetation, such as
hedges, garden beds or forest margins,
or by the exterior walls of buildings,
earthen ramparts, fences or stone walls.
The ground plane may be made of natural
materials, such as earth, sand or grass; or
manufactured materials, such as pavers,
asphalt or gravel. The overhead plane can
be provided by the tree canopy, but can
also be defined by built features such
as pergolas.
The position of natural and built elements,
and how they are visually and physically
connected, are also important when describing spatial organization, especially as
it relates to the intended user experience.
The functional relationships between the
spaces are also important; for example,
building living quarters on a ranch in
relation to barns and roads are critical to
the efficiency of its operation.
The character-defining spatial organization of Motherwell Homestead in Saskatchewan was conserved
when the landscape was restored. The orientation, alignment, size, configuration and interrelationships of its
component features, including the formal tennis lawn and ornamental garden (foreground), the household
vegetable garden (beside the implement shed) and the grain fields beyond, were carefully preserved.
In urban heritage districts, land use,
buildings, streets and topography often
define or influence spatial organization.
The buildings’ siting, the open spaces between them and the circulation corridors,
are often identified as character-defining
elements in urban heritage districts. In
natural environments, the spatial organization of the features of the landscape
can have spiritual significance.
Because buildings and their landscapes
were often designed together, it is
important to understand and respect their
relationships. Architects and landscape
architects often worked together to design sites as a whole, making the exterior
spaces an integral part, or extension of
the interior spaces, and vice versa.
Ministers Island is a 2km² island in Passamaquoddy
Bay near the town of St. Andrews, NB. This
cultural landscape includes the entire island that
encompasses a shell midden archaeological site,
the home of Loyalist and Anglican minister Samuel
Andrews and the summer estate of Sir William
Cornelius Van Horne. The island’s spatial organization
as a grand estate with a core residential area, formal
gardens, recreational spaces, agricultural spaces and
forest is a character-defining element of the site.
The Bonar Law House is a 9 hectare property along
the north side of the Richibucto River in the Village
of Rexton, NB. This complex contains a simple
19th century wood farm house facing the river and
a barn and wagon shed. Board fencing connects
the buildings to form an enclosed courtyard. New
community facilities are being implemented to
increase community use while maintaining the
site’s original spatial organization.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for spatial organization in a
cultural landscape. Other relevant guidelines, such as Visual Relationships and
Circulation, should be consulted when
appropriate. When spatial organization
is part of an engineering work, refer to
Functional Arrangement in the Guidelines
for Engineering Works; for buildings, refer
to Exterior Form or Interior Arrangement.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
63
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
64
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the spatial organization and how it contributes
to the heritage value of the cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the function and form of designed landscapes,
and the planning principles behind the spatial organization of
the cultural landscape.
3
Documenting the spatial organization of the cultural
landscape, including the orientation, alignment, size,
configuration and interrelationships of its component features;
the relationship of features to the overall landscape; and its
evolution and condition before beginning project work.
4
Assessing the overall condition of the spatial organization early
in the planning process, so that the scope of work is based on
current conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining the features that define the spatial
organization by using non-destructive methods in daily, seasonal
and cyclical tasks.
6
Retaining sound or deteriorated features of the spatial
organization that can be repaired or rejuvenated.
7
Repairing or rejuvenating deteriorated parts of a feature of the
spatial organization, using recognized conservation methods.
Repair may also include the limited replacement in kind of
those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of the spatial
organization.
Replacing a feature of the spatial organization when
repair or limited replacement of deteriorated or missing
parts is possible.
8
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
the spatial organization where there are surviving prototypes.
Replacing an entire feature of the spatial organization
when limited replacement of deteriorated and missing
parts is possible.
9
Documenting all interventions that affect the spatial
organization, and ensuring that this documentation will be
available to those responsible for future interventions.
Undertaking interventions that affect the spatial
organization without first documenting and
understanding its characteristics, relationships,
evolution, conditions and intangible values.
Allowing the spatial organization to be altered by
incompatible development or neglect.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
10
Repairing or rejuvenating extensively deteriorated features
that define the spatial organization, by using non-destructive
methods and materials.
Replacing an entire feature that defines the spatial
organization when repair or limited replacement of
deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
11
Replacing in kind an entire feature of the spatial organization
that is too deteriorated to repair. The replacement feature
should be as similar as possible to the original, both visually
and functionally.
Replacing an irreperable feature with a new feature that
does not respect the landscape’s spatial organization.
12
Replacing missing historic features by designing new features
that are compatible with the spatial organization of the cultural
landscape, and are based on physical, documentary and oral
evidence.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
feature is incompatible, or based on insufficient physical,
documentary and oral evidence.
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
13
Designing a new feature when required by a new use that is
incompatible with the character-defining spatial organization.
Adding a new feature that alters or obscures the spatial
organization, such as constructing a farmhouse addition
on an area that was traditionally used as a kitchen
garden.
Introducing a new feature that is incompatible in size,
scale or design with the spatial organization.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
65
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
14
Repairing or rejuvenating declining features from the
restoration period that define the spatial organization using
a minimal intervention approach.
Replacing an entire feature that defines the spatial
organization from the restoration period when repair
or rejuvenation is possible.
15
Replacing in kind an entire feature from the restoration period
that is too deteriorated to repair, using the same configuration
and design details. The new work should be well documented to
guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable feature from the restoration
period and not replacing it, or replacing it with an
inappropriate new feature.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
16
Removing or altering non character-defining features from
periods other than the chosen restoration period.
Failing to remove non character-defining features from
another period that confuse the depiction of the spatial
organization during the restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
17
66
Recreating a missing feature important to the spatial
organization from the restoration period, based on physical,
documentary and oral evidence.
Installing a feature of the spatial organization that was
part of the original design, but was never actually built,
or constructing a feature that was thought to have
existed during the restoration period, but for which
there is insufficient documentation.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
4.1.5
visual
Relationships
These guidelines provide direction when
visual relationships have been identified
as a character-defining element of an
historic place. They pertain to the visual
relationships between an observer and a
landscape or landscape feature (a viewscape) or between the relative dimensions
of landscape features (scale).
A viewscape can include scenes, panoramas, vistas, visual axes and sight lines. In
designed landscapes, a viewscape may
have been established following the rules
of pictorial composition: elements are
located in the foreground, middle ground
and background. A viewscape may also
be the chief organizing feature when a
succession of focal points is introduced to
draw the pedestrian onward through
a landscape.
The scale of a cultural landscape can produce emotional responses in people. Large
landscapes either intimidate or inspire us,
while small landscapes tend to make us
feel comfortable. The texture of a given
surface can also affect the perception of
scale. For example, a street or courtyard
covered in cobblestones or brick seems
smaller than the same area covered in
asphalt, a much smoother surface.
Small unit pavers provide appropriate texture and give a pedestrian scale to Dalhousie Square which is part of a
larger plan to revitalize the east end of the Old Montreal historic district. The new paving patterns of the square
combine a range of materials, forms and scales to evoke the former location of the 18th century fortification walls
and country road, as well as the 19th century train lines of the adjacent former Canadian Pacific train station.
The Saskatchewan Legislative Building and
Grounds balance the formal and the picturesque
by using informal spaces, organized plantings and
promenades, and strategically placed statues
and monuments. Visual Relationships are also
important character-defining elements of the site:
the viewscape across Wascana Lake establishes a
connection with downtown Regina and contributes
to the site’s heritage value.
The Bar U Ranch NHSC visitor centre was built beyond
the immediate view of the historic ranch complex,
which preserves the historic viewscapes.
The visual relationships between elements of natural or designed landscapes,
or heritage districts, can influence the
user experience. For example, a tall building in a low-rise heritage district may be
perceived as out of scale.
The addition of green technologies to a
cultural landscape, such as wind turbines
or solar panels, may affect its heritage
value. While recognizing the importance
of renewable energy sources, it is important to consider the visual impact these
technologies may have on the cultural
landscape. Visual impact assessments
need to be integrated at an early stage in
project planning so that potential impacts
on the heritage value of the cultural
landscape are clearly understood.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for the conservation of the
visual relationships in a cultural landscape. Other relevant guidelines, such as
Built Features and Vegetation, should be
consulted when appropriate.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
67
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
68
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the visual relationships and how they
contribute to the heritage value of the cultural landscape.
Undertaking interventions without understanding
their impact on the visual relationships in the cultural
landscape; for example, removing vegetation that was
intended to frame an important view in the historic place.
2
Understanding designed landscapes, and the planning
principles behind the visual relationships in the cultural
landscape.
3
Understanding the evolution of visual relationships. This could
include using historic photographs or artwork to understand how
the visual relationships may have changed or been lost over time.
4
Documenting the visual relationships in the cultural landscape,
including viewscapes and their foreground, middle ground and
background; landmarks, edges and skyline; prospects, both to
and from the historic place; and condition, before beginning
project work.
5
Assessing the overall condition of the visual relationships early
in the planning process so that the scope of work is based on
current conditions.
6
Protecting and maintaining the features that define the
visual relationships by using non-destructive methods in daily,
seasonal and cyclical tasks, such as pruning, to retain sight lines.
This could also include maintaining the size and massing of
vegetation and built features that contribute to the overall scale
of the historic place.
7
Retaining sound features that define the visual relationships
in the cultural landscape, or deteriorated features that can be
repaired or rejuvenated.
8
Repairing or rejuvenating deteriorated parts of features that
define the visual relationships using recognized conservation
methods. Repair may also include the limited replacement
in kind of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
features. Repairs should match the existing work as closely as
possible, both physically and visually.
Undertaking interventions that affect the visual
relationships without completing a survey of
characteristics and conditions.
Allowing visual relationships to be altered by
incompatible development or neglect.
Using maintenance methods that alter or obscure the
visual relationships in the cultural landscape, such as
removing planting that reduces the perceived size of
a parking lot to make winter snow removal easier.
Replacing a feature that defines the visual relationships
when that feature can be repaired or rejuvenated.
Using a substitute material for the replacement part that
neither conveys the same appearance as the surviving
parts of the feature, nor is physically and visually
compatible.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
9
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated parts of features
that define the visual relationships where there are surviving
prototypes. The new work should match the old in form
and detailing.
Replacing an entire feature that defines the visual
relationships when limited replacement of deteriorated
or missing parts is possible.
10
Documenting all interventions that affect the visual
relationships and ensuring that this documentation is available
to those responsible for future interventions.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
11
Rehabilitating the visual relationships, if an evaluation of
their overall condition determines that more than preservation
is required.
12
Repairing or rejuvenating features that define the visual
relationships, by using non-destructive methods and materials,
such as regenerating vegetation that frames an important view.
Failing to perform necessary work, resulting in the loss
of character-defining visual relationships.
13
Replacing in kind an entire feature that is too deteriorated
to repair.
Replacing an irreperable feature with a new feature that
does not respect the visual relationships in the cultural
landscape.
14
Replacing missing historic features by designing new features
that are compatible with the visual relationships in the cultural
landscape, based on physical and documentary evidence.
Introducing new features that are incompatible in size,
scale, material, style and colour.
Replacing a feature that defines the visual relationships
when repair is possible.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
feature is based on insufficient physical and documentary
evidence.
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
15
Designing a new feature when required by a new use that
respects the historic visual relationships in the cultural landscape.
This can include matching established proportions and densities,
such as maintaining the overall ratio of open space to building
mass in an urban heritage district when designing an infill
building.
Introducing a new feature that alters or obscures the
visual relationships in the cultural landscape, such as
constructing a new building as a focal point, when a
character-defining vista was traditionally terminated
by the sky.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
69
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
16
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing or rejuvenating a deteriorated or declining feature
that defines the visual relationships from the restoration period
using a minimal intervention approach.
Replacing an entire feature that defines the visual
relationships from the restoration period when repair
or rejuvenation is possible.
Using a substitute material for a replacement part that
neither conveys the same appearance of the surviving
features from the restoration period, nor is physically
or visually compatible.
17
Replacing in kind an entire feature that defines the visual
relationships from the restoration period when that feature is too
deteriorated to repair, using the same configuration and design
details. The new work should be well documented to guide
future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable feature from the restoration
period and not replacing it, or replacing it with a new
feature that does not respect the visual relationships
in the cultural landscape.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
18
Removing or altering non character-defining features from
periods other than the chosen restoration period.
Failing to remove non character-defining features from
another period that confuse the visual relationships of
the chosen restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
19
70
Recreating a missing feature important to the visual
relationships that existed during the restoration period, based
on physical, documentary and oral evidence.
Introducing a feature that was part of the original
design, but was never actually built, or a feature that was
thought to have existed during the restoration period,
but for which there is insufficient documentation.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
4.1.6
Circulation
These guidelines provide direction when
a circulation system or feature has been
identified as a character-defining element
of an historic place. Circulation refers to
individual elements that facilitate or direct movement and travel, such as human
or animal paths, traditional trails, roads,
parkways, highways, railways, canals and
portages. The linkages of such elements
create circulation systems.
Various aspects of circulation can be
character-defining. For example, in an
urban context, historical circulation
needs and subsequent patterns typically
determined the alignment of streets. The
water levels needed to maintain waterborne traffic are also important characterdefining elements of a canal.
When describing a circulation feature or
system, important characteristics may
include: alignment; width; finished grade
or gradients; surface materials; edge
treatment; infrastructure and relationships with neighbouring features.
These guidelines provide general
recommendations for the conservation
of the circulation systems or features
in a cultural landscape. Other relevant
guidelines, such as Land Patterns and
Spatial Organization, should be consulted
when appropriate.
Circulation systems largely define the character of the Sault Ste. Marie Canal NHSC where a historic canal, paths,
roadways, parking lots and railways converge in a very small area. Protecting and maintaining this landscape
requires carefully managing the site’s circulation infrastructure.
The Carré Royal in Sorel-Tracy, QC was first used for
military exercises in 1780. In 1785, a military engineer
drew up site plans in the shape of the Union Jack.
In 1868, it was opened to the public as an urban
park, which continues to this day. Its original layout
of walkways, configured to match the original cross
patterns of the Union Jack flag, is in full evidence.
This is a fine example where a circulation pattern is
considered an important character-defining element
of a cultural landscape.
Alterations or new construction designed to meet
requirements, such as accessibility, need to be carefully
considered to respect the character-defining elements
of a historic place. Accessibility requirements at
Province House in Charlottetown required careful
landscape assessment and rehabilitation in order to
respect the original approach to the building. Here, the
change in grade was limited to the building’s middle
section to preserve the view of the base course and
sections of the original steps.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
71
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
72
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the heritage value of the circulation patterns
and systems, and how they contribute to the heritage value of
the cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the evolution of circulation systems, including
using aerial photographs to understand a transportation corridor’s
change from a two-lane road to a six-lane highway, or using
archaeological methods and historical maps to locate pathways and
roads not obvious from surface investigation. It may also include
researching oral traditions and written documents to understand
the heritage values that may be associated with circulation systems.
Undertaking project work without understanding the
evolution of the circulation systems, such as changing
road alignments and widths.
3
Documenting the characteristics of circulation systems, such
as location, alignment, surface treatment, edge, grade, materials,
infrastructure and condition before beginning project work.
Undertaking interventions that affect character-defining
circulation systems, without preparing a survey of their
characteristics and condition.
4
Assessing the overall condition of circulation systems early
in the planning process, so that the scope of work is based on
current conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining circulation systems by using
non-destructive methods in daily, seasonal and cyclical tasks,
including seasonal clearing of trails, or using rubberized blade
edges on snow plows to prevent damaging stone curbs.
6
Retaining sound circulation systems or deteriorated circulation
systems that can be repaired.
7
Stabilizing a deteriorated circulation system by using structural
reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting unsafe
conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
8
Repairing a deteriorated circulation system by patching, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing, using recognized conservation
methods. Repair may also include the limited replacement in
kind of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of the
circulation systems.
Removing a deteriorated circulation system that could
be stabilized or repaired.
9
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated parts of the circulation
system where there are surviving prototypes. The new work should
match the old in form and detailing.
Replacing an entire feature, such as a stone curb, when
limited replacement of deteriorated and missing parts
is possible.
10
Documenting all interventions that affect the circulation
system, and ensuring that this documentation is available to
those responsible for future interventions.
Using materials such as salts and chemicals that can
accelerate the deterioration of surfaces.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
11
Repairing extensively deteriorated circulation features by using
non-destructive methods and materials.
Replacing or altering features and materials of a
circulation system when repair is possible.
12
Replacing a deteriorated circulation feature by using the
physical evidence of its form, detailing and alignment to
reproduce it. If using the same kind of material is not technically,
economically or environmentally feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered; for example, replacing
the decayed timber edge in kind along an historic trail. The
replacement feature should be as similar as possible to the
original, both visually and functionally.
Replacing an irreperable feature with a new feature
that does not convey the same visual appearance.
13
Replacing a missing historic feature by designing a new feature
compatible with the circulation of the cultural landscape, based
on physical and documentary evidence.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
feature is incompatible, or based on insufficient physical
and documentary evidence.
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
14
Designing and installing a new circulation feature, when
required by a new use, that is compatible with the heritage
value of the historic place, including controlling and limiting
new access points and intersections along an historic road.
Installing a new circulation feature in a way that
detracts from the historic circulation pattern; for example,
creating a new bike path when an existing path can
accommodate the new use.
Introducing a new circulation feature that is visually
incompatible in terms of scale, alignment, surface
treatment, width, edge treatment, grade, materials
or infrastructure.
Accessibility Considerations
15
Complying with accessibility requirements in a manner that
conserves character-defining circulation systems or features.
Damaging character-defining circulation systems or
features while making modifications to comply with
accessibility requirements.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
73
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
16
Repairing a deteriorated circulation feature from the restoration
period using a minimal intervention approach.
Replacing an entire circulation feature from the
restoration period when repair is possible.
17
Replacing in kind an entire circulation feature from the
restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair, using the
same configuration and design details. The new work should
be well documented and unobtrusively dated to guide future
research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable circulation feature from the
restoration period that is beyond repair and not replacing
it, or replacing it with an inappropriate new feature.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
18
Removing or altering non character-defining circulation
features from periods other than the chosen restoration period.
Failing to remove non character-defining circulation
features from another period that confuse the depiction
of the circulation system during the restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
19
74
Recreating a missing circulation feature that existed during
the restoration period, based on physical, documentary and oral
evidence, such as duplicating paving patterns based on surviving
prototypes.
Installing a circulation feature that was part of the
original design, but was never actually built, or
constructing a new circulation feature thought to
have existed during the restoration period, but for
which there is insufficient documentation.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
4.1.7
Ecological
Features
These guidelines provide direction when
an ecological feature has been identified
as a character-defining element of an
historic place. In the context of these
guidelines, an ecological feature is a
natural element, such as a marsh, a pond
or a stand of trees, which can be part of
a larger ecosystem. While ecosystems at
an historic place should be evaluated and
managed for their natural values by ecologists and other natural resource specialists, these guidelines apply only to the
features of those ecosystems determined
to have heritage value.
The Melanson Settlement in Annapolis, NS reflects Acadian family communities that settled along the Dauphin
(now Annapolis) River, and a form of agriculture unique in North America. One of the site’s character-defining
elements is the nearness of this settlement to salt marshes that embody natural and ecological values.
Documenting and understanding the structure, function and dynamics of this ecological feature is an
important step before working on the site.
Ecological features vary in size but are
typically studied at the scale of a pond
or stand of trees. Character-defining ecological features are also found in urban
areas. When using these guidelines, it is
important to work with natural resource
conservation and environmental assessment specialists, and where appropriate,
with aboriginal groups and other partners
and stakeholders to ensure that diverse
knowledge and information are used to
conserve the natural structure, function
and dynamics of the entire ecosystem.
The potential for adverse environmental
impacts (e.g., introduction or re-introduction of invasive species) must also be
considered, regardless of whether it is
required by environmental assessment
or related legislation. The pan-Canadian
approach to ecological restoration described in the “Principles and Guidelines
for Ecological Restoration in Canada’s
Protected Natural Areas” (Parks Canada
and the Canadian Parks Council, 2008)
provides additional guidance on integrating consideration of natural and cultural
heritage values in conservation planning
and intervention. This document is
particularly relevant when rehabilitation
or restoration is the selected approach.
Ecological features are character-defining
elements of many Aboriginal cultural
landscapes where traditional practices
have been sustained for centuries. In addition, ecological features associated with
an historic place can extend far beyond
its established boundaries.
These guidelines provide general
recommendations for the conservation of
ecological features in a cultural landscape. Other relevant guidelines, such as
Vegetation and Water Features, should
be consulted when appropriate.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
75
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the ecological features and how they
contribute to the natural and cultural heritage value of the
cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the natural structure, function and dynamics
of the ecological feature and of the ecosystem of which it is part.
3
Documenting the characteristics and condition of the
ecological feature and its relationship with the ecosystem of
which it is a part, before beginning project work. Documentation
should combine the best available scientific and traditional
knowledge.
4
Assessing the overall condition of the ecological feature early
in the planning process, so that the scope of work is based on
an understanding of current conditions and predicted changes.
5
Protecting and maintaining the ecological feature by using
non-destructive methods in daily, seasonal and cyclical tasks.
Undertaking interventions that affect a character-defining
ecological feature without first documenting and
understanding its characteristics, relationships, evolution
and condition.
Allowing ecological features to degrade by incompatible
development or neglect.
Using maintenance methods that damage or destroy
an ecological feature.
76
6
Retaining intact ecological features and degraded ecological
features that can be returned to good ecological condition.
Replacing degraded ecological features that could be
returned to good ecological condition; for example, clear
cutting a declining forest stand to create a parking lot
or meadow.
7
Repairing degraded ecological features or parts of ecological
features using recognized methods and trained personnel; for
example, using a certified arborist to heal a mature tree. The
work should be physically and visually compatible with the
cultural and natural heritage values of the cultural landscape.
Removing ecological features or parts of ecological
features that could be conserved, or using untested
methods and untrained personnel, thus causing further
damage to fragile features and relationships.
8
Replacing extensively degraded or missing ecological
features or parts of ecological features based on physical and
documentary evidence; for example, replanting a documented
shrub species lost through erosion, with the same native species
from a local source.
Replacing an entire ecological feature, such as a stand
of trees, when limited replacement of deteriorated and
missing parts (e.g., one or a few trees) is possible.
9
Documenting all interventions that affect the ecological
feature, and ensuring that the documentation is available to
those responsible for future interventions.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
10
Repairing or rejuvenating extensively deteriorated ecological
features by using non-destructive methods and materials, such
as planting native species to facilitate the regeneration of a
deteriorated meadow.
Failing to perform necessary work, including removing
invasive species, resulting in the loss of ecological
features and their components.
11
Replacing in kind an entire ecological feature that is too
deteriorated to repair, such as replanting a clear-cut stand of
trees with locally obtained saplings, and in similar density.
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
12
Introducing a new element, when required by a new use, that
does not have a negative impact on the heritage value and
condition of the ecological feature.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
13
Restoring an ecological feature if an evaluation of its overall
condition determines that more than preservation is required;
i.e., if an intervention on the ecological feature is necessary to
sustain it into the future. For example, removing invasive tree
species from a character-defining escarpment and replanting
it with a mix of plant material corresponding to the natural
conditions of the escarpment. This work should be based on
physical and documentary evidence.
Restoring an ecological feature to an historic condition
that is no longer sustainable given current physical and
ecological conditions, including climate.
14
Repairing or rejuvenating a declining ecological feature that
contributes to the sustainability of the cultural landscape, by
using non-destructive methods.
Replacing an entire ecological feature when repair or
rejuvenation is possible, or using destructive repair or
rejuvenation methods, causing further damage to the
ecological feature.
15
Replacing in kind an entire ecological feature that contributes
to the sustainability of the cultural landscape when that feature
is too deteriorated to repair or rejuvenate. The new work should
be well documented to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an ecological feature that is beyond repair
and not replacing it, or replacing it with an inappropriate
ecological feature.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
77
4.1.8
Vegetation
Honeywood Nursery in Saskatchewan was
established and operated by Dr. A. J. (Bert) Porter,
a self-taught, award-winning horticulturalist who
developed many fruits and ornamental plants
capable of thriving on the Prairies. The property’s
planting beds, orchards and examples of various
plant varieties are character-defining elements
that illustrate Mr. Porter’s contributions to the
development of Saskatchewan’s horticulture.
These guidelines provide direction when
vegetation has been identified as a
character-defining element of an historic
place. For direction on how to treat vegetation as part of a natural system that is a
character-defining element, also refer to the
Guideline on Ecological Features.
Vegetation refers to trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, grasses, vines, aquatic and
wetland plants, and other living plant
material. Vegetation may include individual
plants, such as a sentinel (single specimen)
tree in a pasture, or specimen trees in a garden; designed groupings, such as hedges,
allées and perennial borders; and groupings
used to control sun and wind patterns.
Vegetation can also refer to planted crops,
re-forested hillsides and naturally occurring
plant communities.
Vegetation may have historical associations
as well as functional and aesthetic qualities. As well, vegetation may have historical
and scientific value, which can contribute
to maintaining the biodiversity of native,
horticultural or agricultural varieties.
Vegetation in a cultural landscape can also
represent the genetic repository of species
once present, but now largely disappeared.
The Trappist Monastery Ruins recall a complex of religious architecture unique to Manitoba and the early Frenchspeaking Métis community. Damaged by fire in 1983, the stabilized ruins, and the grounds featuring mature trees,
expanses of lawn and open fields, now form the Trappist Monastery Provincial Heritage Park. Protecting and
maintaining the vegetation is essential to preserving the site’s historical values.
78
Vegetation is often the most dynamic and
memorable feature in a cultural landscape.
In addition to the continuous cycle of
growth and decay, there will be variations
in form, colour and canopy across the
seasons. In describing vegetation as a
character-defining element, the following
concepts should be considered: growth
habit, including juvenile or mature form;
leaf and bloom; colour and texture; bark;
bloom periods; fruit; fragrance; and context.
Vegetation also contributes to other
character-defining elements, such as land
patterns, visual relationships and spatial
organization.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for the conservation of vegetation in a cultural landscape. Other relevant
guidelines, such as Ecological Features and
Spatial Organization, should be consulted
when appropriate.
A large site in Calgary’s inner city that evolved
during the early 20th century, this naturalistic rock
garden is significant for its association with the noted
horticulturalist William Reader and as a botanical
laboratory to study the receptivity of Alberta’s soils to
a variety of plant species. The extensive arrangements
of local rocks and plantings, many of which had
become overgrown, were meticulously restored using
careful plant analysis and by referring to William
Reader’s own detailed documentation.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding vegetation and how it contributes to the
heritage value of the cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the evolution of a landscape’s vegetation over
time, using archival resources, such as plans and photographs
or, when appropriate, archaeological analysis or minimally
destructive techniques. This could include using resistivity testing
to determine the age of a tree, or understanding the heritage
value of a vegetation feature, such as the oak as a symbol
of fortitude.
3
Understanding the roles of people, animals and insects in
producing and maintaining the existing vegetation.
4
Documenting the extent and condition of vegetative cover in
forests, woodlands, meadows, planted and fallow fields, and the
genus, species, calibre, height, colour, form and texture of significant, individual tree specimens, before beginning project work.
5
Assessing the overall condition of the vegetation early in the
planning process so that the scope of work is based on current
conditions.
6
Protecting and maintaining the vegetation by using nondestructive methods and daily, seasonal and cyclical tasks,
including pruning or establishing colonies of beneficial insects
that protect fruit trees from pests.
Failing to perform preventive maintenance on characterdefining vegetation.
7
Using maintenance practices that respect the habit, form,
colour, texture, bloom, fruit, fragrance, scale and context
of the vegetation.
Using maintenance practices and techniques that fail
to recognize the individual plant materials’ uniqueness.
Examples include poorly timed pruning or application of
insecticide, which may alter fruit production.
8
Using traditional horticultural and agricultural maintenance
practices when those techniques are critical to maintaining the
vegetation’s character, such as manually removing dead flowers
to ensure continuous bloom.
9
Retaining and perpetuating vegetation by preserving seed
collections and stock cuttings to preserve the genetic pool.
Undertaking interventions, such as indiscriminately
clearing a woodland understorey without understanding
its impact on historic vegetation.
Undertaking interventions that affect character-defining
vegetation, without preparing a survey of existing plant
material and its condition.
Failing to propagate vegetation from original stock
cuttings, when few or no known sources for replacement
are available.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
79
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
10
Securing and protecting deteriorated vegetation by structural
reinforcement, or correcting unsafe conditions, as required, until
additional work is undertaken; for example, using steel cables to
support large branches.
Failing to secure and protect deteriorated vegetation,
thus putting it at risk of further deterioration.
11
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of vegetation where there are surviving prototypes. The new
plantings should match the old in species, colour and texture.
Removing deteriorated vegetation that could be
stabilized and conserved, or using untested techniques
and untrained personnel, thus causing further damage
to fragile elements.
Introducing or re-introducing a species or variety that
is known or suspected to be invasive.
Replacing entire vegetation when limited replacement
of deteriorated and missing parts is appropriate.
Using replacement material that does not match the
historic vegetation.
12
Documenting all interventions that affect the vegetation,
and ensuring that this documentation is available to those
responsible for future interventions.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
80
Recommended
Not Recommended
13
Rejuvenating historic vegetation by corrective pruning, deeproot fertilizing, aerating the soil, renewing seasonal plantings,
and/or grafting onto historic root stock.
Replacing vegetation when rejuvenation is possible,
including removing a deformed or damaged plant when
corrective pruning could be successfully employed.
14
Replacing a deteriorated or declining vegetation feature with a
new feature, based on the physical evidence of its composition,
form and habit. If using the same kind of material is not
technically, economically or environmentally feasible, then a
compatible substitute material may be considered. For example,
a diseased sentinel tree in a meadow may be replaced with a
disease-resistant tree of similar type, form, shape and scale.
Replacing a deteriorated feature with a new feature that
does not convey the same appearance, such as replacing
a large, declining canopy tree with a dwarf flowering tree.
15
Replacing missing historic features by installing a new
vegetation feature. It may be a new feature that is compatible
with the habit, form, colour, texture, bloom, fruit, fragrance,
scale and context of the historic vegetation; for example,
replacing a lost vineyard with hardier stock similar to the
historic plant material.
Creating a false historical appearance because the
replacement vegetation is based on insufficient physical,
documentary and oral evidence.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural Landscape
16
Introducing new vegetation, when required by a new use,
to ensure that the heritage value of the cultural landscape
is preserved, including planting a hedge to screen new
construction.
Placing a new feature where it may cause damage
or is incompatible with the character of the historic
vegetation; for example, erecting a new building or
structure that adversely affects the root systems of
historic vegetation.
Locating a new vegetation feature that detracts from, or
alters the historic vegetation; for example, introducing
exotic species in a landscape historically comprised of
only indigenous plants.
Introducing a new vegetation feature that is incompatible
in terms of its habit, form, colour, texture, bloom, fruit,
fragrance, scale or context.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
17
Rejuvenating declining vegetation from the restoration period
by corrective pruning, deep-root fertilizing, aerating the soil,
renewing seasonal plantings, and/or grafting onto historic stock.
Replacing vegetation from the restoration period when
rejuvenation is possible, or using destructive repair methods,
thus causing further damage to fragile plant material.
18
Replacing in kind a declining vegetation feature from the
restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair, using the
physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. The new
work should be well documented to guide future research
and treatment.
Removing a deteriorated vegetation feature from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it with
a new feature that does not convey the same appearance.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
19
Removing or altering non character-defining vegetation from
periods other than the chosen restoration period, such as
removing later foundation planting or aggressive exotic species.
Failing to remove non character-defining vegetation from
another period that confuses the depiction of the chosen
restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
20
Recreating a missing vegetation feature that existed during
the restoration period, based on physical, documentary and
oral evidence. For example, replanting crop types based on
pollen analysis.
Planting vegetation that was part of the original design, but
was never installed, or installing vegetation thought to have
existed during the restoration period, but for which there is
insufficient documentation.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
81
4.1.9
Landforms
These guidelines provide direction when
a landform has been identified as a
character-defining element of an historic
place. Landform refers to the shape of the
Earth’s surface at a particular place.
Some naturally occurring landforms
include mountains, hills, canyons, valleys
and plains. Human-made landforms
include terraces, embankments, ramparts,
berms, ditches and swales. When describing a particular landform, whether natural
or built, it is important to consider shape,
slope, dimensions and geological material,
such as sand and silt.
Naturally occurring landforms may have
been significant factors in determining the location and development of a
cultural landscape; for example, choosing
to build a fortress on high land for military
advantages.
Throughout history, human beings
have used landforms as landmarks and
manipulated natural topography for
functional and aesthetic reasons: swales
remove water from building foundations;
ditches keep roads dry; berms provide
wind shelter or hide undesirable views;
ramparts and glacis provide unobstructed
surveillance; and paired embankments
frame views.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for the conservation of the
landforms of a cultural landscape. Other
relevant guidelines, such as Evidence
of Land Use and Circulation, should be
consulted when appropriate.
Landforms can be natural, such as hills and plains, or they can be human-engineered. Dramatic examples of
human-engineered landforms are the early 20th century tailing fields in the Yukon’s Klondike Gold Fields.
These views help define and interpret Dredge #4 NHSC.
82
The Frank Slide is the site of a catastrophic landslide
in spring 1903 that destroyed part of the town
of Frank, Alberta. One of the largest landslides in
Canadian history, it is historically significant for
its impact on the area’s mining communities. It is
geologically interesting for the information it yields
on the dynamics of large-scale rock slides. Barren
of vegetation and devoid of buildings, the boulderstrewn debris field extending across the valley floor is
a character-defining landform that is maintained due
to a moratorium on development.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding landforms and how they contribute to the
heritage value of the cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the evolution of landforms over time, using
archival resources, such as plans and aerial photographs. This can
also include archaeological analysis or oral history to understand
the landforms and any cultural values associated with them.
Undertaking interventions without understanding its
impact on historic landforms.
3
Documenting the geological material, elevation, slope, shape,
orientation, contour, condition and function of landforms before
beginning project work.
Undertaking project work that will affect landforms
without documenting the existing topographic variation,
condition and function.
4
Assessing the overall condition of landforms early in the
planning process so that the scope of work will be based on
current conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining landforms by using non-destructive
methods in daily, seasonal and cyclical tasks. This may include
mowing vegetative cover to reveal the landform.
6
Retaining sound landforms or deteriorated landforms that can
be repaired or reinstated.
7
Repairing or reinstating a deteriorated feature of the landform,
using recognized conservation methods. Repair may also include
the limited replacement in kind of those extensively deteriorated
or missing parts of landforms. Repairs should match the existing
work as closely as possible, both physically and visually.
Replacing landforms that can be repaired or reinstated.
8
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of the landform where there are surviving prototypes. The new
work should match the old in form and detailing.
Replacing an entire feature of the landform when limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
9
Documenting all interventions that affect the landform, and
ensuring that this documentation will be available to those
responsible for future interventions.
Allowing landforms to be altered by incompatible
development or neglect.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
83
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
10
Repairing or reinstating an extensively deteriorated or missing
landform. This could include re-excavating a silted swale through
appropriate re-grading, or re-establishing an eroding agricultural
terrace.
Modifying the shape, slope, elevation or contour of a
landform when repair is possible.
11
Replacing in kind an entire feature of a landform, using the
physical evidence of its form and composition.
Replacing an irreparable feature with a new feature
that does not convey the same visual appearance, for
example, changing stepped terracing to a graded slope.
12
Replacing missing historic features by designing new features
that are compatible with the landforms of the cultural landscape,
based on physical, documentary and oral evidence.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
feature is based on insufficient physical, documentary or
oral evidence.
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
13
Designing a new feature when required by a new use that is
compatible with the character-defining landform.
Introducing a new feature where it may alter the
character-defining landform. This could include failing to
provide proper drainage for a new feature, resulting in
the decline or loss of an historic landform.
Accessibility Considerations
14
84
Respecting the landform when locating new accessibilityrelated features. For example, introducing a gently sloped
walkway instead of a constructed ramp with handrails.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
15
Repairing or reinstating a declining landform feature from the
restoration period using a minimal intervention approach.
Replacing an entire landform feature from the restoration
period when repair or reinstatement is possible.
16
Replacing in kind an entire landform feature from the
restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair, using the
same configuration and design details. The new work should be
well documented to guide future research and treatment.
Removing a deteriorated landform feature from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it
with an inappropriate new feature.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
17
Removing or altering non character-defining landform features
from periods other than the chosen restoration period.
Failing to remove non character-defining features from
another period that confuse the depiction of the chosen
restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
18
Recreating a missing landform feature from the restoration
period, based on physical, documentary and oral evidence;
for example, recreating a trench and fortification from the
restoration period based on stratigraphic research.
Introducing a feature that was part of the original plan
but that never actually existed, or a feature that was
thought to have existed during the restoration period,
but for which there is insufficient documentation.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
85
4.1.10
Water
Features
These guidelines provide guidance
when a water feature is identified as a
character-defining element of an historic
place. Water features can include constructed elements, such as canals, ponds,
reflecting pools and fountains as well as
natural elements, such as lakes, rivers and
streams. Their role may be functional or
aesthetic, or a combination of both.
Water features may be part of the natural
hydrology of the historic place, or fed
artificially from a separate, dedicated
water source. When assessing a constructed water feature, the water supply,
drainage and mechanical system required
for its functioning should be identified.
Additionally, shape, dimensions, materials, water level and quality, flow rate,
reflectivity and associated plant and
animal life should be listed as important
characteristics.
These guidelines provide general
recommendations for the conservation
of water features in a cultural landscape.
For direction on conserving natural water
features that are part of a larger ecosystem, refer to the Guidelines for Ecological
Features. For recommendations on specific materials that make up constructed
water features, refer to the Guidelines for
Materials. Other relevant guidelines, such
as Built Features and Vegetation, should
be consulted when appropriate.
Beaver Lake is a constructed pond that has become
a central feature in Montreal’s Mount Royal Park,
within the natural and historic district of Mount Royal.
Its intense use throughout the seasons puts great
pressure on its condition. Protecting and maintaining
water features includes daily, seasonal and cyclical
tasks. Maintaining a constructed water feature’s
mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems is
essential to ensure the appropriate depth and
quality of water.
86
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the water feature and how it contributes to the
heritage value of the cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the evolution of water features over time and
their role in the overall hydrology of the landscape. This includes
using archaeological techniques to determine the changing
path of a watercourse, using infrared aerial photographs to map
hydrological patterns.
Undertaking interventions without understanding the
evolution of water features.
3
Documenting water features before beginning project
work. Documentation should include shape, edge and bottom
condition and materials; water level, sound and reflective
qualities; associated plant and animal life; water quality; natural
erosion and flooding; and overall condition.
Undertaking interventions that affect the water features
and associated hydrology, without undertaking a survey
of their character and condition.
4
Assessing the overall condition of water features early in the
planning process, so that the scope of work is based on
current conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining water features by using non-destructive
methods in daily, seasonal and cyclical tasks, such as cleaning leaf
litter or mineral deposits out of drainage inlets or outlets.
6
Retaining sound or deteriorated water features that can be
repaired or rejuvenated.
7
Stabilizing deteriorated water features by using structural
reinforcement, weather protection, or correcting unsafe
conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
8
Repairing deteriorated water features using recognized
conservation methods. Repair may also include the limited
replacement in kind of extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of water features. Repairs should match the existing work as
closely as possible, both physically and visually.
Removing deteriorated water features that could be
stabilized or repaired.
9
Maintaining a built water feature’s mechanical, plumbing
and electrical systems to ensure appropriate depth of water
or direction of flow, including maintaining the timing and
sequencing mechanisms for irrigation systems.
Allowing mechanical systems to fall into a state of
disrepair, resulting in degradation of the water feature.
For example, allowing algae to develop because a pool’s
aeration system is not maintained.
10
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
water features where there are surviving prototypes. The new
work should match the old in form and detailing.
Replacing an entire water feature when limited
replacement of deteriorated and missing parts is possible
Allowing water features to be altered by incompatible
development, maintenance methods or neglect.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
87
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
11
Testing interventions to establish appropriate replacement
materials, quality of workmanship and methodology. This
includes reviewing samples, testing products, methods or
assemblies, or creating a mock-up.
12
Documenting all interventions that affect the water features,
and ensuring that the documentation is available to those
responsible for future interventions.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
88
Recommended
Not Recommended
13
Repairing extensively deteriorated water features by reinforcing
materials or improving mechanical systems. For example,
patching a crack in a pond liner, or repairing a failed pump
mechanism.
Replacing or removing water features or systems when
repair is possible.
14
Replacing in kind a deteriorated water feature by using the
existing physical evidence of its form, depth and detailing, to
reproduce it. If using the same kind of material is not technically
or environmentally feasible, then a compatible substitute
material may be considered; for example, replacing a lead pond
liner with a plastic one. The replacement feature should be as
similar as possible to the original, both visually and functionally.
Replacing a water feature with a new feature that does
not convey the same appearance, including, replacing
a single orifice nozzle with a spray nozzle, changing an
historic fountain’s appearance from a single stream of
water to a mist-like stream.
15
Replacing missing historic features by designing new features
compatible with the water features of the cultural landscape,
based on physical, documentary and oral evidence. For example,
a lost irrigation feature may be replaced by using materials that
convey the same appearance.
Introducing new features that are incompatible in size,
scale, material, style and colour, such as replacing a
natural pond with a manufactured pool.
Creating a false historical appearance because the
replaced features are based on insufficient physical,
documentary and oral evidence.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
16
Designing and installing a new water feature, when required,
by a new use in a way that preserves the cultural landscape’s
heritage value. For example, locating a new retention basin in a
secondary or non-character-defining space.
Placing a new water feature where it may cause damage
or is incompatible with the heritage value of the cultural
landscape, such as, locating a Baroque fountain within
a Picturesque-style garden.
Health and Safety Considerations
17
Complying with the health and safety requirements, in a
manner that minimizes the impact on heritage value.
Damaging or destroying features while making
modifications to comply with health and safety
requirements.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
18
Repairing deteriorated water features from the restoration
period by reinforcing the materials that comprise those features.
Repairs include the limited replacement in kind of those
extensively deteriorated or missing parts of features, when there
are surviving prototypes.
Replacing an entire water feature from the restoration
period, when repair or limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is appropriate, or using destructive
repair methods that damage the water feature.
19
Replacing an entire water feature from the restoration period
that is too deteriorated to repair, using the same configuration
and design details. The new work should be well documented
and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing a deteriorated water feature from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it
with an inappropriate new feature.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
20
Removing or altering non character-defining water features
from periods other than the chosen restoration period, such as
a later retention pond that is no longer needed.
Failing to remove non character-defining water features
from another period that confuses the depiction of the
chosen restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
21
Recreating a missing water feature that existed during the
restoration period, based on physical, documentary and oral
evidence. An example could include recasting a fountain from
its original mould.
Creating a water feature that was part of the original
design, but was never actually built, or constructing
a water feature thought to have existed during the
restoration period, but for which there is insufficient
documentation.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
89
4.1.11
Built
Features
These guidelines provide direction when
the built features of a cultural landscape
have been identified as character-defining
elements of an historic place. Built features can include archaeological remains;
residential, commercial and institutional
buildings; structures, such as dams or
bridges; and caribou fences. A building
may play a role as a character-defining
element in a cultural landscape, in
addition to having its own heritage value.
Smaller features, such as gazebos, fences,
free-standing walls and statuary, as well
as site furnishings, such as benches, light
standards and drinking fountains, are
also built features. Built features may also
include culturally significant objects or
constructed symbols, such as inukshuks,
crosses and medicine wheels.
Modern cultural landscapes, such as
campuses and plazas, were planned and
designed as a cohesive whole. Adding
new features to satisfy regulatory requirements, such as ramps, guardrails and
bollards, could affect their heritage value.
Additions to recent cultural landscapes
should be undertaken with the utmost
respect and care, and complement the
heritage value of the historic place.
Interpretive panels and directional signs
are often added to historic places. If
appropriate, these interventions should be
integrated into the landscape in a manner
that does not impair its heritage value.
The East Gate Entrance Building at Manitoba’s Riding Mountain National Park is a character-defining element of
this cultural landscape that needs to be protected.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for built features in a cultural
landscape. When the built feature is an
archaeological site, a building, or part of
an engineering work, refer to the specific
guidelines for those categories of historic
places. For recommendations on specific
materials that make up built features,
refer to the Guidelines for Materials.
Other relevant guidelines, such as Water
Features and Spatial Organization, should
be consulted when appropriate.
The original weathered sandstone gravemarker
for John Parot’s Grave is one of the oldest in
Newfoundland and Labrador. It was replaced with
a wooden replica made by a local resident,
while the original was taken away for conservation.
Key elements that define the modern heritage
character of the former Ottawa City Hall include the
ornamentation of the building’s exterior with publicly
commissioned art work. Exterior elements that
contribute to the heritage value of a place should
be part of a cyclical maintenance program to the
same level as the building itself.
90
The character-defining elements of Habitat 67 in
Montreal include modern urban concrete furniture.
These built features of the landscape complement
and reinforce the building’s forms, materials
and colour.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the built features and how they contribute to
the heritage value of the cultural landscape.
2
Understanding the evolution of built features over time.
Examples could include, using historic aerial photographs to
understand the relationship of windmills, silos and water troughs
in a ranch compound, or the placement of cairns on a jump site.
Undertaking project work without understanding the
evolution of built features.
3
Documenting the function, condition, materials and
surroundings of built features and the relationship of those
features to each other and to the historic place, before beginning
project work.
Undertaking interventions that affect the built features
without conducting a survey of conditions, materials,
surroundings and interrelationships.
4
Assessing the overall condition of built features early in the
planning process so that the scope of work is based on current
conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining the built features by using nondestructive methods in daily, cyclical and seasonal tasks. This
may include limited rust or paint removal and reapplication of
protective coating systems in kind.
6
Retaining sound built features or deteriorated built features
that can be repaired.
7
Stabilizing a deteriorated built feature by using structural
reinforcement, weather protection, or correcting unsafe
conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
8
Repairing a deteriorated built feature by using recognized
conservation methods. Repair may also include the limited
replacement in kind of those extensively deteriorated or missing
parts of built features.
Removing a deteriorated built feature that could be
stabilized or repaired.
9
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated parts of built
features where there are surviving prototypes. The new work
should match the old in form and detailing.
Replacing an entire built feature when limited
replacement of deteriorated and missing parts is possible.
10
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate
replacement materials, quality of workmanship and
methodology. This may include reviewing samples, testing
products, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock-up.
11
Documenting all interventions that affect the built features,
and ensuring that this documentation is available to those
responsible for future interventions.
Using maintenance practices and materials that are
abrasive or unproven; for example, using potentially
damaging cleaning methods, such as grit blasting on
wood, brick or soft stone, or using harsh chemicals on
masonry or metals.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
91
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
12
Repairing extensively deteriorated built features by using
non-destructive methods and materials.
Replacing an entire built feature when repair or limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
13
Replacing in kind an entire built feature by using the physical
evidence of its form, material and detailing to reproduce it. If
using the same kind of material is not technically, economically
or environmentally feasible, then a compatible substitute material
may be considered; for example, replacing redwood decking
with cedar, a less endangered species. The replacement feature
should be as similar as possible to the original, both visually
and functionally.
Replacing an irreparable built feature with a new feature
that does not convey the same visual appearance.
14
Replacing missing historic features by designing new built
features that are compatible with the cultural landscape and
based on physical, documentary and oral evidence.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
built feature is incompatible, or based on insufficient
physical and documentary evidence.
Additions or Alterations to a Cultural landscape
15
Designing a new built feature, when required by a new use, to
be compatible with the heritage value of the cultural landscape.
For example, erecting a new farm outbuilding, using traditional
form and materials, or installing signs and lighting compatible
with the cultural landscape.
Locating a new built feature in a manner that
undermines the heritage value of the cultural landscape.
Introducing a new built feature, such as an interpretive
panel, that is visually incompatible with the cultural
landscape.
Health and Safety Considerations
16
Complying with the health and safety requirements, in a
manner that minimizes impact on the character-defining
elements of the cultural landscape.
Accessibility Considerations
17
92
Finding solutions to meet accessibility requirements that are
compatible with the built feature. For example, introducing
a gently sloped walkway instead of a constructed ramp with
handrails in a manner that does not detract from the built
feature.
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes, including Heritage Districts
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
18
Repairing deteriorated built features from the restoration
period by reinforcing the materials and assemblies that
comprise those 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 built feature from the restoration
period when repair or limited replacement of deteriorated
or missing parts is possible, or using destructive repair
methods, causing further damage to fragile historic
material.
19
Replacing in kind an entire built feature from the restoration
period that is too deteriorated to repair, using the same
configuration and design details. The new work should be well
documented and unobtrusively dated to guide future research
and treatment.
Removing a deteriorated built feature from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it
with an inappropriate new feature.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
20
Removing or altering non character-defining built features from
periods other than the chosen restoration period.
Failing to remove non character-defining built features
from another period that confuse the depiction of the
chosen restoration period.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
21
Recreating a missing built feature that existed during the
restoration period, based on physical, documentary and oral
evidence, such as duplicating a corn crib from an existing
prototype.
Installing a built feature that was part of the original
design, but was never actually built, or constructing a
built feature that was thought to have existed during
the restoration period, but for which there is insufficient
documentation.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
93
4.2
Guidelines for
Archaeological
Sites
Archaeological sites fall under several categories and settings. Clockwise, from top left: the excavations at the Mansion House at Ferryland in Newfoundland and
Labrador are an example of historical archaeology; Fathom Five National Marine Park in Ontario illustrates underwater archaeology; Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park
in Alberta contains specimens of rock art; and Sirmilik National Park in Nunavut is a pre-contact site.
4.2
Guidelines for
Archaeological
Sites
Archaeological sites are places or
areas where tangible evidence of past
human activity is located in situ on,
below or above ground, or on lands
under water. In the context of historic
places, Archaeological sites fall under two
categories, and these guidelines apply
to both. They are:
1. Archaeological sites that are historic
places because they have been
formally recognized by an authority
as having heritage value;
2. Archaeological sites that are part
of an historic place, such as a
building, engineering work, cultural
landscape or heritage district, and
that contribute as character-defining
elements to that historic place’s
heritage value.
An archaeological site is characterized
by its environment including stratified
deposits with physical traces of the site’s
formation that help determine its age
and interpret its complexity. A site can
also include one, or a combination of, the
following character-defining elements:
• Features, such as postholes, hearths,
stone tool manufacture areas,
industrial staging areas, cairns and
rock art, and natural features that
have cultural significance;
• Structures, such as remains of stone
walls, industrial machinery, fish
weirs, tent rings and wharves, which
can be below or above-ground, or
underwater;
Because their character-defining elements are often submerged or underground, a large number of archaeological
sites are not accessible. Communicating their heritage value is a challenge. Exposed remains, such as at the ones
at Champs-de-Mars, Montreal not only add to our knowledge of past times and people, but they can also enrich
our environment.
• Archaeological objects, such
as artifacts, soil and botanical
samples, animal remains, pollen,
or any specimen associated with
the site that provides information
on its characteristics, function and
significance;
• Physical places with evidence of
human activity identified through
local knowledge or oral tradition;
These elements embody the heritage value of the archaeological site.
Character-defining elements may include
elements of aesthetic, historic, scientific,
cultural, social or spiritual importance,
and intangible qualities and uses. A site’s
heritage value may lie as much in the
information contained in the elements as
in their evocative force, as vestiges of
past histories.
• Spatial relationships between the
features, structures, objects and
physical places identified above.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
97
Federal, provincial and territorial authorities maintain extensive inventories of
archaeological sites that often include
information on location, type of resources,
state of conservation and time period.
However, only a fraction of known archaeological sites are formally recognized
in Canada. When such information is
available in the inventories, it should be
taken into account before conducting an
intervention that may affect archaeological resources.
In principle, archaeological sites should
be preserved in situ by limiting negative
impacts on the site’s physical integrity.
However, in situations where preservation
is threatened, a controlled archaeological
investigation should be undertaken, using
the highest recording standards to document the site’s physical features. This
would include situations where:
The physical integrity of this excavated archaeological site at Fort Battleford, Saskatchewan, was temporarily
protected from accidental disturbance by covering the ground with plastic sheets and erecting a small barrier
fence. As required by law, the archaeological intervention was authorized and a permit was obtained before
excavation began.
• Natural impacts threaten the site;
• Assessment demonstrates that
unavoidable conflicts with a proposed
project could jeopardize the site’s
heritage value;
• An archaeological research project is
planned to enhance the site’s heritage
value by contributing to knowledge
about the site or historic place.
Archaeological Sites
and the Natural
Environment
The maintenance of archaeological
sites relies on periodic evaluations,
and focuses on the archaeological
site and its natural environment.
Monitoring environmental conditions
can help preserve archaeological
sites and maintain the balance between the site and its environment.
98
Any intervention or maintenance activity
on historic places should endeavour to
safeguard archaeological sites based on
their contribution to the historic place’s
heritage value. An intervention planned
on an archaeological site or area containing an archaeological site should involve
an archaeologist and, where appropriate, other field scientists, conservators,
architects, engineers, Elders and other
knowledge keepers.
Before a conservation intervention takes
place, essential steps must be taken to
implement an appropriate conservation
strategy. This would include, understanding the historic place’s heritage value and
character-defining elements; thoroughly
planning the proposed intervention;
and identifying an appropriate use of
the place. Additionally, most jurisdictions require that archaeological impact
assessments be performed before any
project is undertaken.
When carrying out interventions at
an historic place, new archaeological
resources may be discovered that directly
relate to the historic place’s heritage
value. In this situation, impact assessments should be carried out to evaluate
the significance of a newly discovered
resource, and how this will impact on the
historic place’s heritage value.
Because most archaeological investigations in Canada are performed as impact
assessments, these guidelines are useful
in guiding the evaluation, planning and
mitigation measures required at historic
places. The principle of minimal intervention should always guide any actions
affecting archaeological sites.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
Archaeology and the Law
All provinces and territories have legislation that protects, to varying degrees, the
physical evidence connected to archaeological sites. Generally, this legislation
provides for:
• Protecting and managing
archaeological sites and resources;
• Issuing permits to qualified
archaeologists for archaeological
investigations;
• Carrying out archaeological impact
assessments prior to development,
or activities that may have an impact
on the site;
• Identifying repositories for the
archaeological objects collected;
• Discussing plans with affected
groups;
• Issuing stop work orders when
accidental discoveries are made,
and/or human remains
are discovered.
There is no federal legislation specific to
archaeological sites on federal lands. The
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
is the main, relevant federal legislation.
The Act covers the impacts of development projects on the environment and
on cultural and archaeological resources.
Under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001
(CSA 2001), all recovered material of
wrecks (ships and aircrafts) must be
reported directly to the regional Receiver
of Wreck, an officer of Transport Canada.
Any person who recovers material from a
wreck during an activity, such as fishing
or diving, or during an archaeological
excavation, has to comply with the
CSA 2001. The federal government also
has various policies and departmental
directives that support archaeological
assessment and mitigation, when projects
could potentially disturb archaeological
resources on federal land.
In some parts of Canada, Aboriginal land
claim agreements address issues such as
archaeological site protection, ownership
and access rights, consultation, permit
and reporting requirements and conservation planning.
Accidental Discoveries
Where archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered, the appropriate
archaeological authorities should be contacted and an archaeologist assigned to
evaluate the site. A clear understanding of the value of the archaeological site is
crucial to determining the appropriate course of action.
In the case of human remains, all activities should be halted and the police
authorities or coroner must be contacted. If the police authorities determine that
the remains are not the subject of a police or coroner’s investigation, then the
appropriate archaeological authorities in the jurisdiction should be contacted.
Evaluating an
Archaeological Site
Archaeological sites should not be
impaired prior to evaluation. As with
other types of heritage places, an
archaeological site must be evaluated before an intervention, and its
heritage value and character-defining
elements identified. However, given
the nature of archaeology, interventions often uncover new data, in
which case, the heritage value of
new finds will need to be evaluated.
As such, an archaeological site may
be subject to re-evaluation as new
information is gathered.
Cemeteries, Burial Grounds and
Other Culturally Sensitive Places
Culturally sensitive places are defined
here as officially recognized places that
have been given special meaning by a
group or a community. Those places can
include burial grounds, above-ground
burials, abandoned cemeteries and other
sites that may have cultural or spiritual
value to a community.
Each province or territory has its own
heritage/archaeology/cemetery statutes
that relate to burial sites and human
remains. In addition, some settled land
claims agreements set out obligations
related to burial sites and human remains.
It is best practice to inform, and in some
cases mandatory to consult, the local
and/or culturally affiliated Aboriginal
and non-Aboriginal communities before
visiting or intervening on a culturally
sensitive place, or before removing human
remains and funerary objects considered
archaeological.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
99
Applying the Guidelines
The Guidelines for Archaeological
Sites contain guidelines that apply to
Archaeological Sites, regardless of setting,
and guidelines related to archaeological
sites in seven settings, including: the
urban environment; industrial sites; sites
in cultural landscapes; sites in protected
natural areas; sites underwater; rock art
and culturally modified trees; and culturally sensitive places. When conserving
any archaeological site, first refer to the
guidelines for Archaeological Sites and
then to the subsequent guidelines related
to the setting in which the archaeological
site is located, if applicable.
These guidelines cover two conservation
treatments:
1. Preservation, which applies to
all projects involving archaeological
sites;
2. Rehabilitation, which covers
interventions to sites that will be
made accessible and visible, and
interventions to sites that will be
incorporated into a contemporary
project in an historic place.
An intervention an archeological site will
focus on Preservation first, but may also
include Rehabilitation. Restoration, on
the other hand, is never applied to the
conservation of archeological sites.
This tent ring overlooking an unnamed lake in Tuktut Nogait National Park, Northwest Territories, is part of a
larger site that includes several large tent rings and hunting blinds. Moving any of the stones forming the tent
ring would cause a loss of heritage value.
100
These guidelines should not be used in
isolation. As there may be heritage value
in the relationships between archaeological sites and cultural landscapes,
buildings or engineering works, those
guidelines should also be consulted,
and applied where appropriate, before
undertaking an intervention.
Understanding and
Archaeology
Archaeological resources differ
from extant resources because
their character-defining elements
are often hidden or unknown.
Depending on the information
on hand, understanding and
documenting the heritage value of
an historic place before carrying
out an intervention may require
archaeological research, in addition
to documentary research and local
knowledge. Such endeavours must
be grounded in the principle of
minimal intervention. Archaeological
investigation includes surveying,
testing and excavation. Throughout
the process, all work is documented.
Documenting an archaeological site
involves the recording of information
gained through a variety of methods,
including, but not limited to: written
documents, such as field notes
generated by fieldwork; photographic
documents, such as rectified
photographs; and non-photographic
documents, such as maps and plans
drawn from results of surveys.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
4.2.1
archaeological
sites
These guidelines provide direction
for the conservation of archaeological sites when formally recognized
as an historic place, or part of an
historic place.
Preservation
Preservation may involve documenting,
stabilizing, sheltering, capping or reburying the site. This may be the primary
treatment when:
At archaeological sites, remnants
of the past may be deeply buried,
leaving no indication of their
existence, or they may be partially
or completely submerged in a lake,
river, or sea (for example, a shipwreck). They can also rest above
ground, or on the surface of the
ground, such as the remains of a
dugout house.
• The historic place’s materials, features
and spaces are essentially intact, thus
conveying the heritage value without
extensive repair or replacement;
• When the historic place’s materials,
features and spaces could be
disturbed by natural or humaninduced activities, resulting in the loss
of heritage value.
A Preservation plan should be developed
before the works begin.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation involves actions to present
and convey the heritage value of an
archaeological site. These actions may
include reassembly; integration; ground
markings; pathways or trails; and structures, such as interpretive constructs.
Reassembly refers to putting back
together existing but dismembered parts,
based on research, and performed as
part of the site’s Rehabilitation. Minimal
repairs and replacement of deteriorated
features should only be considered when
the original material cannot be retained.
These interventions should be identifiable.
At the Colony of Avalon site in Ferryland, Newfoundland, its heritage value lies as much in character-defining
elements, such as the in-situ archaeological remnants of early 17th century plantation life, as in the continued
public use of the traditional fishing premises.
Archaeological excavations are conducted to better understand the occupation of the site by the Beothuks,
seasonal European fishermen and settlers such as David Kirke.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
101
Integration can involve incorporating the
archaeological site’s heritage value and
character-defining elements in a project,
such as the archaeological remains of a
stone wall into a new construction. The
project should be designed so that the
site’s heritage value is neither affected nor
its character-defining elements obscured,
damaged or destroyed. Integration may
be considered when the archaeological
site’s heritage value has been considered
in a project that protects it; or when the
archaeological site is a character-defining
element of an historic place that contributes to the heritage value of that historic
place; or when the archaeological site
acquires a contemporary function while
retaining its heritage value.
Ground markings, such as stones or
vegetation, are often used to identify the
presence of an archaeological site when
it is not visible. Markings should be kept
to a minimum to avoid cluttering the site.
Alternative methods, such as self-guided
tour maps and escorted walking tours,
should also be considered as a means to
provide information.
Pathways or trails may be required to
provide access to and between archaeological sites. The new pathway can either
follow an historic access route, provided
that the archaeological resources are
not impaired, or be situated in a non
character-defining area of the site.
Structures, such as shelters and interpretive constructs, should avoid disturbing
surviving archaeological evidence. In
addition, interpretive constructs, such as
plaques or panels, should take into account evidence from all available sources
to communicate the site’s heritage value,
and be clearly identifiable.
102
Identifying the presence of archaeological features by using ground markings is an excellent way to
communicate the heritage value of a site. The location and size of the northwest tower of the second
Habitation de Champlain, uncovered at Place-Royale in the arrondissement historique de Québec, has
been highlighted with ground markings without affecting the site’s character-defining elements.
When considering a new use for an
archaeological site, the use should be
determined from the planning phase
after a clear understanding of the site’s
heritage value has been obtained through
archaeological investigations and other
research. If the use of an historic place is
part of its heritage value, then that use
should be retained. This is particularly
relevant for spiritual places and places of
memory that have a strong archaeological
dimension.
Rehabilitation may be considered as the
primary treatment when the archaeological site’s features, structures and objects
have been stabilized, and there is an
opportunity to allow access and convey
its heritage value. A plan for Rehabilitation
should be developed before work is undertaken. When planning a Rehabilitation
project on archaeological sites, also
consult the Guidelines for Materials.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the character-defining elements of the
archaeological site and how they contribute to its heritage value.
2
Understanding the archaeological site through documentary
research, local knowledge and archaeological investigations.
3
Documenting the historic place and surroundings before
beginning project work, or in anticipation of future projects,
particularly where the terrain will be altered, to determine the
presence of archaeological sites and the potential impact on
them from the project work.
4
Documenting the archaeological site to determine the natural
and human impacts that could affect it.
5
Documenting, protecting and maintaining the archaeological
site’s heritage value and character-defining elements, by
reaching a reasonable balance between the objectives of
archaeological research and their preservation in situ. Choices
should be periodically reassessed during the investigation.
Carrying out archaeological investigations without
periodically weighing the benefits of pursuing the
excavation against those of ceasing the work.
6
Protecting an archaeological site from disturbances by
planning and undertaking the necessary archaeological
investigation and mitigation work. The work should involve
qualified individuals and be undertaken only when there is
potential for disturbance.
Allowing unqualified personnel to perform archaeological
mitigation work and data recovery, resulting in the loss
of important archaeological data or material.
7
Protecting and maintaining the physical integrity of an
archaeological site, including soil, stratigraphy and spatial
distribution of artifacts, from natural and human-induced
deterioration by identifying, evaluating, minimizing and
monitoring the disturbance to the archaeological site and
its setting.
Disturbing the context of an archaeological site, thus
compromising its physical integrity and associated
scientific and research information.
8
Protecting and maintaining the physical integrity of characterdefining elements, including archaeological objects and records
that relate to the site, from natural and human-induced
deterioration, during and after excavations. This could include
appropriate installations, such as fences, caps, shelters or infill,
or proper long-term storage for objects and records.
Introducing a use, activity, feature or equipment
into areas where it disturbs or damages the
archaeological site.
9
Protecting and maintaining an archaeological site by
striking a balance with the objectives of conserving its natural
environment.
Damaging an archaeological site as a consequence
of efforts to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore a natural
environment.
Proceeding with an intervention without properly
documenting the historic place to determine the potential
presence of an archaeological site.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
103
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
104
Not Recommended
10
Protecting and maintaining the environment of an
archaeological site, for example, by preventing water penetration
and maintaining proper drainage in dry environments, and
preventing dehydration of waterlogged character-defining
elements in wet environments.
11
Stabilizing deteriorated, collapsed or deformed features and
structures through appropriate and reversible methods, such as
structural consolidation, shelters, capping, or infill.
12
Assessing the factors that will affect protective and stabilizing
installations, such as shelters or caps. For capping, factors could
include soil composition, level of humidity, terrain, presence or
absence of vegetation, compression strength and permeability.
For shelters, factors could include the geological structure that
supports the site, the nature of the materials and environmental
and human-induced stressors.
13
Designing protective and stabilizing structures, such as caps,
shelters or fences in a manner that does not disturb or affect
character-defining elements.
Designing protective and stabilizing structures that disturb
or affect character-defining elements, such as resting a
fencepost on the remains of a stone wall,
14
Protecting character-defining elements when installing protective
and stabilizing structures. This includes activities associated with
setting up the structures, such as the placement of soil and mineral
layers and the circulation of heavy machinery.
Using materials to mark the location of a site without
assessing their physical properties and their effect on
resources.
15
Marking the location of the site and the limits of the excavated
area with a reversible protective layer such as a geotextile
membrane.
Using materials that can be confused with the site’s
cultural layers.
16
Infilling or backfilling the archaeological site, when appropriate,
to stabilize the in situ remains and the stratigraphic profiles, using
excess excavation sediments or new fill. This will provide a proper
preservation environment that balances appropriate levels of
humidity, soil acidity, compaction and protection from roots.
Infilling or backfilling the archaeological site in ways that
negatively impact on the character-defining elements.
17
Removing fragile objects, features or structures with surrounding
soil from environments that prove difficult to control, such as a wet
environment or permafrost.
18
Stabilizing the archaeological object, feature or structure before
its removal.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
19
Documenting the state of conservation of the archaeological
object, feature or structure at the time of its removal.
20
Preserving the archaeological object once removed from its
discovered location. The work should be performed by qualified
individuals.
21
Retaining sound wooden and masonry elements, earthworks or
deteriorated elements that can be repaired.
22
Cleaning objects, features and structures, using recognized
preservation methods, when necessary, to halt deterioration.
23
Carrying out surface cleaning tests to determine the gentlest
method possible and the appropriate level of cleanliness. The test
should be observed over a sufficient period of time to determine its
immediate and long-term effects.
24
Developing a maintenance strategy that considers both existing
vegetation and new appropriate vegetation. Monitoring the effects
of vegetation on the character-defining elements.
25
Monitoring the effectiveness of protective and stabilizing
structures regularly to assess whether they are achieving expected
preservation results.
26
Documenting interventions that affect the archaeological site,
and ensuring that the documentation is readily available to those
responsible for future work.
Allowing for vegetation to grow, or removing vegetation
without considering the potential effects on the in situ
resource, and failing to monitor the effects of changes
in vegetation.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
105
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
27
Preserving and revealing the character-defining elements to
convey the site’s heritage value. This should be based on sound
and up-to-date research.
28
Repairing deteriorated, collapsed, deformed, or incorrectly
placed components of features and structures through minimal
intervention. This could include resetting, reassembling, retying and
jointing, using original building methods and materials whenever
possible.
Repairing deteriorated, collapsed, deformed or incorrectly
placed components of features and structures, using
incompatible contemporary building methods and
materials. This could include such approaches as
dismantling and in situ reconstruction, or reassembling
without proper documentation.
29
Repairing and stabilizing deteriorated wooden or masonry
elements with structural reinforcement and weather protection, or
correcting unsafe conditions, as required, until any additional work
is undertaken. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible
with the heritage value of the archaeological site.
Proceeding with physically and visually incompatible
temporary repairs and stabilizing work.
30
Balancing the need to preserve the site’s heritage value and
character-defining elements with the desire to allow public access
for educational purposes.
Allowing access while compromising heritage value and
character-defining elements.
31
Exhibiting archaeological sites only when the proposed project
maintains the site’s heritage value.
Exhibiting archaeological sites, i.e., exposing character
defining elements, when such actions impair heritage
value.
Reassembly
106
32
Reassembling components of character-defining elements,
using the least intrusive method when the information about
their original location and materials, degree of deterioration and
human-induced and natural pressures have been recorded and
assessed. Reassembly should only be performed if it contributes to
the heritage value of the archaeological site and does not impact
on its character-defining elements, either directly or indirectly.
Considering the reassembly of components of the
site’s character-defining elements, without adequately
assessing and recording the site’s original location and
materials, its degree of deterioration, and human-induced
and natural pressures.
33
Replacing missing components by designing new components
that are compatible with the character-defining elements of
the archaeological site, based on physical, documentary or
oral evidence. The new work should be well documented,
distinguishable, and unobtrusively dated to guide future
research and treatment.
Replacing missing elements in a manner that confuses
the authenticity of the site’s character-defining elements.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
Integration
34
Integrating an archaeological resource into a landscape, building
or structure in a manner that communicates its heritage value and
preserves its character-defining elements.
35
Preserving archaeological resources through appropriate
maintenance of the new landscape, building or structure.
Integrating an archaeological resource into a landscape,
building or structure in a manner that affects its heritage
value and character-defining elements, such as creating
a design where a structural load is supported by the
archaeological remains.
Ground markings
36
Ground marking in areas where the archaeological site was
found, surveyed, recorded and preserved in situ. Ground marking
should only be considered when there is no risk of negatively
affecting the site’s heritage value and character-defining elements.
37
Protecting archaeological resources by using a design and
materials that do not affect the physical integrity of the characterdefining elements, such as installing surface stones to delineate
the perimeter of a buried foundation wall. The materials should be
compatible with the setting, texture, colour and shape of the site.
Selecting a design or materials that are incompatible
with the site’s heritage value.
Pathways or trails
38
Introducing new pathways or trails in a manner that does not
affect the physical integrity of the character-defining elements,
such as locating them in areas of the site free of archaeological
resources. New pathways or trails should not follow the course
of historic circulation routes unless this can be achieved without
damaging character-defining elements.
39
Selecting new materials that are compatible with those used in
existing circulation patterns, with the setting, and with the site’s
heritage value.
40
Designing pathways or trails that allow access to the characterdefining elements, while protecting the archaeological site. If a
new access point is required, it should be distinguishable and
have minimal impact on the site’s heritage value.
41
Providing safe and secure access to the archaeological site
while protecting heritage value.
Introducing new pathways or trails directly on top of
former historic routes.
Compromising the heritage value of an archaeological
site in an attempt to allow safe and secure access.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
107
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
Structures
108
42
Installing a shelter that respects the heritage value of the
archaeological site and its setting, where appropriate.
43
Designing and building structures, such as shelters, buildings or
interpretive constructs, that neither affect the physical integrity
of the character-defining elements, nor the historic place’s
heritage value.
44
Selecting materials and forms in designing structures that are
physically and visually compatible with the site and setting.
Selecting materials and forms that are incompatible with
the historic place’s heritage value and character-defining
elements.
45
Designing interpretive constructs, speculative components and
access points in a manner that clearly distinguishes what
is historic and what is new.
Creating interpretive constructs and speculative
components that could be confused with the site’s
character-defining elements, thus creating a false sense
of history.
46
Maintaining structures from decay to protect the historic
place’s character-defining elements.
Installing a shelter that obscures the site or the
understanding of its heritage value.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
4.2.2
Sites in Urban
Environments
These guidelines provide direction when
an archaeological site is located in an
urban environment and contributes to its
heritage value. Urban environments refer
to settlements, such as villages, towns and
cities that have been densely populated
over an extensive period. They potentially
provide a large concentration and complexity of archaeological sites, including
historic period structures and features,
such as burials, buildings and remains of
public works, and Aboriginal sites.
Urban sites potentially provide a large concentration and complexity of archaeological sites. A witness of market,
civic, commercial and residential uses for over two centuries, the Market Square Heritage Conservation District
in Kingston ON, contains significant archaeological resources. Archaeological investigations have revealed a
series of surfaces from different time periods. Qualified personnel expose a cobblestone surface as daily market
activities continue beyond the fence.
Conserving archaeological sites in urban
environments includes two perspectives:
the challenges of preserving archaeological sites in densely populated areas, or
archaeology in the city; and the study of
the evolution of the settlement itself, or
archaeology of the city. Both perspectives
are essential in preserving the relationship
between individual sites and the settlement as a whole. Maps and historical
accounts can help us understand this
evolution, but certain elements of the
evolution can be missing from these
sources, such as an Aboriginal presence.
Archaeological surveys are a key resource
in providing this missing information. The
intent is to focus on preserving components whose significance contributes to
an understanding of the whole.
Urban environments are rapidly changing,
which may lead to the disappearance of
past functions and uses. Having to deal
with numerous stakeholders and uses,
such as private owners, intensive traffic,
pollution, new construction, upgrades to
public works, and pressures for private
development or public activities can
also be a challenge. The proximity of
archaeological sites to public services
makes them more accessible to the local
community, while also making them
vulnerable to damage.
These guidelines should be used in conjunction with section 4.2.1, Archaeological
Sites. When conducting work on archaeological sites in an urban environment,
also consult the Guidelines for Cultural
Landscapes, including Heritage Districts.
Conserving archaeological sites in urban environments, such as the St-Louis Forts and Château National Historic
Site of Canada in Québec City beside the heavily visited Château Frontenac and Dufferin Terrace, faces numerous
challenges such as pollution, new constructions, upgrades for public works and intensive traffic.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
109
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the urban environment of the archaeological
site before any intervention is undertaken.
2
Documenting archaeological sites, including determining their
individual significance in the settlement history of an urban
environment.
Documenting archaeological sites individually, without
considering the evolution of the urban environment to
which it belongs.
3
Preserving archaeological sites in urban environments in
situ, through minimal interventions, such as stabilization
and consolidation.
Preserving archaeological sites in urban environments
in situ, without adequately protecting the site from the
potentially harmful effects of contemporary uses.
4
Documenting the site thoroughly when contemporary uses
could threaten archaeological resources.
5
Preserving links with nearby features and settlement patterns
to better understand the heritage value of the archaeological
site.
Preserving the archaeological site in isolation or
destroying significant elements of the settlement
pattern resulting in the loss of the understanding
of the settlement’s evolution.
6
Protecting the character-defining elements from excess traffic
by limiting access to and around the archaeological site.
Allowing access to and around the archaeological site
without adequately protecting the character-defining
elements.
7
Maintaining and preserving archaeological sites by controlling
vegetation, cleaning traces of pollution, and removing graffiti
from character-defining elements using recognized
conservation methods.
Failing to take actions to adequately maintain the site
and preserve the character-defining elements.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation
Recommended
110
8
Revealing the presence of archaeological sites in urban
environments with ground markings, interpretive constructs,
or other appropriate methods.
9
Creating a buffer area around the site to enhance visitor
experience. The buffer area should help to communicate
the site’s heritage value and not detract from it.
10
Integrating archaeological sites in the urban environment
while preserving their heritage value, including finding uses or
activities that complement the heritage value of the site.
Not Recommended
Allowing uses or activities that undermine the heritage
value of the archaeological site.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
4.2.3
Industrial
Sites
These guidelines provide direction when
an archaeological site is associated
with, or is a part of an industrial site, and
contributes to its heritage value.
This partially uncovered hydraulic turbine at Pointe-des-Seigneurs, Lachine Canal National Historic Site of
Canada in Montreal was installed and used by the Caledonian Iron Works Co. in the late 19th century.
Conserving archaeological remains of industrial components in situ, such as this turbine, contributes to
our understanding of industrial processes and helps illustrate a site’s functional arrangement.
In a comprehensive approach, industrial
archaeology deals with all the components that contribute to understanding
and communicating the knowledge and
values associated with an industrial site.
Industrial archaeological sites contain
physical elements organized in a system
constructed and used for industrial
activities. The purpose of these sites
often resides in their design, or in the
concept behind their functions, reflecting
an industrial process that is inherent in
the interrelations of the site’s material
remains. As such, industrial archaeology
aims to conduct a systematic study of
structures and archaeological objects
to better understand the industrial past.
The process of industrial archaeology is
usually part of a co-ordinated multidisciplinary approach.
Conserving an industrial site involves
not only preserving physical remains, but
also recognizing the site’s development
phases by studying the physical remains
and how they evoke the human activities
that took place at the site. Appreciating
physical industrial remains is based on
understanding the knowledge, values
and messages they convey. A successful rehabilitation helps to understand
the connection between a conserved
physical record and the site, and to
appreciate the interdependence of the
site’s character-defining elements. The
chain of production, brand image, various
technologies and social trends underlying
this cultural heritage, are often studied. As
well, physical and visual connections can
communicate the interrelations between
the industry, communication networks
and adjacent human communities.
These guidelines should be used in conjunction with section 4.2.1, Archaeological
Sites. When conducting work on an industrial archaeological site, it is important
to also consult the Guidelines for Cultural
Landscapes, the Guidelines for Buildings
and the Guidelines for Engineering Works.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
111
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the industrial environment of the
archaeological site before any intervention is undertaken.
2
Documenting and protecting character-defining archaeological
remains in situ, such as industrial components, where possible,
to illustrate the functional arrangement of the industrial site.
Removing, damaging or destroying industrial
components and storing them in a location that impairs
their heritage value. Failing to prepare an adequate
inventory of the industrial components.
3
Researching and documenting industrial processes and
operations contributing to the knowledge of the site, including
oral history accounts of former workers, where appropriate.
Failing to undertake adequate research to document
various aspects of operations.
4
Preserving documentary and corporate written records
associated with the industrial site and making them accessible
for future research.
5
Protecting and maintaining the remains of industrial machinery
in situ to preserve their heritage value.
Moving the remains of industrial machinery thus
affecting their heritage value.
6
Carrying out archaeological work to collect data before
the archaeological site is disrupted by soil decontamination
operations.
Failing to consider the archaeological work when
planning decontamination operations, thus running
the risk of losing information in last-minute salvage
operations.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation
Recommended
112
7
Respecting the symbolic and associative value of the character
defining elements of the site when developing the rehabilitation
concept.
8
Ensuring consistent comprehension of the various components
of the industrial site by drawing from its constructed elements,
industrial components and objects, and their functional arrangement.
9
Preserving the remains of industrial structures and components
in situ to retain their functional arrangement.
10
Integrating a new structure into an existing industrial
archaeological site in a manner that respects its heritage value
and character-defining elements.
11
Maintaining, re-establishing or illustrating the functional
arrangement of the industrial archaeological site when
new structures are added.
Not Recommended
Removing or relocating the remains of industrial
structures and components that contribute to the
site’s heritage value.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
4.2.4
Sites in
Cultural
Landscapes
These guidelines provide direction when
an archaeological site is located in a
cultural landscape and contributes to its
heritage value. In this document, a cultural
landscape is defined as any geographical
area that has been modified, influenced or
given special cultural meaning by people.
Cultural landscapes are often dynamic,
living entities, continually changing
because of natural and human-influenced
social, economic and cultural processes.
Archaeological sites in cultural landscapes can be components of Aboriginal
landscapes, city parks, or rural areas.
Those landscapes may include gardens,
hunting and fishing sites, bison jumps,
medicine wheels, cairns and Aboriginal
sites that have a spiritual dimension.
An appropriate conservation approach
should consider the relationship between
dispersed archaeological sites and
between the sites and their environment. Factors, such as the visual impacts
of interventions, must be considered
to preserve the cultural landscape. In
addition, these can be living sites where
local communities still carry out activities.
Archaeological sites located in cultural
landscapes can be identified by traditional
archaeological techniques. The evolution
of these sites can also be documented
through oral history of local communities
or groups; written records, such as censuses; and visual records, such as aerial
photographs and historic artwork.
Archaeological sites in cultural landscapes can be vulnerable to natural erosion, animal grazing and burrowing, and
land alteration. Human factors, such as
plowing, infrastructure development and
recreational activities, can also affect an
archaeological site in a cultural landscape.
These guidelines should be used in conjunction with section 4.2.1, Archaeological
Sites. When conducting work on archaeological sites in cultural landscapes,
also consult the Guidelines for Cultural
Landscapes.
The heritage value of the Fortress of Louisbourg
NHSC in Nova Scotia resides in a number of
character-defining elements, including preserved
elements of an 18th Century cultural landscape and
a number of known and unknown archaeological
resources. Several of these archaeological resources,
in particular those situated along the coastline, are
at risk due to the storm surges hitting the site in
the past years.
Kejimkujik National Historic Site of Canada in Nova Scotia has been designated as a Mi’kmaq cultural
landscape. Archaeological remains of fishing and sites such as fish weirs, are part of the cultural landscape.
Stone alignments set across a stream, with baskets and wooden traps, helped the Mi’kmaq harvest seasonal
runs of fish on the Mersey River. The stone vestiges of weirs, as well as their position in the cultural landscape,
must be preserved.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
113
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
114
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the cultural landscape in which the archaeological site is located before any intervention is undertaken.
2
Documenting, protecting and maintaining the patterns of
archaeological sites located in a cultural landscape where their
multiplicity constitutes a character-defining element.
Documenting sites individually, without documenting
their pattern on the cultural landscape.
3
Preserving archaeological sites in situ; for example, when
numerous sites form a network, such as military sites on a
defensive line.
Preserving a sample of in situ resources without
considering the relationship between the selected sites,
thus affecting the heritage value.
4
Preserving representative samples in situ as well as their
spatial relationships.
5
Protecting and maintaining past links connecting
archaeological sites, such as roads, trails, paths and visual
relationships.
Damaging or altering former links connecting
archaeological sites.
6
Protecting and maintaining the environmental conditions in
which the archaeological site has been preserved.
Altering environmental conditions that could result in
damage to the archaeological site.
7
Protecting character-defining elements from the impacts of
agricultural activities, by selecting sensitive agricultural practices,
such as lifting the plowshare or cultivator; avoiding identified
areas; managing grazing by livestock; and assessing appropriate
stock levels.
Selecting agricultural practices without considering their
potential effects on the site’s character-defining elements.
8
Stabilizing archaeological sites by maintaining appropriate
vegetation. The potential impact of the planting material on the
character-defining elements should be evaluated.
Failing to maintain vegetation, or using inappropriate
vegetation, resulting in a deterioration of the
archaeological site and loss of information.
9
Protecting and maintaining character-defining natural features
and environments, such as cliffs, hills, shores and viewscapes.
Damaging character-defining natural features and
environments; for example, remodelling or reshaping the
landscape, or installing structures that negatively impact
on the site and the viewscapes.
10
Protecting and maintaining archaeological sites by developing
a vegetation management strategy, including opening up the
landscape by thinning or removing trees from the archaeological
site, without compromising its heritage value.
Altering the landscape, without previously developing
a vegetation management strategy based on the
archaeological site’s heritage value.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
4.2.5
Sites in
Protected
Natural
Areas
These guidelines provide direction when
an archaeological site is located in a protected natural area — such as a national
or provincial park, conservation area or
wetland — and contributes to its heritage
value. Large areas of historical significance, such as rural heritage districts, can
also include protected natural areas or
ecosystems that contribute to the historic
place’s heritage value.
Ecological restoration programs can be an
opportunity to maintain or enhance the
preservation of archaeological sites. They
can also be destructive if archaeological
investigations are not conducted. When
engaging in the ecological preservation or
restoration of a protected natural area, it is
important to understand the area’s evolution and human settlement to preserve the
archaeological site and the environmental
conditions that allowed its preservation.
These guidelines should be used in conjunction with section 4.2.1, Archaeological
Sites. For additional information, consult
the guidelines for Ecological Features
(4.1.7) and the “Principles and Guidelines
for Ecological Restoration in Canada’s
Protected Natural Areas” (Parks Canada
and the Canadian Parks Council, 2008).
Archaeological sites in natural protected areas, such as these remains of a caribou fence near Firth River,
in Ivvavik National Park, Yukon, contribute to our understanding of the evolution and the human settlement
of these areas.
Non-intrusive activities, such as surveying this wreck
in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence National Marine Park
in Quebec, help preserve both the site’s characterdefining elements and the area’s ecosystem.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
115
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
116
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the protected natural area where the archaeological site is located, before any intervention is undertaken.
2
Understanding the heritage value of archeological sites in a
protected natural area, including understanding the effects of
human settlement on the environment.
Failing to understand the effects of human settlement on
the environment of a protected natural area.
3
Preserving the heritage value and character-defining elements
of an archaeological site in situ without compromising the
ecological integrity of the protected natural area.
Destroying archaeological sites to preserve the ecological
integrity of the protected natural area.
4
Protecting and preserving the heritage value and characterdefining elements of an archaeological site when developing and
implementing ecological restoration strategies.
5
Protecting and maintaining the environmental conditions that
preserve the archaeological site.
Altering the environmental conditions without
considering their role in preserving the
archaeological site.
6
Stabilizing an archaeological site with the appropriate use of
vegetation to preserve both its heritage value and characterdefining elements, and the area’s ecosystem. The potential
impact of the planting material on the character-defining
elements should be evaluated.
Planting vegetation that would negatively affect the
preservation of archaeological sites.
7
Protecting and maintaining an archaeological site by
developing and implementing a vegetation management
strategy that preserves both its heritage value and characterdefining elements, and the area’s ecosystem.
Developing and implementing a vegetation management
strategy that negatively affects the heritage value and
character-defining elements of the archaeological site,
or the ecosystem of the protected natural area.
8
Protecting and maintaining the character-defining natural
features and environment of an archaeological site, such as
cliffs, hills, shores and viewscapes.
Altering landscape features to maintain the ecosystem,
without considering the effects on the heritage value
of the archaeological site.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
4.2.6
Sites
Underwater
These guidelines provide direction when
an archaeological site is located underwater. Underwater archaeological sites can
be submerged, or in intertidal or wetlands
environments, and include sites as varied
as shipwrecks and their debris fields, intertidal structures, such as fishing weirs or
canoe runs, harbour works, wharves and
submerged landscapes. They also include
archaeological sites on land inundated by
reservoirs or rises in sea level.
Installing permanent boat mooring systems away from the archaeological site’s structures and features is an
excellent way to prevent visitors from mooring and anchoring their boats on a site’s structure, which could
damage the character-defining elements.
Interventions, such as this archaeological excavation
of a Basque period wreck at Red Bay National
Historic Site of Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador,
are documented in many ways such as field notes,
drawings, photographs, as well as videos.
Although found in diverse environments,
these sites are usually partially or wholly
submerged in water, whether by the sea,
lakes, rivers, marshes or bogs. They can
be subjected to cyclical wet–dry exposure
due to tides or other water level fluctuations. Found on a range of substrates, from
rock to soft sediments, sites underwater
can be completely uncovered, buried, or
periodically revealed due to sediment
movement caused by waves and currents.
Some sites are reached easily, while others
are found in deeper water far from shore
and accessible only by diving or other
underwater investigation methods. Like
terrestrial sites, they host a range of
plant and animal life.
Natural environmental factors affect a
site’s condition. Underwater sites usually
settle into equilibrium with their environment, which can foster slow rates of
decay and promote good site preservation
for hundreds, or even thousands of years.
Underwater sites, particularly those buried
by sediment, are particularly rich in organic material, which creates a significant
conservation and preservation challenge.
All underwater archaeological sites can
be damaged, not only by complex and
dynamic natural forces, but also by human
activities, such as construction, dredging, commercial fishing and some forms
of recreational diving and anchoring, as
well as vandalism and looting. Sites, such
as shipwrecks, can retain a high level of
structural integrity similar to a heritage
building on land. In some cases, it is
possible to mitigate naturally induced
deterioration. Non-intrusive approaches
that promote in situ conservation, minimal
intervention and non-intrusive study and
appreciation are recommended.
These guidelines should be used in
conjunction with section 4.2.1,
Archaeological Sites.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
117
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the underwater site and its environment before
any intervention is undertaken, including factors such as water
depth, temperature, salinity, currents and biological activity.
Conducting an intervention without understanding
the underwater site and its environment.
2
Preserving the underwater archaeological resources in situ.
3
Removing artifacts under exceptional circumstances and only after
thorough documentation and surveying have been carried out.
4
Protecting underwater sites from human impacts, such
as marine construction, dredging, log salvage, shoreline
development, anchoring and unauthorized artifact removal.
5
Creating protected zones, where appropriate, to control and
monitor human access and activities.
6
Maintaining and stabilizing environmental conditions to preserve
character-defining elements, where possible and practicable.
Modifying the environmental conditions that contribute
to preserving the site’s character-defining elements.
7
Protecting underwater resources by installing specialized protective
and stabilizing systems; for example, structural reinforcement,
replenishing sand, ballasted tarps, sandbagging, sacrificial anodes
and sediment traps, only after measures are taken to document and
maintain the integrity of the character-defining elements.
Installing specialized protective and stabilizing measures
without prior documenting.
8
Monitoring and maintaining underwater protective and
stabilizing interventions.
Stabilizing underwater sites using methods that damage
their character-defining elements, or failing to monitor
and maintain underwater protective and stabilizing
interventions.
9
Removing flora and fauna only when necessary to protect or
record underwater resources.
Removing flora, such as kelp, or fauna, such as mussels,
from the underwater resources, resulting in the loss of
heritage value.
Failing to protect underwater archaeological sites from
damaging human impacts and unauthorized activities.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
PATHWAYS OR TRAILS
118
10
Preserving and exhibiting the site’s heritage value through
low-impact diving practices using pre-planned trail and
signage systems.
Allowing visitors to access sites with no instruction, code
of practice, preventive signage, or trail system to help
protect the site’s integrity.
11
Protecting submerged archaeological sites from visiting divers
and charter boats, by installing permanent boat mooring systems
independent of the site’s structures or features.
Attaching boat moorings directly to a site’s structure and
anchoring into a site to provide access to visiting divers.
12
Monitoring visitor impact on underwater archaeological sites.
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
4.2.7
Rock Art and
Culturallymodified
Trees
These guidelines provide direction when
an archaeological site includes or consists
of rock art, or culturally-modified trees
(CMTs) that contribute to its heritage
value. Rock art and CMTs are more
susceptible to environmental and human
impacts than most types of archaeological sites because they are often more
exposed and visible. They usually have
a strong association with their natural
surroundings and may be associated with
a local community.
These guidelines should be used
in conjunction with section 4.2.1,
Archaeological Sites.
Rock art, such as this 1847 grave marker at the spiritual site of Merrymakedge Cemetery at Kejimkujik National
Historic Site of Canada in Nova Scotia, should be preserved in situ.
It is recommended to document culturally modified trees, such as these ancient adze marks made by Haida
ancestors, at Bag Harbour, Gwaii Haanas, using non-intrusive methods such as photography and drawings.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
119
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the heritage value of rock art and culturallymodified trees before any intervention is undertaken.
2
Documenting rock art and culturally-modified trees using
non-intrusive methods, such as photography and drawing.
Enhancing faint engravings and paintings by wetting
paintings and chalking engravings to better record the
rock art. This can destroy evidence and make analysis
and dating difficult.
3
Preserving and stabilizing rock art and culturally modified
trees in situ.
Highlighting, repainting or regrooving faded rock art
or adding new images for aesthetic purposes, thus
compromising heritage value.
4
Removing non character-defining graffiti from rock art, as
needed, to preserve the site’s heritage value, only after recording
graffiti and character-defining motifs, and documenting removal.
Removing graffiti to an extent that affects the
heritage value.
5
Avoiding over-cleaning and infilling the damaged spaces within
the character-defining motifs. If the character-defining motifs of
rock art are badly damaged and infill is necessary, it should be
done by qualified individuals, and distinguishable as an addition.
6
Protecting rock art from animals, wind, sunlight, water, natural
growths, such as algae and fungi, and dust. In all cases, a proper
assessment should be undertaken to understand the materials
and natural forces before work begins.
Proceeding with preservation methods against animals,
wind, sunlight, water, natural growths, and dust without
assessing their impact on the rock art’s heritage value.
7
Monitoring the stability of the rock surface, salt and moisture
distribution, and levels of air pollution so that appropriate
measures are taken to protect the rock art.
Proceeding with preservation methods without first
monitoring the stability of the rock surface, salt and
moisture distribution, and levels of air pollution.
8
Protecting and maintaining the surroundings of culturallymodified trees and archaeological rock art sites by regular
maintenance and cleaning by specialized personnel, as required.
Failing to maintain and clean the surroundings of rock art
sites and culturally-modified trees.
9
Protecting and preserving culturally-modified trees in situ.
Removing dead culturally-modified trees or relocating
culturally-modified trees when their preservation in situ
is possible.
10
Protecting and maintaining culturally-modified trees by
monitoring environmental impacts, such as insects, fungi
and water.
Failing to protect and maintain the surroundings of
culturally-modified trees, resulting in loss of information
and inappropriate environmental conditions.
11
Protecting culturally-modified trees by identifying them, using
non-intrusive and non-permanent methods.
Identifying culturally-modified trees, using intrusive
methods that leave visible, permanent traces.
Altering culturally-modified trees; for example,
by regrooving graffiti.
120
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
12
Removing recently deposited dust on rock art for preservation
and rehabilitation purposes.
Removing surface accretions to make rock art more
visible or attractive, when the surface accretions may
contain valuable information.
13
Limiting access to rock art sites and culturally-modified trees
through guided tours and visitor quotas, to control deterioration
from visitor contact.
14
Protecting rock art sites and culturally-modified trees by
installing barriers that allow visual contact. These barriers should
be discreet and removable, and not be supported by
the character-defining elements.
15
Providing effective and simple installations for remote sites to
indicate their importance, such as a visitor registry that explains
the site’s heritage value and provides a place for visitors to
record comments and impressions.
16
Protecting rock art sites and culturally-modified trees by
installing removable structures, pathways, trails and boardwalks
to allow access and viewing. They should be designed to avoid
trampling the site, stirring up dust particles, scratching the rock
surface, and damaging vegetation and rock features
Protecting rock art and culturally-modified trees with an
installation supported by the character-defining elements
that is physically and visually incompatible with the site
and its surroundings, and cannot be removed without
damaging, in part or in whole, the archaeological site.
Installing structures, pathways, trails and boardwalks,
where installation or removal could affect the characterdefining elements.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
121
4.2.8
Culturallysensitive
Places
These guidelines provide direction when
an archaeological site is considered to
be, or is located in, a culturally-sensitive
place. This document defines culturallysensitive places as formally recognized
places that have been given special
meaning by a group or a community.
These places include burial grounds,
above-ground burials, and abandoned
cemeteries, Aboriginal spiritual places,
such as medicine wheels and effigies, and
other sites that may have spiritual value
for a community.
Culturally-sensitive places deserve a
separate section in these guidelines
because their heritage value most often
resides in their cultural, social and
spiritual significance. The heritage value
of culturally sensitive places is not always
proportional to the extent or state of
their physical remains. Therefore, great
sensitivity is required so that conservation
strategies preserve the associated values
of these places, even when there is little
tangible evidence on or in the ground.
These types of archaeological sites can be
found in many contexts, in urban as well
as natural environments.
If human remains are discovered, all activities must stop, and the proper authorities
must be contacted. Any action on human
remains should only be performed according to provincial and territorial legislation and be supported by the affiliated
community.
These guidelines should be used in
conjunction with section 4.2.1,
Archaeological Sites.
Planning archaeological investigations should be done, when appropriate, in consultation with local Elders or
other knowledge keepers.
Preserving relationships with a site, such as
this traditional gathering held at Arvia’juaq and
Qikiqtaarjuk National Historic Site in Nunuvut can
contribute to the site’s heritage value. Access to sites
should be balanced with the need to preserve their
character-defining elements.
122
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the potentially sensitive nature of an archaeological site and its environment, for a group or community,
before any intervention is undertaken.
2
Protecting and preserving the landscape and its natural
features that directly contribute to the site’s heritage value.
3
Recording without disturbance the elements that contribute to
the heritage value in consultation with the affiliated community.
4
Stabilizing the character-defining elements, using methods that
do not affect the site’s heritage value.
5
Working with interested parties, particularly the affiliated
community, to define acceptable activities at a culturally
sensitive place.
6
Preserving the heritage value of a site by enabling a continued
relationship between cultural groups and culturally-sensitive
places, when this relationship contributes to the heritage value
of the site. This includes access and use for rituals, ceremonies
and traditional gatherings, while ensuring measures to
protect heritage value are in place. The need to preserve the
community’s relationship with the place should be balanced with
the need to preserve the character-defining elements.
7
Protecting the archaeological context of burials to preserve
associated information.
8
Removing, when appropriate, human remains with associated
funerary objects and surrounding soil, with the support of the
affiliated community and after documenting their position.
Recording the elements that contribute to the heritage
value, using methods that disregard the sensitive nature
of the sites.
Allowing activities in culturally sensitive places, without
notifying interested parties, resulting in negative impacts
on the heritage value.
Removing human remains without the support of the
affiliated community, and without including information
about context and location, such as soil, position,
funerary objects, etc.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
123
4.3
Guidelines
for Buildings
The historic buildings illustrated on this page are clockwise, from top left: the old Anglican Church in Tulita, Northwest Territories; a stone farmhouse at Minister’s Island
in New Brunswick; the Bloedel Conservatory in Vancouver; and Union Station in Toronto.
4.3
Guidelines
for BUILDINGS
Buildings illustrate the evolution of
Canadian architecture in terms of their
form and setting and their assemblies,
systems and materials. Buildings can
express cultural, regional, local or individual uses, or construction practices, and
embody meanings that evolve over time.
The broad range of buildings that are
considered historic varies from modest
to monumental, ancient to recent, and
private to public. Buildings in a heritage
district, or in a complex of buildings, may
not be formally recognized individually,
but may be recognized as contributing to
the larger historic place. There is no typical historic building. Each is valued for its
own reasons and faces its own challenges.
Buildings can represent identifiable expressions of one or more of the many different cultural, religious or interest groups
that make up Canada’s multicultural
population. They can also be designated
because they demonstrate an appropriate and/or innovative response to their
climate and setting. Often the heritage
value of a building, or group of buildings,
illustrates a specific phase, or various
phases, in the development of a particular
building type, style or aesthetic. Some
buildings are historic places because of
their association with a particular person,
event, theme or achievement.
These guidelines provide general recommendations appropriate to all types of
buildings. However, because buildings
can also be part of cultural landscapes,
engineering works and archaeological
sites, those guidelines should be consulted when appropriate. Also refer to
the Guidelines for Materials that include
traditional as well as modern building
and finishing materials.
A building’s setting can be as important to its interpretation and understanding of a historic place as is the
structure itself. A train station moved away from its tracks is clearly out of context. A lighthouse is equally
connected to its setting. The character-defining elements of the Head Harbour Light Station in New Brunswick
includes all of the 3,000 square metres of the rocky outcropping and two nearby rocks as well as the five
buildings on the site.
Balancing conservation principles and
sustainability objectives
Both heritage conservation and sustainability aim to conserve. In the case of
heritage buildings, this includes considering the inherent performance and durability of their character-defining assemblies, systems and materials, and the minimal
interventions required to achieve the most effective sustainability improvements.
For example, it may be possible to improve the energy efficiency of an historic
building by insulating the attic and basement rather than removing or concealing
character-defining brick or plaster to insulate the walls.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
127
Applying the Guidelines
The Guidelines for Buildings are divided
into three main groups: Form, Assemblies
and Systems. Traditional construction
methods, and the complex assemblies
and systems found in recent heritage
buildings, are both addressed.
Form
Most interventions to an historic building — including interventions to its
architectural assemblies, engineered systems and materials — have some impact
on its overall appearance. This impact is
particularly apparent when constructing
additions or making modifications to the
building form. Two sets of guidelines
are provided to address the impact of
additions and alterations on form: Exterior
Form and Interior Arrangement.
Assemblies
Many building interventions involve
preserving or modifying one or more
architectural assemblies. In these
guidelines, architectural assemblies are
seen as complex elements composed
of distinct parts and materials that
work together to help the building fulfill
its purpose. Assemblies also define a
building’s architectural expression. Five
sets of guidelines address architectural
assemblies: Roofs; Exterior Walls;
Windows, Doors and Storefronts;
Entrances, Porches and Balconies;
and Interior Features.
128
Ongoing maintenance is the simplest, most effective and least glamorous method to ensure the lasting
conservation of buildings. The Hôpital general de Québec built between 1671 and 1692, is a model example
of the result of centuries of appropriate ongoing maintenance.
Systems
Building interventions often involve
adding, removing, replacing or modifying
engineered systems. For the purposes of
these guidelines, engineered systems are
composed of connected elements that
work together to ensure that an historic
place is capable of fulfilling its design or
modified purpose, and/or providing a safe
and comfortable environment. Two sets of
guidelines pertain to systems: Structural
Systems, and Mechanical and Electrical
Systems.
Inherent vice
Inherent vice is an old concern with
a new significance with respect
to recent heritage. It can include
faulty assemblies or details, such as
binding together galvanic materials,
but also experimental materials that
are unable to perform their intended
function over the long term. The
overarching requirement is to conserve the heritage value of an historic
place. Defective details or inappropriate material choices should not be
duplicated when improvements are
possible without significantly affecting the place’s value.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
4.3.1
exterior
form
These guidelines provide direction when
a building’s exterior form is identified as a
character-defining element of an historic
place. They also give direction on how to
minimize the impact of alterations and
additions on the building’s exterior due to
a change in use or regulations.
Exterior form refers to a building’s
orientation, scale, massing, composition, proportions, colour and texture. A
building’s exterior form is also related to
its surroundings, which includes spatial
relationships with adjacent buildings,
plazas or natural features, views, climatic
considerations and circulation for vehicles
and pedestrians.
The exterior form usually expresses ideas
on how to locate and plan a building. The
location, massing, aesthetics, style, plan
form, roof shape and position of entrances
may have responded to orientation, topography or functional requirements. The
interrelationships of site and setting with
broader environmental considerations are
addressed in more detail in the Guidelines
for Cultural Landscapes.
Typical interventions that are addressed
here include large and small additions,
including both building expansions and
smaller interventions, such as stairway,
elevator or mechanical equipment enclosures. Exterior form often has a strong relationship with the Interior Arrangement
of a building, thus the impact on Interior
Arrangement should be considered when
making changes to the exterior form.
These guidelines offer practical advice for
conserving character-defining elements,
such as the size, number, form, proportion
and position of openings, or the form and
articulation of walls and roofs. Specific
guidelines for related assemblies or
systems are found in the Guidelines for
Roofs; Exterior Walls; Windows, Doors
and Storefronts; Entrances, Porches and
Balconies; and Mechanical and Electrical
Systems.
St. Jean Baptiste Church and Rectory are situated on a single, large town lot on Main Street in Morinville, AB.
The church steeple is clearly visible on the landscape and helps convey the Catholic Church’s role in the
settlement of the district.
Undertaking a successful large-scale addition to a
historic place is challenging. For certain buildings with
a distinctive form it may be almost impossible. The
Fraser Octagon House in Tatamagouch, NS is a oneand-a-half storey wood frame structure built to a near
octagonal plan form. A large addition to this unusual
character-defining form would be very challenging.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
129
The relationship
between Exterior
Form and setting
A compatible addition to the rear of the Yukon Sawmill Co. Office provides space for services. If necessary, it
could be removed without affecting the building’s historic fabric. One window opening and the surrounding
wall framing were altered to provide space for a connecting door.
In heritage districts and modern
campus-like landscapes, the exterior
form of buildings often plays an
important role in defining plazas,
open spaces and streetscapes.
Prior to making any changes to
the exterior form of a building, it is
important to understand how the
proposed changes affect the setting
of the historic place. The definition
of setting and its interrelationship
with the broader environment are
addressed in more detail in the
Introduction to the Guidelines for
Cultural Landscapes.
A new rear addition to the Strathcona Public Library in Edmonton respects the primary value on the site — the historic library — while expanding the floor space to better
serve the neighbourhood in the future. The addition is a successful example of meeting requirements for a new addition to be subordinate, distinguishable and compatible.
130
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the exterior form and how it contributes to the
heritage value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the design principles used by the original
designer or builder, and any changes made to the exterior
form over time.
3
Documenting the building’s exterior form before undertaking
an intervention, including the form and massing, and
viewscapes, sunlight and natural ventilation patterns.
4
Assessing the condition of the building’s exterior form early
in the planning process so that the scope of work is based on
current conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining elements of the building’s exterior
form through cyclical or seasonal maintenance work.
6
Retaining the exterior form by maintaining proportions,
colour and massing, and the spatial relationships with adjacent
buildings.
7
Stabilizing deteriorated elements of the exterior form by using
structural reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting
unsafe conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
8
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accidental damage or exposure to damaging materials during
maintenance or repair work.
9
Documenting all interventions that affect the exterior form,
and ensuring that the documentation is available to those
responsible for future interventions.
Undertaking an intervention that affects the building’s
exterior form without first documenting building, site and
setting relationships.
Removing deteriorated elements that could be stabilized
or repaired.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
10
Not Recommended
Reinstating the exterior form by recreating missing, or
revealing obscured parts to re-establish character-defining
proportions and massing.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
131
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Additions or Alterations to the Exterior Form
11
Accommodating new functions and services in non-characterdefining interior spaces as an alternative to constructing a
new addition.
Constructing a new addition when the proposed
functions and services could be accommodated by
altering existing, non-character-defining interior spaces.
12
Selecting a new use that suits the existing building form.
Selecting a use that dramatically alters the exterior form;
for example, demolishing the building structure and
retaining only the street façade(s).
13
Selecting the location for a new addition that ensures that the
heritage value of the place is maintained.
Constructing a new addition that obscures, damages
or destroys character-defining features of the historic
building, such as relocating the main entrance.
14
Designing a new addition in a manner that draws a clear
distinction between what is historic and what is new.
Duplicating the exact form, material, style and detailing
of the original building in a way that makes the
distinction between old and new unclear.
15
Designing an addition that is compatible in terms of materials
and massing with the exterior form of the historic building
and its setting.
Designing a new addition that has a negative impact
on the heritage value of the historic building.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
16
Adding new features to meet health, safety or security
requirements, such as an exterior stairway or a security vestibule
in a manner that respects the exterior form and minimizes
impact on heritage value.
Constructing a new addition to accommodate coderequired stairs or elevators on a highly visible, characterdefining elevation, or in a location that obscures,
damages or destroys character-defining elements.
17
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to the exterior form without first
exploring equivalent health, safety and security systems,
methods or devices that may be less damaging to the
character-defining elements and overall heritage value
of the historic building.
Accessibility Considerations
18
19
132
Finding solutions to meet accessibility requirements that are
compatible with the exterior form of the historic building. For
example, introducing a gently sloped walkway instead of a
constructed ramp with handrails in front of an historic building.
Radically altering the building’s exterior form to comply
with accessibility requirements.
Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and
users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility
issues with the least impact on the character-defining elements
and overall heritage value of the historic building.
Altering character-defining elements, without consulting
the appropriate specialists and users.
Relocating primary entrances when undertaking
interventions to accommodate accessibility-related features.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Sustainability Considerations
20
Adding new features to meet sustainability requirements,
such as solar panels or a green roof, in a manner that respects
the exterior form and minimizes impact on character-defining
elements.
Adding a new feature to meet sustainability requirements
in a location that obscures, damages or destroys characterdefining elements.
21
Working with sustainability and conservation specialists
to determine the most appropriate solution to sustainability
requirements with the least impact on the character-defining
elements and overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to the exterior form, without first
exploring alternative sustainability solutions that may be
less damaging to the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
22
Complying with energy efficiency objectives in a manner that
minimizes impact on the character-defining elements and overall
heritage value of the historic building.
Damaging or destroying character-defining elements
or undermining their heritage value, while making
modifications to comply with energy efficiency objectives.
23
Accommodating functions requiring a controlled environment,
such as artefact storage or exhibits in an addition, while using
the historic building for functions that benefit from existing
natural ventilation and/or daylight.
Introducing new mechanical systems based on airtight
building envelope design in buildings that were designed
to use natural ventilation.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
24
Not Recommended
Reinstating the building’s exterior form from the restoration
period, based on documentary and physical evidence.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
25
Removing a non character-defining feature of the building’s
exterior form, such as an addition built after the restoration
period.
Failing to remove a non character-defining feature of the
building’s exterior form that confuses the depiction of
the building’s chosen restoration period.
Removing a feature from a later period that serves an
important function in the building’s ongoing use,
such as a fire escape.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
26
Recreating missing features of the exterior form that existed
during the restoration period, based on physical or documentary
evidence; for example, duplicating a dormer or restoring a
carport that was later enclosed.
Constructing a feature of the exterior form that was part
of the building’s original design but was never actually
built, or a feature thought to have existed during the
restoration period but for which there is insufficient
documentation.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
133
4.3.2
Interior
Arrangement
These guidelines provide direction when
a building’s interior arrangement is
identified as a character-defining element
of an historic place. They also give direction on how to minimize the impact on
heritage value of additions or alterations
to the building’s interior due to a change
in use or regulations.
Interior arrangement refers to the overall
organization or layout of a building’s
interior spaces, including the configuration
and relationship of rooms and circulation
spaces. These guidelines also apply to
the elements that define the quality of the
interior spaces and arrangement, such as
interior walls, ceilings and floors. Interior
arrangement also relates to the relationship
between a building’s interior design and
use, and its exterior form.
Interior arrangement includes the functional relationships between spaces, such
as the connection between a kitchen and
dining room. It also includes circulation
patterns and layout of rooms, including
their proportions and scale, and planning
associated with a style or period, such as
the open plan and modular proportions of
a modernist office tower interior.
The interior arrangement and planning principles employed in a building are often character defining. When
considering adaptive reuse, it is important to select a new use that is compatible with the existing interior
arrangement such as converting one wing of this convent (Monastère-des Augustines-de-l’Hôtel-Dieu-de-Québec)
into temporary accommodations for the parents of sick children in the hospital.
Having served a number of different denominations
over the years, the Free Meeting House in
Moncton was restored to its earliest, 1821 interior
configuration by following floor marks and other
physical and documented evidence. Missing features
from the selected restoration period were replaced.
134
Changing or reorganizing the way one moves
through a building, such as the Calgary City Hall,
shown here, can greatly affect heritage character.
The procession through a series of spaces, or the
inter-relationship between certain rooms, may be
character defining. This should be considered when
providing space for security desks or when free entry
into certain parts of a building must be prevented.
Every attempt should be made to continue the
original flow of movement.
Some non character-defining interior
features may be replaced without altering
the interior arrangement. For example, a
theatre may still retain its original spatial
arrangement, including balconies and
stage openings, even if the furnishings and
finishes are replaced. More recent interior
interventions may also acquire value.
Typical interventions in an interior arrangement include adaptations to meet contemporary regulations, such as redesigning
a lobby to meet security requirements,
providing universal accessibility, or adding
fire separations and exits. The interior
arrangement often has a strong relationship
with the building’s exterior form, thus the
impact on the exterior form should be considered when making any changes to the
interior arrangement. The deterioration or
loss of interior features can affect the overall
heritage value of an historic building.
These guidelines provide general recommendations appropriate to all types of interior arrangements. For recommendations on
specific architectural assemblies of interiors,
refer to Interior Features. When spatial
relationships are part of an engineering
work, refer also to Functional Arrangement
in the Guidelines for Engineering Works.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the interior arrangement and how it contributes to the heritage value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the planning principles used by the original
designer or builder, and any changes made to the interior
arrangement over time.
3
Documenting the interior arrangement, including the form
and relationship between circulation patterns and interior
spaces, and the condition, interrelationships and evolution of the
elements that define the arrangement, before undertaking an
intervention.
4
Assessing the integrity of the interior arrangement early in the
planning process so that the scope of work is based on
current conditions.
5
Protecting and maintaining elements of the building’s interior
arrangement through cyclical or seasonal maintenance work.
6
Retaining the interior arrangement by maintaining historic
circulation patterns and spatial relationships.
7
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accidental damage, or exposure to damaging materials during
maintenance or repair work.
8
Documenting all interventions that affect the interior
arrangement, and ensuring the documentation is available to
those responsible for future interventions.
Undertaking an intervention that affects the interior
arrangement, without first documenting the existing
arrangement.
Altering the interior arrangement by modifying or
obscuring circulation patterns and spatial relationships.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
135
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
9
Re-establishing the interior arrangement by reinstating missing
or obscured parts of the arrangement, such as removing a drop
ceiling to reveal the proportions of a character-defining space.
10
Designing interior spaces and circulation that are compatible
with the interior arrangement of the historic building.
Not Recommended
Altering or destroying character-defining interior spaces by
inserting floors, lowering ceilings, or adding or removing walls.
Relocating an element related to circulation patterns,
such as a staircase or main entrance, thereby altering the
interrelationship between interior spaces and exterior form.
Additions or Alterations to the interior arrangement
11
Accommodating service functions, such as bathrooms,
mechanical equipment and office machines required by the
building’s new use in non-character-defining spaces, such as
previously undeveloped attics or storage spaces.
12
Designing a new, compatible interior addition in a manner that
draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new.
Duplicating the exact form, material, style and detailing
of interior features, in a manner that makes the
distinction between old and new unclear.
13
Installing permanent partitions in secondary spaces, and
making use of demountable partitions, when subdivision of a
character-defining space is required to accommodate a new use.
Installing permanent partitions that damage or obscure
character-defining spaces.
14
Adding a new floor in a manner that minimizes the impact on
character-defining interior spaces, features and finishes.
Inserting or removing floors in a manner that radically
changes the interior space, or obscures, alters or destroys
the decorative detailing or windows of the building.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
136
15
Adding new features to meet health, safety or security
requirements, such as a fire separation in a lobby or an interior
stairway, in a manner that respects the interior arrangement
and minimizes impact on heritage value.
Constructing a new feature to meet health, safety
and security requirements in a location that obscures,
damages or destroys character-defining elements.
16
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to the interior arrangement without first
exploring equivalent health, safety and security systems,
methods or devices that may be less damaging to the
character-defining elements and overall heritage value
of the historic building.
17
Placing new functional or code-required stairways or security
screening functions in the building’s secondary and service areas.
Radically changing, damaging or destroying characterdefining spaces, features or finishes when adding new
functional or code-required features.
18
Complying with requirements, such as seismic standards, in a
way that minimizes impact on the interior arrangement.
Damaging or destroying character-defining aspects of the
interior arrangement when adding seismic reinforcement.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Accessibility Considerations
19
Respecting the interior arrangement of the building when
locating new accessibility-related features, such as ramps
and lifts.
Radically altering the building’s interior arrangement
or circulation patterns to comply with accessibility
requirements.
20
Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and
users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility
issues with the least impact on the character-defining elements
and overall heritage value of the historic building.
Altering character-defining elements, without consulting
the appropriate specialists and users.
21
Locating public functions strategically to limit changes to the
building. For example, providing new functions for the public on
the ground floor or in areas already served by exits.
Relocating primary entrances or stairways when
undertaking intervention to accommodate accessibilityrelated features.
Sustainability Considerations
22
Adding new features to meet sustainability requirements, in a
manner that respects the interior arrangement and minimizes
impact on character-defining elements.
Adding a new feature to meet sustainability requirements
in a location that obscures, damages or destroys
character-defining elements.
23
Working with sustainability and conservation specialists
to determine the most appropriate solution to sustainability
requirements with the least impact on the character-defining
elements and overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to the interior arrangement, without
first exploring alternative sustainability solutions that
may be less damaging to the character-defining elements
and overall heritage value of the historic building.
24
Retaining or reinstating character-defining aspects of the
interior arrangement which contribute to the historic building’s
inherent sustainability, such as natural daylight and ventilation.
Destroying character-defining interior arrangements to
introduce daylight or ventilation into a space where it
never existed.
25
Accommodating equipment designed to increase energy
efficiency in secondary, non character-defining spaces,
such as service areas.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
137
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
26
Not Recommended
Reinstating the interior arrangement from the restoration
period by reintroducing the layout, circulation patterns and
spatial relationships, based on physical and documentary
evidence.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
27
Removing a non character-defining feature of the building’s
interior arrangement, such as a wall added to subdivide a
character-defining room.
Failing to remove a non character-defining feature of
the building’s interior arrangement that confuses the
depiction of the building’s chosen restoration period.
Removing a feature from a later period that serves an
important function in the building’s ongoing use, such
as an accessible washroom or exit stairway.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
28
138
Recreating a missing feature of the interior arrangement that
existed during the restoration period, based on physical or
documentary evidence.
Constructing a feature of the interior arrangement that
was part of the building’s original design but was never
actually built, or a feature thought to have existed during
the restoration period but for which there is insufficient
documentation.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
4.3.3
roofs
These guidelines provide direction when
a roof or roof element is identified as a
character-defining element of an historic
place. Roof assemblies include both visible elements, such as cupolas, turrets,
cresting, chimneys, gutters, weathervanes,
gables, eaves, parapets, dormers, soffits
and fascias, and components, such as the
cladding, substructure, insulation, vapour
controls, flashing and ventilation, that
are critical in providing a weatherproof
enclosure for the building.
As the most exposed architectural assembly, the roof is vital in protecting the
rest of the building from the weather. A
deteriorated roof can cause catastrophic
damage to interiors and to the building
structure. The roof is also an important
architectural feature that contributes
to a building’s form and aesthetics. The
profile and details of a flat roof may also
be character-defining despite its more
understated appearance compared to a
large hip or gable roof.
The Rehabilitation of the Truro Post Office, in Truro,
NS included restoring its distinctive slate roof. In
Rehabilitation, the replacement of missing historic
features with a replica based on physical and
documentary evidence, as in this project, is acceptable,
as is a new design that is compatible with the
heritage value of the historic place.
When restoring the former post office in Dawson, YK,
the metal roofing surface, which was too deteriorated
to repair, was replaced in kind. Physical evidence
from the restoration period was used as a model to
reproduce the characteristic standing seam detail.
The steep copper roof of the Fort Garry Hotel in Winnipeg is defined by a multitude of small shed- and hip-roofed
dormers, highly elaborate stone dormer facades at the corners, a wealth of pinnacles and large ornate chimneys.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
139
A surviving pressed metal shingle was used as a
prototype for manufacturing replacement shingles
when restoring the main house at the Motherwell
Homestead near Abernathy, SK. In Restoration, repairs
or replacements of extensively deteriorated or missing
parts of features are done in kind, and are based on
physical, documentary and oral evidence.
In order to accommodate new condominium units in the upper floor of this building on Queen Street in
Charlottetown, new dormers were added. In Rehabilitation, the design of new elements should be compatible
with the heritage value of the historic place.
Given the constant exposure to the
environment, roofing materials do not last
indefinitely. While some materials, such
as copper sheeting and slate shingles,
can last for many decades if properly
designed and maintained, other materials,
such as wood and asphalt shingles and
membrane roofing, need to be replaced
more frequently. The need for regular
replacement makes roofs vulnerable to
changes that may affect their heritage
value. Careful attention must be given to
the detailing, pitch, exposure, material and
shape when replacing a roof. Preserving
durable roofing materials will prolong the
building’s service life, sometimes
by decades.
140
These guidelines provide general recommendations appropriate to all types and
shapes of roofs. For recommendations
on form and structural issues related to
roofs, refer to Exterior Form and Structural
Systems, respectively. For specific materials that make up roofs, refer to the
Guidelines for Materials.
It is important to consider the expected life span of
all elements that make up a roof assembly when
repairing or replacing a roof such as this one on
St.Dunstan’s Basilica in Prince Edward Island. Roofing
materials, such as copper and slate, need to be
matched with flashings of a similar life span.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the roof and how it contributes to the heritage
value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the properties and characteristics of the roof as
well as changes and previous maintenance practices.
Failing to consider the impact of previous changes and
maintenance practices on the roof.
3
Documenting the form, materials and condition of roof
assemblies before undertaking an intervention, including the
roof’s pitch, shape, decorative and functional elements, and
materials, and its size, colour and patterning.
Undertaking an intervention that affects characterdefining roofs and roof elements, without first
documenting their existing character and condition.
4
Assessing the condition of the roof assembly and materials
early in the planning process so that the scope of work is based
on current conditions.
5
Determining the cause of a roof’s distress, damage or
deterioration through investigation, monitoring and minimally
invasive or non-destructive testing techniques.
6
Protecting and maintaining a roof by cleaning and maintaining
the gutters, downspouts and flat roof drains, and replacing
deteriorated flashing in kind. Roof sheathing should also be
checked for proper venting to prevent moisture condensation
and water penetration, and to ensure that materials are free
from insect infestation.
Failing to maintain roofs on a cyclical basis.
7
Retaining sound or deteriorated roof assemblies that can
be repaired.
Stripping the roof of sound or repairable characterdefining materials, such as slate, clay tile, wood and
architectural metal.
8
Stabilizing deteriorated roofs by structural reinforcement,
weather protection or correcting unsafe conditions, as required,
until repair work is undertaken.
Removing deteriorated roof elements that could be
stabilized or repaired.
9
Repairing parts of roofs by patching, piecing-in, consolidating,
or otherwise reinforcing, using recognized conservation methods.
Repair may also include the limited replacement in kind, or with
a compatible substitute material, of extensively deteriorated or
missing parts of the roof. Repairs should match the existing work
as closely as possible, both physically and visually.
10
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accidental damage or exposure to damaging materials during
maintenance or repair work.
Failing to replace deteriorated flashing, or to clean and
properly maintain gutters and downspouts and flat roof
drains so that water and debris collect and damage roof
fasteners, sheathing and the underlying structure.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
141
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
11
Recommended
Not Recommended
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
roof assemblies where there are surviving prototypes.
Replacing an entire roof element, such as a dormer, when
limited replacement of deteriorated and missing parts
is possible.
Using a substitute material for the replacement part that
neither conveys the same appearance as the surviving parts
of the roof element, nor is physically or visually compatible.
12
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate
replacement materials, quality of workmanship and methodology.
This can include reviewing samples, testing products, methods or
assemblies, or creating a mock-up. Testing should be carried out
under the same conditions as the proposed intervention.
13
Documenting all interventions that affect the building’s roof,
and ensuring that the documentation is available to those
responsible for future interventions
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
14
Not Recommended
Repairing a roof assembly, including its functional and decorative
elements, by using a minimal intervention approach. Such repairs
might include the limited replacement in kind, or replacement
with an appropriate substitute material, of irreparable or missing
elements, based on documentary or physical evidence.
Replacing an entire roof element, such as a cupola, dormer
or lightning rod, when the repair of materials and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing elements is feasible.
Failing to reuse intact roofing materials when only the
roofing structure or sheathing needs replacement.
15
Improving the detailing of roof elements, following recognized
conservation methods, to correct faulty details. For example,
adjusting the slope of a cornice to prevent ponding, or
introducing a new drip edge at the eave to better direct water
runoff away from a masonry wall. Such improvements should
be physically and visually compatible.
16
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. This can include a large section of roofing, a
dormer, or a chimney. If using the same kind of material is not
technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute
material may be considered.
Removing a roof element 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 or serve the same function.
Replacing missing historic features by designing and constructing
a new roof feature, based on physical and documentary evidence,
or one that is compatible in size, scale, material, style or colour.
Creating a false historical appearance because the
replicated feature is incompatible or based on
insufficient physical and documentary evidence.
17
142
Recommended
Replacing deteriorated roof elements and materials
that are no longer available with physically or visually
incompatible substitutes.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Additions or Alterations to Roofs and Roof Elements
18
19
20
Modifying or replacing a roof or roof element, to accommodate
an expanded program, a new use, or applicable codes and
regulations, in a manner that respects the building’s heritage value.
Constructing an addition that requires removing a
character-defining roof.
Selecting appropriate rooftop mechanical and service equipment
and associated piping and cabling, such as air-conditioning
components, transformers or solar collectors, and installing the
equipment as inconspicuously as possible, while respecting the
building’s heritage value and character-defining elements.
Selecting inappropriate rooftop mechanical or service
equipment, or installing such equipment in a manner that
compromises the building’s heritage value and characterdefining elements.
Designing and constructing additions to roofs, such as access
stairs, elevator or mechanical equipment housing, decks and
terraces, and dormers and skylights that are inconspicuous from
the public right of way and do not damage or obscure characterdefining elements.
Designing and constructing a roof addition that
compromises the building’s character-defining roof
elements, its structural integrity, or its overall appearance.
Changing the configuration of a roof by adding new
elements, such as dormer windows, vents or skylights,
in a manner that negatively affects its heritage value.
Adding significant loads to a roof without assessing the
impact on the building’s structure.
Constructing a rooftop addition that blocks natural light
patterns or important views.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
21
Complying with health and safety requirements, by providing
lightning protection, or snow and ice guards, or roof anchors in
a manner that conserves the roof’s heritage value and minimizes
impact on its character-defining elements.
Damaging or destroying character-defining elements while
making modifications to comply with health and safety
requirements.
22
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to character-defining roofs, without first
exploring equivalent systems, methods or devices that
may be less damaging to the character-defining elements
and heritage value of the historic building.
23
Removing or encapsulating hazardous materials, such as
asbestos insulation, using the least-invasive abatement methods
possible, and only after thorough testing has been conducted.
24
Protecting roofs against loss or damage by identifying
and assessing the specific fire risks, and by implementing an
appropriate fire-protection strategy that addresses those risks.
Covering flammable character-defining elements with
fire-resistant sheathing or coatings that alter their
appearance.
Replacing wood roof elements with alternate materials,
without carefully considering other options for reducing
fire spread.
Failing to take proper fire protection precautions when
using a technique that could endanger the building, such
as applying membranes on wood roofs using heat.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
143
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Sustainability Considerations
144
25
Complying with energy efficiency objectives in upgrades to the
roof assembly in a manner that respects the building’s characterdefining elements, and considers the energy efficiency of the
building envelope and systems as a whole.
Damaging or destroying character-defining elements
while making modifications to comply with energy
efficiency requirements.
26
Working with energy efficiency and sustainability specialists
to determine the most appropriate solution to energy efficiency
and sustainability requirements with the least impact on the
character-defining elements and overall heritage value of the
historic building.
Making changes to the roof assembly, without first
exploring alternative sustainability solutions that may be
less damaging to the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
27
Exercising caution and foreseeing the potential effects of
insulating the roof on the building envelope to avoid damaging
changes, such as displacing the dew point and creating thermal
bridges, or increasing the snow load.
Installing insulation without anticipating its potential
impact on the building envelope.
28
Installing thermal insulation in non-character-defining roof
spaces, such as attics, without adversely affecting the building
envelope.
Installing insulation in habitable attic spaces without
considering its effect on character-defining interior
features such as mouldings.
29
Ensuring that structural, drainage and access requirements
to improve the roof’s energy efficiency can be met without
damaging character-defining elements.
30
Assessing the addition of vegetated roof systems (green roofs)
or storm water cisterns to flat-roof assemblies, and their impact
on the building’s heritage value and structural integrity, before
work begins.
Inserting thermal insulation in roof assemblies, without
providing appropriate vapour barriers or ventilation.
Adding a vegetated or reflective membrane roof system
that might compromise the building’s heritage value
or its structural integrity.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
31
Repairing a roof assembly from the restoration period by
reinforcing its materials.
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 is possible.
32
Replacing in kind an entire roof feature from the restoration
period that is too deteriorated to repair, using the physical
evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. The new work
should be well documented and unobtrusively dated to guide
future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable roof feature from the restoration
period and not replacing it, or replacing it with an
inappropriate new roof feature.
Reinstating a roof detail that is damaging to characterdefining elements.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
33
Removing or altering a non character-defining roof or roof
element, such as a later dormer or asphalt roofing, dating from a
period other than the restoration period.
Failing to remove a non character-defining roof or roof
element from another period that confuses the depiction
of the building’s chosen restoration period.
34
Retaining alterations to roof assemblies that address problems
with the original design if those alterations do not have a
negative impact on the building’s heritage value.
Removing a roof element from a later period that serves
an important function in the building’s ongoing use, such
as a skylight for natural daylight, or a vent for natural
ventilation.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
35
Recreating a missing roof element that existed during the
restoration period, based on physical or documentary evidence;
for example, reinstating a dormer or cupola.
Constructing a roof element that was part of the
building’s original design, but never actually built, or
constructing a feature thought to have existed during
the restoration period, but for which there is insufficient
documentation.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
145
4.3.4
Exterior
Walls
These guidelines provide direction when
exterior walls and their elements are
identified as character-defining elements
of an historic place. Exterior walls include
foundation walls, structural masonry or
log walls, and wood, concrete or steel
framing with an exterior cladding, such as
curtain-wall systems. The guidelines also
provide direction on how to minimize the
negative impact of additions or alterations
on exterior walls.
Because they are largely below the surface, foundations are often dismissed as not contributing to a building’s
heritage character. However, it is important to remember that heritage value is not only found in what can be
seen. Construction methods, materials and techniques can all be character defining, as is the case for the
Grange Alexander-Salomon-Wallbridge in Quebec.
Log, stone and concrete foundations are visually and functionally very different. The decision to repair, replace
in kind or rehabilitate a foundation should be determined by both the condition of the foundation and its
compatibility with the heritage values of the place.
146
Exterior walls perform many functions,
including those of structure, weatherproofing, thermal protection, daylight control
and ventilation. Traditional load-bearing
walls, such as log or masonry walls,
perform all of these functions in a single
composition. Later, the development of
frame-based structural systems led to the
separation of these functions. In modern
buildings, components, such as cladding,
air barriers and insulation, are combined
to create a complex exterior wall assembly. These components act both independently and as a whole; consequently,
there may be specific conservation issues
associated with the materials concealed
in the core or cavity of the assembly.
A modern building envelope includes multiple materials,
such as a concrete structure, metal curtain wall
mullions and glazed panels. Each of these materials
ages differently and reacts in its own way to stresses,
heat and cold. For a face-sealed curtain wall like this
one, it is important to select sealants that make the
assembly weathertight and that are compatible with
all the materials with which they come into contact.
Sealant materials generally have a shorter service life
than adjacent materials and will eventually fail due to
exposure to weather, stress and age. Regularly replacing
appropriate sealants is an important part of building
maintenance.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
When frame-based cladding and curtain
walls were developed, air and vapour
barriers were introduced, as well as
mechanical heating, ventilating and
air conditioning (HVAC) systems that
changed the thermal and moisture conditions in the walls. Changes to existing
HVAC systems, or introducing mechanical
systems in buildings where the walls were
designed without insulation or air barriers,
often led to the deterioration of exterior
wall assemblies. It is, therefore, important
to understand how the exterior wall
relates to the building systems.
Curtain wall systems present a range of
new conservation challenges, because
they were the result of an era of experimentation in structures and materials,
and predate higher standards for energy
efficiency. Their conservation should be
examined on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account the heritage value of the
design and the actual conditions and
causes of deterioration, while planning for
extended or improved performance.
These guidelines provide general recommendations appropriate to all types of
exterior walls. For recommendations on
associated issues related to walls, refer
to the individual guidelines for Exterior
Form; Windows, Doors and Storefronts;
and Structural Systems. For specific materials that make up exterior walls, refer
to the Guidelines for Materials.
New signs (top right) should be compatible with the building in terms of size, scale, material, style and colour.
They should also not obscure, damage or destroy character-defining elements. In some cases, as Mel’s Tea
Room in Sackville, NB (left), signs added later become character-defining elements in their own right. Character
defining signage should also be maintained despite a change in use, such as this painted sign for
the Hartt Boot and She Factory in Fredericton (bottom right), which has been converted into apartments.
Responding to the dangers of arctic exploration and
the loss of the Franklin Expedition, Kellett’s Storehouse
in Nunuvut was built in 1853 for sailors in distress.
Constructed from local stone, it was filled with enough
provisions to maintain a large group for several
months. Conserving building remains or above-ground
archaeological resources pose unique challenges. In
this case, the walls and foundations were stabilized
and an insulated floor was installed allowing
remaining soil layers and associated artifacts to be
left in place while being protected from theft and
further exposure to the elements.
The impact of adding insulation to an exterior wall
assembly that was not historically insulated should be
carefully considered, including by measurement of the
current performance of the wall and energy modelling
the performance of different approaches. Adding
insulation on the exterior or interior of solid masonry
or log walls may impact on heritage character and
lead to deterioration of the wall, if not based on
a through understanding of the wall’s physical
characteristics and context, including its exposure
to air, water and vapour pressures. Any changes to
an exterior wall should be based on the building
envelope science for the type of historic assembly.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
147
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
148
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the exterior walls and how they contribute to
the heritage value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the properties and characteristics of the
exterior walls as well as changes and previous maintenance
practices.
Failing to consider the impact of previous changes to the
exterior wall assembly, such as the addition of insulation
and vapour barriers, or new heating or cooling systems.
3
Documenting the composition, form, materials, details,
dimensions and condition of exterior wall assemblies before
undertaking an intervention. This includes geometry, scale,
proportions, openings, form and supporting frames or structures.
Undertaking an intervention that affects exterior wall
assemblies without first documenting their existing
character and condition.
4
Assessing the condition of wall assemblies and their materials
early in the planning process so that the scope of work is based
on current conditions.
5
Determining the cause of distress, damage or deterioration of
exterior walls through investigation, monitoring and minimally
invasive or non-destructive testing techniques.
6
Protecting and maintaining exterior walls by cleaning and
repairing damaged materials, and checking exterior wall
assemblies for moisture penetration and insect infestation,
taking corrective action, as necessary and as soon as possible.
7
Retaining sound or deteriorated exterior wall assemblies that
can be repaired.
8
Stabilizing deteriorated exterior walls by using structural
reinforcement, weather protection, or correcting unsafe
conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
9
Repairing parts of exterior walls by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing, using recognized
conservation methods. Repair may also include the limited
replacement in kind, or with a compatible substitute material,
of extensively deteriorated or missing parts of the exterior wall
assembly. Repairs should match the existing work as closely as
possible, both physically and visually.
10
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accidental damage or exposure to damaging materials during
maintenance or repair work.
Failing to maintain exterior walls on a cyclical basis.
Failing to correct causes of deterioration of the exterior
wall assembly, such as failed sealants.
Removing deteriorated exterior wall elements that could
be stabilized or repaired.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
11
Recommended
Not Recommended
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
exterior wall assemblies where there are surviving prototypes.
Replacing an entire exterior wall assembly when only
limited replacement of deteriorated and missing parts
is possible.
Using a substitute material for the replacement part
that neither conveys the same appearance as the
surviving parts of the element, nor is physically or
visually compatible.
12
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate
replacement materials, quality of workmanship and
methodology. This can include reviewing samples, testing
products, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock-up.
Testing should be carried out under the same conditions
as the proposed intervention.
13
Documenting all interventions that affect the exterior walls,
and ensuring that the documentation is available to those
responsible for future interventions.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
14
15
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing an exterior wall assembly, including its functional
and decorative elements, by using a minimal intervention
approach. Such repairs might include the limited replacement in
kind, or replacement using an appropriate substitute material
of irreparable or missing elements, based on documentary
or physical evidence. Repairs might also include dismantling
and rebuilding a masonry or wood wall, if an evaluation of its
overall condition determines that more than limited repair or
replacement in kind is required.
Over-cladding a deteriorated or poorly insulated exterior
wall with a new material or assembly, without considering
the impact on heritage value or the condition of
underlying materials.
Improving the drying ability of exterior wall assemblies through
suitable heating and/or ventilation measures.
Damaging the masonry of an exterior wall by drilling
drainage holes into the masonry units or into the joints,
with a drill bit wider than the mortar joints.
Replacing an entire exterior wall assembly when the
repair and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing
elements is feasible.
Failing to reuse intact cladding when only the internal
parts of the wall assembly need replacement.
Introducing a vapour barrier in an exterior wall that
was constructed to be permeable or breathable.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
149
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
16
Accommodating the thermal expansion and contraction of
masonry, concrete and curtain wall assemblies, by introducing
expansion or control joints, and incorporating those joints into
existing crack patterns, where feasible, to minimize impact on
character-defining elements.
Filling moving cracks or expansion joints in exterior wall
assemblies with materials that inhibit or prevent thermal
expansion and contraction.
17
Replacing in kind an irreparable exterior wall assembly, based
on documentary and physical evidence. If using the same kind
of material is not environmentally sound, or technically or
economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material
may be considered.
Removing an irreparable exterior wall assembly, such as
a cornice or brise-soleil, and not replacing it, or replacing
it with a new element that does not convey the same
appearance or serve the same function.
Replacing missing historic features by designing and
constructing a new portion of the exterior wall assembly, based
on physical and documentary evidence, or one that is compatible
in size, scale, material, style and colour.
Creating a false historical appearance, because the
replicated feature is incompatible or based on insufficient
physical and documentary evidence.
18
Replacing deteriorated elements and materials in curtain
wall assemblies that are no longer available, with
physically and visually incompatible substitutes.
Additions or Alterations to Exterior Walls
19
Modifying exterior walls to accommodate an expanded
program, a new use, or applicable codes and regulations,
in a manner that respects the building’s heritage value.
20
Designing a new addition in a manner that preserves the
character-defining exterior walls of the historic building.
Constructing an addition that requires the removal of
character-defining exterior walls.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
150
21
Complying with health, safety and security requirements in a
manner that conserves the heritage value of the exterior wall
assembly and minimizes impact on its character-defining elements.
Damaging or destroying elements while making
modifications to comply with health, safety or security
requirements.
22
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to exterior walls, without first exploring
equivalent systems, methods or devices that may be
less damaging to character-defining elements and the
heritage value of the historic building.
23
Removing or encapsulating toxic materials, using the leastinvasive abatement methods possible, and only after thorough
testing has been conducted.
24
Protecting exterior walls against loss or damage by identifying and
assessing specific risks, and by implementing an appropriate fireprotection and blast protection strategy that addresses those risks.
Covering flammable character-defining walls with
fire-resistant sheathing or coatings that alter their
appearance.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Sustainability Considerations
25
Complying with energy efficiency objectives in upgrades to
exterior wall assemblies in a manner that respects the building’s
character-defining elements, and considers the energy efficiency
of the building envelope and systems as a whole.
Changing the composition or materials of the exterior
wall assembly in a manner that compromises the
building’s character-defining elements and the durability
of its materials.
Replacing single pane glazing with sealed thermal units,
without considering the impact on interrelated elements,
such as curtain wall connections.
26
Assessing the potential impacts of adding insulation to the
building envelope, such as displacing the dew point and
creating thermal bridges.
Inserting thermal insulation in exterior wall cavities, in
attics, and in unheated cellars and crawl spaces, that
might adversely affect the building’s envelope and
character-defining elements.
Installing insulation on the inside of exterior walls
without considering the effect on character-defining
interior mouldings or detailing.
27
Working with energy efficiency specialists to determine the
most appropriate solution to energy efficiency requirements with
the least impact on the character-defining elements and overall
heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to the exterior walls, without first
exploring alternative energy efficiency solutions that may
be less damaging to the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
151
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
28
Repairing an exterior wall assembly from the restoration period
by reinforcing its materials; for example, using heavier gauge
metal to reinforce a mullion in a curtain wall.
Replacing an entire exterior wall assembly from the
restoration period when the repair of materials and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
29
Replacing in kind an entire exterior wall assembly from the
restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair, using the
physical evidence as a model to reproduce the assembly. The
new work should be well documented and unobtrusively dated
to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable exterior wall assembly from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it
with an inappropriate exterior wall assembly.
Reinstating an exterior wall detail that is damaging to
adjacent character-defining elements.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
30
Removing or altering a non character-defining exterior wall
assembly or element from a period other than the restoration
period.
Failing to remove a non character-defining exterior wall
assembly or element from another period that confuses
the depiction of the building’s chosen restoration period.
31
Retaining alterations to exterior wall assemblies that address
problems with the original design, if those alterations do not
have a negative impact on the building’s heritage value.
Removing an exterior wall assembly or element from
a later period that serves an important function in the
building’s ongoing use.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
32
152
Recreating a missing exterior wall assembly from the
restoration period, based on physical or documentary evidence.
Constructing an exterior wall assembly that was part
of the building’s original design, but was never actually
built, or constructing a feature thought to have existed
during the restoration period, but for which there is
insufficient documentation.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
4.3.5
Windows,
Doors and
Storefronts
These guidelines provide direction when
windows, doors or storefronts are identified as character-defining elements of an
historic place. They also give direction on
how to minimize the impact of introducing
a new element, or changing existing noncharacter-defining windows, doors and
storefronts in an historic building.
The character-defining form and features of the Byrnes
Block storefronts in Gastown, Vancouver, including
their large plate-glass display windows with multipane transom windows above and recessed central
doorways, have been retained through Preservation.
The windows of the Aberdeen Pavilion in Ottawa, a building that is valued as an example of a large-scale
exhibition structure from the 19th century, include monitor windows at the top of the curved roof structure to
provide daylight to the wide open space from above. Preservation of the character-defining wood windows
involved scraping, sanding, re-puttying and repainting. While some replacement in kind was undertaken, almost
all the original windows were retained, including the glass. Wholesale replacement of window units is not an
appropriate Preservation treatment.
Doors are often targets for replacement because of
security, energy efficiency or fire separation needs.
Often it is possible to meet all these needs while
retaining a historic door. Adding weather stripping
can contribute greatly to a door’s efficiency. Modern
locks and locking mechanisms can often be installed
with little damage. The fire rating of a solid wood
door may meet certain code requirements.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
153
Windows and doors range from traditional
wood and steel assemblies to modern
sealed units, skylights, conservatories and
revolving doors. They also come with a
wide range of functional and decorative
components, including frames, sashes,
muntins, stained glass, glazing, hardware,
sills, hoodmoulds, panelled or decorated
jambs and mouldings, and interior and
exterior shutters.
Windows, doors and storefronts are among
the most conspicuous of any building’s
features. They punctuate the façade or,
in the case of curtain wall construction,
are integral to the exterior wall assembly.
In addition to their function — providing
light, views, fresh air and access to the
building — their arrangement and design is
fundamental to the building’s appearance
and heritage value. Each window, door or
storefront is, in itself, a complex assembly
whose function and operation must be
considered as part of its conservation.
While rehabilitating the Lougheed Building in Calgary, the windows in the best condition were repaired and
consolidated on the lower levels where they were most visible from the street. New windows based on the
existing were specially constructed for the upper levels. The location and reuse of the windows was carefully
and clearly documented both for construction purposes and for future reference.
Windows and doors are vulnerable to wear
and tear, changing tastes and functional requirements. The ongoing need for
maintenance and upgrades can, however,
motivate interventions that can have a
negative impact on their heritage value.
Often, windows and doors are replaced
with newer units that have a much
shorter service life, in the name of energy
efficiency.
Storefronts often provide display space
and are susceptible to rapidly changing commercial requirements. They are
included in this section along with their
functional and decorative features, such
as windows, doors, transoms, cornices,
corner posts, awnings, signs and lighting.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for windows, doors and storefronts. For recommendations on related
issues, refer to the individual guidelines
for Exterior Form and Mechanical and
Electrical Systems. For materials that
make up these assemblies, refer to the
Guidelines for Materials.
154
The Leopold Roy House in Saint-Quentin NB is a good
example of a window, door and storefront restoration.
Based on photographic and physical evidence, the
original finishes and designs were uncovered and
repaired or replaced in kind.
These large windows on King Street in St.John were
originally slated for removal and replacement as
part of the CentreBeam Place rehabilitation project.
Instead, a condition revealed that the original
windows could be retained and repaired, with the
addition of interior storm to meet energy efficiency
requirements.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding windows, doors and storefronts and how they
contribute to the heritage value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the properties, operation and characteristics
of the windows, doors and storefronts as well as changes
and previous maintenance practices.
Failing to consider the impact of previous changes and
maintenance practices, such as sealed windows or the
removal of awnings or sunshades.
3
Documenting the form, materials and condition of windows,
doors and storefronts, and their elements, before undertaking an
intervention. This includes the configuration, style, method
of operation and materials.
Undertaking an intervention that affects windows, doors
and storefronts without first documenting their existing
character and condition.
4
Assessing the condition of windows, doors and storefronts,
including hardware, early in the planning process so that the
scope of work is based on current conditions.
5
Determining the cause of distress, damage, or deterioration of
windows, doors and storefronts through investigation, monitoring,
and minimally invasive or non-destructive testing techniques.
6
Protecting and maintaining windows, doors and storefronts
by using appropriate surface treatments, such as cleaning, rust
removal, limited paint removal, and reapplying protective coating
systems in kind.
7
Making windows, doors and storefronts weather tight and
energy efficient by re-puttying and replacing or installing
weatherstripping, adjusting hardware, and sealing openings
and joints.
8
Retaining sound and repairable windows, doors and
storefronts, including their functional and decorative elements,
such as hardware, signs and awnings.
Removing or replacing windows, doors and storefronts that
can be repaired. Peeling paint, broken glass, stuck sashes,
loose hinges or high air infiltration are not, in themselves,
indications that these assemblies are beyond repair.
9
Stabilizing deteriorated windows, doors and storefronts by
using structural reinforcement, and weather protection, or
correcting unsafe conditions, as required, until repair work
is undertaken.
Adding protective glazing or exterior storms to stained
glass elements, without the involvement of a specialist
conservator.
10
Repairing parts of windows, doors, or storefronts, by patching,
piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing, using
recognized conservation methods. Repair may also include the
limited replacement in kind, or with a compatible substitute
material, of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of windows, doors and storefronts. Repairs should match the
existing work as closely as possible, both physically and visually.
Failing to adequately maintain windows, doors and
storefronts on a regular basis.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
155
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
11
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accidental damage, or exposure to damaging materials during
maintenance or repair work.
12
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of windows, doors and storefronts, where there are surviving
prototypes.
Not Recommended
Replacing an entire functional or decorative element, such
as a shutter with a broken louver, or a door with a missing
hinge, when only limited replacement of deteriorated or
missing part is possible.
Using a substitute material for the replacement part that
neither conveys the same appearance as the surviving parts
of the element, nor is physically or visually compatible.
13
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate
replacement materials, quality of workmanship and
methodology. This can include reviewing samples, testing
products, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock-up.
Testing should be carried out under the same conditions as
the proposed intervention.
14
Documenting all interventions that affect the building’s
windows, doors and storefronts, and ensuring that the
documentation is available to those responsible for future
interventions.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
15
16
17
156
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing windows, doors and storefronts by using a minimal
intervention approach. Such repairs might include the limited
replacement in kind, or replacement with an appropriate
substitute material, of irreparable or missing elements, based
on documentary or physical evidence.
Replacing an entire window, door or storefront when the
repair of materials and limited replacement of deteriorated
or missing elements is feasible.
Replacing in kind irreparable windows, doors or storefronts
based on physical and documentary evidence. If using the same
materials and design details is not technically or economically
feasible, then compatible substitute materials or details may
be considered.
Removing an irreparable window, door or storefront and not
replacing it, or replacing it with a new one that does not
convey the same appearance or serve the same function.
Replacing missing historic features by designing and installing
new windows, doors and storefronts based on physical and
documentary evidence, or one that is compatible in size, scale,
material, style and colour.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
window, door or storefront is incompatible, or based on
insufficient physical and documentary evidence.
Failing to reuse serviceable hardware, such as sash lifts
and sash locks, hinges and doorknobs.
Stripping storefronts of character-defining materials or
covering over those materials.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
18
Designing and constructing a new window, door or storefront
when it is completely missing, with a new design that is
compatible with the style, era and character of the historic place,
or a replica based on documentary evidence.
Changing the number, location, size, or configuration of
windows, doors and storefronts, by cutting new openings,
blocking in existing openings, or installing replacement
units that do not fit the opening.
19
Using signs, awnings, canopies or marquees of a scale and
design that is compatible with the historic building.
Introducing a new design that is incompatible in size,
scale, material, style or colour.
Additions or Alterations to Windows, Doors and Storefronts
20
Designing and installing new windows, doors or storefronts
required by a new use on non-character-defining elevations
in a manner that is compatible with the building’s style,
era and character.
Installing new windows, doors or storefronts that are
incompatible with the building’s style, era and character,
or that obscure, damage or destroy character-defining
elements.
21
Providing a setback in the design of drop ceilings, when
required, to allow for full height window openings.
Inserting new floors or drop ceilings that cut across
windows openings, changing the interior and exterior
appearance of the building, and reducing access
to daylight.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
22
Complying with health, safety and security requirements in a
manner that conserves the heritage value of the windows, doors
and storefronts and minimizes impact on its character-defining
elements.
Damaging or destroying elements while making
modifications to comply with health, safety and security
requirements.
23
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to windows, doors or storefronts
without first exploring equivalent health, safety and
security systems, methods or devices that may be less
damaging to the character-defining elements of the
historic building.
24
Removing or encapsulating hazardous materials, such as
lead-based paint, using the least-invasive abatement methods
possible, and only after thorough testing has been conducted.
25
Protecting windows, doors or storefronts against loss or
damage by identifying and assessing specific risks, and by
implementing an appropriate fire protection strategy that
addresses those risks. For example, replacing a character-defining
wood door with a compatible fire-rated door, only after carefully
considering other options.
Implementing a generic fire-protection strategy, or one
that does not appropriately address the specific fire risks
of the historic building.
Covering flammable, character-defining elements with
fire-resistant sheathing or coatings that alter their
appearance.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
157
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Accessibility Considerations
26
Complying with accessibility requirements in a manner
that conserves, where possible, character-defining doors and
storefronts, including their decorative and operating hardware. This
can include using an automatic door opener instead of providing
the required manoeuvring space for wheelchairs at doors.
Installing new hardware that damages character-defining
doors and mouldings without considering alternate
means of meeting accessibility requirements
27
Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and
users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility
issues with the least impact on the character-defining elements
and overall heritage value of the historic building.
Altering character-defining windows, doors and
storefronts without consulting the appropriate specialists
and users.
Sustainability Considerations
158
28
Complying with energy efficiency objectives in upgrades to
character-defining doors, windows and storefronts by installing
weather-stripping, storm windows, interior shades and, if
historically appropriate, blinds and awnings. The energy efficiency
of the building envelope and systems as a whole should be
considered.
Replacing character-defining, multi-paned sashes with
new thermal sashes with false muntins.
29
Working with specialists to determine the most appropriate
solution to energy efficiency requirements with the least impact
on the character-defining elements and overall heritage value of
the historic building.
Making changes to windows, doors or storefronts
without first exploring alternative energy efficiency
solutions that may be less damaging to the characterdefining elements and overall heritage value of the
historic building.
30
Maintaining the building’s inherent energy-conserving features
in good operating condition, such as operable windows or
louvered blinds for natural ventilation.
Replacing repairable windows with new ones, without
evaluating the performance and remaining service life
of the existing windows.
31
Installing interior storm windows where original windows are
character-defining and exterior storms are inappropriate.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
32
Repairing windows, doors and storefronts from the restoration
period, using a minimal intervention approach, such as patching,
splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing their materials
and improving weather protection.
Replacing an entire window, door or storefront from the
restoration period, when the repair of materials and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
33
Replacing in kind an entire window, door or storefront from
the restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair, using
the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the assembly. The
new work should be well documented and unobtrusively dated
to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable window, door or storefront and
not replacing it, or replacing it with an inappropriate
window, door or storefront.
Reinstating a window, door or storefront detail that is
damaging to character-defining elements.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
34
Removing or altering non character-defining windows, doors or
storefronts, or their associated functional or decorative elements,
from a period other than the restoration period.
Failing to remove a non character-defining window,
door or storefront from another period that confuses the
depiction of the building’s chosen restoration period.
35
Retaining alterations to windows, doors or storefronts that
address problems with the original design, if those alterations do
not have a negative impact the building’s heritage value.
Removing a window, door or storefront from a later
period that serves an important function in the building’s
ongoing use, such as an emergency exit door.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
36
Recreating a missing window, door or storefront from the
restoration period, based on physical or documentary evidence.
Installing a window, door or storefront that was part
of the building’s original design, but was never actually
built, or constructing a feature thought to have existed
during the restoration period, but for which there is
insufficient documentation.
37
Recreating missing signage, awnings or canopies where
sufficient physical or documentary evidence exists, and the
building’s current use allows.
Installing signs, awnings, canopies or marquees, for
which there is insufficient physical or documentary
evidence.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
159
4.3.6
Entrances,
Porches and
Balconies
These guidelines provide direction when
entrances, porches and balconies are
identified as a character-defining element
of an historic place. Lobbies, vestibules,
stairs, canopies, verandas, overhangs,
widow’s walks and pergolas, and their
decorative and functional elements, such
as pilasters, entablatures, fire escapes,
lights and balustrades are also included,
as well as features that allow access to the
building by car, such as a drive-through,
ramp, canopy or carport.
In Rehabilitation, deteriorated features should be repaired, whenever possible, and replaced when the severity
of the damage makes it necessary. The stone steps of this house entrance were cracked. Appropriate work
included repairing the stone steps and walls and installing a compatible metal handrail to meet building
code requirements.
160
Entrances, porches and balconies
contribute to a building’s aesthetic and
retain heat, block sun, or provide natural
ventilation. Because entrances, porches
and balconies are exposed to the elements, they require regular maintenance.
Modifications may also be needed due
to new functional requirements, code
compliance, or accessibility. The addition
of a new ramp or security clearance area
are common interventions that may affect
the layout and functional configuration
of both the interior and exterior of an
entranceway.
Porches, such as this portico on the old Bonsecours
Market in Montreal (built 1844–1847) with its striking
Greek Doric cast iron columns, can play a significant
role in defining a building’s character. Maximizing the
retention of character-defining elements, including the
portico, was the primary conservation objective when
the building was rehabilitated into a municipal offices,
exhibition spaces and restaurants.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
The guidelines address these types of
projects and provide general recommendations appropriate to all types of
entrances, porches and balconies. For
recommendations on associated issues, refer to the individual guidelines
for Interior Arrangement; Roofs; Doors,
Windows and Storefronts; Exterior Walls;
and Structural Systems. For recommendations on specific materials that make up
entrances, porches and balconies, refer to
the Guidelines for Materials.
In Restoration, reinstating the historic paint colours from the restoration period should be based on physical or
documentary evidence such as on-site paint analysis and colour photographs.
The curved, ornate metal canopy extending over
the sidewalk at the Maltese Cross Building in
Winnipeg’s Exchange District clearly marks one of
the buildings main entrances. Not using this entrance
or establishing a new primary entrance in a different
location would be inappropriate.
Adding a ramp to meet accessibility requirements should be designed to be compatible with a building’s
character. This new ramp at Province House in Charlottetown was discretely integrated into one side of an
existing entrance porch.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
161
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
162
Not Recommended
1
Understanding entrances, porches or balconies and how they
contribute to the heritage value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the functions, properties and characteristics
of entrances, porches and balconies, as well as changes and
previous maintenance practices.
Failing to consider the impact of previous changes and
maintenance practices, such as the removal of an awning
or porch.
3
Documenting the form, materials and condition of entrances,
porches and balconies before undertaking an intervention.
Undertaking an intervention that affects entrances,
porches and balconies without first documenting their
existing character and condition.
4
Assessing the condition of entrances, porches and balconies
early in the planning process so that the scope of work is
based on current conditions.
5
Determining the cause of distress, damage or deterioration
of entrances, porches and balconies through investigation,
monitoring and minimally invasive or non-destructive
testing techniques.
6
Protecting and maintaining entrances, porches and balconies,
by using appropriate surface treatments, such as cleaning, rust
removal, limited paint removal, and reapplying protective coating
systems in kind.
Failing to maintain paint and coatings, to replace
damaged flashings, and to prevent the growth of plants
and access by animals.
7
Retaining sound or repairable entrances, porches and balconies
and their functional and decorative elements.
Removing sound or repairable elements, such as
decorative woodwork, wrought iron detailing,
or terra cotta tile.
8
Stabilizing deteriorated entrances, porches and balconies by
structural reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting
unsafe conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
Removing deteriorated entrances, porches or balconies
that could be stabilized or repaired.
9
Repairing parts of entrances, porches or balconies by patching,
piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing, using
recognized conservation methods. Repair might also include
the limited replacement in kind, or with a compatible substitute
material, of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
entrances, porches and balconies. Repairs should match the
existing work as closely as possible, both physically and visually.
10
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accidental damage or exposure to damaging materials during
maintenance or repair work.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
11
Recommended
Not Recommended
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of entrances, porches or balconies where there are surviving
prototypes.
Replacing an entire functional or decorative element
when limited replacement of deteriorated and missing
parts is possible.
Using a substitute material for the replacement part that
neither conveys the same appearance as the surviving
element, nor is physically or visually compatible.
12
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate
replacement materials, quality of workmanship and methodology.
This can include, reviewing samples, testing products, methods or
assemblies, or creating a mock-up. Testing should be carried out
under the same conditions as the proposed intervention.
13
Documenting all interventions that affect the building’s
entrances, porches and balconies, and ensuring the
documentation is available to those responsible for
future interventions.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
14
Repairing an entrance, porch or balcony by using a minimal
intervention approach. Such repairs might include the limited
replacement in kind, or replacement with an appropriate
substitute material, of irreparable or missing elements, based on
documentary or physical evidence.
Replacing an entire entrance, porch or balcony when the
repair of materials and limited replacement of deteriorated
or missing elements is feasible.
15
Replacing in kind an irreparable entrance, porch or balcony
based on physical and documentary evidence. If using the same
materials and design details is not technically or economically
feasible, then compatible substitute materials or details may
be considered.
Removing an irreparable entrance, porch or balcony
and not replacing it, or replacing it with a new one
that does not convey the same appearance or serve
the same function.
16
Replacing missing historic features by designing and
constructing a new entrance, porch or balcony, based on physical
and documentary evidence, or one that is compatible in size,
scale, material, style or colour.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
entrance, porch or balcony is incompatible, or based on
insufficient physical and documentary evidence.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
163
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Additions or Alterations to Entrances, Porches and Balconies
17
Modifying, replacing or designing a new entrance, porch
or balcony required by a new use or applicable codes and
regulations, in a manner that is compatible with the
building’s style, era and character.
Altering a secondary entrance to give it the appearance
of a main entrance.
Enclosing a porch or balcony in a manner that has a
negative impact on the building’s heritage value.
Removing character-defining entrances, porches or
balconies that are no longer needed for the new use.
Constructing an addition that requires the loss of
a character-defining entrance, porch, or balcony.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
164
18
Adding new features to meet health, safety and security
requirements, such as a new handrail, in a manner that
conserves the heritage value of the entrance, porch or balcony
and minimizes impact on its character-defining elements.
Damaging or destroying an entrance, porch or balcony
while making modifications to comply with health, safety
and security requirements.
19
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to entrances, porches or balconies
without first exploring equivalent systems, methods or
devices that may be less damaging to the characterdefining elements of the historic building.
20
Exploring all options for modifications to existing entrances,
porches and balconies to meet code and regulation
requirements, prior to considering removal or replacement.
Removing an entrance, porch or balcony that does not
comply with codes or regulations, and not replacing it
with a compatible new assembly.
21
Removing or encapsulating hazardous materials, using the
least-invasive abatement methods possible, and only after
thorough testing has been conducted.
22
Protecting entrances, porches or balconies against loss or
damage by identifying and assessing specific risks, and by
implementing an appropriate fire-protection strategy that
addresses those specific risks.
Covering flammable, character-defining elements with
fire-resistant sheathing or coatings that alter their
appearance.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Accessibility Considerations
23
Respecting the location of existing entrances, and porches
when providing new accessibility-related features, such as ramps
and lifts. For example, providing new functions for the public on
the ground floor, or in areas already served by exits.
Relocating a main entrance when undertaking
interventions to accommodate accessibility-related
features.
24
Exploring all options for modifications to existing entrances,
porches and balconies to meet accessibility requirements prior to
considering removal or replacement.
Removing an entrance, porch or balcony that does not
meet accessibility requirements, and not replacing it
with a compatible new assembly.
25
Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and
users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility
issues with the least impact on the character-defining elements
and overall heritage value of the historic building.
Altering character-defining entrances, porches and
balconies without consulting the appropriate specialists
and users.
Sustainability Considerations
26
Complying with energy efficiency objectives by maintaining
inherent energy conserving features, such as overhangs, awnings
and vestibules while preserving heritage value.
Removing character-defining vestibules, porches
and balconies that contribute to the inherent energy
efficiency of the historic building.
27
Working with specialists to determine the most appropriate
solution to energy efficiency requirements with the least impact
on the character-defining elements and overall heritage value of
the historic building.
Making changes to entrances, porches and balconies
without first exploring alternative energy efficiency
solutions that may be less damaging to the characterdefining elements and overall heritage value of the
historic building.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
165
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
28
Repairing entrances, porches and balconies from the
restoration using a minimal intervention approach, such as
patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing its
materials and improving weather protection.
Replacing an entire entrance, porch or balcony from the
restoration period when the repair of materials and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
29
Reinstating an open porch or balcony that was enclosed.
30
Replacing in kind an entire entrance, porch or balcony from
the restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair, using
the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the assembly. The
new work should be well documented and unobtrusively dated
to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable entrance, porch or balcony from
the restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it
with an inappropriate entrance, porch or balcony.
Reinstating an entrance, porch or balcony detail that is
damaging to character-defining elements.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
31
Removing or altering a non character-defining entrance, porch
or balcony from a period other than the restoration period.
Failing to remove a non character-defining entrance,
porch or balcony from another period that confuses the
depiction of the building’s chosen restoration period.
32
Retaining alterations to entrances, porches or balconies that
address problems with the original design, if those alterations do
not have a negative impact on the building’s heritage value.
Removing alterations to an entrance, porch or balcony
that serve an important function in the building’s
ongoing use, such as a ramp or handrail.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
33
166
Recreating a missing entrance, porch or balcony, or one of
its features, from the restoration period, based on physical or
documentary evidence; for example, duplicating a fanlight or
porch column.
Constructing an entrance, porch or balcony that was part
of the building’s original design but was never actually
built, or a feature thought to have existed during the
restoration period but for which there is insufficient
documentation.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
4.3.7
Interior
Features
These guidelines provide direction when
a building’s interior features are identified as character-defining elements of an
historic place. They also give direction on
how to preserve those features through
maintenance and repair, or when a change
in use or regulations dictates the need for
alterations or additions.
Interior features can include elements
such as interior walls, floors and ceilings,
mouldings, staircases, fireplace mantels,
faucets, sinks, built-in cabinets, light
fixtures, hardware, radiators, mail chutes,
telephone booths and elevators. Because
their heritage value resides not only in
their physical characteristics, but also
in their location in the historic building,
it is important to protect them from
removal. This is particularly true of doors,
banisters, church pews, fireplace mantels,
sinks and light fixtures, which are often
replaced instead of being upgraded.
Reuse in their original location not only
protects their heritage value, but is also a
more sustainable approach to conserving
these artefacts.
When adding any new features to meet functional
requirements, adjacent character-defining
elements should be conserved. A new glass wall
in the Dominion Public Building in Halifax was
carefully designed to complement the quality of
the lobby’s materials and finishes, and installed to
avoid damaging the adjacent character-defining
plasterwork and stone wainscoting.
Artwork, including sculpture and murals may contribute to the character of an interior. The murals in the
Saskatchewan Legislature Building required the expertise of art conservators for their repair and cleaning
undertaken for the Saskatchewan Centennial.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
167
These guidelines provide general recommendations appropriate to all types of
interior features. For recommendations
on associated issues related to interior
features, refer to Interior Arrangement.
For recommendations on specific materials that make up interior features, refer
to the Guidelines for Materials.
Functional elements, such as radiators and decorative
grilles, can contribute to the overall heritage character
of a place. Opportunities to retain these features when
upgrading or replacing mechanical systems should
be explored. This heating grate is one of many that
were retained and repaired for use with a new heating
plant when the Dawson City Telegraph office was
rehabilitated into housing.
These large light fixtures in the main hall of the Jasper train station were rewired and adapted to accept compact
fluorescent bulbs in order to meet sustainability and current health and safety concerns. Light fixtures of any scale
can be similarly rehabilitated rather than being replaced.
Historic guards and handrails often do not conform to current codes and safety regulations. Modifying historic
balustrades in a compatible way to meet these requirements is recommended over replacement. The balustrade
at the National Archives and Library in Ottawa underwent a sensitive rehabilitation to meet current requirements
for spacing between balusters.
168
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding interior features and how they contribute to
the heritage value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the properties and characteristics of interior
features as well as changes and previous maintenance practices;
for example, investigating the reconfiguration of a staircase or
removal of a reception counter, or testing the loading capacity
of a period elevator.
Failing to consider the impact of previous changes and
maintenance practices on the interior features.
3
Documenting the form, materials and condition of interior
features before undertaking an intervention.
Undertaking an intervention that affects interior features
without first documenting their character and condition.
4
Assessing the condition of interior features early in the
planning process so that the scope of work is based on current
conditions.
5
Determining the cause of distress, damage or deterioration of
interior features through investigation, monitoring and minimally
invasive or non-destructive testing techniques.
6
Protecting and maintaining interior features through appropriate
repairs to their functional parts and by using appropriate surface
treatments, such as cleaning, rust removal, limited paint removal
and reapplying protective coating systems in kind.
Failing to maintain interior features on a regular basis.
7
Using proven cleaning methods. More aggressive cleaning
should be considered only after other gentler methods have
proven to be ineffective.
Changing the texture and patina of interior features and
finishes through the use of abrasive methods to remove
paint or finishes.
8
Using paint or coating systems of appropriate colour
and texture.
9
Preserving the method of operation of interior features
that contribute to the heritage value of the historic place.
For example, continuing to use a fireplace.
Altering or eliminating the method of operation of
interior features that contributes to the heritage value
of the historic building.
10
Retaining sound and repairable interior features.
Removing character-defining interior features, such as
light fixtures, radiators and wood work.
Applying paint, plaster or other finishes to surfaces that
have historically been unfinished.
Removing paint, plaster or other finishes from historically
finished surfaces, such as removing plaster to expose a
brick wall, or stripping paint from doors and trim work.
11
Stabilizing deteriorated interior features by structural reinforcement, or correcting unsafe conditions, as required, until repair
work is undertaken.
Removing deteriorated interior features that could be
stabilized or repaired.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
169
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
12
Repairing parts of interior features by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating or otherwise reinforcing, using recognized
conservation methods. Repair may also include the limited
replacement in kind, or with a compatible substitute material,
of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of interior
features. Repairs should match the existing work as closely
as possible, both physically and visually.
13
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accidental damage or exposure to damaging materials during
maintenance or repair work.
Failing to protect interior features against damage, theft
or vandalism during construction.
14
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
interior features where there are surviving prototypes.
Replacing an entire interior feature when only limited
replacement of deteriorated and missing parts is possible.
Using a substitute material for the replacement part that
neither conveys the same appearance as the surviving
interior feature, nor is physically or visually compatible.
15
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate
replacement materials, quality of workmanship and
methodology. This can include reviewing samples, testing
products, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock-up.
Testing should be carried out under the same conditions as
the proposed intervention.
16
Documenting all interventions that affect the building’s interior
features, and ensuring that the documentation is available to
those responsible for future interventions.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
170
Recommended
Not Recommended
17
Repairing interior features by using a minimal intervention
approach. Such repairs might include the limited replacement
in kind, or replacement with an appropriate substitute material,
of irreparable or missing elements, based on physical or
documentary evidence.
Replacing an entire interior feature, such as a staircase,
paneled wall, parquet floor or cornice, when the repair
of materials and limited replacement of deteriorated or
missing parts is feasible.
18
Replacing in kind an irreparable interior feature based
on physical and documentary evidence. Examples include
wainscoting, a pressed-metal ceiling or interior stairs. If using
the same material and design details is not technically or
economically feasible, then compatible substitute material or
details may be considered.
Removing an element that is irreparable and not
replacing it, or replacing it with a new feature that
does not convey the same appearance or serve the
same function.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
19
Replacing missing historic features by designing and installing
a new interior feature, based on physical and documentary
evidence, or one that is compatible in size, scale, material,
style or colour.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
interior feature is incompatible or based on insufficient
physical and documentary evidence.
20
Operating and using a functioning interior feature that is
important to the heritage value of the historic building, such
as rewiring a character-defining light fixture according to the
appropriate safety codes.
Ceasing use of or altering a functioning interior feature
that is important in defining the heritage value of
the historic building.
Additions or Alterations to Interior Features
21
Designing, locating and installing new interior features, such as
stairways, cabinetwork or fireplaces, in a manner that respects
the building’s heritage value.
Introducing a new interior feature that is incompatible
in size, scale, material, style or colour with the existing
features.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
22
Upgrading interior features to meet health, safety and security
requirements, in a manner that preserves the existing feature
and minimizes impact on its heritage value.
Damaging or destroying interior features while making
modifications to comply with health, safety and security
requirements.
23
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to interior features, without first
exploring equivalent systems, methods or devices that
may be less damaging to the character-defining elements
of the historic building.
24
Exploring all options for modifications to existing interior
features to meet functional requirements prior to considering
removal or replacement.
Removing an interior feature, such as a security
desk, without investigating options to meet current
requirements.
25
Removing or encapsulating hazardous materials, such as friable
asbestos insulation, using the least-invasive abatement methods
possible, and only after thorough testing has been conducted.
Neglecting to maintain and repair the cladding protecting
encapsulated asbestos insulation.
26
Installing sensitively designed fire-suppression systems that
retain character-defining elements and respect heritage value.
Covering flammable character-defining elements with
fire-resistant sheathing or coatings that alter their
appearance.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
171
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Accessibility Considerations
27
Finding solutions to meet accessibility requirements that
minimize impact on interior features, such as locating public
functions strategically to limit changes to the interior.
28
Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and
users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility
issues with the least impact on the character-defining elements
and overall heritage value of the historic building.
Altering character-defining interior features, without
consulting the appropriate specialists and users.
29
Respecting the location of existing staircases when providing
new accessibility-related features, such as ramps and lifts.
Locating accessibility-related features in secondary or
service areas, when making compatible modifications
to primary vertical circulation areas is possible.
30
Exploring all options for modifications to existing interior
features, prior to considering removal or replacement.
Sustainability Considerations
172
31
Complying with energy efficiency objectives by maintaining
energy-conserving interior features, such as interior shutters,
transoms and vestibules.
32
Complying with energy-efficiency objectives by upgrading
rather than replacing character-defining light fixtures.
33
Working with specialists to determine the most appropriate
solution to energy efficiency requirements with the least impact
on the character-defining elements and overall heritage value of
the historic building.
Failing to incorporate interior features, such as ventilation
grilles or radiator covers, as part of upgrades to heating
and ventilation systems.
Making changes to interior features, without first
exploring alternative energy efficiency solutions that may
be less damaging to the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
34
Repairing interior features from the restoration period by using
a minimal intervention approach such as patching, splicing,
consolidating or otherwise reinforcing its materials.
Replacing an entire interior feature from the restoration
period, such as a staircase, when the repair of materials
and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts
is possible.
35
Replacing in kind an entire interior feature from the restoration
period that is too deteriorated to repair, using the physical
evidence as a model for reproduction. The new work should
be well documented and unobtrusively dated to guide future
research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable interior feature from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it
with an inappropriate interior feature.
Reinstating a detail of an interior feature that is
damaging to character-defining elements.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
36
Removing or altering a non character-defining interior feature
from a period other than the restoration period.
Failing to remove a non character-defining interior
feature from another period that confuses the depiction
of the building’s chosen restoration period.
37
Retaining alterations to interior features that address problems
with the original design if those alterations do not have a
negative impact on the building’s heritage value.
Removing an interior feature that serves an important
function in the building’s ongoing use, such as a security
desk or accessible washroom.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
38
Recreating a missing interior feature from the restoration
period, based on physical or documentary evidence; for example,
duplicating a marble mantel or staircase.
Constructing an interior feature that was part of the
building’s original design but never actually built, or a
feature thought to have existed during the restoration
period but for which there is insufficient documentation.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
173
4.3.8
Structural
Systems
These guidelines provide direction when
a structural system is identified as a
character-defining element of an historic
place. They also provide direction on
maintaining, repairing and replacing
structural components or systems.
In Preservation, visible structural systems that are important in defining a building’s overall character should
not be removed or obscured. When evaluating the physical condition of the structural system (using minimally
destructive techniques) indicates that repairs of deteriorated parts are required, they should match the old in
form and detailing and have adequate strength.
Analyzing structural systems built using traditional
materials and assemblies can be challenging. These
historic materials and assemblies often have variable
properties, and can include flaws or deterioration
that have developed over time. Testing can give some
insight into these properties. However, extrapolating
findings from localized tests to describe the strength
and stiffness of a larger structural assembly is not
always straightforward. Thus, any analysis should
account for the variability of the materials and
assemblies, and should be repeated using different
assumptions to arrive at a range of results predicting
how the assembly will behave.
174
Structural systems are the deliberate
assembly of distinct components that
ensure a structure or building will stand
up. A structural system must meet life
safety requirements (i.e., it should not
collapse) and serviceability requirements for the architectural elements and
finishes attached to it (i.e., it should not
bend or deform excessively). Structural
systems are typically composed of two
distinct components: the substructure or
foundation; and the superstructure above.
Structural systems can take many forms,
such as post and beam, arches, domes,
trusses or frames, and use many different
materials, such as stone, brick, steel, wood
or concrete.
The regulations to which building
structures must perform have evolved
considerably over time. Building codes first
appeared in Canada in the 1940s, and now
include requirements to resist loads such
as earthquakes, that were never considered in earlier times. Modern codes also no
longer address materials and construction
techniques that were used to build many
historic building structures. Despite these
changes, early structural systems, when
properly interconnected and maintained in
good condition, can be made to work effectively. The challenge of conserving the
structures often lies in confirming whether
they can achieve the level of performance
expected from today’s building codes.
The services of a professional engineer are
mandatory whenever a structural system
is investigated, analysed or modified.
Knowledge of structural behaviour and
period materials and technology are essential to the investigation and analysis
of an historic structure.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
These guidelines provide general recommendations appropriate for all types of
structural systems. Because structural
systems can also form the wall assembly,
such as in load-bearing masonry or log
structures, it may be difficult to perform
work on a structural system without
adversely affecting character-defining
architectural components and assemblies.
When intervening on an historic
building’s structure, refer to the
related Guidelines for Buildings. For
recommendations on specific materials
that make up structural systems, refer
to the Guidelines for Materials. When
undertaking any excavation work, consult
the Guidelines for Archaeological Sites.
Structural systems are also present in
many engineering works, therefore, the
Guidelines for Engineering Works should
be referred to when conserving those
types of historic places.
It is important to adapt interim stabilization interventions to the anticipated lifespan of the intervention and make
it as reversible as possible. Temporary steel cross bracing supports an exterior wall at St. Peter’s Dynevor Anglican
Church Rectory in Selkirk MB.
When a building’s structure has performed satisfactorily for many years, and has had no recent change in use,
its structure is likely satisfactory for wind and gravity loads. The National Building Code of Canada,
Commentary L, describes applying this logic when evaluating and upgrading an existing building. This logic,
however, cannot be applied when there is significant deterioration, a change in use is planned or seismic
strength is in question. Under these circumstances, a detailed engineering investigation and analysis is
necessary to verify the structure’s performance.
The McLeod Building, an early terra-cotta high-rise in Edmonton, was rehabilitated from office space
to condominiums with no need for alterations to the structural system.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
175
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the structural system and how it contributes to
the heritage value of the historic place.
2
Understanding the techniques and materials used in the
construction of the structural system, any subsequent alterations
and their effects, and the loads it was subjected to over its history.
3
Documenting the form, materials, function and condition of
structural systems before undertaking an intervention.
Undertaking an intervention that affects structural
systems, without first documenting their existing
character and condition.
4
Assessing the condition of structural systems, including the
foundations, early in the planning process so that the scope of
work is based on current conditions.
Carrying out a level of conservation work that exceeds
what is required, or taking action based on assumptions
or rules of thumb.
5
Determining the physical condition of structural systems
or their components, and the cause of distress, damage or
deterioration through investigation, analysis, monitoring and
minimally invasive or non-destructive testing techniques.
Using highly destructive probing or sampling techniques
that damage or destroy structural systems or their
components.
Failing to identify, evaluate and treat the causes of
distress, damage or deterioration of structural systems or
their components.
Carrying out a repair that does not treat or address the
cause of the problem.
176
6
Verifying the theoretical characteristics of structural systems by
testing them in place to determine their actual characteristics,
provided the appropriate precautions are taken to avoid their
failure or destruction.
7
Taking into account the past performance and load history of
structural systems or their components when determining their
present or future capacity.
8
Reviewing the requirements of codes and regulations for
structural performance, and involving experts and code officials
early in the process to investigate systems, methods or devices
that minimize the impact on character-defining elements.
9
Determining the appropriate performance requirements that
must be applied in assessing the condition and performance of
an historic structural system.
Reinforcing or replacing structural systems or their
components that are theoretically overloaded, without
validating the analysis through an accurate comparison
with their actual, observed performance.
Forcing generic or conventional code solutions on
an historic place, without thoroughly assessing their
effect on character-defining elements and rigorously
investigating alternatives with the authority.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
10
Protecting and maintaining structural systems by maintaining
the building envelope — roof to foundation — including roofing,
flashings, gutters and downspouts, wall components of masonry,
concrete, wood and metals; ensuring positive drainage away
from foundations; and ensuring that structural members are free
of fungal decay and insect infestation.
Failing to adequately maintain structural systems
and their components on a cyclical basis, causing the
materials to deteriorate.
11
Imposing limits on the acceptable use of structures based on
their actual characteristics and capacities, to protect them from
damage; balancing present and anticipated usage demands with
heritage value; and avoiding, where possible, any use that would
damage or destroy the structural system.
12
Retaining sound structural systems or deteriorated structural
systems that can be repaired.
Replacing or rebuilding structural systems that can
be repaired.
Relocating structural components when their location
is part of their heritage value.
13
Stabilizing deteriorated structural systems by structural
reinforcement, weather protection or correcting unsafe
conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
Removing deteriorated structural systems that could
be stabilized or repaired.
14
Repairing deteriorated structural systems and their components
in a manner that is physically and visually compatible with the
historic building or structure.
Replacing an entire structural system or component when
repair or limited replacement of deteriorated or missing
parts is possible.
15
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accidental damage or exposure to damaging materials during
maintenance or repair work.
16
Accommodating the thermal expansion and contraction of
structural systems by introducing expansion or control joints, and
incorporating such joints into existing crack patterns of masonry
and concrete structures where possible.
Filling moving cracks or expansion joints with materials
that inhibit or prevent the thermal expansion and
contraction of the structural system.
17
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of structural systems where there are surviving prototypes. The
new work should match the old as closely as possible in form,
materials and detailing, and have adequate strength.
Replacing an entire structural system or component
when limited replacement of deteriorated and missing
parts is possible.
Leaving known structural problems untreated.
Altering a structural system by adding new structural
members that alter the load-carrying system of the
original structure.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
177
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
18
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate replacement materials, quality of workmanship and methodology. This
can include reviewing samples, testing products, methods or
assemblies, or creating a mock-up. Testing should be carried out
under the same conditions as the proposed intervention.
19
Documenting all interventions that affect structural systems,
and ensuring the documentation is available to those responsible
for future interventions.
Not Recommended
General Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
20
21
178
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing structural systems by augmenting or upgrading
individual components, such as sistering joists with new wood
to improve structural efficiency. Repairs might include the
limited replacement in kind, or replacement with an appropriate
substitute material, of irreparable or missing elements, based on
documentary or physical evidence. Repairs might also include
dismantling and rebuilding a masonry or timber structure, if an
evaluation of its overall condition determines that more than
limited repair or replacement in kind is required.
Upgrading a structural system in a manner that alters
the character-defining exterior of an historic building, or
damages character defining interior features or spaces.
Repairing deteriorated structural systems or their components,
using new technologies where the original technology has been
found to accelerate deterioration. The new technology should
be chosen based on its compatibility with the historic element,
its reliability and its visual impact on the character-defining
elements and structural system as a whole.
Repairing deteriorated structural systems or their
components, using new technologies to improve
durability when the original technology performs
adequately.
22
Replacing in kind an irreparable structural system or
component based on physical and documentary evidence.
23
Replacing missing historic features by designing and installing
a new structural system or component based on physical and
documentary evidence, or one that is compatible in size, scale,
material, style and colour.
Replacing a structural member or component when it
could be augmented and retained.
Reinforcing structural systems or their components,
without verifying the effectiveness or the level of
benefit achieved by the reinforcement work.
Creating a false historical appearance because the new
structural system or component is incompatible, or based
on insufficient physical and documentary evidence.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Additions or Alterations to Structural Systems
24
Designing the structural system of a new addition or altering
an existing structure in a manner that is compatible with the
building’s structural system and respects its heritage value.
25
Limiting new excavations adjacent to foundations to avoid
undermining the stability of the structural system or adjacent
structures.
Radically changing character-defining interior spaces,
or damaging or destroying interior features or finishes,
while attempting to correct structural deficiencies in
preparation for a new use.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
26
Complying with health, safety and security requirements,
such as seismic upgrades or blast protection, in a manner that
conserves the structural system and minimizes impact on its
heritage value.
Damaging or destroying character-defining elements,
while making modifications to comply with health,
safety and security requirements.
27
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic place.
Making changes to structural systems without first
exploring equivalent systems, methods or devices that
may be less damaging to the character-defining elements
of the historic place.
28
Removing or encapsulating hazardous materials, using the
least-invasive abatement methods possible, and only after
thorough testing has been conducted.
29
Protecting structural systems against loss or damage by
identifying and assessing specific risks, and by implementing
an appropriate fire-protection strategy that addresses those
specific risks.
30
Applying fire retardant materials that do not damage or
obscure character-defining structural systems. For example,
applying fire-retardant, intumescent paint to an exposed column
to further protect its steel.
Covering flammable, character-defining structural
components with fire-resistant sheathing or coatings
that alter their appearance.
Sustainability Considerations
31
Working with specialists to determine the most appropriate
solution to energy efficiency and sustainability requirements with
the least impact on the character-defining elements and overall
heritage value of the historic place.
Making changes to character-defining structural systems,
including foundations, without first exploring alternative
sustainability solutions that may be less damaging to the
character-defining elements and overall heritage value of
the historic place.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
179
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
32
Repairing the structural system from the restoration period
by stabilizing, reinforcing or otherwise upgrading individual
components in a manner that is consistent with the restoration
period.
Replacing an entire structural system or its component
from the restoration period when the repair or limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing components
is possible.
33
Replacing in kind an entire structural system or component
from the restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair,
using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the system
or component. The new work should be well documented and
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable structural system or component
from the restoration period and not replacing it, or
replacing it with an inappropriate new system or
component.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
34
Retaining alterations to structural systems that address
problems with the original design, if those alterations do not
have a negative impact on the building’s heritage value.
Removing alterations to structural systems or
components that serve an important function in
the building’s ongoing use.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
35
180
Recreating a missing structural component from the restoration
period, based on physical or documentary evidence.
Installing a structural system or component that was part
of the building’s original design but never actually built,
or constructing a structural system or component thought
to have existed during the restoration period but for
which there is insufficient documentation.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
4.3.9
Mechanical
and
Electrical
Systems
These guidelines provide direction when
a mechanical or electrical system is
identified as a character-defining element
of an historic place. They also give information on how to minimize the impact
of introducing a new, or changing an
existing non-character-defining mechanical or electrical system. Conserving these
systems can be a challenge because their
construction and operation are governed
by stringent safety codes and regulations, and because historic installations
and materials may no longer meet code
requirements.
In modern buildings, reinforced concrete is often left exposed or simply painted in order to display a distinctive
structural form, such as this waffle slab ceiling in the Victoria City Hall Annex. Inserting new wiring or services
into such spaces can be challenging. Discreetly using conduit is recommended rather than installing false
ceilings or walls that cover the historic structure.
Mechanical systems (heat, ventilation, air
conditioning and refrigeration) control a
building’s interior environment. They also
include systems that provide necessary
services, such as septic systems, potable
water supply and fire suppression. The
most visible components of mechanical
systems include interior features such as
radiators, vents, fans, grilles and plumbing
fixtures.
When upgrading the mechanical system at the
George Brown House in Toronto, the design solution
integrated original heating and ventilation systems,
such as operable windows and the existing hot water
radiator system, with technological interventions
to provide increased levels of controlled cooling
and heating. The original boiler was restored and
incorporated into a modern hot water radiator system,
and the interior finishes were retained by strategically
locating drop ceilings and reusing historic fireplace
flues and ‘warm’ and ‘foul’ air shafts.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
181
During the rehabilitation of the Gooderham & Worts Distillery district in Toronto much of the original alcohol production equipment was retained in place, this included
distribution piping that traveled throughout the large site, within and between buildings.
A cyclone blower and related ductwork on the 5th floor of the granary was also retained. Some of the lengths of duct were adjusted to accommodate a new concrete
floor and other lengths were removed where they blocked access or were a hazard.
Contemporary building design typically
uses an active approach to controlling the
building environment with fans, blowers,
boilers, furnaces, ducts and plenums. In
some cases, the systems are deliberately
exposed as an aesthetic display or an architectural expression of the component’s
functionality. More traditional building
designs, however, often used passive
techniques that were integrated into the
building’s design. These passive designs
can include character-defining elements
such as high ceilings, open corridors and
transoms that facilitate air circulation,
operable windows and shutters, and canopies and plantings that provide shade and
act as windbreaks.
182
Electrical systems include power and
communication systems such as electric
lighting, intercoms, doorbells, telephones,
buzzers, alarm systems and detectors.
The proliferation of equipment such as
computers, telephones and lighting can
place extreme demands on electrical
systems necessitating their upgrade or
replacement. While the conservation of
electrical and communications systems
often focuses on fixtures, other aspects
should also be considered, such as sounds
made by alarms, bells or buzzers, and
lighting design, including light levels and
colour, and relationships to sources of
natural light.
These guidelines provide general
recommendations for mechanical and
electrical systems. For recommendations
on the conservation of mechanical
and electrical fixtures, refer to Interior
Features. For recommendations on
architectural features and assemblies
related to passive mechanical and
lighting systems, refer to Windows,
Doors and Storefronts; Exterior Walls;
Exterior Form; and Interior Arrangement.
Mechanical systems can also form an
important part of an engineering work;
the Guidelines for Engineering Works
should be referred to when conserving
those types of historic places.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the mechanical or electrical system and how it
contributes to the heritage value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the construction history, theory and design
behind the mechanical or electrical system, and its relationship
with the building’s site and climate.
3
Documenting the form, materials, function and condition
of mechanical and electrical systems before undertaking an
intervention.
4
Assessing the condition of mechanical and electrical systems
and their components early in the planning process so that the
scope of work is based on current conditions.
5
Determining the physical condition of mechanical and
electrical systems or their components, and the cause of
distress, damage or deterioration through investigation, analysis,
monitoring and minimally invasive or non-destructive testing
techniques.
Undertaking an intervention that affects a mechanical
or electrical system without first documenting its
components, layout, materials, operation and condition.
Using highly destructive probing or sampling techniques
that damage or destroy mechanical and electrical
systems or their components.
Failing to identify, evaluate and treat the causes of
distress, damage or deterioration of mechanical and
electrical systems, or their components.
Carrying out a repair that does not treat or address
the cause of the problem.
6
Testing mechanical and electrical systems or their components
to determine their actual characteristics provided the appropriate
precautions are taken to avoid their failure or destruction.
7
Protecting and maintaining mechanical or electrical systems
and their components through cyclical cleaning and other
appropriate measures.
8
Preserving abandoned systems that are character-defining,
such as wire bell pull systems, speaking tubes and mail drops.
9
Preserving the method of operation of mechanical and
electrical systems that contribute to the heritage value of the
historic place. For example, maintaining a passive ventilation
system in a building, rather than switching to forced air
ventilation.
Altering or eliminating the method of operation of
mechanical and electrical systems that contributes to
the heritage value of the historic building.
10
Retaining sound mechanical and electrical systems or
deteriorated systems that can be repaired.
Replacing or removing mechanical and electrical systems
or their components that can be repaired.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
183
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
11
Repairing deteriorated mechanical or electrical systems and
their components in a manner that is physically and visually
compatible with the historic place.
Replacing an entire mechanical or electrical system
or component, when repair or limited replacement of
deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
12
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accidental damage or exposure to damaging materials during
maintenance or repair work.
13
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of mechanical or electrical systems where there are surviving
prototypes. The new work should match the old as closely as possible
in form, materials and detailing and have adequate capacity.
14
Operating and using functioning mechanical and electrical
systems that are important in defining the heritage value of the
historic place, according to the appropriate safety codes.
15
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate
replacement materials, quality of workmanship and methodology.
This can include reviewing samples, testing products, methods or
assemblies, or creating a mock-up. Testing should be carried out
under the same conditions as the proposed intervention.
16
Documenting all interventions that affect the building’s mechanical
and electrical systems, and ensuring that the documentation is
available to those responsible for future interventions.
Ceasing to use or altering a functioning mechanical
or electrical system that is important in defining the
heritage value of the historic place.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
184
Recommended
Not Recommended
17
Repairing mechanical and electrical systems that contribute
to the heritage value of the historic place. Such repairs might
include the limited replacement in kind, or replacement with
an appropriate substitute material, of irreparable or missing
components, based on documentary or physical evidence.
Replacing a mechanical or electrical system or component
that could be upgraded and retained.
18
Repairing deteriorated mechanical and electrical systems or
their components, using new technologies when the original
technology has been found to accelerate deterioration. The new
technology should be chosen based on its compatibility with
the historic element, its reliability, and its visual impact on the
character-defining elements and mechanical or electrical system
as a whole.
Repairing deteriorated character-defining mechanical
and electrical systems or their components, using new
technologies to improve durability when the original
technology performs adequately.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
19
Replacing in kind those portions or components of mechanical
and electrical systems that are either extensively deteriorated or
missing, when there are surviving prototypes.
Installing a visible replacement element that does not
convey the same appearance.
20
Replacing missing historic features by designing and installing
new mechanical or electrical systems or components, based on
physical and documentary evidence, or one that is compatible in
size, scale, material, style or colour.
Creating a false historical appearance because the
new mechanical or electrical system or component
is incompatible, or based on insufficient physical and
documentary evidence.
Additions or Alterations to Mechanical and Electrical Systems
21
Using planned additions to provide space for new functions
requiring controlled ambient conditions, such as exhibition or
storage spaces in a museum, while using the historic building for
functions that can be accommodated by the existing systems.
Introducing functions that require a controlled
environment in buildings that were designed for natural
light or ventilation.
22
Installing a new mechanical or electrical system, if required by
the new use, while ensuring the least alteration possible to
the building’s interior arrangement and exterior form, and
the least damage to the character-defining elements of
the historic building.
Concealing systems in walls or ceilings causing the
removal of character-defining elements.
23
Placing new mechanical or electrical systems in existing,
non-character-defining spaces, rather than constructing
a new addition.
Installing a drop ceiling to hide mechanical equipment
when it alters the proportions of character-defining
interior spaces.
24
Installing new heating/air conditioning units in a manner that
does not damage or obscure character-defining elements and
generate excessive moisture.
Installing heating/air conditioning units in window
frames rather than improving the efficiency and operation
of the existing mechanical system.
25
Installing individual heating/air conditioning units in window
frames, if necessary, so that sashes and frames are protected.
Consider window installations only when all other viable
heating/cooling systems would result in significant damage to
character-defining materials.
Radically changing the appearance of the historic building,
or damaging or destroying windows by installing heating/
air conditioning units in character-defining windows.
26
Installing the vertical runs of ducts, pipes and cables in
non-character-defining spaces, such as closets, service rooms and
wall cavities.
Installing vertical runs of ducts, pipes and cables in
places where they will damage, radically alter, or obscure
character-defining elements.
Locating additions where they block existing windows or
skylights that provide natural ventilation and daylight.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
185
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
27
Removing or encapsulating hazardous materials using the
least-invasive abatement methods possible, and only after
thorough testing has been conducted.
Neglecting to maintain and repair the cladding protecting
encapsulated asbestos insulation.
28
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic place.
Making changes to mechanical and electrical systems
without first exploring equivalent systems, methods or
devices that may be less damaging to the characterdefining elements of the historic place.
Sustainability Considerations
186
29
Reinstating , where possible, character-defining natural
ventilation and daylight, such as operable transom windows and
atrium skylights.
30
Ensuring that the introduction of new types of mechanical and
electrical systems, such as solar, geothermal or heat-exchange
systems, will have minimal impact on the character-defining
elements of the historic building.
31
Working with specialists to determine the most appropriate
solution to energy efficiency requirements with the least impact
on the character-defining elements and overall heritage value of
the historic place.
Introducing airtight mechanical systems and artificial
lighting in buildings that were designed for natural
daylight and ventilation.
Making changes to character-defining mechanical and
electrical systems, without first exploring alternative
energy efficiency solutions that may be less damaging
to the character-defining elements and overall heritage
value of the historic place.
Guidelines for BUILDINGS
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
32
Repairing mechanical and electrical systems by stabilizing,
reinforcing, or otherwise upgrading individual components in a
manner that is consistent with the restoration period.
Replacing an entire mechanical or electrical system
from the restoration period when the repair or limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing components
is possible.
33
Replacing in kind an entire mechanical or electrical system or
component from the restoration period that is too deteriorated
to repair, using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce
the system or component. The new work should be well
documented and unobtrusively dated to guide future research
and treatment.
Removing an irreparable mechanical or electrical system
or component and not replacing it, or replacing it with
an inappropriate new system or component.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
34
Removing or altering non character-defining mechanical and
electrical systems from a period other than the restoration
period.
Failing to remove visible, non character-defining
components of mechanical or electrical systems from
another period that confuse the depiction of the
building’s chosen restoration period.
35
Retaining alterations to mechanical or electrical systems that
address problems with the original design, if those alterations do
not have a negative impact on the building’s heritage value.
Removing alterations to mechanical or electrical systems
or components that serves an important function in the
building’s ongoing use.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
36
Recreating a missing mechanical or electrical system or
component from the restoration period, based on physical
or documentary evidence.
Installing a mechanical or electrical system or component
that was part of the building’s original design but never
actually built, or a system or component thought to have
existed during the restoration period but for which there
is insufficient documentation.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
187
4.4
Guidelines for
Engineering Works,
including Civil, Industrial
and Military Works
Engineering Works fall under three categories. Clockwise, from top left: Fort Rodd Hill in BC is an example of a military work; the grain elevator in Hepburn,
Saskatchewan is an industrial work, and the SS Klondike in Whitehorse and the Quebec Bridge illustrate civil engineering works.
4.4
Guidelines for
Engineering Works,
including Civil, Industrial
and Military Works
Engineering works, including civil,
industrial and military works, are constructions built or sites transformed for
purposes other than habitation; they
exist primarily to produce goods or
provide services for the benefit of human
needs. Major engineering works have
stimulated and facilitated development
across Canada — significant innovations
made in resource extraction, industry,
transportation, and communications have
contributed towards developing new, or
adapting existing technologies to suit
Canada’s climate and geography.
Civil works can include constructions
associated with:
n
n
n
n
Transportation of humans or goods by
land, rail, water or air, such as historic
roads and routes, bridges, tunnels,
highways, ships, lighthouses, and
railways, canals, airports, harbours,
subways and their associated
supporting infrastructure;
Energy-generation and transmission
facilities and infrastructure, such as
hydroelectric dams, powerhouses,
power-generating stations and
transmission towers and systems;
Communications facilities and
infrastructure, such as telephone,
microwave, radio and television
networks and systems; and,
Water supply, flood control and
irrigation facilities and infrastructure,
such as waterworks, pump houses,
sewer networks and water treatment
plants, dams, canals, floodways and
aqueducts.
The Doukhobor Suspension bridge, near Castlegar, BC, is an example of a civil engineering work with significant
cultural symbolic value. Erected by members of the Doukhobor community, its construction represents a major
achievement for a pioneer community and demonstrates the considerable capabilities of a people acting
communally.
Industrial works can include constructions associated with:
Military works can include defencerelated constructions associated with:
n
Manufacturing or industry, such as
mills, factories and warehouses;
n
Fortifications or military ships;
n
n
Resource exploitation facilities and
infrastructure, such as mines, quarries,
oil wells and drilling sites, collieries,
dredges, concentrators, laboratories
and refineries; and,
Naval, army and air bases, or missile
ranges; and,
n
Unique constructions, such as the
DEW line or the Diefenbunker.
n
Agriculture and food processing
facilities and infrastructure, such as
farms, ranches, packing houses, grain
elevators, breweries and canneries.
The heritage value of engineering works
may be historical, technological, social,
scientific or architectural. Some works
may also have considerable aesthetic
value due to the quality of their architecture, design or planning. Often, there
is also heritage value in the relationship
between an engineering work and adjoining or nearby archaeological sites, cultural
landscapes or buildings.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
191
The Percival Windmill, restored in 1995, is valued
for its association with Saskatchewan’s rural water
system. Because of the semi-arid climate and general
lack of standing water in the south of the province,
windmills gave many early residents access to
underground water during the settlement period.
Windmills were particularly important prior to the
1950s when widespread rural electrification enabled
electric pumps to become regular farm features.
Engineering works should not be viewed
as being exclusively the work of professional engineers. Achievements in
empirical engineering, inventions and
innovations made by lay-persons, and
achievements associated with artisanal
technologies can also be considered
engineering works.
192
The Brooks Aqueduct, in Newell County, AB, is a significant civil engineering work from the development of
irrigation in Alberta, and a significant example of the role the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) played in settling
the region. It is one of the largest aqueducts of its kind in the world. An integral part of a larger irrigation
system, it brought water to over 50,000 hectares of land that was susceptible to drought. The system allowed
the CPR to open the area to agricultural settlement and supplied water to area farmers from 1914 to 1979.
Finding sustainable uses for engineering
works is a significant challenge because
their condition can range from archaeological resources to fully functioning
installations. The continued use of an
industrial or military work can seldom
be accommodated when its original function has become redundant or obsolete.
The engineering work may also have
been abandoned for a long time, or the
new planned use may have significantly
different requirements for human comfort
and safety than was required when it
was originally built.
Civil works, such as bridges, dams and
canals, present a different challenge.
These works often remain fully functional
and so must meet stringent contemporary
safety codes that did not exist at the time
of their construction. Their continued
use is contingent on meeting these
standards, often necessitating significant
rehabilitation.
Engineering works can also be challenging to conserve because of possible site
contamination issues, or because of the
considerable evolution they may have
undergone during their operating life,
resulting in multiple constructions from
varying eras that may or may not have
heritage value.
Guidelines for ENGINEERING WORKS
Applying the Guidelines
The Guidelines for Engineering Works
are presented in two main groups:
Constructed Elements and Functional
Arrangement. This grouping is designed
to help the reader to understand how
these concepts apply to the engineering
work, and how they interact. The user
should always refer to both subsections
when conserving an engineering work
to ensure that the physical features
(Constructed Elements) and their spatial
configuration (Functional Arrangement)
are protected.
These guidelines provide general
recommendations appropriate to all types
of engineering works. Because many
engineering works incorporate buildings,
contain archaeological resources (i.e.
industrial archaeology), and are located
within cultural landscapes, reference
should be made to those guidelines when
appropriate. Also consult the Guidelines
for Materials that contain traditional as
well as modern construction and finishing materials, and the guidelines for
Structural Systems under Buildings
when appropriate.
The Lachine Canal, in Montréal, is a 14.5 kilometrelong canal that runs from the old port of Montréal
to Lake Saint-Louis. It contains a significant number
of civil engineering and industrial works. Opened to
shipping in 1825, it was closed in 1970 after the St.
Lawrence Seaway was built. The Lachine Canal was
the forerunner of the early 19th century transportation
revolution in Canada and played an important role
in the industrial development of Montréal. The canal
corridor was also one of the main manufacturing
production centres in Canada until the Second World
War. The LaSalle Coke crane located on the banks of
the canal and formerly used for unloading coal, is a
prominent engineering work of the Canal.
Murney Tower, in Kingston, ON, is a martello tower that forms part of the defence system built for Kingston
Harbour during the Oregon Crisis of 1845 –1846. It is a squat round tower with four hive-like caponiers at its
base and a conical roof and is surrounded by a dry ditch. Murney Tower is valued for its excellent portrayal
of the martello tower military structure, its built and landscaped forms, and also its strategic setting and
defensive inter-relationship with other parts of the Kingston Fortifications.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
193
4.4.1
Constructed
Elements
These guidelines provide direction when
the constructed elements of an engineering work are identified as characterdefining elements of an historic place.
Constructed elements are the distinct
constructions that were built, erected or
fabricated for the operation or use of the
engineering work. Constructed elements
can also be associated with the evolution
of the work or with the transformation of
the landscape resulting from the creation
or operation of the work, which can
include remnants, such as ore tailings
from mining or dredging operations.
The deteriorated heavy timber bow gantry frame of Dredge No. 4, in Dawson City, YK, was dismantled and replaced
in kind with a new frame, built from new timbers sized to match the original timbers and reusing all original
metal brackets and fixtures. The bow gantry, which supports the digging ladder, is a significant constructed element
in the dredge’s operational design.
194
The types of constructions that can be
considered constructed elements are
extremely varied, including, for example:
n
Structures that housed a warehouse,
mill, factory, refinery, cannery or
hydro-generating station;
n
Landforms such as earth
embankments and retaining walls
of a dry ditch at a fort;
n
Bridge superstructures;
n
Tunnels, rock cuts and fills for a
railway or highway right-of-way;
n
Locks, dams and weirs of a canal
system;
n
Industrial machinery at a factory,
or operational equipment inside
a refinery, such as piping and
steam tunnels;
n
Ships such as paddle steamers
or dredges; and,
n
Ancillary equipment such as liquid
or gas storage tanks, ore bins, cranes,
derricks, chutes, conveyors or
smokestacks at a factory.
Constructed elements offer a physical
record of the work; its purpose, operation
and evolution; the engineering innovation
and design it embodies; and its impact
on the environment. Their form, scale,
massing, materials and construction
type can all have heritage value, because
they illustrate the purpose, operation and
use of the work. Constructed elements
help to illustrate and demonstrate the
process, operation or activity that is, or
once occurred, in the work. The condition
of the constructed elements (including
patina, graffiti and signs of wear) and
the remnants or by-products from their
operation (such as debris), can also hold
value by demonstrating the evolution and
function of the work in its environment.
Guidelines for ENGINEERING WORKS
These guidelines focus on stationary
constructed elements; that is, characterdefining machinery and ancillary
equipment that are fixed in place.
Movable equipment and artifacts are not
covered under these guidelines, although
they are often indispensable in helping
to explain, interpret and illustrate the
distinct stages of processes that once
occurred in the works.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for constructed elements
of an engineering work. When the
constructed element is a building or part
of a building, a built feature in a cultural
landscape or an archaeological resource,
also refer to the corresponding guidelines
when appropriate. For recommendations
on specific materials that make up constructed elements, refer to the Guidelines
for Materials.
The Eagle Creek Cement Bridge in Saskatchewan is
a good example of the nearly 90 reinforced concrete
bowstring bridges that were constructed during the
1920s and 1930s as part of a comprehensive road
building program in southern Saskatchewan. The
graceful bowstring arches of these bridges, which
blended functional engineering technology with
aesthetically pleasing design, are character-defining
elements. Repair or replacement of any parts of
the bowstring arches should carefully designed for
compatibility, matching the original form, materials
and detailing of the arches.
Before beginning project work, the form, materials
and condition of engineering works should be
documented. Heritage recording of the Powerscourt
Covered Bridge, National Historic Site of Canada in
Powerscourt, QC, the only surviving bridge that uses
the McCallum inflexible arch construction, included
detailed measurements and a photographic record.
Fully understanding the complexity and behaviour of
a constructed element, such as pumps at the Kingston
Dry Dock and Pumphouse can include determining
its original design, purpose, operating theory,
construction, operation, evolution over time, structural
behaviour, structural performance over time including
load history, performance under environmental loads,
current condition and the deterioration mechanisms
of its construction and materials.
Completed in 1904, the tall wood frame Clearwater
Canadian Pacific Railway Water Tower in Manitoba is
an excellent example of an intact railway water tower.
Twelve thick timbers are set on concrete bases and
are strengthened with cross-braces that support the
cedar-lined water tank, which occupies the top half
of the structure. The water tower retains many of the
original pipes, valves and controls used in filling and
using the tank. When ceasing operation at a work
such as this, the character defining pipes, valves and
controls should continue to be subjected to regular
maintenance to prevent their deterioration.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
195
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
196
1
Understanding the constructed element and how it contributes
to the heritage value of the engineering work.
2
Understanding the construction history, theory, functional
basis and design behind the constructed element.
3
Documenting the form, materials and condition of the
constructed element before undertaking an intervention.
4
Documenting the operation and maintenance of constructed
elements in sufficient detail to fully understand their operational
characteristics. This can include obtaining an oral history of
operation procedures, recording the machinery in operation or
preserving records associated with the engineering work, and
making these available for future research.
5
Assessing the overall condition of constructed elements early
in the planning process so that the scope of work is based on
current conditions.
6
Determining the appropriate level of investigation and analysis
required to understand the overall condition of constructed
elements, and analyzing the constructed elements in sufficient
detail to fully understand their complexity and behaviour.
7
Determining the physical condition of constructed elements
or their components, including the causes of distress, damage
or deterioration through investigation, analysis, monitoring and
minimally invasive or non-destructive testing techniques.
8
Testing constructed elements or their components in place
to determine their characteristics, provided the appropriate
precautions are taken to avoid their failure or destruction.
9
Taking into account the past performance and load history of
constructed elements or their components when determining
their present or future capacity.
10
Protecting constructed elements through appropriate and
regular maintenance.
Not Recommended
Undertaking an intervention that affects a constructed
element without first documenting its existing character
and condition.
Carrying out a level of intervention that exceeds what is
required, or taking action based on assumptions or rules
of thumb.
Using highly destructive probing or sampling techniques
that damage or destroy constructed elements or their
components.
Carrying out a repair that does not treat or address
the cause of the problem.
Failing to adequately maintain constructed elements on a
cyclical basis, causing their components to deteriorate.
Guidelines for ENGINEERING WORKS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
11
Protecting evidence of the evolution process or operation of
constructed elements that contribute to the heritage value of the
engineering work, including protecting patinas, soiling or debris,
wear patterns and graffiti, resulting from the operation of the
work or its associated machinery. For example, cleaning machinery just enough to reduce deterioration and danger to the public,
rather than attempting to clean it to a “like new” condition.
12
Preserving the method of operation of an engineering work
or its constructed elements that are important in defining
the overall heritage value of the historic place. For example,
continuing to hand-operate a canal lock gate mechanism,
rather than switching to a motor.
13
Imposing limits on the acceptable use of constructed elements,
based on their actual characteristics and capacities to protect
them from damage. There is a need to balance present and
anticipated usage demands with heritage value, and to avoid,
if possible, any use that would damage or destroy the
constructed elements.
14
Balancing the need to alter constructed elements to meet
current safety codes and standards (to allow continued use)
with the need to preserve the heritage value of the work’s
functionality and operation.
15
Retaining sound constructed elements or deteriorated
constructed elements of engineering works that can be repaired.
Replacing or rebuilding constructed elements that can
be repaired.
16
Stabilizing deteriorated constructed elements on an interim
basis by structural reinforcement, weather protection, or
correcting unsafe conditions, as required, until any additional
work is undertaken.
Neglecting to treat known conditions that threaten the
constructed elements of engineering works.
17
Adapting interim stabilization interventions to the anticipated
lifespan of the constructed element, so that they remain as
reversible as possible.
18
Repairing deteriorated parts of constructed elements in a
manner that is physically and visually compatible with the
engineering work.
Subjecting constructed elements to uses that could
overload existing systems, such as installing equipment
or systems that undermine the heritage value of the
engineering work.
Failing to undertake necessary repairs, resulting in the
loss of constructed elements.
Replacing an entire constructed element when repair or
limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts
is possible.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
197
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
19
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements and
components of constructed elements from accidental damage
or exposure to damaging materials during maintenance or
repair work.
20
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
constructed elements using physical and documentary evidence
as a model for reproduction. The new work should match the old
as closely as possible in form, materials and detailing, and have
adequate strength.
21
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate replacement materials, quality of workmanship and methodology. This
can include reviewing samples, testing products, methods or
assemblies, or creating a mock-up. Testing should be carried out
under the same conditions as the proposed intervention.
22
Operating and using a functioning engineering work or its
constructed elements appropriately and according to applicable
codes, to preserve the functional purpose of the work that
is important in defining the overall heritage value of the
historic place. For example, maintaining a canal route open to
navigation, or reinforcing a highway bridge so that it can remain
in service.
23
Not Recommended
Replacing an entire constructed element when limited
replacement of deteriorated and missing parts is possible.
Ceasing to use or altering the functional purpose of a
functioning work, or its constructed elements, that is
important in defining the overall heritage value of the
historic place.
Operating and using a functioning engineering work
without providing appropriate and timely maintenance,
or without appropriate safety equipment, guards or
training.
Documenting all interventions that affect constructed
elements, and ensuring that this documentation will be available
to those responsible for future interventions.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
24
25
198
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing constructed elements or their components using
recognized conservation methods. Repairs might include the
limited replacement in kind, or replacement with an appropriate
substitute material, of irreparable or missing components,
based on physical or documentary evidence.
Failing to undertake necessary repairs, resulting in the loss
of constructed elements.
Proof-testing repairs to reinforce constructed elements or
their components in place, to confirm their actual rather than
theoretical performance, provided the appropriate precautions
are taken to avoid their failure or destruction.
Reinforcing constructed elements or their components,
without verifying the effectiveness or the level of benefit
achieved by the reinforcement work.
Replacing or demolishing an entire constructed element,
when repair and limited replacement of deteriorated or
missing parts is possible.
Guidelines for ENGINEERING WORKS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
26
Replacing in kind an entire constructed element that is too
deteriorated to repair, using physical and documentary evidence
as a model for reproduction. The new work should match the old
as closely as possible in form, materials and detailing, and have
adequate strength.
Replacing a constructed element with one that does not
follow the same engineering concept as the original. For
example, replacing a character-defining mass masonry
retaining wall with a reinforced concrete retaining wall
faced with stone.
27
Replacing missing historic features by designing and installing
a new constructed element based on physical or documentary
evidence, or one that is compatible in size, scale, material, style
or colour.
Creating a false historical appearance by replacing
a constructed element with one that is based on
insufficient physical and documentary evidence.
Additions or Alterations to Constructed Elements
28
Designing additions for a new use in a manner that is
compatible with the constructed element and respects the
heritage value of the engineering work.
29
Building an addition to a constructed element that retains as
many of the historic materials as possible, and ensures that the
constructed elements are not obscured, damaged or destroyed,
or the heritage value undermined.
30
Designing a new addition to a constructed element in a
manner that draws a clear distinction between what is
historic and what is new.
Duplicating the exact form, material, style and detailing
of the original constructed element so that the new work
appears to be part of the historic place.
31
Considering the design of an attached exterior addition in
terms of its relationship to the engineering work. The design for
the new work may be contemporary or refer to design motifs
from the historic place. In either case, it should be compatible in
terms of massing, materials and colour, yet be distinguishable
from the historic place.
Designing and building new additions that negatively
affect the heritage value of the engineering work,
including its design, materials, workmanship, location
or setting.
32
Placing a new addition on a non-character-defining elevation
and limiting its size and scale in relation to the engineering work.
Designing a new addition that obscures, damages or
destroys constructed elements, or undermines the
heritage value of the engineering work.
33
Undertaking soil mechanics studies and limiting new
excavations adjacent to constructed elements to avoid
undermining the structural stability of the engineering work
or adjacent historic structures. Archaeological investigations
should be undertaken before any excavation to avoid damaging
potential archaeological resources. Refer to the Guidelines
for Archaeological Sites for additional recommendations on
excavation work.
Carrying out excavations or re-grading that could cause
constructed elements or adjacent historic structures to
settle, shift or fail, or that could damage archaeological
resources.
Introducing additions to constructed elements that are
incompatible with the character of the engineering or
that alter the historic relationships of the work.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
199
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
200
34
Correcting the structural deficiencies of constructed elements
when preparing for a new use in a manner that preserves their
character-defining elements and the overall heritage value of the
engineering work.
35
Designing and installing new mechanical or electrical systems
or equipment when required for the new or continued use, in
a manner that minimizes adverse effects on the constructed
elements.
36
Adding a new structural system to a constructed element when
required for the new or continued use, in a manner that does not
obscure, damage or destroy character-defining elements.
37
Creating a habitable space when required for the new use, in
a manner that assures that character-defining elements will
be preserved.
38
Removing non character-defining constructed elements when
required by the new use.
Not Recommended
Removing, relocating and displaying non characterdefining constructed elements in a new location, creating
a false impression of the engineering work.
Guidelines for ENGINEERING WORKS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
39
Adding new features to meet health, safety or security
requirements, in a manner that conserves the constructed
elements and minimizes impact on the heritage value of the
engineering work.
40
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the engineering work.
Making changes to constructed elements, without first
exploring equivalent systems, methods or devices that
may be less damaging to the character-defining elements
of the engineering work.
41
Protecting constructed elements against loss or damage by
identifying and assessing specific risks, and by implementing
an appropriate fire protection strategy that addresses those
specific risks.
Implementing a generic fire protection strategy or one
that does not appropriately address the specific fire risks
of the engineering work.
42
Installing sensitively designed fire-suppression systems, such
as sprinklers, that retain the character-defining elements and
respect the heritage value of the engineering work.
Installing fire-suppression systems in a manner that
damages or destroys character-defining elements.
43
Applying fire retardant or protective materials that do not
damage or obscure constructed elements. For example, applying
fire-retardant, intumescent paint to a deck to further protect
its steel.
Covering flammable, character-defining constructed
elements or their components with fire-resistant
sheathing or coatings that alter their appearance.
44
Removing hazardous materials from engineering works, their
constructed elements or their components, only after thorough
testing has been conducted and less-invasive abatement
methods have been shown to be inadequate. Where applicable,
archaeological work to collect data should be carried out before
the site is disrupted by soil decontamination operations.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
201
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Accessibility Considerations
45
Introducing a new feature to meet accessibility requirements in
a manner that conserves the constructed element and respects
the overall heritage value of the engineering work.
46
Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and
users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility
issues with the least impact on the character-defining elements
and overall heritage value of the engineering work.
Altering character-defining constructed elements without
consulting the appropriate specialists and users.
Sustainability Considerations
47
Complying with energy-efficiency objectives in upgrades to the
constructed elements in a manner that respects the engineering
work’s character-defining elements.
Damaging or destroying constructed elements and
undermining the heritage value of the engineering work
while making modifications to comply with energyefficiency objectives.
48
Working with specialists to determine the most appropriate
solution to energy efficiency requirements with the least impact
on the character-defining elements and overall heritage value of
the engineering work.
Making changes to constructed elements, without first
exploring alternative energy efficiency solutions that may
be less damaging to the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the engineering work.
Ceasing Operation of an Engineering Work
49
202
Following appropriate mothballing procedures when ceasing
operation of an engineering work so as to maintain the potential
for future operation of the work or its constructed elements,
including installing appropriate safety shut-offs, and carrying out
regular maintenance on the shut-down mechanisms to prevent
their deterioration.
Guidelines for ENGINEERING WORKS
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
50
Repairing constructed elements from the restoration period
using a minimal intervention approach, such as patching,
splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing its materials and
improving weather protection.
Replacing an entire constructed element from the
restoration period when the repair of materials and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
51
Replacing in kind an entire constructed element from the
restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair using the
physical evidence as a model to reproduce the element. The
replacement should have the same form, appearance and
material properties as the replaced element, and have adequate
strength or load-bearing capabilities. The new work should be
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable constructed element from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it
with an inappropriate new element.
Removing Existing Features from Other Periods
52
Removing or altering a non character-defining constructed
element or component from a period other than the restoration
period.
Failing to remove a non character-defining constructed
element or component from another period that
confuses the depiction of the engineering work’s chosen
restoration period.
Removing a feature from a later period that serves an
important function in the engineering work’s ongoing
use, such as an emergency exit door, or signage
associated with a new use.
Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period
53
Recreating a missing constructed element from the restoration
period, based on physical or documentary evidence.
Installing a constructed element that was part of the
engineering work’s original design but was never actually
built, or a constructed element that was thought to have
existed during the restoration period but for which there
is insufficient documentation.
Restoring Operation to an Engineering Work
54
Restoring operation to an engineering work that is important
in defining its heritage value.
Keeping an engineering work in a non-operational state
when the operation of the work is important in defining
its heritage value.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
203
4.4.2
Functional
Arrangement
These guidelines provide direction when
the functional arrangement of an engineering work is identified as a characterdefining element of an historic place.
Functional arrangement, in the context
of these guidelines, is the interrelationship of the constructed elements of the
engineering work. Essentially, it is the
layout of the work.
Large-scale Functional Arrangement: The Trent–Severn Waterway is an example of large-scale Functional
Arrangement at a civil engineering work. The nearly 400 kilometre-long natural and human-made waterway
crosses central Ontario linking Georgian Bay to the Bay of Quinte. The waterway’s character-defining elements
include many Functional Arrangement elements such as: the route of the waterway; the unity and completeness
of the waterway, its engineering structures and buildings that support it, and the special cultural landscapes it
has generated; the disposition and relationship of the waterway’s Constructed Elements to their surroundings;
and the legibility of the cultural landscapes and patterns between and among the Constructed Elements.
The Relationship between an Engineering Work
and its Setting
There is often a strong connection between the functional arrangement of an
engineering work and its setting. The setting explains the location of a civil,
industrial or military work. Prior to making any changes to the functional
arrangement of an engineering work, it is important to understand how the
proposed changes will affect its relationship with the setting, and the heritage
value of the engineering work. The definition of setting and its relationship
with the broader environment are addressed in more detail in the Introduction
to the Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes.
204
On a large scale, functional arrangement
can include a landscape that envelops and
extends beyond the engineering work,
such as the right-of-way of a railway
passing through a mountain range, or
a canal route that connects lakes and
rivers across great distances. On a more
moderate scale, functional arrangement
can be limited to the site of the engineering work, such as the grouping of different
buildings and equipment that supports a
manufacturing or refining process. On a
small scale, functional arrangement can
be limited to what is internal to a single
constructed element of the engineering
work, such as the layout of a building that
was determined by the process housed
in that building.
The functional arrangement of the work
can often be as important and valuable
an aspect of the engineering work as the
design of its constructed elements. For example, the routing of the Rideau Canal and
the locations and interrelationships of its
dams, weirs, lockstations and blockhouses
are all character-defining elements of that
historic place. The functional arrangement
is often directly related to the human
and engineering struggle encountered in
imposing the work on the environment, to
the distinct stages of the manufacturing or
reduction process carried out at the work
and to the patterns of circulation and
activity involved in operating the work.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for the functional arrangement of an engineering work. When the
engineering work is part of a cultural landscape, also refer to Spatial Relationships in
the Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes.
Guidelines for ENGINEERING WORKS
Moderate-scale Functional Arrangement: Claybank Brick Plant, located near Claybank, SK, consists of
about 132 hectares containing over 20 Constructed Elements, including a brick plant, clay-pits, houses, rail
spur and a rail siding. An example of a moderate-scale functional arrangement at an industrial work, the plant
includes distinct areas for brick production and storage; internal transportation systems for both clay and
bricks; transportation facilities for shipping out finished brick; an administration area; and residential areas that
reflect the roles and relationships of members of this industrial community such as the location of the
detached residences and bunkhouse.
Small-scale Functional Arrangement: The interior
of the Britannia Mines Concentrator, in Britannia
Beach, BC, is an example of a small-scale Functional
Arrangement at an industrial work. The concentrator
processed copper ore for one of Canada’s largest
mining operations in the 1920s and 1930s. The
concentrator used innovative technologies and took
advantage of gravity to move the ore downwards
through the building at each stage. The functional
layout of the building’s interior, and particularly the
definition and respective locations of special-purpose
areas, is a character-defining element.
The Diefenbunker is valued for the comprehensive
physical evidence it presents confirming Canada’s
determination to survive and function as a nation
during a nuclear attack. The Functional Arrangement
of the Diefenbunker, including the relative placement
of the surrounding buildings associated with its
operations (the guard house and related shelter, the
underground garage, the fibreglass tuning hut, the
underground communications vault), is a characterdefining element. Any new functions or services at
the site should be located in a manner that does not
obscure or alter this arrangement.
The routing of the Kettle Valley Railway through the
Myra Canyon in British Columbia used a network
of trestles, tunnels, rock cuts and fills. Constructed
in 1915 as part of a secondary main line route that
operated across southern British Columbia, the
construction and positioning of the trestles greatly
reduced the amount of rock excavation required to
route the railway through the canyon. In 2003, a
forest fire destroyed 12 of the 16 wooden trestles
and damaged two steel structures in the canyon.
The wooden trestles were rebuilt based on original
construction specifications.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
205
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
206
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the functional arrangement and how it
contributes to the heritage value of the engineering work.
2
Understanding the construction history, theory, and functional
basis and design behind the functional arrangement.
3
Documenting the functional arrangement, including the
circulation patterns and process sequence, and the orientation,
alignment, size, juxtaposition and interrelationships of the
constructed elements that define their organization, evolution
and condition, before undertaking an intervention.
4
Assessing the physical integrity of the functional arrangement
early in the planning process so that the scope of work is based
on current conditions.
5
Protecting the functional arrangement by securing and
maintaining the circulation patterns and process sequence,
and the orientation, alignment, size, juxtaposition and
interrelationships of the constructed elements.
Allowing the functional arrangement to be altered by
incompatible development or neglect.
6
Retaining the functional arrangement by maintaining the circulation
patterns and process sequence as well as the orientation, alignment,
size, juxtaposition and interrelationships of the constructed elements.
Altering the functional arrangement by removing or
relocating sound or repairable constructed elements
that define the functional arrangement.
7
Retaining the functional arrangement by maintaining the
relationship between the engineering work and its site, when
this relationship is part of its heritage value.
Removing or relocating an engineering work when
its location is character-defining, thus affecting the
relationship between the work and its site.
8
Documenting all interventions that affect functional
arrangement, and ensuring that this documentation is available
to those responsible for future interventions.
Undertaking an intervention that will affect the
functional arrangement without first documenting
the existing arrangement.
Guidelines for ENGINEERING WORKS
ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS
Recommended
Not Recommended
9
Rehabilitating the functional arrangement by re-establishing
the circulation patterns and process sequence, and the orientation, alignment, size, juxtaposition and interrelationships of the
constructed elements, using physical and documentary evidence
as a model for reproduction.
10
Rehabilitating the functional arrangement by replacing missing
constructed elements that define the arrangement. Designing
and installing new constructed elements using physical and
documentary evidence as a model for reproduction.
Allowing the functional arrangement to be obscured by
failing to replace a missing constructed element that
defines the arrangement.
Additions or Alterations to the Functional Arrangement
11
Locating new functions and services in existing non-characterdefining spaces, in a manner that does not obscure or alter the
functional arrangement.
12
Introducing new circulation in a way that respects characterdefining circulation patterns and process sequence, and the
functional arrangement of the constructed elements.
13
Removing the non character-defining constructed elements
that do not contribute to the functional arrangement, when
required by the new use.
Radically changing the functional arrangement to adapt
to a new use.
Altering the functional arrangement to suit a new use
by removing character-defining constructed elements.
Relocating non character-defining constructed elements
to a new location, in a manner that alters or impairs the
functional arrangement, thus creating a false impression
of the engineering work.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
14
Adding new features to meet health, safety and security
requirements in a manner that conserves the functional
arrangement of the engineering work and minimizes impact on
its character-defining elements.
Damaging or destroying character-defining elements
while making modifications to comply with health,
safety and security requirements.
15
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements
with the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the engineering work.
Making changes to the functional arrangement without
first exploring equivalent systems, methods or devices
that may be less damaging to the character-defining
elements of the engineering work.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
207
ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS
Recommended
Not Recommended
Accessibility Considerations
16
Introducing a new feature to meet accessibility requirements
in a manner that conserves the functional arrangement and
respects the overall heritage value of the engineering work.
17
Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and
users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility
issues with the least impact on the character-defining elements
and overall heritage value of the engineering work.
Altering character-defining elements without consulting
the appropriate specialists and users.
Ceasing Operation of an Engineering Work
18
Following appropriate mothballing procedures when ceasing
the operation of an engineering work so as to maintain the
potential for future operation of the work.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
208
Recommended
Not Recommended
19
Reinstating the functional arrangement from the restoration
period by re-establishing the circulation patterns and process
sequence, and the orientation, alignment, size, juxtaposition
and interrelationships of the constructed elements that define
the arrangement, using documentary and physical evidence
as a model for reproduction. The new work should be well
documented and unobtrusively dated to guide future research
and treatment.
Replacing a constructed element that defines the
functional arrangement from the restoration period when
repair is possible, or using destructive repair methods,
thus causing further damage to fragile historic materials.
20
Replacing in kind entire constructed elements that define
the functional arrangement from the restoration period that
are too deteriorated to repair, using physical evidence as a
model to reproduce the element. The new work should be well
documented and unobtrusively dated to guide future research
and treatment.
Removing a constructed element from the restoration
period that is beyond repair and not replacing it, or
replacing it with a new constructed element that
does not respect the functional arrangement of the
engineering work.
Guidelines for ENGINEERING WORKS
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
Removing Existing Arrangements from Other Periods
21
Removing or altering a non character-defining functional
arrangement from a period other than the restoration period.
Failing to remove a non character-defining functional
arrangement from a period other than the restoration
period that confuses the depiction of the engineering
work’s chosen restoration period.
Removing a functional arrangement from a later period
that serves an important function in the engineering
work’s ongoing use.
Recreating Missing Arrangements from the Restoration Period
22
Recreating a missing functional arrangement from the
restoration period, based on physical or documentary evidence.
Establishing a functional arrangement that was part
of the original design, but was never actually built, or
creating a functional arrangement that was thought
to have existed during the restoration period, but for
which there is insufficient documentation.
Restoring Operation to an Engineering Work
23
Restoring operation to an engineering work that is important
in defining its heritage value.
Keeping an engineering work in a non-operational state
when the operation of the work is important in defining
its heritage value.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
209
4.5
Guidelines for
Materials
The following section addresses many types of materials. Clockwise, from top left are examples of landscape materials, masonry, fabric, and glass and concrete.
4.5
Guidelines for
Materials
The guidelines apply to the materials
that compose buildings, built features
of cultural landscapes and constructed
elements of engineering works. Because
materials are often identified as characterdefining, they contribute to the heritage
value of historic places and should be
conserved. The ongoing care of materials,
including appropriate maintenance and
repair, contributes to the integrity and
lifespan of an historic place.
In-kind materials should be used whenever possible. Sourcing materials for
repair and replacement can be challenging, especially if the materials are from
an historic source that no longer exists,
such as a quarry, an old-growth forest, or
a manufacturing facility that has closed
down. It may be possible to find salvaged
materials from other buildings or, in
some cases, find the needed materials
elsewhere in the historic place to use for
small repairs.
Durability
Traditional building materials, such
as masonry and wood, are inherently
durable. Over time, they have
demonstrated a significant capacity
to withstand surface degradation
without losing structural capacity,
or frequent repairs as long as
basic maintenance is carried out.
Patina
There is a fine distinction between patina and decay. Patina is the natural aging
of materials; an organic and superficial surface degradation that is usually not
harmful to the material. It can also be caused by use and wear. Understanding
patina and its heritage value in the context of an historic place is part of assessing
the condition of materials. It may be important to conserve patina for reasons of
appearance, such as moss growing on a mature tree or the changed colour of a
building stone, or for natural protection, such as on metals, where corrosion may
form a protective coating.
Substitute Materials
Substitute materials should be explored
only after all other options for repair
and replacement have been ruled out.
They should be used only when the
original materials or craftsmanship are
no longer available, when the original
materials are of poor quality or damage
adjacent character-defining materials, or
when specific regulations rule out using
hazardous materials. Because there are
so many unknowns about the long-term
performance of substitute materials, their
use should not be considered without a
thorough investigation of their composition, compatibility, durability and installation. The importance of finding visually
and physically compatible substitute
materials cannot be overstated.
Applying the Guidelines
The Guidelines for Materials contain
guidelines that apply to all materials, and guidelines related to specific
materials. When conserving any material, first refer to the guidelines for All
Materials and then to the guidelines
related to the specific material: Wood
and Wood Products, Masonry, Concrete,
Architectural and Structural Metals, Glass
and Glass Products, or Plaster and Stucco.
The Miscellaneous Materials subsection includes general guidance for the
conservation of materials that do not fall
into one of these categories.
The Guidelines for Materials should not
be used in isolation, but in conjunction
with the appropriate section for the
related building assembly, built feature,
or constructed element.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
213
4.5.1 All Materials
These guidelines provide direction when
a material is identified as a characterdefining element of an historic place.
The material may have been identified
specifically, or may be an integral part of a
character-defining element. These guidelines provide direction on documentation,
condition assessment, testing and maintenance activities, repair and replacement
in kind that apply to all materials. For the
investigation, analysis and modification
of materials that are part of engineering
works, the services of a professional
engineer are required by code.
The Guidelines for All Materials do not
provide complete guidance on materials conservation; they provide general
advice common to all materials. As such,
they should be referred to in conjunction
with the following guidelines for specific
materials:
4.5.2 Wood and Wood Products
4.5.3 Masonry
4.5.4 Concrete
4.5.5 Architectural and Structural Metals
4.5.6 Glass and Glass Products
4.5.7 Plaster and Stucco
4.5.8 Miscellaneous Materials.
Wood: An example of “limited replacement in kind” describes an appropriate scope of work in the Preservation
treatment. Only the damaged corner of a stair’s newel post at the Commissioner’s Residence in Dawson City,
has been replaced (it will be stained to match). Only repairing deteriorated parts meant that most of the
character-defining elements were retained.
214
Masonry: In this rehabilitation project of the
Rideau Canal, some of the original limestone blocks
remained in good condition. Others, which were
too deteriorated to repair, were replaced in kind
with new limestone blocks.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the materials that comprise the historic place
and how they contribute to its heritage value.
2
Documenting all interventions that affect materials, and
ensuring that the documentation is available to those
responsible for future interventions.
3
Determining the appropriate level of investigation required to
understand the properties and overall condition of the material.
Failing to undertake an appropriate level of investigation
and analysis before identifying the level of conservation
work required.
4
Assessing materials fully to understand condition, evolution
over time, deterioration and mechanical and chemical properties.
This should be done early in the planning process so that the
scope of work is based on current conditions.
Carrying out a level of conservation work that exceeds
what is required, or taking action based on assumptions
or rules of thumb.
Failing to assess the impact of maintenance practices
on materials.
Failing to consider the relationship between materials
and adjacent elements as a source of deterioration.
5
Testing and examining materials and coatings to determine
their properties and causes of deterioration, damage or distress,
through investigation, monitoring and minimally invasive or
non-destructive testing techniques.
Using highly destructive probing or sampling techniques
that damage or destroy materials.
Undertaking work without understanding the mechanical
and chemical properties of the material.
Carrying out a repair that does not treat or address
the cause of the problem.
6
Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate
replacement materials, quality of workmanship and
methodology. This can include reviewing samples, testing
products, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock-up.
Testing should be carried out under the same conditions as
the proposed intervention.
7
Maintaining materials on a regular basis, as described in the
relevant material subsection.
8
Carrying out regular monitoring and inspections of materials
to proactively determine the type and frequency of maintenance
required.
9
Developing a maintenance plan, where appropriate, that
includes schedules for monitoring and inspection.
Failing to adequately maintain materials, or carrying out
maintenance on an ad-hoc basis.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
215
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
10
Updating and adapting maintenance activities, as conditions
and knowledge about the materials and maintenance products
and methods evolve.
11
Cleaning materials only when necessary, to remove heavy
soiling or graffiti. The cleaning method should be as gentle
as possible to obtain satisfactory results.
12
Carrying out cleaning tests, after it has been determined that
a specific cleaning method is appropriate.
13
Protecting adjacent materials from accidental damage during
maintenance or repair work.
Allowing character-defining elements to be exposed to
accidental damage by nearby work.
14
Repairing or replacing materials to match the original as closely
as possible, both visually and physically.
Using inappropriate or untested materials or
consolidants, or using untrained personnel
for repair work.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
15
Recommended
Not Recommended
Replacing character-defining materials with compatible
substitute materials, when the original is found to accelerate
deterioration and only after thorough analysis and monitoring
confirms that the material or construction detail is problematic.
Substitute materials should be as durable as the overall assembly
to maintain its expected service life.
Using new materials and new technologies that do not
have a proven track record.
Replacing deteriorated character-defining elements using
new materials or technologies to improve durability,
when the original material performs adequately.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
16
216
Recommended
Not Recommended
Documenting materials dating from periods other than the
restoration period before their alteration or removal. If possible,
selected samples of these materials should be stored to facilitate
future research.
Failing to document materials that are not from the
restoration period before removing them.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
4.5.2
Wood
and Wood
Products
These guidelines provide direction when
wood and wood products are identified
as character-defining elements of an
historic place. They also give direction on
maintaining, repairing and replacing wood
or wood products.
Wood and wood products refer to wood
elements used in exterior or interior
systems and assemblies. Wood elements
include logs, sawn or hewn timbers, and
milled or sculpted lumber. Wood products
include plywood, glue-laminated timber,
or composites, such as particleboard
or wafer board. Both wood and wood
products can be found in roofs, cladding,
structure, windows and doors, interior
finishes, carvings and fences.
It is important to identify the cause of any damage to a wooden building element before beginning a
Preservation treatment. For the former machine shop of the North Pacific Cannery in Port Edward BC,
exposure to marine conditions caused the exterior wood cladding to deteriorate.
An organic material, wood has a wide
range of physical properties that vary
significantly, depending on species, cut,
grade and age. Wood is especially vulnerable to fire, moisture, ultraviolet radiation
and insect infestation, thus protection
from these threats is crucial to its
conservation. This includes applying and
maintaining suitable coatings and treatments, such as paints, stains, varnishes
and preservatives.
Using minimally destructive testing methods can help
evaluate the condition of wood without damaging it.
Here a resistance measuring micro drill is being used
to evaluate the condition of a log wall at Fort Walsh,
NHSC in Saskatchewan. A drilling needle penetrates
the wood at a constant speed and measures the
resistance encountered to advance the drill bit. The
resistance the wood offers indicates its condition:
low resistance can indicate decay.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
217
Repairing wood elements typically
involves consolidating or replacing decayed or damaged wood, and correcting
the conditions that caused the decay or
damage. The use of traditional carpentry
techniques in repairing architectural
and structural wood elements is well
established. However, repairing more
recently introduced wood products, such
as plywood and composites, may not
be possible, due to the manufacturing
process involved and their modular nature.
In this case, replacement in kind may be
more appropriate. The difficulty in locating
a sustainable source for replacement in
kind of old growth or exotic wood may
result in the need to select an appropriate
replacement material.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for wood and wood products
and should be used in conjunction with
4.5.1, All Materials. Because wood can
form part of the structure or envelope of
a building or engineering work, also refer
to the specific system or assembly in the
Guidelines for Buildings.
Wood was often used in modern buildings as a finish to contrast with more industrial materials, or as part of an
acoustical treatment on ceilings and walls. The wood ceiling and column claddings of the Beaver Lake Pavilion
in Montreal were carefully preserved as part of the recent rehabilitation of the pavilion.
Deteriorated logs at the John Walter Historic Site
in Edmonton were replaced in kind with hewn logs
that used the originals as templates to reproduce
tooling marks on visible surfaces. On close inspection,
this distinguishes the new materials if the logs are
separated in the future.
Preserving the wood doors of the Langevin Block in Ottawa included carefully dismantling the doors to permit the
damaged and decayed wood to be repaired.
218
Guidelines for MATERIALS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the properties and characteristics of wood and
its finishes or coatings, such as its species, grade, strength and
finish, or the chemical make-up of its coating.
2
Documenting the location, dimension, species, finish and
condition of wood before undertaking an intervention.
Undertaking an intervention that affects wood, without
first documenting its existing characteristics and
condition.
3
Protecting and maintaining wood by preventing water
penetration; by maintaining proper drainage so that water or
organic matter does not stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or
accumulate in decorative features; and by preventing conditions
that contribute to weathering and wear.
Failing to identify, evaluate and treat the causes of
wood deterioration.
4
Creating conditions that are unfavourable to the growth of
fungus, such as eliminating entry points for water; opening vents
to allow drying out; removing piled earth resting against wood
and plants that hinder air circulation; or applying a chemical
preservative, using recognized conservation methods.
5
Inspecting coatings to determine their condition and
appropriateness, in terms of physical and visual compatibility
with the material, assembly, or system.
6
Retaining coatings that help protect the wood from moisture,
ultraviolet light and wear. Removal should be considered only as
part of an overall maintenance program that involves reapplying
the protective coatings in kind.
Stripping paint or other coatings to reveal bare wood,
thus exposing historically coated surfaces to moisture,
ultraviolet light, accelerated weathering and
mechanical wear.
7
Removing damaged, deteriorated, or thickly applied coatings
to the next sound layer, using the safest and gentlest method
possible, then recoating in kind.
Using destructive coating removal methods, such as
propane or butane torches, sandblasting or waterblasting. These methods can irreversibly damage
woodwork.
8
Using the gentlest means possible to remove paint or varnish
when it is too deteriorated to recoat, or so thickly applied that it
obscures details.
Using thermal devices improperly in a manner that
scorches the woodwork.
Failing to neutralize the wood thoroughly after using
chemical strippers, thereby preventing the new coating
from adhering.
Allowing detachable wood elements to soak too long in
a caustic solution, causing the wood grain to raise and
the surface to roughen.
Stripping historically coated wood surfaces to bare
wood, then applying a clear varnish or stain.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
219
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
220
Recommended
Not Recommended
9
Applying compatible coatings following proper surface preparation, such as cleaning with tri-sodium phosphate.
Failing to follow the manufacturer’s product and
application instructions when applying coatings.
10
Ensuring that new coatings are physically and visually
compatible with the surface to which they are applied in
durability, chemical composition, colour and texture.
11
Applying chemical preservatives to unpainted wood elements
that are not exposed to view.
Using chemical preservatives, such as copper naphtanate,
if these materials have not been used historically, and are
known to change the appearance of wood elements.
12
Preventing the continued deterioration of wood by isolating
it from the source of deterioration. For example, blocking
windborne sand and grit with a windbreak, or installing wire
mesh over floor joists in a crawlspace to thwart rodents.
Neglecting to treat known conditions that threaten
wood, such as abrasion, animal gnawing, fungal
decay, or insect infestation.
13
Treating active insect infestations by implementing an
extermination program specific to that insect.
14
Retaining all sound and repairable wood that contributes to
the heritage value of the historic place.
Replacing wood that can be repaired, such as wood
components from old growth timber that is inherently
more durable.
15
Stabilizing deteriorated wood by structural reinforcement,
weather protection, or correcting unsafe conditions, as required,
until repair work is undertaken.
Removing deteriorated wood that can be stabilized
or repaired.
16
Repairing wood by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or
otherwise reinforcing the wood, using recognized conservation
methods.
Replacing an entire wood element, when repair and
limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts
is appropriate.
17
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
wood elements, based on documentary and physical evidence.
Using a substitute material for the replacement part
that neither conveys the same appearance as the wood
element, nor is physically or chemically compatible.
18
Replacing in kind the entire panel of an extensively
deteriorated or missing modular wood product, such as plywood,
on a unit-by-unit basis.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
19
Repairing wood elements by patching, piecing-in, consolidating
or otherwise reinforcing the wood, using recognized
conservation methods. Repair might include the limited
replacement in kind, or replacement with compatible substitute
material, of extensively deteriorated or missing wood, where
there are surviving prototypes. Repairs might also include
dismantling and rebuilding a timber structure or wood assembly,
if an evaluation of its overall condition determines that more
than limited repair or replacement in kind is required.
20
Replacing in kind an irreparable wood element, based on
documentary and physical evidence.
Removing an irreparable wood element and not
replacing it, or replacing it with an inappropriate
new element.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
21
Removing or encapsulating hazardous materials, such as lead
paint, using the least-invasive abatement methods, and only
after adequate testing has been conducted.
Sustainability Considerations
22
Selecting replacement materials for character-defining
old-growth, exotic, or otherwise unavailable wood,
based on their physical and visual characteristics.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
23
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing, stabilizing and securing fragile wood from the
restoration period, using well-tested consolidants, when
appropriate. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible
and identifiable on close inspection for future research.
Removing wood from the restoration period that could be
stabilized and conserved.
Replacing an entire wood element from the restoration
period when repair and limited replacement of deteriorated
or missing parts is possible.
Using a substitute material for the replacement that
neither conveys the same appearance as the surviving
wood, nor is physically or chemically compatible.
24
Replacing in kind a wood element from the restoration period
that is too deteriorated to repair, based on documentary and
physical evidence. The new work should be well documented and
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable wood element from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it
with an inappropriate new element.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
221
4.5.3
Masonry
These guidelines provide direction when
masonry is identified as a character-defining element of an historic place. They also
give direction on maintaining, repairing
and replacing masonry elements.
Masonry refers to mortared or dry laid
natural stone as well as brick, cast stone,
terra cotta and concrete block. The
aesthetic characteristics of the masonry,
such as the finish dressing, texture and
colour of the stone, brick or mortar, the
coursing pattern, and the joint width and
profile, along with the careful integration
of decorative sculptural and functional
elements, such as band courses, lintels,
water tables, cornices, scuppers and carvings, all contribute to its heritage value
and require careful consideration.
Masonry construction in Canada ranges
from statues and simple stone pathways,
to massive fortifications and modern brick
veneers on high-rise buildings. In many
early uses, masonry played a dual role,
acting as both the structural system and
the building envelope. When conserving
these types of masonry, it is important to
consider both of these roles.
Sandblasting was once a popular method of removing
paint from brick; however, it also removed the
brick’s outer hardened “crust” causing the brick
to deteriorate.
Preserving the exterior of the British Columbia Legislative Building (its rear façade shown here), including
its masonry walls, steps, columns, pilasters, window surrounds, decorative details and cornices, began with
documenting the material, form, jointing, tooling, bonding patterns, coatings, colour and conditions of these
elements before beginning project work.
222
The harsh climate in many parts of Canada can
seriously damage masonry elements. This wall has
suffered irreversible damage from water penetrating
the brick façade and freezing, causing the faces of
many bricks to pop off. To avoid such damage, repair
failed flashings, deteriorated mortar joints or other
mechanical defects, but do not apply water-repellent
coatings, which can trap moisture inside the masonry.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
One of the primary causes of deterioration of glazed
architectural terra cotta, like that shown on the
Confederation Life Building in Winnipeg is water.
Water-related damage to the glazed units, mortar,
metal anchors or masonry backfill can be repaired only
after eliminating the sources of that water. In order to
ensure that the actual root problem is being solved,
investigation work would need to be completed prior
to any repairs in order to identify that source.
Masonry should be cleaned only when necessary to halt deterioration or remove heavy soiling. If surface cleaning
is appropriate, test to select the gentlest cleaning method possible, and observe the result over time to determine
the immediate and the long-term effects. Test cleaning the left portion of this brick and stone wall (using low
pressure water and detergents, when there was no chance of freezing) created an acceptably clean wall.
A wide variety of stone has been used in
historic places. Each type has different
properties and behaviours that must
be understood to ensure their proper
conservation. Because stone is a natural
material, it can possess inclusions of
minerals or clay that can weaken it and
reduce its durability. Poor-quality design
and workmanship can aggravate these
inherent weaknesses.
Brick is a solid or hollow masonry unit,
typically made of clay, calcium-silicate,
or concrete, and used for both cladding
and structural work. Terra cotta is also
made of clay mixed with sand. It is used
for ornamental work, roof and floor tiles,
interior partitions and as fire proofing for
metal structures. Terra cotta is not a loadbearing material.
The preservation of masonry can best be
ensured through appropriate and timely
maintenance. Cleaning treatments for
purely aesthetic purposes should be
avoided because they can aggravate and
accelerate deterioration.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for masonry and should
be used in conjunction with 4.5.1, All
Materials. Because masonry can form
part of the structure or envelope of a
building or engineering work, also refer to
Structural Systems and to Exterior Walls in
the Guidelines for Buildings.
Deteriorated slate pavers should be replaced in
kind from the same source of the original material.
If the original quarry is closed, a suitable match
should be located and attention given to the stone’s
composition, strength and colour.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
223
Tenby School in Lansdowne MB is a well-preserved and rare example
of a village school built with concrete blocks, a material commonly used
between 1890 and 1905 for homes and commercial buildings in southern
Manitoba. The blocks were artfully formed on site by using three
distinct moulds.
Using brick masonry in interiors is a long lasting, almost indestructible
finish for public spaces. Brick walls and floors are character defining in
many modern interiors such as the Joseph Shepard Building in Toronto.
It is not recommended to apply paint or other coatings to masonry
that has been historically unpainted or uncoated.
Masonry used on the exterior of modern buildings is
generally a cladding attached to a separate structure.
Clips, anchors or shelf angles are used to attach the
stone panels or brick masonry. The deterioration of
these anchors is an area of potential deterioration
and failure. Monitoring the condition of these anchors
is a vital part of a maintenance plan, as their failure
can lead to very significant damage.
Many stone masonry monuments, such as the Brock Monument in Queenston, ON, are historic places.
A monument does not face many of the challenges of historic buildings or engineering works. Its purpose and
use are the same today as when it was built. A monument is expected to remain constant and unchanged
despite time, deterioration and weathering. Continuous maintenance and repairs are required and interventions
or major repairs must be carefully considered to evaluate their potential impact on each part of the monument.
224
Guidelines for MATERIALS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the properties and characteristics of the
masonry of the historic place.
2
Documenting the form, materials and condition of masonry
before undertaking an intervention. For example, identifying the
particular characteristics and source of the type of stone or brick
used, and the composition of the mortar.
Undertaking an intervention that affects masonry without
first documenting its existing character and condition.
3
Protecting and maintaining masonry by preventing water
penetration, and maintaining proper drainage so that water or
organic matter does not stand on flat surfaces, or accumulate in
decorative features.
Failing to identify, evaluate and treat the causes of
masonry deterioration.
4
Applying appropriate surface treatments, such as breathable
coatings, to masonry elements as a last resort, only if masonry
repairs, alternative design solutions or flashings have failed
to stop water penetration, and if a maintenance program is
established for the coating.
5
Sealing or coating areas of spalled or blistered glaze on
terra cotta units, using appropriate paints or sealants that are
physically and visually compatible with the masonry units.
6
Cleaning masonry, only when necessary, to remove heavy
soiling or graffiti. The cleaning method should be as gentle
as possible to obtain satisfactory results.
Applying water-repellent coatings to stop moisture
penetration when the problem could be solved by
repairing failed flashings, deteriorated mortar joints,
or other mechanical defects.
Over-cleaning masonry surfaces to create a new
appearance, thus introducing chemicals or moisture into
the materials.
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.
Using a cleaning method that involves water or liquid
chemical solutions when there is a possibility of freezing
temperatures.
Cleaning with chemical products that damage masonry
or mortar, such as using acid on limestone or marble.
Failing to rinse off and neutralize appropriate chemicals
on masonry surfaces after cleaning.
Applying high-pressure water cleaning methods that
damage the masonry and mortar joints and adjacent
materials.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
225
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
7
Carrying out masonry cleaning tests after it has been determined that a specific cleaning method is appropriate.
Cleaning masonry surfaces without sufficient time to
determine long-term effectiveness and impacts.
8
Inspecting painted masonry surfaces to determine whether
paint can successfully be removed without damaging the
masonry, or if repainting is necessary. Testing in an inconspicuous
area may be required.
9
Removing damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next
sound layer, using the gentlest method possible; for example,
hand scraping before repainting.
Removing paint that is firmly adhering to masonry
surfaces.
Re-applying compatible paint or coatings, if necessary, that are
physically compatible with the previous surface treatments and
visually compatible with the surface to which they are applied.
Applying paint, coatings or stucco to masonry that has
been historically unpainted or uncoated.
10
Using methods of removing paint that are destructive
to masonry, such as sandblasting, application of caustic
solutions, or high-pressure water blasting.
Removing paint from historically painted masonry,
unless it is damaging the underlying masonry.
Removing stucco from masonry that was historically
never exposed.
226
11
Retaining sound and repairable masonry that contributes to the
heritage value of the historic place.
12
Stabilizing deteriorated masonry by structural reinforcement
and weather protection, or correcting unsafe conditions, as
required, until repair work is undertaken.
13
Repairing masonry by repointing the mortar joints where there
is evidence of deterioration, such as disintegrating or cracked
mortar, loose bricks, or damp walls.
Removing sound mortar.
14
Removing deteriorated or inappropriate mortar by carefully
raking the joints, using hand tools or appropriate mechanical
means to avoid damaging the masonry.
Using rotary grinders or electric saws to fully remove
mortar from joints before repointing. In some instances it
may be acceptable to make a single pass with a cutting
disk to release tension in the mortar before raking the
joint. Extreme caution must be used to prevent
accidental damage.
Replacing or rebuilding masonry that can be repaired.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
15
Recommended
Not Recommended
Using mortars that ensure the long-term preservation of the
masonry assembly, and are compatible in strength, porosity,
absorption and vapour permeability with the existing masonry
units. Pointing mortars should be weaker than the masonry units;
bedding mortars should meet structural requirements; and the
joint profile should be visually compatible with the masonry in
colour, texture and width.
Repointing with mortar of a higher Portland cement
content than in the original mortar. This can create a
bond stronger than the historic material (brick or stone)
and cause damage as a result of the differing expansion
coefficients and porosity of the materials.
16
Duplicating original mortar joints in colour, texture, width and
joint profile.
17
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
masonry elements, based on documentary and physical evidence
Repointing with a synthetic caulking compound.
Using a ‘scrub’ coating technique to repoint instead
of using traditional repointing methods.
Using a substitute material for the replacement part that
neither conveys the same appearance as the masonry
element, nor is physically or chemically compatible.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
18
Repairing masonry by patching, piecing-in or consolidating,
using recognized conservation methods. Repair might include the
limited replacement in kind, or replacement with a compatible
substitute material, of extensively deteriorated or missing
masonry units, where there are surviving prototypes. Repairs
might also include dismantling and rebuilding a masonry wall or
structure, if an evaluation of its overall condition determines that
more than limited repair or replacement in kind is required.
19
Replacing in kind an irreparable masonry element, based on
documentary and physical evidence.
Removing an irreparable masonry element and not
replacing it, or replacing it with an inappropriate
new element.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
20
Removing hazardous materials from masonry, using the leastinvasive abatement methods, and only after adequate testing
has been conducted.
Sustainability Considerations
21
Selecting replacement materials from sustainable sources,
where possible. For example, replacing deteriorated stone units
using in-kind stone recovered from a building demolition.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
227
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
22
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing, stabilizing and securing masonry elements from
the restoration period, using recognized conservation methods.
Repairs should be physically and visually compatible and
identifiable on close inspection for future research.
Removing masonry elements from the restoration period
that could be stabilized and conserved.
Replacing an entire masonry element from the restoration
period, when repair and limited replacement of
deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
Using a substitute material for the replacement that
neither conveys the same appearance as the surviving
masonry, nor is physically or chemically compatible.
23
228
Replacing in kind a masonry element from the restoration
period that is too deteriorated to repair, based on documentary
and physical evidence. The new work should be well documented
and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable masonry element from the
restoration and not replacing it, or replacing it with
an inappropriate new element.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
4.5.4
CONCRETE
These guidelines provide direction when
concrete is identified as a character-defining element of an historic place. They also
give direction on maintaining, repairing
and replacing concrete elements.
Early uses of concrete were typically
utilitarian and formed part of structures
that were hidden from view. The earliest
concrete was massive, un-reinforced, castin-place construction containing variable
aggregates that were obtained from local
sources. Beginning in the early 1900s, the
use of concrete as an aesthetic material
became more common and was fully embraced by the middle of the 20th century.
Reinforced concrete began appearing in
the early 1900s, introducing more efficient
designs of concrete members and structures. This, in turn, allowed for increased
spans and the creation of architectural
features, such as sculptural staircases
and organic roof forms. Pre-cast concrete,
where the members are fabricated off-site
and brought to the site for erection, was
first used in the 1930s. This coincided
with the increased use of concrete as an
exposed architectural, decorative and
functional element, such as paving tiles
and exterior wall cladding.
Cape Race Lighthouse, on the southernmost tip of the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland and Labrador, is Canada’s
most prominent landfall marker. Built in 1906–1907, Cape Race was the first Canadian lighthouse to be constructed
in reinforced concrete and probably the second lighthouse constructed in reinforced concrete in the world.
Special formwork or chemical or mechanical
treatments can create a wide variety of concrete
finishes, such as these pre-cast panels with exposed
Laurentian granite aggregate at the National Arts
Centre in Ottawa. Recreating these finishes when
repairing or replacing-in-kind should be preceded
by a mock up to ensure that the new work will be
compatible with the historic place.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
229
Architectural uses for concrete include
exterior cladding, flooring and paving. The
aesthetic qualities of concrete can include
the texture created by formwork, such as
smooth or board formed, and the colour
and finish, such as exposed aggregate
or terrazzo.
Finding recognized conservation techniques for concrete can be a challenge
because these are part of a relatively
new area of conservation. Some repair
techniques may not have been thoroughly
tested. A significant industry exists in
Canada for repairing recent concrete
structures; however, commonly used
repair techniques and materials are
usually not suited to historic concrete.
The monolithic nature of concrete complicates its repair. High-quality workmanship
and compatible materials are necessary
in any repair to reduce the abrupt altering
of the properties of the matrix, which
could lead to shrinkage cracking.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for concrete and should
be used in conjunction with 4.5.1, All
Materials. Because concrete can also
form part of the structure or cladding of
a building or engineering work, also refer
to Structural Systems or Exterior Walls
in the Guidelines for Buildings.
In the early 20th century, concrete was still an
experimental material. The early designers and
fabricators did not have full knowledge about
the properties and characteristics of the concrete
or its performance in the Canadian environment.
Early examples of concrete construction often have
inherent problems, are in poor condition and can
require considerable conservation work.
Deterioration of concrete is a significant conservation
issue, particularly in the Canadian climate.
Deterioration typically results from environmental
factors, such as moisture, temperature and the
presence of salts and carbon dioxide, which can
corrode the steel reinforcements. Durability factors
related to the original materials and workmanship,
and improper maintenance, can also significantly
affect concrete.
The skills and expertise to repair or replace sections
of cracked and chipped terrazzo flooring are
still available. These specialised skills should be
sought our when repairs are needed. The colourful,
decorative and functional finish of this crest in the
floor at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch No 1 in
Regina is an important character-defining feature
of the building.
Important properties to match when patching
concrete can include the modulus of elasticity,
cement to aggregate ratio, aggregate gradation,
compressive and shear strength, and coefficient of
thermal expansion. In this case the coarse aggregate
in the repair patch does not match that of the
original concrete.
230
Guidelines for MATERIALS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the properties and characteristics of the
concrete of the historic place.
2
Documenting the form, composition, strength, colour, texture,
details and condition of the concrete before undertaking
an intervention. For example, identifying the particular
characteristics and source of the type of aggregate used.
Undertaking an intervention that affects concrete,
without first documenting its existing character
and condition.
3
Protecting and maintaining concrete by preventing moisture
penetration; maintaining proper drainage; improving water
shedding; and by preventing damage due to the overuse of
ice-clearing chemicals.
Failing to identify, evaluate and treat the various causes
of concrete deterioration.
Cleaning concrete, only when necessary, to remove heavy
soiling or graffiti. The cleaning method should be as gentle as
possible to obtain satisfactory results.
Over-cleaning concrete surfaces to create a new
appearance, thus introducing chemicals or moisture
into the concrete.
4
Applying water-repellent coatings to above-grade
concrete to stop moisture penetration, when the problem
could be solved by repairing failed flashings or other
mechanical defects.
Using a cleaning method that involves water or liquid
chemical solutions when there is a possibility of freezing
temperatures.
Cleaning with chemical products that damage the
concrete.
Failing to rinse off and neutralize appropriate chemicals
on concrete surfaces after cleaning.
Blasting the concrete with abrasives that permanently
erode the surface and damage soft or delicate materials
adjacent to it.
Applying coatings or paint over the concrete to present
a uniform appearance.
5
Testing cleaning methods in inconspicuous areas before
cleaning the entire concrete surface, and observing the results of
the cleaning tests over a sufficient period of time to determine
their immediate and long-term effect.
6
Inspecting painted concrete surfaces to determine whether
repainting is necessary.
7
Removing damaged or peeling paint, using the gentlest
method possible before repainting.
Removing paint that is firmly adhered to concrete.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
231
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
Reapplying compatible paint or coatings, if necessary, that are
physically and chemically compatible with the previous surface
treatment, and visually compatible with the surface to which
they are applied.
Removing paint from historically painted concrete unless
it is damaging the underlying concrete.
9
Selecting an appropriate approach to corrosion protection to
minimize damage to the concrete, including regular inspection
and maintenance.
Introducing a corrosion protection system for the
concrete, without verifying the effectiveness or the
level of benefit achieved by the work, or without taking
appropriate steps to address the cause of the corrosion.
10
Retaining sound and repairable concrete elements that
contribute to the heritage value of the historic place.
Removing deteriorated concrete that could be stabilized
or repaired.
11
Stabilizing deteriorated concrete elements by structural
reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting unsafe
conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
12
Repairing deteriorated concrete by patching or consolidating,
using appropriate conservation methods.
8
Removing stucco or cement parging from concrete that
was historically never exposed.
Repairing concrete without treating the cause of
deterioration.
Replacing an entire concrete element when selective
repair or replacement is possible.
Using coatings or finishes to cover and hide surface repairs.
13
Minimizing damage to early concrete by limiting the size of
the chipping equipment to better control the degree of removal,
remembering that the compressive strength of early concrete
may be much lower than modern concrete.
14
Cleaning concrete before repair to remove contaminants,
dirt and soil, so that the new concrete patches match
the cleaned surface.
15
Sealing inactive cracks in concrete by pointing with a
cementitious mortar, or injecting epoxies to prevent moisture
from entering the concrete mass.
Sealing active cracks with hard mortars or other hard
materials that could prevent seasonal movements.
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
concrete elements, based on documentary and physical evidence.
Using replacement material that is incompatible with
adjacent concrete work
16
Repairing cracks in concrete elements, without first
determining the cause or significance of the crack.
Recreating formwork finishes, such as form lines,
wood grain, or knots, using grinders or trowels.
232
Guidelines for MATERIALS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
17
Repairing and reinforcing deteriorated concrete by encasing
it in a jacket of new concrete, using appropriate conservation
methods.
Failing to maintain the proportions or form of
deteriorated concrete elements, when repairing by
jacketing with new concrete.
18
Replacing in kind an irreparable concrete element, based on
documentary and physical evidence.
Removing an irreparable concrete element and not
replacing it, or replacing it with an inappropriate
new element.
19
Applying appropriate surface treatments, such as breathable
coatings, to concrete as a last resort, only if repairs, alternative
design solutions, or flashings have failed to stop water penetration,
and if a maintenance program is established for the coating.
Applying coatings to concrete instead of correcting
the problem that caused the damage.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
20
Removing hazardous materials from concrete by using the
least-invasive abatement methods and only after thorough
testing has been conducted.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
21
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing deteriorated concrete from the restoration period
by patching or consolidating, using recognized conservation
methods. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible
and identifiable on close inspection for future research.
Removing concrete from the restoration period that could
be stabilized and conserved.
Replacing an entire concrete element from the restoration
period when repair and limited replacement of deteriorated
or missing parts is possible.
Using a substitute material for replacement that neither
conveys the same appearance as the surviving concrete,
nor is physically or chemically compatible.
22
Replacing in kind a concrete element from the restoration
period that is too deteriorated to repair, based on documentary
and physical evidence. The new work should be well documented
and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable concrete element from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it
with an inappropriate new element.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
233
4.5.5
Architectural
and
Structural
Metals
These guidelines provide direction when
architectural or structural metals are identified as character-defining elements of an
historic place. They also give direction on
maintaining, repairing and replacing metal
elements.
Structural metals typically include steel or
iron columns, beams, trusses, or frames.
Architectural metals encompass all other
metal elements, which include a wide
variety of architectural elements, such
as sculpture, roofing, flashings, cladding,
cresting, windows, doors, curtain-wall
mullions and spandrel panels, railings and
banisters, stairs, bathroom fixtures and
partitions, hardware, gates, fences, and
sign posts.
Some metal elements of a historic place may originally have been finished with a protective coating under shop
conditions that are difficult to reproduce on site when repairs are required. In this case, the character-defining
black anodized aluminium mullions and spandrel panels have deteriorated due to decades of exposure to
sunlight. The approach to repair should be based on the analysis of all repair options, thorough testing of the
chosen techniques, and careful protection of the curtain wall from further damage during all interventions.
234
The metals used in the construction of
historic places throughout Canadian
history include, but are not limited to, iron
(cast and wrought), steel, stainless steel,
galvanized steel, tin, copper and copper
alloys, zinc, aluminum, lead, nickel and
bronze.
The long-term performance of metal
components depends on their physical
and chemical properties, the environment
they are exposed to, design details, and
their proximity to other metallic and
non-metallic components. Typical forms of
metal deterioration include corrosion, erosion, abrasion, deformation, cracking and
fatigue, and flaws due to original design,
manufacture or assembly.
The first step in preserving architectural metals is to
identify the type of metal. Before cleaning, determine
that the method is appropriate for the particular metal:
removing the patina from these bronze doors would
not be appropriate if the patina is a character-defining
finish of the metal, or if it provides a protective
coating. Testing is recommended to ensure that the
gentlest cleaning method possible is used.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
Generally, metal components tend to be
durable, but components that are not
suited to a particular location or function,
or not receiving adequate maintenance,
may become fragile. To correct damage to
a metal component, the cause of its deterioration must be understood and the type
of metal correctly identified. If the metal’s
properties are not understood, inappropriate treatment may cause an adverse
reaction and further deterioration. Some
metals, such as wrought iron, cast iron
and steel, are easy to recognize, but alloys
can be challenging to identify. Accurately
identifying an alloy may require help from
a metals conservator or conservation
professional.
These guidelines provide general
recommendations for architectural and
structural metals, and should be used in
conjunction with 4.5.1, All Materials. For
structural metals, also refer to Structural
Systems in the Guidelines for Buildings.
Most historic lighthouses have faced accelerated
deterioration due to changes in how they operate;
in addition, wet, salty costal environments are
challenging conditions in which to conserve metals.
The heat produced by the original light source
once helped keep the lantern dry, as did roof top
ventilators and gutter systems. Electric lights and
the lack of regular on-site personnel to maintain and
operate these features have necessitated a pro-active
conservation approach and likely the involvement of
metal conservators.
Under certain circumstances, substitute materials may
be appropriate. As part of a Rehabilitation project,
new finials were designed based on original remains.
The originals were fabricated of wafer-thin galvanized
metal soldered together. The substitute material used
in the new design was plate aluminum.
The two remaining decorative sheet metal urns at the top of the façade
of the M & J Hardware Building in Lacombe, AB were determined to
be beyond repair due to weathering over time. A third sheet metal
urn (centre) was missing. The existing deteriorated elements and
photographic documentation were used to replicate these elements.
The M & J Hardware Building is an example where missing features
from the restoration period have been re-instated based on physical
and documentary evidence.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
235
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
236
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the properties and characteristics of metals and
their finishes or coatings.
2
Documenting the form, composition, and condition of metals,
before undertaking an intervention.
Undertaking an intervention that affects metals without
first documenting their characteristics and condition.
3
Protecting and maintaining metals from corrosion by
preventing water penetration and maintaining proper drainage,
so that water or organic matter does not stand on flat surfaces
or accumulate in decorative features.
Failing to identify, evaluate and treat the causes
of corrosion.
4
Ensuring that incompatible metals are not in contact with each
other by installing an appropriate separator to prevent
galvanic corrosion.
5
Identifying the type of metal and the most appropriate
cleaning method, and testing it in an inconspicuous area to
ensure an appropriate level of cleanliness.
Over-cleaning metal elements.
6
Determining the appropriate level of patina before cleaning,
and ensuring that this level is maintained for the entire element.
Removing the character-defining patina of a metal
element.
7
Cleaning painted metals using appropriate techniques and
products to remove corrosion and layers of paint, if required,
before repainting.
Exposing metals intended to be protected from the
environment.
8
Cleaning soft metals, such as lead, tin, copper, aluminum, brass,
silver, bronze and zinc, with appropriate non-abrasive methods.
Using abrasives on soft metals.
9
Using the gentlest cleaning methods for hard metals, such as
cast iron, wrought iron and steel, to remove excessive paint
build-up and corrosion.
10
Applying an appropriate protective coating to an unpainted
metal element that is subject to frequent use and handling,
such as a bronze door or brass hardware, or to corrosion due
to environmental factors, such as abrasives in winter. The
coating should be regularly reapplied, as required, to
ensure ongoing protection.
Using cleaning methods that alter or damage the
character-defining colour, texture and finish of the metal.
Applying paint or other coatings to metals that were
meant to be exposed.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
11
Re-applying appropriate paint or coating systems after cleaning to decrease the corrosion rate of painted or coated metals.
12
Retaining all sound and repairable metals that contribute to
the heritage value of the historic place.
Replacing metals that can be repaired.
13
Stabilizing deteriorated metals by structural reinforcement and
weather protection, or correcting unsafe conditions, as required,
until repair work is undertaken.
Removing deteriorated metals that could be stabilized or
repaired.
14
Repairing parts of metal elements by welding, soldering,
patching, or splicing, using recognized conservation methods.
Replacing an entire metal element, when repair and
limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts
is possible.
15
Replacing in kind, extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
metal elements, based on physical and documentary evidence.
Replacing an entire metal element, when limited
replacement of deteriorated and missing parts is
appropriate.
Using a substitute material that neither conveys the
appearance of the surviving parts of the metal element,
nor is physically or chemically compatible.
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
16
Repairing metal elements by welding, soldering, patching, or
splicing, using recognized conservation methods. Repair may
also include the limited replacement in kind, or replacement with
a compatible substitute material, of extensively deteriorated or
missing metal elements, where there are surviving prototypes.
17
Reinforcing metal elements, following recognized conservation
methods to improve their strength. Reinforcement should be
physically and visually compatible.
Replacing an entire metal element when reinforcement
is feasible.
18
Replacing in kind an irreparable metal element, based on
documentary and physical evidence.
Removing an irreparable metal element and not replacing
it, or replacing it with an inappropriate new element.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
19
Removing hazardous materials from metals using the leastinvasive abatement methods and only after adequate testing
has been conducted.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
237
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
238
Recommended
Not Recommended
20
Repairing, stabilizing and conserving fragile metal elements
from the restoration period, using well-tested consolidants, when
appropriate. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible
and identifiable on close inspection for future research.
Removing metal elements from the restoration period
that could be stabilized and conserved.
21
Replacing in kind a metal element from the restoration period
that is too deteriorated to repair, based on documentary and
physical evidence. The new work should be well documented and
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable metal element from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing
it with an inappropriate new element.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
4.5.6
Glass and
Glass
Products
These guidelines provide direction when
glass and glass products are identified
as character-defining elements of an
historic place. They also give direction on
maintaining, repairing and replacing glass
elements.
Glass and glass products refer to the glass
used in exterior and interior windows,
doors and storefronts, built-in cabinetry
and floors, and the glazing used in curtain
walls, mirrors, floors, skylights and
conservatories.
Glass elements can be considered
character-defining due to their aesthetic
or functional characteristics, including
translucency or opacity, colour, texture,
reflectivity or treatment. Glass varies in
size and form, from tiny mosaic pieces
to large flat sheets, or curved panes for
corner windows. Glass elements may also
be valued as artifacts from specific periods
in the development of glass technologies, such as prismatic glass associated
with the strategies to improve daylight
in commercial spaces. Stained glass has
been widely used in Canadian churches,
colleges and public buildings, and to some
extent in houses, in a range of aesthetic
expressions. Conserving glass, particularly
stained glass, requires specialists who
may involve art conservators.
Historic glass has certain characteristics that cannot be matched by modern production techniques. Coloured,
patterned or curved glass can be expensive or impossible to replace. Careful recording and regular monitoring
of conditions are the most effective ways to conserve historic glass. If repairs are required, an experience
stained-glass conservator can assess and recommend appropriate repair techniques.
Stained glass panels are susceptible to distortion over time, which may cause the glass to crack. Interventions
to reinforce panels or protect windows with a second sash should be overseen by a conservator specializing in
stained glass. The placement and method of installation of such work must be carefully designed to ensure
that this does not cause further deterioration.
The type of glass and its division into multiple lights
often defines the character of windows in historic
buildings. The reflective quality of double-glazing
from double sashes or storm windows is different
than that of modern insulated glass. Inspections
should be undertaken regularly to ensure that
glazing putty is in good condition.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
239
The character-defining transparency of the glass-enclosed factory wings of the National Printing Bureau in
Gatineau, QC was preserved during conservation work on the glass and aluminium curtain walls. After the thin
aluminium frames were cleaned, the opaque ribbed glass and clear plate glass were carefully reset in their
original positions that reflect the pattern of solids and voids in the masonry wall behind.
In the 20th century, a number of glass
products were developed in response to
curtain wall technology and other modern
architectural forms. These products
include spandrel glass, laminated glass,
coloured glass panels or structural glass,
and glass block, as well as thermallyinsulated double- or triple-pane glazing
units that are the norm today.
240
Interventions to improve building
envelope performance should focus on
improving the efficiency of the entire
wall assembly, rather than focusing on
replacing glass or glass products such as
windows. Double glazing changes the
reflectivity and colour of the glass, and
often requires changes to the framing or
wall system supporting it.
Glass block has been manufactured in many different
shapes, sizes, patterns and opacities. All these features
should be considered when seeking a replacement
block. Searching architectural salvage yards and
contacting manufacturers may locate compatible
replacements.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for glass and glass products
and should be used in conjunction with
4.5.1, All Materials. Because these materials are usually part of an assembly, their
conservation must be closely coordinated
with the related framing and structural
elements and surrounding materials
such as wood, metals or masonry. For
recommendations on these assemblies,
refer to Windows, Doors and Storefronts
and Exterior Walls in the Guidelines for
Buildings and to other appropriate sections in the Guidelines for Materials.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the properties and characteristics of glass and
glass products, such as age and thickness, and the composition
of any applied coatings.
Undertaking work that affects glass and glass products
without first understanding their mechanical and
chemical properties.
2
Documenting the composition, colour, texture, reflectivity,
treatment and condition of glass and glass products before
undertaking an intervention.
Undertaking an intervention that will affect glass and
glass products without first documenting their existing
characteristics and condition.
3
Identifying all of the different types of glass and glass products
used and their unique properties.
4
Assessing and treating the causes of glass damage, breakage,
or deterioration of its frame or structure.
5
Protecting glass from breakage, chipping and abrasion caused
by ongoing maintenance.
6
Assessing the impact of previous maintenance practices on
glass and adjacent materials.
Failing to consider the impact and condition of
surrounding frames or structural elements, before
identifying the level of conservation work required.
Failing to replace deteriorated sealants at glass joints to
prevent moisture penetration.
Failing to clean glass surfaces to prevent the
accumulation of corrosive grease or dirt.
7
Identifying the type of glass and the most appropriate cleaning
method, and testing it in an inconspicuous area to ensure an
appropriate level of cleanliness.
Using cleaning methods that alter or damage the colour,
texture or finish of the glass elements.
8
Retaining sound or deteriorated glass elements that can
be repaired.
Removing or radically changing glass elements that
contribute to the heritage value of the historic place.
9
Securing and protecting deteriorated glass by structural
reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting unsafe
conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
Removing deteriorated glass elements that could be
stabilized or repaired.
10
Repairing parts of glass elements by patching, piecing-in, or
otherwise reinforcing, using recognized conservation methods.
Using a substitute material for the replacement part
that neither conveys the same appearance as the
surviving parts of the glass element, nor is physically
or chemically compatible.
11
Replacing in kind irreparable or missing glass, based on
documentary and physical evidence.
Replacing an entire glass element when repair and limited
replacement of deteriorated and missing parts is possible.
Adding protective glazing or exterior storms to stained
glass elements, without the involvement of a specialist
conservator.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
241
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
12
13
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing a glass element using recognized conservation
methods. Repairs might include the limited replacement in
kind, or replacement with an appropriate substitute material, of
extensively deteriorated or missing glass elements, where there
are surviving prototypes.
Using an inappropriate substitute material.
Replacing in kind an irreparable glass element based on
documentary and physical evidence.
Removing an irreparable glass element and not replacing
it, or replacing it with an inappropriate new glass
element.
Failing to repair the deteriorated frame or structure
around the glass element.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
14
Removing hazardous materials from glass, such as lead paint,
by using the least-invasive abatement methods, and only after
adequate testing has been conducted.
15
Monitoring, stabilizing and repairing glazing systems used in
character-defining curtain walls, skylights and atriums, to ensure
that any loose or cracked pieces are detected to prevent further
deterioration.
Applying security film that cannot be removed at a
later date.
Sustainability Considerations
16
Retaining and carefully storing historic glass elements and
making them available for reuse.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
242
Recommended
Not Recommended
17
Repairing, securing and conserving fragile glass from the
restoration period using appropriate methods and materials.
Repairs should be physically and visually compatible and
identifiable on close inspection for future research.
Removing glass from the restoration period that could
be stabilized and conserved.
18
Replacing in kind a glass element from the restoration period
that is too deteriorated to repair, based on documentary and
physical evidence. The new work should be well documented and
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing an irreparable glass element from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing
it with an inappropriate new element.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
4.5.7
Plaster and
Stucco
These guidelines provide direction when
plaster or stucco is identified as a character-defining element of an historic place.
They also give direction on maintaining,
repairing, and replacing plaster and stucco
and their coatings.
Plaster and stucco are finishing or surface
materials made by applying a lime, gypsum
or cement-based coating to a supporting
lath or substrate. Plaster is an interior finishing material, while stucco is usually an
exterior material. The supporting substrate,
which may be lath, masonry or wood frame,
is an integral component of the assembly
that requires as much careful consideration
as the plaster and stucco itself.
In the 20th century, technologies for applying plaster and stucco evolved to include
new types of supports and finishes. These
finishes could be character-defining, such
as specific finishes applied to concrete, or
specialty treatments, such as pebble-dash
stucco.
As these materials continued to evolve,
synthetic versions were developed. These
synthetic stucco and plaster materials
have different characteristics and should
be avoided when repairing traditional
stucco or plaster.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for plaster and stucco, and
should be used in conjunction with 4.5.1,
All Materials. Because these materials are
usually part of an architectural assembly,
their conservation must be closely coordinated with the assemblies and elements
that support these materials, such as
exterior walls, interior partitions, ceilings
and columns. For recommendation on
these assemblies, refer to Exterior Walls
and to Interior Features in the Guidelines
for Buildings.
Before repairing or patching historic plaster or stucco, such as on the Commanding Officer’s Residence at Fort
Battleford NHSC in Saskatchewan, it is important to determine the composition of the material. Patches and
repairs should be both visually and physically compatible with the existing historic material. Materials with
different physical characteristics will likely not properly adhere to one another, necessitating repeated
maintenance in the near future.
The repair of a deteriorated intricate plaster cornice
should involve recognized conservation techniques,
such as consolidation of the original materials in good
condition. One goal should be to limit the amount of
introduced material. Surface repairs may be filled with
a compatible traditional plaster mix, but for larger
elements, some form of adhesive or fastener may be
required, and should be carefully selected.
Certain stucco treatments, such as pebble-dash stucco, are difficult to replicate. Applying glass or rocky aggregate
to the wet stucco is an art that is all but lost. Pebbles imported from Scotland for the Dr. Woods House in Leduc,
AB are virtually impossible to replicate. The repairs resulted in a sound exterior envelope, but are clearly
distinguishable from the original.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
243
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the properties and characteristics of the plaster
or stucco of the historic place.
Undertaking work that affects plaster or stucco without
understanding its mechanical and chemical properties.
2
Documenting the properties, characteristics and condition of
the plaster or stucco before undertaking an intervention; for
example, the chemical composition of the material and the type
of substrate to which it is applied.
Undertaking an intervention that affects plaster or stucco,
without first documenting its existing characteristics
and condition.
3
Protecting and maintaining plaster and stucco from damage by
preventing moisture penetration, accumulation of organic matter,
and structural movement.
4
Applying an appropriate coating or paint system. The selection
of the system should be based on its compatibility with previous
layers of character-defining paint, colour, finish and texture.
Using coatings of inappropriate colour, finish or texture
that will have a negative impact on the heritage value
of the historic place.
5
Removing layers of paint from plaster details to make them
legible, using recognized conservation methods.
Using paint removal methods and materials that
damage plaster details.
Failing to test paint removal methods in an inconspicuous
location before beginning the work.
244
6
Retaining sound or deteriorated plaster and stucco that can
be repaired.
Removing or radically changing plaster or stucco that
contributes to the heritage value of the historic place.
7
Securing and protecting deteriorated plaster and stucco by
structural reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting
unsafe conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
Removing deteriorated plaster or stucco that could
be stabilized or repaired.
8
Repairing plaster or stucco by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing, using recognized
conservation methods.
Using a substitute material that neither conveys the
same appearance as the surviving parts of the plaster
or stucco, nor is physically or chemically compatible.
9
Replacing in kind irreparable or missing parts of plaster or
stucco elements, based on documentary and physical evidence.
Replacing an entire plaster or stucco element when
repair and limited replacement of deteriorated or
missing parts is possible.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
10
Repairing plaster or stucco following recognized conservation
methods. Such repairs might include the limited replacement in
kind, or replacement with an appropriate substitute material, of
extensively deteriorated or missing plaster or stucco, where there
are surviving prototypes.
11
Repairing plaster or stucco by removing the damaged material
and patching with new stucco or plaster that duplicates the old
in strength, composition, colour, porosity, and texture.
Removing sound plaster and stucco, or repairing with
new material that does not match the old in strength,
composition, colour, porosity and texture.
12
Replacing in kind an irreparable plaster or stucco element,
based on documentary and physical evidence.
Removing an irreparable plaster or stucco element and
not replacing it, or replacing it with an inappropriate
new element or material.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
13
Removing or encapsulating hazardous materials contained in
plaster or stucco, such as asbestos, by using the least-invasive
abatement methods, and only after adequate testing has
been conducted.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
14
Repairing, securing and retaining plaster and stucco from the
restoration period, using appropriate methods and materials.
Repairs should be physically and visually compatible and
identifiable upon close inspection for future research.
Removing plaster or stucco from the restoration period
that could be stabilized and conserved.
15
Replacing in kind, plaster or stucco from the restoration period
that is too deteriorated to repair, based on documentary and
physical evidence. The new work should be well documented
and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing irreparable plaster or stucco from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing
it with inappropriate new material.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
245
4.5.8
miscellaneous
Materials
These guidelines provide direction when
a material, other than those specified
above, is identified as a character-defining
element of an historic place. This section
includes recent materials produced by a
fabrication process and interior and exterior materials that are not clearly categorized. Due to the range of materials these
guidelines apply to, general guidance is
given to help with maintaining, repairing,
and replacing miscellaneous materials.
Plastic and fibreglass can be moulded into a variety of shapes to create decorative, colourful wall panels. These
green moulded panels are unique and difficult to replicate if damaged. Removing intact panels from a less visible
part of the building to replace broken panels in a more prominent area is one possible strategy.
246
These diverse materials may be characterdefining in their own right, or used in
character-defining assemblies or systems.
Materials, such as plastic, plexiglass,
asbestos, asphalt, rubber, thatch, sod and
fiberglass, have served a multitude of
uses in construction. Flooring surfaces,
including cork, linoleum, carpet or ceramic
tile, and decorative or functional treatments, such as fabrics, wall coverings and
acoustical panels, may also be characterdefining. Modern materials, such as plastic
have been used as lighter, less breakable
alternatives to glass, metal or wood in
exterior cladding, interior partitions,
canopies, screens and signage.
Mass-produced elements, such as ceramic tiles,
are frequently used in buildings. Finding matching
replacements for repair work can be almost
impossible. If tile needs to be removed from one area,
it is good conservation practice to save nd stockpile
it for later use elsewhere in the building. These tiles
from the washrooms in Union Station in Toronto
were removed from one set of washrooms in order
to provide a stockpile of tiles to use in the repair
of the remainder of the washrooms.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
Some miscellaneous materials are not
expected to last indefinitely, such as
carpeting or a fabric awning. Others may
be difficult to clean or maintain when they
age, such as plastics that can become
brittle or discoloured, or experimental
materials that have not stood the test of
time. Some materials manufactured in
factories using specialized techniques and
processes are more difficult to repair than
traditional materials, and almost impossible to replace, if the original manufacturing process has been discontinued. Other
natural and synthetic materials historically
used in construction have since been
found to be toxic and can pose health
risks. A material’s properties, characteristics and contribution to the heritage
value of the historic place must be fully
understood before undertaking
an intervention.
Information on the repair and maintenance of rare materials may be difficult
to find. Even seemingly simple cleaning
instructions may no longer be available.
Research and testing may be the only
way to understand the material.
Fabric awnings are subject to damaging environmental
effects including sunlight, wind and water, which
eventually may cause the loss of the historic awning
fabric. Repairing the original frame or mechanism and
installing new awning fabric are recommended and
will also help provide shade. Awning manufacturers
may be able to match or provide similar fabrics
compatible with the character of the place, as
was done at Laurier House in Ottawa.
Asbestos is an extremely durable material that is often
found in excellent condition. Although loose asbestos
fibres pose health risks, tightly bound asbestos found
in extant siding or tile, such as at the Gulf of Georgia
Cannery NHSC in Steveston, BC are not hazardous
and should be retained where they contribute to the
heritage character of the place. Broken or missing
siding would need to be replaced with another
material that matches its appearance as asbestos
products are no longer manufactured.
These guidelines provide general recommendations for materials not covered in
sections 4.5.2 to 4.5.7 above, and should
be used in conjunction with 4.5.1,
All Materials.
Sod was a simple, inexpensive and accessible roofing
material used widely throughout the North and shown
here at Knut Lang’s place in the Northwest Territories.
It is both waterproof and insulating and would last
for decades before needing to be replaced. Frequently,
when it began to fail, canvas was used as a temporary
cover until a new sod layer could be applied.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
247
General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Recommended
248
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the properties and characteristics of miscellaneous materials and their finishes or coatings, such as the age
and availability of replacements and the chemical make-up of
the product.
2
Documenting the properties, characteristics and condition of
miscellaneous materials before undertaking an intervention; for
example, the chemical composition of the material and the type
of substrate to which it is applied.
Undertaking an intervention that affects miscellaneous
materials, without first documenting their characteristics
and condition.
3
Protecting and maintaining miscellaneous materials by
protecting fragile elements and preventing exposure to
damaging environmental conditions.
Failing to identify, evaluate and treat the causes of
deterioration of miscellaneous materials, such as
exposure to ultraviolet light, airborne pollution,
and excessive moisture.
4
Cleaning miscellaneous materials using appropriate cleaning
methods and products.
5
Retaining or reapplying coatings that help protect
miscellaneous materials from wear, moisture or ultraviolet light.
Removing appropriate coatings that protect surfaces.
Ignoring the manufacturer’s product information and
application instructions when reapplying protective
coatings.
6
Ensuring that new coatings are compatible with the material,
its earlier treatments and its environment.
7
Retaining sound and repairable miscellaneous materials that
contribute to the heritage value of the historic place.
Replacing miscellaneous materials that can be repaired.
8
Stabilizing deteriorated miscellaneous materials by structural
reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting unsafe
conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
Removing deteriorated miscellaneous materials that
could be stabilized or repaired.
9
Repairing miscellaneous materials by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing, using recognized
conservation methods.
Replacing an entire element when repair and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing parts are
appropriate.
10
Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of miscellaneous materials, based on documentary and
physical evidence.
Replacing an entire element when limited replacement
of deteriorated and missing parts is possible.
Guidelines for MATERIALS
Additional Guidelines for Rehabilitation Projects
11
Recommended
Not Recommended
Repairing miscellaneous materials by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the material. Repair might
include the limited replacement in kind, or replacement with an
appropriate substitute material, of extensively deteriorated or
missing materials, where there are surviving prototypes.
Replacing an entire material, when repair and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible.
12
Testing repair methods before undertaking work when there
are no established conservation methods.
13
Replacing in kind irreparable miscellaneous materials, based on
physical and documentary evidence. If using the same material is
not technically or economically feasible, a compatible substitute
material may be considered.
Using a substitute material for replacement that neither
conveys the same appearance, nor is physically or
chemically incompatible with adjacent materials.
Removing miscellaneous materials and not replacing
them, or replacing them with an inappropriate new
material that does not convey the same appearance,
or is physically or chemically incompatible with
adjacent materials.
Health, Safety and Security Considerations
14
Removing hazardous materials, using the least-invasive
abatement methods, and only after adequate testing has been
conducted.
Removing or destroying character-defining materials by
neglecting to conduct testing first.
Sustainability Considerations
15
Salvaging character-defining miscellaneous materials that are no
longer manufactured for reuse elsewhere in the building.
Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects
Recommended
Not Recommended
16
Repairing, stabilizing and conserving fragile miscellaneous
materials from the restoration period, using well-tested
consolidants, when appropriate. Repairs should be physically
and visually compatible and identifiable on close inspection
for future research.
Removing miscellaneous materials from the restoration
period that could be stabilized and conserved.
17
Replacing in kind miscellaneous materials from the restoration
period that are too deteriorated to repair based on documentary
and physical evidence. The new work should be well documented
and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Removing irreparable miscellaneous materials from the
restoration period and not replacing them, or replacing
them with inappropriate new materials.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
249
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
glossary
Accessibility: (accessibilité) The degree to which an
historic place is easy to access by as many people
as possible, including people with disabilities.
Allée: (allée) A pathway or road between two rows
of trees.
Ancillary structure: (structure secondaire) A structure,
machine or component that plays a secondary
or supporting role in the functions of a civil
engineering, industrial or military work.
Archaeological object: (objet archéologique)
An artifact, a sample or any material that is of
archaeological interest.
Artisanal technology: (technologie artisanale)
Technology that is based on tradition rather than
the application of scientific knowledge.
Atrium: (atrium) An interior courtyard that is open to
the weather; or a significant interior space, often
skylighted.
Character-defining elements: (éléments
caractéristiques) The materials, forms, location,
spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations
or meanings that contribute to the heritage value
of an historic place, which must be retained in
order to preserve its heritage value.
Conservation: (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.
Consolidant: (consolidant) Repair material that
penetrates and strengthens a deteriorated element.
Cultural landscape: (paysage culturel) Any
geographical area that has been modified,
influenced, or given special cultural meaning by
people.
Berm: (talus) A mound created to reduce noise, act as a
screen, or protect a construction from flooding.
Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP):
(Répertoire canadien des lieux patrimoniaux)
The pan-Canadian list of historic places of local,
provincial, territorial and national significance.
The CRHP is administered by the Government
of Canada, in collaboration with provincial and
territorial governments.
n
Bollard: (bollard) A thick post used for securing ropes or
to limit access to an area.
Brise-soleil: (brise-soleil) A screen, usually louvered,
placed on the outside of a building to shield
windows from direct sunlight.
n
Designed cultural landscapes were intentionally
created by human beings;
Organically evolved cultural landscapes
developed in response to social, economic,
administrative or religious forces interacting
with the natural environment. They fall into
two sub-categories:
Relict landscapes in which an evolutionary
process came to an end. Its significant
distinguishing features are, however, still
visible in material form.
Continuing landscapes in which the
evolutionary process is still in progress.
They exhibit significant material evidence
of their evolution over time.
n
Associative cultural landscapes are distinguished
by the power of their spiritual, artistic or cultural
associations, rather than their surviving material
evidence.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
253
Curtain wall: (mur-rideau) An exterior wall that is
fastened to a frame and protects the building
from the weather; it has no structural function,
and supports only its own weight.
DEW line: (ligne DEW) The Distant Early Warning line
was a system of radar stations in the far northern
Arctic region of Canada. It was set up to detect
potential invasions during the Cold War.
Dew point: (point de rosée) Temperature at which
a parcel of air must be cooled in order to reach
full saturation.
Diefenbunker: (Diefenbunker) A nuclear fallout
shelter built secretely between 1959 and 1961
to protect Canadian government officials
against a nuclear attack. Its name was inspired
by Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker who
commissioned its construction. The Diefenbunker
is a large underground complex containing offices,
dormitories, radio transmitting facilities and
decontamination chambers.
Empirical engineering: (génie empirique) Design
or construction based on practical experience,
observation, trial and error, or experimental data,
rather than the application of scientific method,
knowledge or theory.
Glacis: (glacis) A slope extending down from a
fortification.
Herbaceous plants: (plantes herbacées) Plants with
stems that are soft and not woody.
Heritage value: (valeur patrimoniale) The aesthetic,
historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual
importance or significance for past, present or future
generations. The heritage value of an historic place
is embodied in its character-defining materials,
forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and
cultural associations or meanings.
Historic place: (lieu patrimonial) A structure,
building, group of buildings, district, landscape,
archaeological site or other place in Canada that
has been formally recognized for its heritage value.
In kind: (à l’identique) with the same form, material,
and detailing as the existing.
Inspecting: (inspecter) Carrying out a survey or
review of the condition of an historic place and
its elements to determine if they are functioning
properly; to identify signs of weakness, deterioration
or hazardous conditions; and to identify necessary
repairs. Inspections should be carried out on a
regular basis as part of a maintenance plan.
In situ: (sur place) This term means ‘in place’ and
as used in this document, it refers to the action
of protecting, maintaining and/or stabilizing the
existing materials in the location where they
were found.
Interpretive Construct: (éléments interprétatifs)
construction designed to support or present
the interpretation of an archaeological site and
its character-defining elements, and to help
communicate its heritage value. Examples of
interpretive constructs include plaques and panels.
Intervention: (intervention) Any action, other than
demolition or destruction, that results in a physical
change to an element of a historic place.
Intumescent paint: (peinture intumescente) A type
of paint that when heated swells to form a
fire-protective coating.
Inukshuk: (inukshuk) An Inuit stone cairn having
the rough outline of a human figure.
Joist sistering: (doublage des poutrelles)
Reinforcement or repair of joists by doubling.
Maintenance: (entretien) Routine, cyclical, nondestructive actions necessary to slow the
deterioration of an historic place. It entails periodic
inspection; routine, cyclical, non-destructive
cleaning; minor repair and refinishing operations;
replacement of damaged or deteriorated materials
that are impractical to save.
Minimal intervention: (intervention minimale) The
approach that allows functional goals to be met
with the least physical intervention.
Hoodmould: (larmier) A projecting molding over the
head of an arch over a window or door opening,
to throw off the rain.
254
REFERENCES
Mock-up: (maquette) A full-sized model of a structure
or intervention used for demonstration,
study or testing.
Monitoring: (surveillance) The systematic and regular
inspection or measurement of the condition of
the materials and elements of an historic place
to determine their behavior, performance, and
rate of deterioration over time.
Mothballing: (mise sous cocon) To temporarily close
up a building or other structure to protect it from
the weather as well as to secure it from vandalism.
Muntin: (meneau) A strip of wood or metal separating
and holding panes of glass in a window or a vertical
framing member set between two rails in a door.
Non-destructive testing: (essai non-destructif)
Testing that does not result in the permanent
deformation or damage of the element being tested.
Past performance: (rendement antérieur) The
demonstration of a structure’s ability to satisfactorily
resist loads based on its history. Buildings and
structures built in accordance with good building
practices, prior to the development of building
codes, may be considered to have proven their
capacity to resist loads based on the fact that they
have already been subjected to, and successfully
resisted, these loads in the past.
Pergola: (pergola) An arbor or a passageway of columns
supporting a roof of trelliswork on which climbing
plants are trained to grow.
Rehabilitation: (réhabilitation) The action or process
of making possible a continuing or compatible
contemporary use of a historic place or an individual
component, while protecting its heritage value.
Repointing: (rejointoiement) To repair masonry joints
with mortar.
Restoration: (restauration) 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.
Spalled: (effrité) Breaking up of a masonry surface into
chips or fragments.
Spandrel (panel): (tympan/panneau d’allège) Panel
of wall between adjacent columns or pilasters; in
multi-storey buildings, a panel between the top
of one window and the sill of the window in the
storey above.
Splicing: (jointer) To join two pieces by overlapping
and binding at the ends.
Statement of Significance (SoS): (énoncé
d’importance) A statement that identifies the
description, heritage value, and character-defining
elements of an historic place. A Statement of
Significance is required in order for an historic
place to be listed on the Canadian Register of
Historic Places.
Statuary: (statues) A collection of statues
Piecing in: (rapiéçage) To repair or add to by inserting
a piece.
Stratigraphy: (stratigraphie) The composition and
arrangement of geographic strata or layers of
earth in a particular area.
Preservation: (préservation) 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.
Stressors: (facteurs de stress) Elements or events that
could potentially disturb or put pressure on the
archaeological site’s character-defining elements
and/or heritage value.
Prototype: (prototype) An original model on which
something is patterned.
Rampart: (rempart) A wide bank of earth, usually with a
parapet on top, built around a fort to help defend it.
Sustainability: (durabilité) A group of objectives
(economic, social and environmental) that must be
coordinated and addressed to ensure the long term
viability of communities and the planet.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
255
Swale: (baissière) A low, usually wet piece of land.
Terrace: (terrasse) A flat level of land, often a component
of a series of step-like flat levels on a slope.
Thermal bridge: (pont thermique) An element made
of a material that is a poor heat insulator and that
is placed in an assembly (between other materials,
or between interior and exterior).
Truss: (ferme) A structural framework, made of either
timber or metal, that is composed of individual
members fastened together in a triangular
arrangement.
Understorey: (sous-étage) Underlying layer of
vegetation, especially the plants that grow beneath
a forest’s canopy.
Vernacular: (vernaculaire) Indigenous, made locally
by inhabitants; made using local materials and
traditional methods of construction and ornament;
specific to a region or location.
Widow’s walk: (promenade des veuves ou plate-forme
d’observation) A railed platform atop a roof, typically
on a coastal house, that was used to look out for
returning ships.
Windbreak: (brise-vent) A row of tress or bushes
planted to provide protection from the wind
and, often, to prevent soil erosion.
256
REFERENCES
Bibliography
References included below include a representative range of publications and internet-based documents, and not an
exhaustive bibliography. They are listed according to the content in the chapters, although many of the more general
references may apply in more than one area. Current URLs (web links) are provided where appropriate, but these
are subject to change.
Chapters 1–3:
The Conservation Decision-Making
Process; The Conservation Treatments:
Preservation, Rehabilitation and
Restoration; and The Standards for
the Conservation of Historic Places
in Canada
Conservation Charters (in chronological order)
1931. ICOMOS. The Athens Charter for the Restoration
of Historic Monuments.
www.icomos.org/docs/athens_charter.html
1956. UNESCO. Recommendation on International
Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations
(New Delhi).
http://unesdoc.unesco.org images/0011/001145/
114585e.pdf#page=40
1964. ICOMOS. International Charter for the
Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and
Sites (Venice Charter).
www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.htm
1972. UNESCO. Convention Concerning the Protection
of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext
1975. ICOMOS. Congress on the European Architectural
Heritage. Declaration of Amsterdam.
www.icomos.org/docs/amsterdam.html
1978 (revised 1995). NPS. Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/index.htm
1978 (revised 1998). NPS. Guidelines for Nominating and
Evaluating Properties that Have Achieved Significance
within the Last 50 Years.
1979 (revised 1981, 1988, 1999). Australia ICOMOS. Burra
Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of
Cultural Significance.
www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html.
1982. ICOMOS. Florence Charter on Historic Gardens.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/gardens_e.htm
1982. ICOMOS Canada. The Deschambault Declaration:
Charter for the Preservation of Quebec’s Heritage.
www.icomos.org/docs/desch_anglais.html
1983. ICOMOS Canada. Appleton Charter for the
Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/appleton.pdf
1987. ICOMOS. Washington Charter on the Conservation
of Historic Towns and Urban Areas.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/towns_e.htm
1990. ICOMOS. Charter for the Protection and
Management of Archaeological Heritage.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/arch_e.htm
1992. ICOMOS New Zealand. Charter for Places
of Cultural Heritage Value.
www.icomos.org/docs/nz_92charter.html
1993. AIC/ APTI. New Orleans Charter for the Joint
Preservation of Historic Structures and Artifacts.
www.apti.org/resources/charters1.cfm
1994. ICOMOS. The Nara Document on Authenticity.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/nara_e.htm
1996. ICOMOS. Declaration of San Antonio (Authenticity in
the Conservation and Management of Cultural Heritage).
www.icomos.org/docs/san_antonio.html
1999. ICOMOS. International Charter on Cultural
Tourism.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/tourism_e.htm)
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
257
1999. ICOMOS. Principles for the Preservation of Historic
Timber Structures.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/wood_e.pdf
2008. ICOMOS. Charter on the Interpretation and
Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/interpretation_e.pdf
1999. ICOMOS. Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/vernacular_e.pdf
Values- and Community-Based
Conservation
2000. Vimy Declaration for the Conservation of Battlefield
Terrain.
www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=
memorials/battlefield
Avrami, Erica, Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre.
2000. Values and Heritage Conservation: Research
Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications.valuesrpt.pdf
2001. UNESCO. Convention on the Protection of
Underwater Cultural Heritage.
www.unesco.org/culture/legalprotection/water/
html_eng/convention.shtml
2003. ICOMOS Indonesia. Indonesia Charter for Heritage
Conservation.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/indonesiacharter.pdf
2003. TICCIH. The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the
Industrial Heritage.
www.international.icomos.org/18thapril/2006/nizhnytagil-charter-e.pdf
2003. UNESCO. Convention for the Safeguarding of
the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php
2003. ICOMOS Charter. Principles for the Analysis,
Conservation and Structural Restoration of
Architectural Heritage.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/structures_e.htm
2003. ICOMOS. Principles for the Preservation and
Conservation-Restoration of Wall Paintings.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/wallpaintings_e.pdf
2005. WHC. Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage
and Contemporary Architecture Managing the
Historic Urban Landscape.
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/
activity-48-3.doc
2005. ICOMOS. Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation
of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/xian-declaration.pdf
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts. No date. Fact Sheets, including:
Celebrating Your Heritage: Getting Started, Community
Heritage Values.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/library/library.htm
Clark, Kate, 2001. “Preserving What Matters: Value-Led
Planning for Cultural Heritage Sites”. Conservation, the
Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter 16(3): 5–12.
www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/16_3/feature.html
De la Torre, Marta, ed. 2005. Heritage Values in Site
Management, Four Case Studies. Los Angeles:
The Getty Conservation Institute.
De la Torre, Marta, ed. 2002. Assessing the Values of
Cultural Heritage: Research Report. Los Angeles:
The Getty Conservation Institute.
www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/assessing.pdf
Eftec. 2005. Valuation of the Historic Environment - the
scope for using results of valuation studies in the appraisal and assessment of heritage-related projects and
programmes. Final Report. English Heritage, Heritage
Lottery Fund, Department for Culture, Media and Sport
and Department for Transport.
www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/
ValofHistoricEnv_eftecFinalReportED2.pdf?1267046837
English Heritage. 2005. Regeneration and the Historic
Environment: Heritage as a Catalyst for Better Social
and Economic Regeneration.
www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Regeneration_and_the_
Historic_Environment_2005.pdf
2008. ICOMOS. Charter on Cultural Routes.
www.international.icomos.org/charters/culturalroutes_e.pdf
258
REFERENCES
Historic Places Program Branch, National Historic Sites
Directorate, Parks Canada. 2006. Canadian Register of
Historic Places, Writing Statements of Significance.
www.historicplaces.ca/downloads/SOS%20guide%20
-%20Eng.12.06.(pdf).pdf
Kerr, Alastair. 2007. “Considerations for a Values-Based
Approach to Heritage Conservation within Canada,”
Vancouver Heritage Foundation.
www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org/documents/
Values-BasedApproach_HeritageConservation.pdf
Mason, Randy ed. 1999. Economics and Heritage
Conservation: A Meeting Organized by the Getty
Conservation Institute, December 1998. Los Angeles:
J. Paul Getty Trust.
www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/econrpt.pdf
Mason, Randall. 2005. Economics and Historic
Preservation: A Guide and Review of the Literature.
Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.
Getty Conservation Institute, Project website “Research
on the Values of Heritage (1998–2005)”.
www.getty.edu/conservation/field_projects/values
Parks Canada. 2002. Guide to the Preparation of
Commemorative Integrity Statements.
www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/guide/table.aspx
Rypkema, Donovan. 2005. The Economics of Historic
Preservation: A Community Leader’s Guide. Washington,
DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Heritage Conservation
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts. No date. Fact Sheet: Bringing
Heritage Conservation into Land Use Planning.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/library/library.htm
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and the Arts. No date. Heritage
and Sustainability.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/sustainability/greenBuilders.htm
City of St- John Heritage Planning. 1990–1996 (revised
and updated 2010). Conservation Programs. Practical
Conservation Guidelines series.
www.saintjohn.ca/heritage-guidelines.cfm
Déom, Claudine and Dinu Bumbaru. 1998. A Handbook
for Montreal’s Heritage: To Discover and to Protect.
Montreal: Héritage Montréal.
Duguay, Gary. The Architectural Preservation Process.
Heritage Notes no. 4. Edmonton: Alberta Historical
Resources Foundation and Alberta Community
Development [formerly Alberta Culture and
Multiculturalism], 1992.
www.doorsopenalberta.com/pdf/HeritageNotes_v04.pdf
Fitch, James Marston. 1990. Historic Preservation:
Curatorial Management of the Built World.
Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Fram, Mark. 1988. Well-Preserved: the Ontario Heritage
Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for
Architectural Conservation. Erin, Ont.: The Boston Mills
Press for the Ontario Heritage Foundation.
Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. 1998
(revised 2000). Guidelines for Evaluating Shipwrecks
of National Historic Significance in Canada.
www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/res/~/media/docs/pc/
guide/res/ship_e.ashx
Historic American Buildings Survey / Historic American
Engineering Record. 1990. Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation. National Park Service,
Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/
Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism, Historic
Resources Branch. 2008. Municipal Heritage
Resource Guide.
Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism, Historic
Resources Branch. 2010. Make it Work: A Sustainability
Workbook for Historic Places.
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts. 1995 (revised 2008). Heritage
Conservation: A Community Guide.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/docs/pdf/HC_guide.pdf
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
259
Marquis-Kyle, Peter and Meredith Walker. 1992 (reprint
ed. 1996). The Illustrated Burra Charter: Making Good
Decisions About the Care of Important Places. Sydney:
Australia ICOMOS and Australian Heritage Commission.
Municipal Heritage Partnership Program. 2008.Creating
a Future for Alberta’s Historic Places: Identifying,
Evaluating, Managing. Alberta Government/ Historic
Places Initiative.
National Park Service (US), 1997. Cultural Resource
Management Guideline. National Park Service.
www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/
nps28/28contents.htm
New Zealand Historic Places Trust. 2004. Heritage
Management Guidelines for Resources Management
Practitioners. Wellington: New Zealand Historic
Places Trust.
www.historic.org.nz/en/Publications/~/media/Corporate/
Files/Publications/HMGuidelines_Text.ashx
Ontario Reality Corporation. 2007. Heritage
Management Process Handbook.
www.ontariorealty.ca/Assets/ORC+Heritage+
Management+Process+-+2007.pdf
Parker, Elyse. 1979. A Guide to Heritage Structure
Investigations. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Culture and
Recreation, Heritage Administration Branch.
Parks Canada. 2009. A Guide to Working with the Federal
Heritage Buildings Review Office.
Parks Canada. 2008. Guide to Management Planning.
www.pc.gc.ca/docs/bib-lib/~/media/docs/bib-lib/pdfs/
pc_gmp2008_e.ashx
Province of Ontario Ministry of Culture. 1997. Eight
Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic
Properties. Architectural Conservation Note no. 1.
www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/info_sheets/
InfoSheet_8%20Guiding%20Principles.pdf
Province of Ontario Ministry of Culture. 2006. Ontario
Heritage Tool Kit. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/Toolkit/toolkit.htm
Province of Ontario Ministry of Culture. 2005.
Strengthening Ontario’s Heritage: An introductory guide
to identifying, protecting and promoting the heritage of
our communities. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/Ministry_Book_
Eng.pdf
260
Province of Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing. 2005. “2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology.”
In Provincial Policy Statement 2005. Toronto:
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1485.aspx#2.6
Province of Saskatchewan, Heritage Resources Branch.
2007. Conserving Your Historic Places – A Guide For
Communities.
www.tpcs.gov.sk.ca/community-guide
Province of Saskatchewan, Heritage Resources Branch;
Architectural Heritage Saskatchewan; Historic Places
Initiative; and the Saskatchewan Heritage Foundation.
2008. reNEW – Saskatchewan Directory of Contractors
For Historic Building Conservation.
Province of Saskatchewan, Heritage Resources Branch.
2008. Developing Your Heritage Inventory – A Guide
For Communities.
www.tpcs.gov.sk.ca/InventoryGuide
Richmond, City of. 2009. A Generic Heritage
Conservation Tool Kit for BC Local Governments.
www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/SVCS_-_
Attachment_3_-Generic_Heritage_Tool_Kit_for_
BC22549.pdf
Russell, Karen. ed. 1993. Guidelines for the Rehabilitation
of Designated Historic Resources. 2d ed. Edmonton:
Alberta Community Development and The Alberta
Association of Architects.
Modern Heritage Conservation
Additional references related to modern heritage
are located under the Guidelines for Cultural
Landscapes, Buildings, Engineering Works
and Materials.
Algie, Susan and James Ashby. 2007. Conserving the
Modern in Canada: Buildings, Ensembles and Sites: 1945
– 2005, 1st edition. Winnipeg Architecture Foundation.
Bronson, Susan D. 1997. Built Heritage of the Modern
Era. Overview, Framework for Analysis, and Criteria for
Evaluation. Research report. Hull: Historic Sites and
Monuments Board of Canada.
Henket, Hubert-Jan and Hilde Heynen. 2002. Back
from Utopia, the Challenge of the Modern Movement.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: 010 Publishers.
REFERENCES
Macdonald, Susan, ed. 1995. Modern Matters: Principles
and Practice in Conserving Recent Architecture.
Proceedings of the English Heritage Conference.
Shaftesbury, UK: Donhead.
Macdonald, Susan, ed. 2001. Preserving Post-War
Heritage: The Care and Conservation of Mid-Twentieth
Century Architecture. London, UK: Donhead.
Macdonald, Susan, et al. 2007. The Conservation of
Modern Architecture, The Journal of Architectural
Conservation, London, UK: Donhead.
Recent Past Initiative. No date. National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior / National Center for Cultural
Resources, Heritage Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/recentpast/index.htm
Sharp, D. and C. Cooke, eds. 2000. The Modern
Movement in Architecture: Selections from the
Docomomo Registers. Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
010 Publishers.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2003. “Identification
and Documentation of Modern Heritage” World Heritage
Papers 5.
http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_
papers_05_en.pdf
Sustainable Heritage Conservation
Additional references related to sustainable
heritage conservation are located under the
Introduction to the Guidelines.
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts. Date. Fact Sheet: How does historic
preservation contribute to sustainable development?
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/library/library.htm
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts. No date. Heritage and
Sustainability.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/sustainability/greenBuilders.htm
Cassar, May and C. Hawkings (eds). 2007. Engineering
Historic Futures: Stakeholders Dissemination and
Scientific Research Report. London: University College
London, Centre for Sustainable Heritage.
www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainableheritage/ehf_report_web.pdf
Colette A (ed). 2007. Case Studies on Climate Change and
World Heritage. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001506/150600e.pdf
English Heritage. 2008. Conservation Principles: Policies
and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the
Historic Environment. London, UK: English Heritage.
www.climatechangeandyourhome.org.uk/live/content_pdfs/528.pdf
Gunn, Cynthia. 2001. “Exploring the Connection
Between Built and Natural Heritage,” Ottawa:
Heritage Canada.
http://heritagecanada.org/eng/GreenReport2Eng-Read.pdf
Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism, Historic
Resources Branch. 2010. Green Guide to Heritage
Conservation.
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Culture. No date. Green
Energy Act: Impacts on Archaeological and Heritage
Resources.
www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/greenenergy/
greenenergy.htm
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Culture and
Communications. 1992. Guideline for the Preparing the
Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental
Assessments.
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Culture and Recreation.
1980. Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component
of Environmental Assessments.
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2007.
Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values.
Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR_E000505.pdf
Cassar, May. 2005. Climate Change and the Historic
Environment. London, UK: University College London,
Centre for Sustainable Heritage.
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2082/1/2082.pdf
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
261
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006.
A Technical Guideline for Cultural Heritage Resources
for Projects Planned Under the Class Environmental
Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility
Development Projects and the Class Environmental
Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation
Reserves.
Ross, Susan and Andrew Powter. 2005 (revised 2008).
“Sustainable Historic Places: A Background Paper.”
Historic Places Branch, Parks Canada.
Teutonico, Jeanne Marie and Frank Matero. 2003.
Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to
the Conservation of the Built Environment.
Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
Chapter 4: The Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places
in Canada
Health, Safety and Security
Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes.
2005. National Building Code of Canada 2005.
National Research Council of Canada.
City of Saint John Heritage Planning. 1990–96
(revised 2010). Stairs, Decks & Fire Escapes. Practical
Conservation Guidelines series.
Look, David, Terry Wong, and Sylvia Rose Augustus.
1997. The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping
Preservation in the Forefront. Preservation Brief no.41.
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services, 1997.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief41.htm
National Fire Protection Association. 2007. NFPA 914
Code for Protection of Historic Structures 2007 Edition.
Park, Sharon C. and Douglas C. Hicks. 1995. Appropriate
Methods of Reducing Lead Paint Hazards in Historic
Housing. Preservation Brief no. 37. Washington, D.C.:
National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services
Division, Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief37.htm
Accessibility
Jester, Thomas C. and Sharon C. Park. 1993. Making
Historic Properties Accessible. Preservation Brief no.
32. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief32.htm
Parrott, Charles. 1980. Access to Historic Buildings
for the Disabled: Suggestions for Planning and
Implementation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation
Assistance Division, Technical Preservation Services.
Sustainability
Additional references related to sustainable heritage conservation may be found under that heading
in the references for Chapters 1–3.
About Remediation/ Ontario Centre for Environmental
Technology Advancement. No date. “Ontario Municipal
Brownfields Redevelopment Toolbox.”
www.aboutbrownfields.ca/Toolbox
Athena Institute/ Parks Canada. 2009. “A Life Cycle
Assessment Study of Embodied Effects for Existing
Historic Buildings.”
www.athenasmi.org/publications/docs/Athena_LCA_
for_Existing_Historic_Buildings.pdf
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts. 2007. “Life Cycle Assessment in
Heritage Buildings.”
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/sustainability/LCAReport.htm
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts. No date. Fact Sheet: Working with
your Certified Energy Advisor, Increasing Your Home’s
Energy Efficiency.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/library/library.htm
English Heritage – Technical guidelines related to
conservation and climate change: 2004. Flooding and
Historic Buildings: Technical Advice Note.
2007. Energy Conservation in Traditional Buildings.
2008. Small Scale Solar Thermal Energy and
Traditional Buildings.
www.climatechangeandyourhome.org.uk
Maddex, Diane, ed. 1981. New Energy From Old
Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press.
262
REFERENCES
Randl, Chad. 2005. The Use of Awnings on Historic
Buildings, Repair, Replacement & New Design.
Preservation Brief no. 44. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief44.htm
Ross, Dian. 2007. “Operating Energy Reduction in
Heritage Buildings – Windows,” British Columbia
Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
the Arts.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/docs/pdf/
EnergyEfficiencyWindows.pdf
Sims, Craig and Andrew Powter. 2007, “Improving
Thermal Performance of Historic Windows,” Heritage
Canada Foundation.
www.heritagecanada.org/eng/news/archive.html#mag
Smith, Baird M. 1978. Conserving Energy in Historic
Buildings. Preservation Brief no. 3. Washington, D.C.:
National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services
Division, Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief03.htm
Snyder, John W. 1992. “Historic Preservation and
Hazardous Waste: A Legacy of the Industrial past.”
APT Bulletin, 24.1/2: 67–73.
Trusty, Wayne. 2004. “Renovating vs. Building New:
The Environmental Merits.” Athena Institute.
www.athenasmi.ca/publications/docs/OECD_paper.pdf
Wood, Chris and Tadj Oreszcyn. 2002. Building
Regulations and Historic Buildings, Balancing the needs
for energy conservation with those of building conservation: an Interim Guidance Note on the application of
Part L. English Heritage.
www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Building%20Regulations
%20and%20Historic%20Buildings_2002.pdf
Vancouver Heritage Foundation. 2009. New Life Old
Buildings. Your Green Guide to Heritage Conservation.
www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org/sustainability.html
New Additions to Historic Places
Byard, Paul Spencer. 1998. The Architecture of Additions,
Design and Regulation. New York, NY: Norton.
City of Victoria. 2006. Design Guidelines, Old Town
Victoria, BC, New buildings and additions to nonheritage buildings.
www.victoria.ca/common/pdfs/plnpln_hrtgd_final2.pdf
Weeks, Kay D. 1986. New Exterior Additions to Historic
Buildings: Preservation Concerns. Preservation Brief no.
14. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief14.htm
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes,
including Heritage Districts
Additional references related to Cultural
Landscapes may be found under the headings of
New Additions to Historic Places, Guidelines for
Archaeological Sites, Buildings - Exterior Form and
Engineering Works.
Alanen, Arnold R. and Robert Z. Melnick, eds. 2000.
Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Andrews, T. D., et al. 2004. “The Land is Like a Book:
Cultural Landscape Management in the Northwest
Territories, Canada.” Circumpolar Anthropology 5:
301–375.
Andrews, Tom and Susan Buggey. 2008. “Authenticity in
Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes,” APT Bulletin, 39:2–3
(2008), 63–71.
Birnbaum, Charles A. and Christine Capella Peters, eds.
1996. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the
Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service and the
Historic Landscape Initiative.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/hli/landscape_guidelines/
index.htm
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
263
Buggey, Susan.1999 (2004). An Approach to Cultural
Landscapes. Parks Canada.
www.pc.gc.ca/docs/r/pca-acl/index.aspx
Ontario Urban Forest Council. 2006. Securing the Future
of Heritage Trees: A Protection Toolkit for Communities.
Toronto.
Copps, David H. 1995. Views from the Road: A
Community Guide for Assessing Rural Historic
Landscapes. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Parks Canada and the Canadian Parks Council. 2008.
Principles and Guidelines for Ecological Restoration in
Canada’s Protected Natural Areas.
www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/resteco/~/media/docs/pc/
guide/resteco/guide_e.ashx
Doull, Ian. 1994. “Commemoration of Rural Historic
Districts.” Agenda Paper for Historic Sites and
Monuments Board of Canada. Parks Canada.
English Heritage. 2008. Conservation Principles,
Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management
of the Historic Environment.
www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Conservation_
Principles_Policies_and_Guidance_April08_Web.pdf
Jester, Thomas C. and Sharon C. Park. 1993. Making
Historic Properties Accessible. Preservation Brief no.
32. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief32.htm
Johnson, Ron. 1994. The Basics of Site Drainage. Heritage
Notes no. 7. Edmonton: Alberta Historical Resources
Foundation and Alberta Community Development
[formerly Alberta Culture and Multiculturalism].
www.doorsopenalberta.com/pdf/HeritageNotes_v07.pdf
Longstreth, Richard, ed. 2008. Cultural Landscapes,
Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice.
Minneapolis: U. Minnesota Press.
Martin, Carol. 2000. A History of Canadian Gardening.
Toronto: McArthur & Company.
McClelland, Linda Flint. 1998. Building the National
Parks: Historic Landscape Design and Construction.
Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press.
McClelland, Michael. 2004. “Designating Modern
Cultural Landscapes in Canada.” in Charles Birnbaum,
ed. Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture:
Making Postwar Landscapes Visible. Washington, DC:
Spacemaker Press. 88–95.
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Culture. 1997.
Landscapes of Memories, A Guide for Conserving
Historic Cemeteries: Repairing Tombstones.
Slaiby, Barbara E., and Nora J. Mitchell. 2003.
A Handbook for Managers of Cultural Landscapes
with Natural Resource Values. Woodstock, Vermont:
Conservation Study Institute.
www.nps.gov/csi/csihandbook/handbook.pdf
Stokes, Samuel N. A., et al. 1997. Saving America’s
Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Second
Edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Sustainable Sites Initiative. November 2007. Preliminary
Report on the Standards and Guidelines for Sustainable
Sites. American Society of Landscape Architects,
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Centre, United States
Botanic Garden.
www.sustainablesites.org/SustainableSitesInitiative_
PreliminaryReport_110107.pdf
Von Baeyer, Edwinna. 1994. Rhetoric and Roses:
A History of Canadian Gardening. Markham,
Ont: Fitzhenry & Whiteside.
Wallach, Bret. 2005. Understanding the Cultural
Landscape. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Walker, Peter and Simo Melanie. 1994. Invisible Gardens:
The Search for Modernism in the American Landscape.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Nelson, J. Gordon and Susan M. Preston. 2005. Preparing
Heritage Landscape Guides: A Manual for Urban and
Rural Communities in Ontario. Heritage Landscape
Guide #5. University of Waterloo: An Environments
Publication.
264
REFERENCES
Guidelines for Archaeological Sites
Canadian
Alberta, Government of. 2003. Best Practices Handbook
for Traditional Use Studies. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development.
Bergeron, A., et al. 1991. L’archéologue et la conservation :
vade mecum québécois. Québec : Publications
du Québec.
Canadian Archaeological Association. 2000.
Principles of Ethical Conduct.
http://canadianarchaeology.com/caa/about/ethics/
principles-ethical-conduct
Gotthardt, Ruth and Chris Thomas. 2005 (revised 2007).
Handbook for the Identification of Heritage Sites and
Features. Yukon Tourism and Culture.
www.tc.gov.yk.ca/pdf/publications_heritagehandbook.pdf
National Capital Commission. 2008. Guide for the
Management of Archaeological Resources. Ottawa.
www.canadascapital.gc.ca/data/2/rec_docs/16214_
archo_brochure_july08_e.pdf
Northwest Territories, Government of. 2005. Conservation
Manual for Northern Archaeologists (Prince of Wales
Northern Heritage Centre and Canadian Conservation
Institute).
http://pwnhc.learnnet.nt.ca/programs/downloads/conservation_manual.pdf
Parks Canada. 2005. Archaeological Recording Manual:
Excavations and Surveys, Version 1.
www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/fp-es/titre-title.aspx
Parks Canada. 2005. Guidelines for the Management
of Archaeological Resources.
www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/gra-mar/~/media/docs/pc/
guide/gra-mar/archguide_e.ashx
Parks Canada, 2000. Unearthing the Law: Archaeological
Legislation on Lands in Canada.
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Culture. 1993.
Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines.
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Culture. 2009.
Engaging Aboriginal Communities in Archaeology
Draft Technical Bulletin.
www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/archaeology/
Aboriginal%20Engagement%20Bulletin%20-%20FINAL.pdf
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Culture. 2009. Forest
Operations on Crown Land A Draft Technical Bulletin for
Consultant Archaeologists,
www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/archaeology/
Technical_Bulletin_Forest_Operations%20_Crown_Land.pdf
International
Council of Europe and the Instituto Portugês do
Património Cultural. 1992. Archaeological Sites in
Europe: Conservation, Maintenance and Enhancement.
Council of Europe Architectural Heritage Series no. 22.
Conimbriga, Portugal.
Asensio M., et al. 2006. The APPEAR method: A practical
guide for the management of enhancement projects on
urban archaeological sites.
www.in-situ.be/guide_en.pdf
Australian Heritage Commission, 2002. Ask First: A
Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and
Values. Melbourne: Australian Heritage Commission.
www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/publications/
commission/books/pubs/ask-first.pdf
Blair, S. ed. 1994. People’s Places: Identifying and
Assessing Social Value for Communities. Technical
Series no 6. Australian Heritage Commission.
Cleere, Henry, ed. 1990. Archaeological Heritage
Management in the Modern World. One World
Archaeology series, vol. 9. New York: Routledge.
Florida Department of State, Division of Historical
Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research. 2000.
Best Management Practices: An Owner’s Guide to
Protecting Archaeological Sites. Tallahassee, Fla.
www.flheritage.com/archaeology/education/culturalmgmt/Handbook.pdf
Florida Department of State, Division of Historical
Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research. 2000.
Archaeological Stabilization Guide: Case Studies in
Protecting Archaeological Sites. Tallahassee, Fla.
http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/archaeology/education/culturalmgmt/stab_guide.pdf
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
265
Grenville, Jane, ed. 1996. Archaeological Heritage
Management and the English Agricultural Landscape.
York Archaeological Heritage Studies Occasional Paper
no. 1. Oakville, Conn.: David Brown Book Co.
National Park Service (US). 2004. Protecting
Archaeological Sites on Eroding Shorelines: A Hay Bales
Approach, Technical Brief 18.
www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techbr/tch18A.htm
Kerber, Jordan E., ed. 1994. Cultural Resource
Management: Archaeological Research, Preservation
Planning and Public Education in the Northeastern
United States. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey.
Teutonico, J. M., G. Palumbo, et al. 2000. Management
planning for archaeological sites: an international workshop organized by the Getty Conservation Institute and
Loyola Marymount University, 19–22 May 2000, Corinth,
Greece. Los Angeles: the Getty Conservation Institute.
MacManamon, F. P. and Hatton, A. 2000. Cultural
Resource Management In Contemporary Society:
Perspectives On Managing And Presenting The Past.
New York: Routledge.
Netherlands, Government of (State Inspectorate for
Archaeology). 2004. Dutch Archaeology Quality
Standard.
www.erfgoedinspectie.nl/uploads/publications/knauk.pdf
United Kingdom, Government of (Historic Scotland).
1999. Conserving the Underwater Heritage: Historic
Scotland Policy Paper.
www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/conserving_the_
underwater_heritage.pdf
Understanding, Planning, Documenting
and Recording
New Zealand, Government of (Department of
Conservation). 2002. Caring for archaeological sites:
New Zealand guidelines. Wellington, New Zealand.
www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-andtechnical/ArchSitesA.pdf
Chapman, H. P., et al. 2000. “Quantifying the effects of
erosion on the archaeology of intertidal environments:
A new approach and its implications for their management.” Conservation and Management of Archaeological
Sites 4(4).
National Park Service (US). 1988. Filter Fabric:
A Technique for Short-Term Site Stabilization,
Technical Brief 1.
www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techbr/tch1.htm
Mathers, C., et al, ed. 2004. Heritage of Value,
Archaeology of Renown: Reshaping Archaeological
Assessment and Significance. Cultural Heritage Studies
series, University Press of Florida.
National Park Service (US). 1989. Intentional Site Burial:
A Technique to Protect Against Natural or Mechanical
Loss, Technical Brief 5.
www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techbr/tch5.htm
Protecting, Preserving, and Exhibiting
National Park Service (US). 1990. Revegetation: The Soft
Approach to Site Stabilization, Technical Brief 8.
www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techbr/tch8.htm
National Park Service (US). 1991. Site Stabilization
Information Sources, Technical Brief 12.
www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techbr/tch12A.htm
National Park Service (US). 1992. Managing
Archaeological Resources from the Museum Perspective,
Technical Brief 13.
www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techbr/tch13A.htm
Agnew, N. 2001. “Methodology, conservation criteria and
performance evaluation for archaeological site shelters.”
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites
5(1/2).
Schmidt, H. 1999. “The impossibility of resurrecting the
past: reconstructions on archaeological excavation sites.”
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 4(2).
Urban
Teller, J.A.A.W., 2003. The enhancement of
archaeological remains in an urban context.
Position Paper.
www.in-situ.be/contrib_1_en.pdf
National Park Service (US). No date. Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Archaeological Documentation.
www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_7.htm
266
REFERENCES
Landscapes
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources. 1991.
Timber Management Guidelines for the Protection of
Cultural Heritage Resources.
http://modelling.pictographics.com/pdfs/chg.pdf
Protected Natural Areas
Lambrick, Georges, ed. 1985. Archaeology and Nature
Conservation, Oxford: Oxford University Department
for External Studies.
Lennon, J., et al. 1999. Conserving the Cultural Values of
Natural Areas, A Discussion Paper. Report for Australia
ICOMOS.
http://australia.icomos.org/images/pdf/Conserving%20
the%20Cultural%20Values%20of%20Natural%20Areas.pdf
Mason, A. R. 2004. Cultural Resource Management and
Forestry in British Columbia: 1–24.
Underwater
Grenier, Robert, et al. eds. 2006. Underwater Cultural
Heritage At Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts.
ICOMOS Heritage at Risk Series. Paris: ICOMOS.
www.international.icomos.org/risk/2006/fulldocan.pdf
Watson, K. A. A. 1992. Archaeology Underwater: The
NAS Guide to Principles and Practice. Dorset: Nautical
Archaeology Society.
English Heritage. 2003. Coastal Defense and the Historic
Environment
www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/
CoastalDefenceEH.pdf
Above Ground: Rock Art and Culturally
Modified Trees
British Columbia, Government of. 2001. Culturally
Modified Trees of British Columbia. Version 2.0.
Archaeology Branch, Tourism and Culture,
Resources Inventory Committee.
www.for.gov.bc.ca/HFD/pubs/docs/Mr/Mr091.htm
Eldridge, M. 1997. The Significance and Management of
Culturally Modified Trees. C. S. S. C. Vancouver Forest
Region, Millennia Research Ltd: 33.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/docs/culturally_modified_trees_significance_management.pdf
Rosenfeld, A. 1988. Rock Art Conservation in Australia.
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Guidelines for Buildings
Ashurst, John and Nicola Ashurst. 1988. Practical
Building Conservation. English Heritage Technical
Handbook Series. 5 Volume Set. Aldershot, UK:
Gower Technical Press.
Auer, Michael J. 1989. The Preservation of Historic Barns.
Preservation Brief no. 20. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services. www.nps.gov/history/
HPS/TPS/briefs/brief20.htm
Blumenson, John. 1990. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to
Styles and Terms. Markham, On: Fitzhenry and Whiteside.
City of Saint John Heritage Planning. 1990–96. (Revised
2010). Practical Conservation Guidelines Series:
Architectural Styles.
Feilden, Bernard M. 1994. Conservation of Historic
Buildings. Rev. ed. Oxford, Boston: Butterworth
Architecture.
Fisher, Charles E. III, ed. 1998. Caring for Your
Historic House. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Heritage
Preservation, and National Park Service.
Heritage BC, Your Old House Brochures. 2002.
What Style Is It? A guide to historic housing styles
www.heritagebc.ca/resources/publications
Kalman, Harold. 1994. A History of Canadian
Architecture. Don Mills, On: Oxford University
Press Canada.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
267
Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Historic
Resources Branch, 1994. Developing a Conservation
Strategy for a Heritage Building. How -To Series no. 6.
Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism, Historic
Resources Branch. 2007. Heritage Building
Maintenance Manual.
McDonald, Travis C. Jr. 1994. Understanding Old
Buildings: The Process of Architectural Investigation.
Preservation Brief no. 35. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/hps/TPS/briefs/brief35.htm
Morton, W. Brown III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, and
H. Ward Jandl. 1991 (1997). The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Nelson, Lee H. 1988. Architectural Character: Identifying
the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to
Preserving Their Character. Preservation Brief no. 17.
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief17.htm
Oxley, Richard. 2003. Survey and Repair of Traditional
Buildings, A Sustainable Approach. Shaftesbury, UK:
Donhead.
Park, Sharon C. 1993. Mothballing Historic Buildings.
Preservation Brief no. 31. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services. www.nps.gov/history/
hps/TPS/briefs/brief31.htm
Park, Sharon C. 1996. Holding the Line: Controlling
Unwanted Moisture in Historic Buildings. Preservation
Brief no. 39. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service,
Heritage Preservation Services Division, Technical
Preservation Services. www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/
brief39.htm
Province of Saskatchewan, Heritage Resources Branch.
2007. Historic Buildings - Modern Uses.
www.tpcs.gov.sk.ca/historic-buildings-modern-uses
Watt, David, 2008. Building Pathology, Principles and
Practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Weaver, Martin E. and F.G. Matero. 1997. Conserving
Buildings: Guide to Techniques and Materials. Rev. ed.
New York: Preservation Press.
Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. 1995. The Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service.
Young, Robert. 2008. Historic Preservation Technology, A
Primer. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Exterior Form
Byard, Paul Spencer. 1998. The Architecture of Additions,
Design and Regulation. New York, NY: Norton.
City of Victoria. 2006. Design Guidelines, Old Town
Victoria, BC, New buildings and additions to nonheritage buildings.
www.victoria.ca/common/pdfs/plnpln_hrtgd_final2.pdf
Roofs
City of Saint John Heritage Planning. 1990–96. (revised
2010). Practical Conservation Guidelines Series: Dormers,
Eaves & Cornices, Gables, Roofs.
Cullen, Mary. 1990. Slate Roofing in Canada. Studies in
Archaeology, Architecture and History. Ottawa: National
Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service.
Grimmer, Anne E. and Paul K. Williams. 1992. The
Preservation and Repair of Historic Clay Tile Roofs.
Preservation Brief no. 30. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief30.htm
Levine, Jeffrey S. 1992. The Repair, Replacement, and
Maintenance of Historic Slate Roofs. Preservation Brief
no. 29. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief29.htm
Prudon, Theodore H. M. 2008. The Preservation of
Modern Architecture. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
268
REFERENCES
Park, Sharon C. 1989. The Repair and Replacement of
Historic Wooden Shingle Roofs. Preservation Brief no.
19. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief19.htm
Slaton, Deborah and Charles E. Fisher III, eds. 1999. The
Roofing Handbook for Historic Buildings. Washington,
D.C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation.
Sweetser, Sara M. 1978. Roofing for Historic Buildings.
Preservation Brief no. 4. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief04.htm
Exterior Walls
Bull, Natalie and Harry Hunderman, eds. 2001.
“Special Issue: Curtain Walls.” APT Bulletin, Journal of
Preservation Technology. 32:1.
City of Saint John Heritage Planning. 1990–96. (revised
2010). Facades. Practical Conservation Guidelines series.
De Jonge, Wessel and Arjan Doolaar, eds. 1996.
Curtain Wall Refurbishment: A Challenge to Manage.
Preservation Technology Dossier Number 1. Eindhoven,
The Netherlands: DOCOMOMO.
Foulks, William G., ed. 1997. Historic Building Façades:
The Manual for Maintenance and Rehabilitation.
New York: John Wiley & Sons and New York Landmarks
Conservancy.
Kaskel, Bruce S. 1995. “The Metal and Glass Curtain
Wall.” Cultural Resource Management (CRM)
Bulletin, 18:8.
http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/18-8/18-8-7.pdf
Park, Sharon C. 1988. The Use of Substitute Materials
on Historic Building Exteriors. Preservation Brief no.
16. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief16.htm
Rose, William B. 2005. “Should the Walls of Historic
Buildings be Insulated?” APT Bulletin, The Journal of
Preservation Technology. 36–4: 13–18.
Windows, Doors and Storefronts
Auer, Michael J. 1991. The Preservation of Historic
Signs. Preservation Brief 25. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief25.htm
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts. No date. Fact Sheet-Improving your
traditional windows.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/library/library.htm
City of Saint John Heritage Planning. 1990–96. (revised
2010). Practical Conservation Guidelines series: Awnings,
Doors, Signs, Storefronts, Windows.
Deslauriers, Hélène and Herb Stovel. 1989. Appropriate
Design on Main Street. Edited by Gordon Fulton. Ottawa:
The Heritage Canada Foundation.
De Jonge, Wessel and Ola Wedebrunn, eds. 2000.
Reframing the Moderns, Substitute Windows and Glass,
Preservation Technology Dossier Number 3, Eindhoven,
The Netherlands: DOCOMOMO.
English Heritage. 1994. Metal Windows: Framing
Opinions Leaflet No.3. London, UK: English Heritage.
Fisher, Charles E. III, Deborah Slaton, and Rebecca
A. Shiffer, eds. 1997.Window Rehabilitation Guide
for Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Historic
Preservation Education Foundation.
Jandl, H. Ward. 1982. Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts.
Preservation Brief 11. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services. www.nps.gov/history/
hps/tps/briefs/brief11.htm
Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism, Historic
Resources Branch with the City of Winnipeg Planning,
Property and Development Department. 2010. Guidelines
for the Repair and Replacement of Windows in Historic
Buildings.
McKenzie, Peter. 2000. The Conservation of Metal Frame
Windows. Session 2: New Heritage Materials. Seminar on
Material Evidence – Conserving Historic Building Fabric.
NSW Heritage Office, Australia.
www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/events/mckenzie.pdf
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
269
Myers, John H. 1981. The Repair of Historic Wooden
Windows. Preservation Brief no. 9. Washington, D.C.:
National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services
Division, Technical Preservation Services. www.nps.gov/
history/hps/tps/briefs/brief09.htm
Park, Sharon C. 1984. The Repair and Thermal Upgrading
of Historic Steel Windows. Preservation Brief no. 13.
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief13.htm
Repairing Old and Historic Windows: A Manual for
Architects and Homeowners. 1992. Washington,
D.C.: Preservation Press and New York Landmarks
Conservancy.
Sedovic, Walter and Jill H. Gotthelf. 2005. “What
Replacement Windows Can’t Replace: the Real Cost of
Removing Historic Windows.” APT Bulletin, The Journal
of Preservation Technology. 36–4: 25–30.
Saskatchewan Heritage Foundation, 2009. Conserving
Wood Windows. Conservation Bulletin #1.
www.tpcs.gov.sk.ca/Window-Conservation-Booklet
Tutton, Michael and Elizabeth Hirst, eds. 2007. Windows:
History, Repair and Conservation. Shaftesbury, UK:
Donhead.
Moss, Roger W. 1996. Lighting for Historic Buildings: A
Guide to Selecting Reproductions. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Canadian Conservation Institute. 2000. The Conservation
of Heritage Interiors. Preprints of a Conference
Symposium 2000, The Conservation of Heritage Interiors,
Ottawa, Canada, May 17 to 20, 2000.
Structural Systems
Beckmann, Poul. 1995. Structural Aspects of Building
Conservation. London, New York: McGraw Hill.
Institute for Research in Construction, National Research
Council of Canada. 1993. Guidelines for Seismic
Evaluation of Existing Buildings. National Research
Council of Canada.
International Organization for Standardization, 2001. ISO
13822:2001 Bases for Design of Structures — Assessment
of Existing Structures.
City of Saint John Heritage Planning. 1990–96. (revised
2010). Practical Conservation Guidelines series: Porches.
International Scientific Committee on the Analysis and
Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage. 2008.
Draft Annex for Heritage Structures
http://iscarsah.icomos.org/content/working_groups/ISO/
WG6_ISO13822_Annex_draftworkingdoc_June08.doc
Aleca Sullivan and John Leeke. 2007. Preserving Historic
Wooden Porches. Preservation Brief no. 45. Washington,
D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage Preservation
Services Division, Technical Preservation Services.
Koshman, David. 1994. Structural and Subfloor Repairs.
Heritage Notes no. 8. Edmonton: Alberta Historical
Resources Foundation and Alberta Community
Development.
Interior Features
Meryman, Helena. 2005. “Structural Materials in
Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and Greener
Strategies.” APT Bulletin, The Journal of Preservation
Technology, 36–4: 31–38.
Entrances, Porches and Balconies
Chase, Sara B. 1992. Painting Historic Interiors.
Preservation Brief no. 28. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services, www.nps.gov/history/
hps/TPS/briefs/brief28.htm
Fisher, Charles E. III, Michael Auer, and Anne Grimmer,
eds. 1988. The Interiors Handbook for Historic Buildings.
Washington, D.C.: Historic Preservation Education
Foundation.
270
Jandl, H. Ward. 1988. Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic
Buildings: Identifying Character Defining Elements.
Preservation Brief no. 18. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services. www.nps.gov/history/
hps/tps/briefs/brief18.htm
Rabun, J. Stanley. 2000. Structural Analysis of Historic
Buildings: Restoration, Preservation, and Adaptive Reuse
Applications for Architects and Engineers. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
REFERENCES
Mechanical and Electrical Systems
Civil Engineering Works
British Columbia Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts. No date. Fact Sheet - Upgrade Your
Heating System.
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/library/library.htm
Ball, Norman R., ed. 1988. Building Canada, A History of
Public Works. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
English Heritage. 2009. Historic Building Engineering
Systems and Equipment, Heating and Ventilation.
www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/HeatingVentilation.
pdf?1266300132
English Heritage – Technical guidelines related to
conservation and climate change: 2007.
Micro Wind Generation and Traditional Buildings.
2007. Small Scale Solar Electric (Photovoltaics) and
Traditional Buildings. 2008.
Micro-generation in the Historic Environment.
www.climatechangeandyourhome.org.uk
Kay, Gersil Newmark. 1992. Mechanical & Electrical
Systems for Historic Buildings: Profitable Tips for
Professionals, Practical Information for Preservationists.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Park, Sharon C. 1991. Heating, Ventilating, and Cooling
Historic Buildings: Problems and Recommended
Approaches. Preservation Brief no. 24. Washington, D.C.:
National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services
Division, Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief24.htm
Guidelines for Engineering Works,
including Civil, Industrial and
Military Works
Historic American Buildings Survey / Historic American
Engineering Record. 1990. Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation. National Park Service,
Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/
Institution of Engineers Australia. 2009. Engineering
Heritage and Conservation Guidelines.
www.engineersaustralia.org.au/da/index/getfile/id/4481
Passfield, Robert, 1995. Commemorating Engineering
Achievements. Parks Canada
Clifford, C., Eshelman, R., Seibert, M. and Vitanza. 1997.
T.A. Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook. U.S.
National Park Service Historic Preservation Training
Center and National Maritime Initiative, U.S. Coast
Guard, U.S. Department of Defense Legacy Resource
Management Program, and U.S. Lighthouse
Society. 1997.
www.cr.nps.gov/maritime/handbook.htm
Delgado, J. P. and Foster, K. J..1998. Guidelines for
Evaluating and Nominating Aids to Navigation, U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/
NRB34.pdf
Highley, Terry L., Scheffer, Theodore. 1989. Controlling
Decay in Waterfront Structures Evaluation, Prevention,
and Remedial Treatments, United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory
Research Paper FPL-RP-494.
www.fs.fed.us/eng/bridges/documents/tdbp/contdeca.pdf
International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation
and Lighthouse Authorities. 2006. IALA Lighthouse
Preservation Manual.
www.iala-aism.org/web/pages/publications/docpdf/
manuals/IALA%20Preservation%20Manual.PDF
Millbrooke, A., Andrus, P. W., Whipple, D. B., Cook, J. 1998.
Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Documenting
Historic Aviation Properties. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service.
www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/
NRB43.pdf
Parks Canada. 2005. Rideau Canal World Heritage Site
Management Plan.
www.pc.gc.ca/~/media/lhn-nhs/on/rideau/pdf/pd-mp_e.ashx
Passfield. Robert W. 2005. “Evaluating Authenticity:
Reconstructed Timber Swing Bridges,” IA, The Journal of
the Society for Industrial Archeology. 31.2: 5–26.
www.historycooperative.org/journals/sia/31.2/passfield.html
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Transportation/
Ministry of Culture. 2008. Draft Ontario Heritage Bridge
Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges.
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
271
Skelly & Loy Inc, and Harris, DMJM. 2007. Stone Arch
Bridge Maintenance Manual, Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation.
www.pastonearch.org/docs/10-02-07%20Revised%20
WORD%20FORMAT%20REPORT.pdf
Industrial Works
Alfrey, J., and T. Putnam. 1992. The Industrial Heritage:
Managing Resources and Uses. London, New York:
Routledge.
Bernstein, Michael. 2006. “Industrial Archaeology and
Environmental Assessments.” Industrial Archaeology
The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology.
32:1.
Industrial Strength: Conserving Canada’s Industrial
Heritage. Conference Proceedings. 2009.
www.industrialstrengthconference.ca/final_english_
proceedings.pdf
Kirkwood, Niall. 2001. Manufactured Sites, Rethinking
the Post-Industrial Landscape, London, UK: SPON.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2007.
A Practical Guide to Brownfield Redevelopment
in Ontario.
www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=4995
Noble, Bruce J. Jr. and Spude, Robert. 1992. Guidelines
for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic
Mining Properties. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service Cultural Resources,
Interagency Resources Division.
www.nps.gov/history/nR/publications/bulletins/nrb42/
INDEX.htm
Newell, Diane and R. Greenhill. 1989. Survivals: Aspects
of Industrial Archaeology in Ontario. Erin, On:
Boston Mills Press.
Neaverson, Peter and Marilyn Palmer. 1998. Industrial
Archaeology: Principles and Practice. London, UK:
Routledge.
Noble, Bruce J. Jr. and Robert Spude. 1992. National
Register Bulletin #42.Guidelines for Identifying,
Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Properties.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service Cultural Resources, Interagency
Resources Division.
www.nps.gov/history/Nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/
nrb42.pdf
272
Military Works
English Heritage. 2004. Recent Military Heritage:
A Review of Progress 1994–2004.
www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/recentmilitary-heritage/military-heritage-review.pdf/
U.S. Army Environmental Command. 1996. Guidelines
for Documenting and Evaluating Historic Military
Landscapes: An Integrated Landscape Approach.
http://aec.army.mil/usaec/cultural/milland.pdf
U.S. Army Environmental Command. No date. Program
Comments for Cold War Era Unaccompanied Personnel
Housing, World War II and Cold War Era, Ammunition
Storage Facilities, and World War II and Cold War Era
Army Ammunition Production Facilities and Plants.
http://aec.army.mil/usaec/cultural/uph00.html
USA National Parks Service. 1998. National Register
Bulletin #43: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Historic Aviation Properties.
www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/
NRB43.pdf
USA National Parks Service. 1992 (1999). National
Register Bulletin #40: Guidelines for Identifying,
Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic
Battlefields.
www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf
Guidelines for Materials
All Materials
Addis, Bill. 2006. Building with Reclaimed Materials and
Components, A Design Handbook for Recycling and
Reuse. London, UK: Earthscan.
BC Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
the Arts. 2007. “Life Cycle Assessment in Heritage
Buildings.”
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/sustainability/LCAReport.htm
Chase, Sara B. 1992. Painting Historic Interiors.
Preservation Brief no. 28. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
Feilden, Bernard. 2003 (1982). Conservation of Historic
Buildings. Oxford, UK: Arch. Press.
REFERENCES
Harris, Samuel. 2001. Building Pathology: Deterioration,
Diagnostics and Intervention. Hoboken, New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Heritage BC. 2000. Your Old House Brochures. Wood
Siding – Historic wooden siding & shingle cladding
www.heritagebc.ca/resources/publications
Jester, Thomas C. ed. 1995. Twentieth Century Building
Materials: History and Conservation. New York:
National Park Service / McGraw-Hill.
Larsen, Knut Einar and Nils Marstein. 2000. Conservation
of Historic Timber Structures: An Ecological Approach.
Oxford, Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.
Meryman, Helena. 2005. “Structural Materials in
Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and Greener
Strategies.” APT Bulletin, The Journal of Preservation
Technology. 36–4: 31–38.
Mullins, E.J. & T.S. McKnight. eds. 1981. Canadian
Woods: Their Properties and Uses. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Moss, Roger W. ed. 1996. Paint in America:
The Colors of Historic Buildings. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Park, Sharon C. 1988. The Use of Substitute Materials
on Historic Building Exteriors. Preservation Brief no.
16. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief16.htm
Weaver, Martin E. and F.G. Matero. 1997. Conserving
Buildings: Guide to Techniques and Materials. Rev. ed.
New York, NY: Preservation Press.
Wood and Wood Products
Bomberger, Bruce L. 1991. The Preservation and Repair
of Historic Log Buildings. Preservation Brief no. 26.
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief26.htm
City of Saint John, Heritage Planning.1990–96. Wood.
Practical Preservation Guidelines Series. Saint John, N.B.
Lemström, Juha and Tarja Mäkeläin, eds. Preservation
Technology Dossier 4, Wood and Modern Movement.
2000. Eindhoven, The Netherlands: DOCOMOMO.
Goodall, Harrison and Renee Friedman. 1980. Log
Structures: Preservation and Problem Solving. Nashville,
Tenn.: American Association for State and Local History.
Heritage BC. 2000. Your Old House Brochures. Wood
Windows – Repair & maintenance of old wood windows
www.heritagebc.ca/resources/publications
Myers, John H. and Gary L. Hume. 1984. Aluminum and
Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings: The Appropriateness
of Substitute Materials for Resurfacing Historic Wood
Frame Buildings. Preservation Brief no. 8. Washington,
D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage Preservation
Services Division, Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief08.htm
Myers, John H. 1981. The Repair of Historic Wooden
Windows. Preservation Brief no. 9. Washington, D.C.:
National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services
Division, Technical Preservation Services. www.nps.gov/
history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief09.htm
Park, Sharon C. The Repair and Replacement of
Historic Wooden Shingle Roofs. Preservation Brief no.
19. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services, 1989.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief19.htm
Saskatchewan Heritage Foundation. 2009. Conserving
Wood Windows. Conservation Bulletin #1.
www.tpcs.gov.sk.ca/Window-Conservation-Booklet
Shivers, Natalie W. 1990. Walls & Moulding:
How to Care for Old and Historic Wood and Plaster.
Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press.
Stumes, Paul. 1979. W.E.R. System Manual: Structural
Rehabilitation of Deteriorated Timber. Edited by Martin
E. Weaver and Susan Hum Hartley. Ottawa: Association
for Preservation Technology.
Weeks, Kay D. and David W. Look. 1982. Exterior Paint
Problems on Historic Woodwork. Preservation Brief no.
10. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief10.htm
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
273
Masonry
Ashurst, Nicola. 1994. Cleaning Historic Buildings.
London, UK: Donhead, 2 vols.
Collier, Richard. 1981. Guidelines for Restoring Brick
Masonry. Technical Paper series no. 2. Victoria: British
Columbia Heritage Trust.
Cullen, Mary. 1990. Slate Roofing in Canada. Studies in
Archaeology, Architecture and History. Ottawa: National
Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service.
Casciato, Maristella, et al. Preservation Technology
Dossier 6, Stone in Modern Buildings: Principles
of Cladding. 2003. Eindhoven, The Netherlands:
DOCOMOMO.
Grimmer, Anne E. 1979. Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to
Historic Buildings. Preservation Brief no. 6. Washington,
D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage Preservation
Services Division, Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief06.htm
Grimmer, Anne E. 1984. A Glossary of Historic Masonry
Deterioration Problems and Preservation Treatments.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National
Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, Technical
Preservation Services.
Grimmer, Anne E. 1988. Keeping it Clean: Removing
Exterior Dirt, Paint, Stains, and Graffiti from Historic
Masonry Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance
Division, Technical Preservation Services.
Heritage BC. 2000. Your Old House Brochures. Masonry –
Maintaining historic masonry: brick & stone
www.heritagebc.ca/resources/publications
Pieper, Richard. 2001. The Maintenance, Repair and
Replacement of Historic Cast Stone. Preservation Brief
no. 42. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief42.htm
ICOMOS-ISCS. 2008 Illustrated glossary on stone
deterioration patterns - Glossaire illustré sur les formes
d’altération de la pierre. English-French version - Version
Anglais-Français. ICOMOS-International Scientific
Committee for Stone. Paris: ICOMOS-ISCS.
http://lrmh-ext.fr/icomos/consult/index.htm
274
Levine, Jeffrey S. 1992. The Repair, Replacement, and
Maintenance of Historic Slate Roofs. Preservation Brief
no. 29. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief29.htm
London, Mark and Dinu Bumbaru. 1986. Traditional
Masonry. Technical guide no. 3. Montreal: Héritage
Montréal and Quebec Ministry of Cultural Affairs.
London, Mark. 1988. Masonry: How to Care for Old
and Historic Brick and Stone. Washington, D.C.:
Preservation Press.
Loughran, Patrick. 2007. Failed Stone: Problems and
Solutions with Concrete and Masonry. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Mack, Robert C. and Anne Grimmer. 2000. Assessing
Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments for Masonry
Buildings. Preservation Brief no. 1. Rev. ed. Washington,
D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage Preservation
Services Division, Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief01.htm
Mack, Robert C. and John P. Speweik. 1998. Repointing
Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings. Preservation
Brief no. 2. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: National Park
Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief02.htm
City of Saint John, Heritage Planning. 1990–96. Masonry.
Practical Preservation Guidelines Series. Saint John, N.B.
Pearson, Larry. 1992. Repointing Historic Masonry.
Heritage Notes no. 5. Edmonton: Alberta Historical
Resources Foundation and Alberta Community
Development [formerly Alberta Culture and
Multiculturalism].
Tiller, de Teel Patterson. 1979. The Preservation of
Historic Glazed Architectural Terra Cotta. Preservation
Brief no. 7. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service,
Heritage Preservation Services Division, Technical
Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief07.htm
REFERENCES
Concrete
Architectural and Structural Metals
Addis, Bill. 1997. “Concrete and Steel in Twentieth
Century Construction.” in M.J. Stratton, ed., Structure
and Style: Conserving 20th-Century Buildings. York, UK:
University of York.
Addis, Bill. 1997. “Concrete and Steel in Twentieth
Century Construction.” in M.J. Stratton, ed., Structure
and Style: Conserving 20th-Century Buildings. York, UK:
University of York.
De Jonge, Wessel amd Arjan Doolaar, eds. 1997.
Preservation Technology Dossier 2: The Fair Face of
Concrete: Conservation and Repair of Exposed Concrete.
Eindhoven, The Netherlands: DOCOMOMO.
Bull, Natalie and Harry Hunderman, eds. 2001.
“Special Issue: Curtain Walls.” APT Bulletin, Journal of
Preservation Technology. 32:1.
Gaudette, Paul and Deborah Slaton. 2007. Preservation
of Historic Concrete: Problems and General Approaches.
Preservation Brief 15. Washington, D.C.: National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
General Services Administration. 1998. “Selected
Reading on Concrete Restoration and Cleaning,” GSA
Historic Preservation Technical Procedures. http://
w3.gsa.gov/web/p/HPTP.NSF/gsagovAllProceduresDisp
lay/0370001S
Hunt, Kevin. Reinforced Concrete – Use, Deterioration
and Repair. Session 2: New Heritage Materials. Seminar
on Material Evidence – Conserving Historic Building
Fabric. NSW Heritage Office, Australia.
www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/events/hunt.pdf
Kay, T. 1992. Assessment and Renovation of Concrete
Structures. London, UK: Longman.
Macdonald, Susan. 2002. Concrete: Building Pathology.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Macdonald, Susan. 2003. “The Investigation and
Repair of Historic Concrete – Part 1 Understanding
the Material.” / Part 2 – An Approach to Repair.” NSW
Heritage Office, Australia.
www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/Concrete_Part_1.pdf
www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/Concrete_Part_2.pdf
McClelland, Michael, et al. 2007. Concrete Toronto:
A Guidebook to Concrete Architecture from the Fifties
to the Seventies. Toronto: Coach House Books.
Pullar-Strecker, P. 1987. Corrosion-Damaged Concrete:
Assessment and Repair. London, UK: Butterworth.
De Jonge, Wessel and Arjan Doolaar, eds. 1996.
Curtain Wall Refurbishment: A Challenge to Manage.
Preservation Technology Dossier Number 1. Eindhoven:
The Netherlands: DOCOMOMO.
English Heritage. 1994. Metal Windows: Framing
Opinions Leaflet No.3. London, UK: English Heritage.
Gayle, Margot, David W. Look, and John G. Waite.
1992. Metals in America’s Historic Buildings: Uses and
Preservation Treatments. HCRS publication no. 29. 2d
ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Cultural Resources,
Preservation Assistance.
Kaskel, Bruce S. 1995. “The Metal and Glass Curtain
Wall.” Cultural Resource Management Bulletin. 18:8.
http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/18-8/18-8-7.pdf
McKenzie, Peter. 2000. The Conservation of Metal Frame
Windows. Session 2: New Heritage Materials. Seminar on
Material Evidence – Conserving Historic Building Fabric.
NSW Heritage Office, Australia.
www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/events/mckenzie.pdf
Park, Sharon. 1981. The Repair and Thermal Upgrading
of Historic Steel Windows, Preservation Brief 13,
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department
of the Interior.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/presbhom.htm
Waite, John G. and Margot Gayle. 1991. The Maintenance
and Repair of Architectural Cast Iron. Preservation Brief
no. 27. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief27.htm
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
275
Glass and Glass Products
Plaster and Stucco
Bull, Natalie and Harry Hunderman, eds. 2001.
“Special Issue: Curtain Walls.” APT Bulletin, Journal of
Preservation Technology. 32:1.
Grimmer, Anne E. 1990. The Preservation and Repair of
Historic Stucco. Preservation Brief no. 22. Washington,
D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage Preservation
Services Division, Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief22.htm
De Jonge, Wessel and Arjan Doolaar, eds. 1996.
Curtain Wall Refurbishment: A Challenge to Manage.
Preservation Technology Dossier Number 1. Eindhoven:
The Netherlands: DOCOMOMO.
De Jonge, Wessel and Ola Wedebrunn, eds. 2000.
Reframing the Moderns, Substitute Windows and Glass,
Preservation Technology Dossier Number 3. Eindhoven:
The Netherlands: DOCOMOMO.
Dyson, Carol J. and Mansberger, Floyd. 1995.
“Structural Glass: Its History, Manufacture, Repair,
and Replacement,” Cultural Resource Management
Bulletin. 18:8.
http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/18-8/18-8-5.pdf
Kaskel, Bruce S. 1995. “The Metal and Glass Curtain
Wall.” Cultural Resource Management (CRM)
Bulletin, 18:8.
http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/18-8/18-8-7.pdf
Kendrick, Gregory, ed. 1984. The Preservation of Historic
Pigmented Structural Glass (Vitrolite and Carrara Glass).
Preservation Brief 12. Washington, D.C.: National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief12.htm
Loughran, Patrick. 2003. Falling Glass: Problems
and Solutions in Contemporary Architecture. Basel:
Birkhäuser.
Randl, Chad. 2001. Repair and Reproduction of Prismatic
Glass Transoms. Preservation Tech Notes, Historic Glass
Number 1. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/technotes/PTN44/intro.htm
Vogel, Neal A. and Rolf Achillies. 1993. The Preservation
and Repair of Historic Stained and Leaded Glass.
Preservation Brief no. 33. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief33.htm
Flaharty, David. 1990. Preserving Historic Ornamental
Plaster. Preservation Brief no. 23. Washington, D.C.:
National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services
Division, Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief23.htm
MacDonald, Mary Lee. 1989. Repairing Historic Flat
Plaster: Walls and Ceilings. Preservation Brief no. 21.
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief21.htm
Shivers, Natalie W. 1990. Walls & Molding: How to Care
for Old and Historic Wood and Plaster. Washington, D.C.:
Preservation Press.
Miscellaneous Materials
Grimmer, Anne E. and Paul K. Williams. 1992. The
Preservation and Repair of Historic Clay Tile Roofs.
Preservation Brief no. 30. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief30.htm
Grimmer, Anne E. and Kimberly A. Konrad. 1996.
Preserving Historic Ceramic Tile Floors. Preservation
Brief no. 40. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service,
Heritage Preservation Services Division, Technical
Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief40.htm
Heritage BC. 2000. Your Old House Brochures.
Paint – Problems and remedies in painting the
older home.
www.heritagebc.ca/resources/publications
Heritage BC. 2001. Your Old House Brochures. True
Colours – Authentic heritage colour & placement.
www.heritagebc.ca/resources/publications
Nylander, Jane C. 1995. Fabrics for Historic Buildings:
A Guide to Selecting Reproduction Fabrics. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
276
REFERENCES
Park, Sharon C. 1995. Appropriate Methods for Reducing
Lead-Paint Hazards in Historic Housing. Preservation
Briefs 37. Washington, DC: Technical Preservation
Services, U.S. Department of the Interior.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief37.htm
Acronyms of Heritage Organizations
(in alphabetical order)
Randl, Chad. 2005. The Use of Awnings on Historic
Buildings, Repair, Replacement & New Design.
Preservation Brief no. 44. Washington, D.C.: National
Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Division,
Technical Preservation Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief44.htm
AQPI : Association québécoise pour le patrimoine
industriel
www.aqpi.qc.ca/actions.html
Thornton, Jonathan and William Adair. 1994. Applied
Decoration for Historic Interiors: Preserving Historic
Composition Ornament. Preservation Brief no. 34.
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation
Services.
www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/briefs/brief34.htm
APTI: Association for Preservation Technology International
www.apti.org/
DOCOMOMO: international committee for documentation
and conservation of buildings, sites and
neighbourhoods of the modern movement
www.docomomo.com/
EH: English Heritage (UK)
www.english-heritage.org.uk/
FHBRO: Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office
www.pc.gc.ca/progs/beefp-fhbro/index_e.asp
HCF: Heritage Canada Foundation
www.heritagecanada.org/eng/main.html
HELM: Historic Environment Local Management (UK)
www.helm.org.uk/
ICOMOS: International Council on Monuments and Sites
www.icomos.org/
ICOMOS CANADA
http://canada.icomos.org/home-E.html
ISCARSAH: International Scientific Committee on the
Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural
Heritage
http://iscarsah.icomos.org/
NPS: National Parks Service (USA)
www.nps.gov/index.htm
PCA: Parks Canada Agency
www.pc.gc.ca/eng/index.aspx
SIA: Society for Industrial Archaeology
www.siahq.org/
TICCIH: The International Committee for the Conservation
of the Industrial Heritage
www.mnactec.cat/ticcih/
UNESCO - WHC: United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization - World Heritage Centre
http://whc.unesco.org/
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
277
Provincial and Territorial Heritage
Branches (November 2010)
Alberta, Culture and Community Spirit –
Historic Resources Management
http://culture.alberta.ca/heritage/resourcemanagement/
default.aspx
British Columbia, Ministry of Tourism, Trade and
Investment – Heritage Branch
www.tca.gov.bc.ca/heritage/index.htm
Manitoba, Culture Heritage and Tourism –
Historic Resources Branch
www.gov.mb.ca/chc/hrb/index.html
New Brunswick, Wellness, Culture and Sport –
Heritage Branch
www.gnb.ca/0131/heritage-e.asp
Newfoundland and Labrador, Tourism,
Culture and Recreation – Heritage
www.tcr.gov.nl.ca/tcr/heritage/index.html
Nova Scotia, Tourism, Culture and Heritage
www.gov.ns.ca/Tch/heritage_mandate.asp
Northwest Territories, Education, Culture and
Employment – Culture and Heritage
www.pwnhc.ca
Nunavut, Culture, Language, Elders and Youth
www.gov.nu.ca/cley/
Ontario, Ministry of Tourism and Culture – Heritage
www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/act.htm
Prince Edward Island, Tourism and Culture –
Culture, Heritage and Libraries
www.gov.pe.ca/go/heritageplaces
Québec, Culture, Communications et Condition féminine
– Patrimoine et muséologie
www.mcccf.gouv.qc.ca/index.php?id=24
Saskatchewan, Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport –
Heritage Conservation Branch
www.tpcs.gov.sk.ca/heritage
Yukon, Tourism and Culture –
Historic Sites + Heritage Resources
www.yukonheritage.com/
278
REFERENCES
photo credits
Front Cover
Subject
Credit
Year
Rideau Canal, Jones Falls
Parks Canada / Simon Lunn
2005
Chapter 1
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
6
Grier Block – 1906
Glenbow Archives NA-303-87
1906
6
Grier Block – 1910
Unknown Source
1910
7
Grier Block – before
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Rino Basso
2001
7
Grier Block – after
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Fraser Shaw
2010
8
Grier Block – facade
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Fraser Shaw
2003
9
Grier Block – window before
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Fraser Shaw
2008
9
Grier Block – window after
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Fraser Shaw
2009
9
Grier Block – interior wall before
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Fraser Shaw
2008
9
Grier Block – interior wall after
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Fraser Shaw
2009
10
Grand-Pré – church
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
John Zvonar
2006
10
Grand-Pré – tractor
Parks Canada / Christophe Rivet
2009
11
Grand-Pré – drainage and dykes
Parks Canada / Christophe Rivet
2007
11
Grand-Pré – aboiteaux
Parks Canada / Christophe Rivet
2009
12
Grand-Pré – orchards
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
John Zvonar
2006
Parks Canada / Christophe Rivet
2009
12
Grand-Pré – archaeological evidence
Chapter 2
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
15
Swift Current Creek Petroglyph
Government of Saskatchewan / Fehr
2004
16
Hartland Covered Bridge – interior
Province of New Brunswick Heritage Branch
2007
16
Hartland Covered Bridge – exterior
Province of New Brunswick Heritage Branch
1999
17
Chiefswood
Mark Laird
2000
24
Habitat 67
Minstère de la Culture, des Communications et
de la Condition féminine du Québec
2008
2000
24
Fall Caribou Crossing
Parks Canada
25
Stanley Park
Vancouver Park Board
25
Addison Sod House
Government of Saskatchewan / Fehr
2004
26
Lefurgey Cultural Centre
Province of Prince Edward Island / Brian Simpson
2007
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
279
Chapter 3
280
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
26
Halifax Public Gardens – before
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
John Zvonar
2003
26
Halifax Public Gardens – after
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
John Zvonar
2006
27
Old Strathcona
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Tom Ward
2010
27
Margaret Martin Residence –
drawing
Magoon Hopkins and James, City of Edmonton
Archives – MS 328-282
28
Margaret Martin Residence – photo
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Tom Ward
2009
28
Lunenburg Academy
Nova Scotia Department of Tourism, Culture and
Heritage, Heritage Division
2004
1906
–1907
28
Charlotte Street School
Province of New Brunswick Heritage Branch
2008
28
Dawson City Telegraph Office
Yukon Government / Barb Hogan
2009
29
St.Luke’s Anglican Rectory
and Church
Yukon Government / Brent Riley
2009
29
Prince of Wales Fort
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Myles McDevitt
2007
30
McPherson House
Government of the Northwest Territories/
Tom Andrews
30
Belvedere Cemetery
Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador/
Deborah O'Rielly
2008
31
Red Bay
Parks Canada/ Jonathan Moore
2006
31
Walker Theatre
Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Culture,
Heritage and Tourism
1990
31
Fort Langley
Parks Canada/ Manfred Bailey
2007
32
Parliament Grounds
Public Works and Government Services Canada/
Susan Coles
2010
32
Parkwood
Public Works and Government Services Canada
1990
33
Maplelawn
Public Works and Government Services Canada/
John Zvonar
2008
33
Doukhobor Dugout House – before
Government of Saskatchewan / Bernard Flaman
2006
33
Doukhobor Dugout House – after
Government of Saskatchewan / Bernard Flaman
2008
34
Shaughnessy House
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
2007
34
Museum of Archaeology
Ville de Montréal / Normand Rajotte
1992
35
Bank of Nova Scotia
Michel Brunelle
2001
35
Melville City Hall
Government of Saskatchewan / Dean
2008
36
CentreBeam Place
City of Saint John / Jim Bezanson
2010
36
Avenue of Trees
City of Surrey / Erin Schultz
2010
37
Bideford Parsonage Museum –
engraving
Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Province of Prince
Edward Island by J.H. Meacham & Co., Publishers
1880
37
Bideford Parsonage Museum –
photo
Province of Prince Edward Island / Brian Simpson
2004
37
Capitol Theatre
Capitol Theatre, Moncton
2003
REFERENCES
Chapter 4
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
40
Bar U Ranch
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Gerard van Rijn
2009
2005
40
Saguenay-St. Lawrence
Parks Canada / Marc-André Bernier
40
Hartt Boot and Shoe Factory
Province of New Brunswick Heritage Branch
2010
Museum of Archaeology
Ville de Montréal / Normand Rajotte
1992
Dredge No. 4
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Gerard van Rijn
2007
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la
Condition féminine du Québec / Pierre Lahoud
2004
40
44
Montmorency Falls – aerial view
45
Montmorency Falls – archaeological sites
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la
Condition féminine du Québec / Christian Lemire
2009
45
St.Mary’s Chapel
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la
Condition féminine du Québec / Christian Lemire
2007
46
Montmorency Falls – hydroelectric installations
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la
Condition féminine du Québec / Christian Lemire
2009
46
Montmorency Falls – bridge
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la
Condition féminine du Québec / Christian Lemire,
2007
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la
Condition féminine du Québec / Christian Lemire
2007
46
Montmorency Falls –
elevated footpaths
Section 4.1
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
48
Confederation Centre of the Arts
Province of Prince Edward Island/ Matthew Hughson
2010
48
Victoria Settlement
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Joann Latremouille
2006
48
Hatzic Rock
Parks Canada / Monique Trépanier
2001
48
Winnipeg Exchange District
Parks Canada / Susan Algie
2010
49
Maplelawn
Lloyd Brown
2002
49
Hatley Park
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1987
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Joann Latremouille
2002
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Coles
2010
51
51
Buxton Settlement
Parliament Buildings
55
Marble Island
Doug McLarty
2006
56
Chinese Cemetery – view
Patricia Coles
2010
56
Chinese Cemetery – close up
Patricia Coles
2010
56
Nan Sdins
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Coles
2005
59
Neubergthal
Archview
1997
63
Motherwell Homestead
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1987
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
281
Section 4.1
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
63
Ministers Island
Province of New Brunswick Heritage Branch
2002
63
Bonar Law House
Village of Rexton
2009
67
Dalhousie Square
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Ross
2006
67
Saskatchewan Legislature Grounds
Government of Saskatchewan / Dean
2008
67
Bar U Ranch
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Gerard van Rijn
2009
71
Sault Ste. Marie Canal
Parks Canada / Roger Draycott
1986
71
Carré Royal
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la
Condition féminine du Québec / Jean-Francois Rodrigue
2004
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Bill Hockey
2002
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
John Zvonar
2006
71
75
Province House
Melanson Settlement
78
Honeywood Nursery
Government of Saskatchewan / Carlos Germann
2008
78
Reader Rock Garden
Head Gardener of Reader Rock Garden,
The City of Calgary / Janet Jones
2007
Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Culture,
Heritage and Tourism
2004
78
Trappist Monastery Ruins
82
Dredge No. 4
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson,
1992
82
Frank Slide
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Fraser Shaw
2007
86
Beaver Lake – summer
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
John Zvonar
2007
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
John Zvonar
2008
86
Beaver Lake – winter
90
Riding Mountain East Gate
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1996
90
Former Ottawa City Hall
Public Works and Government Services Canada
2002
90
John Parot’s Grave Municipal Site,
Old Perlican
Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador
2005
90
Habitat 67
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la
Condition féminine du Québec
2008
Section 4.2
282
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
96
Ferryland
Colony of Avalon Foundation / Dr. James A. Tuck
2007
96
Fathom Five
Parks Canada / Ryan Harris
2007
96
Writing-on-Stone
Parks Canada / Virginia Sheehan
2009
96
Sirmilik National Park
Parks Canada
2006
97
Montreal
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1999
REFERENCES
Section 4.2
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
98
Fort Battleford
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1994
Parks Canada / Lindsay Cary
2009
100
Tuktut Nogait
101
Ferryland
Currency Museum Bank of Canada / Gord Carter
2008
102
Place-Royale
Jones R. Sheehan
2009
109
Market Square
The Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation /
Sue Bazeley
2005
109
St-Louis Forts – aerial photo
AirScapes
2007
113
Fortress of Louisbourg
Parks Canada / Rebecca Duggan
2007
113
Kejimkujik
Parks Canada / TJ Hammer
2008
115
Ivvavik
Parks Canada / John Lucas
2008
115
Saguenay-St. Lawrence
Parks Canada / Marc-André Bernier
2005
117
Boat Mooring
Save Ontario Shipwrecks / Warren Lo
2008
117
Red Bay
Parks Canada / Jonathan Moore
2005
119
Gwaii Haanas
Parks Canada / D. Andrews
1996
119
Kejimkujik
Parks Canada / Rob Ferguson
2007
122
Consultation with Elders
Government of Nunavut
2004
122
Arvia'Juaq and Qikiqtaarjuk
Government of Nunavut
Section 4.3
Page
Subject
Credit
126
Anglican Church
Government of the Northwest Territories /
Tom Andrews
126
Farmhouse
Province of New Brunswick Heritage Branch
2002
126
Bloedel Conservatory
City of Vancouver / Hugh McLean
2010
126
Union Station
Parks Canada / André Guindon
1999
127
Head Harbour Light Station
Province of New Brunswick Heritage Branch
2008
128
Hôpital général de Québec
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de
la Condition féminine du Québec / Chantal Grisé
2009
Year
129
St. Jean Baptiste Church
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Gary Chen
2010
129
Fraser Octagon House
Nova Scotia Department of Tourism,
Culture and Heritage, Heritage Division
2005
130
Yukon Sawmill Co. Office
Yukon Government / Doug Olynyk
2006
130
Strathcona Public Library
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Tom Ward
2010
130
Strathcona Public Library
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Tom Ward
2010
134
Monastère-des Augustines- del'Hôtel-Dieu-de-Québec
Lieu de mémoire habité des Augustines /
Marc-André Grenier
134
Free Meeting House
Province of New Brunswick Heritage Branch
134
Calgary City Hall
Carruthers & Associates Architects
139
Fort Garry Hotel
Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Culture,
Heritage and Tourism
2010
2006
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
283
Section 4.3
284
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
139
Truro Post Office
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Bill Hockey
2002
139
Dawson Post Office
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1989
140
Charlottetown
Province of Prince Edward Island / Darin MacKinnon
2010
140
Motherwell Homestead
Parks Canada / Michel Soucy
1980
140
St. Dunstan’s Basilica
Province of Prince Edward Island / Brian Simpson
2007
146
Grange
Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de
la Condition féminine du Québec / Annie Tétreault
2009
146
Modern building envelope
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
James Ashby
2005
147
Mel’s Tea Room
Dr. Paul Bogaard
2010
147
New Sign
Parks Canada / Gordon Fulton
1982
147
Hartt Boot and Shoe Factory
Province of New Brunswick Heritage Branch
2010
147
Kellet’s Storehouse
Parks Canada / I.K. MacNeil
1978
147
Adding insulation to an exterior
wall assembly
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
James Ashby
2006
153
Aberdeen Pavillion – before
Parks Canada
1977
153
Aberdeen Pavillion – after
Parks Canada / Monique Trepanier
1995
153
Byrnes Block
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
2000
153
Wood door with transom
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Coles
2010
154
Lougheed Building drawing
Simpson Roberts Architecture Interior Design Inc.
153
Aberdeen Pavillion – before
Parks Canada
1977
153
Aberdeen Pavillion – after
Parks Canada / Monique Trepanier
1995
153
Byrnes Block
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
2000
153
Wood door with transom
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Coles
2010
154
Lougheed Building drawing
Simpson Roberts Architecture Interior Design Inc.
154
Maison Leopold Roy – before
Lionel Castonguay
2004
154
Maison Leopold Roy – after
Lionel Castonguay
2004
154
CentreBeam Place
City of Saint John / Jim Bezanson
2010
160
Stair – before
City of Saint John / Jim Bezanson
1989
160
Stair – during
City of Saint John / Jim Bezanson
1989
160
Stair – after
City of Saint John / Jim Bezanson
1989
160
Bonsecours Market
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1999
161
Maltese Cross Building
Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Culture,
Heritage and Tourism
2005
161
Paint Restoration – before
City of Saint John / Jim Bezanson
1995
161
Paint Restoration – after
City of Saint John / Jim Bezanson
1996
REFERENCES
Section 4.3
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
161
Province House
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Bill Hockey
2002
167
Saskatchewan Legislature Mural
Government of Saskatchewan / Botkin
2010
167
Dominion Public Building
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Don K. Macdonald
2003
168
Dawson City Telegraph Office
Yukon Government / Brent Riley
2006
168
Jasper CNR Station
Parks Canada / Jake Derksen
2010
168
National Archives and Library
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Coles
2010
174
Windsor Station
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1999
174
City Market
City of Saint John / Jim Bezanson
2010
175
St.Peter’s Dynevor Anglican Church
Rectory
Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Culture,
Heritage and Tourism
2006
175
McLeod Building
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Tom Ward
2010
181
City Hall Annex
City of Victoria / Steve Barber
2010
181
George Brown House – air vent
Ontario Heritage Trust / Romas Bubelis
2009
181
George Brown House – boiler
Ontario Heritage Trust / Romas Bubelis
2009
182
Gooderham & Worts Distillery –
ductwork
City of Toronto / Steven Evans
182
Gooderham & Worts Distillery –
interior
City of Toronto / Steven Evans
Section 4.4
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
190
Fort Rodd Hill
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Doug Stephenson
2009
190
Hepburn Grain Elevator
Government of Saskatchewan / Bernard Flaman
2006
190
SS Klondike
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Gerard van Rijn
2009
Ministère de la Cultures, des Communications et
de la Condition féminine du Québec /
Jean-François Rodrigue
2010
190
Québec Bridge
191
Doukhobor Suspension Bridge
Parks Canada / R. Eddy
1985
192
Percival Windmill
Government of Saskatchewan / Korvemaker
1996
192
Brooks Aqueduct
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Fraser Shaw
2008
193
LaSalle Coke Crane
Public Works and Government Services Canada
2004
193
Murney Tower
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Myles McDevitt
2009
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Gerard van Rijn
2007
194
Dredge No. 4
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
285
Section 4.4
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
195
Clearwater CPR Water Tower
Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Culture,
Heritage and Tourism
2006
1985
195
Eagle Creek Cement Bridge
Government of Saskatchewan / Korvemaker
195
Kingston Dry Dock Drawing
Public Works and Government Services Canada
195
Powerscourt Covered Bridge
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Jean-Pierre Jérôme
2003
204
Trent Severn Waterway
Parks Canada / R. Van Derhilst
1974
205
Claybank Brick Plant
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1994
1999
205
Britannia Mines Concentrator
Public Works and Government Services Canada
205
Myra Canyon – drawing
Canadian Pacific Railways
205
Myra Canyon – before
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Jean Pierre Jérôme
2003
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Jean Pierre Jérôme
2005
HRS, Parks Canada
1995
205
205
Myra Canyon – after
Diefenbunker
Section 4.5
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
212
Landscape materials
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Joann Latremouille
2004
212
Masonry
Fournier Gersovitz Moss & Associés Architectes
2009
212
Fabric Awnings
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Ross
2008
212
Glass and Concrete
Province of Prince Edward Island / Matthew Hughson
2010
214
Commissioner’s Residence
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1993
214
Rideau Canal
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Bob Kirkhope
2006
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Jean-Pierre Jérôme
1997
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1995
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
James Ashby
2007
217
217
218
Fort Walsh
Beaver Lake Pavilion
218
John Walter Historic Site
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Tom Ward
2009
218
Langevin Block door
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Rebecca Casagrande
2010
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
2000
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Coles
2010
222
222
286
North Pacific Cannery
B.C. Legislature
Sandblasted brick
REFERENCES
Section 4.5
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
222
Damaged brick wall
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1978
223
Cleaning Masonry
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1992
223
Confederation Life Building
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1994
223
Deteriorated Pavers
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Caroline Guay
2006
224
Tenby School
Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Culture,
Heritage and Tourism
2006
224
Joseph Shepard Building
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Isabelle Massicotte
2010
224
Brock Monument
Parks Canada / B. Morin
2003
224
Modern masonry cladding
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
James Ashby
2005
229
Cape Race Lighthouse
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Ian Cameron
2007
229
National Arts Centre
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Coles
2010
230
Deteriorated concrete close-up
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Myles McDevitt
2008
230
Early concrete wall
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Jocelyn Paquette
2005
230
Terrazzo
Government of Saskatchewan / M. Thomas
2010
230
Concrete patch
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Bob Kirkhope
2009
Aluminium mullions and
spandrel panels
Public Works and Government Services Canada/
James Ashby
2001
Bronze door detail
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Guy Masson
1982
234
234
235
Lighthouse lantern
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Caroline Guay
2007
235
Replacement finials
City of Saint John / Jim Bezanson
2000
235
M and J Hardware – before
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Tom Ward
2007
2008
235
M and J Hardware – after
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Ophelia Liew
239
Stained glass
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Rebecca Casagrande
239
Multiple divided lights
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Ross
2006
240
National Printing Bureau
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Ross
2005
240
Glass block
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Ross
2009
243
Fort Battleford
Kevin Hogarth Photography
2009
243
Plaster cornice
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Rebecca Casagrande
standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in canada
287
Section 4.5
Page
Subject
Credit
Year
243
Dr. Woods House – overall
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Tom Ward
2006
243
Dr. Woods House – detail
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit / Tom Ward
2006
246
Moulded green panels
Public Works and Government Services Canada/
James Ashby
2005
246
Union Station tile
Fournier Gersovitz Moss & Associés Architectes
2009
247
Laurier House
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Ross
2008
247
Gulf of Georgia Cannery
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Rebecca Casagrande
2004
Aurora Research Institute / Dick Hill
1964
247
Knut Lang's Place
Back Cover
288
Subject
Credit
Year
Lunenburg, NS
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Susan Ross
2006
Beechey Island, NU
Parks Canada / I.K. MacNeil
1977
Britannia Mines, BC
Public Works and Government Services Canada /
Gerard van Rijn
2001
Quebec City, QC
Parks Canada / P. St-Jacques
1995
REFERENCES
www.historicplaces.ca
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement