Glenwood Chapel Not So Dire

After your news story, “Chapel in Peril” (May 28) came out I received several phone calls and a couple of emails about it.

This is because for 35 years I have been a historical restoration consultant in Ontario and the east coast. I consulted on Glenwood Chapel in the winter of 2024-25.

Allow me first and foremost to acknowledge that the building is not without deficiencies. But these  are much less severe than is being suggested.

Upon the first five minutes of arriving at the Glenwood Chapel, I inspected the doors and windows, and observed these were in good condition, meaning correctly in line in the wall, all erect with no lean, no bends or twists, and no sign of broken glass. There was no framing out of alignment on the doors, no door jams from heaving or wall movement, and so common sense could infer that the building is fairly stable. 

The doors and windows constitute significant openings in the limestone structure of this building. If the building were moving, the first signs would be here.

One element of the building condition that I would like to address is the sign of continuous soil build up mainly around the west wall of the chapel. This could be a result of what appears to be a substantial displacement of dirt against this wall over the years. I would hazard a guess that, perhaps at one time, the road wrapped right around the chapel. Or it could be that this dirt displacement is nature-based and the mere result of settlement from trees, material degradation, and the lay of the land washing material toward this wall.

To disturb what I consider natural soil around the chapel’s perimeter/footings will only lead to the problems that the study presented in your article seems to insist are already happening.

Inadequate drainage from the roof and parapet walls, which have had poor workmanship over the years, are leading to a great number of leaks. One issue I commonly encounter is rotted out window sills. In the case of the chapel, with two layers of glass (one clear sheet exterior and one stained glass interior), the sweat and condensate forming between the two layers sits on the sill of the window. Over time this causes rot, since there is no form of ventilation or drainage. Your article mentions that there are a few window sills at the chapel that you can fit your finger in. When we use laminated lumber for window sills, it simply cannot stand the test of time without separation, resulting in rot. 

In my 35-year career, I have been asked to look at hundreds of churches of immense proportions that have all had their foundations basically sit on any of: clay soil, sand soil, small granular stone, and large boulders for corner supports for towers. As long as we can direct water away from the foundation of the building and keep the trees well cut back, these buildings will stay sound. 

I strongly recommend getting a second opinion about the work needed for Glenwood Chapel. It is a treasure and there are few left like it.  I can recommend an architect that specializes in historical buildings who resides in Colborne. 

Tom Plue, Sky-High Historical Restoration and Consulting

Authoritarian Creep 

Following my Gazette OpEd (May 28), Give Us This Day Our Daily Fossil, which called for curtailed use of fossil fuels in major developments, this week the Province passed Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter, which strips Ontario municipalities of the ability to set their own green building standards. The Bill was rushed through without consultation and without the normal committee process. That sounds familiar.

It follows Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, which represents one of the most radical overhauls of environmental and governance laws in Ontario’s history, with severe consequences for democracy, conservation, and urban sprawl. It would repeal the Endangered Species Act (2007) and create Special Economic Zones exempt from all laws, creating a developer free-for-all.

These bills follow both the extension of Strong Mayor Powers that undermines local democracy, and Bill 109 (2022), the More Homes for Everyone Act, which limits municipal planning power, and Bill 23 (2022), the More Homes Built Faster act, which weakened conservation laws and eviscerated the powers and funding for Ontario’s Conservation Authorities, e.g., Quinte Conservation.

Not one of these bills has nudged the needle on new construction, which is stuck at around 90,000 housing starts a year, about half of Ontario’s target of 1.5 million homes by 2031. They have done nothing to address the underlying issues: increased cost of building, lack of trades, and maxed-out household debt for new mortgages. 

While Ford may not have increased housing starts, he has cut a swath through our local democracy. There is much support, today, for authoritarian rule, a strong person who will make the tough decisions. Wiser counsel is that strength and resiliency come from capable, healthy communities that have the wherewithal to make their own decisions. Central control, whether from Central Soviet, Trump’s White House, or Queen’s Park, does not bring strength. It is not how communities grow and prosper. It is how they atrophy and die.

As Einstein said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting something different. I encourage everyone to write to MPP Tyler Allsopp to ask him to advocate for a better way. 

Don Wilford, Picton