Oldest House

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
483
3
18
#41
Different times, the original houses would of been difficult to move as they were all very large and owned by the very rich. I haven't referenced the houses moved thread, but the two main reason that houses were moved was the building of the Skyway Bridge and any house in the way was demolished or moved, also houses were moved from Van Wagner's due to storm exposure and then the complete (almost) removal of all homes due to the building of Confederation Park.
Scott I wasn’t very clear in that post. This is what you said in the thread ‘1948 Houses Moved’

“I could get some direct quotes from the book, "Memories of Van Wagner's Beach and Parkview Survey", but I don't it at this time.
However, the people did own the land that their homes were on, some welcomed the new park and some didn't.
The only Beach residents that had homes but didn't own the land was on the Burlington side, , these where all cottages that had a 99 year lease on the land located between the lake and the rail line.”
http://hamiltonbeachcommunity.com/forum/threads/1947-48-houses-moved.1238/page-2

so was it the case that when a person bought a lot on the beach, either the north or south side of the canal, he/she had to pay something to the city of Hamilton each year? Something that wasn’t land taxes, but was used for the parks? The quote from Dorothy Turcotte’s book is very vague.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,791
177
63
The Beach Strip
#42
Scott I wasn’t very clear in that post. This is what you said in the thread ‘1948 Houses Moved’

so was it the case that when a person bought a lot on the beach, either the north or south side of the canal, he/she had to pay something to the city of Hamilton each year? Something that wasn’t land taxes, but was used for the parks? The quote from Dorothy Turcotte’s book is very vague.
Yes, Dorothy doesn't give any specific information on how or who the lease payments were given to and I don't see much info in the other Beach history books. Hamilton didn't take the Beach over until the late 1950's, so they wouldn't of received any payments but Saltfleet would until the Beach Commission took over in 1907. I haven't seen any info on the Commission collecting anything but taxes . The 99 year lease on the north side is a completely separate topic.
 

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
483
3
18
#43
You say that the parapet-brick walls are considered the historical feature of the house. Why wouldn’t the entire house be? And maybe the ‘Canadian Rail and Marine World’ (on micro film at the Hamilton Public Library has some information on why the house was moved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,791
177
63
The Beach Strip
#44
You say that the parapet-brick walls are considered the historical feature of the house. Why wouldn’t the entire house be? And maybe the ‘Canadian Rail and Marine World’ (on micro film at the Hamilton Public Library has some information on why the house was moved.
The house is a historical site, but the parapet wall on each end are unique, I have never seen any other building on the Beach built this way. The rest of the house would be common looking. The walls of today are not exactly the same as the original, the newly built walls had some very intricate brick work that isn't there anymore. Over the years it must of fell off and repaired with just straight lines, even the chimney tops had brick work over them which is also long gone. The chimneys are also smaller than the original brickwork. The walls are very thick and remind me of the walls between the old townhouses in north Hamilton.
Edit, added info;
From 1996
This is part of Hamilton City Council's motion to designate the Lighthouse and the Keeper's House.
https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/fr/oha/details/file?id=4307


REASONS FOR DESIGNATION
Burlington Canal
Lighthouse and Keeper's Dwelling
1159 and 1155 Beach Boulevard
Hamilton, Ontario

Context
The lighthouse and adjacent keeper's dwelling, built respectively in 1858 and 1857, are located just south of the Burlington Canal on the strip of land dividing Hamilton Harbour and Lake Ontario. The Lighthouse, a recognized federal heritage building marks the entry into the protected waters of the harbour.

Once a prominent landmark on the Beach Strip, the still impressive 55-foot high circular stone structure is now overshadowed by the adjacent steel tower of the vertical lift bridge and elevated roadway to the east and the Skyway Bridge to the west. Gone from its turn-of-the century setting, when the Beach Strip was a popular summer resort, are the Royal Hamilton Yacht Club quarters (1892-1915), the hotels, boardwalk, and the road and railway swing bridges.

History
The lighthouse complex is closely associated with Hamilton's development as a major lake port, which began with the opening of the Burlington Canal in 1832. The first lighthouse and keeper's dwelling, both frame buildings erected in 1837, were destroyed by fire in 1856 and subsequently replaced by the present stone and brick structures. The lighthouse served as an important navigational aid for cargo ships and pleasure craft until 1961 when it was removed from service and superseded by a modern light erected on the new lift bridge. The house, moved a short distance to its present site in the late 1890s, was continuously occupied until 1991 by five successive lightkeepers. The lighthouse and keeper's dwelling are the oldest surviving buildings on the Beach Strip and the only intact structures linked to Hamilton's mid-19th century port function.

Architecture
The lighthouse and keeper's dwelling together constitute one of few extant historic light stations in Ontario. Of the seven surviving lighthouses on the Canadian side of Lake Ontario, only Burlington Canal retains its original lightkeeper's residence. Moreover, relatively few Canadian lighthouses were constructed of stone, most of which predate Confederation. Of eight known examples erected on take Ontario, the Burlington Canal lighthouse is now one of only four remaining.
Constructed of squared white limestone blocks laid in regular courses, the lighthouse features slit windows with cut stone sills, a round-arched doorway and a 12-sided iron-framed lantern (dating from 1891 when the original one was replaced). It was erected by the renowned Scottish mason from Thorold, John Brown, the builder of six similar lighthouses on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, known as ''Imperial Towers'' and all still standing.
The brick keeper's dwelling, a 1 1/2 storey, side-gabled structure with a three-bay façade and parapet end walls, is similar in form to the stone dwellings built in conjunction with the six Imperial Towers, some of which also have raised parapet walls with built-in end chimneys. A distinctive feature of the Burlington Canal lightkeeper's house is the corbel detail of the raised parapets, which is characteristic of Hamilton's 19th century worker housing. The large window openings are accentuated by cut stone sills and lintels. Minor alterations over the years include the replacement of the original six-paned window sashes with single-paned sashes; replacement of the front door; and the rebuilding of the raised parapets with narrower end chimneys and corresponding loss of decorative brickwork beneath the parapet coping. The front doorway, with its rectangular transom, is now obscured by an enclosed front porch, built in 1945 to replace a full verandah added after 1900.
The stone tower has been preserved virtually intact while the lightkeeper's dwelling has largely retained its original character, despite the changes identified above.

Designated Features
Important to the preservation of the Burlington Canal lighthouse complex are:
1. the stone masonry tower and iron lantern, including the round-arched doorway and tall narrow windows. .
2. all four brick masonry facades of the keeper's dwelling, including the parapet end walls, original doorways and window openings, and stone trim. Excluded
are all later additions, including the front porch, and a rear shed and dormer .
 
Last edited:

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
483
3
18
#45
So given that the ‘walls of today’ are not original, that could mean that all of the brick was removed in order to move the house. And then the brick was replaced.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,791
177
63
The Beach Strip
#46
So given that the ‘walls of today’ are not original, that could mean that all of the brick was removed in order to move the house. And then the brick was replaced.
I haven't seen anything to support that theory, in the City of Hamilton report two posts up, the rebuilding of the raised parapets with narrower end chimneys and corresponding loss of decorative brickwork beneath the parapet coping is all that is reported, not why it was needed. There are few old pictures of the house in it's present day location and the original chimney and decorative brickwork are still there, so the change is not from the move. It could be that the brickwork just fell apart over the years, as it has been doing for many years till today.
Attached is a picture of the top of the Keeper's House and there two bricks sitting on the inclined roof that came from the walls, there could be more on the ground.

Keepper.JPG
 

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
483
3
18
#47
Might want to check with Peggy on that one, I believe ancestors who were fishermen didn't buy much land as they were squatters. The original Corey must of owned the land as his name is listed on one of the old maps.
Scott when the first houses were built on the beach, from whom (or maybe what government department) was the land purchased from? Was the beach part of the Upper Canada Land Grant?
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,791
177
63
The Beach Strip
#48
Scott when the first houses were built on the beach, from whom (or maybe what government department) was the land purchased from? Was the beach part of the Upper Canada Land Grant?
This paper explains;
https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/uhr/2001-v30-n1-uhr0603/1015941ar.pdf

In 1871, a local Member of the Legislative Assembly, James Williams, helped block the sale of Crown Land on the beach to a private individual,
petitioning the provincial government to give the city of Hamilton control over all unclaimed land on the beach strip. Williams justified having the city claim land that lay in a neighbouring township some distance from its limits, on the grounds that "it is important for the health and welfare of the people to possess a place of this description where they may enjoy the fresh air from the lake breezes." The province concurred, granting an order in council which permitted Hamilton to lease unclaimed lands on the Burlington Beach for a nominal annual payment of one dollar, "as a place of recreation for the whole people." Hamilton's parks committee would administer the beach, although neighbouring Saltfleet Township would continue to collect taxes from beach residents.

Within a decade, this railway's summer timetable sent seven trains to the beach strip six days a week, with two trains on the Sabbath. The second surveying party represented the city of Hamilton, which had acquired control of all vacant Crown Land in the name of recreation for its people. Just what that meant in
practical terms soon became evident. The surveyed lots were sold at an auction to individuals who then subleased the land for $10 annually. Revenues from the annual rent, purchasers were assured, would be spent on the further development of the beach. The leasing arrangement ensured that the city would have money to spend on the area, since it was denied the right to collect other taxes from the residents.
 

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
483
3
18
#49
This paper explains;
https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/uhr/2001-v30-n1-uhr0603/1015941ar.pdf

In 1871, a local Member of the Legislative Assembly, James Williams, helped block the sale of Crown Land on the beach to a private individual,
petitioning the provincial government to give the city of Hamilton control over all unclaimed land on the beach strip. Williams justified having the city claim land that lay in a neighbouring township some distance from its limits, on the grounds that "it is important for the health and welfare of the people to possess a place of this description where they may enjoy the fresh air from the lake breezes." The province concurred, granting an order in council which permitted Hamilton to lease unclaimed lands on the Burlington Beach for a nominal annual payment of one dollar, "as a place of recreation for the whole people." Hamilton's parks committee would administer the beach, although neighbouring Saltfleet Township would continue to collect taxes from beach residents.

Within a decade, this railway's summer timetable sent seven trains to the beach strip six days a week, with two trains on the Sabbath. The second surveying party represented the city of Hamilton, which had acquired control of all vacant Crown Land in the name of recreation for its people. Just what that meant in
practical terms soon became evident. The surveyed lots were sold at an auction to individuals who then subleased the land for $10 annually. Revenues from the annual rent, purchasers were assured, would be spent on the further development of the beach. The leasing arrangement ensured that the city would have money to spend on the area, since it was denied the right to collect other taxes from the residents.
Scott in your June 4th 2017 post in this thread you quote Dorothy turcotte “p"

When the Hamilton and Northwestern Railway laid its line across the Beach in 1875, a new era began on the sand strip. Until then, anyone wishing to reach the Beach from Hamilton or Toronto had to come by boat or dirt road, or else take the train to the Great Western Railway station at Burlington.
Now, access to the Beach was easy.
Lots were laid out in 1875, and were auctioned off, then subleased to the purchaser. Wealthy Hamiltonians were quick to recognize the opportunity. Before long, spacious Victorian summer homes began to appear south of the Canal.
The first summer cottage is believed to have been built by a Mr. A. Turner, possibly Alexander Turner of James Turner and Company, one of the largest wholesale grocers in the country. Then Col. Villiers built a thatched house known as "The Bungalow". The building boom was on.”

So what happened to allow the land to be purchased and built on?
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,791
177
63
The Beach Strip
#50
Scott in your June 4th 2017 post in this thread you quote Dorothy turcotte “p"

When the Hamilton and Northwestern Railway laid its line across the Beach in 1875, a new era began on the sand strip. Until then, anyone wishing to reach the Beach from Hamilton or Toronto had to come by boat or dirt road, or else take the train to the Great Western Railway station at Burlington.
Now, access to the Beach was easy.
Lots were laid out in 1875, and were auctioned off, then subleased to the purchaser. Wealthy Hamiltonians were quick to recognize the opportunity. Before long, spacious Victorian summer homes began to appear south of the Canal.
The first summer cottage is believed to have been built by a Mr. A. Turner, possibly Alexander Turner of James Turner and Company, one of the largest wholesale grocers in the country. Then Col. Villiers built a thatched house known as "The Bungalow". The building boom was on.”

So what happened to allow the land to be purchased and built on?
I believe the answer is in my above post, the Province allowed Hamilton to take control and they began sell the lots but sublease them for $10 a year. Yes confusing, this only went on till 1907 when the local government changed on the Beach.
 

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
483
3
18
#51
I believe the answer is in my above post, the Province allowed Hamilton to take control and they began sell the lots but sublease them for $10 a year. Yes confusing, this only went on till 1907 when the local government changed on the Beach.
Scott from your post in the ‘1947-1948 Houses Moved’ thread, I know many houses were moved from VanWagners to the Beach Strip after Hurricane Hazel, but I believe that occured in 1954.
I don't recall hearing anything being moved in and around 1948, possibly some of our history members may have some answers.”

http://hamiltonbeachcommunity.com/forum/threads/1947-48-houses-moved.1238/

so was the land that these houses were moved on to, privately owned?
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,791
177
63
The Beach Strip
#52
Scott from your post in the ‘1947-1948 Houses Moved’ thread, I know many houses were moved from VanWagners to the Beach Strip after Hurricane Hazel, but I believe that occured in 1954.
I don't recall hearing anything being moved in and around 1948, possibly some of our history members may have some answers.”

http://hamiltonbeachcommunity.com/forum/threads/1947-48-houses-moved.1238/

so was the land that these houses were moved on to, privately owned?
1948 wouldn't be different than today with land ownership, the home owner did own the land. The only difference would be that the property taxes were not paid to the City of Hamilton, they would of been paid Burlington Beach Commission.
 
Top Bottom