PRESERVING HERITAGE - AT A COST WE CAN’T AFFORD - GRAVENHURST AT THE CROSSROADS

If I had a chance, with what I know today, to go back to 1977, and re-assess priorities, I would not have made a foray to save Bracebridge’s Woodchester Villa and Museum, known as “The Bird House,” although I very likely would help establish, as I did then, the Bracebridge Historical Society. The mandate of the heritage group would be to construct a new, central, accessible, adaptable and efficient museum.

While this may seem blasphemous to all heritage site protectors, and conservators throughout the region and beyond, it’s more a revelation of honesty and fiscal responsibility, than representative of my own life as an historian. Visitors claim my house is a museum. I suppose it is in a way. I’m also an antique dealer, so I do surround myself with wonderful old pieces.

The problem faced by every historic-site stewardship, is the control of expenses, to keep the site upgraded. The over-riding problem, as it was when I was on the Board of Directors of the BHS, was finding enough money for staffing, programs, advertising, and upkeep, and it was a damnation to fulfill and keep accounting in the black. If it hadn’t been for government grants and various subsidies we begged for, the museum, although a wonderful credit to the community, and Woollen Mill founder, Henry Bird, who had it constructed as an octagon, would have never made it past the first five years. If it hadn’t been for the volunteers, it would have failed miserably in the first three years. The stress on those who helped open the site was enormous, just as it was to my wife Suzanne and I, who ran many programs throughout the year on pennies, out of respect for the magic of the site. We had to paint the building’s woodwork, and mow the lawn as if it was our own house. We had to cut costs dramatically before the end of the first decade. My family spent more time working around Woodchester than tending our own homestead. It’s the same story for many small museums and related historic sites that operate on tight budgets.

When I read about last year’s cave-in of the outside porch, built around the house, truth is, it was showing problems in 1989 when I did a stint as site manager. It should have been torn off and rebuilt years before the collapse. In 1989 we didn’t have the funds and that hasn’t changed a whole lot. My main contribution in my final years with the museum, was to divide responsibilities for the two buildings on the property, between the BHS and Muskoka Arts and Crafts, operating the Chapel Gallery, to offset costs and reduce management requirements for the previous volunteer board..... which resembled swiss cheese by 1989. I made the original phone call to an Arts and Crafts member, and within days there was an exploratory meeting, and the ball just never stopped moving from that point. The Gallery is still functioning effectively all these years later, so something went right. The museum has been a somewhat lesser attraction, and it was closed this past summer season due to the maintenance issue. I’m not at all sure if the BHS is still in existence.

Our whole family shared a lot of time at Woodchester Villa, and it was with great heartache when I decided it was time to step aside for a new generation of stewards and their ideas.

When I’m invited into any conversation, here in Gravenhurst, about built heritage matters, I am always guarded about my responses. While I see the same enthusiasm in their eyes, and sense the conviction about preserving heritage buildings, I can’t help but speak-out about some of the inherent dangers of saving the past at the jeopardy of future budgets. There was no way you could pre-budget Woodchester unless of course you had a spare hundred thousand dollars, just laying around for a rainy day(s). With heritage easements on the property, we had to follow a strict protocol of restoration, that would not detract from the period the building represented, even if it was a repair, such as a rain gutter, that would spare the physical integrity of the building. Everything cost more. And grants became tighter and more restrictive, and fundraising was a bust. We were competing against the hospital and every important charity, and it was a small community. There just wasn’t enough to go around.

Gravenhurst has one finely restored Victorian era site, the home of Dr. Norman Bethune, but if it wasn’t for Federal Government involvement, it would have run the same grant to grant obstacle course as Woodchester Villa. New and better designed museum facilities, such as Grace and Speed, in Gravenhurst, are by far the better and more efficient heritage sites. These are designed for the needs of the future. Restored historic buildings are remnants of the past which are always in need of upgrading, costing extreme amounts of capital annually just to hobble into the future.

This town is best known for the stewardship of the restored steamships, and we are known internationally for this wonderful Muskoka Lakes attraction. But this labor of affection could not have achieved its present successes, without the almost unbelievable dedication of citizen volunteers and kind benefactors, who were willing to invest millions in cash and sweat equity, to keep the RMS Segwun afloat. I was a reporter during its renovation, and I visited during many stages of the upgrades, to talk to those craftsman who had a staunch, unmoveable passion to see it steaming off over the lakes once again.

When it comes to deciding how we protect our heritage buildings, and sites, there is always the conundrum about how much will it cost, and is it worth the expense. In 1977-78, I was running into all kinds of opposition from some town councillors, in Bracebridge, like the ever-popular and profoundly sensible Frank Henry, also a former Administrator of South Muskoka Memorial Hospital, who offered the sage advice, that it would be better to construct new sidewalks for our town, than to get involved in a money pit like the Bird House restoration. While I argued vehemently against comparing built heritage with something as banal as sidewalk construction, before Frank passed away, I wrote a column in the local press, reluctantly conceding that, in this circumstance, he had been right and I should have listened. When the upper echelon of Bracebridge came out to join this effort, and fill out the ranks of the Historical Society, in those first few years, they easily over powered sensible voices like Frank Henry and council. We had become the tail wagging the dog, and we ultimately lobbied hard enough to get the project completed. Problem was, nobody thought about the way the museum would operate through the next decade, which was as important a consideration, as every detail of restoration, and every moment spent hunting for furnishing and artifacts to make it a full fledged museum.

This is a contentious issue and I’m sure to draw fire. Especially when, on one hand I openly demand restoration of The Barge, at Rotary Gull Lake Park. In the case of this Town asset, I’m not as concerned about its historic qualities, as the fact it is an important, and profitable entertainment venue that has fallen into disrepair. Truth is, I would be the first to vote for a total re-design of The Barge, with a full canopy (to keep performers dry), constructed to meet the needs of the next 50 years. While this may seem a spike in the heart of Barge supporters, it’s not as outlandish when all its present shortfalls are weighed against a more adaptable, state of the art installation, built for the needs of future performers and concerts. I must also footnote that the repairs needed presently, including the replacement of rotting boards, is simply a requirement of asset maintenance.....and this is one historic site that has never been a drag on town finances.

I speak from experience and those who may wish to direct a shot my way, need to upgrade their research and base what they think is a good idea, on new fiscal realities for the feds, the province, and the burdens facing the local ratepayers and citizenry, in general, in the wake of a recession. I could not support a municipally initiated restoration project today, knowing that many folks can’t pay their taxes now, and our local food bank is in need of greater support.

I had a nice chat recently, with a very well-spoken and keen council hopeful, for this month’s municipal election, and I’m sure he was puzzled when I said to him, “don’t get too hung up on history as a councillor!” Coming from a long-serving Muskoka historian, I may have even shocked myself with this blurt of honesty. History has its place, as a foundation. It has a host of precedents we can learn from, and improve our protocols for the future. It is now a time when history must be placed in perspective, as we upgrade our municipality for present, pressing realities that will only accelerate and become more cumbersome in the future. Our environmental progress, and maintaining infrastructure to keep pace with new development is absolutely critical, and getting caught up in the entanglement of history and tradition won’t improve the efficiencies, and limitations, we will all have to face on this planet. We need to be concerned about the present and future needs of our citizens, and gambles with our finances are unacceptable in this era of enlightement.

History shows us, we made many mistakes that cost us our environmental well being. We can’t afford to live in the past. I love history but I know it is an expensive burden to maintain, and one that in many cases, is a frivolous pursuit amidst many more pressing issues.

During a great debate, in the 1990's, about a large-scale renovation of the Opera House, it was asked, by a sitting councillor, I believe, whether it might not be more fiscally responsible to tear-down the present building and construct a new facility. There was outrage at the very idea the wonderful facility could be compromised in such a fashion. The criticism of spending money on renovation, to an old building, brought back a memory of what Frank Henry told me about money for sidewalks, when I wanted to spend hundreds of thousands on Woodchester Villa. What experience weighs in, is often what we don’t want to recognize, that at some point regardless of our emotional, cultural, heritage arguments, replacement becomes a necessary, sensible alternative. The needed, ongoing repairs to this cherished old building, even in the near future, will stagger some ratepayers and councillors, who may wonder aloud, if the tax burden to finance restoration of an under-used and money losing facility, is truly worth it. And the naysayers to spending any more money on the building, would herald once again, a huge citizen outcry and the formation of an action committee to spare it from the wrecking ball.

It’s just damn difficult to out-run inevitability. We are a small community and funding for projects like historical restorations are thinner and harder to get. And if a million dollar remake is funded, possibly again by public donation, how will this improve the operation of the site? Unless there is a wholesale commitment to change in all areas, not just in bricks, mortar and woodwork, it will only at best, be a lonely monument to good times past. This will be an interesting debate, should it arise one of these days, on the agenda of the local ratepayers, who keeping an eye on town spending, will have to make a landmark decision, as to whether to support the effort, or suggest, “we just can’t afford it.”

I will die as an historian dies. Respectful of those who laid down their lives raising our hometowns to meet the challenges of the decades. I will die a realist however, and acknowledge with eyes wide open that heritage just means everything’s getting older, and some things just can’t be saved, or don’t deserve to remain for an eternity.