The future is uncertain for the historic greenhouse on the University of Guelph campus after it was flagged for repairs earlier this year, and heritage advocates are concerned.
Nestled in trees beside the University Centre, the D.M. Rutherford conservatory greenhouse was built in 1930, designed by Lord and Burnham of St. Catharines.
According to an archived article from the University of Guelph, the building is one of the only remaining pagoda-like glass structures in North America. The glass building incorporated limestone blocks from the foundation of original barns on campus.
The university hasn’t specified what repairs are needed, but in response to repeated requests for an interview, interim senior director of communications Garth Hardie sent a email saying the building was assessed for structural safety this past year “as part of ongoing maintenance and assessment of campus … and it was determined it would require repair.”
As a result, the university has closed the building for the winter season while it “determines the next best steps.”
“The conservatory is a building of historic interest on campus and within the broader community, so any decisions will be made in collaboration with the City of Guelph,” the email states.
The conservatory is listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, but not designated.
A heritage designation provides protection against changes to heritage properties and hinders their demolition.
Being listed doesn’t provide protection against demolition, but it does mean if an application is made to demolish the building, city council has 60 days to consult with Heritage Guelph to make a decision whether to allow the demolition, or to protect the property through an intention to designate it, said Stephen Robinson, senior heritage planner with the city.
If the university decides not to repair the conservatory and applies to demolish the building, one of two things could happen.
If it’s decided the building is no longer of cultural heritage value or interest, a recommendation would be made to council to not designate the building, remove the property from the heritage register and the demolition may proceed, Robinson said.
On the other hand, if it’s determined to have cultural heritage value or interest, a recommendation would be made to council to publish and serve notice of its intention to designate the property.
“If there is an objection to the intention to designate, council shall consider the objection and make a decision whether or not to withdraw the notice of intention to designate the property within 90 days after the end of the 30-day objection period,” he said.
But if no objection is served or council decides not to withdraw the intention, a by-law designating the property would be passed within 120 days after the notice of the intention to designate, he said.
For now, its future is uncertain.
President of Architectural Conservancy Ontario, Susan Ratcliffe, said she was shocked to hear the conservatory is in such a precarious position, “because it’s so beautiful, and I know it’s special to people."
She said regardless of designation, repairs would be worth the cost.
“Because I’m sure they could get alumni donations for that. People have been married there, and would want that kind of lovely setting (lost).”
It's happened before. By 1998, the greenhouse had become dilapidated, and the university launched a $1 million project to restore it, with the help of a $256,000 donation from OAC alumnus Don Rutherford, who the conservatory is now named after.
Plus, she said there would be an environmental impact to the plants in the surrounding gardens.
“And then there’s the embodied energy in a heritage building that makes it a risk to the environment to demolish,” she said.
“The question to ask is who was the owner that let it get into that condition? They own that building. Why didn't they keep it up?”
The former chair of Heritage Guelph, Brian Skerrett, asked the same question.
“Under whose watch did it become structurally unsound?” he said.
Skerrett said he sees no reason why the structure shouldn’t be designated and repaired, but that there are only a handful of properties on university grounds that are designated, including Massey Hall and the Alumni House.
“Typically it feels like the city and heritage planning staff have been very deferential to the university and sometimes to heritage's peril,” he said.
For example, he pointed to the south residence, which was designed by John Andrews, the same architect who designed the CN Tower.
“It was once upon a time, one of the gems of brutalism and brutalist architecture, it was probably one of the best examples in Canada. It has been changed and amended and quick-fixed and upgraded. And I would say it's no longer even something you could put on a heritage register,” he said. “And that's the peril of sort of leaving it to the university to decide on their own, what they think has heritage value.”
Time is also of the essence, though. In 2025, every building on the heritage list will be removed, and can’t be reinstated for five years. Meaning if the university wants to demolish the structure and waits just over a year, it won’t need to involve the city or Heritage Guelph in any decisions.
Even if the university does apply to the city for demolition or designation, Skerrett isn’t sure what the city would bring forward to Heritage Guelph, “and Heritage Guelph will invariably take the city’s recommendation into account when making up their own mind.”
But the final decision is always up to council, he said.
Regardless of what the next moves are, Ratcliffe said it shouldn’t have come to this in the first place, and that if it were demolished, it would be demolition by neglect.
“It’s a glass building, so it has to be cared for in our climate,” she said. “They’re the people that own it, so they’re the people that should have restored it or kept it maintained over the years."
