©Published under authorityof the Minister of the Environment,

Ottawa, 1980.QS-7081-000-EE-AlCatalogue No. R64-98/1979ISBN 0-662-10483-8

Design: Gregory Gregory Limited

Cette publication peut aussi être obtenueen français.

The Evaluationof HistoricBuildings Harold Kalman

This is the second of a series of Parks Canadabooklets designed for those directly involved inclassifying heritage buildings. The first booklet ofthis series The Buildings of Canada is a conciseguide to Canadian architectural styles. Thissecond booklet presents guidelines for the evalu-ation of historic buildings; the third in the serieswill deal with the problems of researching heri-tage properties.

These booklets. have been prepared under thesponsorship of the Canadian Inventory of His-toric Building which was established in 1970 andsubsequently developed into a major heritageresource centre. The inventory reflects the inter-est the department has long had in the identifi-cation and preservation of Canada’s history.

Foreword

Contents

2 Foreword

5 Introduction

8 The Evaluation8 Principles of Evaluation11 Evaluating Buildings13 Criteria23 Grading25 Scoring25 Fixed Numerical Scores27 Flexible Numerical Scores29 The Meaning of the Score

30 The Survey30 Selection of Buildings31 Information Required31 Previous Surveys32 The Canadian Inventory of

Historic Building

33 The Policy33 The Conservation Plan34 Kinds of Appropriate Action

36 Endnotes

39 Acknowledgments

A completed building evaluation sheet, showing the use of theevaluation system described in this booklet.

4

Introduction

Conservation—or, if one prefers, preservation—has become an important priority in Canadianlife. For many good reasons older buildings arenow often saved and re-used instead of beingdemolished and replaced. We realize that wemust retain the best of our cultural heritage; werecognize that some old structures can be adaptedwell to productive new uses; we believe that it iswasteful to destroy re-usable resources; and, quitesimply, we like the look and the arrangement ofspaces in old buildings. In addition, the economicclimate has made the rehabilitation of old build-ings cheaper than most new construction. Someolder structures will be conserved simply becauseit is profitable to do so, while others may have tobe given legal protection against demolition.

Many means of protecting buildings are availableto us. The most constructive are those thatinvolve long-range planned protection—whatmight be called preventive conservation—inwhich significant historic buildings may be safe-guarded by legislation, by zoning, or by economicincentives before there is any serious threat toremove or deface them.

The Globe Theatre in Regina, built as a bank, shows howbuildings can be adapted to productive new uses. (Photo byauthor.)

5

While the exact procedure for conservationplanning varies from one jurisdiction to another,the method usually follows a three-step pattern ofsurvey, evaluation, and policy.

A survey of buildings, consisting of on-siterecording and careful research, may be done bythe heritage division of a city’s planning depart-ment, by the staff of a provincial government’sministry of culture, or by a recorder, historian, oranalyst working for the federal government’sCanadian Inventory of Historic Building (CIHB).In other cases a local historical society, a com-munity association, or a private consultant maycarry out the survey.

The results of this survey are then brought beforean appointed board. The board may be a localcitizens’ committee set up to advise city council,or it may be a provincial or a federal board madeup of eminent scholars. Its members are asked toassess each building or area and make specificjudgments on its architectural and historical signi-ficance. This exercise is an evaluation. In commu-nities without such advisory boards, the evalua-tion is usually performed by the same people whoconduct the survey.

The board’s recommendations, supported byinformation from the survey and the subsequentevaluation, are then presented to the electedofficials. Guided by the advice of their staffs, theywill develop an appropriate policy to safeguardand designate as historic sites those buildings orareas they consider to be particularly significant.

The second step—the evaluation—is a vital partof the conservation process. Evaluations may becarried out simply and rationally by establishingcriteria, judging buildings against them, andgrading them on a scale. Only then can it bedecided which buildings should be conserved.

This booklet describes a simple and practicalmethod of evaluating buildings. Its primarypurpose is to help those people who must evaluatebuildings to determine which buildings in theircommunities are the most significant and deserveconservation, and why they are so. It is intendedto take some of the mystique out of architecturalvalue judgments, and to show that these may bemade rationally, objectively and confidently.

This booklet has been written for all peopleinvolved in some aspect of conservation, whetherthey be private citizens, professional planners, orgovernment officials. For simplicity the bookletrefers only to individual buildings and not tohistoric areas, but the same principles and tech-niques may be applied without change to groupsof buildings or to entire districts.

Since this booklet is primarily devoted to evalua-tion—the second of the three steps in the conser-vation process—this most important stage is dis-cussed first. The second and third parts of thebooklet offer brief descriptions of the survey andpolicy stages.

6

The survey, the evaluation, and the policy are the three steps inthe development of a conservation plan.

7

Principles of Evaluation

Evaluation—also called assessment or judgment—is basically an objective exercise that deter-mines quality. As every educator knows, there isno perfectly reliable or perfectly “objective”measure of capabilities, even with the use of suchseemingly precise data as grades and test scores.1

Nevertheless, these techniques allow an assessorto come much closer to the ideal of objectivity.

People accept the concept of evaluation in mostareas of life: teachers grade children, prospectiveemployers evaluate job applicants, consumermagazines rate manufactured goods, and guide-books judge restaurants. The best animals winribbons, the best athletes, medals. These kinds ofevaluations are performed in much the samemanner. Authorities establish a set of stand-and—or criteria—for a particular class of object.Different aspects of the object are then measuredagainst each criterion. The better the objects farein comparison with the criteria, the greater theirquality is deemed to be.

The EvaluationLivestock are awarded ribbons for having been judged the bestin the show. (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food photo; courtesyof Ayrshire Breeders’ Association of Canada.)

8

No matter how well the grading is done, twokinds of disagreements may occur. Firstly, anobject may be a borderline case and graders maynot agree on which side of the standard it falls.(Should the pupil be passed or failed?) Oftenthere is no resolution to this problem, but gradeswill usually be no more than one level apart—anacceptable error. In the second kind of disagree-ment, criteria may be disputed.2 (Should apassing grade have to be over 50 per cent or over65 per cent?) These disagreements should be dis-cussed and resolved before the evaluation begins.If the criteria are agreed upon and the evaluationis performed conscientiously—even by a relativelyinexperienced person—there is usually littledebate over the result.

Should the criteria be changed, then the evalua-tion must also change. For example, if an apple’squality is based on size, colour, texture, andfreedom from blemishes, and then these criteriaare challenged—for instance, when it is declaredthat pesticides are worse than blemishes—thenthe original judgment must be revised. In thiscase, a pesticide-free apple with worm holesbecomes acceptable.

Evaluations in Related Disciplines

A number of formal systems of evaluation are being devel-oped by planners in the United States as a result of therequirement for Environmental Impact Statements underthe National Environmental Protection Act of 1969.A 1

Often based upon complex mathematical models, these sys-tems consider cultural and aesthetic criteria alongsidephysical and economic ones, Most studies in this field areconcerned with the effects of pollution and transportationdevelopment upon the natural ecology, but some considertheir impact upon historic buildings and sites. A2

Impact assessment, which differs from building assess-ment in that it weighs the relative value of alternativesituations rather than of alternative objects, has beenderivedfrom the economists’ cost-benefit analysis. Asophisticated system that uses these techniques of measur-ing “opportunity costs” (costs and benefits) in order toevaluate cultural resources as a part of the whole life sys-tern of the city has been propposed by Stephen W. Jacobsand Barclay G. Jones.

A3

In another area of research that is rapidly maturing,assessment techniques that are more perceptual& orientedare used by psychologists, social scientists, and architectsto measure environmental quality.A4 Their objective is toprovide data that will lead to better architectural andenvironmental design.A5

Other architects are developing techniques for judging themerits of recently completed projects.A6 Planners and ur-ban scientists offer methods for assessing urban land-scapes, A7 and new techniques are emerging for evaluatingrural landscapes. A8

These methods and skills have not yet been transferred tothe evaluation of historic buildings. Techniques that relyheavily upon the intuition of the assessor have remainedthe rule.

An apple inspect or measures blemish size and thereby deter-mines the apple’s grade. (Agriculture Canada.)

9

When an evaluation strays into the field ofaesthetics (and rating a building is partly anaesthetic activity), the exercise is sometimesdismissed as a subjective value judgment withouta basis in “fact.” This attitude is misleading.Statements of value are essentially the same kindsof declarations as statements of fact; their onlyreal difference is in the degree of unanimity withwhich the statements are received. The way toplace so-called matters of value in the realm ofobjectivity—in other words, the way in which togrant them enough unanimity to be accepted asfacts—is simply to establish sound and acceptablecriteria upon which the judgments can be made.

Statements of fact and statements of value differfrom statements of taste. The latter are personaland subjective opinions based solely on an indi-vidual’s likes and dislikes. Taste needs nocriteria.

“This building is good ” is an objective statementof value (or, indeed, of fact!). “I like that build-ing” is a subjective statement of taste. Personsinvolved in the evaluation of buildings must learnto differentiate the one kind of statement from theother.

10

Evaluating Buildings

The evaluation of buildings hardly differs fromthe evaluation of pupils or apples. If sound andwidely accepted criteria are chosen, if survey dataare thorough and accurate, and if evaluations aremade conscientiously (by people knowledgeable inarchitecture and its history), then buildings maybe safely rated against these standards.

The criteria are established by authorities who arethe architects, historians, and architectural histo-rians familiar with the buildings of the area. Ifthese experts are the same people who do theevaluation—as are the members of the HistoricSites and Monuments Board of Canada—then itis not necessary to prescribe a formal and detailedmethod of evaluation. Since, however, lessexperienced people generally do the evaluation inCanadian municipalities, it is best to spell outwith care the manner of proceeding from criteriato judgments.

In the simplest kind of architectural evaluationsystem, a set of criteria is established as a groupof absolute values and buildings are measuredagainst them. If a building is judged as meetingthese standards, it is deemed to be of special sig-nificance .

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board ofCanada operates in this manner. Its policy guidedefines “Criteria for Designating NationalHistoric Sites.” One of these criteria, forexample, is that “the site or structure shall havebeen prominently associated with the life of agreat Canadian personage."3 A building whichmeets the board’s criteria for national significanceis recommended to the minister for commemora-tion. The National Register of Historic Places inthe United States and the newly instituted WorldHeritage List likewise have sets of carefullydefined criteria against which applications aremeasured.4

Bellevue House in Kingston, Ontario, where Sir John A.Macdonald lived for a year, has been commemorated as anational historic site. (Shawn MacKenzie, Parks Canada.)

11

The Hotel Vancouver, left, was recommended by theVancouver Heritage Advisory Committee for category A desig-nation because it is a good example of an important architec-tural style and is a commonly acknowledged landmark. Thenearby Georgia Hotel, right, was deemed only to have architec-tural merit, and was recommended for the lesser category Bdesignation. (Photos by author.)

12

This kind of system sets up a yes-or-no situation.Either a building merits inclusion on a particularlist, or it does not. This method is appropriatewhen the object of the evaluation is to establish asingle list of superior objects, all of which receivethe same recognition or protection.

Often, however, it is desirable to differentiateamong various kinds of significant buildings. InVancouver, for example, that city’s HeritageAdvisory Committee recommends two categoriesof formal designation: category A (in which itgives “the strongest possible recommendation forthe preservation of the building’s exterior”) andcategory B (in which “excellent’’ proposals forchange are given consideration). Buildings in athird group, category C, are recorded but notdesignated.5 In Alberta and Quebec, properties ofthe greatest significance are “classified,” whilethose of secondary importance are “registered”or “recognized.“6

The separation of significant buildings intodistinct lists would seem to require a more sophis-ticated evaluation system than the pass-or-failmethod. Most jurisdictions that do this set out afairly long list of criteria and measure individualfeatures of a building against each criterion. Aseries of verbal grades is assigned to the various

criteria. The final evaluation is based upon anaverage of the verbal grades. A building thatreceives, let us say, a rating of excellent in three ormore areas may be deemed to belong to thehighest class.

For our purposes, a four-grade scale is most help-ful. The four grades are excellent, very good, good,and fair/poor. The first two are both significantlybetter than average. The third is average. Fairand poor, both below average, are combined intothe fourth level.

Some jurisdictions use numerical scoring systemsto reach a final score. The use of numbers is themost accurate and most flexible manner ofreaching a meaningful evaluation. In numericalsystems, numerical values are usually assigned tothe various verbal grades. The final evaluation ofa building is derived from the sum of the scoresfor each criterion. The better the total score thata building receives, the better it is judged to be.

CriteriaVarious sets of criteria for evaluating buildingshave been proposed over the years. The followinglist includes a set of standards that is useful andcomprehensive, without being exhaustive.7 Thelist contains five basic criteria (architecture, his-tory, environment, usability, and integrity),under which there are 20 detailed criteria (style,construction, and so on). Each detailed criterionis defined in the first column. The explanation ofthe four grades is given in the second column.Comments are offered in the third column.

These criteria are applicable to the evaluation ofisolated buildings or those that are a part oflarger heritage districts. Other sets of criteria canbe developed for the assessment of entire historicareas,12 historic sites, and non-architecturalstructures (such as dams, military earthworks,street furniture, or gardens).13

13

Criterion Grades Comments

A Architecture

1 Style

Notable, rare, unique, or earlyexample of a particular architecturalstyle, type, or convention.

E Perfect or extremely earlyexample if many survive;excellent example if fewsurvive.

VG Excellent or very earlyexample if many survive; goodexample if few survive.

G Good example if manysurvive.

This is best done by comparing thebuilding to as many other buildingsof a similar style as is possible, andassessing it in terms of the aims ofits designer (as they are understood).

Data concerning the number ofsurvivors will be obtained from thesurvey.

2 Construction

F/P Of no particular interest.

Notable, rare, unique, or earlyexample of a particular material ormethod of construction.

E Perfect or extremely earlyexample if many survive;excellent example if fewsurvive.

VG Excellent or very earlyexample if many survive; goodexample if few survive.

G Good example if manysurvive.

This may be evaluated only if theassessor is certain of the nature ofthe structure.

Data concerning the number ofsurvivors will be obtained from thesurvey.

F/P Of no particular interest

3 Age

Comparatively old in the context ofits region.

E Built between dates 1 and 2.

VG Built between dates 2 and 3.

G Built between dates 3 and4.

For the meanings of dates 1, 2, 3,and 4, and for a useful scale of ages,see page 16.

F/P Built since date 4.

14

Criterion

4 Architect

Grades Comments

Designed or built by an architect orbuilder who has made a significantcontribution to the community,province, or nation.

E Architect or builder ofparticular importance to thehistory of the community,province, or nation.

VG Architect or builder ofconsiderable importance to thehistory of the community,province, or nation.

The significance of the architect orbuilder must itself be evaluated byrational criteria. See comments fordetailed criterion no. 7 (person).

G Architect or builder identifiedand known, but of noparticular importance.

5 Design

F/P Architect or builderunidentified or unknown.

A particularly attractive or uniquebuilding because of the excellence,artistic merit, or uniqueness of itsdesign, composition, craftsmanship,or details.

E Excellent.

VG Very good.

G Good.

For attempts to analyze andquantify excellence in design, seeendnote 8.

6 Interior

F/P Fair or poor.

Interior arrangement, finish, crafts-manship, and/or detail is/areparticularly attractive or unique.

E Excellent.

VG Very good.

G Good.

The interior is not always accessibleor relevant. The purposes of thespecific evaluation will determinewhether this should be evaluated.

F/P Fair or poor,

15

A different scale of building age must be established foreach city, region, or province. Determine the date of con-struction of the oldest extant building in the area, andcalculate the years that mark one-eighth, one-quarter, andone-half of the interval between that date and the present.Adjust each of these years to correspond to a date thatforms a meaningful watershed in the history or architec-ture of the area under consideration. (If no such meaning-ful date can be found, a convenient round number may beused.) The accompanying table demonstrates this method.

For the date of a building, one may take the beginning ofconstruction. For buildings erected in stales, the earliestbuilding campaign from which a significant amountremains may be used to establish a date.

The age of a building increases, of course, every year.The watershed dates will therefore need revision from timeto time, but probably only every decade or two.

Quebec City

Actual

OldestBuilding

ca. 1670

l/8 1/4 1/2 Present

1709 1747 1824 1979

Adjusted 1700 1759(Battle of thePlains of Abraham)

1825

Halifax

Actual 1749 1778 1807 1864 1979

Adjusted 1783(United EmpireLoyalists)

1815(end of war)

1867(Confederation)

Winnipeg

ca. 1835 1853 1871 1907 1979

1850 1873 1900(incorporation)

ca. 1865 1879

1886(incorporation& fire)

1894

1897(Klondike)

1922 1979

1914(World War 1)

16

Age

Vancouver

Criterion Grades Comments

B History

7 Person

Associated with the life or activitiesof a person, group, organization, orinstitution that has made asignificant contribution to thecommunity, province, or nation.

E Person, group, etc. of primaryimportance intimatelyconnected with the building.

VG Person, group, etc. of primaryimportance loosely connected,or person of secondaryimportance intimatelyconnected with the building.

G Person, group, etc. ofsecondary importance looselyconnected with the building.

F/P Building has no connectionwith person, group, etc. ofimportance

The significance of the person,group, organization, or institutionmust itself be evaluated by rationalcriteria. Some historical distance isnecessary, so the significant factorshould probably have been impor-tant at least a generation or twoago.

For the purposes of a municipalevaluation, local significance is asimportant as provincial or nationalsignificance. For provincial ornational evaluations, the emphasismay be shifted.

8 Event

Associated with an event that hasmade a significant contribution tothe community, province, or nation.

E Event of primary importanceintimately connected with thebuilding.

VG Event of primary importanceloosely connected, or event ofsecondary importance inti-mately connected with thebuilding.

See comments for detailed criterionno. 7 (person).

G Event of secondary importanceloosely connected with thebuilding.

F/P Building has no connectionwith event of importance.

9 Context

Associated with, and effectivelyillustrative of, broad patterns ofcultural, social, political, military,economic, or industrial history.

E Patterns of primary importanceintimately connected with thebuilding.

VG Patterns of primary importanceloosely connected, or patternsof secondary importance inti-mately connected with thebuilding.

A helpful measure of this factor is toconsider how useful the structurewould be for the teaching of culturalhistory. 9

G Patterns of secondaryimportance loosely connected

with the building.

F/P Building has no connectionwith important patterns.

17

Criterion Grades Comments

C Environment

10 Continuity

Contributes to the continuity orcharacter of the street,neighbourhood, or area.

E

VG

G

F/P

Of particular importance inestablishing the dominantcharacter of the area.

Of importance in establishingor maintaining the dominantcharacter of the area.

This quality will change as theneighbourhood changes. Intrusivenew construction may reduce theenvironmental value of an olderbuilding.

Compatible with the dominantcharacter of the area.

Incompatible with thedominant character of thearea.

11 Setting

Setting and/or landscapingcontributes to the continuity orcharacter of the street, neigh-bourhood, or area.

E Of particular importance inestablishing the dominantcharacter of the area.

See comment for detailed criterionno. 10 (continuity).

VG Of importance in establishingor maintaining the dominantcharacter of the area.

G Compatible with the dominantcharacter of the area.

F/P Incompatible with thedominant character of thearea.

12 Landmark

A particularly important visuallandmark.

E A structure which may betaken as a symbol for the cityor region as a whole.

VG A conspicuous and familiarstructure in the context of thecity or region.

A building may be declared alandmark if it is a prominent orconspicuous structure that hasacquired for the community aspecial visual or sentimental valuethat transcends its function.Landmarks give distinctive characterto cities or areas.1 0

G A conspicuous and familiarstructure in the context of theneighbourhood.

F/P Not particularly conspicuous orfamiliar.

18

Criterion Grades Comments

D Usability

13 Compatibility

Present use is compatible with thecurrent land use or zoning of thesite, street, or neighbourhood.

E Present use is compatible withcurrent land use and zoning.

VG Present use is compatible withproposed land use and zoning.

This quality may change as zoningor adjacent land use is changed.

G Present use is not foundelsewhere in the area, but iscompatible.

F/P Present use is not compatiblewith land use or zoning.

14 Adaptability

Potentially adaptable to compatiblere-use without harm to thearchitectural elements whichcontribute to its significance.

E Proposed adaptive use iscompatible with current orproposed land use and zoning,and will not harm significantarchitectural elements.

This requires making certainassumptions about possible adaptiveuses that are appropriate to currentsocial patterns and zoning.

VG Proposed adaptive use iscompatible with current orproposed land use and zoning,but may slightly alter signifi-cant architectural elements.

G Proposed adaptive use wouldrequire a practicable zoningchange, and may slightly altersignificant architecturalelements.

F/P Proposed adaptive use is notcompatible with land use orzoning, or would destroysignificant architecturalelements.

19

Criterion

D Usability (continued)

Grades Comments

15 Public

Capacity for needed public,educational, or museum use.

E

VG

G

F/P

16 Services

Adequately serviced and protected Efor contemporary use.

VG

G

F/P

Proposed public use is criticallyneeded in the area and isfeasible without majoralterations.

Proposed public use is criticallyneeded, but would requiresignificant alterations; orproposed use would be anamenity and is feasible withoutmajor alterations.

Proposed public use would bean amenity and would requiresignificant alterations.

Proposed public use is notneeded and/or would requirevery major alterations; or noproposed public use.

Protection, utilities, and These services include fire andparking meet all current police protection, public utilities,standards and requirements. and availability of parking.

One of these services must beup-graded and can be donewithout major difficulties.

Two of these services must beup-graded and can be donewithout major difficulties.

Three of these services must beup-graded; or up-gradingwould entail serious difficulties

This requires that the building offerpotential social benefits and/or thatit have strong interpretive potential.

Economic viability should not beconsidered here. It is considered indetailed criterion no. 17 (cost).

17 Cost

Cost of preservation, restoration,maintenance, and/or interpretationis reasonable.

E

VG

G

F/P

Cost would be significantlylower than comparable newconstruction.

This may require a detailedfeasibility study. If the costs cannotbe determined, they should not beconsidered.

Cost would be somewhat lowerthan comparable newconstruction.

Cost would be about the sameas comparable newconstruction.

Cost would be higher thancomparable new construction.

20

Criterion Grades Comments

E Integrity

18 Site

Occupies its original site. E Has not been moved.

VG Has been placed on a newfoundation in its originallocation.

G Has been relocated or re-oriented on the originalproperty and near the originalsite.

F/P Has been moved to a new site.

19 Alterations

Has suffered little alteration, andretains most of its original materialsand design features.

E E E E Unchanged

VG G VG E Changed, but character retained

G F/P G VG Character destroyed

Normally, if two or more kinds ofalteration are found in one building,only the lowest score should berecorded.

If alterations or additions aresufficiently old and sensitive, theymay be judged on their own meritsas integral parts of the building.

The above are only guides, and maybe modified by common sense.

20 Condition

Building is in good structuralcondition.

Mainfabric Additions Roof Interior Grounds

E E E E E Satisfactory

G VG VG VG E Mediocre

F/P G G G VG Poor

This criterion should be consideredonly if the structural condition canbe assessed accurately.

As with alterations, the lowestapplicable score should berecorded. 1 1

21

Decora-tivetrime.g., Upper Ground

comice) floors floor Interior

Regional Differences

The purpose of an evaluation is to identify the best build-ings within the area being surveyed. An evaluation con-ducted by a provincial government tries to find the build-ings of greatest provincial significance, while a localassessment looks for those that are the best in the town.

The criteria listed here are all general enough to beapplied across the country. In interpreting them, assessorsshould give full credit to local phenomena. Thus, forexample, when considering history, the home of a town’sfounder is more important in a local survey than the resi-dence of a provincial leader; the latter, on the other hand,would be more highly valued in a provincial survey.

When assessing architecture, buildings should be evalu-ated in their local and regional context. Standards maydiffer in different areas. “Style” and “construction”should give full credit to the earliest and the best in thesurvey area. The commercial style and reinforced concreteconstruction, for example, reached Vancouver a decade ormore later than Montreal, and so “early” means differentdates in the two cities. “‘Architect ” should reward impor-tant local builders and “design” should consider localarchitectural features. “Age” should be adjusted to reflectlocal chronology (see page 16).

Buildings that are typical of their region will likewisefare well under the criterion of environment; those that areout of place will not. A brick Gothic Revival cottage thatis valued in an Ontario town will look out of place on aFredericton avenue, a wooden “boomtown“ front thatcontributes to the continuity of an Alberta town may bedisruptive in Quebec.

The criteria may also be used in a way that does notpenalize vernacular architecture-those buildings designedby persons who were not trained as architects and wereguided by local conventions. A9 In good vernacular archi-tecture, it is important that the building be representativeof local style and materials, and can be assessed accord-ingly under ‘style, ”‘construction,” and “design.” Ineach case, a building should be rated against others of itskind. With vernacular architecture, the identity of thebuilder is immaterial.

The Romkey house in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, top, built inthe 1760s, is one of the oldest houses in this historic town andtherefore has considerable architectural significance. (Photo byauthor.) The Manitoba legislative building, bottom, is also a verysignificant structure. Comparisons between the two would bepointless, however, because their scales, styles, functions, uses,and regions are so different. (Canadian Government Office ofTourism.)

22

GradingThe evaluation of a building may initially bedone by a single person or by a group, althoughit will be the responsibility of a board or acommittee. Often a single evaluation by a quali-fied person will be sufficient. Alternatively, differ-ent people may judge different criteria, or eachmember of a group might rate each building; thegroup’s grades would then be averaged. If differ-ent people evaluate different buildings, theyshould be certain that they have the same under-standing of the grading method.

In order to evaluate a building, it is necessary tohave a familiarity with the architecture and thehistory of the region. The assessment of style anddesign should be done by a person particularlywell versed in the history of architecture.

The data from the survey (including both on-siterecording and research) must be accurate andreasonably complete before the evaluation processbegins. Once this information has been studied,each building should be considered objectivelyand grades assigned. Comparisons should bemade between buildings of a single style and inthe same region. This will make the relationshipsmeaningful—apples will be compared to apples,oranges to oranges—and will reduce the influenceof the assessor’s personal taste.

The use of grades best allows an assessor toapproach the goal of objectivity. They may some-times deceive by appearing even more precisethan they actually are: they nevertheless representthe most useful available measuring tool if set outrationally and sensibly.

Verbal grades (excellent, very good, and so on)are most suitable when evaluating buildings insmall surveys, or when an approximate scoresuffices.

An evaluation sheet should be drawn up in amanner that enables graders to circle the appro-priate grade opposite each criterion. Space shouldbe left so that concise reasons for the grades maybe written to the side. The evaluation sheetshould be attached to the form that has been usedto survey the same building.

One can measure a building’s value by com-paring its grades with those for other buildings.

23

Building Evaluation SheetNameLocation

Reference Number

A Architecture1 Style2 Construction3 Age4 Architect5 Design6 Interior

E VG G F/PE VG G F/PE VG G F/PE VG G F/PE VG G F/PE VG G F/P

B History7 Person E VG G F/P8 Event E VG G F/P9 Context E VG G F/P

C Environment10 Continuity11 Setting12 Landmark

E VG G F/PE VG G F/PE VG G F/P

D Usability13 Compatibility14 Adaptability15 Public16 Services17 Cost

E VG G F/PE VG G F/PE VG G F/PE VG G F/PE VG G F/P

E Integrity16 Site E VG G F/P19 Alterations20 Condition

E VG G F/PE VG G F/P

Evaluated by Date

Reviewed by Date

Approved by DateComments

An evaluation sheet appropriate for evaluating with verbalgrades.

24

Recommendation

A Numerical Evaluation from History

The architects for the original parliament buildings inOttawa were selected in 1859 by public competition,Eighteen architectural firms submitted 23 designs for thecentre block (“Parliamentary Buildings“) and the eastand west blocks ("Departmental Buildings"). Two offi-cials of the Department of Public Works, Samuel Keeferand F.P. Rubidge, selected the winner by evaluating theentries with numerical scores. They set out ten criteria,and assessed each design by giving it a score between 0and 10 (the “modulus of superiority“) for each criterion.The highest total scores awarded by Deputy CommissionerKeefer (who was the higher-ranking public servant of thetwo!) won the competition

Fuller and Jones’s winning design for the centre blockreceived 89 points from Keefer and 62 from Rubidge.Hindsight suggests that their judgments were sound, notleast of all because they awarded the design only 6 and 3points respectively for safety against fire—and thebuilding burned down a half-century later. Stent andLaver won the commission for the east and west blockswith 92 points from Keefer and 68 from Rubidge.Keefer’s scores were consistently higher than Rubidge’s,but their rankings were similar (although not identical),pointing out the desirability of having every building in acompetition or a survey evaluated by the same person orgroup of people. A10

ScoringFixed Numerical Scores

When evaluating buildings in larger surveys, andwhen a precise score is necessary, grades shouldbe translated into numbers.14

It is best to begin by choosing an arbitrarymaximum score—say 100—and then assigningeach of the live basic criteria a share of thismaximum score. This, of course, requires thatthe importance to the survey of each criterion bedetermined—a process which takes carefulthought.

An evaluation whose object is simply the com-memoration of major historic buildings (forexample, by installing plaques) will be concernedmainly with architecture and history. Environ-ment and integrity will be much less important,and usability may not be scored at all. The maxi-mum scores assigned to each basic criterion mightthen be:

A. Architecture 40B. History 45C. Environment 5D. Usability 0E. Integrity 10

On the other hand, an evaluation whose object isto protect significant buildings in an urban busi-ness district against demolition or tastless altera-tion will select and assign importance to differentcriteria. Continued economic use will be crucial.

The original parliament building in Ottawa, whose design wasjudged the best in a public competition, was evaluated using anumerical scoring system. (Public Archives Canada.)

25

An evaluation sheet appropriate for evaluating with fixednumerical scores.

26

This kind of situation will place considerablymore importance upon the practical criterion,usability. Environment will be more importantthan before, because buildings in such an areacannot be considered in isolation. History will beless critical than architecture. The maximumscores assigned to each basic criterion might nowbe: Flexible Numerical Scores

A. Architecture 35B. History 25C. Environment 10D. Usability 15E. Integrity 15

Situations constantly change. Surveys andevaluations may be carried out for one purpose,then revived years later for another. An evalua-tion system properly designed to serve the futureas well as the present should be flexible enough toaccommodate itself to changing values and

The next stage is to assign a maximum numberof points to each of the detailed criteria. The sumof the points for the detailed criteria may exceedthe maximum given to their basic criterion, aslong as the total that is actually recorded does notexceed it. (In other words, continuity, setting,and landmark may together be worth more than10 points, as long as the final total for environ-ment is no more than 10.)

When assigning points to each grading levelwithin the detailed criteria, excellent should receiveconsiderably more points than very good in orderto separate the outstanding example from themore usual example. One may use a geometricprogression (such as 20-10-5-o) or even a moreextreme sequence (such as 20-5-2-0), rather thanthe common arithmetic progression (20-15-10-5).If plotted on a graph, this kind of sequence wouldproduce a curved line, not a straight line.

changing conditions.

The relative significance of a building may varyevery time that another structure in its vicinity isbuilt, altered, or demolished. Also, as we learnmore about a period, a style, an architect, or abuilding type, our own values may change. Forexample, the relatively new interest in industrialarchaeology has increased the appreciation ofstructural innovation and of industrial buildings.

Furthermore, if the data collected for an earliersurvey and evaluation are re-used for a new pur-pose, the relative weighting of the criteria maychange, or new criteria may be introduced. Envi-ronmental compatibility, for example, may bevery important in the evaluation of streetscapes,but will become irrelevant when identifying archi-tecturally significant buildings for a plaquingprogramme.

Great George Street in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, We are only beginning to appreciate monuments of industrialhas recently been improved with new paving, curbs, and copper archaeology. These beehive kilns at the Medalta Potteries instreet lights. Historic Province House, at the end of the street, Medicine Hat have been designated a classified historic site byis being restored, and a number of other structures, such as the the Alberta government. (Photo by author.)Heartz-O’Halloran building at the right, have been rehabil-itated. As a result of all the changes, the contextual value of theindividual buildings is being increased, whereas their intrinsicvalue remains constant. (Photo by author.)

27

Using Computers

The scoring procedure may also be done with a computer-based retrieval system, thereby eliminating most of themanual busywork. Once the criteria have been selected andpoints allocated to each, the scores can be totalled by thecomputer. When criteria or points change, only this basicinformation need be re-entered into the system.

If a computer-based evaluation system bears the CanadianInventory of Historic Building reference (geocode) num-bers, then survey, and evaluation data can be retrieved inany appropriate category, or combination of categories, ofinformation (such as building use or materials). Thiswould allow correlation of for example, architectural sig-nificance with age, and compatibility with district.

Should there also be a concordance between the geocodesand the reference numbers used by municipal governmentsfor assessment, engineering and/or security data (and inmany cities these are combined),A11 then the architecturalinformation can interface with the statistical data storedin the cities’ computers. For example, architectural impor-tance or physical condition might be compared to assess-ment values, or the incidence of fire with age or structuralmaterials.

A transparent overlay allows the use of flexible numericalscores.

28

In order to make the system sufficiently flexible,the verbal grading—which is objective and shouldnot have to be changed—should be done in oneoperation, and the numerical scoring—which isarbitrary and may be altered at will—in a secondone.

This may be done with a two-sheet system. Thefirst is the evaluation sheet on which verbalgrades are assigned; space may be left for theaddition of further criteria at a later date. Gradesare given for each criterion on the scale of E,VG, G, F/P, and reasons are written in.

The second sheet is a transparent overlay whichindicates the points allotted to each verbal gradefor the particular criterion at hand. Scores foreach criterion are marked on the overlay andtotalled to give the final score for the building.Should a new evaluation of the same building becarried out later, the assessor need simply providea revised set of overlays.

The Meaning of the Score

A building’s total score, determined by theselection and weighting of the criteria, can beused to place it in one of a series of groups ofsignificance. The following example uses fourgeneral groups of buildings: those of major signi-ficance; those of importance; those of value aspart of the environment; and those of no impor-tance.15 The point spread for each group cannotbe rigidly set out here since different weightingswill produce different distributions of scores.However, the following example represents areasonable grouping:

Points Group Description75 - 100 A Of major significance50 - 74 B Of importance25 - 49 C Of value as part of the

environment0 24 D Of no importance

Assessors should use their judgment to determinethe proper point spread. Since the object of anevaluation is to determine relative values ratherthan absolute values, this matter is not so impor-tant as it may seem.

As a guide, if every building in an historic area isevaluated, perhaps five to 10 per cent will fallinto group A, 30 to 40 per cent into group B, 25to 35 per cent into group C, and 20 to 30 percent into group D.16 Proportionately more build-ings will have high scores if the sample includesonly selected structures; fewer will have highscores if the survey includes all buildings in awider, non-historic area.

A building’s score—and its consequent group—will form the basis for decisions as to its future inthe context of a conservation plan.

29

-

The Survey

Evaluation is but one of three stages in the con-servation process. It must be preceded by anarchitectural survey and followed by the develop-ment of a conservation policy. A brief discussionof the survey and policy phases is appropriatehere.

A survey consists of on-site recording and ofprimary and secondary research. A systematicknowledge of the buildings being studied isneeded before rational evaluations of the build-ings can be made and before decisions about theirpossible conservation can be reached. A larger-scaled, broadly inclusive study is usually called aninventory, and a more intensive one a survey, butthe two terms are often interchanged.

Three important questions must be answeredbefore undertaking a survey:1. Which buildings should be surveyed?2. How much information is required for each

building?3. What previous surveys have been conducted in

the area?

The particular circumstances of the survey willhelp to provide the answers.

Selection of Buildings

If the purpose of the intended survey is to deter-mine which buildings should be offered protectionunder municipal or provincial heritage legislation,a two-part study may prove to be best.

In the first part of the study a cursory inventoryis made of all buildings that appear as if theymay have some special significance in the area.17

A printout from the CIHB (see p. 32) may be us-ed as a starting point. This list is then reduced as

30

necessary to produce a manageable number ofbetter buildings that can be studied properly withthe resources at hand. This process of reduction isitself a kind of preliminary evaluation whichshould be done according to the principles ofevaluation discussed above but may be performedinformally and somewhat intuitively.

Following the inventory, a detailed survey ismade of all buildings on the “short list.” Asmuch information as is reasonably possible shouldbe accumulated for each of the buildings.

If the purpose of the survey is to determine whatkind of action should be taken within a definedstudy area or historic district, then every buildingin the area should be included in the detailedsurvey. (Ideally, all surveys should include everybuilding within a jurisdiction, but sheer numbersusually make this impracticable.)

Information Required

For the detailed survey, as much information aspossible about the history, status, condition, char-acter, and context of every building should becompiled.18 Realistic factors such as limited timeand resources often make a very thorough studyimpossible; nevertheless, accuracy is important. Ifthe number of criteria is reduced, it is importantthat the surveyors attempt to research the samefeatures for each building in the survey so that ameaningful comparative evaluation can be made.

The survey should identify each building (byname, location, ownership, occupancy, and use).It should then include a description of its formand construction; information on its physicalhistory (including architect or builder, date,owners, and data on subsequent structural altera-tions); and data on the historical persons andevents associated with the building. Sourcesshould be given for each fact that is recorded, andthe name of the surveyor and the date of thesurvey should be indicated.

A group conducting an architectural surveyshould prepare its own survey sheet. Properthought should be given to its lay-out, keeping inmind the method of information retrieval to beused. Facts should be presented in logical orderwith sufficient room for recorders to insert theirdata and their sources. Space may be left for theevaluation to be made on the same sheet, or itmay be executed on a separate form like the onesillustrated in this booklet.

Previous Surveys

A little investigation will usually reveal thatsurveys of some sort have previously been con-ducted in the area. The Canadian Inventory ofHistoric Building has been active throughout thecountry. The planning divisions of regional,township, and municipal governments, thecultural departments of provincial governments,local historical and community associations, orarchitecture departments of local universities mayhave compiled an inventory similar to the onebeing proposed. To avoid wasteful duplication,these surveys should be consulted whereverpossible.

A recorder with the Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildingsurveys an Ottawa house. (Canadian Inventory of Historic Building.)

31

The Canadian Inventory of Historic Building

The Canadian Inventory of Historic Building,known as CIHB, is a national survey which wasinaugurated in 1970 under the direction of theNational Historic Sites Service (now theNational Historic Parks and Sites Branch) ofEnvironment Canada. Phase 1 of CIHB recordsfeatures of the exteriors of buildings erectedbefore 1914. All data that is collected is enteredinto computerized storage for easy and flexibleretrieval. Phase 2 records in detail the interiorsof a selection of buildings, and in phase 3 thehistory of these structures is investigatedthoroughly.

CIHB is an ongoing project that welcomescontributions of data from organizations acrossthe country. It is national, standardized, andaccessible, and therefore groups which conducttheir own surveys are urged to work with it. Thephase 1 recorder sheet seeks information onexterior form, materials, and details, by meansof illustrated multiple-choice questions. Recorder

from the Canadian Inventory of HistoricBuilding, Parks Canada, Environment Canada,Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1G2.

Computer printouts listing the buildings recordedin a given area are available from CIHB at cost,However, they may be obtained without chargeby individuals or groups undertaking to verifyinformation on already recorded buildings and tosuggest additional buildings that should berecorded.

In its first two phases CIHB is essentially adescriptive inventory of the physical nature ofbuildings. Surveys that are preparatory to evalua-tions may supplement this descriptive data withhistorical information about the buildings, theirsuccessive occupants, and the persons or eventswhich have been associated with them.

A page from the Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildingphase 1 recorder sheet. (Canadian Inventory of Historic Building.)

32

sheets and instruction manuals19

are available

The Conservation Plan

The Policy

The survey and evaluation are but means to anend. That end is the conservation of the best ofthe past for the use of the future. Numerouslegislative and planning tools are at our disposalto help us retain a good part of our architecturalheritage. These techniques include controls such asstatutory prohibitions on demolition, zoning andland-use restrictions, design-regulating by-laws,and easements. They also include incentives suchas tax exemptions, grants or subsidies, and thetransfer of development rights.20 The co-ordinated use of these tools is the conservationplan.

A number of jurisdictions insist that conservationaims be considered in the planning process.Planners must know the value of a city’s olderbuildings in order to design appropriate policies.Elected officials must have this same evaluativeinformation as a basis for their decisions.

heritage conservation area in 1977, placing controls on demoli-tions and alterations. (NFB Photothèque.)

33

The heart of St. John’s, Newfoundland, was designated a

Kinds of Appropriate Action

The first decision taken by planners and electedofficials must be whether or not any conservationaction is warranted. While the actual policiesmust be selected by the local authority, certainguidelines may be suggested here.

Buildings of major significance—those that the

served. Any changes in design should be in thedirection of restoration, and should be carried outonly after careful research. Changes in use maybe encouraged, but only if they do not destroythe historical appearance. In many cases the pres-ervation or restoration of interiors should also begiven consideration,

Intrinsic vs. Contextual Value

The basic criteria differ from each other in significantrespects. Architecture and history consider the intrinsicvalue of a building, whereas environment, usability, andintegrity are concerned with the effects of time and changeand therefore consider a building’s contextual value.

It may be useful to record the sum of points for architec-ture and history as a “basic total,” and then to add thepoints for the other three more transitory criteria (environ-ment, usability and integrity) to reach an “adjustedtotal.” Since the ravages of time are—to a degree!—reversible, in some cases it may help to take the score foralterations and subtract it from the total. A12

Buildings in Dawson have been restored by Parks Canada totheir appearance during the gold rush days. (Parks Canada.)

34

evaluation places in group A—should be pre-

For buildings of importance—group B-conserva-tion is also desirable, but greater freedom isallowed with rehabilitation and adaptation. Rede-velopment may be permitted only when proposednew construction would clearly provide a greateramenity than the existing structure. The decisionwhether to preserve or to replace must involve acomplete and careful analysis of the social andeconomic costs and benefits of each course ofaction.

Buildings that are of value to the environment—group C—are the borderline cases. In historicdistricts they add needed texture, and effortsshould be made to retain them. If not in historicdistricts, they will possibly be little missed if lost.However, if too many such buildings are allowedto be destroyed, the city will lose an importantand irreplaceable element.

Buildings in group D, those that are of no impor-tance, need not be considered in a conservationplan. They are often best replaced.

A look at how a building has scored with respectto the five basic criteria will give some hints as tothe best conservation techniques to use. It is help-ful to differentiate between the grades or scores itreceived for architecture and history, whichdescribe its intrinsic value, and those for environ-ment, integrity, and particularly usability, whichprovide its contextual value.

The degree of control imposed upon a buildingwill depend principally upon its intrinsic value.Buildings that have especially high scores in thisrespect must be preserved at virtually all costs.The contextual value will suggest how high thesecosts might be. A building with high contextualvalue may well be able to support itself as a pieceof real estate. Officials may impose controls uponit and expect the private sector to conserve andmaintain it with few (if any) incentives. A build-ing with low contextual value, on the other hand,will probably not be self-supporting. There willbe strong economic pressures to redevelop theproperty. In this situation, a programme of con-trols would have to be accompanied by equallystrong incentives and public intervention mighthave to take the place of private conservation.

The group which evaluates a building should notethese factors, and may recommend appropriateaction on the evaluation sheet. Space for this hasbeen provided on the samples in this booklet.Room has also been left for approvals and com-ments by such other people as may normallyreview the evaluations.

Using the information accumulated in the surveyand assessed in the evaluation, planners will rec-ommend a course of action. The elected officialswill debate these recommendations and develop apolicy for conservation. Each step forms a neces-sary link in the development of a conservationplan. It is hoped that this manual will help tofacilitate one stage: the evaluation of historicbuildings.

Maison Chaboillez in Longueuil, near Montreal, a formerrectory and college, has been adapted as a series of ateliers andoffices. (Photo by author.)

35

Endnotes

William G. Bowen, “Admissions and the Relevance ofRace,” Princeton Alumni Weekly, Vol. 78, No. 2 (26September 1977), p. 8.

J.O. Urmson, “On Grading,” in A.G.N. Flew, ed., Logicand Language (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959), pp. 159-187.

Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Devel-opment, National Historic Sites Policy (Ottawa: InformationCanada, 1972), p. 5.

U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park Service,How to Complete National Register Inventory Nomination Forms(Washington: 1972). pp. 3-5; “The Endangered,”Technology & Conservation, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Fall 1978),pp. 8-12.

Vancouver, City Planning Department, Vancouver's Heritage,Vol. 2 (Vancouver: 1975), pp. 3-4.

Alberta, The Alberta Historical Resources Act, 1973, part 3;Quebec, Loi sur les biens culturels, 1972, section 3.

Lists of criteria from which these have been drawn includethose of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board ofCanada, which can be found in National Historic Sites Policy,p. 5; the National Register of Historic Places, published fre-quently, as in Inventory Nomination Forms, pp. 3-5;Committee on Standards and Surveys, Criteria for EvaluatingHistoric Sites and Buildings, 2nd ed. (Washington: NationalTrust for Historic Preservation, [1956]); and Ralph W.Miner, Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources (Chicago:American Society of Planning Officials, 1969), pp. 19-20.AU four sets have been collected in Harold Kalman, “AnEvaluation System for Architectural Surveys,” Bulletin of theAssociation for Preservation Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1976),pp. 17-22. For a historical survey of criteria used over theyears, see Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., Presence of the Past (NewYork: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1965), chapter 11.

Sinclair Gauldie, Architecture (London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1969) attempts to analyze the sources of excellence incompositional design. For an attempt by Adrian van Buttlerand his colleagues to place quantifiable values on theappearance of buildings, see “How Many Bits?” Architec-tural Review, No. 153 (April 1973), pp. 251-252. This systemplaces a premium on complexity; so too does the methodbeing developed by Amos Rapoport and cited in “AnApproach to the Study of Environmental Quality,” inHenry Sanoff and Sidney Cohn, eds., EDRA 1: Proceedingsof the 1st Annual Environmental Design Research AssociationConference (Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross,1970), p. 8.

Hazen Sise, “Evaluation Scoring Procedures for HeritageBuildings and Sites,” unpublished typescript (Ottawa:National Capital Commission, 1967), p. 4.

10 John S. Pyke, Jr., Landmark Preservation (New York:Citizens Union Research Foundation, n.d.), pp. 1-2.

36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11 Some of the categories for the detailed criterion “condition”have been taken from the Council of Europe’s uniformsystem of inventorying historic buildings, described inGabriel Alomar et al., Protective Inventory of the EuropeanCultural Heritage (I.E. C. H.) Based on the Palma Recommendation(Strasbourg [?]: Council of Europe, ca. 1969), pp. 21-22.

12 William Murtagh proposed a set of criteria for therecognition of historic districts at the Rome Centre’s NorthAmerican International Regional Conference in 1972, andpublished in Preservation and Conservation: Principles andPractices (Washington: Preservation Press, 1976), pp.388-389; a revised version appeared in Munagh, “Aestheticand Social Dimensions of Historic Districts,” in HistoricDistricts: Identification, Social Aspects and Preservation(Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation,1975), pp. 9-11.

13 Some criteria for sites and non-architectural structures areoffered by the National Register of Historic Places (see note7). A succinct definition of cultural resources is given inRussell Wright, Techniques for Incorporatings Historic PreservationObjectives into the Highway Planning Process (Reston, Va.:1972). Two studies of landscape evaluation are cited in noteA8.

14 A pioneering use of numerical grades developed inProvidence, Rhode Island (1957-59) is described inProvidence City Plan Commission, College Hill: ADemonstration Study of Hirtoric Area Renewal, 2nd ed.(Providence: 1967), pp. 72-77. For later numerical systemsused in various Canadian cities and provinces, see Six,“Evaluation Scoring Procedures” (Ottawa-Hull); Kalman,“An Evaluation System” (Vancouver); D. Bodnar,“Proposal for a Methodology of Evaluation of PotentialHistoric Sites in Alberta,” unpublished typescript(Edmonton: Alberta Culture, 1976); Jennifer Phillips-Cleland et al., An Evaluation and Protective System for HeritageResources in Halifax (Halifax: City of Halifax, 1977). Aselection of scoring systems is described in Ann Falkner,Without Our Past? (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,1977), pp. 71-78. Lists of published surveys, some of whichdescribe scoring systems, may be found in Frederick L.Rath, Jr., and Merilyn Rogers O’Connell, eds., HistoricPreservation, A Bibliography on Historical OrganizationPractices, Vol. 1 (Nashville: American Association for Stateand Local History, 1975), pp. 73-82; and National Trustfor Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation Plans: AnAnnotated Bibliography (Washington: Preservation Press,1976).

16 These figures are derived from the distribution of scores inthe surveys of the historic areas of College Hill (see note 14)and the Vieux Carré (see note 15). Our group A buildingsare not as extraordinary as Britain’s Grade 1 buildingswhich make up only one per cent of all listed structures. Avalid argument against the division into classifications isgiven in Falkner, Without Our Past?, p. 80.

17 Phase 1 of the Canadian Inventory of Historic Building(CIHB) is an inventory of this kind; so too is the HistoricAmerican Buildings Survey Inventory (HABSI). The latteris described in Harley J. McKee, Recording Historic Buildings(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1970), pp.119-121. The Inventaire des biens culturels in Quebec calls thisthe pré-inventaire; see Yves Laframboise et al., Neuville:architecture traditionnelle (Quebec: Ministère des Affairesculturelles, 1976), p. 13.

15 Similar descriptions were introduced in Bureau of Govern-mental Research, Plan and Program for the Preservation of theVieux Carré, Technical Supplement: Environmental Survey(New Orleans: 1968), p. 47, although in that surveynational and local significance were differentiated. Whereasthese descriptions were used to refer to buildings within ahistoric district, they may be applied as well to isolatedstructures. The Department of Public Works also uses fourgroups in the evaluation of its heritage buildings: the groupsare called important, preserve, maintain, and insignificant. SeeCanada, Department of Public Works, “Department ofPublic Works Heritage Policy,” Nouvelles/News: Society for theStudy of Architecture in Canada, Vol. 4, No. 2 (January 1978),p. 8.

18 For the methods of carrying out surveys, see James C.Massey, The Architectural Survey (Washington: National Trustfor Historic Preservation, ca. 1968); McKee, RecordingHistoric Buildings; and especially Anne Derry et al.,Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning(Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977). Thelatter discusses evaluations briefly on pp. 40-41. A uniformEuropean system of inventorying (IECH) is described inAlomar et al., Protective Inventory. A method of recordingvernacular architecture is explained in R.W. Brunskill, AnIllustrated Handbook of Vernacular Architecture (London: Faber& Faber, 1971). See also Charles Lawrence, “Towards anInventory of Historical Structures,” unpublished disserta-tion, Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies,University of York, 1977.

19 Meredith Sykes and Ann Falkner, Canadian Inventory ofHistoric Building: Training Manual, 2nd ed. (Ottawa:Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,ca. 1971). See also Phase 2 Manual: Canadian Inventory ofHistoric Building. (Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs andNorthern Development, 1975).

20 A summary of Canadian legislative tools is given in MarcDenhez, Heritage Fights Back (Ottawa: Heritage Canada, andToronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1978).

37

A1 See R.C. Viohl, Jr., and K.G.M. Mason, EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Methodologies: An Annotated Biblio-graphy, Council of Planning Librarians, Exchange BibliographyNo. 691 (Monticello, III. : 1974).

A2 Russell Wright, Techniques for Incorporating HistoricPreservation Objectives into the Highway Planning Process(Reston, Va. : 1972).

A3 Stephen W. Jacobs and Barclay G. Jones, City Design ThroughConservation: Methods for the Evaluation and Utilizationof Aesthetic and Cultural Resources, 2 vols. (Berkeley:University of California, 1960).

A4 The recent bibliography in this field is immense. Three good olderintroductions are Henry Sanoff and Sidney Cohn, eds , EDRA 1:Proceedings of the 1st Annual Environmental DesignResearch Association Conference (Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden,Hutchinson & Ross, 1970); Daniel H. Carson, ed., Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications(Stroudrburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1974), unit 5:"Methods and Measurer”; and, J. T. Coppock and C. B. Wilson,eds., Environmental Quality (Edinburgh: Scottish AcademicPress, 1974). See also Louis J. D’Amore and Sheila Rittenberg,“Social Impact Assessment: A State of the Art Review,” UrbanForum, Vol. 3, No. 6 (March-April 1978), pp. 8-31, passim.

A5 A number of architects have taken matrix systems developed forenvironmental impact assessment and adapted them for designevaluation; see, for example, Willis and Associates, “Getting at theIssues,” Progressive Architecture, Vol. 55, No. 6 (June 1974),pp. 82-87; and Kaiman Lee and John Moberg, EnvironmentalDesign Evaluation: A Matrix Method (Boston: EnvironmentalDesign & Research Centre, 1975).

A6 An innovative system of project evaluation based on calculating theareas of triangles described by assessed variables is used by Caudill,Rowlett Scott (Houston, Texas) and described in W. W. Caudill,Architecture by Team (New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold,1971). A similar method adopted in England by Building DesignPartnership has been described in William White, “ProjectAppraisal-One Firm's Approach," unpublished manuscript, 1976.For an analysis of the nature of judgments about architecture, seePeter Collins, Architectural Judgement (London’ Faber &Faber, 1971).

A7 See the literature on townscape analysis, especially Gordon Cullen,Townscape (London. Architectural Press, 1961) and, with anAmerican perspective, Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City(Cambridge, Mass.. M. I. T. Press, 1960).

A8 Ervin H. Zube, Robert 0. Brush, and Julius Gy. Fabos, eds.,Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources(Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975); D. G.Robinson et al., eds., Landscape Evaluation: The LandscapeEvaluation Research Project 1970-75 (Manchester: Universityof Manchester, 1976), reviewed in depth by Peter Youngman inLandscape Design, No. 118 (May 1977), pp. 30-31.

A9 For a definition of the term, see R. W. Brunskill, An IllustratedHandbook of Vernacular Architecture (London: Faber &Faber, 1971), pp. 25-28.

A10 The competition results were published in Documents Relating tothe Construction of the Parliamentary and DepartmentalBuildings at Ottawa (Quebec: 1862) pp. 12-17. They have beendescribed most recently in J. D. Livermore, "A History of Parlia-mentary Accommodation in Canada, 1841-1974,” in The Hon.D. C. Abbott et al., Report of the Advisory Commission onParliamentary Accommodation (Ottawa: Minister of Supplyand Services Canada, 1976), pp 71-73.

A11 Vancouver has introduced such a system using a 15-digit co-ordinatereference number. See Vancouver, City Engineering Department, AnInformation Retrieval System for Urban Areas: TechnicalReport, 2nd ed. (Vancouver: 1967).

A12 Scores for alterations were subtracted in a survey carried out inVancouver; see Harold Kalman, "An Evaluation System forArchitectural Surveys,” Bulletin of the Association forPreservation Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1976), p. 7.

38

Acknowledgments

Many people kindly assisted in the conceptionand preparation of this booklet with their con-structive suggestions, pointed criticisms, or offersof material. I would like to thank CharlesLawrence, D.R. Sherborn, Stuart Sutcliffe, H.L.Warburton, and William White in England;Nancy B. Schwartz, Thomas M. Slade, and PaulSprague in the United States; and Phyllis R.Blakeley, Diana Bodnar, Jennifer Phillips-Cleland, and Jack Smith in Canada. Otherswhose inspiration was of a more general kind(and which occurred long before this projectbegan) were Keith Gunderson, who taught methat objective evaluations are possible; Allen W.Parker, who led me to assess buildings; BarclayG. Jones, who suggested that evaluations neednot be rigid; Richard S. Rosenberg, who offeredfurther hints on flexibility; and D. LyleStevenson, who helped with computer concepts.To all, my thanks—even if they should disagreewith the arguments and recommendations offeredin the text.

39