2.University College

     Examining Context within the Romanesque Revival Style




The University of Toronto, founded in 1850, was an influential institution during the nineteenth century, as it was the first university in Canada to separate from religious control and affiliation. University College (1856-1859) was the first structure to be constructed for the new university, and it became emblematic, not only for its promotion of the importance of public higher education, but also for its architectural style. It is one of the earliest examples of a Romanesque structure in Canada.

The goal of this paper is to examine the larger, global contexts of University College. First, I will consider how these contexts influenced the final design of University College; second, I will analyze the reasons why the particular architectural style of the building was used; and third, I will examine the structure’s impact on building in Ontario. In order to fully understand these factors, University College must be situated in the first wave of the Romanesque Revival in North America, which took place between the 1840s and the 1870s, as opposed to looking at it under the broad term of Romanesque Revival. This closer look into the beginnings of Romanesque Revival is necessary because the international influences on the first wave, as well as the reasons for building in that style, were slightly different from those of the second wave in North America (1885-1905).

The first wave of the Romanesque Revival in North America was heavily influenced by England and Germany.[1] However, the international influences of the Romanesque Revival have been omitted in earlier studies of University College, as England has been traditionally regarded as the key source of influence for the structure. The result is that the contributions of Germany to both England and Canada have been ignored. Similarly, the contribution of architectural influences from the United States to Canada has been passed over. This paper is an attempt to reconcile the most important information from the earlier studies of University College with the recently published analyses by Kathleen Curran of the international influences of the Romanesque Revival in Canada. I will argue that University College is believed to be solely influenced by England because of architect Frederic Cumberland’s travels to Britain to study then recently erected architecture prior to designing the college. Yet, the symbolic importance of the choice to build in the Romanesque style was heavily influenced by events and beliefs in Germany, England, and the United States. I will also argue that it was international influences within the second wave of Romanesque Revival that shaped the restoration project after the 1890 fire, preserving the historical integrity of University College as opposed to rebuilding in a new style.

The Beginnings of the University of Toronto and University College

John Strachan (1778-1867), the first Anglican bishop of Toronto, is a seminal figure in the history of the University of Toronto. Strachan always held a particular interest in education, and in 1827 he obtained a royal charter granted by King George IV for an educational institution to teach the principles of Christian religion along with instruction in science and literature.[2] This institution became known as King’s College, and Strachan became its president.

However, the building of King’s College was never completed. The project had been delayed fifteen years, and even after construction finally began, only the residence wing of the intended building had been erected from 1842 to 1843.[3] A large percentage of the population of Upper Canada disapproved and criticized the original charter, as King’s College was intended to be an institution entirely controlled by the Church of England. Therefore, degrees would be restricted to men from the holy orders of the Church of England. The dissatisfaction of the public grew in the 1840s as the Province of Canada became more religiously diverse. After the college’s opening, many people raised their voices against King’s College for privileging those of the Anglican faith. Controversy quickly grew over whether the college should lose its religious charter and become a secular institution, or whether it should remain the same.[4] Strachan argued tenaciously in defense of the religious foundation of the college, proclaiming that education was valueless without it, while residents of Upper Canada rallied in favour of public schools that did not limit admissions to those of particular faiths.[5]

In 1850, King’s College was established as a nondenominational, secular institution of higher learning, and the college was thereby renamed as the University of Toronto. Strachan resigned a year earlier, aware of his losing battle, and went on to found the University of Trinity College in 1851. This new undertaking was his perceived counter-weight to the “godless”[6] University College, and the supporters of King’s College transferred their allegiance to the new college.[7] The University of Toronto became a degree-granting institution, with University College as its teaching arm.[8] University College, founded in 1853, was significant in the fight for secular education in Canada. It attested to the importance of state-supported education as opposed to privately funded universities.[9] With the renaming of the institution, the University of Toronto severed all ties to the Church of England and became one of the first institutions to commence the slow process towards the separation of church and state that is well established today.

The next matter to be resolved was the fact that University College was without a home. The college had been using temporary facilities to teach students, and the location of the college had been moved three times in over a few short years.[10] It had been relocated from its first location on Front Street in the old Parliament buildings to the old King’s College building, in what is now known as Queen’s Park, and finally to the Biology building on campus after the mental asylum acquired the old King’s College building.[11] The University Senate believed that University College would gain strength as the foundation of the university once there was a permanent facility to house it.[12] On February 7, 1856, the University Senate appointed a building committee with Frederic Cumberland designated as the project architect.[13]

Frederic William Cumberland (1821-1881) was given the project without competition because of the reputation he had built in Toronto.[14] After emigrating from England to Canada in 1847, Cumberland worked in the city as a surveyor and engineer. Well-connected and with scholarly interests, he came highly recommended as a professional with many social and architectural accomplishments.[15] By 1856, when he was appointed architect of University College, he had been in practice in Toronto for eight years, four of those years with his partner William Storm.[16] William George Storm (1826-1892) also emigrated from England to Canada, though he was only a child at the time. His desire to design was fuelled by his early experiences apprenticing under his carpenter father as well as architect William Thomas.[17] His partnership with Cumberland excelled in the growing city, and the two gained many important commissions. The result was the Toronto architectural firm Cumberland & Storm. For the project of University College, Cumberland was the draftsman and designer of the general concept. He was often found supervising the progress on site, while Storm contributed more as an artist, designing many of the smaller details of the building and producing perspective drawings.

Construction and Design of University College

After Cumberland was appointed as architect, University of Toronto Vice-Chancellor John Langton declared that Cumberland be authorized to travel to Europe to examine recently erected colleges and educational institutions before deciding on the plan for University College.[18] This decision to send the architect abroad was consistent with Victorian architectural practices at the time that encouraged architects of public buildings to develop a first-hand architectural awareness of contemporary practices, and then to adapt those practices to the project at hand.[19] Cumberland kept a journal during his travels that gives scholars insight into which sites he visited and into his thoughts concerning those buildings. He travelled through the major cities of England, Scotland, and Ireland before a quick journey to Paris, studying the architecture and plans of museums, educational buildings, and art galleries. In these early days of travelling, Cumberland developed his main ideas for the architectural design of University College.

The most influential buildings for Cumberland were those of the collegiate genre that had a similar program to the University of Toronto, where college buildings were intended to house classrooms as well as residences, dining halls, museums, faculty residences and administrative offices.[20] The most extensive amount of exterior and plan sketches done by Cumberland was on these buildings, the most prominent being Queen’s College in Belfast, Ireland; Queen’s College in Cork, Ireland; Queen’s College in Galway, Ireland; and the Oxford University Museum in Oxford, England.[21] Other influential buildings include Christ Church at the University of Oxford, England, and the Old Schools at the University of Cambridge, also in England. While Cumberland completed a wealth of sketches done of these buildings, none of the sketches involved any detailed ornamentation studies.[22] This indicates that Cumberland was not studying the architectural style or decoration, but the organization of space within the building as well as the massing of the exterior.

Cumberland’s first plan for University College was heavily influenced by the traditional quadrangle plans of colleges at Cambridge and Oxford universities.[23] The organization of spaces within this first quadrangle plan for University College was relatively haphazard, though Cumberland reconciled this disorganization in his second plan, which integrated a U-shape design, leaving the north side open.[24] The south wing was dedicated to classrooms, the east wing provided space for the university’s administrative functions and a reading room, and the west wing held the students’ residences and the chemistry laboratory. Each wing had a focal point: the main tower in the south, the convocation hall in the east, and the dining hall in the west. However, neither of these initial designs by Cumberland alludes to any decision regarding an architectural style for the exterior of the University. This suggests that the style for the exterior was most likely decided after the plan had been fully developed as opposed to during Cumberland’s travels.[25]

The plan for University College went through multiple revisions, though the important design elements from the original plan were carried forward to the final design. A similar process occurred for the elevation of the college. Cumberland’s organization of exterior space transitioned from the initial design that was more classical and symmetrical to the subtly asymmetrical final design with stone patterning and carving.[26] The important elements throughout each sketch included the tall square tower, the long wings, the round-arched main doorway and the large windows in the upper story.[27] These elements express a strong architectural influence of the three Queen’s Colleges in Ireland.[28]

It was not only architecture from Britain that influenced Cumberland. The English art and social critic John Ruskin (1819-1900), whom Cumberland greatly admired, profoundly affected Cumberland with regard to the picturesque qualities and craftsmanship of University College. The college was to be situated among a heavily forested area in front of Taddle Creek. Visitors could approach the building from any direction via the various meandering paths.[29] The variable massing of the college elevation was also created according to Ruskin’s picturesque ideals. In addition, the influences of Ruskin are felt in the elements of craftsmanship throughout the structure. Ruskin asserted that by making labourers an integral part of a construction project, it would bring dignity to the labourers’ profession.[30] Cumberland had extensively studied Oxford Museum, which had been designed with Ruskin’s participation,[31] and readily incorporated these elements into the construction process of University College.

The Decision to Build in the Romanesque

The decision to build University College in a Romanesque style is often recounted through an account by Vice-Chancellor Langton. After Cumberland’s return from Europe, he and his partner, William Storm, designed a Gothic structure for the college.[32] Langton recalled that Governor General Sir Edmund Walker Head would not consider the Gothic style for the college.[33] Between Head, Langton, and Cumberland, the style for University College shifted from Gothic to Italian Palazzo to Byzantine, until they decided on “a hybrid with some features of Norman, or early English etc. with faint traces of Byzantium and the Italian palazzo, but altogether a not unsightly building…”[34] Once the construction of University College was complete, Langton referred to the style as the Canadian style, though it would have been difficult to define what was “Canadian” in 1859.[35]

While the indecisiveness of the three men is somewhat amusing, the account does not give much insight into the determining factors for the choice of Romanesque for University College. This choice was not, as the story may suggest, a flippant decision based on which style was visually more appealing. Cumberland, as well as Langton and Head, were all educated men who were aware of the symbolic significance of architectural styles. Buildings are consciously conceived, bound up in their cultural context, and represent what is important to a particular group through visual form.[36] The architecture of a building also shapes the values and attitudes of the people who use it, affecting the activities and relationships that take place within the building.[37] The choice to build University College in the Romanesque Revival style was based on symbolic, political and practical reasons. In order to better understand these reasons, we must look at how University College fits into the larger context of the international Romanesque Revival movement, and also at how events and beliefs in Europe and North America influenced architecture in Canada.

When Cumberland journeyed to Europe to study recent architectural programs, he arrived during the period of Revival movements. As the majority of his ideas were developed during his time in Britain, most sources on University College state this Revival movement was the most influential in the decision to build in the Romanesque style. However, the collegiate buildings that Cumberland studied were built in the Gothic style, though they had the qualities of a Romanesque monastery in their plans in order to promote a sense of community. The decision to use the Romanesque style for the exterior was therefore not based solely on Cumberland’s studies of recently erected structures in Britain. Otherwise, he would have followed the collegiate trend and built in the Gothic mode.

During the nineteenth-century in Europe, there was a growing discontentment with materialism and industrialism. Historicism became a dominant mood during this period as architects were able look to the past symbolically as a means of regaining the strength and dignity of simpler times that were believed to have been lost during the modern age of rapid social and industrial advancement.[38] Similarly, eclecticism blurred the boundaries of geographical and ethnically diverse locations, resulting in architectural programs that drew from sources across Europe.[39] It is important to note that historicism and eclecticism were not movements, but a general feeling or action in Europe.

On the other hand, the Romantic Movement that took place in nineteenth-century Europe was a direct reaction to the Industrial Revolution. The artistic and literary movement stressed elements such as strong emotions, nationalism, the sublime, nature and the picturesque.[40] English architect and designer Augustus Pugin promoted the Middle Ages as the golden ages of Europe and as the ideal to which modern society should be compared. Ruskin supplemented Pugin’s ideas by urging architects to build in the more substantial Gothic style, promoting its moral qualities.[41] The combination of historicism, eclecticism, and the Romantic Movement resulted in the Revival styles: Classical, Romanesque, and Gothic. Each Revival style had particular symbolic associations and was considered more appropriate for certain buildings.[42] The ideas and theories of these movements and moods of the nineteenth century travelled through literature and personal contacts and had been brought over from Germany to England at the time of Cumberland’s travels.

In the 1840s, Germany was going through its own Revival movement. With the emergence of German nationalism, the country began looking towards its past in search of a national architectural style, which could be used to bring people together via a sense of common national identity.[43] The Romanesque had been a prominent style of the country’s past, making it a good candidate. This history was coupled with the idea proposed by professor of architecture Rudolf Weigmann (1843) that architectural styles followed a life course of growth, blossoming and decaying: through the stage of blossoming, a particular style was believed to become true and ideal art. Weigmann contended that the development of the Romanesque style had been interrupted by the beginnings of Gothic. It therefore never reached its peak, meaning that it could be continued and perfected in the nineteenth century.[44] These two ideas supported the continuation of the Romanesque style in the nineteenth century.

German architect Heinrich Hübsch (1795-1863) promoted the Rundbogenstil architectural style, a tenth- and eleventh-century Germanic version of the round-arched Romanesque, for use as a national style and also as a response to the neo-Gothic styles that had become more popular. Rundbogenstil emphasized the noble simplicity of structures in collaboration with growing German nationalism. The style was also promoted as more resiliwww.gooent in its construction to the harsh climate of Germany,[45] as well as more economical for its use of readily accessible German materials as opposed to the marble used for Roman buildings.[46]

Rundbogenstil churches played an important theological role in the religious development of Victorian England, as well as for American Protestants.[47] The Romanesque, as a religious architecture, embraced as much of Christianity as possible, and referenced a more pure and primitive form of the religion, whereas Gothic was more limited in its religious application.[48] This notion of a purer Christianity was important as Germany was attempting to use early Christianity as a model for the rethinking of the religious institution as a method of confronting issues of industrialism.[49] Rundbogenstil was not only used for churches, but also used for educational institutions, secular buildings, hospitals and administrative buildings, though it was seen by some to be lacking moral.

German ideas regarding the appropriate use of a Romanesque style during the nineteenth century quickly travelled to England, a country that was also in the process of its own Revival movement. Similar to Germany, England was looking towards its architectural past for a national style, which resulted in the Gothic Revival and the Romanesque Revival, the former more favoured in the nineteenth century than the latter. However, the Anglo-Norman style was being promoted for occasional adoption because of its particular stylistic qualities. As an architectural style, it was more economical to build in than the Gothic style; construction could be rapidly executed, and the building was durable yet beautiful, as elements of simplicity were combined with ornamentation.

Within the Church of England, the High and Low factions of the church were battling amongst themselves,[50] and the Romanesque Revival began to assume greater religious and political significance in the midst of the fighting.[51] The High-church Anglo-Catholic parties had preferred to use the Gothic style for their churches, and as a result of the fighting the Low Church Anglicans and Evangelicals often opted for the Romanesque style for their churches.[52] This choice was a visual means of disassociating themselves from the emphasis on rituals and liturgy in the High Church, as well as from the establishment overtones of the Gothic style.[53] It should be noted that Low Church factions did not always resort to the Romanesque for their churches, though it was fairly common practice. The conflict between these factions not only carried over into the colonies, but was also amplified on North American soil.

The earliest towns and cities in North America reflected divisions in England. Protestantism was the dominant faction within British North America,[54] which quickly became problematic as the Church of England controlled the schools constructed in the colonies. A large portion of the public was opposed to the church’s control of higher education of the colony,[55] especially during the lack of action taken by the Church of England that resulted in the fifteen-year delay with the construction of King’s College. The issue of church versus state influenced the course of the Romanesque,[56] and this was true in Toronto as well. This final decision to secularize the university was of symbolic importance. The University of Toronto did not want the Gothic style used for University College after its separation from the Church of England because of the style’s associations with the church and other denominational buildings. Instead, those commissioning the building looked for a bolder, stronger, and more ancient style.[57] The more encompassing Romanesque style was better suited as it was commonly used for secular buildings and educational institutions. Therefore, the symbolic reason for the choice of Romanesque was its visual disassociation with the values of the High church and the control of the Church of England.

Furthermore, Cumberland explained a number of practical reasons as to why Romanesque won out over other architectural styles, which included cost, adaptability, and resilience to climate. The Romanesque was much more economical to build in because brick was a main material most often used in this style, and consequently, structures could be more rapidly executed.[58] Adaptability was also of key importance when choosing a style, and it was believed that the Romanesque could be more easily adapted to the purposes of contemporary buildings than the Gothic style. Furthermore, Cumberland considered the Romanesque to be more suitable for the Canadian climate. The thick walls of the Romanesque provided excellent insulation against harsh winds and low temperatures, and the more simply decorated exterior lessened the rate of deterioration of the materials.[59] These reasons were similar to those used for the justification of the Anglo-Norman architectural style in England.

Many architects of the nineteenth century were immersed in the search for a national style. Canadian architects had been attempting to address the issue of which architectural style should be the national architectural style for two decades prior to the construction of University College. The nineteenth-century use of medievalism created an extension of memory, linking the traditions of cultural groups, sometimes even across geographical boundaries, as was the case in Canada. During this period of industrialism, Canada was perceived as a new, virile country that was still pure and free from the pollution that plagued Europe.[60] Cumberland believed the Romanesque style to be appropriate for the new country, because of its pure, simple, and rugged qualities.[61]

As stated earlier, Langton referred to this style as the Canadian style.[62] While University College was politically important in the step towards a national style, that title fell to the Gothic a few short years later. Langton was partially correct though in that historicism was attractive to the new Canadians,[63] and did become a means of creating a national identity through the architecture’s historical links to the countries that Canadian citizens came from.[64]

  Therefore, the decision to build University College in the Romanesque style had many symbolic, as well as practical, reasons. Most importantly, the decision was a means of visually disassociating University College with the control and values of the Church of England. Moreover, University College represented breaking free from the control of old establishments and starting anew in a wild and rugged new country, and the choice to use the Romanesque style was also representative of the simple, pure and robust country in which University College had been constructed. The decision to build in the Romanesque style was also a result of the practical reasons stated by Cumberland, such as adaptability, cost, and climate, as well as the desires of the patrons.

Influences of the Second Wave on University College

At the opening ceremony for University College, Governor General Head congratulated Cumberland on bringing the Romanesque style to Canada.[65] This praise was an uneducated statement though, because the Romanesque style had been in use in the United States a few decades earlier. In fact, America had also been influenced by England, but especially by Germany, as many buildings from the 1820s to 1840s were constructed in a Germanic-inspired version of the Romanesque.[66] This style had been brought over from Germany through literature, as well as through the migration of German craftsman and architects. An example of a building from the first wave of the Romanesque Revival would be the Smithsonian Institute, built in 1855 by architect James Renwick. The Smithsonian was a major structure for the justification of the Romanesque style for educational institutes.[67]

After the fire of 1890 that broke out in the southeast end of the building, University College was heavily influenced by the second wave of the Romanesque Revival from the United States that took place in the 1880s and 1890s.[68] The damage was so extensive that a complete rebuilding was justified. Yet the city of Toronto argued in favour of restoring the college to more or less the exact manner in which it had originally been built.[69] This favour for restoration was due to the popularity of the Romanesque style at the time of the fire, as well as the city’s increasing awareness of its architectural and cultural heritage.

The Romanesque style was made popular by American architect Henry Hobson Richardson (1838-1886) who has been immortalized by having an architectural style named after him: Richardsonian Romanesque. This new Romanesque style that characterized the second wave of Romanesque Revival was influenced by an amalgam of early medieval sources,[70] visually expressed through rock faced masonry, arched entrances, picturesque massing, and the use of rustification and polychromy. Richardsonian Romanesque was also a synthesis of international influences, such as Spanish, French and German Romanesque architecture.[71]

Richardson had many admirers in American and Canada, and his influence can be seen in many Toronto buildings such as Old City Hall (E.J. Lennox, 1889-1899) and Victoria College on the University of Toronto campus (William Storm, 1891-1892).[72] It was the popularity of this second wave of Romanesque Revival in Toronto during the 1880s and 1890s, a popularity that surpassed that of the first wave,[73] that resulted in the immediate renovation of University College as well as the maintenance of its historical heritage.


The symbolic importance of University College becomes clear through the study of the larger, global contexts that affected its construction and design process. As a result of this context of University College, we can see that the choice to build in the Romanesque style was a multi-faceted decision that did not come about solely from Cumberland’s travels through Europe. It was also influenced by international ideas that were filtering into Canada via literature and first-hand travel. Considering the global context is important for the study of early Euro-Canadian architecture in Canada, as there is often an incorrect belief that Canada, as a newer country, was detached from the events and theories taking place in Europe at the time.

The study of medieval architecture in Canada is one that has not garnered much attention over the years. This topic would benefit from more scholarly insight, as medievalism is often the basis for the most contemporary buildings, such as the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa. In general, the choice to build in a Medieval Revival style is often indicative of the values that are important to its patron, as well as the intention behind the structure.

This in-depth examination of the context of the Romanesque Revival style for University College in Toronto gives us new insight into the styles employed for other educational institutions in Ontario. Queen’s University in Kingston also employs the Romanesque for many building on campus, whereas the University of Western Ontario in London utilizes the Gothic style. Was Queen’s University following in the footsteps of the University College by building in the Romanesque style? Alternatively, was Western trying to distance itself from Toronto, while maintaining a visual connection to the collegiate college in England? What were the factors that prompted these institutions to choose those particular styles? While these questions are not often thought of while walking through a university campus, examining the choice of medieval architecture for educational institutions will allow us greater insight into the values of Canadian society. As we have seen here, a campus constitutes much more than just visually appealing buildings.




1. Carroll L. V. Meeks, “Romanesque before Richardson in the United States,” The Art
Bulletin 35, no. 1 (1953), 25.

2. Geoffrey Simmins, Fred Cumberland: Building the Victorian Dream (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1997), 93.

3. Ibid.

4. Simmins, 93.

5. Ibid.

6. W. Stewart Wallace, A History of University of Toronto, 1827-1927 (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1927), 63.

7. Ibid, 63.

8. Simmins, 93.

9. Douglas Scott Richardson, A Not Unsightly Building: University College and its History
(Oakville: Mosaic Press for University College, Toronto, 1990), ix.

10. Larry Wayne Richards, The Campus Guide: University of Toronto (New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), 14.

11. Claude ThomasBissell, University College: A Portrait, 1853-1953 (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1953), 6.

12. Ibid, 7.

13. Richardson, Unsightly, 53.

14. Simmins, 94.

15. Richardson, Unsightly, 53.

16. Ibid, 54.

17. Ibid.

18. Simmins, 95.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid, 94.

21. Ibid, 96.

22. Ibid, 97.

23. Ibid, 99.

24. Ibid, 100.

25. Richardson, Unsightly, 60.

26. Ibid, 60.

27. Ibid, 61.

28. Simmins, 100.

29. Richardson, Unsightly, 57.

30. Ibid, 74.

31. Ibid, 61.

32. Martin L Friedland, The University of Toronto: A History (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2002), 57.

33. Richards, 15.

34. Friedland, 57.

35. Harold Kalman, A History of Canadian Architecture (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1994), 541.

36. Douglas and Peter Richardson, Canadian Churches: An Architectural History (Richmond Hill, Ontario: Firefly Books, 2007), 16.

37. Ibid.

38. Simmins, 111.

39. Ibid.

40. Richardson, Unsightly, 61.

41. Kalman, 706.

42. Simmins, 111.

43. Kathleen Curran, “The German Rundbogenstil and Reflections on the American Round-Arched Style,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 47, no. 4 (1988), 354.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid, 365.

47. Kathleen Curran, The Romanesque Revival: Religion, Politics, and Transnational
Exchange (University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 180.

48. Bissel, 25.

49. Curran, Romanesque Revival, 180,

50. Curran, Romanesque Revival, 180.

51. Richardson, Canadian Churches, 211.

52. Curran, Romanesque Revival, 220.

53. Ibid, 214.

54. Richardson, Canadian Churches, 389.

55. Friedland, 3.

56. Curran, Romanesque Revival, xvii.

57. Richardson, Unsightly, 64.

58. Simmins, 112.

59. Ibid, 64.

60. Simmins, 111.

61. Ibid.

62. Kalman, 541.

63. Ibid, 705.

64. Ibid, 541.

65. Richardson, Unsightly, 13.

66. Meeks, 17.

67. Kalman, 314.

68. Eric Arthur, Toronto, No Mean City (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964), 160.

69. Bissel, 34.

70. Hart House Art Gallery, Romanesque Toronto (Toronto: University of Toronto
Department of Fine Art, 1971), 3.

71. Ibid, 4.

72. Arthur, 169.

73. Ibid, 201.




Arthur, Eric. Toronto, No Mean City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964.

Bissell, Claude Thomas. University College: A Portrait, 1853-1953. Toronto, University
of Toronto Press, 1953.

Curran, Kathleen. “The German Rundbogenstil and Reflections on the American Round
Arched Style.” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 47, no. 4 (1988): 351-373.

Curran, Kathleen. The Romanesque Revival: Religion, Politics, and Transnational
Exchange. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003.

Friedland, Martin L. The University of Toronto: a History. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2002.

Hart House Art Gallery. Romanesque Toronto. Toronto: University of Toronto
Department of Fine Art, 1971.

Kalman, Harold. A History of Canadian Architecture. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1994.

Meeks, Carroll L. V. “Romanesque before Richardson in the United States.” The Art
Bulletin 35, no. 1 (1953): 17-33.

Richards, Larry Wayne. The Campus Guide: University of Toronto. New York, Princeton
Architectural Press, 2009.

Richardson, Douglas Scott. A Not Unsightly Building: University College and its History.
Oakville: Mosaic Press for University College, Toronto, 1990.

Richardson, Douglas and Peter. Canadian Churches: an Architectural History. Richmond
Hill, Ontario: Firefly Books, 2007.

Simmins, Geoffrey. Fred Cumberland: Building the Victorian Dream. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1997.

The Great Good Place, Exploring University College. Toronto: University College, 1984.

Wallace, W. Stewart. A History of University of Toronto, 1827-1927. Toronto,
University of Toronto Press, 1927.


Return to Table of Contents




Krista Schnella is currently a fourth-year student at the University of Western Ontario completing an Honours Double Major in Art History and Sociocultural Anthropology. She has held a life-long interest in the arts, though it is during her years at Western that she has grown to appreciate early and contemporary Canadian art discourses. She is pleased to have been a part of Bon à Tirer, and hopes to take part in similar ventures in the future.