Its almost  Doors Open again! In honour of the start of the season this weekend I’ll be writing about Doors Open this week.

Doors Open events start this weekend in Guelph, but twitter and facebook are all a buzz with annocements for other upcoming events.  I gave a list in 2010 of ways to connect to these events through social media. However, many communities are expanding their use of these tools, so I thought it was time for an update!

Twitter

Get announcements of sites, day of site reports and other local information by following these twitter accounts:

• City of Toronto: @Doors_OpenTO
• City of London: @doorsopenlondon
• Town of Grimsby: @DoorOpenGrimsby
• City of Ottawa: @Doorsopenottawa
• City of Guelph: @doorsopenguelph
• Municipality of Clarington: @DOClarington
• City of Hamilton: @DoorsOpenHammer
• Town of Oakville: @Doors_Open_Oak
• Huronia (Towns of Midland and Penetanguishene): @DOHuronia

Want to follow this whole list? Click on my Doors Open Twitter List

Facebook

For an interactive experience and lots of details about the sites follow these facebook accounts:

• Hamilton
• Waterloo
• Toronto
• Peterborough
• Ottawa
• Clarington

Photography

To check out photos from pervious years look at:

• Doors Open Ontario’s General Photo Pool (note the 2012 photo contest)
• Grimsby
• Hamilton

Did I miss any? Let me know!

Continue reading

Part of our Easter Weekend Family tradition is to go for a hike. We have tried may different places, but always end up back at Bronte Creek.

Bronte Creek is a Provincial Park located in Oakville. It boosts 648 hectares and 10km of walking trails. But my favourite part of the site is the historic farm (which still houses live animals).

The Silvercreek House and associated outbuildings were built between 1850 and 1899. They were owned by the Breakon Family who were apple farmers. Many apple trees can still be seen throughout the property.

Here are some of my photos from the trip using my new Instagram app!

Continue reading

The Soul of the Community Study was mentioned in this video that I posted ages ago. Its was completed over a three year period and involved interviewing 43,000 people in 26 communities across America. In the summary they state:

The study provides empirical evidence that the drivers that create emotional bonds between people and their community are consistent in virtually every city and can be reduced to just a few categories. Interestingly, the usual suspects — jobs, the economy, and safety — are not among the top drivers. Rather, people consistently give higher ratings for elements that relate directly to their daily quality of life: an area’s physical beauty, opportunities for socializing, and a community’s openness to all people. – Page 4

Reading this I thought it sounded very similar to the criteria that Richard Florida outlines in his books as reasons that people are attracted to “creative communities”.

The study begins by outlining why attachment to a specific community matters. In short, it says that attachment has a direct correlation to money spent in the community. Attachment to community was also found to increase worker productivity and employee retention. Highly skilled workers were more likely to say in a community that they felt attachment to and those communities were then able to attract new talent.

Participants in the study were asked a series of questions regarding their attachment, as well as being asked to rate factors’ correspondence to community attachment.

What were the results?

The study found that across all 26 communities, over three years, social offerings, openness and aesthetics were constantly the top three factors that affected people’s attachment to their community.

How does this realte to heritage?

Clearly, people’s attachment goes beyond the basic needs to include aspect related to heritage. Under “social offerings” access to arts and cultural events was one of the main components. These types of social offerings often take place in or around heritage buildings, including main street shopping, theatres, museums and art galleries. Meanwhile, the aesthetics category does not specifically address built heritage, but does pinpoint “beauty or physical setting” as key. Beauty can be said to come from both the natural beauty of parks that is mentioned outright, but also from the built environment. More work obviously needs to be done assessing what exactly people mean by “beauty of a place”. However, given people’s love for the beauty of places like Paris, I think historic buildings have a lot to do with it.

These results are consistent with a study of what attracts and keeps Young Professionals in Hamilton.

Is there something specific makes you feel attached to your community? Let me know!

Continue reading

This is a little delayed, but a few weeks ago I wrote a piece for This Big City about how archeology can effect city planning.

Check it out here!

Continue reading

183 James Street South is part of James Street South’s Victorian Streetscape and is described in the designation report for nearby 209-211 James Street South:

By the mid-nineteenth century, George Hamilton had had his land on the east side of James Street South surveyed, laying out east-west streets such as Hannah (later Charlton), Catherina (later Young), and Maria (later Forest). Building lots were arranged on the blocks along James Street—lot 200, at the corner of Maria (later Forest) Street, being the future location of the subject property. Throughout the 1870s and 1880s, construction of middle to upper class housing was undertaken on both sides of James Street leading southward towards the estates, which had earlier developed on higher land at the base of the mountain. By the close of the nineteenth century, James Street South was lined with an eclectic array of substantial Victorian houses

James Street South became the dividing line of two residential neighbourhoods—Durand on the west and Corktown on the east.

The block directly to the north of the subject property, between Young and Forest Streets, contains six buildings—all former single family, two-storey brick houses (183-201 James Street South) dating from between 1887 and 1909. All have been converted to include commercial/office uses along with a residential component. All of these buildings are currently listed on the City of Hamilton’s Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and/or Historical Significance. With their consistent scale, set-back and materials, the buildings on this block today comprise the best surviving nineteenth century streetscape on the east side of James Street South.

183 James Street South is not itself designated, but it is listed as a property of cultural value or interest by the City of Hamilton.

Sources:
Designation Report for 209-211 James Street South

Continue reading