As a way of celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, we’ve reached out to some of the organization’s founding members to hear their thoughts on where we’ve come and where we’re going in the heritage conservation field.
Check back often as more founding members will be featured throughout 2022.
Richard Unterman & Barbara McPhail
Richard and Barbara were two of the founding members of CAHP in 1987. Both have over 40 years of professional experience in the cultural heritage landscape and built heritage resource field, undertaking projects for both private and government clients. Their work as principals of Unterman McPhail Associates has contributed to a better understanding and recognition of cultural heritage resources through the many documents they have produced, including: heritage impact statements, cultural heritage evaluation reports, statements of cultural heritage value or interest, heritage inventories as well as cultural heritage assessment reports.
Questions and Answers with Richard Unterman & Barbara McPhail
The founding of CAHP, originally named Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants, evolved at a time when most heritage projects were being completed through government initiatives and staff, principally within the archaeological sector. As more trained heritage conservation professionals emerged from college and university programs in the 1980s, there was a movement towards private consulting outside of government to meet the growing need for such expertise. By the end of the decade, the time was right to establish an organization to support the needs of heritage professionals across the many disciplines, to set professional standards, discuss heritage policy and to become a unified voice across Canada to inform all levels of government.
Outside of considerable advances in conservation building technology, cultural heritage has been recognized as a principal determinant in the decision-making process at all government levels, particularly for municipal work. This recognition has resulted in the hiring of qualified professional heritage staff to manage cultural heritage resources.
CAHP has grown to become a Canadian meeting ground for like minds, offered access to heritage expertise to its members and the public and delivered a unified, strong voice in the management and stewardship of cultural heritage through input into government initiatives, legislative acts and programs. Most importantly it supports the needs of its members across Canada.
UMcA’s work with Ontario Power Generation, formerly Ontario Hydro, for 30 years plus resulted in the study of the history and development of associated cultural heritage resources, i.e., equipment, buildings and properties, of many Ontario hydro-generating sites, as well as studying adjacent local communities and local watersheds in order to prepare conservation management plans. As well, UMcA started working on heritage bridge conservation in the mid-1980s with the province, and over the years as private consultants, have viewed, assessed and contributed to the conservation of countless types of federal, provincial and municipal road and rail bridges.
The discipline and scope of heritage conservation is constantly changing. It is much more inclusive. With climate change and the discussion of renewable resources, it is hoped that heritage conservation will play a greater role in the governmental and private decision-making process and development management.
The challenge will be for both government and the private sector to embrace the role of heritage conservation and protection in support of managing climate change. The challenge will be to get private industry to accept the change without government legislation. This will be an opportunity for CAHP to champion heritage conservation.
It is important to specialize in a specific aspect of the heritage conservation field and apply your knowledge to become a recognized specialist. Network and connect with others in your field of interest to broaden your expertise and approach other CAHP members who can contribute expertise that will enrich your project. Having a good professional network and helping other CAHP members is especially important.
David J. Cuming
David has over 40 years of experience working in the cultural heritage field and has worked for both private and public organizations. Specializing in planning, cultural heritage resource conservation, design and management, David most recently ran his own professional consulting services before retiring in 2021. David was one of the founding members of CAHP in 1987.
Questions and Answers with David J. Cuming
CAHP had its origins as the Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants (CAPHC). One of the objectives amongst the several practicing consultants who formed the original founding members in the 1980s was to establish a professional organization that would set principles and standards for practitioners in their particular area of expertise. This was important because the role and importance of private sector heritage consultants was flourishing in a way that was quite distinctive from heritage practitioners in the public sector.
I believed that the founding of a professional organization would assist in creating a framework for developing principles for those in professional practice that would make us accountable for maintaining impartial and objective advice to our clients. A key element in any professional organization is the development of a Professional Code of Conduct and Ethics and this was one of the first matters of business when the Association was formed. This assisted in setting us apart as professionals who possessed clarity in conservation principles, who understood planning processes and the use of appropriate legislation as well as adhering to sound business practices.
As the profession developed and heritage professionals moved between employment in the private and public sectors CAPHC later evolved into the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals to account for all professional interests.
I’m not sure that there’s a singular biggest shift but practitioners in the conservation field have certainly broadened and expanded the awareness of cultural heritage interests and the various forms that those interests display in our communities across Canada. As a result there’s a far greater complexity to cultural heritage resource management today than existed 30 years ago. This includes the effects of changing legislation, duties to consult and engage and adopting processes that meaningfully ensure such objectives are met. Of considerable concern appears to be the current and worrying shift especially in Ontario to exclude or diminish cultural heritage interests from both public sector and private sector development processes; definitely a backward step.
The critical impact of CAHP has been to establish a growing membership in diverse areas of heritage expertise and create an enviable pool of professional talent. This in turn has enabled potential client groups to be able to access any number of cultural heritage disciplines. The rise in employment opportunities that require CAHP membership is also an important measure of CAHP’s influence.
In the areas of expertise that I have practiced in over the past 45 years, namely conservation planning and expert witness testimony, I have seen any number of groups or interested parties that are in disputes or tribunal hearings that have been able to retain their own heritage experts and feel that they have a voice and that their interests are being represented. Although, there may be conflicting opinions between professionals this “democratisation” results in a greater chance of a variety of voices and differing views being heard with more meaningful input to decisions that affect our cultural heritage environment.
Rather than individual projects there is a grouping of heritage conservation district projects that I have been involved with over the years that have been particularly satisfying, such as in Dundas, Waterdown, and Oakville. Designation of heritage conservation districts here in Ontario by local municipalities is always challenging: engaging with local property owners, ensuring sound public dialogue, understanding competing issues, undertaking appropriate historical research, identifying the special heritage character of place or places, preparing a district plan and eventually appearing at a tribunal hearing, all within a tight budget, always kept one diligently focussed on outcomes. It’s always very rewarding to visit these special places after nearly thirty years in some cases to see how properties and neighbourhoods have been maintained or enhanced and also to see how new development has been successfully incorporated into established, These become exemplary examples of how conservation and development can complement each other.
The big challenge is staying relevant in an age of dramatically changing circumstances. We appear to be lurching from crisis to catastrophe around the globe and cultural heritage resource management is threatened by being squeezed out of the mainstream to become an elitist, antiquarian sideline.
I’m not sure that there’s a singular biggest shift but practitioners in the conservation field have certainly broadened and expanded the awareness of cultural heritage interests and the various forms that those interests display in our communities across Canada. As a result there’s a far greater complexity to cultural heritage resource management today than existed 30 years ago. This includes the effects of changing legislation, duties to consult and engage and adopting processes that meaningfully ensure such objectives are met. Of considerable concern appears to be the current and worrying shift especially in Ontario to exclude or diminish cultural heritage interests from both public sector and private sector development processes; definitely a backward step.