A century-old industrial building in east London has received one of the highest possible scores during an evaluation of its heritage value, but the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) wasn’t convinced to grant it heritage designation. The six-storey former Hunt Bros. Flour Mill at 471 Nightingale Ave. was constructed in 1917 in the heart of what’s been dubbed the Smokestack District, a historic industrial area that also includes 100 Kellogg Lane and the former Beta Brands/McCormick’s Biscuit factory. The provincial government has set a Jan. 1, 2027, deadline for municipalities to remove buildings from their heritage registry that have not been designated. The former flower mill is one of just 13 shortlisted buildings chosen for evaluation from London’s registry of more than 2,000 potential heritage buildings. “This [building] was, I think, one of the first we’ve ever seen that satisfied eight out of nine heritage criteria,” said Jean-Marc Metrailler, chair of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning. “It was at one point, I think, the tallest building in London. So it’s quite a landmark.” But the building’s owner warned that heritage designation could make his ongoing commitment to maintain the building much more expensive. “Heritage designation is not without cost,” Patrick Malloy told members of PEC. “Insurance becomes more expensive or it’s not possible to insure. Financing becomes more difficult and at a much higher cost. Future repairs become more costly.” Malloy added, “When the possibility of designating City Hall was discussed, one of the concerns raised was that designation would tie the city’s hands and impose unnecessary costs on the taxpayers. Council recognized that flexibility has value. I simply ask you to apply the same principle here.” Metrailler emphasized to the committee, “My personal view of this is that there is a public interest in designation that is to be weighed against the private interest. If we only ever consider designating properties where the owner wanted it, you’re not really protecting the ones that are genuinely at risk.” The Ontario Heritage Act allows a building to be designated if it achieves at least two of nine evaluation criteria. The building at 471 Nightingale met eight of nine criteria, one of the highest scores ever received by a building in London. However, Deputy Mayor Shawn Lewis took aim at the heritage evaluation, expressing doubt that five of the criteria were met. “I think that there has to be a really clear argument made for why these criteria are being met, and I don’t think the staff report, quite honestly, has met that threshold,” Lewis told council colleagues on PEC. Coun. Susan Stevenson suggested, “Maybe we need to look at buying these properties and taking over the maintenance ourselves. If we’re not willing to do that, I don’t think we should be putting [a] burden on someone that we’re not willing to do ourselves.” The planning committee recommends refusing the heritage designation. Coun. Steve Lehman, who chairs PEC, warned that if maintaining old buildings becomes too expensive for their owners—there’s a risk of falling into disrepair. “I do not want to see demolition by neglect, which I think this particular property would be very much in danger of,” Lehman said after the meeting. Council will make a final decision on July 21. The 13 non-designated properties in London for evaluation and potential heritage designation under Part IV, Ontario Heritage Act are: • 415 Base Line Rd. E., Baker House • 203 Bathurst St., Holeproof Hosiery • 33 Bromleigh Ave., Church of the Transfiguration • 4307 Colonel Talbot Rd., Trinity Lambeth Anglican Church • 255 Delacourt Rd., Woodholme • 26 Erie Ave., Hassan House • 242 Huron St., Norbert Apartments • 534 Huron St., Or Shalom Synagogue • 2457 Main St. • 471 Nightingale Ave., Hunt Bros. Flour Mill • 1875 Richmond St., Trudell/Baran Estate • 1057 Waterloo St., Steels House • 11 Wellington Cres., Ginsberg House Heritage designation criteria The Heritage Impact Assessment determined 741 Nightingale Ave. met the following eight heritage designation criteria: 1.The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Yes; the property has design value because it is an early 20th century example of a six-storey reinforced concrete factory building with an exposed concrete skeleton supported with internal steel beams. Its modernity of construction and design was unusual in the area and it was the tallest structure within the Smokestack District in the early part of the century. 2. The property has a design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Yes; the property demonstrates a high degree of technical and scientific achievement through the adoption, by the architects and contractors, of reinforced concrete technology developed by American engineer Julius Kahn, the brother of renowned American architect Albert Kahn. This technology was marketed by his Canadian subsidiary company the Trussed Concrete Steel Company of Canada, Ltd. (also known as Truscon). Specifically, the design and construction of the building utilized Julius Kahn’s patented Trussed Bars and Rib Bars. 3. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. Yes; the property has historical value through its association with Hunt Bros. Ltd. flour mill which began operating in London in as City Mills in 1853 and Hunt Bros by 1871 and had, by 1947, become the largest flour mill in London as the Hunt Milling Corporation. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. Yes; the property has historical value as it yields information about architectural advancements of the early 20th century in terms of industrial multi-storey design, and speaks to the importance of Hunt Bros. Ltd. in terms of the development of milling technology in the early 20th century, particularly the introduction of electricity to the milling process. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. Yes; the property demonstrates the designs of the prominent local architectural firm of Watt and Blackwell, one of the most prolific architectural offices in London during the early 20th century. The building, with its exposed reinforced concrete construction, through technologically developed by American engineer Julius Kahn demonstrates the advancements in structural design and the innovations of reinforced concrete. 6. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Yes; the property has contextual value as its industrial character, particularly as a rare example of a flour mill, reinforced concrete structure with exposed skeleton, and its verticality helps to define and support the former industrial character of the Smokestack District. 7. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Yes; the property has contextual value as it is historically linked to the early 20th century development of east London and, through its six-storey construction, it is visually linked this former industrial area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. Yes; the property has contextual value as a landmark. At six storeys in height, it is a highly prominent building that helped to shape the industrial landscape of the Smokestack District in the early 20th century. The Heritage Impact Assessment determined one criterion was not met: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No; the property does not have design value or physical value and does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit.
