Caledonia GO Station Environmental Project Report

Transcription

CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES
Cultural Heritage Screening Report:
Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Caledonia GO Station
Environmental Assessment
City of Toronto, Ontario
CALEDONIA GO STATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF TORONTO, ONTARIO
Prepared for:
R.J. Burnside and Associates Limited
6990 Creditview Road, Unit 2
Missisauga, ON, L5N 8R9
ASI File: 13EA-234
ASI was contracted by R.J. Burnside and Associates Limited on behalf of Metrolinx to conduct a
Cultural Heritage Screening Report (CHSR) as part of the Caledonia GO Station Environmental
Assessment (EA). The purpose of the project is to construct a GO Station on the GO Transit
Barrie rail corridor to provide a connection with the future Eglinton Crosstown Light Rapid
Transit (ECLRT) line. The general study area is bounded by Castlefield Avenue to the north,
Croham Road/ Gilbert Avenue to the east, Keith Avenue/ Cameron Avenue to the south, and
Blackthorn Avenue/Carnarvon Street/ Woodborough Avenue to the west. The cultural heritage
screening was conducted for the Project Area which includes approximately 315 metres of the
GO Transit Barrie rail corridor from the Eglinton Avenue West road bridge in the south towards
Bowie Avenue in the north.
Four properties located immediately adjacent to the GO Transit Barrie rail corridor within the
Project Area, whether fully or partially, were subject to the preparation of Data Sheets. Following
the background research and field review, properties within the Project Area that are older than
40 years old were subject to cultural heritage screening questions to determine potential cultural
heritage value and identify potential cultural heritage resources.
Four properties within the CHSR Project Area were subject to cultural heritage screening, two of
which contain built heritage or cultural heritage landscape resources over 40 years of age (see
Figure 2).
The following table provides a summary of the screening recommendations:
May 2015
(Revised September 2015, November 2015)
Municipal Address
Eglinton Avenue West road
bridge
Beltline Rail Junction/York
Beltline Trail
101 Carnarvon Street
(residential dwelling)
2322-2362 Eglinton Ave. West
(Westside Shopping Centre)
ASI
Recommended Outcome
Conditional Heritage Property
CHER Recommendation
CHER recommended
CHER recommended
Not recognized as a potential
cultural heritage resource at
this time.
Not a cultural heritage
resource
CHER not recommended
CHER not recommended
Archaeological & Cultural
Heritage S er vices
528 Bathurst Street Toronto, ONTARIO M5S 2P9
T 416-966-1069
F 416-966-9723
ASIheritage.ca
ASI
Cultural Heritage Screening Report
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment
Page iii
Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Senior Project Manager:
Annie Veilleux, MA
Cultural Heritage Specialist
Manager, Cultural Heritage Division
Cultural Heritage Assistant:
John Sleath, MA
Cultural Heritage Assistant
Project Coordinator:
Sarah Jagelewski, Hon. BA
Staff Archaeologist
Assistant Manager, Environmental
Assessment Division
Project Administrator:
Carol Bella, Hon. BA
Research Archaeologist and Administrative
Assistant
Report Preparation:
John Sleath
Graphics Preparation:
John Sleath
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. ii
PROJECT PERSONNEL ............................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
1.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
2.0
BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE
ASSESSMENT CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 4
2.1
Legislative and Policy Context ........................................................................................ 4
2.1.1
Transit Project Assessment Process (2014) under the Environmental Assessment
Act (1990)..............................................................................................................................4
2.1.2
Ontario Heritage Act (2005) .................................................................................... 5
2.1.3
Planning Act (1990) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014 .......................... 6
2.2
Draft Metrolinx Policies and Guidelines .......................................................................... 7
2.2.1
Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process ...................................... 7
2.2.2
Cultural Heritage Screening Report for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural
Heritage Landscapes (Draft Terms of Reference for Consultants) ....................................... 7
2.3
Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 8
3.0
ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................. 9
3.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.2
Township Survey and Settlement ................................................................................... 9
3.2.1
The Township of York ............................................................................................. 9
3.2.2
The Northern Railway ............................................................................................ 10
3.2.3
Toronto Belt Line Railway ..................................................................................... 11
3.3
Review of Historic Mapping .......................................................................................... 12
3.3.1
Nineteenth-Century Mapping ................................................................................ 12
3.3.2
Twentieth-Century Mapping .................................................................................. 12
3.4
Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 17
3.4.1
Caledonia GO Station Project Area ....................................................................... 17
3.5
Data Sheets and Screening Questions and Recommendations .................................. 19
Eglinton Avenue West road bridge...................................................................................... 19
York Beltline Trail ................................................................................................................ 23
101 Carnarvon Street .......................................................................................................... 26
2322-2362 Eglinton Avenue West (Westside Shopping Center) ........................................ 29
4.0
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 30
5.0
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 31
6.0
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE LOCATION MAPPING......................................... 34
Appendix A: Commemorative Plaques ....................................................................................... 35
Appendix B: Definitions ............................................................................................................... 36
Blake Williams, MLitt
Geomatics Specialist
Report Reviewer:
Annie Veilleux
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the Project Area. ......................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Locator Map showing the location of screened properties ............................................ 3
Figure 3: Toronto Belt Line Railway Map (1892) ........................................................................ 11
Figure 4: The Project Area overlaid on the 1860 Tremaine Map of the County of York. ............ 14
Figure 5: The Project Area overlaid on the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of York North. ........ 14
ASI
ASI
Page v
1.0
Figure 6: The Project Area overlaid on the 1909 Topographic Map. .......................................... 15
Figure 7: The Project Area overlaid on the 1931 Topographic Map. .......................................... 15
Figure 8: The Project Area overlaid on the 1962 aerial photograph of Toronto. ......................... 16
Figure 9: The Project Area overlaid on the 1992 aerial photograph of the Metropolitan Toronto
Area. ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Caledonia GO Station – Location Mapping of Cultural Heritage Resources ............. 34
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
ASI was contracted by R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited on behalf of Metrolinx to conduct a
Cultural Heritage Screening Report (CHSR) as part of the Caledonia GO Station Environmental
Assessment (EA). The purpose of the project is to construct a GO Station on the GO Transit
Barrie rail corridor to provide a connection with the future Eglinton Crosstown Light Rapid
Transit (ECLRT) line. The general study area is bounded by Castlefield Avenue to the north,
Croham Road/ Gilbert Avenue to the east, Keith Avenue/ Cameron Avenue to the south, and
Blackthorn Avenue/Carnarvon Street/ Woodborough Avenue to the west. The cultural heritage
screening was conducted for the Project Area which includes approximately 315 metres of the
GO Transit Barrie rail corridor from the Eglinton Avenue West road bridge in the south towards
Bowie Avenue in the north (Figure 1).
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Nineteenth-century property owner(s) and historical feature(s) .................................... 12
Table 2: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge Data Sheet ............................................................ 19
Table 3: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge Screening Questions and Recommendations ....... 20
Table 4: York Beltline Trail Data Sheet ....................................................................................... 23
Table 5: York Beltline Trail Screening Questions and Recommendations ................................. 24
Table 6: 101 Carnarvon Street Data Sheet ................................................................................. 26
Table 7: 101 Carnarvon Street Screening Questions and Recommendations ........................... 27
Table 8: 2322-2362 Eglinton Avenue West Data Sheet ............................................................. 29
Four properties located immediately adjacent to the GO Transit Barrie rail corridor within the
Project Area, whether fully or partially, were subject to screening and are illustrated on a Locator
Map (Figure 2). These include: the Beltline Rail Junction; the Eglinton Avenue West road bridge;
101 Carnarvon Street; and 2322-2362 Eglinton Avenue West. While 2-4 Croham Road also falls
within the limits of the Caledonia GO Station Project Area, this property was already subject to a
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and no further assessment is required (ERA 2014).
It should be noted that rail corridors are routinely identified as cultural heritage resources as
they form linear cultural heritage landscapes comprised of former railways (e.g., Northern
Railway). Heritage attributes typically associated with rail corridors include the alignment, width
of the right-of-way and the arrangement of tracks (see ASI 2014: Part B, 12). However, given
that certain structures (e.g., tracks, rail ties, switches, signals, etc.) within the rail corridor rightof-way require regular replacement as part of ongoing maintenance responsibilities and for
maintaining the integrity and safety of the corridor, rail corridors are to be exempt from the
Metrolinx heritage screening and evaluation process (email communication: Tania Gautam,
Project Coordinator, Metrolinx; 28 August 2015).
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1: Looking northeast from the Eglinton Avenue West road bridge..................................... 18
Plate 2: Looking east over the Eglinton Avenue West road bridge ............................................. 18
Plate 3: Rail berm and treed area adjacent to the west side of the GO Transit Barrie rail corridor,
looking northeast......................................................................................................................... 18
Plate 4: Rail berm and treed area adjacent to the west side of the GO Transit Barrie rail corridor
in the foreground, with residences on Croham Road in the background, looking east. The rail
corridor is obscured by the berm. ............................................................................................... 18
Plate 5: Croham Road residences adjacent to GO Transit Barrie rail corridor, looking southwest.
.................................................................................................................................................... 18
Plate 6: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge, facing southeast (from west side of rail corridor)... 19
Plate 7: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge (looking northeast from west side of rail corridor) .. 20
Plate 8: York Beltline Trail, facing northwest .............................................................................. 23
Plate 9: York Beltline Trail commemoration, facing west ............................................................ 23
Plate 10: 101 Carnarvon Street, east (front) elevation. ............................................................... 26
Plate 11: 101 Carnarvon Street, south elevation. ....................................................................... 26
Plate 12: Westside Mall, looking northeast ................................................................................. 29
Plate 13: Westside Mall, facing southwest .................................................................................. 29
Plate 14: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge (BHR 1) commemorative plaque .......................... 35
Plate 15: York Beltline Trail commemorative/way-finding installation at Bowie Avenue adjacent
to study area ............................................................................................................................... 35
Four properties within the CHSR Project Area were subject to cultural heritage screening, two of
which contain built heritage or cultural heritage landscape resources over 40 years of age. The
screening was conducted under the senior project management of Annie Veilleux, Cultural
Heritage Specialist and Manager of the Cultural Heritage Division, ASI.
ASI
ASI
Page 2
Figure 1: Location of the Project Area.
[Base Map: Base Map:©OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License
(CC-BY-SA)]
ASI
Page 3
Figure 2: Locator Map showing the location of screened properties
ASI
2.0
Page 4
In addition, environment may be interpreted to include the combination and interrelationships of
human artifacts with all other aspects of the physical environment, as well as with the social,
economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of the people and communities in
Ontario. The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments
distinguish between two basic ways of visually experiencing this heritage in the environment,
namely as cultural heritage landscapes and as cultural features (see definitions in Appendix B).
ASSESSMENT CONTEXT
2.1
Legislative and Policy Context
The analysis throughout the heritage screening study addresses cultural heritage resources
under various pieces of legislation and their supporting guidelines which are outlined in this
section. Additional definitions and information relating to legislation, policy and guidelines are
provided in Appendix B.
2.1.1
The Transit Project Assessment Process is defined in sections 6-17 in Ontario Regulation
213.08: Transit projects and Metrolinx Undertakings, and provides a series of relevant
provisions and definitions. The Transit Project Assessment Process Guide (January 2014)
includes provisions to consider when the proposed project may have a negative impact on a
matter of provincial importance, which is defined as follows (2014: 2):
Transit Project Assessment Process (2014) under the Environmental Assessment
Act (1990)
...a matter of provincial importance that relates to the natural environment or has
cultural heritage value or interest...
This cultural heritage assessment considers cultural heritage resources in the context of
improvements to specified areas, pursuant to the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP
2014) and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA 1990).
The Transit Project Assessment Process Guide further notes that identification and assessment
of potentially impacted built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and protected
heritage properties are relevant in determining if a matter is of ‘provincial importance’ (January
2014: 10). It should be noted that the Transit Project Assessment Process Guide acknowledges
that a built heritage resource, cultural heritage landscape, or protected property does not
necessarily need to meet criteria set out under Regulation 10/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act to
be considered of ‘provincial importance’.
For the purposes of this assessment, the term cultural heritage resources was used to describe
both cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage features. A cultural landscape is perceived
as a collection of individual built heritage resources and other related features that together form
farm complexes, roadscapes and nucleated settlements. Built heritage features are typically
individual buildings or structures that may be associated with a variety of human activities, such
as historical settlement and patterns of architectural development.
2.1.2
Under the Environmental Assessment Act (1990) environment is defined in Subsection 1(c) to
include:
•
•
Page 5
Ontario Heritage Act (2005)
As mentioned above, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) is charged under
Section 2 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA, RSO 1990, Amended 2005) with the responsibility
to determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation
of the heritage of Ontario.
cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community, and;
any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by man.
The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) is charged under Section 2 of the Ontario
Heritage Act with the responsibility to determine policies, priorities and programs for the
conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario and has published several
guidelines to assist in assessing cultural heritage resources as part of an environmental
assessment: Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of
Environmental Assessments (1992), Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of
Environmental Assessments (1981), Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial
Heritage Properties (April 2010; Standards and Guidelines hereafter) under Part III.1 of the
OHA.. Accordingly, these guidelines have been utilized in this heritage screening process.
The MTCS has also published Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial
Heritage Properties (April 2010; Standards and Guidelines hereafter) under Part III.1 of the
OHA. These Standards and Guidelines apply to properties the Government of Ontario owns or
controls that have cultural heritage value or interest. They are mandatory for ministries and
prescribed public bodies and have the authority of a Management Board or Cabinet directive.
As a prescribed public body, Metrolinx has obligations under the Standards and Guidelines to
identify, protect, maintain and use properties in a manner that respects their cultural heritage
value(s).
The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (Section
1.0) states the following:
The Standards and Guidelines provide a series of definitions considered during the course of
the assessment:
A provincial heritage property is defined as the following (14):
When speaking of man-made heritage we are concerned with the works of man
and the effects of his activities in the environment rather than with movable
human artifacts or those environments that are natural and completely
undisturbed by man.
Provincial heritage property means real property, including buildings and
structures on the property, that has cultural heritage value or interest and that is
ASI
ASI
Page 6
owned by the Crown in right of Ontario or by a prescribed public body; or that is
occupied by a ministry or a prescribed public body if the terms of the occupancy
agreement are such that the ministry or public body is entitled to make the
alterations to the property that may be required under these heritage standards
and guidelines.
some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the
significance of others can only be determined after evaluation (PPS, 2014).
2.2
A provincial heritage property of provincial significance is defined as the following (14):
Draft Metrolinx Policies and Guidelines
2.2.1
Provincial heritage property that has been evaluated using the criteria found in
Ontario Heritage Act O.Reg. 10/06 and has been found to have cultural heritage
value or interest of provincial significance.
Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process
Metrolinx undertakings have the potential to impact significant cultural heritage properties by
virtue of interventions with historic railway corridors and train stations, some of which have the
potential to be of provincial significance. Metrolinx undertakings, particularly projects in the
Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), also have the potential to impact locally-significant
cultural heritage resources where property acquisitions and/or substantial land clearance
activities are required. In response to this, Metrolinx developed an internal heritage
methodology to address potential impacts to cultural heritage resources.
Additional applicable definitions are found in Appendix B.
2.1.3
Page 7
Planning Act (1990) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014)
The Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process (2013) involves four steps:
The Planning Act (1990) and related Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014), issued under
Section 3 of the Planning Act, make a number of provisions relating to heritage conservation.
One of the general purposes of the Planning Act, and of relevance to this project, is to integrate
matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions. In order to inform all
those involved in planning activities of the scope of these matters of provincial interest, Section
2 of the Planning Act provides an extensive listing. These matters of provincial interest shall be
regarded when certain authorities, including the council of a municipality, carry out their
responsibilities under the Act. One of these provincial interests is directly concerned with:
2(i)
x
x
x
x
The subject Cultural Heritage Screening Report fulfills Step 1 of the process. This involves prescreening all properties that Metrolinx owns, controls, or plans to acquire to identify properties
that are 40 or more years old. All known and potential cultural heritage resources will be
identified during this stage using a screening checklist.
the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical,
archeological or scientific interest.
In addition to the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process, Metrolinx has also
established a heritage committee based on the MTCS Standards and Guidelines (July 2010) to
administer this process and ensure that decisions affecting Cultural Heritage are made in a
transparent, accountable, and responsible way.
Those policies of particular relevance for the conservation of heritage features are contained in
Section 2, Wise Use and Management of Resources, in which the preamble states that
“Ontario’s long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on
protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological
resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits.”
2.2.2
Accordingly, in subsection 2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology makes the following relative
provisions:
2.6.1
Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes
shall be conserved. [see Appendix B below for definitions]
2.6.3
Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent
lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development
and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the
heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.
Step 1: Cultural Heritage Screening
Step 2: Heritage Evaluation
Step 3: Interim Cultural Heritage Management
Step 4: Review and Approval for Metrolinx Heritage Properties of Provincial Significance
Cultural Heritage Screening Report for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural
Heritage Landscapes (Draft Terms of Reference for Consultants)
The present heritage screening follows the Metrolinx Draft Terms of Reference for Consultants:
Cultural Heritage Screening Report for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage
Landscapes (2014). Cultural heritage screening is an expedited process to allow Metrolinx to
determine quickly and efficiently those properties with recognized or potential cultural heritage
value or interest. Screening for cultural heritage resources includes: research and
documentation gathering; application of screening questions to confirm recognized heritage
value and to identify heritage potential; and recommended outcomes and report preparation.
There are three possible screening outcomes:
Criteria for determining significance for the resources are recommended by the Province, but
municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used. While
Potential Provincial Heritage Property: The property is owned or occupied by Metrolinx, and
the answer to at least one screening question is ‘yes’ (except age).
ASI
ASI
Page 8
Conditional Heritage Property: The property is not owned or occupied by Metrolinx and the
answer to at least one question is ‘yes’ (except age).
Page 9
A field review is then undertaken to confirm the location and condition of previously identified
cultural heritage resources. The field review is also utilised to identify cultural heritage resources
that have not been previously identified on federal, provincial, or municipal databases.
Adjacent Land: The property is adjacent to a protected heritage property.
Several investigative criteria are utilised during the field review to appropriately identify new
cultural heritage resources. Typically, these investigative criteria are derived from provincial
guidelines (including Ontario Regulations 9/06 and 10/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act),
definitions, and past experience. The Draft Terms of Reference for Consultants: Cultural
Heritage Screening Report for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
provides specific screening questions to apply to properties that are over 40 years old in order
to confirm recognized heritage value and to identify heritage potential (see Section 3.5 below).
A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) will be recommended where the property has
been screened as a Potential Provincial Heritage Property, or a Conditional Heritage Property.
2.3
Data Collection
This CHSR addresses above ground cultural heritage resources over 40 years old. Use of a 40
year old threshold is a guiding principle when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural
heritage resources (Ministry of Transportation 2006; Ministry of Transportation 2007; Ontario
Realty Corporation 2007). While identification of a resource that is 40 years old or older does
not confer outright heritage significance, this threshold provides a means to collect information
about resources that may retain heritage value. Similarly, if a resource is slightly less than 40
years old, this does not preclude the resource from retaining heritage value.
3.0
3.1
ASSESSMENT
Introduction
This section provides a brief summary of historic research and a description of identified above
ground cultural heritage resources that may be affected by the development of the Caledonia
GO Station. A review of available primary and secondary source material was undertaken to
produce a contextual overview of the study area, including a general description of EuroCanadian settlement and land use. Historically, the study area is located in the Township of
York, York County, in part of Lot 1, Concession 3.
In the course of the cultural heritage screening, all potentially affected cultural heritage
resources are subject to inventory. Short form names are usually applied to each resource type,
(e.g. barn, residence). Generally, when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural
heritage resources, three stages of research and data collection are undertaken to appropriately
establish the potential for and existence of cultural heritage resources in a particular geographic
area.
Background historical research, which includes consultation of primary and secondary source
research and historic mapping, is undertaken to identify early settlement patterns and broad
agents or themes of change in a study area. This stage in the data collection process enables
the researcher to determine the presence of sensitive heritage areas that correspond to
nineteenth and twentieth-century settlement and development patterns. For the purposes of this
study, nineteenth-century mapping (Tremaine 1860; Miles & Co. 1878), nineteenth-century local
historical accounts (Boulton 1805; Robinson 1885; Smith 1846), twentieth-century mapping
(topographical maps from 1909 and 1931), twentieth-century aerial photographs (1962 and
1992), and railroad-specific sources (Andreae 1997; Historica Research Limited 1983; Town of
Newmarket 2014; Toronto Railway Historical Association 2014) were consulted as part of the
background historical research of the Project Area. A full list of references consulted can be
found in Section 5.
3.2
To augment data collected during this stage of the research process, federal, provincial, and
municipal databases and/or agencies are consulted to obtain information about specific
properties that have been previously identified and/or designated as retaining cultural heritage
value. Details on specific databases that were consulted as part of this study are outlined in
Section 3.4 below. Typically, resources identified during these stages of the research process
are reflective of particular architectural styles, associated with an important person, place, or
event, and contribute to the contextual facets of a particular place, neighbourhood, or
intersection.
In its first 30 years York Township was a rolling and well wooded countryside. The centre of the
township was present day Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue or Eglinton Village. Eglinton
Avenue, which was surveyed as the township’s baseline, was at that time known as Baseline
Road and the crossroads community had a number of services including four hotels and a
Masonic Hall. Yonge Street was settled on both sides and one mile (approximately 1.6
kilometres) south of Eglinton, the Davis family ran a pottery business (in the community later
known as Davisville). A large number of suburban residences were constructed along the
Davenport Ridge, an early Aboriginal trail. Seaton village lay immediately north of the city limits
while to the west Parkdale (incorporated in 1889) was an emerging suburb and High Park was
adjacent to Etobicoke Township’s Humber Bay resort. The few early township mills multiplied
3.2.1
Township Survey and Settlement
The Township of York
The history of York Township as a territorial division began in 1791 when Augustus Jones
surveyed the township. The first land patents were granted in 1796 and by 1813 all of the
township lands had been parcelled. By 1802 the township, bounded by the Humber River and
Etobicoke Township to the west and sharing a border with Scarborough Township to the east,
had a grist mill, two saw mills and two taverns. In 1801 the combined population of York,
Etobicoke and Scarborough Townships and the Town of York numbered only 678 although by
1840 the population of York Township numbered more than 5,000 and this trend in growth and
development continued throughout the 1880’s (Mika and Mika 1983).
ASI
ASI
Page 10
3.2.3
along the east side of the Humber River (the west side being Etobicoke Township) and during
the 1840s, three sawmills operated on the Black Creek between Wilson and Sheppard Avenue.
These mills supplied the needs of farmers in nearby communities. Other villages in the township
and their years of incorporation included Weston (1882), Brockton (1884), Yorkville (1884),
Toronto Junction and East Toronto (1887), and North Toronto (Eglinton and Davisville
combined, 1889). The villages of Riverdale, Rosedale, the Annex, Seaton Village and
Sunnyside were all annexed directly to Toronto during the 1880s (Boulton 1805; Smith 1846;
Robinson 1885).
Toronto Belt Line Railway
The Belt Line Railway was an early commuter train which ran around the circumference of the
City of Toronto (Figure 3). The Toronto Belt Line Railway consisted of two loops which met at
the railway junction at Dundas Street and College Street. The eastern loop, which is included in
the study area used the Northern Railway line until it passed north of Eglinton Avenue. Shortly
after it turned east and travelled parallel to Eglinton Avenue. East of Bathurst Street, the route
turned southwest until Mount Pleasant Cemetery, passing along to the north of the cemetery
until half way where it cross the grounds in a southwest direction. The line then continued
southwest until entering the Don River Valley, generally following the course of the Don River.
At approximately Front Street, the line turned west towards Union Station. The majority of the
route exists today as the Beltline Trail.
As was the case in the other townships, as farmers and business, people established
themselves and accumulated some wealth, small log houses were replaced by larger more
comfortable homes. The construction of brick and stone houses also began in the early 1830s
and this reflected the continued growth of the timber and building trades, and the establishment
of a more reliable agricultural economy. One of the important ingredients to the success of any
area was its proximity to evolving transportation routes and the improvement of roads over time.
In 1839 Kingston Road was planked all the way to York and this allowed farmers to have easier
access to town markets.
The railway was developed by the Toronto Belt Land Corporation, which was formed in 1889 to
develop the lands north and west of the city and expand Toronto’s suburban residential
neighbourhoods. The Belt Line railway was proposed to compensate for the lack of access of
these neighbourhoods to the City’s streetcar network. Construction of the railway began in
1890. Following the collapse of the land development boom, the Belt Line Company went
bankrupt in early 1892. The railway was purchased by the Grand Trunk Railway and service
began in July of the same year running six trains daily on each loop. By 1894 a decrease in
ridership caused for a reduction in service and ultimately the railway service was cancelled in
November of that year. The railway track was subsequently sold, dismantled and repurposed
(HRL 1983; TRHA 2014).
Township villages followed a common pattern of development, beginning with the establishment
of a saw mill, then a grist mill, followed by a variety of trades and services that supported the
needs of industry and settlers. As roads and rail systems were built to bring timber, then
produce and livestock, to market, other settlements were established at crossroads and
junctions.
3.2.2
Page 11
The Northern Railway
The Northern Railway (also known as the Ontario, Huron & Simcoe Railway, currently forming
the GO Transit Barrie rail corridor) was opened on May 16, 1853, and connected Toronto to
Aurora (formerly Machell’s Corners) via a 48 kilometre track. The line was expanded with
service to Bradford beginning June 13, 1853, and further expanded to Barrie on October 11
1853. The inaugural trip on May 16, 1853 from Toronto to Aurora is commemorated by a plaque
at Toronto’s Union Station, as it was the first steam locomotive operated in Ontario (Andreae
1997; Boles 2011; Mika and Mika 1977).
Commuter service began on the line in 1972 operated by the Canadian National Railway as part
of the CN Newmarket Subdivision. This commuter service was taken over by VIA Rail in 1978,
and then by GO Transit in 1982. GO Transit continues to operate this commuter service to this
day (Garcia and Bow 2014).
From the earliest beginning as the first steam locomotive in Ontario to its present use as a
popular commuter line, the railway was a major draw factor for businesses in the County of York
and caused many communities with a station to thrive and those without to dissipate (Town of
Newmarket 2014).
Figure 3: Toronto Belt Line Railway Map (1892)
Toronto Historic Railroads Association (http://www.trha.ca/beltline.html)
ASI
ASI
3.3
Page 12
occurred within the study area in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries (Figure 6).
The study area retains its context as a rail corridor, with a wooden road bridge depicted on
Eglinton Avenue West, allowing street traffic to pass over the rail line. Also, the existing
Northern Railway line features the addition of a junction with a new rail line just north of Eglinton
Avenue - the Toronto Belt Line Railway. Built in 1890 and decommissioned in 1894, the Belt
Line was meant to service the growing suburban population of Toronto, although lack of
ridership caused it to quickly fail. Another noted change in the study area is the re-alignment of
Eglinton Avenue to the south from the railway bridge to the east, away from a small
watercourse. A frame structure is depicted outside the eastern limit of the study area, and the
post office, a brick or stone hospital, a brick or stone school, two churches, and multiple houses
are depicted at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Caledonia Road.
Review of Historic Mapping
Nineteenth- and twentieth-century maps clearly show the development of the study area lands.
A selection of these maps is provided below. These do not represent all of the maps consulted
for the purpose of this study, but cover the full range of land uses that occurred in the area.
3.3.1
Nineteenth-Century Mapping
The 1860 Tremaine's Map of the County of York and the 1878 Historical Atlas of the County of
York were reviewed to determine the potential for the presence of historical resources in the
study area during the nineteenth century (Figures 4 and 5).
By 1931, residential development that had begun earlier in the southern part of the City had
reached Eglinton Avenue West (Figure 7). The street grid on the east side of the study area is
well established and a number of residences along Croham Road have been constructed. The
area west of the study area, however is still undeveloped.
Historically, the study area is located in the former Township of York in Lot 1, Concession 3
West of Yonge Street, County of York. Details of historic property owners are provided in Table
1. It should be noted, however, that not all features of interest were mapped systematically in
the Ontario series of historical atlases, given that they were financed by subscription, and
subscribers were given preference with regard to the level of detail provided on the maps.
Moreover, not every feature of interest would have been within the scope of the atlases.
Table 1: Nineteenth-century property owner(s) and historical feature(s)
Con. #
Lot #
Property
Property Owners
Historical
Owner(s) (1860)
(1878)
Feature(s) (1860)
3 West of 1
Sam Chew
Messrs Chew
Watercourse
Yonge St.
The 1962 aerial photograph demonstrates that the area adjacent to the study area continued to
experience residential and industrial growth well into the mid-twentieth century (Figure 8). The
Northern and Belt Line Railways are still clearly depicted within the study area, as is the new
southern alignment of Eglinton Avenue West first depicted in the 1909 NTS map. The study
area retains its railway context, while the area immediately adjacent to the east and south limits
of the study area are shown to have undergone substantial residential development. The area
immediately west of the study area is a large, vacant lot that appears to have been graded.
Historical
Feature(s) (1878)
Farmhouse and
orchard
The 1992 aerial photograph demonstrates that the pattern of residential development continued,
and the areas to the east and south of the study area now feature densely developed residential
communities (Figure 9). The study area remains largely unchanged, with the exception of two
structures depicted in the south eastern portion adjacent to Eglinton Avenue West. The area
immediately west of study area is depicted as containing a very large rectangular structure with
an associated parking lot, although the function of the building is unknown.
The nineteenth century maps demonstrate a pattern of rural, agricultural settlement, with the
railroad central to the study area. This railway, the Northern Railway, connected York with
Newmarket beginning in 1853 (Town of Newmarket 2012). Eglinton Avenue is also noted to the
south of the study area, following generally the same alignment as the extant roadway. The
1860 Tremaine Map shows the property surrounding the study area is owned by Sam Chew,
and no structures are depicted within the study area. The surrounding area also depicts very
few structures, with a slight concentration to the east of the study area along Caledonia Road
(Figure 4). The 1878 Illustrated Atlas shows a significant increase in the number of structures in
the general area, as well as the addition of the Fairbank Post Office at the southeast corner of
Eglinton Avenue West and Caledonia Road (Figure 5). The study area remains free from
structures or features with the exception of the Northern Railway and Eglinton Avenue. The
study area is within the property of Messrs Chew, and there is a farmhouse and orchard
depicted to the west, well outside of the study area.
3.3.2
Page 13
Twentieth-Century Mapping
Topographic maps from 1909 and 1931 and aerial photographs from 1962 and 1992 illustrate
the development of the study area over the course of the twentieth century (Figures 6-9). The
1909 National Topographical System (NTS) map demonstrates that several notable changes
ASI
ASI
Page 14
Figure 4: The Project Area overlaid on the 1860 Tremaine Map of the County of York.
Page 15
Figure 6: The Project Area overlaid on the 1909 Topographic Map.
[Base Map: Tremaine’s Map of the County of York, Canada West (Tremaine 1860)]
[Base Map: National Topographical System Sheet 34, Toronto (Department of Defence 1909)]
Figure 5: The Project Area overlaid on the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of York North.
[Base Map: The Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York (Miles & Co. 1878)]
Figure 7: The Project Area overlaid on the 1931 Topographic Map.
[Base Map: National Topographical System Sheet 34, Toronto (Department of National Defence 1931)]
ASI
ASI
Page 16
3.4
Page 17
Existing Conditions
In order to make a preliminary identification of existing cultural heritage resources within the
study area, the following sources were consulted:
x
x
x
The City of Toronto’s Inventory of Heritage Properties (2013a) and list of Heritage
Conservation Districts (2013b);
The Ontario Heritage Properties Database: available online, the database provides
information on properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The database was
last updated in 2005;
Park’s Canada’s Canada’s Historic Places website: available online, the searchable
register provides information on historic places recognized for their heritage value at the
local, provincial, territorial and national levels.
In addition, the Heritage Section of the City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services Division
was contacted directly to gather any information on cultural heritage resources within the study
area (email communication May 12, 2015).1 Based on the review of available data, there are no
protected cultural heritage properties within or adjacent to the Caledonia GO Station study area.
A field review was performed. The field review was undertaken by John Sleath, Cultural
Heritage Assistant, ASI, on May 19, 2015 to document the existing conditions of the study area
and to gather information on the subject properties being screened for potential cultural heritage
value. The existing conditions of the study area are described in Section 3.4.1 below. Screening
Questions and Data sheets for each of the screened properties as well recommendation tables
for potential cultural heritage resources are found in are found in Section 3.5. Mapping of these
features is provided in Section 6.0 of this report.
Figure 8: The Project Area overlaid on the 1962 aerial photograph of Toronto.
[Base Map: Fonds 37, Series 12, Item 1962-113 (Toronto Archives)]
3.4.1
Caledonia GO Station Project Area
The Project Area includes approximately 315 metres of the GO Transit Barrie rail corridor from
the Eglinton Avenue West road bridge in the south towards Bowie Avenue in the north (Plates 1
to 5). The northern portion of the study area consists of the junction of the GO Transit Barrie rail
corridor with the former Belt Line Railway corridor, and terminates at approximately Bowie
Avenue on the east side and 101 Carnarvon Street (residential property) on the west side. The
southeast corner of the property at 101 Carnarvon Street falls within the study area.
On the east side of the Project Area, there is a treed berm that rises from the existing track
elevation to abut the rear yards of the adjacent residential properties on Croham Road. The
southeast portion of the Project Area includes a commercial property at 2-4 Croham Road. A
CHER for this property concluded that 2-4 Croham Road should not be considered a significant
cultural heritage resource (ERA Architects, 2014). The southern portion of the Project Area
consists of the Eglinton Avenue West road bridge that spans the width of the rail corridor and
allows vehicular and pedestrian traffic to pass over the rail corridor.
Figure 9: The Project Area overlaid on the 1992 aerial photograph of the Metropolitan Toronto Area.
[Base Map: Fonds 37, Series 12, Item 1992-48K (Toronto Archives)]
On the west side of the Project Area, there is a treed berm that rises from the existing track
elevation to abut the adjacent large shopping complex and associated parking lot.
1
ASI
The City of Toronto had not provided information at the time of writing this report.
ASI
Page 18
3.5
Page 19
Data Sheets and Screening Questions and Recommendations
As per the Metrolinx Draft Terms of Reference for CHSRs, a data sheet was prepared for each
property within the study area (Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8). Following the background research and
field review, properties within the Project Area that are older than 40 years old were subject to
cultural heritage screening questions to determine potential cultural heritage value and identify
potential cultural heritage resources (Tables 3, 5, 7, and 9). As previously noted, a data sheet
and screening questions were not required for the GO Barrie rail corridor, which is exempt from
the Metrolinx heritage screening and evaluation process, nor for the property at 2-4 Croham
Road which was already subject to a CHER
Plate 1: Looking northeast from the Eglinton
Avenue West road bridge
Plate 2: Looking east over the Eglinton Avenue
West road bridge
Plate 3: Rail berm and treed area adjacent to the
west side of the GO Transit Barrie rail corridor,
looking northeast
Plate 4: Rail berm and treed area adjacent to the
west side of the GO Transit Barrie rail corridor in
the foreground, with residences on Croham Road
in the background, looking east. The rail corridor is
obscured by the berm.
Eglinton Avenue West road bridge
Table 2: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge Data Sheet
Field
Property Data
Municipal Address
n/a
Municipality
City of Toronto
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor
GO Transit Barrie rail corridor
PIN
104870709
Ownership
City of Toronto
Aerial Photo Showing Location and
See Figure 9
Boundaries
Exterior, Street-view photo
Plate 6: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge, facing southeast
(from west side of rail corridor)
Plate 5: Croham Road residences adjacent to GO
Transit Barrie rail corridor, looking southwest.
ASI
ASI
Page 20
Table 2: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge Data Sheet
Field
Property Data
Date of Construction of built
resources
Date of Significant Alterations to built
resources
Architect/designer/builder
Previous Owner(s) or occupants
Current Function
Previous Function
Heritage Recognition/Protection
Local Heritage Interest
Adjacent Lands
Page 21
Table 3: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge Screening Questions and Recommendations
been identified as a Provincial Heritage Property?
Is the property a National Historic Site?
N
Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage
N
Trust?
Is the property municipally designated under the OHA,
N
Part IV?
Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage
N
Conservation District under the OHA, Part V?
Is the property listed on a municipal register?
N
Has the heritage value of the property been identified or
Y
Municipal plaque indicating date
protected by the municipality through other planning
of construction and major
documents, easements, or commemorations? (e.g.
alteration (see Appendix A)
Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, zoning)
Is the subject property recognized or valued by an
N
Aboriginal community?
Screening for Age
Y /N
Explanatory Notes
Does the property have built resources that appear to be
Y
Built in 1930 (plaque)
more than 40 years of age?
Does the property have landscape features that may
N
Bridge modified and repaired in
have been created or altered more than 40 years ago?
1964 and 1991
Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or
Y/N
Explanatory Notes
Interest using Ontario Reg. 9/06
Does the property, its built resources or its landscape
N
features, appear to have significant design value
because:
-it is a rare, unique, representative or early example
of a style, type, expression, material or construction
method, or
-it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic
merit, or
-it demonstrates a high degree of technical or
scientific achievement?
N
features, appear to have significant historical or
associative value because:
-it has direct associations with a theme, event,
belief, person, activity, organization or institution that
is significant to a community, or
-it yields or has the potential to yield, information
that contributes to an understanding of a community
or culture, or
-it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an
architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is
significant to a community?
Y
The Eglinton Avenue West road
features, appear to have significant contextual value
bridge is functionally and
because:
historically linked to the rail line
-it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting
and the community of Fairbank
the character of an area, or
within the City of Toronto
-it is physically, functionally, visually or historically
linked to its surroundings, or
-it is a landmark?
Plate 7: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge (looking northeast
from west side of rail corridor)
1930 (Metrolinx, 2013)
1964, 1991 (Metrolinx, 2013)
Unidentified
City of Toronto
Road Bridge
Road Bridge
City of Toronto plaque indicating dates of construction and major
alteration
(see Appendix A)
City of Toronto plaque indicating dates of construction and major
alteration
(see Appendix A)
No protected heritage properties.
PROPERTY NAME: Eglinton Avenue West road bridge (BHR 1)
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: n/a
METROLINX/GO TRANSIT RAIL CORRIDOR: GO Transit Barrie rail corridor
PIN: 104870709
OWNERSHIP: Government owned (City of Toronto)
Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value
Y /N
Explanatory Notes
If the property includes a railway station, is it designated
N
under the Railway Stations Protection Act?
If the property is a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge
N
Not on the Heritage Bridge List
List?
Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it
N
designated as a Federal Heritage Building?
Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it
N
ASI
ASI
Page 22
Page 23
York Beltline Trail
Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties
Y/N
Explanatory Notes
Is the property adjacent to a designated property under
N
the OHA, Part IV, a Heritage Conservation District under
OHA, Part V, or a property that is protected by a heritage
easement of covenant?
Screening Outcomes
Y/N
Explanatory Notes
Potential Provincial Heritage Property
N
Y
Potential heritage value under
OHA, Part IV, commemorated by
the City of Toronto
Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property
N
Outcome: The Eglinton Avenue West road bridge should be considered a Conditional Heritage Property
Recommendation: A CHER is required.
Table 4: York Beltline Trail Data Sheet
Field
Property Data
Municipal Address
n/a
Municipality
City of Toronto
PIN
104910370
Ownership
City of Toronto
See Figure 9
Boundaries
Plate 8: York Beltline Trail, facing northwest
resources
ASI
Plate 9: York Beltline Trail commemoration, facing west
1890 (HRL 1983; TRHA 2014)
1998(TRHA 2014)
ASI
Page 24
Table 4: York Beltline Trail Data Sheet
Field
Property Data
resources
Toronto Belt Land Corporation
Toronto Belt Land Corporation, Grand Trunk Railway
Current Function
Municipally-maintained York Beltline Trail
Previous Function
Railway
None identified
(municipal, provincial, or federal)
Municipal commemoration as a system of interconnected bicycle
and recreational trails and associated parks (see Appendix A)
Adjacent Lands
Page 25
Table 5: York Beltline Trail Screening Questions and Recommendations
PROPERTY NAME: York Beltline Trail (CHL 1)
PIN: 104910370
because:
method, or
merit, or
Y
The landscape has potentially
significant historical value
because of its direct associations
to a late nineteenth century
commuter railway in the City of
Toronto
or culture, or
Y
The recreational trail is physically
and historically linked to its
because:
surroundings along the same
alignment of the original raised
Beltline rail bed.
-it is a landmark?
Y/N
Explanatory Notes
N
Screening Outcomes
Y/N
Explanatory Notes
N
Y
Potential heritage value under
OHA, Part IV; commemorated by
the City of Toronto
N
Outcome: The York Beltline Trail should be considered a Conditional Heritage Property
Recommendation: A CHER is required.
Table 5: York Beltline Trail Screening Questions and Recommendations
PROPERTY NAME: York Beltline Trail (CHL 1)
PIN: 104910370
Y /N
Explanatory Notes
N
N
List?
N
N
N
N
Trust?
N
Part IV?
N
N
Y
Commemorated by the City of
Toronto with several plaques
(see Appendix A)
N
Screening for Age
Y /N
Explanatory Notes
N
Y
Alignment of extant recreational
trail present on original raised
Beltline rail bed constructed in
1890
Y/N
Explanatory Notes
N
ASI
ASI
Page 26
Table 6: 101 Carnarvon Street Data Sheet
Field
Property Data
Date of Significant Alterations to built Unknown
resources
Unidentified
Unknown
Current Function
Residence
Previous Function
Residence
None identified
None identified
Adjacent Lands
Table 6: 101 Carnarvon Street Data Sheet
Field
Property Data
Municipal Address
Municipality
City of Toronto
PIN
104910416
Ownership
Private
See Figure 9
Boundaries
Table 7: 101 Carnarvon Street Screening Questions and Recommendations
PROPERTY NAME: 101 Carnarvon Street
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 101 Carnarvon Street
PIN: 104910416
OWNERSHIP: Private
Y /N
Explanatory Notes
N
N
List?
N
N
N
N
Trust?
N
Part IV?
N
N
N
N
Screening for Age
Y /N
Explanatory Notes
Y
Built between 1957 and 1962
based on aerial photos of
Toronto (Toronto Archives)
Y
Mature hardwood trees on the
south property line could be
older than 40 years old
Y/N
Explanatory Notes
Plate 10: 101 Carnarvon Street, east (front) elevation.
resources
Page 27
Plate 11: 101 Carnarvon Street, south elevation.
Built between 1957 and 1962 based on aerial photos of Toronto
(Toronto Archives)
ASI
ASI
Page 28
Page 29
2322-2362 Eglinton Avenue West (Westside Shopping Center)
Table 7: 101 Carnarvon Street Screening Questions and Recommendations
N
because:
method, or
merit, or
N
or culture, or
N
because:
-it is a landmark?
Y/N
Explanatory Notes
N
Screening Outcomes
Y/N
Explanatory Notes
N
N
N
Outcome: 101 Carnarvon Street is not recognized as a potential cultural heritage resource at this time.
Recommendation:
No CHER is required for this property.
Table 8: 2322-2362 Eglinton Avenue West Data Sheet
Field
Property Data
Municipal Address
2322-2362 Eglinton Avenue West
Municipality
City of Toronto
PIN
104919503
Ownership
Private
See Figure 9
Boundaries
Plate 12: Westside Mall, looking northeast
resources
resources
ASI
Plate 13: Westside Mall, facing southwest
Post 1992 (based on 1992 aerial photo; see Figure 8)
Unknown
Unidentified
Unknown
ASI
Page 30
5.0
Table 8: 2322-2362 Eglinton Avenue West Data Sheet
Field
Property Data
Current Function
Westside Mall, Retail buildings and surface parking
Previous Function
Industrial, manufacturing (Based on 1992 aerial photo, Figure 8)
None identified
None identified
Adjacent Lands
ASI (Archaeological Services Inc.)
2014 Metrolinx UP Express Electrification EA Cultural Heritage Assessment Report –
Draft. Report on file at ASI.
Boles, Derek
2011 Toronto’s First Railway- The Ontario, Simcoe, and Huron Railway. [online]
Accessed 1 September, 2015 at
http://www.trha.ca/resources/111015.Toronto.1st.Railway.by.Derek.Boles.pdf
Boulton, D’Arcy
1805 Sketch of His Majesty’s Province of Upper Canada. C. Rickaby, London. Later:
Baxter Publishing Company, Toronto, 1961)
The proposed undertaking has the potential to affect cultural heritage resources in a variety of
ways. Potential impacts can include: direct impacts that result in the loss of resources through
demolition, or the displacement of resources through relocation; and indirect impacts that result
in the disruption of resources by introducing physical, visual, audible, or atmospheric elements
that are not in keeping with the resources and/or their setting.
City of Toronto
2013 Heritage Properties Inventory, Heritage Preservation. [online]. Available at:
http://app.toronto.ca/HeritagePreservation/setup.do?action=init [Accessed 15
May 2015].
Based on the results of background data collection, field review of the Caledonia GO Station
Project Area, and application of screening questions to determine potential cultural heritage
value and identify potential cultural heritage resources, the following recommendations have
been developed:
2.
3.
4.
Lines of Country: An Atlas of Railway and Waterway History in Canada. Ontario:
The Boston Mills Press.
Arup Canada Incorporated
2013 Metrolinx Caledonia GO Station Reference Concept Design, 4-05, Issue 0.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
REFERENCES
Andreae, C.
1997
As Westside Mall (2322-2362 Eglinton Avenue West) was constructed post-1992 and does not
meet the 40-year threshold for potential cultural heritage value or interest, it was not subject to
further cultural heritage screening questions. 2322-2362 Eglinton Avenue West is not
recognized as a potential cultural heritage resource and a CHER is not required for this
property.
4.0
Page 31
ERA Architects
2014 2-4 Croham Road, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Parts 1 and 2. Report on
file with the City of Toronto.
BHR 1 and CHL 1 have been identified as Conditional Heritage Properties. A
resource-specific cultural heritage evaluation report (CHER) and, if required, a
heritage impact assessment (HIA) should be carried out in advance, or at the earliest
possible stages of the detailed design phase to identify the heritage value of these
resources and potential impacts of the proposed work. The results of this study
should be used to develop appropriate mitigation measures, which may include:
documentation, post-construction landscaping plans, potential tree-hoarding activities
during construction, and finalization of grading limits;
Garcia, D. and J. Bow
2014 GO Transit’s Barrie Line. [online] Accessed 1 September, 2015 at
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2105.shtml
Historica Research Limited (HRL)
1983 Railway Heritage Study in Toronto. Report on file at HRL.
Metrolinx
2014
Staging and construction activities should be suitably planned and undertaken to
avoid impacts to identified cultural heritage resources;
2013
2015
Post-construction landscaping and rehabilitation plans should be undertaken in a
manner that is sympathetic to the overall setting. Wherever possible, landscaping with
appropriate/sympathetic historic plant materials is recommended; and,
Draft Terms of Reference for Consultants: Cultural Heritage Screening Report for
Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes.
Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process. Fall 2013.
Email communication Tania Gautam, Project Coordinator; 28 August 2015
Mika, N., Mika, H.
1977 Places in Ontario: Their Name Origins and History. Part 1, A-E. Mika Publishing
Company, Bellville.
1983 Places in Ontario: Their Name Origins and History. Part 3, N-Z. Mika Publishing
Company, Bellville.
Should future work require an expansion of the study area, then a qualified heritage
consultant should be contacted in order to confirm the impacts of the proposed work
on potential heritage resources.
ASI
ASI
Miles & Co.
1878
Page 32
Page 33
Smith, William H.
1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer. H. & W. Rowsell, Toronto.
Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York, and the Township of West
Gwillimbury & Town of Bradford in the County of Simcoe, Ont. Toronto: Miles &
Co.
Toronto Railway Historical Association (TRHA)
2014 Toronto Belt Line – 1892 [online] Accessed 15 May, 2015 at
http://www.trha.ca/beltline.html
Ministry of Consumer Services
1990 Cemeteries Act
2002 Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act
Toronto Archives
1962 Series 12, Aerial Photographs of the Metropolitan Toronto Area, 1962, Plate 114
[on-line] Accessed 20 May 2015, from http://jpeg2000.eloquentsystems.com/toronto.html?image=ser12/s0012_fl1962_it0114.jp2
1992 Series 12, Aerial Photographs of the Metropolitan Toronto Area, 1992, Plate 48L
[on-line] Accessed 15 May 2015, from http://jpeg2000.eloquentsystems.com/toronto.html?image=ser12/s0012_fl1992_it0048l.jp2
Ministry of Culture, Ontario
1981 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental
Assessments
1992 Guidelines for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of
Environmental Assessments
2005 Ontario Heritage Act
Tremaine, G.C.
1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of York, Canada West. Toronto: Geo.C.Tremaine.
Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Ontario
2005 Ontario Heritage Act.
2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit
2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
2010 Check Sheet for Environmental Assessments: Screening for Impacts to Built
Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Ministry of Environment, Ontario
2006 Environmental Assessment Act
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario
2005 Ontario Planning Act
2014 Provincial Policy Statement
Ministry of Transportation
2006 Environmental Reference for Highway Design Cultural Heritage – Built Heritage
and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Technical Requirements for Environmental
Impact Study and Environmental Protection/Mitigation.
2007 Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
2005 Ontario Heritage Act.
2011
Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Cultural Programs
Branch, Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.
Newmarket, Town of
2014 The first railroad in Upper Canada. [online] Accessed 15 May, 2015 at
http://www.newmarket.ca/en/lifestyle/thefirstrailroadinuppercanada.asp
Robinson, C.B.
1885 History of Toronto and County of York, Ontario. C.B. Robinson, Toronto.
ASI
ASI
6.0
Page 34
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE LOCATION MAPPING
Figure 10: Caledonia GO Station – Location Mapping of Cultural Heritage Resources
ASI
Page 35
Page 36
Appendix A: Commemorative Plaques
Plaque Photograph
Appendix B: Definitions
Plaque Text
“Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1953.
1930 1991”
Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (MoC:
1981):
*Note, while this plaque commemorates the construction of
an early bridge in 1930 and alterations in 1991, this plaque
does not suggest the Eglinton Avenue West road bridge is
nominated, listed, or designated by the City of Toronto.
x
cultural heritage landscapes:
The use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now is a result of
man’s activities over time in modifying pristine landscapes for his own purposes.
A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual man-made features
into a whole. Urban cultural landscapes are sometimes given special names
such as townscapes or streetscapes that describe various scales of perception
from the general scene to the particular view. Cultural landscapes in the
countryside are viewed in or adjacent to natural undisturbed landscapes, or
waterscapes, and include such land uses as agriculture, mining, forestry,
recreation, and transportation. Like urban cultural landscapes, they too may be
perceived at various scales: as a large area of homogeneous character; or as
an intermediate sized area of homogeneous character or a collection of settings
such as a group of farms; or as a discrete example of specific landscape
character such as a single farm, or an individual village or hamlet.
x
cultural feature:
…an individual part of a cultural landscape that may be focused upon as part of
a broader scene, or viewed independently. The term refers to any man-made or
modified object in or on the land or underwater, such as buildings of various
types, street furniture, engineering works, plantings and landscaping,
archaeological sites, or a collection of such objects seen as a group because of
close physical or social relationships.
Plate 14: Eglinton Avenue West road
bridge (BHR 1) commemorative
plaque
“Bowie Avenue Station”
Plate 15: York Beltline Trail
commemorative/way-finding
installation at Bowie Avenue adjacent
to study area
Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (April 2010):
ASI
x
built heritage resource:
…one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or
forming part of a building), structures, earthworks, monuments, installations, or
remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or
military history and identified as being important to a community. For the
purposes of these Standards and Guidelines, “structures” does not include
roadways in the provincial highway network and in-use electrical or
telecommunications transmission towers.
x
cultural heritage landscape:
… a defined geographical area that human activity has modified and that has
cultural heritage value. Such an area involves one or more groupings of
individual heritage features, such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites,
and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form
distinct from that of its constituent elements or parts. Heritage conservation
ASI
Page 37
districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, villages, parks, gardens,
battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trails, and industrial
complexes of cultural heritage value are some examples.
Page 38
Railscapes:
active or inactive railway lines or railway rights of way and
associated features.
Historical settlements:
groupings of two or more structures with a commonly applied name.
Streetscapes:
generally consists of a paved road found in a more urban setting,
and may include a series of houses that would have been built in
the same time period.
Historical agricultural
landscapes:
generally comprises a historically rooted settlement and farming
pattern that reflects a recognizable arrangement of fields within a lot
and may have associated agricultural outbuildings, structures, and
vegetative elements such as tree rows;
Cemeteries:
land used for the burial of human remains.
Provincial Policy Statement (2014):
x
built heritage resource:
means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that
contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a
community, including an Aboriginal community. Built heritage resources are generally
located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage
Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers.
x
cultural heritage landscapes:
means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and
is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an
Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces,
archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their
interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to,
heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages,
parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways,
viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas
recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g., a National Historic
Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site).
x
significant:
in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to
have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our
understanding of the history of a place, and event, or a people.
Other:
When identifying cultural heritage landscapes, the following categories are typically utilized for
the purposes of the classification during the field review:
Farm complexes:
comprise two or more buildings, one of which must be a farmhouse
or barn, and may include a tree-lined drive, tree windbreaks, fences,
domestic gardens and small orchards.
Roadscapes:
generally two-lanes in width with absence of shoulders or narrow
shoulders only, ditches, tree lines, bridges, culverts and other
associated features.
Waterscapes:
waterway features that contribute to the overall character of the
cultural heritage landscape, usually in relation to their influence on
historic development and settlement patterns.
ASI
ASI

Caledonia GO Station Environmental Project Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park

Xero House

enREDo International Design Network

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

For Adding to the World Heritage List

Virtual 3D Reconstruction of Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Summer-2016 - The Canadian Heritage of Quebec

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Work on

Sustainable management of the World Heritage Site, Bryggen.

From: Lee Sexsmith [mailto:hecubuspg@telus