Dominican University College - Heritage Recording Report by Summer Bourgon

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 BUILDING INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 2 3.0 REPORT INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE ....................................................................................... 3 4.1 ASSIGNMENT 1: RECORD PHOTOGRAPHY & STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE .............. 4 4.2 ASSIGNMENT 2: DRAWINGS........................................................................................................ 5 4.3 ASSIGNMENT 3: PHOTOGRAMMETRY ...................................................................................... 7 4.4 ASSIGNMENT 4: BUILDING CODE REPORT ............................................................................. 8 5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF RECORDING PROCESS .......................................................................... 9 5.1 SOURCES OF ERROR .................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF LASER SCANNING & PHOTOGRAMMETRY ............... 9 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DATA MANIPULATION ............................................................... 10 5.4 FUTURE USES ............................................................................................................................... 10 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ........................................................................... 10 7.0 DELIVERABLES................................................................................................................................ 11 7.1 ASSIGNMENT 1.1: RECORD PHOTOGRAPHY ........................................................................ 11 7.2 ASSIGNMENT 1.2: STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................. 13 7.3 ASSIGNMENT 2: DRAWINGS...................................................................................................... 16 7.4 ASSIGNMENT 3: PHOTOGRAMMETRY .................................................................................... 31 7.5 ASSIGNMENT 4: BUILDING CODE REPORT ........................................................................... 32 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 37

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is a summary of the cumulative heritage recording work completed for the Dominican University College (DUC) during the Fall of 2015 by the Carleton University fourth year Directed Reading (Representation and Documentation in Heritage Conservation) class. The DUC, which is located in downtown Ottawa, is a historic building of interest for its architectural, social, and spiritual significance. Heritage recording and analysis that was completed for this building include: photography of character defining elements; preparation of a Statement of Significance; recording of the building using manual recording, total station, laser scanning, and photogrammetry; creation of a set of exterior record drawings; preparation of a preliminary building code assessment report; and creation of augmented reality models. This report will provide an overview of the project, outline the Scope, Objective, and Methodology of each assignment, analyze the effectiveness of the recording methods used, and present the findings and deliverables of the heritage recording project.

2.0 BUILDING INTRODUCTION The Dominican University College (DUC) building at 96 Empress Avenue is a late 19th century institutional and religious facility located on the edge of a western escarpment in the downtown core of Ottawa. The existing site contains a multi-storey “C” shaped stone building closed off by a rectangular church complete with a tall stone entry tower. The combination of buildings seen from above creates a large square enclosing a central courtyard (see Figure 1). The structure currently houses the Dominican University College of Philosophy and Theology, the Dominican Monastery, and the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Parish. The heritage value of the DUC and Saint-Jean-Baptiste church lies in the building’s architectural interpretation of the Baronial-Gothic Revival, in the spiritual development of the city’s bilingual communities, in its cultural influence on the historic French Canadian community and Outaouais region, and in its social role in the current educational community. The Dominican University College was chosen as the subject of the fourth year Directed Reading course for many reasons. Firstly, the DUC requested assistance from the Carleton University Architecture program in the preparation of documentation and design options for a potential renovation to the building. As the site had no existing documentation, the building became a perfect opportunity for students in the Conservation and Sustainability stream of the Architecture undergraduate program to explore heritage recording techniques and adaptive design solutions in architectural heritage. The building’s rich history, interesting architecture, and social significance make it a perfect candidate for heritage recording by the Directed Reading course. For these reasons, the Directed Reading classes of both 2014 and 2015, as well as the third and fourth year Studio courses in 2015, have focused on this building for their projects.

FIGURE 1: View of the DUC from above.

FIGURE 2: View of the DUC from the Somerset Street railway overpass. Credits: Summer Bourgon

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891

3.0 REPORT INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to present the heritage recording process and findings for the Dominican University College prepared in Fall of 2015 by the fourth year Directed Reading (Representation and Documentation in Heritage Conservation) course at Carleton University. The work depicted in this report is a continuation of the work that was commenced by the Fall 2014 Directed Reading course and the Winter 2015 Honours Project (fourth year Studio) course. The 2014 Directed Reading students implemented laser scanning and photogrammetry recording and prepared drawings for the Saint-JeanBaptiste church, which is connected to the DUC. The 2015 Honours Project students further expanded this data, preparing models and drawings for use in their studio projects. This year’s work includes documentation and recording of the Dominican University College’s heritage character and conditions to provide record drawings and data for the university and any future occupants. The summary of work completed in this term includes:       

Record photography of the site, building, and character defining elements Preparation of a Statement of Significance outlining the building’s historic significance Laser scanning and total station surveying to produce point cloud data for all elevations and the site Implementation of photogrammetry to obtain point cloud data for missing information in the laser scanning data, including detailed models of site statues and roof elevations Analysis of the building for Ontario Building Code compliance, including the major occupancy classification, fire resistance requirements, and interior and exterior stair requirements Creation of a detailed drawing package including drawings of the site, elevations, and window details Creation of augmented reality models for the building and other small elements of the site

FIGURE 3: Panaromic photo showing the context of the DUC. Credits: Summer Bourgon.

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF WORK & MATERIALS & TOOLS USED 4.1 ASSIGNMENT 1: RECORD PHOTOGRAPHY & STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Overview / Scope Statements of Significance (SoS) and record photography are very important aspects of heritage conservation. They provide not only a record of important elements of a building or site, but also act as explanatory and visual documents to help individuals understand the significance of a site. This assignment consisted of capturing record photography of the DUC site context and character defining elements, as well as the creation of a Statement of Significance document prepared to the Canadian Register of Historic Places standards.

Objectives The goal of this assignment was to produce professional documentation that will serve as a preliminary analysis of the heritage character and significance of the DUC. The record photography and SoS will be very useful as a reference should the building ever be recommended for heritage designation. The assignment also aimed to provide students with a good understanding of the DUC in general, which assisted in the production of relevant drawings and documentation throughout the course of the heritage recording process.

FIGURE 4: Photography of stained glass in the DUC. Credits: Alex Federman

Methodology Photography 1. Determine important building elements and views through site visits 2. Capture photographs of these elements in RAW format using a DSLR camera and tripod as well as any other tools needed for photographing techniques (flashes, filters, etc.) 3. Select captured photographs to be edited and submitted with SoS 4. Edit selected images using Adobe Photoshop and the RAW Editor 5. Select final images to be included and referenced in the SoS

FIGURE 5: Photography of stepped copper flashing over the main entrance of the DUC. Credits: Anna Milczarek.

Statement of Significance 1. 2. 3. 4.

Read the Canadian Register of Historic Place’s document, Writing Statement of Significance Research history and importance of the DUC using online and text resources Based on research, determine the heritage value categories in which the DUC has significance Prepare a Statement of Significance document outlining the description of historic place and heritage values, and identifying character defining elements and key dates 5. Include and reference photographs of context and character defining elements

Materials and Tools Used  

 

DSLR Camera Tripod

Adobe Photoshop Software Various online & text resources – see Bibliography

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891

4.2 ASSIGNMENT 2: DRAWINGS Overview / Scope As part of the 2015 Directed Reading course, students were tasked with preparing a set of record drawings for the exterior of the Dominican University College. As the College has no drawing records of the current DUC conditions, these records will prove a very valuable resource going forward. Hand recording, total station surveying, laser scanning, photogrammetry, and photography were all valuable methods used to produce the full set of exterior drawings (seen in section 7.3). The final drawing package that was produced includes site and roof plans, primary elevations, courtyard elevations, and select window details.

FIGURE 6: Directed Reading students using the Total Station to record survey points. Credit: Christian Ouimet.

Objectives The main objective of this assignment was to produce a professional set of drawings that can be used as a record of existing conditions for any renovations or alterations in the future. For the students, the goal was to become familiar with a variety of recording techniques used in heritage conservation from manual recording to laser scanning. Additionally, students were expected to gain a preliminary understanding of drawing conventions involved in preparing a set of record drawings for heritage conservation purposes. FIGURE 7: Directed Reading student using the Faro scanner for laser scanning of the DUC. Credit: Christian Ouimet.

Methodology Laser Scanning 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Surveyed control points and captured scans on site using Leica & Faro Scanners and Total Station Matched survey network to 2014 survey network using a common coordinate system Downloaded scan from laser scanner and registered them using scanner software (Leica Cyclone) Exported the registered scans from the scanner software Imported the registered file as a point cloud into Autodesk Recap software Clipped the point cloud data planes in order to provide elevations and plans that could be drawn from

FIGURE 8: View of the laser scanning data from Autodesk Recap seen from the south-west (left) and north-east (right).

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 Drawings 1. Delegate sections of the building to be drawn between students of the Directed Reading course 2. Determine common plot style, line weights, title block, and reference blocks to be used by all students to ensure a cohesive final drawing package 3. Open laser scanning point cloud data into Autodesk Recap, clip viewing planes and snap to the orthogonal view to be drawn 4. Export the file and import into AutoCAD 5. Using the UCS command, change the drawing plane to match the point cloud data plane, enabling building views to be drawn on a 2D plane using polylines 6. Trace the point cloud data to create drawings of plans, sections, and elevations 7. Apply line weights as per common line weight & plot style standards 8. Import any necessary data from 2014 drawings into drawing and align 9. Used photographs as a reference, fill in final drawing elements for which laser scanning point cloud data was missing 10. Annotate and reference the drawing with measurements and reference blocks and lay out on an A1 sheet with the title block 11. Print the final drawing as a PDF and purge the CAD drawing of any unnecessary blocks, references, and line types 12. Combine the PDFs produced by all students into the final drawing package

Materials & Tools Used Laser Scanning     

Leica Scanner & associated software Faro Scanner & associated software Total Station Notepad & writing utensil for recording location of control points Surveying paper & reflective targets for capturing coordinates

Drawings      

Autodesk Recap software Autodesk AutoCAD software AutoCAD Civil 3D software for manipulation of site topography data Measuring tape, profile gauge, notepad & writing utensils for field notes & measurements Record photography as a reference for filling in missing point cloud information AutoCAD drawings of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Church, prepared by the Directed Reading class of 2014 FIGURE 9: Sample drawings from the final drawing package. East Elevation (left), credit: Summer Bourgon. Window Details (right), credit: Nicole Sollychin.

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 4.3 ASSIGNMENT 3: PHOTOGRAMMETRY Overview / Scope In heritage conservation, one form of recording is rarely enough to obtain all necessary building information. As can be seen from the laser scanning data acquired for the DUC (see Figure 8 above), some areas are lacking information due to shadows or reflective surfaces. At this stage in the recording process a supplementary recording method, photogrammetry, was explored to fill gaps in the laser scanning data. Photogrammetry is a means of recording in which a series of photographs of a subject are taken and combined in specialised software (in this case Agisoft Photoscan) to generate a 3D point cloud or mesh. The model can then be registered to the same coordinate system as the parent laser scanning data and imported into the laser scanned point cloud to fill gaps in the data. Photogrammetry completed by this years Directed Reading students include roof elevations, sections of elevations missing in the parent point cloud data, and models of statues on the site.

FIGURE 10: All photogrammetry completed by the Directed Reading class for the DUC.

FIGURE 11: Roof elevation completed using photogrammetry. Credits: Lori Chan.

Objectives

The primary objective of this assignment was to obtain additional point cloud data in order to accurately fill in gaps in drawing records. The photogrammetric models produced will also serve as a more detailed record of specific elements, such as the significant statues on the site which were not fully captured in the laser scanning process. Another goal was to familiarize students with supplemental recording strategies which can be used in conjunction with laser scanning to produce high quality, complete results.

Methodology

FIGURE 12: Statue of Mary completed using photogrammetry. Credits: Reece Milton.

1. Captured a series of photographs on site, ensuring photos were properly exposed, in focus, taken from the same distance, and provided sufficient overlap 2. Uploaded photos into Agisoft Photoscan software 3. Selected three points that were visible in multiple images and acquired coordinates for the points from the Recap point cloud data 4. Uploaded the coordinates into Photoscan and specified location of the points on a minimum of three images, enabling the software to situate the model in the 2015 coordinate system 5. Generated a point cloud in Photoscan and confirmed location of cameras 6. Generated a dense point cloud 7. Created a monochrome mesh and used the ‘Close Holes’ command to fill gaps 8. Applied photograph textures to the mesh, creating a photo-realistic model 9. Imported the photoscan models into the Recap point cloud, effectively filling holes in the laser scanning data

Materials & Tools Used   

DSLR Camera Agisoft Photoscan software Laser scanning data & Autodesk Recap software for obtaining reference coordinates 7

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 4.4 ASSIGNMENT 4: BUILDING CODE REPORT Overview / Scope The architecture world today is becoming increasingly saturated in regulations and guidelines, a realm of the industry of which architecture students are taught very little in their studies. In Ontario in particular the Ontario Building Code governs and is a document many pages thick with information ranging from accessibility standards to fire rated assembly requirements. This document is incredibly important for occupant safety and it is especially necessary to consult the OBC in heritage conservation, where many of the buildings reviewed were built prior to the Code being established. For this assignment, students were tasked with assessing if the existing DUC building is compliant with a few major sections of the OBC: Major Occupancy Classification and Building Fire Safety, and Safety within Floor Areas particularly as it applies to stairs. Each student was assigned a separate stair to analyze and compare to OBC requirements in a brief report. Overall 10 separate stairs were analyzed.

Objectives The objective of the Building Code analysis assignment was to provide a very preliminary overview of some building elements that would need to be brought to code standards if the building use were to change or the building were to undergo a major renovation. For the students the goal of this assignment was to gain a preliminary understanding of not only building code requirements, but also how the code can affect or conflict with the heritage character of a building.

Methodology 1. Receive a general introduction to the Ontario Building Code, focusing on sections to be analysed in the assignment (Major Occupancy Classification, Building Fire Safety, and Safety within Floor Areas especially as it relates to stairs) 2. Receive individual stair assignments to be reviewed for code compliance 3. Compile a checklist of items from the building code to review with regards to each stair 4. Using a combination of a camera, measuring tape, and field notes, record on site stair conditions and compare them to OBC requirements 5. Determine based on existing construction and building use, the Major Occupancy Classification and fire suppression requirements 6. Prepare a report outlining all findings and detailing areas of non-compliance that would need to be upgraded in the event of a renovation or change in use

Materials & Tools Used ď&#x201A;ˇ ď&#x201A;ˇ ď&#x201A;ˇ

DSLR Camera Measuring tape Notepad & writing utensils for documenting field notes & measurements

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891

5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF RECORDING PROCESS The laser scanning and photogrammetric point cloud data were extremely effective methods of heritage recording for the scope of this project. Recording using laser scanning is a fast alternative to hand surveying, and enabled detailed recording of all elevations and site elements of the DUC. For areas where the laser scanning data was lacking information or detail (such as the roof elevations and inset areas of the facades) the photogrammetry proved a very useful and easy to use tool for filling in gaps in the point cloud data.

5.1 SOURCES OF ERROR While excellent methods of heritage recording, laser scanning and photogrammetry are unfortunately subject to some minor sources of error which can affect the accuracy of final drawings produced using these tools. Some sources of error could include:      

Human error in setting up the laser scanner or total station and registering coordinates Error as a result of lost or removed surveying targets, requiring estimation in coordinate registration or set up of new targets Inability to snap to defined corners in the point cloud data, requiring tracing using estimation of corners of objects for the final drawing production Human error in acquiring coordinate references and registering them to photogrammetry model Error as a result of filling in missing point cloud information using photography as a reference Minor machinery error in all tools and software used

5.2 STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF LASER SCANNING & PHOTOGRAMMETRY STRENGTHS   

 

WEAKNESSES 

Very fast recording alternative compared to other methods (can obtain a scan in under an hour) Fairly high level of detail for overall elevations 3D point cloud model allows for a good understanding of spatial relationships, proportions and geometry of the building Autodesk Recap software is user friendly and makes it easy to manipulate point cloud data Agisoft Photoscan software is relatively easy to use and produces very detailed photogrammetric models from basic photography

  



The laser scanning data lacks detail in up close elements of scanned areas (unless a separate up close, high density scan is implemented) Scanning machinery and software is difficult to use without experience or the assistance of a professional Inability to accurately snap to defined corners of elements in point cloud data 360o scans also capture data irrelevant to the drawing information (such as trees, cars, other buildings, etc), making it somewhat difficult to sift through and isolate areas for drawing Laser scanning and photogrammetry techniques have difficulty obtaining data from shady or shiny reflective surfaces, resulting in gaps in data

Overall the pros of the laser scanning and photogrammetry tools outweigh the cons, and any shortcomings of these tools can be supplemented with other techniques in order to ensure accurate and complete information. 9

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DATA MANIPULATION The laser scanning and photogrammetry point cloud data were manipulated using a variety of techniques to enable easier production of drawings from the information. The following are recommended techniques for handling laser scanning and photogrammetry software to obtain best results:     

Secondary laser scanning Recap files (in addition to the base data file) with clipped boundaries should be saved to eliminate unnecessary point cloud information such as trees, signs, other buildings, etc. When manipulating the data for creation of drawings, changing the colour view of the file to the ‘Intensity’ setting will enable easier view of individual points When attempting to obtain detailed information from up-close sections of the data, increase the point density (similarly, when obtaining detailed information from overall views of the data, decrease the point density) Use the navigation cube in the top right corner to snap to orthogonal views of the drawing for more accurate production of elevations & plans Save the point cloud data in multiple file formats (including .rcs, .txt, .psz, and .obj) to enable use and importation into various programs for manipulation

5.4 FUTURE USES The base data captured by this years Directed Reading course has the potential to be used for a variety of future purposes. The laser scanning and photogrammetry data could be used for the creation of additional drawings and models, documentation of exterior windows, monitoring of structural and hygrothermal properties of the building, evaluation of site storm water management conditions, and as a record of existing conditions in the event of a renovation, fire, or other event in which the building’s appearance is subject to alteration.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK Although a preliminary heritage recording process and documentation has been completed by the past two years of the Directed Reading course, there is still much work to be done in the continuing monitoring and recording of the DUC. Some options for future work are:        

Full documentation of character defining elements in collaboration with the DUC and Saint-JeanBaptiste church Full documentation of windows and doors and the creation of window and door schedules In depth building code analysis and report for the entirety of the building to determine necessary upgrades in the event of a change in use or renovation Continuing preparation of drawings for the university, including important details, miscellaneous side elevations, and interior plans, sections, and elevations Full condition assessment of the building such as the creation of a mortar repointing schedule and exterior condition report, etc. Analysis of construction materials and assemblies used in the building envelope and creation of wall, floor, and roof section drawings Structural monitoring Hygrothermal monitoring

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891

7.0 DELIVERABLES 7.1 ASSIGNMENT 1.1: RECORD PHOTOGRAPHY

CONTEXTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS Context 1: Post-editing:

Context 2: Post-editing:

CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENT PHOTOGRAPHS CDE1: Post-editing:

Groin Vaulted Interior Ceilings, White Plaster Corridors Bracketing and Merge to HDR, Perspective/Distortion/Lens Correction

View from Corner of Empress and Primrose Panorama Photomerge

View from Somerset St. Railway Overpass Cropping, Colour Balance

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891

CDE2: Post-editing:

Copper Coping on Stone Masonry Highlights/Shadows, Colour Balance

CDE3: Post-editing:

Stone Archways, Ornamental Stone Details, Heavy Wood Doors Colour Balance, Perspective/Distortion/Lens Correction

CDE4: Post-editing:

Crenellation with Square Stone Merlons, Ornamental Merlons, Stone Quoins Perspective/Distortion/Lens Correction

*Note: All original images were shot in Raw and all post-editing was done using Photoshop.*

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 7.2 ASSIGNMENT 1.2: STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE The building at 96 Empress Avenue is a late 19th century institutional and religious facility located on the edge of a western escarpment in the downtown core of Ottawa. The existing site contains a multi-storey “C” shaped stone building closed off by a rectangular church complete with a tall stone entry tower. The combination of buildings seen from above creates a large square enclosing a central courtyard. The structure currently houses the Dominican University College (DUC) of Philosophy and Theology, the Dominican Monastery, and the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Parish.

HERITAGE VALUE The heritage value of the DUC and Saint-Jean-Baptiste church lies in the building’s architectural interpretation of the Baronial-Gothic Revival, in the spiritual development of the city’s bilingual communities, in its cultural influence on the historic French Canadian community and Outaouais region, and in its social role in the current educational community.

Architectural Value Constructed in 1883 for the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parish, the building was originally designed by architect Joseph Michaud and showcased a medley of Renaissance and Baronial architectural styles. The building was reconstructed in the Baronial-Gothic Revival style following a fire in 1931 which destroyed most of the existing church. Two new wings were added to the east and south, and modifications were made to the existing structure to accommodate for the new uses. The current building stands as an interesting representation of the Baronial Gothic Revival with its crenellated battlements and fortress-like design. The building also sports three main entryways topped with glass transoms and set in round-headed stone arches – elements that recall Roman Catholic and French Canadian church architecture in Quebec. The overall effect of the building is enhanced by its prominent location on the city’s western escarpment, where it forms a noticeable piece of Ottawa’s western skyline.

Religious Value Since its inception in 1883 and the joining of the Dominican Friars in 1884, the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Parish has been recognized for its exceptional liturgical services and influence on the French Canadian spiritual community. The Dominican Monastery encouraged a large pastoral community, attracting thousands of Roman Catholic Christians and maintaining remarkable engagement both internally and with external groups. Overall the religious congregation is significant for the role it played in the fields of education, healthcare, and pastoral animation.

Cultural & Social Values The building has great cultural and social value to the surrounding community and the City of Ottawa, associated as it is with the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Parish and the Dominican University College. Built as the first French Canadian parish in Ottawa, the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Parish integrated Francophones which had previously been dispersed among the Lebreton Flats and Rochester neighborhoods. The church played a significant role in the unification and development of the spiritual French Canadian community. The parish also contributed to the social and cultural development of the

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 Outaouais region through endeavors such as the Saint Vincent Hospital, Des Jardins Cooperative Apartments, and the Carrefour Ottawa francophone community organisation. Presently, the Dominican University College plays an integral social role in the bilingual community. The school was originally established in 1900 as an institutional centre of studies for the Dominican Order, and in 1967 the college was permitted by the province of Ontario to administer degrees in philosophy and theology. Today the institution provides a unique bilingual educational setting, not just for the francophone community but to any individuals wishing to pursue a future in the philosophy and theology fields.

CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS Key elements which relate to the heritage value of the Dominican University College and Saint-JeanBaptiste Church include:  Its prominent location and imposing presence along the west escarpment of Ottawa’s downtown core  Its representation of the Baronial-Gothic Revival architectural style including: o Crenellated battlements with rectangular and ornamental merlons along the buildings multiple roofs o Massive size and fortress-like solidity of the stone structure o Tall stone tower with large merlons o Rows of rectangular windows set in dressed stone surrounds o A stepped gable adorned with copper copings over the secondary entrance on the east façade of the building o Use of groin vaulted ceilings within the cloisters surrounding the central courtyard  Its use of architectural elements from other distinct influences including: o Layout of main entry flanked on either side by two smaller doors, forming a tripartite entry typical of Roman Catholic church architecture o Heavy wood entry doors topped with simple glass transoms and set in round-headed archways, a feature typical of French Canadian church design  Its incorporation of glass and stone architectural elements specific to the building such as: o The stained glass windows in the church and library sections of the building o Various dressed ornamental stones inlaid in coursed stone on each façade o Dressed quoin stones at the intersection of the building’s facades  Its continued use as a post-secondary bilingual facility, the Dominican University College of Philosophy and Theology  Continued use of the building by the Dominican Friars, which have resided there since 1884  Continued use of the church by the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Parish, who had the building constructed as the first French Canadian church in Ottawa in 1883

KEY DATES 1883: 1884: 1900: 1931: 1932: 1957: 1967: 1971:

Construction of Saint-Jean-Baptiste church Arrival of Dominican Friars Established institutional centre of studies of the Dominican Order Fire that destroyed original Saint-Jean-Baptiste church Completion of new church Completion of addition/reconstruction and installation of interior finishes Establishment of Dominican University College Conversion of heart of altar to a library for the DUC

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 FIGURES

FIGURE 1: DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AND SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE CHURCH

FIGURE 2: VIEW OF BUILDING ON WEST ESCARPMENT

FIGURE 3: TRADITIONAL FRENCH CANADIAN CHURCH DOORWAY, DRESSED STONE WINDOW SURROUNDS, DRESSED ORNAMENTAL STONES

FIGURE 4: CRENELLATED BATTLEMENTS, QUOIN STONES, ROWS OF RECTANGULAR WINDOWS COURTYARD

FIGURE 5: GROIN VAULTED ARCH CEILINGS IN CLOISTER CORRIDORS SURROUNDING

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 7.3 ASSIGNMENT 2: DRAWINGS See following pages for complete drawing package completed by the Fall 2015 Directed Reading class. List of Drawings:             

A-1: A-2: A-3: A-4: A-5: A-6: A-7: A-8: W-1: W-2.1: W-2.2: W-3: W-4:

Prepared By:

Roof Plan South Site Plan East Elevation South Elevation West Elevation Courtyard East Elevation & Section Courtyard South Elevation & Section Courtyard West Elevation & Section Window Details Window Details Window Details Window Details Window Details

Lori Chan Reece Milton Summer Bourgon Alex Federman Nicole Howell Anna Milczarek Mimi Gagne Nire Fregene Kitty Man Kitty Man Kitty Man Nicole Sollychin Nicole Sollychin

3 A3

4 A4

6 A6

LEGEND Statue of Mary Spot Elevation (m) Bush Deciduous Tree Coniferous Tree

RECORDING TOOLS Leica Scan Station Generated point cloud data from laser scanning the site Measuring tape Roof elements along the East, South, and West wing Photography Photos were used to count the merlons along the edges, as well as providing reference for the other roofing elements. Aerial Image Roof elements on the two South two towers were located from an aerial image

-0.82

ACCURACY In general, the building outlines are accurate due to information that was taken from the point cloud data collected. The accuracy is approximately +/- 25 mm.

-0.42

7 A7

3 A3

5 A5

The location of the chimneys, vents, drains, and mechanical equipment on the roof have the lowest accuracy due to hand measurements and measure by picture.

-0.63

DATE OF RECORDING: SEPTEMBER 2015

-0.27

6 A6

1 A1

ROOF PLAN 1:150

8 A8

1. ALL MEASUREMENTS IN METRIC (METERS) POSSIBLE OLD PATHWAY TO SCHOOL

2. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS 3. COPYRIGHTS RESERVED

-2.55

UPPER LORNE PL.

GREEN SPACE

EMPRESS AVE.

PEDESTRIAN WALK

SCALE: 1:150

1. LASER SCANNING - 26.06.2015 - CHRISTIAN OUIMET, REECE MILTON, NICOLE S. -11.11.2015 - CHRISTIAN OUIMET 2. HAND MEASUREMENTS - 15.11.2015 - REECE MILTON

CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE MAPLE TREE FLOWER BED ELECTRICAL / LIGHT POST FIRE HYDRANT

CATCH BASIN PARKING AREA

EXISTING BUILDING

SPOT ELEVATION

-1.

-1

.20

SEATING GARDEN

SHED

STATUE OF ST. DOMINIC

PARKING AREA

-1.26

MAIN ENTRANCE

2 W-3

1 A-4 N

DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

1 A-2

SOUTH SITE PLAN 1:150

FINAL SUBMISSION

24.11.15

MIDTERM SUBMISSION

03.11.15

Most of the data for the east elevation of the courtyard was collected with a laser scanner called Leica. Scan projects used: -DUC-2015.rcp -DUC-project.rcp 2015 data used on the exterior elevation of the exterior walls. 2014 used to fill the interior of the church

15.2

1 A7

4.2 35.2

Photogrammetry from 2014 was used to measure the entrance tower and roof line of the church ( in DUC-project.rcp). Data on right roof wall, above section also collected with photogrammetry, using software Agisoft Photoscan: -pg-south-roof-looking-east.rcs Hand measuring was used to fill in the entrance near the elevator shaft on the right as well as the walkway adjacent to the church's space. No data was collected to fill in the right section. Drawings done through Autocad. Accuracy Âą50mm.

10.1

1.2

ALL DIMENSIONS IN METERS 2.3

1.2

2.8 5.9 1.2 1.4

Drawn by

22.8

0.9

3.4

16.1

3.4

2.6

16.6

65.9 1 A7

12,23 1 A6

GENERAL NOTES APPLICABLE TO "A7" DRAWING

3,9

Drawing produced by tracing point cloud data collected by laser scanner Leca, recorded September/October 2015. Referred point cloud files include: Courtyard-ent.rcs DUC-2015.rcp DUC-project.rcp faro-courtyard_1.rcs faro-courtyard_2.rcs west-elevr.rcs

1 A3

Referred point cloud files produced with Agisoft Photoscan by photogrammetry: pg-east-main-entrance.rcs pg-west-roof-looking-south.rcs pg-east-roof-looking-south.rcs 20,09

Hand measurements were used to fill in the balcony on the east wing, near the elevator shaft. UNCOLLECTED DATA

Drawing "A1"(DUC plan) used as a reference to draw the central stairs. 15,8

2,47

Accuracy of dimension range Âą 50mm. All dimension in meter.

1 W1

4,34

No data was collected to fill in the section of the west and east wing.

1 A7

5,69

6,75

SIM.

Courtyard - South Elevation & Section 1:100

0,92

8,54

1 A8

21,15

1 A5

3,46

16,84

15,8

UNCOLLECTED DATA

0 2 A7

Courtyard - South Elevation & Section 1:100

GRADE LINE

1 A-7

1 A-8

Courtyard-West elevation and Section 1:100

RADIATOR

1 W1

INTERIOR WINDOW ELEVATION 1:10

2 W1

WINDOW SECTION 1:10

2879

1156

1104

186 3053

2886 1741

1766

3896

WINDOW CROSS SECTION 1:10

RADIATOR

107 550

WINDOW CROSS SECTION DETAIL 1:2

133 45 266 45

1076 560 1120 1447

WINDOW PLAN 1:10

WINDOW PLAN DETAIL 1:2

652

2 W1

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 7.4 ASSIGNMENT 3: PHOTOGRAMMETRY PHOTOGRAMMETRY MODEL 1: MAIN ENTRY TO DUC

Dense point cloud.

PHOTOGRAMMETRY MODEL 2: INSET DOOR - EAST FACADE

Monochrome mesh.

Colour mesh of inset door in east faรงade.

Colour-realistic mesh.

Photo-realistic mesh model.

Laser scanned point cloud of east faรงade.

PHOTOGRAMMETRY MODEL 3: WINDOW BAY ON EAST FACADE

Laser scanned point cloud of east faรงade filled in with photogrammetry point cloud data.

Photo-realistic mesh of east faรงade window bay. 31

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 7.5 ASSIGNMENT 4: BUILDING CODE REPORT INTRODUCTION The building at 96 Empress Avenue is a late 19th century institutional and religious facility located on the edge of a western escarpment in the downtown core of Ottawa. The existing site contains a multi-storey “C” shaped stone building closed off by a rectangular church complete with a tall stone entry tower. The combination of buildings seen from above creates a large square enclosing a central courtyard. The structure currently houses the Dominican University College (DUC) of Philosophy and Theology, the Dominican Monastery, and the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Parish. As the DUC building was initially constructed in 1883 and later renovated and added to multiple times until 1971, many components need to be analysed to determine if the building would meet today’s Ontario Building Code (OBC) requirements. The following is an initial analysis of some components of the site such as the major occupancy classification, fire protection requirements, and stair safety requirements to determine if the college meets OBC standards.

MAJOR OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION & FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS The Major Occupancy Classification table (Table 3.1.2.1 in the OBC) provides the categories of classification for all building types under Part 3 of the Code. Section A-3.1.2 Use Classification outlines the specific building types which fall under each Group; according to this section, Group C includes Schools and Colleges (residential) and monasteries. The building houses the Dominican University College and the Dominican Monastery and has residents, therefore the Major Occupancy Classification is Group C. The DUC is primarily 4 storeys in height, and has a building area of about 3100m2 (not including the courtyard). These parameters indicate that the building falls under the 3.2.2.43. Group C, up to 6 Storeys, Sprinklered, Non-combustible Construction category of fire protection requirements in the Ontario Building Code. This section says that “a building classified as Group C is permitted to conform to sentence (2) provided, (a) the building is sprinklered, (b) it is not more than 6 storeys in building height, and (c) it has a building area, (iii) not more than 9000m2 if 4 storeys in building height” [3.2.2.43 (1)]. Sentence (2) requires that “the building referred to in Sentence (1)… be of non-combustible construction” [3.2.2.43. (2)] and that a variety of assemblies meet fire resistance rating (FRR) requirements outlined in this section. As the existing building is made of heavy masonry construction but retains some original construction materials including lath and plaster, it currently does not conform to the non-combustible construction requirements listed in this section. The building would also need to be upgraded with sprinkler systems in order to comply with this section of the Code. In terms of the required fire resistance ratings for various assemblies within the building, further research would need to be conducted to determine if the existing assemblies would meet the FRR requirements of this section.

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 STAIR, GUARD, & RAILING COMPLIANCE East Wing, Interior Stair For this exercise, an interior stair in the east wing (the newest wing) of the building was analysed. The stair spans from the main floor of the building to the fourth floor, and has windows looking out over the interior courtyard. While the staircase is interior and does not serve as an exit by OBC definition, 3.3.1.13. (1) requires that “ramps and stairs that do not serve as exits shall conform to the dimensional, guard, handrail, and slip-resistance requirements for exit ramps and stairways of 3.4.3.2.(7) and Articles 3.4.3.5 and 3.4.6.1 to 3.4.6.9.”

INTERIOR STAIR LOCATION

FIGURE 1: Stair Location

FIGURE 2: Overall View of Stair – First Flight

3.4.3.2. Exit Width (Section 3.4 Exits) As per 3.4.3.2. (7)(e), the “width of an exit shall be not less than 1650mm for stairs and ramps serving… resident’s sleeping rooms.” The stair serves three floors, the third of which houses resident’s rooms while the first two hold administrative offices and classrooms for the DUC. The stair has a width of about 1180mm, and therefore does not comply with the above statement as it is 470mm below the OBC requirement.

3.4.3.5. Headroom Clearance (Section 3.4 Exits) As per 3.4.3.5., “the clear height of stairways… shall not be less than 2050mm” [3.4.3.5. (2)]. The headroom clearance of the of the majority of the staircase more than surpasses this requirement, with a clearance of 2819mm at the lowest clear height in the stair way. However, at one section in the stairway between the third and fourth storeys, there is a wall protrusion that interferes with head clearance (see Figure 3 to the right). This horizontal protrusion along the wall is about 197mm wide and causes a non-compliant head clearance from the 8th tread (1892mm clearance) to the landing (1041mm clearance) at the top of the flight. This protrusion further reduces the usable width of this section of the stair to about 983mm, a width that does not meet the requirements of 3.4.3.2. 33

FIGURE 3: Headroom Clearance Obstruction

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 3.4.6.1. Surface Finish of Ramps & Stairs (Section 3.4 Exits) As per 3.4.6.1. (1)(a), “the surfaces of ramps, landings and treads shall have a finish that is slip resistant.” The material used in the stair is a smooth, non-textured material that does not seem to be slip resistant and thus would be non-compliant with the Code. However, as the exact material of the stair finish is unknown, further research would need to be conducted to determine if the material would comply with slip resistance requirements.

3.4.6.2. Minimum Number of Risers (Section 3.4 Exits) The stairway in question meets the requirements of 3.4.6.2. (1) which states that “every flight of interior stairs shall have no fewer than 3 risers.”

3.4.6.3. Maximum Vertical Rise of Stair Flights and Required Landings (Section 3.4 Exits) The stairway in question meets the requirements of 3.4.6.3. (1) which states that “no flight of stairs shall have a vertical rise of more than 3.7m between floors or landings.” The vertical rise of each flight in the stairway is approximately 2475mm, much less than the height restriction. 3.4.6.3. also states that a landing shall be provided “(a) at the top and bottom of each flight of interior and exterior stairs,” and “(c) where a doorway opens onto a stair or a ramp.” Both of these requirements are satisfied by the stair, which has landings at the top and bottom of the staircase and at every level that the stair intersects.

3.4.6.4. Dimension of Landings (Section 3.4 Exits) The Code requires that “the length and width of a landing shall be at least the width of the stairway or ramp in which it occurs” [3.4.6.4. (1)]. The landings in the stairwell all satisfy this requirement with a width of 1257mm and a length of 2832mm, which are both larger than the 1180mm stair width.

3.4.6.5. Handrails (Section 3.4 Exits) Handrail Location As per 3.4.6.5. (1) “a stairway… if 1100mm or more in width, shall have handrails on both sides.” The stair in question, which has a width of 1180mm, does not meet this requirement, with railings only on one side of every flight of the staircase (see Figure 2). Handrail Dimensions As per 3.4.6.5. (3)(b) handrails shall have “any non-circular shape with a graspable portion that has a perimeter not less than 100m and not more than 125mm and whose largest cross-sectional dimension is not more than 45mm.” The handrails of the stairway do not meet code requirements as the handrail is 140mm in perimeter, 15mm larger than the maximum. 3.4.6.5. (5) states that “the height of handrails on stairs and ramps shall be (a) not less than 865mm, and (b) not more than 965mm.” The height of the handrails along the stair have a height of about 775mm, and thus does not meet the minimum requirements of 865mm. The handrails around the landings of the stairs have a height of about 832mm, and thus also do not meet the minimum requirements of 3.4.6.5.(5). However, they do meet the maximum requirements of 3.4.6.5. (7), which states that “handrails required on landings shall be not more than 1070mm in height.”

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 Handrail Continuity 3.4.6.5. (8) requires that “except where interrupted by doorways or newels at changes in direction, at least one handrail shall be continuous throughout the length of a stairway… including landings.” The stairway in question does not meet this requirement due to a change in location of the handrail from one side of the stair to the other at the first landing (see Figure 2 and Figure 4 to the left). Handrail Termination

FIGURE 4: Handrail Discontinuity at First Landing

As per 3.4.6.5. (10) “at least one handrail shall (a) in the case of a stair, (i) extend horizontally at the required height, not less than 300mm beyond the top riser, and (ii) continue to slope for a depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser followed by a 300mm horizontal extension.” Neither the top nor bottom handrail situations comply with these requirements; in both areas the handrail terminate at the same location as the edge of the stair (see Figures 5 & 6 to the left). Handrail Clearance 3.4.6.5. (11) requires that “the clearance between a handrail and any surface behind it shall be not less than 50mm,” a requirement that most of the stairway’s handrail does meet, except for a location at the very bottom of the stair, where the railing is embedded in a wall (see Figure 6 to the left).

3.4.6.6. Guards (Section 3.4 Exits) Guard Dimensions & Design

FIGURE 5: Top Flight Handrail Termination

As per 3.4.6.6., “the height of guards shall be not less than 920mm…from the outside edges of the stair nosings and 1070mm around landings” [3.4.6.6 (2)] and “openings through any guard… shall be of a size that will prevent the passage of a sphere having a diameter of more than 100mm” [3.4.6.6. (5)]. While the guards (seen in Figure 7 below) meet 3.4.6.6. (5) with an opening size between vertical members of 95.25mm, the height of the guards does not meet OBC requirements; the guard heights around the stairs and around the landings are 774.7mm and 831.85mm respectively, much lower than the Code standards.

FIGURE 6: Bottom Handrail Termination

The guards are made up of a combination of vertical, horizontal and circular components below a height of 900mm. This component of the guard design also does not meet 3.4.6.6. (8), which says that “a guard shall be designed so that no member, attachment, or opening located between 140mm and 900mm above the level protected by the guard will facilitate climbing.” 35

FIGURE 7: Guard around Landings & Stair

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891 Guards around Windows in Stairs 3.4.6.6. (7) requires that “in a stairway… a window that extends to less than 1070mm above the landing shall (a) be protected by a guard that is not less than 1070 mm high… or (b) be fixed in position.” Within the stairway, there is one window which rests at the landing level and another that actually extends down past a landing (see Figures 8 - 10 below). Neither window is fixed (they are operable), and thus a guardrail is required by 3.4.6.6. (7)(a). In addition, the window which extends past the landing has an unprotected gap between the window pane and the landing, through which a limb or a small child could easily fit. This poses a great risk to any occupants – especially children – who use the stair.

FIGURE 8: Stair at first landing

FIGURE 9: Stair extending down through second landing

FIGURE 10: Gap between window pane and second landing

3.4.6.8. Treads and Risers (Section 3.4 Exits) The stair in question has risers about 190mm in height and treads about 273mm in depth. These dimensions comply with Code requirements, which say that “steps for stairs shall have a run of not less than 255mm and not more than 355mm between successive steps” [3.4.6.8. (1)] and “steps for stairs referred to in Sentence (1) shall have a rise between successive treads not less than 125mm and not more than 200mm” [3.4.6.8. (2)]. As per 3.4.6.8., risers and treads shall be of uniform height and have a uniform run with a maximum tolerance of “10mm between the tallest and shortest risers in a flight” [3.4.6.8. (3)(b)] and “10mm between the deepest and shallowest treads of a flight” [3.4.6.8. (4)(b)] respectively. The stair in question meets these requirements, with all risers and treads nearly the exact same in height and depth. As per 3.4.6.8. (8) “the top nosing of a stair tread shall have a rounded or bevelled edge extending not less than 6mm and not more than 13mm measured horizontally from the front of the nosing.” While the stair meets the first part of the requirement (having a bevelled edge) it does not meet the second part as the edge of the nosing extends 19mm out, past the allowable 13mm.

CONCLUSIONS If the Dominican University College were to ever undergo a major rehabilitation or change in occupancy type, a number of upgrades would need to be made to meet the Fire Protection, Occupant Safety, and Accessibility part of the Ontario Building Code. As shown above, the stairway in the newest portion of the DUC does not meet OBC requirements, therefore it is very likely that stairs in the older sections of the building would require upgrades as well. In terms of the overall building construction and fire safety, the building would need to be retrofitted with a sprinkler system and may also need a variety of upgrades to meet fire resistance ratings for building assemblies. The next challenge then is this: how can the building be upgraded to meet OBC requirements while maintaining functionality as a school, monastery, and church and also preserving its historic qualities and heritage character?

SUMMER BOURGON | 100851891

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bennett, Victoria. “Early Catholic Church Architecture in the Ottawa Valley: An initial investigation of nineteenth century parish churches.” CCHA, Historical Studies 60 (1993-1994): 17-42. http://www.cchahistory.ca/journal/CCHA1993-94/Bennett.pdf (accessed October 11, 2015). Dominican University College. “Campus Life.” Dominican University College. http://www.dominicanu.ca/about/campus-life (accessed October 11, 2015). Dominican University College. “History.” Dominican University College. http://www.dominicanu.ca/about/history (accessed October 11, 2015). Historic Places Program Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, and Parks Canada, Writing Statements of Significance. Winnipeg, MB: Parks Canada, 2006. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Building Code Volume 1. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Building and Development Branch, 2014. Lacelle, Elizabeth J., and Pierre Savard. Saint-Jean-Baptiste D’Ottawa: 125e Anniversaire 18721997, De Memoire Vive 1947-1997. Ottawa: Saint-Jean-Baptiste Parish, 1997. Paroisse St-Jean-Baptiste. “Historique.” Paroisse St-Jean-Baptiste. http://www.udominicaine.ca/stjeanbaptiste/stjeanbaptiste.ca/historique.html (accessed October 11, 2015). Ray, Ted and Nan Ray. “45. Baronial Gothic Revival.” A Field Guide to Building Watching. https://sites.google.com/site/buildingwatching/styles/baronial-gothic-revival (accessed October 11, 2015).