The Canadian Canoe Museum: Behind the Build

By Jeff Latto

Photos by Jeff Latto

Prologue:  My background as a professional architect (retired) with an interest in canoeing led me to think an article on the new Canadian Canoe Museum would make a provocative subject for Nastawgan. My intention was not to write the definitive story on the making of this museum, but rather to see what the architects behind the project had to say and how this may tie into our shared love for canoeing and kayaking.   

The Canadian Canoe Museum started as the Kanawa International Collection of Canoes, Kayaks and Rowing Craft in 1957. It was established by Kirk Wipper in various wooden buildings at Camp Kandalore, north of Minden. In 1994 this collection was transferred to an abandoned outdoor motor factory in Peterborough under the name of the Canadian Canoe Museum. Then in 2024 the new purpose-built home of the Canadian Canoe Museum opened on the shores of Little Lake, in downtown Peterborough.. 

It is important to note that when the original design competition for an architect was cancelled in 2020 (see below), the Museum still needed to find an architect to complete the project quickly or risk losing funding for the project. In fact the plans were to start construction in the following year of 2021, with a new design at a new location. They chose to work with Unity Design Studio, a local firm that had placed second in the original competition and had the credentials to do the job. 

Earlier this year on April 17, I met and interviewed these architects. The firm of Unity Design Studio in Peterborough was established in 1968, originally as William Lett Architects, then in 1973 as Lett Smith Architects, in 2004 as Lett Architects, and recently in 2024 as Unity Design Studio. The founder’s son, Bill Lett, along with fellow partner Michael Gallant joined me at their offices for this interview. Note that this transcript has been edited and shortened from the original interview.

In the discussion you will find references to the following terms and individuals:

• The original competition: Heneghan Peng Architects (Ireland), working with Toronto’s Kearns Mancini Architects,  won a design contest for the new museum in 2016. The competition was open to international architects who would need to partner with an Ontario architect. However, the museum terminated its original lease agreement with Parks Canada after discovering the project’s proposed site was “no longer viable” because of the presence of various industrial compounds in the soil. The cost to remediate the soil was not feasible within the project budget.
• Cut fill requirements: When building in a floodplain, requirements dictate that no new structure can impede the flow of high water or cause potential damage to properties upstream. As such there is a need to balance off any new obstruction (like a new museum) with increasing the floodplain capacity (such as by removing an existing berm).
• Integrated Design Process (IDP): Design of an architectural project whereby all stakeholders are involved in all aspects of the project. This requires decision making to be based on consensus amongst designers, consultants, owners, and builders. This process is different from the traditional architect-client driven design process which is then tendered out to secure a builder once construction drawings are complete.
• Jeremy and Carolyn: Carolyn Hyslop, Executive Director, Canadian Canoe Museum and Jeremy Ward, Curator, Canadian Canoe Museum.
• Bing Thom: Celebrated Canadian architect working from Vancouver. He was born in Hong Kong in 1940 and passed away in 2016.

Jeff Latto (JL): I was thinking I would structure the conversation going from macro to micro, so the first question is of course the site itself. Please talk about your initial response to this location as you worked on the project. 

Michael Gallant (MG): The site selection is interesting to take that first part of the question and then I can talk about the site design strategies once we landed out of the original design competition. 

At the time of the competition, we were dealing with a different leadership team, but we spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand their needs. They remembered that so when the pivot had to happen while we were in the midst of Covid (and people couldn’t travel including the winning international architects of the competition) there were a series of phone calls about whether we’d be interested in helping them find a new site for the museum.

JL: You were doing early sketches for them as well?

MG: Yes. We were quickly engaged with them because they had commitments from upper levels of government for funding and from large donors, and all of these had a shelf life. Therefore, in addition to working through a pandemic was the fact they needed to secure the funding and build as quickly as possible.  Finding land that’s on the waterfront in Peterborough isn’t easy to come by. There’s only a small number of sites available so the initial discussions involved a tour with Caroline and Jeremy. We went to every place we could think of as potential property, none of which the Museum owned, all of which we would need to approach developers who we knew or the city who would have owned these properties. We did a lot of high-level analysis for each of these potential sites looking at pros and cons. The tour included the Johnson property (which was selected as the final site), which was municipally owned. It was open space and had been previously disturbed going back in history. At one time it had a rail line running through it, in fact one of the first rail lines into Peterborough was used by some of the first industry in Peterborough, including the Peterborough Canoe Company. 

We had to do the cut fill calculations to make sure that because we’re close to the floodplain that we weren’t imposing any harm downstream. It was the berm from the old rail line that helped us to make the balance of the site work. If the berm had not been there it wouldn’t have been possible to build that museum on this site in the first place. One of those totally ironic but serendipitous aspects which was fantastic. 

With the site selected we met with the town to determine whether the property was available. The reality was even though this site was largely open space it was very poorly maintained, and the forest was in disrepair. There were only about three trees that were in good shape, which we maintained. Most of the wood was ash that had been devastated by the Emerald Ash Borer,  as such, we harvested a bunch of ash to be used in the Museum, for instance the exterior benches.   

The building requirements were larger than the footprint so inevitably the building had to push up to have multiple floor levels. In addition to the site constraints, we had some budget constraints as well as the time constraints that we talked about earlier. These were the kind of moving macro influences that were really forcing the design of the project at this early point. This is when we started a conversation about construction and procurement which pushed us into integrated project delivery (IPD). Bill and I and Unity have become experienced with having done several IPD projects, but when we’re doing rapid design through IPD, it’s a bit more challenging than the typical project because your client isn’t just the owner anymore. It’s now everyone (client, contractor, engineers, architects) who is around the table that must agree on what we could build based on time and money. Every design move had to be heavily justified. The value needs to be clear right away so with certain design things, we started in a very pragmatic way. The roof is a single ridgeline; the section of the building from the north to the south is essentially the same, and you can see that in the Exhibition Hall there were things like the Hudson Bay outpost building that is placed where the ridge is highest. So, the height of the Exhibit Hall was tailored to that exhibit, knowing that it would have to fit in the space. There were other simple moves that we did which were effective but not overly costly such as the curve at the front of the building. Keeping the same ridgeline and the same building section it’s just a slight curve that starts to evoke some of the elegance, the canoe shape perhaps, without necessarily adding too much cost. It’s just one move on a small fraction of the overall, but since it houses the main circulation of the building and the view from the road approaching the Museum, this rounded end has a very high impact. This was our sales pitch to the IPD team and how we started to move forward with the building form.

JL: Two-thirds of the building feels compact and that’s the Collection Hall and the Exhibit Hall together. They’re kind of black boxes if you will, with no direct windows to the exterior. The other one third is the open areas of the Lobby and Cafe. It’s very clear that in the latter you had some license for architectural expression. One can understand the circulation flow very clearly. Yet it doesn’t feel simple in experience. How did you do that? 

MG: The other piece in the building form that I should’ve mentioned previously was the collection hall. Because of the overall collection size, 650 watercraft, 500 of which are in the collection hall, from a functional program point this was going to consume the most real estate on site. There isn’t a similar collection anywhere in the world that we could base our planning upon. So, we started with what made sense. For instance, moving the collection between floors would be challenging from an operation standpoint, so having the Collection Hall on the ground floor made a lot of sense. However, the ground floor is where everybody comes and goes and as such we spent quite a bit of time really focussed on figuring out the minimum size of the Collection Hall so there would be decent area left for the public areas. To do this we had to figure out the racking system as one of our first jobs. Working through all the inventory along with Jeremy and modelling every racking system option, we knew quickly that the Collection Hall needed to be 7.6 meters tall based on the efficiency we could find in the racking system.

JL: So, the racking system is custom and has set the world standard for heritage small craft collection?

MG: Correct. When we were starting the design, we walked to the previous museum with Jeremy and Caroline to understand the collection. I remember the drama of entering through the big sliding door that led into this area of 500 canoes. It’s the scale of the collection that you see all at once that is powerful. We talked a lot about how cool it would be for the public to experience the awe-inspiring scale of this collection. When we started talking about the procession up to the Exhibit Hall (i.e. above the Collection Hall) we had to figure out how to make this long trip up 7.6 meters eventful and not a tedious climb. Walking up to the Exhibit Hall you get an exposure to everything that there is about the Museum and what is done behind the scenes. The visitor first comes into the Workshop on the ground floor at the start of the main stair and sees people carving canoes, elders building, and there’s a cultural essence to that space. As you rise you have a view into the Collection Hall. It’s 10 feet above the floor and you’re kind of mid-rack in height. You can see the whole breadth of the collection. Then you circle back and have a different view of the entrance, with different views to some of the canoes that are suspended in the lobby. At the top of that stairs, through the Multipurpose Room, is an elevated view west over the Lake. This procession gives you a full exposure of what makes up the Museum before you even get into the Exhibit Hall.

 JL: How was the shape and materiality of a canoe or kayak brought into the conversation of the Museum’s design?

MG: We wanted to use timber construction across the whole building but right away we knew it just wasn’t affordable. There’s a clear line in the building where the back 2/3 are collections and exhibits in their black boxes and steel construction was the most appropriate, and then the remaining 1/3 front portion which is most of the public space and the Lobby could be timber construction. The circulation is all timber, and that was based on economics. But wood also aligned with the program because if you’re spending the money on timber construction you want it to be in a location where it will be most appreciated and remembered. We were balancing the line between housing and representing the collection, and there were moments where we questioned if we were balancing that well enough. We were candid in our office, and I remember some of our design team members saying the Museum looks like a canoe, which it does at certain angles. However, if you do it in a subtle way or respectful way, it is appropriate. We were aware of that balancing act and revisited it often, such as the choices for materials, where there are curves, and where the wood slat ceiling superimposed above the ribs of an upturn canoe. All of those things were thoughts that speak to the materiality, the construction, the geometry of a canoe, but not attempting to be overly literal like a Disney Park and I think it’s successful in that regard. 

 JL: The use of wood is very much how Canadian architects, past and present, use wood. It’s not trying to be a big canoe. You understand the legacy of wood in Canadian architecture as much as we understand it in the making of canoes. There is an inherent connection that doesn’t need to be underlined. You have some nice details such as the stair handrail, the steel balustrade, the wood steps. These aren’t things that you just thought up for this project, or are they?

MG: They are designed for this project, and I think it’s really a reflection of the model used to deliver this project. We were able to determine this building could be built for this much money and in this much time because we had the builder, all our consultants, key trades and mechanical electrical trades all on board in the same room. Bill‘s dad started this business over 50 years ago and as such we have a long history of working with the trades in Peterborough. A lot of the details we came up with we developed with trades that were on board, and I think that was where lessons were definitely learned. 

Bill Lett (BL): There was just so much goodwill and pride of workmanship that you don’t find in a typical project which made all that stuff so much easier. I don’t think we’ve had many projects where the trades are that invested, even suppliers were significant here in Peterborough. When we were thinking of using a single panel of Corten steel siding for the full height of the Museum there was a lot of banter with the trades, but it’s kind of fun to have those discussions especially if you are trying to do something special. 

JL: If anything, this probably allows you to do an architecture that is based on craft because you have firsthand knowledge about how things are made, and they have a firsthand knowledge of what you’re trying to do as a designer.  On another matter, was there any discussion around the future growth of this Museum at all? 

BL: There’s a lot of discussion now about ownership and the Museum knows that it’s going to take quite a long time to resolve because they’re going to be giving parts of the collection back to communities that deserve those pieces. There are also some pieces that are duplicates. So, there will be a reduction in the collection size over the next five to ten years. Maybe there’s more of a thought about expansion now that the Museum has been so successful being open for only a year. There are other matters to deal with as well such as expanding the café. The Museum is working on a new strategic plan engaging with 43 different indigenous communities across the country. I think the future will be more about enriching the experience and not growing the collection.

MG: Very much too because operationally, the museum has never had programs on the water. Last summer was the first year that they’ve had summer camps and day trips and things like that that get people on the water and start to do more of this experiential relationship to the collection. There might be more investment in programming the site more. It’s an incredible site location. It ticks all the boxes. 

JL: I know that Nastawgan readers will be interested in knowing just a little bit more about you both and your experience with the outdoors, with canoeing, and how much was designing the Museum a personal project. 

BL: It goes back to being a very young boy, in going to Bancroft and Lake Baptiste. That’s where I started that connection to canoeing which continued while attending Lakefield College just north of here. At Lakefield, where I spent my middle school and upper school years canoeing almost every week, plus a huge part of my learning included places around the world, and tripping companies in the north. I got my Duke of Edinburgh award after I paddled 21 days in Quebec. I feel like this has been a big part of my life.

MG: I grew up in Bethany southwest of here, on a farm. My experience with paddling isn’t quite as diverse as Bill’s, but I had grown an appreciation for the outdoors. We had a 130-acre farm in Bethany so I would often spend time in the woods. I have been in Peterborough since 2009, and I’ve been community focused. I’ve been the chair of the downtown business board where we’ve done several projects with local indigenous communities on place making projects. I was around when we went after the first design competition for the Canoe Museum, and we spent hours preparing our submission. We knew we were the underdog cause we’re just this little Peterborough firm, but we were partnered with Bing Thom. I remember just being so devastated after we didn’t get it. Bill says he’s always a fatalist and in this case, it was true when the Canoe Museum came back and we started these discussions. This is totally a passion project. It’s where we’ve anchored our community. We have family and kids here so it’s a big deal to try to make this the best that it could be. There’s no dismissing the fact that it’s an incredible opportunity for us as a business too, you don’t get opportunities like this very often. 

JL: Thank you both.

Epilogue: My appreciation for the new Canadian Canoe Museum is heavily weighted to the collection on display. How could it not be? The treasures stored within the museum are priceless and bring a strong emotional appeal with them. I found myself leaving with an even greater appreciation of our canoeing and kayaking history, not to mention inspired for my next trip. These are objects that embody so much about Canada and our identity as a nation, and our love for wilderness. This museum building does a good job of not getting in the way of appreciating the collection itself. Like many successful museums and galleries, you can’t quite remember them as buildings, but you definitely remember what was inside. 

Lastly, for me at least, there needs to be appreciation for how quickly and successfully the museum was conceived and built, particularly during Covid and its associated restrictions. The architects at Unity Design Studio tip their hats to the Integrated Design Process. But equally you could say it was the community of trades and suppliers, designers and owners, who looked upon this project with tremendous pride and persevered through difficult challenges to create a place that honours the long history of canoeing and canoe-making in the Peterborough area.