Edmund Zavitz, the OAC, and the reforestation of Ontario

In the afternoon of 31 May 1985, a tornado outbreak swept through southwestern Ontario and neighbouring US states. Known locally as "the Barrie tornado outbreak" after the big one that hit Barrie, the system spawned twisters from Wiarton south to Grand Valley.

Although no twister struck Guelph, high winds caused extensive damage. Some of the casualities included a number of mature white pines in the University of Guelph's Arboretum. These were sometimes known as the "Zavitz pines" or "the Zavitz Pine Plantation" because the trees were the work of Edmund John Zavitz, the OAC's first professor of forestry and a pioneer of reforestation in Ontario. The plantation was part of a project to assess and promote the suitability of white pines for the purpose of reforesting the province.

Edmund Zavitz was born on 9 July 1875 on a farm near Ridgeway, Ontario. From an early age, Zavitz was much influenced by family who lamented deforestation of the land. For example, he spent some time in his early years at the farm of his maternal grandfather Edmund Prout in the Ganaraska region. His grandfather and uncle John Squair had grown concerned about the consequences of comphrensive deforestation of the region, including soil erosion, flooding, and fires. Young Edmund came to share their concerns and developed his interest in understanding what had been lost.

In early days, settlers in southern Ontario had adopted a somewhat adversarial relationship with the region's forests. In order to make their farms more productive, settlers removed woodlands as quickly as possible. This goal was accomplished sometimes by logging but also by simply setting large fires.

Although these measures produced results in the short term, they also had harmful consequences. Removal of trees encouraged soil erosion, which reduced productivity. Forest removal also had the effect of reducing the capacity of the landscape to store water, resulting in springtime floods and summer droughts. By Zavitz's day, forest cover in southern Ontario had been reduced to about 15%, with many townships reduced to about 5%. Zavitz would later estimate that about 30% forest cover would be ideal.

It occured to young Edmund that reforestation would be an appropriate and constructive response. While attending McMaster University (then in Toronto) in 1903, Zavitz read a biography of Gifford Pinchot, head of the US Division of Forestry and an instrumental figure in the professionalization of forestry. This encounter inspired Zavitz to follow in Pinchot's footsteps and become a professional forester. He transferred to Yale, whose forestry program had been founded by Pinchot, and then to graduate studies at the University of Michigan.

In 1904, Zavitz arrived in Guelph to direct establishment of a tree nursery on the grounds of the Macdonald Institute. Trees including ash, maple, white-wood, black locust, and elm were planted (OAC Review, 1904, v. 16. n. 7, p. 39). The goal of the nursery was to provide seedlings for farmers to employ for reforestation. This idea had been promoted, in part, by Charles Zavitz, a cousin of Edmund, who was a professor of crop science at the Ontairo Agricultural College (OAC). Charles Zavitz had recognized the importance of healthy woodlots to farm productivity and promoted them to farmers whom he taught and collaborated with.

(Edmund Zavitz portrait, OAC Review, 1905, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1.)

The OAC set up a Department of Forestry, in part to help direct work in its tree nurseries and to improve instruction in the subject. In 1905, upon his graduation from the University of Michigan, Edmund Zavitz joined the faculty in the new department. Zavitz immediately organized an outreach program to the province's farmers (OAC Review, 1907, v. 19, n. 9, pp. 449):

The chief problem confronting the Forestry Department is that of waste land planting. It is desired to demonstrate throughout the Province the practicability of reforesting waste land which may exist in various forms as sandy, gravelly or stony soils, steep hillsides or other untillable soil.
...
The department will furnish free the planting material, but the person receiving such shall pay cost of transportation.
The owner, on his part, must prepare the soil, plant and care for the trees, and do all the actual work in connection with the plantations in accordance with the directions of the officer of the department. The owner shall also agree to provide reasonable protection for the plantation against [live]stock or other harmful agencies.
No fruit or ornamental trees will be sent out by this department, and all trees must be used for protection or wood producing purposes.

Zavitz also mentions the establishment of a nursery for evergreens such as white pine and Norway spruce. Perhaps this refers to the white pines found in the Arboretum.

(Edmund Zavitz portrait, Canadian Forestry Journal, 1913, v. 9, n. 2, p. 28.)

Zavitz taught courses in forestry and related areas such as entomology. A postcard apparently featuring Zavitz is likely connected with his work as an instructor.

This real-photo card features an oval framed picture of a group of men in a forest, many carrying notebooks and binoculars, arranged somewhat carelessly for the event. Postmarks show that it was mailed from Guelph to Hamilton on 3 December 1907. The message on the back reads:

Exams begin a week from Monday. Plugging is the order of the day and most of the night. How about Xmas holidays? K. B. C. // box 163 O.A.C.

I'm not sure who K.B.C. was but it seems likely that he was an OAC student who is included in the portrait.

The card does not identify anyone in the picture but the figure third from the right in the back row remsembles Edmund Zavitz pretty well. Zoom and enhance! See the close-up below and judge for yourself.

As it happens, beside his academic specialties, Zavitz was a keen photographer. This was a skill he regarded as important for his work and sought to promote among his students. Shortly before this postcard was mailed, Zavitz helped to set up the the campus Camera Club (OAC Review, 1907, v. 20, n. 3, p. 159):

On Monday evening, November 4th, a meeting of those interested in photography was held for the purpose of forming a Camera Club. The officers elected are as follows:—President, E.J. Zavitz; vice-president, W.R. Thompson, ’09; secretary, J.W. Jones, ’10.
The organization of this Club is a much needed step in the right direction and will no doubt encourage the use of photography in the procuring of more accurate and reliable results in research and treatise work. We understand that Mr. Zavitz has kindly consented to deliver lectures upon photography to the members. Arrangements are now under way for the provision of a commodious and up-to-date dark-room, to be fitted with all the requirements of the camera enthusiast. A constitution is being drawn up and it is expected that by the commencement of the winter term, the “Camera Club” will add one more to the sum total of active and effective student organizations.

It could even be that the postcard photo was one of the first photos taken by members of the Club.

Zavitz's keenness on photography was much on display in his report on reforestation to the Ontario Parliament in 1909. Entitled "Reforestation of waste lands in Southern Ontario," the report describes the state of southern Ontario's forests, the problems stemming from it, and his recommendations for reforestation. Zavitz's photos of the sometimes severe consequences of deforestation are a compelling part of the presentation.

Figure 2 of the report shows drifting sands that resulted from deforestation in Charlottesville Township in Norfolk County. Zavitz points out that attemtps to farm in the area resulted in desert conditions due to the unsuitable nature of the soil (p. 8):

These lands originally produced splendid white pine, oak, chestnut and other valuable hardwoods. Where the land was cleared for farming purposes it gave at first, in many cases, good returns. As soon as the vegetable mould or old forest soil disappeared from the sand, it became a difficult matter to keep up the fertility and we find conditions as in the following illustrations...

Figure 5 shows the stumps of a white pine forest in Walsingham Township that were not removed after logging. Subsequent soil erosion left the sizeable stumps perched in mid-air, like markers commemorating the departed topsoil.

The report goes on to describe similar regions in Lambton, Simcoe, Northumberland and Durham, the latter featuring the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The report proceeds to recommend a concerted, provincial reforestation program, pointing out the benefits for soil conditions, flood control, fire suppression, recreation, and what we would today call sustainable logging.

Zavitz continued his educational and organizational work at the OAC but the scope of his amibitions for reforestation clearly could not be realized as a professor. In 1912, he left the OAC to assume the role of Provincial Forester for Ontario and Provincial Fire Inspector for the Board of Railway Commissioners. In 1926, the Provincial Department of Forests was created with Zavitz as deputy minister.

Zavitz's struggles and accomplishments are discussed at length in Bacher's "Two billion trees and counting" and are too extensive to be laid out in detail here. However, it is worth noting that Zavitz was key in the establishment of the Agreement Forest Program, which assisted municipalities in reforestation, numerous tree-control bylaws, which regulated cutting on private lands, and the creation of conservation authorities, which manage natural resources in Ontario watersheds. It is no exaggeration to say that Zavitz had a profound effect on the landscape of Ontario as we know it today.

Shortly before Zavitz's death in 1968, Premier John Robarts planted a sugar maple sapling at Queen's Park, the one billionth tree in the province's reforestation campaign (Bacher 2011, p. 218). The campaign has continued, through ups and downs. However, Zavitz's goal remains elusive. In 2010, then Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Gordon Miller (a Univerity of Guelph graduate), issued a report to the provincial legislature estimating that about a billion more trees must be planted in Ontario to reach the goal of about 30% forest cover.

In 2011, Edmund Zavitz's grandson Peter gathered with University of Guelph president Alastair Summerlee, Prof. Andy Gordon, School of Environmental Sciences, and Robert Gordon, dean of OAC, to unveil a plaque dedicated to Zavitz and his work. The plaque is situated in the northeastern corner of the Arboretum, where some of Zavitz's white pines stand to this day.

Below is one of the surviving Zavitz white pines standing near the plaque.

---

For more information, see:

• Bacher, J. (2011). "Two billion trees and counting: The legacy of Edmund Zavitz," Toronto: Dundurn Press.

The Prison Farm and the Eramosa river

In June, 2019, the Guelph Innovation District was put on sale by the Province of Ontario. This bloc consists of about 330 acres and includes the old Turfgrass Institute and also conservation lands on the west bank of the Eramosa River. Who the new owners will be and what they will build on the land is up in the air.

Change was in the air in the early 20th Century as well. As noted in an earlier posting, the Eramosa River had become a focus for recreational boating for Guelphites in the 19th Century. As a result, the geography of the river was familiar in much detail to many locals. As the 20th Century began, the Eramosa remained popular for this purpose. The summer of 1911 was no exception (Evening Mercury, 24 July 1911):

Many canoeists out.

Canoeing is one of the most popular sports followed in Guelph and the river was fairly dotted with the graceful craft yesterday. The Speed River provides one of the best canoeing courses in this part of the country, and many took advantage of the fine day for a paddle.

However, the arrival of the Ontario Prison Farm the previous year had changed the character of the Eramosa significantly. No longer mainly recreational, the Eramosa River also flowed through the boundaries of an important institution.

I have previously outlined the development of the Prison Farm, so a quick recap will do here. In 1907, local M.P.P. Joseph Downey led a government committee that made recommendations for reform of short-term prisons in the province. Up to that point, prisoners sentenced to terms between a few months and two years were often incarcerated in the Central Prison, Toronto (administered by James Massie of Guelph for many years). The Central Prison sought to recoup the costs of incarceration by putting prisoners to work in several manufacturing trades, combined with a liberal application of corporal punishment. The arrangement was never truly successful, so the government was looking for alternatives.

(Wellington South M.P.P. Joseph P. Downey, Wellington County Historical Atlas, 1906.)

The Downey report suggested construction of a new prison facility in an agricultural setting, so that prisoners could enjoy the character-building features of farm work. Plus, the farm produce could offset the cost of incarceration. Also, the facility would employ a "minimum-security" approach, forgoing bars on windows, guards with dogs and guns, etc. In this way, the "boys" could learn employable skills and gain a sense of responsibility for their own conduct.

(Provincial Secretary William J. Hanna; courtesy of Dictionary of Canadian Biography.)

Set-up of the new "Prison Farm" was led by Provincial Secretary W.J. Hanna. Since the new prison was to be an agricultural operation, the Secretary sought the advice of one of the foremost authorities at the Ontario Agricultural College (OAC) in Guelph, Professor Charles Zavitz (after whom Zavitz Hall is named). After a thorough search, Prof. Zavitz suggested the perfect locale—Guelph—as Mr. Hanna later explained in a speech on the subject to the Canadian Club of Guelph (Evening Mercury, 28 Oct. 1911):

“We asked for a land suitable for this purpose—easy of access to railways, and to some town—land suitable for agricultural purposes, with sand, gravel, stone and other materials also on the farm. There were many answers from Montreal to Winnipeg. We started out with the idea of putting the responsibility on some one else, and taking the credit to ourselves, so we went to the O.A.C., and got help there. After some investigations, Prof. Zavitz returned disappointed, for there was none suitable. Then he admitted, with great modesty, that the very thing was within sight of the O.A.C., and the city of Guelph. His modesty then was remarkable."

The land along the Eramosa certainly fulfilled these criteria, with two railways, a river, productive farmland, and surface deposit of quarry-ready stone all on site, not to mention proximity to the expertise available from the OAC itself.

(Professor Charles Zavitz; courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.)

The Province began to acquire the land immediately, finishing with the purchase of Arthur McQuillian's farm in January 1910, making a total of more than 800 acres (Globe, 18 Jan. 1910). In April, Secretary Hanna, M.P.P. Downey, and other leaders in the project visited the site to settle their plans (Globe, 2 Apr. 1910). The first contingent of 14 prisoners were transferred from the Central Prison on 11 April (Globe, 12 Apr. 1910). These "boys" were referred to as "trusties," meaning that they were trusted to behave themselves, instead of being handcuffed, shackled, or made to wear prison uniforms. They were housed in a wooden lean-to, up against a small brick cottage left standing on the grounds, and employed in sowing wheat, oats, and barley under direction of "practical men and by students from the Agricultural College" (Toronto Star, 16 Apr. 1910).

Two large, temporary barracks were constructed for lodging while permanent buildings were being designed. These were completed in June, allowing for the transfer of up to 300 prisoners.

(Temporary barracks; Courtesy Guelph Civic Museums 2004.32.101.)

Workshops were also built to facilitate construction and farm work. Perhaps the most urgent of these efforts was construction of a lime kiln in order to make the quarry operational. A kiln and stone crusher were duly built by the river in the vicinity of The Rocks, thereafter known as The Quarry. A short railway was built to facilitate transportation of the aggregate and lime to the prison's workshops.

(Stone crusher and lime kiln; Courtesy Guelph Civic Museums 2004.32.101.)

These products were needed for construction of the remainder of the prison buildings and connections to the railway. In particular, since the quarry lay on the opposite side of the Eramosa river from the CPR line, some bridges were necessary. Two were constructed. One was a picturesque concrete bridge of three spans, made using material from the quarry and labor by the prisoners.

(Three-span, concrete bridge; Courtesy of Guelph Civic Museums 2004.32.101.)

The second bridge was more utilitarian: a small, wooden trestle bridge to carry a spur line from the CPR to the farm railway near the lime kiln.

(Trestle bridge today, author's photo, 2019.)

Since the bridges were built using prison labor, there are no contract tender records that state when they were built. However, the concrete bridge is mentioned in connection with a visit to the Prison Farm of the Parole Board (Globe, 17 Dec. 1910):

After the commissioners arrived at the Reformatory, they spent some time in going over the Reformatory property, visiting the various points of interest and inspecting the live stock, particularly the magnificent herd of Holsteins. They had luncheon at the Reformatory, and afterwards visited the stone quarries, the lime kilns, and the new bridge over the River Speed, recently constructed of reinforced concrete by the prisoners and over 160 feet in length.

So, the concrete bridge was apparently in service by December, 1910.

("Prison Farm"; Postcard by International Stationary Co., ca. 1915; author's collection.)

The postcard above shows a view of the concrete bridge and Prison Farm from the west side. Background left stands the administration building and dormitories, while the workshops stand on the right.

Officials seem to have been less proud of the trestle bridge, since there is no report of it being inspected by any bigwigs. However, the Railway Commissioners of Canada had to provide express permission for any modifications of the CPR line. An authorization for the Prison Farm spur line duly appears in the The Canadian Engineer (22 Dec. 1910; v. 19, n. 25, p. 787):

[Order no.] 12409—Nov 29—Authorizing the C.P.R. Co. to construct a spur for the Provincial Reformatory, Township of Guelph, County of Wellington, Ont.

Given the haste that authorities were in to export products of the Prison Farm, it seems safe to conclude that the trestle bridge and spur line were completed shortly after this authorization was given, in other words, late 1910 or early 1911.

Construction on the Prison Farm grounds was sufficiently advanced for Ontario Premier Sir James Whitney to ceremonially lay the cornerstone of the Administration Building on 25 September 1911. Over 200 dignitaries from near and far arrived for the show. They were treated to a display of the farm produce and, of course, the feats of building accomplished by the prisoners, including the new, concrete span (Evening Mercury):

A little dump railway ran through the grounds, in which the heavy material was transferred to points where it was needed, and the handsome concrete bridge across the river Speed, where it crosses the grounds, showed what could be done in an artistic way by men who have fallen under evil influences.

(Wielding the silver trowel, Premier Whitney officially lays the cornerstone; Globe, 7 Oct. 1911.)

In their inspection of the prisoners' sleeping quarters, notice was drawn their use of postcards, among other paraphernalia, to domesticate their rooms:

The dormitory especially proved a scene of interest, as a number of the prisoners, by means of picture post-cards, calendars and newspaper pictures had made a home-like effect of their surroundings.

After the cornerstone laying and inspection, the dignitaries were treated to luncheon, served by the prisoners and featuring the produce of the farm itself. Some amusement was evident at the sight of government officials and policemen rubbing elbows with convicts. Premier Whitney took the opportunity to remark on the rectitude of this aspect of the government's efforts, given that the purpose of the Prison Farm was not primarily retribution but rehabilitiation of "unfortunate" men who had, perhaps under the influence of drink, committed minor offenses:

“This project has no part with the antics of certain hysterical people, usually women, who make heroes of wrongdoers and place offerings before murderers,” quoth Sir James. “It is designed to prove that the public is prepared to extend a helping hand to its unfortunate friends who seek to regain lost ground. It is the ordinary consideration of the most elementary fair play to give the unfortunate an opportunity to redeem themselves in future.”

The Prison Farm embodied this new program, to reform the misguided and return them to society as productive citizens.

(Sir James Whitney; courtesy Wikimedia Commons.)

Unsurprisingly, the behavior of prisoners was the subject of much local interest. For the most part, people were positively impressed. Indeed, the prisoners behaved themselves notably better than did the students of the OAC on the occasion of Halloween in 1910 (Toronto Star, 3 Nov. 1910):

If the inmates of Guelph’s prison farm had broken loose on Hallowe’en and done as much damage as is charged against the students of Guelph’s Agricultural College, there would have been protests from all over the Province, and strong pressure would have been brought to bear on Mr. Hanna to relinquish his plans for the amelioration of convict life.

The students were credited with a number of misdeeds: delaying streetcar service by greasing tracks, pulling down a highboard fence, trying to paint a fountain, blocking a streetcar track with vans, blocking Macdonald Hall entrance with vehicles, and demolishing a college post-office by locking a steer in it.

These activities resulted in eight arrests, two lawsuits, and an investigation by OAC President Creelman. One wonders how President Creelman would have compared his job to that of the Prison Warden.

Of course, the main concern was about escapes. Some escapes were regarded with amusement (Globe, 14 Nov. 1910):

A city minister claims that the prison farm inmates will not attend Sunday services unless there is a band or special soloists present. When the Protestant minister goes out he finds that most of the men are professing Roman Catholics, and when the Roman Catholic priest goes out to speak to them he finds that a surprisingly large number of them are Protestants.

Escaping Sunday sermons was perhaps understandable to some locals.

Of course, not all prisoners could resist the urge to run off. The first was George Cowan, a 16-year-old English lad jailed for sneaking rides on railway cars. He snuck away from his dormitory one evening but left an easy-to-follow trail in the wet grass and was picked up quickly in Eden Mills (Globe, 1 Oct. 1910).

Another was Charles Anderson, a Hamiltonian serving an eight-month sentence for theft (Durham Chronicle, 29 May 1913). He stole away to a hideout in a swamp near the Prison Farm but was found buried in muck with only his eyes and mouth protruding. He was disinterred and taken to the County Jail.

Other escapes were harder to fathom (Evening Mercury, 21 Jul. 1911):

Boat stolen from prison.

A boat was stolen from the Prison Farm and on searching it was found on Mr. Macalister’s property near the waterworks. It had a chain on, held by staples driven into a tree.

This escapist boat slipped away once more only four days later:

Boat again stolen.

The boat, which was stolen from the Prison Farm some time ago again mysteriously disappeared and was found pulled up on the river bank some distance below the farm. The next time the boat is tampered with the guilty party, if found, will be prosecuted.

Would the guilty party, if prosecuted, be sent to the Prison Farm? Or, was the boat not stolen but instead possessed? Why did the Prison Farm have a boat, anyway? To my knowledge, these questions were never answered. No river gives up all its secrets and the Eramosa is no exception.

In any event, Guelphites' views of that region of the Eramosa River had begun to take on a different character. It was no longer their playground but a somewhat alien place, belonging to the government and inhabited by people they did not necessarily want to mingle with. Paradise had become a prison yard. The Rocks had become the Quarry. The new bridges over the river were also visible symbols of the reach of the new institution.

(Satellite image of Eramosa river by the Prison Farm; Courtesy of Google Maps.)

Now that the land around the Eramosa is set to change hands once more, Guelphites' perspectives on the river are likely to change again.

---

I have not yet found any old photos of the trestle bridge. However, it remains in place although in somewhat dilapidated condition. The railway bed, minus the tracks, leading from the CPR line to the bridge still remains in place. A path leads through the brush to the deck, which is covered in grass.

(Author's photo; 2019.)

The concrete bridge was removed some years ago. However, the road bed leading from the CPR tracks to it remains in place. A path leads along its top to the river, though it is now more appreciated by geese than by people.

(Author's photo; 2019.)

Here is a picture of the Quarry being worked in its early days. Note the railway ties on the ground.

(Courtesy of Guelph Civic Museums 2004.14.18.)

Remnants of the Prison Farm railway at the Quarry can still be found in the form of ties embedded in the ground.

A 1911 booklet with a description of the Prison Farm and photos of its facilities—used above—can be found on the Guelph Civic Museums website (2004.32.101).

Zavitz Hall

Zavitz Hall, on Branion Plaza at the University of Guelph, has come a long way, in spite of not having gone anywhere. Not going anywhere actually has been an important part of its history, since it was once slated for demolition. Zavitz Hall provides an interesting illustration of how some buildings survive in the long run while others do not.

Zavitz Hall began as the Field Husbandry Building at the Ontario Agricultural College (O.A.C.), then just outside of Guelph. The term field husbandry—or agronomy—refers to the study and improvement of crop agriculture. It was a natural field of study for the O.A.C. Research in field husbandry there began in 1874, although it was not until 1904 that an academic unit for it was organized within the Department of Agriculture (Lawrie; OAC Review, v. 47, n. 6, p. 348).

The College took some time in erecting a building for the unit. Lawrie remarks that the original, wood-frame field husbandry building on campus burned down as a result of celebrations that marked the end of the Second Boer War in 1902. Finally, in 1913, the College began the design and construction of a new building for this research, aptly to be called the Field Husbandry Building. It was officially opened on 12 January 1914.

This postcard was published by the Valentine & Sons United Publishing Co., Ltd., Toronto, from a photo taken sometime around 1920. It seems to have been taken in the early spring, before leaves had emerged on the vines covering the walls of the structure.

Here is a similar vantage point of Zavitz Hall today. Trust me, it is there!

Charles Zavitz took a leading hand in design of the structure. He had graduated from the O.A.C. program in 1886 and joined the faculty as a junior chemist (Moore, "Historic Guelph" 2013). Zavitz quickly rose through the ranks and assumed leadership of the Field Husbandry unit when it was formed. He and Professor William J. Squirrel helped to draw up plans for the building (Globe & Mail; 28 June 1937). It was a picturesque building, designed in the English Cottage style, though quite a large cottage at 146 by 64 feet (ca. 45 by 20m) and three storeys high. The rural look was undoubtedly considered appropriate for a rural college. The main floor was clad in brick, with the top floor in rough cast. The attic was covered with "Asbestolate" a confection of asbestos and Portland cement, in order to help make the structure fireproof. The fire concern arose because the attic contained a dark room and was used for drying grain, which was inflammable.

(Charles Zavitz/Courtesy of the University of Guelph.)

Inside, the first floor housed offices, a seed laboratory, and a 120-student classroom. The second floor featured a 300-student classroom and an agronomy museum. The basement was used for grain and seed storage, and the building was heated from the O.A.C.'s central heating plant ("Recognition Banquet", 14 Apr. 1980; RE 1 OAC A0228).

As with any picturesque building, its siting was crucial, as explained by Ross Irwin (At Guelph, 4 Jan. 1989):

Charlie Zavitz was an important person on the OAC campus as superintendent of experiments and head of field husbandry. He lived in the stone cottage, built in 1882 for the college farmer, that is now Raithby House—named after its last resident.
The present Winegard Walk was originally a well-worn pathway from College Avenue to a row of pine trees that acted as a screen for the Zavitz house; the remnants of the screen still exist. The walkway veered west around the screen to near the front door of the University Centre, where it turned south to meet the old dairy lane.
The field husbandry building, now Zavitz Hall, was built in 1913 and opened in January 1914. It was sited to be in line with the old Horticulture Building on the McLaughlin building site and this old pathway.
Charlie Zavitz had much to say about the design and location of Zavitz Hall. One of his decisions involved the location of the south door [on the left in the postcard image], which was the entry to his office. It was surveyed to be in a direct line with the front door of his stone cottage.

The building must have looked impressive in its largely rural setting.

Charles Zavitz enjoyed a stellar career with the O.A.C. As an academic, he was a careful and meticulous researcher who developed many new crop varieties. As an agriculturalist, Zavitz pursued research with an eye on practical benefits for farmers. He valued rural life and developed a rapport with the province's farming community. As a result, he was highly successful in directing the Experimental Union, an association of Ontario farmers—largely former students of his—who participated in crop trials under his direction.

Perhaps the best-known crop that Zavitz developed was a high-yielding barley variety labelled O.A.C. 21, which became the main barley variety grown in the province from about 1910–1950. Interestingly, O.A.C. 21 was well adapted to malting and was thus favored in beer production. The Canadian Brewers Association decided to give Zavitz an award for his service to their industry. However, as a Quaker, Zavitz was opposed to alcoholic beverages. The award was quietly delivered to him in the mail.

The association between Zavitz and the Field Husbandry Building that he helped to design remained strong. At its dedication, the Federal Minister of Agriculture, Martin Burrell, remarked that (Mercury; 13 Jan. 1914):

This building ... was erected as a tribute to the sterling worth and loyal service of Professor Zavitz, who is still with us though he has had for many years flattering invitations to leave and go across the line [i.e., to the United States]. He is here, and here I hope he will remain.

Indeed he did. Charles Zavitz retired from the O.A.C. after an eminent career in 1927. Ten years later, the O.A.C. named the building after him during a ceremony featuring 500 alumni and graduates and a bronze plaque (Globe & Mail, 28 June 1937).

The rechristened Zavitz Hall seems to have remained more-or-less the same until the formation of the University of Guelph in 1964. The transition from agricultural college to independent university brought with it a major change to ideas about the campus and its buildings. For Zavitz Hall, three significant changes on the use of the campus were (Kaars Sijpesteijn 1987):

1. The new University of Guelph saw itself as an urban—not a rural—institution. Thus, the new look of the campus would be that of a small city rather than a rural farm.
   
2. The focal point for the new campus was to be Branion Plaza, south of Johnston Green, the former focus of the O.A.C.
   
3. The University of Guelph devised a master plan for its building project but did not develop a policy for its heritage buildings.
   

The new master plan called for the erection of large, modernist buildings around Branion Plaza and, thus, implied the demolition of the old structures there, including Zavitz Hall. So, the old Horticulture Building was replaced by the McLaughlin Library to the north, the Physical Sciences building (now the MacNaughton Building) was built to the west, and the University Centre to the south. Remodeling of an expanded Branion Plaza would be complete when Zavitz Hall was razed.

In the absence of a heritage buildings policy, Zavitz Hall seemed to be doomed. However, events conspired to delay its demolition. Zavitz Hall provided crucial space for the new Wellington College of Arts and Sciences while the new structures were being put up (Colbert 1989). By 1970, with no room available in the new buildings—and no immediate prospect of more construction—the Fine Art Department remained in Zavitz Hall.

In 1986, a study group led by Al Brown, Director of Physical Resources, issued a report on renewal of the UoG campus. In line with 1964 master plan, the report concluded that at least $60 million would be required to deal with the University's older buildings, either for demolition or repair (At Guelph, 23 Jan. 1986). Zavitz Hall had been allowed to run down somewhat, on the assumption that it was going to be demolished anyway. It had, for example, no viable, mechanical ventilation system and the attic had been abandoned to pigeons and student frolics. It was no surprise, then, that the report called for its removal.

Controversy swiftly ensued. An editorial in The Ontarion expressed disappointment among some UoG students (Jan Sheltinga, 28 Jan. 1986):

Is it possible to put a price tag on atmosphere? Zavitz Hall may become a test case at the university of Guelph to determine whether the almighty dollar is more important than a sense of history and student opinion. ... However the potential demolition of these buildings are not as near and dear to the students collective heart as Zavitz Hall is. Although it is mostly used by Fine Art students, it is prominently located on the quadrangle of Branion Plaza formed by the concrete monsters of the Library, the University Center and the McKinnon building. It hides the sterile ugliness of the Physical Sciences building—indeed, Zavitz Hall could be considered as an obstruction to the clean, cold lines of modern architecture (or lack of it). No one can dispute the fact that Zavitz Hall embodies atmosphere. The building feels different from the other classrooms or seminar rooms on campus. It makes the student want to create, to relax, to think, to realize that the world need not be hostile and fast-paced and gray. It’s façade is not imposing and “modern”; granted, it may be a bit breezy in the chill of winter, and its staircases and ceilings are bent under the weight of old age, but it feels like home. Fine Art students seem to unanimously agree that Zavitz Hall's atmosphere is conducive to the creation of art. Although the general sentiment is that certain repairs are vital, most indicate that its demolition would be an abomination. For once, students and professors agree on something: Dr. George Todd, chairman of the department of Fine Art says, “you’d be hard pressed to find any faculty members here who want Zavitz to be demolished.” He indicates that additional space is still required, but does not think that a wrecking ball is the solution.

Several important themes emerge in this response. First, the small scale and homeliness of Zavitz Hall recommended it to its occupants, in distinction to the larger scale and institutional design of its new neighbours. The matter of Zavitz Hall was a focus of tension between clashing visions for the character of the UoG campus.

Second, Zavitz Hall was central to the dignity of the Fine Art Department. The Fine Art Department had been set up by Gordon Couling and Kenneth Chamberlain from the Macdonald Institute on the formation of Wellington College in 1964 (Colbert 1989). In the ensuing years, the department developed both studio work and art historical scholarship, acquired an excellent art collection, and grew to national prominence. It also proved attractive to students, with over 300 Fine Art majors enrolled at the time. The suggestion that the department should be turned out to an as-yet undetermined location was seen as a denial of its accomplishments and importance to the University.

Third, the practical rationale for removal of Zavitz Hall remained unclear. The report included no cost estimates for repair versus replacement. Instead, the argument was based largely on the view that Zavitz was simply obsolete:

... although the building is structurally sound, the final recommendation to demolish it is based on economical and administrative whims: “It would be difficult and costly to modify the building to comply with current fire safety regulations and to make it readily accessible to the handicapped; provision of a ventilation system required to improve conditions in the studio areas would be costly”. Furthermore, the study suggests that Zavitz Hall must be demolished in order to allow completion of the central quadrangle, namely Branion Plaza, which would reduce vehicular traffic in the area.

In other words, the Physical Resources department remained committed to the 1964 master plan, which mandated an enlarged Branion Plaza, and which would help to separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic.

In the absence of any concrete plan to replace the space provided by Zavitz Hall, the issue lingered. Members of the Students Administrative Arts Council (SAAC), the association for College of Arts students, appealed for Zavitz Hall to be officially designated as an historic site. The Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, which advised City Council on such matters, was receptive and ultimately recommended the move (Mercury, 20 March 1987). (The designation was never made.) Historical designation would not prevent the University from razing the building but would make it more difficult.

In addition, the SAAC sponsored a referendum on the fate of Zavitz Hall. Nearly 80% of students who voted expressed support for retention of it (The Ontarion; 31 March 1987).

Also, University administrators began to reconsider. Initially, the "save Zavitz" movement met with resistance. Charles Ferguson, Vice-President Administration of the University of Guelph, sent a letter to City Council strongly opposing historical designation (The Ontarion, 31 March 1987). He noted the incongruity of Zavitz to its more modern neighbours and the way that it contributed to conflicting pedestrian and vehicular traffic flows.

However, Brian Segal, new President of the University in 1988, was more sympathetic. He described Zavitz Hall as a "gem" that provided an important link to the University's past (Mercury; 26 Nov. 1988). Furthermore, he felt that the option of renovation had not been adequately considered (At Guelph, 30 Nov. 1988):

The project needs “fresh eyes,” he said. “I don’t think we have begun to conceive what we can do with the building because we aren’t architects.” The university should “go down the road” to determine if it can make this building functional and beautiful, he said. Academic vice president Jack MacDonald added that the University has determined the Department of Fine Art to be an area of strongest academic need on campus. Its students and faculty are working in “deplorable conditions,” he said.

In other words, renovation should be considered not only out of respect for Zavitz Hall but also for its current occupants. A committee was struck to study the matter, including director of Physical resources Al Brown, Dean of Arts David Murray, Fine Art chair Ron Shuebrook and Fine Art professors Walter Bachinski and Chandler Kirwin.

In March 1989, a feasibility study on renovation of Zavitz Hall was issued by Lett/Smith, an architecture firm with much experience in renovating and repurposing of heritage structures ("Feasibility Study", 1989). In brief, the report concluded that Zavitz Hall's external structure was sound and that its interior could be renovated to suit the Fine Art Department and meet the Ontario Building Code. Concerns about vehicular traffic could be addressed by locating a service area at the northwest corner of the building, away from most pedestrian travel. The estimated cost of renovations was pegged at $4.6 million, a considerable sum but about half the cost of erecting a new building that would re-house the Fine Art Department.

On 25 May 1989, the University of Guelph Board of Governors approved the proposal and the expenditure (At Guelph; 31 May 1989). Renovations began in 1990 and were completed in 1991. Sculpture studios were located in the basement so that heavy objects there could be adequately supported. The first floor held department offices, printmaking facilities and a collections room. The second floor housed a library, seminar rooms, faculty offices, drawing studios and galleries. The attic was finished for drawing and painting studios, taking advantage of the opportunity for having skylights there. The main entrance, facing the University Centre, served as a showroom for student artwork. A two-storey glass enclosure facing Branion Plaza gave passers by an opportunity to observe art work in progress.

On 11 November 1991, the new Zavitz Hall was officially opened with a special ceremony including students and faculty of the Fine Art Department, President Brian Segal, and other dignitaries (At Guelph, 20 Nov. 1991). A postcard featuring a drawing of the renovated Hall was sent as an invitation.

(Illustration by D.R. Montgomery/Courtesy of Ron Shuebrook)

The renovated Zavitz Hall continues today as headquarters of the School of Fine Art and Music.

How can the survival of Zavitz Hall be explained? The odds initially seemed to be stacked against the building, since it was labelled as obsolete in the University of Guelph master plan and enjoyed no protection as a heritage building. Several factors emerge from the story recounted above:

• Occupation: Despite having no place in the new master plan, Zavitz Hall continued to be occupied. It served as the home of Wellington College and, later, the College of Arts. The initial growth spurt that came with the University of Guelph meant that, for many years, the University could not do without the space and facilities offered by Zavitz Hall.
  
• Progress: The University's master plan called for the removal of Zavitz Hall from Branion Plaza as part of its vision to become an urban and modern institution, as distinct from its predecessors. Nevertheless, a significant group of people still saw Zavitz Hall as part of a coherent vision of the University's future. Some proponents felt that the building was a "gem" that contributed to the look and feel of the Plaza. Some felt that the Hall served as a reminder of the institution's significant past achievements, a tradition that should be kept in view.
  
• Respect: The initiative to raze the building was a blow to the Fine Art Department, for which no alternative housing had been secured. In view of the success of the Department, the notion of evicting it, perhaps to rented quarters in town, seemed unfair.
  
• Politics: The University administration was initially unwilling to seriously consider renovation of Zavitz Hall. Its own Physical Resources department saw the Hall only as a derelict. The arrival of Brian Segal as President changed matters. As an outsider, Segal was not committed to demolition of the building. He was also sympathetic to the position of the Fine Art Department. The Department then had room to flesh out and gain support for the renovation option.
  
• Luck: The history of Zavitz Hall reveals more than a little good fortune for its supporters. Until the Board of Governors' decision in 1989, its survival was not assured.
  

A small book was to be published to celebrate Charles Zavitz and Zavitz Hall, with essays from University faculty on the significance of both (At Guelph, 30 Oct. 1991). Unfortunately, this volume was never published. Perhaps its not too late?

Since its inception in 1914, Zavitz Hall has been a tribute to Charles Zavitz and his work. And so it remains today.

---

Thanks to Ron Shuebrook, who began as chair of the Fine Art Department in the middle of this controversy, for his insights into its history. Ron's experience with building preservation while at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design played a significant role in motivating work on the option of renovating Zavitz Hall.

Thanks also the staff of the University of Guelph archives for their assistance in locating source materials.

NB. Charles Zavitz is sometimes confused with Edmund Zavitz, a relative, who was also an O.A.C. professor and taught in the Forestry Department. Edmund Zavitz was an important promoter of reforestation in Ontario.