City of Vancouver
Search
Help

Heritage Register
Information

Heritage Buildings

Landscape Resources

Heritage Streetscapes

Archaeological Sites

Evaluation Methodology

Evaluation Methodology

The purpose of building evaluation in Phase II is to rank buildings in categories or groups of relative significance that co-relate with the conservation program being formulated by the City at the time of Phase II completion. To accomplish the evaluation task, the following were required:

• a detailed set of evaluation criteria formulated specifically for Vancouver

• an evaluation process that could systematically assess information and assign a numerical score to each building

• a record of each building's evaluation and the reasons determining the evaluation

• a method of modifying the overall scoring so that future changes in the relative importance of the criteria can be accommodated.

Evaluation Criteria

The criteria were formulated after a review of existing evaluation systems used in other North American cities; after considerable testing of applicability to Vancouver's building conservation needs; and after a review of draft proposals by the Vancouver Heritage Advisory Committee, Planning Department staff, and their advisors. Existing evaluation systems and inventories that were reviewed include those for Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco, Calgary and Prince Rupert. The latter and several others, feature an evaluation system that is described in Harold Kalman's The Evaluation of Historic Buildings (1979). This system is known to most professionals involved in inventory and conservation work in Canada and has been used, at least in modified form, for many inventory evaluations. It was decided to use a modified version of this - one that would provide continuity with Phase I (which was directed by Dr. Kalman); one that would relate to the anticipated results of research and site investigation during Phase II; and one that reflected the City's requirement for a city-wide inventory that recognizes on [sic] local area history and architecture.

The criteria developed for Vancouver consider a building's merit in 4 sets of criteria:

A. Architectural History
B. Cultural History
C. Context
D. Integrity

Each criterion is scored by considering one of four grades: excellent, very good, good, and fair/poor.

Following are the evaluation criteria with definitions and explanatory text.

A.  Architectural History

1.  Style and/or Type
A building's style representative of a local area's significant development periods; or a building type associated with a significant industrial, commercial or transport activity.

The description of a building's style is a means of describing visual elements such as form, materials and ornamentation that are characteristic of a particular age or development period. A building which displays typical features of a particular style can be said to be of that style. Whether the building is a good, very good, or excellent example of a style depends on the following:

• an understanding of the style's origins and characteristics,

• an understanding of the historical role of building styles in the development history of the local area and city,

• an appreciation and judgement of the relative merit of a building's stylistic elements in comparison to buildings of similar style in the local area or city.

A building which was constructed for a particular industrial, commercial, transport or community activity can be said to be of that type, i.e. brewery, warehouse, grain elevator, laundry, sugar refinery, community hall, etc. Whether the building is a good, very good or excellent example of a type depends on the following:

• an understanding of the process or activity for which the building was built,

• an understanding or the functional elements of the activity for which the building was built or historically utilized,

• an appreciation and judgement of the relative merit or rarity of a building type.

2.  Design
A building's notable or special attributes of an aesthetic and/or functional nature including massing, proportion, scale, layout, materials, detailing, colour, texture, fenestration, ornamentation or artwork.

3.  Construction
A building's unique or uncommon building materials, or its historically early or innovative method of construction.

4.  Designer / Builder
A building's architect, designer, engineer and/or builder who has made a significant architectural contribution to the city, province or nation.

B.  Cultural History

1.  Historical Association

A building's association with a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to the local area, city, province or nation.

Examples of a person, group, or event that could be considered significant to the history of a local area, the city or province, include a well known pioneer, an organization important to the community's identity, a distinct ethnic group, or an event that had an influence on the community. An activity such as industry, farming, recreation or labour organization would be considered significant if it was a major influence on the local area or city. The distinction between considerable and moderate importance can be made by considering the relative influence of historical persons, groups, institutions, events or activities on the local area or city.

2.  Historical Pattern
A building's association with broad patterns of local area or civic history including ecological, social, political, economic or geographic change.

Examples of broad patterns of local area or civic history include the clearing of forest land for farm land, the formation of distinct ethnic communities, the establishment of exclusive suburbs, or the movement of the city's commercial center westward.

C.  Context

1.  Landscape / Site
An intact historical landscape or landscape features associated with an existing building, or a particularly notable historical relationship between a building's site and its immediate urban environment.

2.  Neighbourhood
A building's continuity and compatibility with adjacent buildings and visual contribution to a group of similar buildings.

3.  Visual / Symbolic Importance
A building's importance as a civic or local area landmark; a building's symbolic value to a neighbourhood, local area or the city.

D.  Integrity

A measure of the impact of changes to the building on the appreciation of its style, design and construction.

The alterations to be considered in this evaluation are those additions or modifications to the building's exterior that have an effect on style, design and construction. Generally, an evaluation of this effect is made by comparing the altered with the original. However, because buildings evolve over time, many buildings may have alterations that are of architectural or historical significance. Some of these later alterations may be of equal or greater importance than features of the original building. In this case the evaluation must be made with full recognition of the building's periods of development. An understanding and appreciation of the architectural and cultural history of the building will determine the single dominant period, or the several most significant periods for evaluation purposes.

The above criteria recognize the importance of evaluating Vancouver's buildings on both a city-wide and local area basis. The goal of Phase I was to select buildings with obvious or potential heritage significance in each of the 22 local areas that have been established by the Planning Department. The evaluation process of Phase II recognizes the need to select, research and evaluate on the same basis in order to provide continuity, and to build on a workable framework for local area planning. The evaluation criteria provide emphasis to local area significance by the following means:

• a building's merit as an example of a style is measured on a local area basis as well as a city-wide basis, i.e. a good example of a style that is notably early or rare within a local area receives a score of very good

• the historical importance of a building to local area is recognized by its historical association to the local area, by its role in establishing a pattern, or its evidence of an historical pattern of local area importance

• the visual or symbolic importance of a building is recognized on a local area basis (as well as a city basis)

However, the score of excellent is in all cases reserved for qualities of civic importance, i.e. excellence is determined by comparing the particular quality to other examples in the city.

The Scoring System
During development of the criteria, many buildings were evaluated to test their relative significance and to experiment with a range of numerical scores for excellent, very good, good and fair/poor values. The final numerical scores that were used during formal evaluation sessions are:

It should be noted that the scoring system shows maximum subtotals for each set of criteria, in order to maintain a balanced assessment of each building's significant attributes.

The Evaluation Process

The actual process of evaluation was formalized by the following means:

• four members of the consultant team formed a review panel; 2 members were present at all the evaluation sessions with the other 2 members alternating as the third person on the review panel

• a set procedure was followed at the beginning Of the evaluation session by including a review of the local area history and other data pertaining to the area

• the procedure for evaluating each building was to show the several slides, view the photos, summarize the building's attributes, then read out the range of possible scores and their definitions before establishing a score for each criterion; the person who had inspected the site was the one responsible for presentation of the information

• the individual scores were recorded on a form, along with a reason in summary format; accuracy and arithmetic were checked before filing for entry in the computer database

• buildings with attributes which could not be scored by consensus were summarily reviewed at the next session, after more information had been researched or the attributes had been re-considered.

Of the 425 buildings selected as preliminary 'A' buildings, 325 were evaluated in this manner.

Keeping in mind the purpose of evaluation as a means of establishing three categories or groups of buildings which would relate to a conservation program with three possible levels of action, discussions were held with the Heritage Advisory Committee and the Heritage Conservation Officer to establish the numerical boundaries for the final A, B. and C groups. An important consideration in this regard was that evaluation results showed that the same boundaries should not apply to buildings of different uses. During the evaluation proceedings, it became clear that a lack of historical information on many houses and apartments would mean that many examples of these that scored the maximum in architecture, with lesser scores in history and context, would not be in the final A group. These buildings could not be compared to ones with great significance in historical association such as schools, churches and large commercial structures. Consequently the numerical boundaries for houses and apartments are of a lower range than those of institutions, churches, etc. The following group boundaries were considered appropriate to the anticipated conservation program:

Once the numerical scores were translated into groups A, B. and C, the evaluations were reviewed for those buildings with scores that were within five points of the next higher group. In addition, the results of the grading were reviewed by the Heritage Conservation Officer, Planning staff, and the Heritage Advisory Committee. In view of their comments, additional building evaluations were reviewed. As a result of the review process, adjustments were made to the group ratings for some buildings.

As has been discussed in the Preliminary Evaluation section of this report, the 2752 building files plus 96 public nominations and survey auditions were originally sorted into 3 groups - preliminary 'A', 'B' and 'C'. The formal evaluation of 325 buildings resulted in the following:

Prior to the printout of a list of all 2846 buildings evaluated by either a formal or preliminary method, those dealt with in the latter manner were further reviewed with minor changes made to the number of buildings in each group. The formally evaluated buildings of each group were then added to those of the other evaluation method with the following results:

Questions or Comments? E-mail: Planning Department

© 2003 City of Vancouver