Conservation Principles and Practice. ICOMOS Canada Annual Congress and General Meeting, Nov. 2-4, 2006, Ottawa,
Ontario. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University.
Applying the Standards and Guidelines to the Restoration of
Reader Rock Garden: A Case Study
Michelle Reid, B.L..Arch., M.E.Des., C.S.L.A.
Project Manager - Cultural Landscape Portfolio
Parks, Planning & Development
The City of Calgary
2006
Introduction
Reader Rock Garden, a provincially designated
Edwardian Arts and Craft style rockery, has recently
been restored by the City of Calgary. The project
included rehabilitation and upgrading of the rock
work; replanting of the original beds; rehabilitation of
two ponds; and the reconstruction of a variety of
structures, including the original house, gazebo,
bridge, and selected site furnishings. A key tool in the
project was the use of the Standards and Guidelines
for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
The Garden
The three-acre Garden (immediately adjacent to
Union Cemetery) consists of a matrix of rock paths,
steps, and walls that form numerous planting beds.
The Garden dates from 1913 and was historically part
of a private residential property used by William
Roland Reader, Calgary’s most influential Park
Superintendent.
Reader used the Garden to test a wide variety of plant
material and under Reader’s care the Garden held over
4000 different plant species (Graham, 1989). Reader
wrote an unpublished book, The Hardy Herbaceous
Perennial Garden, which lists, bed by bed, the plants
in the Garden. Historically, the Garden was viewed as
one of the few significant gardens in western Canada,
and was known internationally for its botanical
diversity (McNally, 1990). The quality of Reader’s
plants and seedlings were recognized by Kew Gardens
in London,
the Botanical Gardens at Harvard, and the Royal
Botanical Gardens in Edinburgh (Novak and Simpson,
2004).
While the majority of the Garden was completed by
the end of the 1920s, Reader continued collecting and
experimenting with plant material until his death in
1943. At that point, the Garden was opened to the
public as a City park and was named in his honour.
Without Reader’s attention, the Garden went through
subsequent periods of neglect and prior to the recent
restoration, it was estimated that only 5% - 20% of the
original plant material remained (Novak and Simpson,
2004).
The Standards and Guidelines
Plan of the Garden, ca. 1930s
Courtesy City of Calgary Parks
NOTE: LABELS ADDED BY AUTHOR
The Garden is the first historic park in Calgary to be
restored/rehabilitated using the Standards and
Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada. The Standards and Guidelines is a document
that outlines “principles and practices that encourage
long-term conservation of our country’s historic
places” (Parks Canada, 2003). The document was
designed to “offer results-oriented guidance for sound
decision making when planning for, intervening and
using a historic place.” (Parks Canada, 2003).
The Reader Rock Garden restoration team included
individuals both familiar and unfamiliar with the
Standards and Guidelines. At the beginning of the
project all members of the team had access to the
document and it allowed the team to move forward
1
Conservation Principles and Practice. ICOMOS Canada Annual Congress and General Meeting, Nov. 2-4, 2006, Ottawa,
Ontario. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University.
with the same basic understanding of conservation
principles - preserve, document, protect, maintain,
retain, repair, replace in kind, recreate (with adequate
evidence), etc. In addition to the Standards and
Guidelines, the team also had access to a proposed
designation for the Garden as a Municipal Historic
Resource which included a brief outline of both its
significance and its character defining elements. With
a common understanding of 1) basic conservation
principles; 2) the significance of the Garden; and 3)
the physical examples that illustrate the significance
of the Garden (along with a profusion of historic
research that included photographs, plant lists,
drawings, and writings), the project team moved
forward with the common goals of restoring the
Garden and illustrating its significance to others.
Case Study
Early on in the project it became evident that for
routine decisions the Standards and Guidelines was a
good resource. Where focus was on “retain and repair
existing pathways”, or “replant existing beds with
species on Reader’s list”, or “unearth and rehabilitate
cobble gutters”, the Standards and Guidelines proved
excellent. But when faced with more complex
situations, rather than offering clear “results-oriented”
advice, the document provided a framework for
discussion that encouraged the team to refer to the
research on the Garden, and the significance of the
Garden, and allowed the team to explore how to best
proceed. The set up of the Guidelines as a collection
of “Recommended” and “Not Recommended”
practices, along with the “Other Considerations” of
“Health and Safety”, “Accessibility”, and
“Environmental Considerations”, allows for a wide
range of solutions to be accommodated and dialogue
developed in reaching the best solution.
The following examples are illustrative of where
discussion and further research led to the resolution of
the problem, rather than merely finding the answers
within the Standards and Guidelines. The examples
attempt to cover all eight of the sub-categories for the
“Landscape Guidelines”, including “Land Patterns”,
“Landforms”, “Spatial Organization”, “Vegetation”,
“Viewscapes”, “Circulation”, “Water Features”, and
“Built Features”.
Land Patterns
The most significant character defining element at the
scale of Land Patterns is the relationship between the
Garden and the Cemetery. Historically the Garden
was a private space that was separated from the
Cemetery with a tall wooded fence and a thick row of
spruce trees. Over the years the fence was removed
and the boundary was marked with just the spruce.
View of historic fence, date unknown
COURTESY READER FAMILY
As part of the restoration project a new fence was
required to protect the Garden from vehicular traffic,
vandalism and theft. The argument for restoring the
original wooden fence is clear - to illustrate what was
there historically and help tell the story of how the
Garden was a private refuge. However, the original
fence design is not transparent and re-erecting it
essentially creates a secluded outdoor room, well
suited for protecting illegal activities (that are
currently happening in the park and cemetery).
The Standards and Guidelines does recommend
“recreating missing features for the restoration period,
based on physical, documentary, and oral evidence”
(Parks Canada, 2003), but also allows new elements
to be added to the park with the stipulation that the
new work be “visually compatible with, subordinate
to, and distinguishable from the historic place.” The
Standards and Guidelines also allows for other
considerations, including “Health and Safety”. While
there is not a safety recommendation specifically
addressing the recreation of potentially dangerous
space, the spirit of the intent is clear and did allow the
restoration team to address safety concerns. At present
a construction fence separates the upper garden from
the Cemetery. The plan is to erect a new, decorative,
metal fence that appears as if it is designed to
encompass a park, and not a private residence. The
intent is to ensure the fence is viewed as an element of
the park and not the historic garden.
Landforms
The original landforms of the site have remained
intact since Reader first began to manipulate them in
1913. As a result, the restoration team simply referred
to the first landform guideline that recommends
2
Conservation Principles and Practice. ICOMOS Canada Annual Congress and General Meeting, Nov. 2-4, 2006, Ottawa,
Ontario. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University.
“preserving landforms… that are important in
defining the overall heritage value of the landscape”
(Parks Canada, 2003) and ensured that the existing
landforms were preserved.
Photo illustrating initial grading the slope, ca. 1910’s
COURTESY READER FAMILY
Spatial Organization
The primary spatial organizing element within the
Garden is the matrix of the rock work and the
resulting planting beds and lawn areas. The majority
of this matrix exists as it did during Reader’s time; the
only exception is a few beds associated with the
ponds. Over the years certain beds were filled in with
sod, most likely with the intent to provide passive
park space.
The Standards and Guidelines does recommend
restoring the missing elements but it also
acknowledges the importance of finding a “use for a
historic place that requires minimal or no change to its
character defining elements” (Parks Canada, 2003).
The restoration team decided to restore one of the
beds, primarily due to the fact that the bed (bed D)
held a collection of plants sometimes referred to as the
“bog garden”, and illustrates that Reader
experimented with water loving species. The decision
to retain the sod in the larger bed (collection of beds J)
was partly financial. While the construction cost of
removing the sod and replacing it with plants may not
have been substantial, the added operational costs
associated with the maintenance of such a large bed
could have resulted in the need for an additional staff
person every year. It was agreed, however, that the
lawn space was an opportunity for passive enjoyment
of the park and removing it would result in a lower
carrying capacity for the site as the upper (original)
lawn would then be the only area for gathering,
picnicking, etc.
Plan of the West Garden, ca. 1930’s
Courtesy City of Calgary Parks
NORTH ARROW ADDED BY AUTHOR
Vegetation
Arguably one of the most significant elements in the
Reader Rock Garden is the collection of plant
material. During Reader’s lifetime over 4000 plants
were trialed and tested in the Garden (Graham, 1989).
As a result, it was considered extremely important by
the restoration team to ensure that, when possible, the
original cultivar of each species was used. This
resulted in some extreme measures including the
creation of a plant amnesty program, the genetic
testing of certain plants in the garden to determine
actual variety, and a propagation program that
provided plants that are no longer commercially
available, even through seed.
Two interesting situations arose around an allee of
Russian Poplar and a small Mountain Ash. Prior to the
restoration only two (clearly stressed) trees remained
in the allee of Russian Poplar. The Standards and
Guidelines recommends “removing and replacing
deteriorated or declining vegetation” (Parks Canada,
2003). However, there was a debate regarding the
removal of the last two trees and the restoration of the
complete allee. Russian Poplar is no longer easily
available. Due to the fact that botanical diversity is
one of the reasons the Garden is considered
significant, there was a desire to retain the Russian
Poplar for as long as possible and either attempt
propagation to establish the allee at later date or to
3
Conservation Principles and Practice. ICOMOS Canada Annual Congress and General Meeting, Nov. 2-4, 2006, Ottawa,
Ontario. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University.
replace the missing trees with another variety of
Poplar. Neither of these solutions was desirable to the
design team as 1) there was no guarantee of funding
which would allow for the allee to be planted in
future; and 2) replacing only the missing trees would
result in an allee of incorrect proportions. The team
did not have to make this decision as the solution was
found in the discovery that the City of Calgary had
actually been growing Russian Poplar from
propagation of trees on Memorial Drive (in an effort
to ensure the actual memorial trees lived on in
perpetuity). The entire allee was restored using this
stock.
Another interesting discussion centred on a small
Mountain Ash that had grown from a seed in the rock
work around the lower pond. It was an aesthetically
nice tree - it helped frame the pond and had flowers
and berries. The restoration team did not want to
remove it. It was even argued that Reader, as a
gardener, would have welcomed the tree and
incorporated it into his design - or maybe that it could
be viewed as a “later layer” and illustrate how the
Garden went through a period of neglect. The
restoration team adhered to current conservation
principles and followed the Standards and Guidelines
that recommends “removing or altering vegetation
dating from other periods” (Parks Canada, 2003). This
decision was made partly due to the fact that the tree
was not part of the original design and partly due to
the fact that if the tree continued to grow it would
eventually damage the rock work around the pond. If
the tree was found elsewhere in the garden the
decision might have been different.
The Mountain Ash example illustrates how modern
aesthetic preferences can influence historic
restorations. Many different trees and shrubs were
evaluated with regard to retention or removal. Some
were removed for safety reasons; some removed to
allow the understory plants to survive; and others
were kept. It is more than probable that the decision to
retain one tree and remove another was influenced by
the like or dislike of a certain tree. The Standards and
Guidelines does not directly address the issue of an
inherent aesthetic bias but it might be helpful if it did.
Mountain ash at lower pond ,2004
COURTESY CITY OF CALGARY PARK
Viewscapes
The view from the High Rockery, over the main drive
to the house is a key view in the Garden. At present
the house is being used as a restaurant that is open for
an evening sitting. Access to the restaurant can be up
through the rock paths or via the main drive (which is
closed to vehicular traffic). Neither of these routes is
lighted. For safety considerations at least one access
must be lighted. According to the Standards and
Guidelines, the view to the house should be preserved
and it is not recommended “that new elements be
located in such a way that it detracts from or alters
character defining viewscapes” (Parks Canada, 2003).
Garden from the High Rockery, circa 1930’s
COURTESY READER FAMILY
4
Conservation Principles and Practice. ICOMOS Canada Annual Congress and General Meeting, Nov. 2-4, 2006, Ottawa,
Ontario. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University.
Again, the Standards and Guidelines does allow for
new elements to be added (including light standards)
and, again, in the spirit of the safety considerations,
light standards would be acceptable elements to add.
In order to protect the view from the High Rockery,
the first suggestion of installing typical park lights up
the main drive has been set aside while the restoration
team explores the options of lighting individual trees,
installing smaller bollard lighting, or lighting a rock
pathway.
It could be argued that the restoration team adhered to
the “Accessibility Consideration” that recommends
“finding solutions to meet accessibility requirements
that minimize the impact on the historic place” (Parks
Canada, 2003). More truthfully, the team adhered to
the spirit of the safety considerations - one of which
does recommend limiting public access, but only
when, “for technical, economic, or environmental
reasons, these elements cannot be protected
immediately using recognized preservation methods”
(Parks Canada, 2003).
Circulation
Water Features
Circulation is an important element in the Garden - as
previously mentioned, the rock paths form the matrix
that established the planting beds. Most of the rock
paths were still extant within the Garden. Where they
were missing, they were replaced with sandstone, the
majority of the original stone used in the Garden.
Some of the rock paths were also considered unsafe
due to loose stones and these were re-set. And, finally,
some paths were considered unsafe due to their
steepness and/or irregularity so they were closed to
the public with signs and chains.
The main path up to the High Rockery was one of the
paths that was considered unsafe due to steepness.
The team explored the idea of simply closing off the
path, like others in the High Rockery, but they also
acknowledged that the public does not always obey
signs and access to the High Rockery should be a
priority. The decision was made to alter the main path
to the High Rockery for safety reasons and to ensure
accessibility to that part of the Garden. The path was
widened and stabilized, allowing the public safe
access to the High Rockery.
The Garden has two ponds, the upper and lower.
Historically the upper pond fed the lower pond
through a small channel and then the water proceeded
over land and through an underground pipe. The water
did not circulate, but rather,it seems to have been
used as a method of irrigation (hence the bog garden
discussed earlier). Today’s environmental standards
require that water not be used so haphazardly. The
Standards and Guidelines’ “Energy Efficiency
Considerations” section recommends “utilizing a
recirculation system in a fountain” (Parks Canada,
2003), which was the selected solution for the
restoration team.
Pond rehabilitation work, 2005
COURTESY CITY OF CALGARY PARKS
Steep rock path in High Rockery, 2005
COURTESY CITY OF CALGARY PARKS
Unfortunately water was still being lost at an
unacceptable rate, presumably through the eroded and
cracked original concrete bottoms of the ponds. One
suggestion was to line the ponds with rubber. To do
this all of the rock work would need to be removed,
the liner installed, and then the rock put back in place.
It was argued that the rock work could be well
documented, photographed, numbered, etc.; but the
irregular nature of the rock work made this suggestion
undesirable. The team instead decided to try a new
5
Conservation Principles and Practice. ICOMOS Canada Annual Congress and General Meeting, Nov. 2-4, 2006, Ottawa,
Ontario. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University.
product for sealing concrete that is mixed directly into
the concrete, thus retaining the historic material.
Built Features
As part of the restoration of the Garden, the once
demolished house was reconstructed along with a
gazebo, foot bridge, and collection of benches.
Restoring these elements meant removing a circular
planting bed that was created when the original house
was demolished, and the standard parks issue gazebo,
bridge, picnic tables, and benches. These elements
helped to tell the story of how, when Reader died, the
city opened his private garden to the citizens of
Calgary and named the new park in his honour.
The Standards and Guidelines recommends
“removing or altering features dating from other
periods” (Parks Canada, 2003) and the elimination of
the immediately recognizable park elements, along
with the restoration of the arts and crafts cottage and
twiggery pieces, do help the visitor to understand that
the Garden is not of this era, and is a landscape that
once belonged to a single family residence.
In another area of the Garden (the Western Slope), the
decision was made to retain an ashlar rock seating
wall that had clearly been constructed after Reader’s
time, and was part of the history of the park (vs. the
Garden). The Western Slope has other elements that
indicate a later period of construction including a
formal cotoneaster hedge that frames the seating
enclave, a distinctive bristlecone pine, a flowering
crabapple in the grass “drive”, and the inclusion of
large sandstone boulders. The restoration team chose
to focus on the development of the park within the
Western Slope because of the number of later period
elements located in that area and because it is an
important part of the evolution of the Garden. The
Standards and Guidelines does not easily
accommodate multiple periods of significance.
According to the document, it would have been
acceptable to retain all of the park era elements or to
remove them all.
Ashlar rock seating alcove, 2004
COURTESY CITY OF CALGARY PARKS
Conclusions
The Standards and Guidelines was an invaluable tool
for the restoration of Reader Rock Garden. The
document allowed all members of the team to move
forward with a common understanding of
conservation principles and supported an approach
where all team member opinions had value. The
framework of “Recommended” and “Not
Recommended” practices moves away from the “ask
the conservation expert” approach into an approach
that encourages dialogue, discussion, and more
research. Conservation novices feel more comfortable
approaching problems where it is openly
acknowledged that many solutions may be deemed
acceptable and respectful of the site’s heritage value.
Replacing “recommendations” with “rules” helped to
accomplish that.
When more closely examining the use of the
Standards and Guidelines, it is clear that some
elements are lacking. The “Health and Safety”
recommendations within the “Other Considerations”
section appear to primarily accommodate the
conservation of heritage buildings. An attempt has
been made to include the more generic “heritage
resource”, but the document falls short in terms of
addressing safety concerns specifically for landscapes.
Many of the decisions made during the restoration of
Reader Rock Garden were done “in the spirit” of the
safety considerations, rather than with direct reference
to them. Further collaboration with conservation
landscape architects would ensure more specific
landscape recommendations are included in the next
edition of the document.
The Standards and Guidelines states early on that the
intent is to provide sound, practical, clear, and
6
Conservation Principles and Practice. ICOMOS Canada Annual Congress and General Meeting, Nov. 2-4, 2006, Ottawa,
Ontario. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University.
consistent guidance. This implies that if the
recommendations are simply followed, the project
will be a success. However, the truth is that some of
the decisions that conservationists confront are
complex and not as clear-cut as the document implies.
Acknowledging that complex issues will arise would
strengthen the document and attempting to provide
guidance for the complexity would assist users of the
document in making better decisions. Aesthetic bias is
one of the complexities that requires
acknowledgement. The impact of the bias could be
minimized if the document outlined to the
conservation practitioners that aesthetic bias exists,
and encouraged awareness of it in order to counter act
this possibility. This is especially pertinent to the
replacement of declining vegetation. During the
Reader Rock Garden restoration, the aesthetics of a
specific tree - its form, denseness of canopy, shape,
etc. - were at least informally reviewed along with its
health when determining retention and removal.
Another important complexity is the existence of
multiple periods of significance. It is true that
establishing the priority periods of significance is
done in the Statement of Significance stage; however,
some of the most challenging conservation decisions
involve conflicting periods of significance and
addressing these challenges would strengthen the
document. Historic resources do not live in a vacuum,
but rather continually evolve. In the case of the
restoration of Reader Rock Garden it was important to
illustrate how the Garden was historically the
landscape of a single family home, but it was also
important to understand the contribution of Reader’s
work and how society honoured him by opening his
Garden as a public park. The restoration of Reader
Rock Garden is considered a success by the
Calgarians who visit the Garden. Part of that success
is due to the fact that the restoration team utilized the
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada
Sources Cited
Graham, Robert. Private Citizen’s Submission Regarding Preservation of The Reader
Rock Garden, Union Cemetery, City of Calgary. Robert Graham. Calgary, 1989.
McNally, Kathleen. Calgary’s Reader Rock Garden: An Historic Landscape Revisited.
Landscape Architectural Review, 1990.
Novak, Len; Simpson, Lorne. Reader Rock Garden Rehabilitation Plan. Simpson
Roberts Architecture - Interior Design Inc. Calgary, 2004.
Parks Canada (1). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada. Parks Canada. 2003.
7