Award-Winning Projects

Jury Comments

  • The jury was impressed by the number of entries to the 2013 Awards program, and the great effort and diversity demonstrated by the almost 50 submissions.  We are pleased to report that this is the greatest number of submissions ever received in the history of the awards program.
  • The very high quality of work, and the clarity of the best submissions was complemented by the fact that most of the submissions paid close attention to our request that they consider how projects met the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
  • The CAHP-based jurors very much appreciated the inclusion of fellow jurors were from a wide variety of backgrounds, representing heritage interests beyond the membership of CAHP; and and we enjoyed and commend the process of deliberation, that included meeting as a full group for an entire day to discuss the entries
  • There were a number of recommendations by the Jury panel for the coming year’s awards, including the combining of some categories, and the addition of others, including an award for new construction within the historic environment. They also wanted, next year, to encourage the nomination for the Lifetime Achievement Award, for which there were no nominees this year.
  • In consultation, the Jury also recommended that the Award description by the proponents pay more attention to the context within which the project had been executed, including a discussion of broader urban and heritage planning issues, and specifically, that the precedents of previous reports and projects with the names of previous heritage professionals/firms who provided base work for the submitted project, be acknowledged wherever applicable.
  • The jury felt that this we were pleased by the quantity of submissions – 50 which is significantly higher than other years
  • we were impressed by the high quality of submissions and the diversity of projects represented
  • we were pleased that most of the submissions paid attention to our request that they consider how projects met the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
  • The CAHP-based jurors appreciated that our fellow jurors were from a wide variety of backgrounds, representing heritage interests beyond the membership of CAHP; and
  • We enjoyed and commend the process of deliberation, that included meeting as a full group for an entire day to discuss the entries
  • The Jury recommends that for next year, CAHP consider updating the categories – there were a few that might be clarified or combined, and there were a few that might be added. In at least one case, a good submission had no credible category in which to give it an award
  • The Jury recommends that for next year, CAHP consider emphasizing in the awards regulations and directions that the proponent be required to provide context issues for the project in their submissions, such as the broader urban and heritage planning issues, and the names of previous heritage professionals/firms who provided base work for the submitted project, wherever applicable.

 

PHOTO CREDIT: GRAHAM FRENCH, 2011 AWARD OF MERIT FOR PRESERVATION OF A HERITAGE BUILDING (10 TORONTO STREET, TORONTO)