Heritage Under Threat
Premier Heritage Village in Jeopardy
Nestled on the eastern edge of Kingston, bordered by highways
and the Cataraqui River, in the hub of the UNESCO designated heritage
site of Fort Henry and the Rideau Canal, is the village of Barriefield.
Approaching Kingston on Highway 15, past subdivisions and strip malls,
the first view of this gem of historic preservation is the village's
charming stone church which looms on the horizon, beckoning entry into
this extraordinary place.
Barriefield is a unique example of a rural, early
nineteenth-century village. As well as the church and its green, the
village boasts significant cultural heritage landscapes buffering the
narrow streets and alleys. The village has a large complement of
historic houses, most made of wood and stone, a couple of brick, all
sympathetically restored (many winning heritage prizes), along with
several new houses built according to heritage guidelines. Once home to
soldiers and officers, masons, carpenters and shipbuilders, Barriefield
played an important role in the military history of Kingston. Today,
most Sunday afternoons you'll find tourists and locals visiting the
village, marveling at this well-kept bit of history in the New World.
Barriefield owes its extraordinary character to a series of
careful steps in its conservation. More than thirty years ago, in the
pioneering days of heritage consciousness, Barriefield became the first
village in Ontario to receive heritage designation. Since then, the
village has been maintained by the watchful eye of first, the Pittsburgh
County LACAC, then after amalgamation with the City of Kingston, the
Kingston LACAC (now Municipal Heritage Committee). Barriefield residents
have lived by the principle of stewardship, that is, that their houses
are not their exclusive property, but a part of the community's heritage
that they hold in trust. This has meant submitting to the advice of
others on the matter of care for their homes, often with the result that
more costly methods and materials had to be used.
Barriefield residents were horrified, then, when they learned
last October of the City of Kingston's plan to build a high-density
housing project on the green spaces at the perimeter of the village. The
village's vital cultural heritage landscape would be destroyed by this
proposal that runs roughshod over the Barriefield Conservation District
Plan and the Official Plan for the City of Kingston. Both plans require
that green spaces be protected, housing be low-density and that
architectural design conform to heritage guidelines – all of which are
contradicted by the proposal. Moreover, zoning amendments would be
required to allow for duplexes, triplexes and apartments.
The fragile heritage character of the village is also
jeopardized by the much higher density housing and huge increase in
population contemplated by the proposal. The proposed first phase
concept plan – to build 32 units, 55 bedrooms for 110 people in eight
buildings on 1.38 acres of buffer lands – will increase the population
of Barriefield by more than 50%. And this is just phase one! This is
too large a population increase for a rural village which currently
consists of only 90 homes and 182 people.
Indeed, the very designation of the village would seem in
question given the proposal's effect of 'swamping' the historic houses
with a large contingent of modern ones. If the proposal goes ahead,
Barriefield's complement of historic homes would go from 56% to 40% –
and that's just for phase one. Brian Osborne, a professor at Queen's
University and an expert on local history, suggested at a recent City
Council meeting that even the UNESCO designation could be compromised if
the plan should go ahead, given Barriefield's proximity and importance
for the fort and the canal.
Barriefielders have united to mount an extraordinarily
successful campaign against the development, garnering positive press in
the local media, supportive letters to the editor and influential
appeals to politicians, as well as close to 2,000 names on paper and
on-line petitions (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/barriefieldvillage).
In effect, the proposal violates the codified trust between Barriefield
homeowners and the City of Kingston on the question of heritage
conservation. Many residents are wondering how the Municipal Heritage
Committee can ask Barriefield homeowners to abide by the principles of
heritage preservation if the City does not.
The issue owes its origin to the federal government's Surplus
Federal Real Property Homelessness Initiative, whereby surplus federal
lands can be sold to municipalities for one dollar, on condition they
are used to build social housing projects for targeted disadvantaged
groups. Plans for the Barriefield housing project were in the works last
spring, but council meetings were in camera until October.
Most people would agree that affordable housing is an important
policy objective that meets vital social needs. But the Barriefield
site is an odd choice. In a speech to City Council, Kingston resident
Anthony Barlow, who as an architect in his native Britain worked on
affordable housing projects, pointed out that with its rural setting,
Barriefield is far from shops, social services, doctors and pharmacies.
As the CMHC guide Housing in My Backyard: a Municipal Guide for Responding to NIMBY notes,
"Most of the time, citizen engagement is a very positive and healthy
sign of local democracy. Sometimes, a housing proposal is just wrong for
the neighbourhood — it's out of scale, violates heritage character or
has inadequate infrastructure or support services."
To date there has been little opportunity for heritage
considerations to be brought to the discussion. The Heritage Planner did
not know of the proposal until it was made public and has been absent
from Council meetings on the subject. The proposal was not even made
known to the Kingston Muncipal Heritage Committee until the November 2nd
meeting which was an 'information only' meeting with no discussion.
Moreover, the committee is now in a rump form, as the architect who
designed the city proposal is a committee member who has recused
himself. Two Barriefield residents who are members of the committee are
also out of the discussion, following the advice of the City Solicitor.
The City has assured Barriefield residents that there will be
ample time for public consultation and the Heritage Committee has agreed
to set up a special heritage consultation process. Moreover, some
productive dialogue has begun between city staff and Barriefield
residents on possible alternate uses of the land, such as keeping it in
the hands of the federal government under a land conservancy project,
making it into a park, a nature preserve, or even, as has been suggested
by some observers, developing it as a war memorial garden commemorating
Canada's military, given the historic connection between the land and
Canada's military and the proximity of the village to military bases in
Kingston.
But time is short. City staff noted at the October 20th City
Council meeting that they intend to have a proposal ready to present to
Ottawa in January. The last Council meeting of the year takes place on
December 15, and Council Chambers will doubtless be filled again with
Barriefield residents, heritage advocates, observers and supporters, as
this controversial issue continues to unfold. Those who care about
heritage will need to impress upon the City of Kingston that important
social goals need not mean sacrificing heritage, and that while such
goals can take a variety of forms and opportunities, heritage, in
contrast, is not so flexible. As the residents themselves have learned
in their education as stewards of history, the conservation of historic
Barriefield is a commitment that cannot simply be swept away, destroyed
and then recovered. Once gone, it is gone forever.
Christine Sypnowich
Christine Sypnowich is a Professor of Philosophy at
Queen's University and a member of the Kingston Municipal Heritage
Committee. She lives in Barriefield.
