News   Mar 28, 2024
 992     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 554     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 848     0 

Toronto Cathedral/Church Preservation and Maintenance - Is Tourism the Answer?

jn_12

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
2
The original article from Apr 11, 2004:
The Original Article/Thread can be found here

Apr. 11, 2004. 08:57 AM

A prayer for the city's great churches

Buildings decay as congregations shrink
St. Paul's shines after $3 million renovation

I'm digging up this old article from another thread to start a bit of dialogue that I'm hoping will help me with my potential masters thesis, but also look at architectural and heritage preservation. I didn't continue with the thread that the quoted article comes from because I just want to touch on some of the issues found in the article and not all the crap about race and racism,

So, what can we do about Toronto's Cathedrals?

While I'm in an urban planning program, I'm actually using that as an angle for my interest in public policy and tourism. Trying to come up with an idea for my thesis I thought about my own travels. I noticed that many of the prominent European attractions that I had visited were actually cathedrals and churches and after my time with the province and the city's tourism departments I noticed that we really don't think of our cathedrals as tourist attractions.

When I bring this up to people, most of the time they say: a) they're not old/historical enough or b) they're not as beautiful or c) there are better things to do in the city. I know they're wrong on all accounts.

First, in terms of age, we have a number of cathedrals dating back to before 1850. St. James', St Michael's and St. Paul's are all inching towards 200 years old. If you look at statistics from the UK, Truro Cathedral stands out significantly. They've had over 200k visitors annually. The first section of the Cathedral was completed in 1887 and as far as I can tell is not home to anything specific that would make people want to visit the cathedral (such as an important religious event, etc). Also, Truro is in Cornwall which is about the farthest southwest anyone can go in Britain. It's not near any other significant tourist attractions yet the Cathedral still gets that many visitors per year. What is preventing our Cathedrals from those types of visitor numbers? What are our visitor numbers? The city and province do not recognize Cathedrals as attractions so there are no statistics available. Also I haven't contacted the Cathedrals to find out the numbers (I'm not allowed yet) so right now it's unknown how many or if any tourists visit these sites.

In terms of beauty, it's impossible to describe, but I'd urge everyone to go to one of the above mentioned Toronto cathedrals and tell me that they aren't visually stunning with their own certain charms. Maybe we don't have a Notre Dame, but that's ok. It's not about being the best. We have fantastic stain glass works and architecture and it's amazing that they go unnoticed. And St Anne's is home to works of art by members of the Group of 7. Untapped potential I'd say.

As for better things to do, well, I guess the CN Tower is great, and the ROM and AGO are fantastic, but a good tourism city has depth. We shouldn't rest our laurels on glitz. The way we do depth in Toronto is to say we have great neighbourhoods. We do, but I feel it's much easier to appreciate architecture and art (especially year round) than it is to get an appreciation for Kinsington Market.

The problem is that our cathedrals are dying because people aren't attending church as much as before. So donations dwindle and it gets harder and harder to maintain the buildings, which is a shame because they are essentially works of art. So I'm wondering what people think about marketing our cathedrals as tourist attractions as a means for preservation and for enhancing the role of these buildings as centres of our community and history?

My thesis work will probably look at British policy and see how and where it can be applied here in this area and see what type of difference it can make. I'm crossing my fingers that I can get some funding and maybe go over there to do research and talk to people, but in the meantime I'm relegated to reading reports and academic journals and discussing it with people like you.

I'm really interested in hearing people's views, especially if anyone has knowledge of what's going on in Britain in this area.
 
From the Daily Telegraph, 7th October 2006:

An alarming number of England's ancient cathedrals are crumbling fast, with buckets in the nave to catch rain leaking through the roof, dangerously deteriorating masonry and stinking drains, a Daily Telegraph survey has found.

The total cost of repairs needed to the Church of England's 42 cathedrals over the next five years is well in excess of £100 million and a number of the medieval buildings will soon need major overhauls.

The crisis has emerged when Government support is beginning to run dry, public funds are being earmarked for the 2012 Olympic Games and the costs of conservation are spiralling.

Since 1991, the Government has poured £42 million into urgent repair work that had been neglected in the 1970s and 1980s. Of this, however, £32 million was injected in the first 10 years and last year the grant, awarded through English Heritage, dwindled to just £1 million, down from £4 million in 2004.

Over the same period, the cathedrals, few of which have significant endowments, raised more than £100 million through appeals, visitor donations and charity events. Now they face finding the equivalent sum or more without a government safety net.

The Dean of Southwark, the Very Rev Colin Slee, the spokesman of the Association of English Cathedrals, said he feared that Government funding might disappear entirely, despite vigorous lobbying of Government ministers.

The Dean said that the original grants had allowed a huge backlog of work to be undertaken, but since then, a new batch of problems had emerged which could deteriorate rapidly if not tackled.

"We are grateful for English Heritage's help but if the Government cuts persist, then in 10 years we will be back where we started," he said.

At the launch of its £50 million global appeal on Tuesday, Canterbury Cathedral, the mother church of Anglicanism, revealed that it was using duct tape to prevent a fifth of its 12th-century Purbeck marble pillars from crumbling.

A number of other cathedrals have similar tales of woe. Lincoln Cathedral, which dates from 1029, needs to find £1 million every year for the next 20 years to tackle leaking roofs, decaying masonry and buckling windows. "We have buckets underneath the holes in the roof," said Carol Heidschuster, the Clericus Fabricae, or works manager.

York Minster, Europe's largest gothic cathedral, dismayed conservationists earlier this year by selling off original medieval stonework from its West Front to help fund a £23 million project to restore its West Front.

Some of its stonework is falling off. "You can rock a major pinnacle with one hand," said the Dean, the Very Rev Keith Jones.

Rochester Cathedral, which was founded in 604, making it the country's second oldest cathedral, is appealing for £10 million to restore crumbling fabric and dilapidated grade I listed buildings.

"The annual income is £600,000," said the Dean, the Very Rev Adrian Newman. "In reality, for many years the cathedral has often neglected maintenance simply to 'keep the show on the road'."

Salisbury Cathedral has been running an appeal since 1986, and has spent £16 million, a quarter of which has come from public funding.

St Paul's has raised £35 million of its £40 million appeal for cleaning and repairing the stonework.

Though the cathedrals argue forcefully that the Government should contribute much more to their upkeep, significant state funding is a recent innovation.

For most of their history, they have been independently wealthy, although many of their endowments were "nationalised" by the Church of England in the mid 19th century.

The huge programme of renovation that Victorians carried out in the late 1800s kept many cathedrals in reasonable repair until the 1960s, when major problems emerged. A number of appeals fell short of target or went disastrously wrong.

An ill-fated fund-raising tour of Australia in 1988 by the sub-dean of Lincoln Cathedral, Canon Rex Davis, lost £56,000, triggering a bitter feud.

But the Government then stepped in. Margaret Thatcher was said to be so appalled by what she saw on a visit to Ely Cathedral, which had fitted large props to hold up the roof, that she agreed specific grants.

According to Richard Halsey, English Heritage's head of places of worship strategy, the state of disrepair was even more widespread and parlous than now, with an estimated £200 million of work needed.

"Many of the roofs were in a terrible state," he said. "A pigeon landing could dislodge a pinnacle. The problems now are still great, but they are much more isolated."

Swingeing Treasury cuts, and a switch of resources to vulnerable parish churches, had resulted in the sharp decline in grants to cathedrals, he said.

The Heritage Lottery Fund has also given money, though it has tended to be for new buildings rather than conservation and the application process has proved hugely bureaucratic.

In France, Germany, Italy and Spain, the state directly or indirectly owns many of the historic church buildings and allows the churches to use them, often rent free. On the down side, the churches have virtually no control over the building.

Research by the deans shows that cathedrals benefit the tourist trade by about £91 million a year; three or four of the most popular buildings are exploiting this by imposing entrance charges, to the anger of many Anglicans, rather than relying on voluntary donations.

But with the focus turning towards the 2012 Olympics in east London, the deans are not holding their breath for more Government hand-outs.

"Expect a number of Canterbury-style appeals in the next few years," said Dean Slee.
 
Some British Parish churches, which used to be open to the public during the day, are now locked most of the time as a result of the horrible trend to thefts of church silverware. And starting about 20 years ago there was a trend to converting churches to antique centres ( in Norwich, which I know quite well, there were three such conversions at one time ).

Toronto has a wealth of churches from the Victorian era, sometimes tucked away on side streets, which I recall being open to the public at one time more than they are now. There's one ( St. Matthew's ) near me in Riverdale - south of Gerrard near Degrassi - that was designed by Strickland and Symons who also did St. Simon the Apostle on Bloor near St. James Town.

Several of the local churches are finding new life as community centres and day care centres.

Eglinton St. Georges on Lytton Boulevard is occasionally used for fundraising classical concerts, as it was last Sunday when Yannick Nezet-Seguin conducted the Bach Consort and soloists to raise money for Eva's Initiatives for at-risk youth. It's an amalgamation of two parishes, and I believe the fine renovation was funded by selling the site of one of the churches:

http://www.esgunited.org/handv_reno.html
 
While I'm in an urban planning program, I'm actually using that as an angle for my interest in public policy and tourism. Trying to come up with an idea for my thesis I thought about my own travels. I noticed that many of the prominent European attractions that I had visited were actually cathedrals and churches and after my time with the province and the city's tourism departments I noticed that we really don't think of our cathedrals as tourist attractions.

When I bring this up to people, most of the time they say: a) they're not old/historical enough or b) they're not as beautiful or c) there are better things to do in the city. I know they're wrong on all accounts.

Well, I'd be willing to generically allow for c): after all, not everybody does travel for "the history". They might have other things in mind: family, theatre, shopping, sports. History, meanwhile, is the bunk that made them sleep in class--indeed, they're the sort who might deliberately avoid Europe, or certain aspects thereof, because the "history" gets in the way of their enjoyment.

And as far as a) and b) go, even if they did have a yen for Europe, they'd probably be appallingly unsophisticated Euro-visitors, too. (Unless they're their opposite number, i.e. pompous pseudo-sophisticated Euro-snots.)
 
While I'm in an urban planning program, I'm actually using that as an angle for my interest in public policy and tourism. Trying to come up with an idea for my thesis I thought about my own travels. I noticed that many of the prominent European attractions that I had visited were actually cathedrals and churches and after my time with the province and the city's tourism departments I noticed that we really don't think of our cathedrals as tourist attractions.

When I bring this up to people, most of the time they say: a) they're not old/historical enough or b) they're not as beautiful or c) there are better things to do in the city. I know they're wrong on all accounts.

That is true. I had some friends from Japan visiting -- we were walking down Church Street and it didn't even occur to me to point them out until I noticed them looking at the churches. So we went inside St James' and St Mike's and they were quite impressed, as they'd never seen anything like them before.
 
Jn,

First of all, good luck on your thesis. It's an interesting topic, and Canadian churches all over the place are vulnerable to decay, demise or demolition. What can we do to save them?

I'll address some of the questions you raise, because I'm a person who has been inside all of Toronto's churches, but I don't really see the tourist value of these places and I will likely not go inside them again unless I have to for some formal/religious occasion.

When I bring this up to people, most of the time they say: a) they're not old/historical enough

Okay, I agree with you here. History is not about how many zeros are in the age of the building/structure. Some churches have a special meaning for a particular community and that's what makes them worth preserving. I appreciate this, but it won't compel me to make a special visit to a church.

b) they're not as beautiful

Here I would unfortunately have to agree with your detractors. I don't think Toronto's larger churches are architecturally noteworthy, both relative to other churches in other cities, as well as to the architecture of Toronto, as a whole.

Most of our historic cathedrals are built in an ersatz Gothic style and, putting the European authenticity argument aside, they are at least a step down from neo Gothic churches in nearby American cities, which had fantastically rich parishioners and were much bigger than Toronto at the time. Yet, even those American churches are not visited or appreciated as much as even grander public buildings and office towers that were generally more on the architectural forefront. Thus, while Chicago has some grand churches, architectural enthusiasts are more likely to fawn over Frank Lloyd Wright houses and Louis Sullivan office buildings.

or c) there are better things to do in the city.

I think this follows from point b. Really, the only thing that I can think of to defend Toronto's churches are to say that they play(ed) a large role in community building in the past. Why visit a church, then, if you can experience the whole moveable feast of Toronto's different cultural communities on our streets? I think that this is how most cultural tourists to Toronto come to appreciate our city: by walking around our neighbourhoods and soaking it in. It's hard for churches to compete with that.
 
Jn,

First of all, good luck on your thesis. It's an interesting topic, and Canadian churches all over the place are vulnerable to decay, demise or demolition. What can we do to save them?

I'll address some of the questions you raise, because I'm a person who has been inside all of Toronto's churches, but I don't really see the tourist value of these places and I will likely not go inside them again unless I have to for some formal/religious occasion.



Okay, I agree with you here. History is not about how many zeros are in the age of the building/structure. Some churches have a special meaning for a particular community and that's what makes them worth preserving. I appreciate this, but it won't compel me to make a special visit to a church.



Here I would unfortunately have to agree with your detractors. I don't think Toronto's larger churches are architecturally noteworthy, both relative to other churches in other cities, as well as to the architecture of Toronto, as a whole.

Most of our historic cathedrals are built in an ersatz Gothic style and, putting the European authenticity argument aside, they are at least a step down from neo Gothic churches in nearby American cities, which had fantastically rich parishioners and were much bigger than Toronto at the time. Yet, even those American churches are not visited or appreciated as much as even grander public buildings and office towers that were generally more on the architectural forefront. Thus, while Chicago has some grand churches, architectural enthusiasts are more likely to fawn over Frank Lloyd Wright houses and Louis Sullivan office buildings.



I think this follows from point b. Really, the only thing that I can think of to defend Toronto's churches are to say that they play(ed) a large role in community building in the past. Why visit a church, then, if you can experience the whole moveable feast of Toronto's different cultural communities on our streets? I think that this is how most cultural tourists to Toronto come to appreciate our city: by walking around our neighbourhoods and soaking it in. It's hard for churches to compete with that.

I think it's in the eye of the beholder, but I've been to a number of cathedrals in Europe that are comparable to our own. Obviously we don't have a Notre Dame or a St Paul's but then again, our cathedrals haven't had the funding that many of theirs have had either. However, compare what we have to what is elsewhere and even modest cathedrals in Britain are bringing in over 50,000 visitors per year. That's pretty significant, especially considering many of these aren't in the typical tourist areas of London, Edinburgh, Liverpoool, etc. So what could attendance be like in a city with 20million annual visitors? What could be the residual impacts as well? I think it's a pretty intriguing question.

I think you make a good point though: compared to everything else Toronto has to offer, why would someone visit a cathedral? Ultimately, my argument is, why aren't we at least giving people the option? I don't really think we know what the possibilities are, and we might never know until we try. I think I'm just looking at a niche in the Toronto market that hasn't been addressed yet when it is very much a pivotal part of the tourism industry elsewhere. It's not that it has to be as successful as elsewhere. I just want to know why we ignore it, and how it could maybe help preserve some of our oldest and nicest buildings.
 
And also consider US's posts above--evidently, "tourism" isn't enough to address the travails of England's cathedrals, especially with a populace less and less engaged to matters of "the church" or maybe even "culture" (at least, of the non-popular variety) in general.

And that's just regarding the so-called ancient monuments, particularly those of cathedral-type scale and function.

So, regarding the alibis of

a) they're not old/historical enough
b) they're not as beautiful

consider this: do you think the people who'd use such alibis would give a whit about British or European landmarks of that same period? Do you think that, barring a motivator like a Doors Open-type event, they'd go seek out High Victorian parish churches by William Butterfield or G. E. Street? In all honesty, they'd probably only really care about so-called "obvious" c19 landmarks like the Westminster Parliament or the Paris Opera or *gag* Neuschwanstein, or the, er, proto-starchitecture oeuvre of, say, Gaudi in Barcelona.

If they're "dumb" about such non-obvious stuff "here", don't say they wouldn't be as "dumb" about similar stuff "there", even when it's in their own backyard.

But re

I think that this is how most cultural tourists to Toronto come to appreciate our city: by walking around our neighbourhoods and soaking it in. It's hard for churches to compete with that.

That is, if you assume the churches are merely "competing", as opposed to latently intrinsic to the walking-around-and-soaking-in experience.

Particularly if one addresses the fact of cultural tourism, with a dash of civic tourism thrown in for good measure--indeed, such visitors might be more inclined to visit churches than jaded locals, particularly if the doors are open, there's an identifying plaque, maybe a historical pamphlet or whatever. (Or, for that matter, if Toronto had its own Pevsner-type guidebook.) No different from those of us who compulsively pop in and out of Wren churches when we visit the City of London...
 
jn_12, what role is played by entrance fees in your thesis? I ask because it seems central to the argument. In my experience, paying to see the interior of a church is relatively rare, even in Europe. I remember just walking into Chartres and thinking "I would pay for this" (I probably fall into Adma's category of being "dumb" about obvious things when travelling!). But it was free. I have to admit, I've declined to enter churches because there way a payment involved (if it was not a destination, and I was just passing), and in general, when payment is involved, it's very small.

Some churches, of course, have boxes where donations can be made. And a few charge for interior photography, or have audioguides, or a separate fee for a small museum.

But I wonder if you have any research on what is the best method for generating revenue from church-based tourism, as opposed to just visits. It's not just getting the people in, it's also separating them from some of their cash, and doing that enough to make it worth while to pay the extra expenses it would bring.

I would think, in Toronto, that would be a challenge.
 
And also consider US's posts above--evidently, "tourism" isn't enough to address the travails of England's cathedrals, especially with a populace less and less engaged to matters of "the church" or maybe even "culture" (at least, of the non-popular variety) in general.

And that's just regarding the so-called ancient monuments, particularly those of cathedral-type scale and function.

So, regarding the alibis of



consider this: do you think the people who'd use such alibis would give a whit about British or European landmarks of that same period? Do you think that, barring a motivator like a Doors Open-type event, they'd go seek out High Victorian parish churches by William Butterfield or G. E. Street? In all honesty, they'd probably only really care about so-called "obvious" c19 landmarks like the Westminster Parliament or the Paris Opera or *gag* Neuschwanstein, or the, er, proto-starchitecture oeuvre of, say, Gaudi in Barcelona.

If they're "dumb" about such non-obvious stuff "here", don't say they wouldn't be as "dumb" about similar stuff "there", even when it's in their own backyard.

But re



That is, if you assume the churches are merely "competing", as opposed to latently intrinsic to the walking-around-and-soaking-in experience.

Particularly if one addresses the fact of cultural tourism, with a dash of civic tourism thrown in for good measure--indeed, such visitors might be more inclined to visit churches than jaded locals, particularly if the doors are open, there's an identifying plaque, maybe a historical pamphlet or whatever. (Or, for that matter, if Toronto had its own Pevsner-type guidebook.) No different from those of us who compulsively pop in and out of Wren churches when we visit the City of London...

I don't intend to look at what tourists want. You're right, the people who don't want to see these types of attractions aren't going to visit them. It's plain and simple. But, there are people who would want to visit these types of places and they don't even know they exist in this city. They aren't even on our tourism radar. You're also right that some civic education would go a long way and perhaps there's a way to weave these types of places into Toronto's story. For people who visit (and have an interest in that story) it'd be a great opportunity.

jn_12, what role is played by entrance fees in your thesis? I ask because it seems central to the argument. In my experience, paying to see the interior of a church is relatively rare, even in Europe. I remember just walking into Chartres and thinking "I would pay for this" (I probably fall into Adma's category of being "dumb" about obvious things when travelling!). But it was free. I have to admit, I've declined to enter churches because there way a payment involved (if it was not a destination, and I was just passing), and in general, when payment is involved, it's very small.

Some churches, of course, have boxes where donations can be made. And a few charge for interior photography, or have audioguides, or a separate fee for a small museum.

But I wonder if you have any research on what is the best method for generating revenue from church-based tourism, as opposed to just visits. It's not just getting the people in, it's also separating them from some of their cash, and doing that enough to make it worth while to pay the extra expenses it would bring.

I would think, in Toronto, that would be a challenge.

I'm going to look at this as well. In Europe, a lot of times their cathedrals charge admission to limit the number of visitors rather than simply as a means of making more money. It's also a way of balancing the impact of the volume of visitors with the necessary maintenance to deal with servicing those people. However, from info I've seen in the UK, most of the time places just have donation bins at the door, candles (where you drop a euro or two in a bin to light one) or as you mention audioguides, and I don't know what the impact of those are, but I want to find out. I'd imagine in Toronto it would be difficult because we always assume there should be a fee for everything. I'd like to find out how other places are doing on a donation based system because I think that (especially on vacation) people are generous, and you could garner a decent number of donations at the door just out of kindness. I know my girlfriend and I are just "poor students" but we would usually drop maybe €5-10 per visit wherever we went, and if you multiply that by the number of visitors that would visit the cathedral, you're looking at a pretty good source of revenue for upkeep or maintenance. By making it donation only, you can attract more people with all sorts of income levels and allow them to create their own experience and relationship with the venue.

Thanks for bringing this issue up though! I've found some really good academic articles on this issue, and part of the reason I want to go over to the UK and see some of these first hand is to look at the admission fee issue and see what's being done and how it's helping (or perhaps not as US's article showed)
 
This discussion has prompted me to look up a lot of our stock of church buildings, and Toronto is blessed with many great examples. I agree with Archivist that paying an entrance fee would probably deter many tourists and residents in Toronto, however the mentioned free entry with paid additional services could work well. I also think a lot of people would leave donations even if the entry is free, I find that many people are more inclined to be generous when it isn't mandatory. Also, as congregations move and leave behind the buildings, I think hope lies in adaptive reuse. Just look at the Berkeley Church events venue, it's a great idea and seems to be working. Other possible uses could be for small museum or art gallery spaces.

One other idea I just thought of right after posting; I bet people would pay to go up into the bell towers see the inner workings of the clocks and the bells, especially in a church like St. James' Cathedral.
 
Last edited:
We have "new" churches by the standards of Europe or even Montreal, but a number of them are actually remarkable. Many of the more interesting ones are open at the annual Doors Open in May. St. Ann's at Dundas and Dufferin has the Group of Seven murals, not to mention remarkable Byzantine architecture. St. Paul's Anglican on Bloor Street is a large and truly an "awe inspiring" building, and several others have already been named.

I would be surprised if people wouldn't pay at least a small amount ($5??) to enter and see these places. They would expect a brochure with appropriate information / interpretive notes. A few of these churches should get together and do a collaborative promotional effort, through the tourist bureau. The model could be the golf tourism that is promoted in several places, with a number of golf courses doing joint advertising. A smart marketing person would take this on as a project. (Churches will not appeal to everyone of course, but then neither does golf.)

I was surprised years ago, at the Oratory in Montreal, not to find an admission charge at this truly impressive attraction. I would have paid a few dollars.
 
I don't know about the others but I doubt you could count St. Mike's as a dying parish. It's the home parish of the Arch-Bishop and the central parish of the Arch-diocese of Toronto. It's very much an active place. I am fairly sure that's one place if they needed money, they would have success raising it.

If you want to see dying churches come to Ottawa. They recently closed St. Brigid's, a century and a bit old cathedral, built by Irish immigrants, located down the street from Ottawa's Notre Dame. Toronto doesn't seem to have the same density of churches (at least of the same denomination) as other cities. As a result, it seems to prevent churches from going under, in the same manner as other Canadian cities.

In the long run, it's an interesting question of how to maintain these places as parishioners dwindle and their donations dry up. I just got back from Austria, where the church gets funds from the government to maintain the older cathedrals. I believe the even levy a tax on the congregation to ensure that they have the funds to support these facilities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

Tourism charges are also a bit of an issue with the faithful. They often don't mind donating money in those boxes on the way out but they do tend to get upset at the idea that they will be charged to enter a church. It comes awful close to that 'moneychanger precedent' set 2000 years ago.

The other issue is one of optics. The Catholic church routinely gets criticized by some for hanging on to what it terms are 'priceless' works of art and architecture and spending tens or even hundreds of millions to maintain their collections. There's always that argument that the best thing they could do for the poor is liquidate all their possessions and use that money to fight poverty. By and large, the Europeans don't seem to mind their churches hanging onto their riches. I am not sure, though, if Canadians would react the same way if Toronto's Catholics spent 35 million on repairing St. Mike's rather than on the various catholic missions and charities. The fact that Tourism Toronto does not consider any church in Toronto as a worthy destination should tell you how much the churches are valued to begin with. Spending vast sums of money, particularly if they end up getting government grants, to maintain their architecture, might end up cause some real headaches for these churches.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top