Loading...
8. Heritage Report VICTORIA HALL EXTERIOR RESTORATION 25 Mosley St, Aurora, ON L4G 1R2 CS&P Architects Inc. Giaimo Architects DRAFT June 24, 2025 Introduction The property located at 27 Mosley Street, known as Victoria Hall, is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The following heritage attributes quoted from the Schedule “B” to By-law 5081-08.R (the Heritage Designation Bylaw) should be conserved: Description of Heritage Attributes The Description of Heritage Attributes includes the following heritage attributes and applies to all elevations and the roof including all facades, entrances, windows, chimneys, and trim, together with construction materials of wood, brick, stone, plaster parging, metal and glazing, their related building techniques and landscape features: Attribute to be Conserved: • Victoria Hall also known as "The Disciples of Christ Church" 27 Mosley Street. • Exterior Elements of the Attribute to be Conserved: Exterior Elements • Front gable roof with steep Gothic pitch • Gothic wood pointed sash windows on the side and front elevations • Historic Sills • Buttresses at the sides and front of Victoria hall • Front projecting entranceway [entrance doorway] with Gothic point above doorway that originally contained a window with intricate tracery. • Yellow brick exterior • Datestone • Remnants of historic doorway Interior Elements • Side trim and wainscoting. Exterior Restoration Scope Observations in this section are based on a virtual review of Victoria Hall using the matterport platform. Recommendations are preliminary and subject to confirmation through a physical site inspection and any future invasive testing that may be required. Masonry The masonry seems to be in good condition overall with select areas of deterioration and parging mainly at the buttresses. Recommendation: • Steam cleaning of all elevations. • Repair/ Replacement of masonry including the following areas: o East Elevation ▪ Replacement of masonry at the parged portion of the three buttresses. ▪ There are several chipped or cracked units throughout. ▪ First and second bay, crack at the arch. o West Elevation ▪ Selective replacement of masonry at the buttresses as some units are parged over and some have cracks. ▪ Complete replacement of the outer wythe of the 2nd buttress. ▪ First bay, cracking underneath the sill is visible. First and second bay, cracks at the arches. o Main Elevation ▪ Crack at the main entrance arch. • Mortar throughout should be replaced in areas where unsympathetic or incompatible repairs have been carried out, as well as where there is evidence of mortar loss. o The building was likely tuckpointed, a labour-intensive technique resulting in the illusion of finer joints while using inexpensive, irregularly sized bricks. The visible sharp lines and mortar covering the edges of the bricks hint at the use of this technique. o There are many areas of unsympathetic mortar repairs throughout the building. • 100% repointing of the rubblestone foundation. Areas of unsympathetic mortar replacement with cement at the West Elevation were observed. • Hygrothermal testing is recommended to understand the current material properties, including moisture content, and inform decision-making for the building envelope retrofit. Figure 1: Typical condition at the window arches. Figure 2: Cracks at the main entrance three-pointed arch. Figure 3: Typical condition at the buttresses at the West Elevation. Figure 4: Typical condition of the mortar, West Elevation. Figure 5: Unsympathetic mortar repairs, East Elevation. Figure 6: Typical condition at the foundation, West Elevation. Figure 7: Parging at the foundation, Main Elevation. Figure 8: Parging at the foundation, Main Elevation. Wood elements Rafter tails and eaves are painted throughout and seem to be in good condition overall, with select areas of weathering. At the rear elevation soffit and fascia seem to have been replaced or covered with aluminum. Windowsills are painted throughout and seem to be in fair to poor condition. There are signs of peeling and flaking paint and weathering. Recommendation: • If decay is localized, partial dutchman, prime and repainting can be considered. • If decay is more extensive, replacement in-kind is recommended. Figure 9: Evidence of peeling and flaking paint, in addition to surface cracking. Figure10: Signs of weathering and possible deterioration at the fascia. Main Entrance The main entrance has been modified with the transom removed or perhaps covered and the door replaced. It is recommended to remove the interior plywood to determine if the original transom is still in place. Archival photos clearly show the main entrance and can be used as a base for the reconstruction of the door and transom if required. Architectural style books covering the Gothic Revival style in Ontario can be studied to determine any period-specific details not visible in the photos such as panelling. The composition of the entrance is characteristic of the Gothic Revival style, featuring a three- centred pointed-arch opening with a transom containing decorative tracery, and a double-leaf door set within a semicircular arched frame. The entrance door & transom would be custom. The feasibility study mentions the requirement for a glass panel for safety, which can be incorporated as well. Figure 11: The building pictured on November 15, 1951, when it was purchased from the Public School Board for use as the town Public Library, from the Heritage Designation Brief. Figure 12: Aurora Library 1950s, from the Heritage Designation Brief. Figure 8: 1963, Old Home Week Headquarters, from the Heritage Designation Brief. Figure 14:Transom could likely be hidden underneath the plywood. Roof Replacement The roof is currently covered in asphalt shingles. Historic photographs do not reveal many clues regarding what the original material could have been, however, typical roofing materials in 19th- century Ontario “included shingles in wood, slate, and metal, as well as continuous seamed sheets of metal” (Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, guideline 16, in section 4.3.3 Roofs, states that using a compatible material may be considered when replacement in kind is not possible. Recommended Not Recommended 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 deteriorated roof elements and materials that are no longer available with physically or visually incompatible substitutes. For the selection of the new roofing material, it is recommended that in addition to measures such as performance and efficiency, physical and visual compatibility be considered. The following materials can be considered: • Composite slate roof • Asphalt shingles Additionally, eavestroughs and downspouts are recommended to be replaced. Recommended Next Steps - Preparation of a Conservation Plan drawing set outlining the scope of work and detailed conservation notes and specifications. - Meet with Town of Aurora heritage committee to review design options and confirm their requirements. - Town of Aurora heritage committee may also require obtaining a Heritage Permit. - Engage pre-qualified Heritage Contractors or Trades to undertake the restoration work.