ST. LAWRENCE NEIGHBOURHOOD HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN

2015

and respect the overallneighbourhood context. objectives district the to conform alterations proposed the HCD Plan will assist property owners in ensuring that attributes. Thepoliciesand guidelinescontainedwithin heritage its maintaining while neighbourhood the within physical character, the HCD Plan seeks to guide change its as well as value cultural and social district’shistoric, Lawrence neighbourhood. Grounded inanunderstandingofthe St. the of protect value to heritage the is conserve Plan and HCD the of objective overall The contributing andnon-contributingproperties. and typologies, building common sub-areas, character of identification the inform to helped which study the within contained research upon builds Plan HCD The 2014. of September in Plan HCD the with proceed to authorized was Torontoteam by study the Council, City Following the completion of the HCD Study and approval HCD Plan. the for groundwork the laid and value, heritage cultural HCD Study, completed in 2014, established the district’s built fabricanditsheritagecharacter. Thesubsequent historic neighbourhood’s the impact to threatened that pressure development significant to due Study HCD an for priority high a being as 2012 of Report Prioritization Toronto’sof Study (HCD) District Conservation Heritage The St. Lawrence neighbourhood was identified in the City half ofthe20 latter the in area the revitalize to helped that institutions Building, as well as numerous educational and theatrical landmark historic Flatiron the and Cathedral James St. as by such buildings, defined is neighbourhood the Market, Lawrence St. iconic the on Centered today. of city contemporary the Yorkto Townof the of founding of the from evolution Toronto, the reflect that resources boundaries built,landscapeandpotentialarchaeological oldest neighbourhoods,andcontainswithinits The St.Lawrence neighbourhood isoneofToronto’s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY th century. and future generations. current of enjoyment and education the for conserved are district the within valued most features those that time over within theSt.Lawrence neighbourhood,whileensuring change managing in owners property and Torontoof City the assist will document this that team protected and maintained. It is the intention of the study be should value and attributes heritage whose district The St. Lawrence neighbourhood is a significant historic any work. undertaking to prior consulted be should property,and their to apply Plan HCD the of sections what identifying providedpropertybeen assist has in to 10 owners page on Map’ ‘Road A guidelines. and policies the out laying typologies, sub-areas and contributing properties before by followed objectives, and attributes district’sheritage that to Ontario Heritage Act. The HCD Plan first establishes the conforms Plan the by informed Toronto HCD and of City the by established the of structure The drafting ofobjectives,policiesandguidelines. Plan by including the community and stakeholders in the HCD the of implementation the with assisting in use of also were They Plan. HCD the into concerns owners’ property and knowledge local incorporating of means a were and team, the study the for information invaluable ensure to Lawrence neighbourhood. These consultations provided engagement, participation of those with an interest in the St. stakeholder and consultations community into put was effort Significant

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 3 Study Team & Acknowledgements 9 Road Map 10

1. INTRODUCTION 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 Background And Methodology 14 1.2 Policy Framework 19

2. STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 25 2.1 Statement Of Heritage Attributes 33 2.2 Statement Of HCD Objectives 36

3. CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 39 3.1 Delineation Of District Boundaries 40 3.2 Building Typologies 43 3.3 Categorization Of Properties 50 3.4 Character Sub-Areas 52

4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES 67

5. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 73 5.1 Understanding 75 5.2 Existing National historic Sites and Part IV Designations 76 5.3 Demolition 78 5.4 Maintenance 79 5.5 Code Compliance 80 5.6 Restoration 81 5.7 Alterations 82 5.8 Additions 84 5.9 Massing 85 5.10 Shadows 89 5.11 Streetwall Composition 90 5.12 Corner Lots 91 5.13 Sustainability 92 5.14 Entrances 93 5.15 Windows 96 5.16 Awnings 99 5.17 Roofs 100 5.18 Exterior Walls 102 5.19 Commercial Signage 106 5.20 Special Policies for Commercial Warehouses (Typology) 110 5.21 Special Policies for Industrial Buildings (Typology) 114 5.22 Landmark Buildings 116

4 6. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 119 6.1 Understanding 121 6.2 Demolition 122 6.3 Additions and Alterations 123 6.4 Infill and New Development 124

6.5 Massing 125 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.6 Shadows 130 6.7 Streetwall Composition 131 6.8 Corner Lots 136 6.9 Sustainability 138 6.10 Roofs 139 6.11 Exterior Walls 140 6.12 Commercial Signage 141

7. POLICIES FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE DISTRICT 145 7.1 Adjacency to the District 147

8. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR STREETSCAPES AND OPEN SPACES 149 8.1 Framework 151 8.2 Paving 154 8.3 Medians 156 8.4 Laneways and Mid-Block Connections 158 8.5 Gateway Treatments 160 8.6 Street Trees 162 8.7 Lighting 163 8.8 Street Furniture 165 8.9 Public Realm Signage 166 8.10 Parking Areas 167 8.11 Public Art 168 8.12 Views 169 8.13 Parks 172 8.14 Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces (POPS) 174 8.15 Utilities and Public Works 175

9. ARCHAEOLOGY 177 9.1 Policy Context 178 9.2 Archaeological Resource Requirements 180 9.3 Heritage Permit Requirements for Archaeology 186

10. IMPLEMENTATION 189 10.1 Heritage Permits Deemed to be Issued 191 10.2 Heritage Permit Process 192 10.3 Heritage Impact Assessment 193

5 APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS 195

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES 199

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX C: SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES 203

APPENDIX D: HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) TERMS OF REFERENCE 249

6 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: March 24, 2015 Public Consultation Presentation 18 Figure 2: March 24, 2015 Public Consultation Break-out Tables 18 Figure 3: South side of Front Street East, looking west from Wellington Street East, 1913 28 Figure 4: Demolition of the St. Lawrence Market’s Front Street Canopy, 1950s 28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5: Demolition at the southeast corner of King Street East and Church Street, 1971 28 Figure 6: 67-69 Front Street East, an example of a Commercial Warehouse building 29 Figure 7: 70 The Esplanade, an example of an Industrial building 29 Figure 8: Polychrome brick, decorative stone detailing and ornamental storefronts at 81-83 Front Street East 30 Figure 9: 55 Front Street East, a contemporary steb-back building 30 Figure 10: 61-75 Jarvis Street, examples of Commercial Warehouse buildings 45 Figure 11: Prototype of a Commercial Warehouse building 45 Figure 12: 35 Front Street East, an example of a Commercial Warehouse building 45 Figure 13: 204 King Street East, an example of a Industrial building 47 Figure 14: Prototype of an Industrial building 47 Figure 15: 219 Front Street East, an example of a Industrial building 47 Figure 16: Flatiron Building 49 Figure 17: Bank of Upper Canada 49 Figure 18: South St. Lawrence Market 49 Figure 19: King Edward Hotel 49 Figure 20: St. James Cathedral 49 Figure 21: Streetwall Characteristics in the HCD 85 Figure 22: How to Measure Angular Plane Requirements - Contributing Properties 87 Figure 23: Historic Entrance Features and Components 93 Figure 24: Historic Window Features and Components 96 Figure 25: Historic Roofline Features and Components 100 Figure 26: Requirements for Projecting Signs 108 Figure 27: Historic Features of Commercial Warehouses and Variations within the Typology 111 Figure 28: Historic Features of Industrial Buildings and Variations within the Typology 115 Figure 29: How to Measure Angular Plane Requirements – Non-Contributing Properties 127 Figure 30: Compatible streetwall Expression on a Non-Contributing Property 128 Figure 31: Massing Requirements for Non-Contributing Properties 129 Figure 32: Horizontal Alignment of Non-Contributing Property with Heritage Streetwall Context – Example 1 131 Figure 33: Horizontal Alignment of Non-Contributing Property with Heritage Streetwall Context – Example 2 132 Figure 34: Vertical Alignment of Non-Contributing Property with Heritage Streetwall Context – Example 1 132 Figure 35: Vertical Alignment of Non-Contributing Property with Heritage Streetwall Context – Example 2 133 Figure 36: Glazing requirements on Non-Contributing Properties 134 Figure 37: Glazing Best Practices for Non-Contributing Properties 135 Figure 38: Diagram Identifying the Primary and Secondary Structure on a Contemporary Building 140 Figure 39: Requirements for Projecting Signs 142

7 MAPS MAPS Map 1: Boundary Adjustment – HCD Plan Phase 17 Map 2: Government Reserves - 1797 Survey 27 Map 3: Properties on the City of Toronto’s Heritage Register, 2015 31 Map 4: HCD Boundary 41 Map 5: Commercial Warehouse Typology 44 Map 6: Industrial Buildings 46 Map 7: Landmark Buildings 48 Map 8: Contributing Properties 51 Map 9: Character Sub-Areas 53 Map 10: King – St. James Sub-Area 55 Map 11: Courthouse Sub-Area 57 Map 12: Flatiron Sub-Area 59 Map 13: Market Sub-Area 61 Map 14: Front Street Sub-Area 63 Map 15: Adelaide Street Sub-Area 65 Map 16: Existing Heritage Protections 77 Map 17: Existing Streetwall Heights - Contributing Properties 86 Map 18: Application of 45 degree Angular Plane within the Character Sub-Areas 87 Map 19: Shadow-Sensitive Areas 89 Map 20: Streetscape Classifications 91 Map 21: Existing Streetwall Heights – Contributing Properties 126 Map 22: Application of 45 degree angular plane within Character Sub-Areas 127 Map 23: Shadow Sensitive Areas 130 Map 24: Streetscape Classifications 137 Map 25: Streetscape Classifications 152 Map 26: Potential Gateway Locations 161 Map 27: Views identified in Official Plan Amendment 199. 171 Map 28: Views identified in the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. 171 Map 29: Areas of Archaeological Potential and Archaeologically Sensitive Areas within the HCD 185

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Development/Alteration Types for Properties with Archaeological Potential 180 Table 2: Properties with Generalized Archaeological Potential and Impact Categories of Concern 181 Table 3: Properties within Archaeologically Sensitive Areas 184

8 STUDY TEAM & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The study team was composed of Fournier Gersovitz Moss Drolet and Associates Architects (FGMDA), Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), and Bousfields Inc.

Lead Conservation Architects: FGMDA Fournier Gersovitz Moss Drolet and Associates Architects (FGMDA) was formed by the 1996 merger of two offices both founded in 1983 and is a partnership of four individual architects, Alain Fournier, Julia Gersovitz, Rosanne Moss and George Drolet. FGMDA is a recognized leader in the field of Heritage Conservation and has partici­pated in the evaluation of numerous heritage properties and districts over the last three decades. It has over 30 years of experience in the practice of architecture, conservation architecture, interior design and project management. FGMDA has a staff of 85 professionals including architects, architectural technicians, interior designers and administrative personnel, and is working in cities across Quebec, Ontario and the Canadian North. From its headquarters in Montreal, and STUDY TEAM & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS offices in Toronto and Ottawa, FGMDA contributes to architectural conservation across the country.

Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) ASI was founded in 1980 in response to increasing public awareness of the importance of Ontario’s heritage resources, particularly archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, and heritage buildings, and offers the widest array of heritage consulting services in the province. ASI works with public sector agencies, including federal, provincial, and municipal governments, private landowners, engineering consortiums, and non-profit organizations to provide a variety of services, including: complete heritage resource assessments (as part of environmental impact studies or subdivision plans review); large scale heritage planning studies; the documentation of archaeological and built heritage features on properties of proposed development; and the salvage excavation of archaeological sites. All of our work is conducted to provide the highest quality consulting services in cultural heritage conservation, planning and management.

Planning Consultants: Bousfields Inc. Bousfields is a consulting firm with special expertise in planning policy and regulation, urban and community design, project management and community consultation. Established in 1974, the firm today comprises 35 planners, urban and community designers and support staff -- a size which still ensures that each project is handled directly by the partners of the firm. Bousfields offers a full range of land use planning and urban design services to the development industry, municipalities and government agencies.

The consultant team would also like to acknowledge and thank:

• The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association and St. Lawrence Market BIA;

• the stakeholders for their valuable input into the teams development of policies and guidelines for the district; and

• City of Toronto staff for their guidance and feedback.

9 ROAD MAP

Understanding the Flow Chart ROAP MAP

All public and private properties in the St. Lawrence The flow chart on the following page identifies which Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (HCD) sections of this document should be consulted, are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage depending upon a property’s categorization as a Act, and this HCD Plan applies to every property in Contributing or Non-Contributing Property, and the the District. Owners of property in the District should nature of the planned work. The flow chart will also read this document when planning any maintenance assist property owners in identifying whether their work, repairs, alterations, additions or new construction property is located in an area of archaeological potential on their property. This document will assist property or an archaeologically sensitive area, to which specific owners in meeting the objectives of the HCD Plan when policies will apply. undertaking work.

Policies and GuidelinesThe policies and guidelines in this Plan are intended to guide conservation and manage Additional Information change in the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood HCD based upon an understanding of the District’s cultural heritage This HCD Plan should be read in conjunction with the values. Policies have been organized into four sections: City of Toronto Official Plan, which gives further direction Contributing Properties, Non-Contributing Properties, on the management and conservation of heritage Streetscapes and Open Spaces, and Archaeology. properties. Depending on the categorization of each property, different sections should be consulted to identify Important background information about the St. applicable policies. Lawrence Neighbourhood HCD Plan, including the Statement of District Significance and District Objectives, can be found in Part One of the Plan. For additional information on the history and evolution of the District, and its physical character, refer to the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Study (2014), available from Heritage Preservation Services’ website.

10 Determine if property is Contributing or Non-Contributing See Appendix C - Schedule of Properties (Column 8) ROAD MAP

Contributing Property Non-Contributing Property Section 5 of the HCD Plan applies Section 6 of the HCD Plan applies

Determine if property belongs to a District building typology See Appendix C - Schedule of Properties (Column 7)

In addition to the Section 5 policies, the following typology-speci c sub-sections apply: Commercial Industrial Landmark No Typology Warehouse Building Building disregard sub-section sub-section sub-section sub-sections 5.20 applies 5.21 applies 5.22 applies 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22

Determine if property is located within an area of archaeological potential or an archaeologically sensitive area See Table 2 and Table 3 in Section 9

Yes No Section 9 disregard applies Section 9

11 ROAP MAP

12 1.0

1. INTRODUCTION 14 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Cover: Church StreetSouth of Front, 1915. Cityof Toronto Archives, Fonds1231, Item 2186 these fiveareas. boundary identified in the 2009 Staff Report, was one of Lawrence NeighbourhoodHCDStudyArea, withthe St. The areas. identified the of character heritage the of immediately in response over diminishment to concerns the prioritization of five areas for HCD studies to proceed (HCD) District Study Prioritization Report,” which recommended Conservation Heritage “Toronto the adopted Council 2012, of October study.In district conservation to allow for a more informed and representative heritage of City the and area’sToronto within this significance of extent the convey properly to order in GeorgeStreet, of east Town”the “Old to the of more capture to intended enlargement of the the recommendedstudy area. that The revised report boundary was Staff a of adoption the was amended by Council in September of 2009 through Act. Heritage That study area the boundary identified of in 2005 V Part under HCD potential a as study within thebroader St.Lawrence Neighbourhoodfor area focused a of identification the authorized Council 2005, of September In 2005. of July in Council adopted City by was which Area,” Focused Neighbourhood report “Toronto Urban Design Guidelines – St. Lawrence the in “HCD”) (a district conservation heritage apotential as identified first was area Neighbourhood evolved through study. Thebroader St.Lawrence Neighbourhood HeritageConservationDistricthas The area selectedfordesignation astheSt.Lawrence Study Area Identification oftheHCD 1.1

BACKGROUND ANDMETHODOLOGY Ontario Preservation Board inMayof2014. Torontothe by endorsed was Study proposed.The also Plan were this for objectives and boundary refined A neighbourhood. the for developed be Plan HCD an that the of V Part best protected through its designation as an HCD under that thearea containsculturalheritagevaluesthatare determined Study held The process. were Study the stakeholders throughout individual with meetings of number a and meetings consultation community Two themes. historic and patterns form built extant the of evaluation an through developed was neighbourhood Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and Interest for the a and detail in analyzed were stage this of findings The inventory sheets for each property within the Study Area. of preparation the in assisted area, the for Study HCD an for recommendation the of supporter strong a been The St. Lawrence landscape. Neighbourhood Association,whichhad and form built existing the of survey and evolutionoftheStudyArea, andundertakinga historic thematic the of understanding an components: developing main two had Study HCD the of stage gathering information The 2013. of June in Study HCD A team of consultants was engaged and they began the HCD Study , and recommended and Ontario Heritage Act, key attributesoftheDistrict’s culturalheritagevalues. refined by validating that the boundary encompassed the extant physical the evidence of these periods. The area established was further form built the of mapping the HCD Study established critical the periods of development; while in developed neighbourhood the of history thematic The 1). Map (see Area Study HCD the refined from significantly was boundary HCD The project. aniterative the of phase was Study the during HCD place took that process the of boundary the Defining Delineation ofDistrictBoundary Consumers’ Gasbuilding. 51 Division police station which is housed in a rehabilitated the include to Area Study the past extended was buildings toitseastandwest.Theboundary, here, Gas Consumers’ the and buildings, parliament first the of site the between continuity provide however, does, it history; land reserve government its or industrial its The block immediately to its south has no trace of either boundary. HCD closely this from excluded therefore is was and corner northernmost associated withCorktown’s workers’housinghistory, the of residential distinct character The development. industrial and character speaks to the more recent history of economic physical extant The remains. designation original its of trace physical no blocks, 10 original the of grid street original planning of the town of York. However, unlike the the in defined lands reserve government the on located Identity.areSpecial blocks of AreaThese Corktown the Areaoverlap Study the of blocks north-eastern two The rest oftheneighbourhood. the of character predominant the from distinct are uses and materials styles, heights, building The District. the of portion western of development the structured that outside of the falls limits of the it historic Government Reserves and west, the to immediately District Financial the of those with associated closely moreare character physical and history Its boundary. the from excluded oftheStudyArea corner was The north-western HCD Boundary Areas excludedfromthe 15 INTRODUCTION 1.1 16 INTRODUCTION 1.1 daet o h Dsrc. oiis o poetn and protecting for enhancing the heritagecharacterof theDistrictin Policies District. the to adjacent properties and Properties, Non-Contributing Properties, Contributing werefor guidelines developed and policies the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood HCD. Separate sets of principles will be applied within the distinctive context of Policies these how the articulate which Plan this of in Guidelines and development the for framework the provided principles These resources. heritage cultural of conservation the for standards provincial and federal The section of this Plan entitled “Principles” summarizes Character Sub-Areas. these District, entitled Plan this of section the the in described are trends within streetscapes or blocks of groups of certain understanding characterize that deeper traits distinctive a the produced also Plan phase HCD the in analysis Further character. heritage propertiesthe District’sidentifying the to contribute that to approach systematic a employed team project The the Study have in been carried forward and refined identified in this Plan. attributes heritage District’s the and objectives, conservation the boundary, proposed the Cultural Heritage Value of and Statement Interest Its and Study. for HCD analysis the the of research,neighbourhood, recommendations the on builds Plan HCD The future development. the existing heritage attributes and resources, and guide conserve District, the of character will the protect Plan to work HCD The area. the for framework planning Plan, the provide to Secondary guidelines, City’sdesign urban applicable and King-Parliament the the including Plan, policies, Official planning future and current other with concert of in work to intention is Plan The HCD the 2014. of September in began Plan HCD Neighbourhood Lawrence St. the of Development HCD Plan the CityofToronto. at procedure permit heritage the of description general a with along 10.0, Section in identified been have and a obtaining without heritage permit under Part V of the undertaken be may of classes alterations Certain sites. these on work proposed of outlines requirements and processes for the assessment and Potential Archaeologically Sensitive Areas within the District, and of Archaeological Areas identifies Section 9.0 8.0. Section in included are realm public the Ontario HeritageAct, Map 1:Map Boundary Adjustment –HCDPlanPhase consultation. stakeholder and public resultof a as part, in made, was adjustment this make to decision The District. the with develop consistently and in a manner that is compatible Street Scott and Street Jarvis between Esplanade The of side north the along realm public and properties that the ensure to made was adjustment This District boundary. the into Esplanade) The 38 - (22 Street Scott 1 at property the brings change This phase. Plan the oftheHCDboundaryduring to the southwestcorner made was adjustment minor a 1, Map on seen As HCD PlanPhase Boundary Adjustmentsinthe 17 INTRODUCTION 1.1 18 INTRODUCTION 1.1 a multi-facetedengagementapproach, whichincluded: employed projectpropertyteam redevelopment).The in institutional stakeholders and (including private owners with a potential interest and owners BIA) property Neighbourhood larger-scale Market Lawrence St. the Association), residents, localbusinessowners(e.g. organizations (e.g.theSt.Lawrence Neighbourhood community included process the in stakeholders Key and guidelines. policies objectives, its of preparation the in involvement stakeholder through Plan HCD the of implementation the facilitate to and Plan; HCD the of preparation the HCD areathe of into knowledge stakeholders’ an integrate Plan, of purpose the on stakeholders educate strategy to: engagement stakeholder project a the developed Phase, team Study HCD the during occurred that consultation the on Building 2015. September to 2014 November from stakeholders. occurred process this neighbourhood Formally, with engagement was Plan the HCD the of development the of part key A Stakeholder Engagement ------property ownersintheHCDarea). key as identified stakeholders to sent were letters owners, owners and 6 private property owners (a total of 29 property larger including representatives of 3 institutional property of representatives Meetings and public on March 24, 2015 and on October 6, 2015; Community 2014; 12, December on Sub-Committee Development Focus group meeting with residents at the SLNA the at residents with meeting group n h wne ad pig f 05 with 2015 of spring and winter the in oslain etns ih h wider the with meetings consultation Figure 2: March24, Break-out 2015Public Consultation Tables Figure 1: March24, Presentation 2015PublicConsultation certain milestones. after page the updated and website project a created exercises, Torontoof City The mail. and telephone email, via team consultation project the formal contact directly to able the were stakeholders to addition In community-based involvementintheprocess. of context the in proposals development review they as councils municipal of accountability and authority decision-making the supporting while policy, by provincial led system planning use land a include Act the of are central to land use planning in Ontario. The purposes the of provisions The documents. policy framework that includes various provincial and municipal The HCD area is currently governed by a land use planning -- policy andregulatory documents. time of such of evolution passage ongoing anticipated notwithstanding the through preservation and protection conservation, heritage cultural of principles core to attuned and relevant remain would that Plan a land use planning framework, with a view to establishing Preparation of the HCD Plan took into account the current 1.2

POLICY FRAMEWORK Planning Act ideas fortheimprovement ofthepublicrealm. project community and themes frameworks, strategic provide Plan Improvement Community King-Parliament the and Plan Improvement Community Neighbourhood targeted, desirable manner. In addition, the St. Lawrence a in development guide to aim but policy, Plan Official as force same the have not do under thePlanningAct, documents, enacted in connection with the Official Plan guideline design urban These areas. specific for Plan Official the of objectives design urban the achieve to means suggest to and clarify to work Guidelines Design Urban Design Guidelines and the King-Parliament Urban the HCDarea TheSt.Lawrence NeighbourhoodFocused area- within apply include may that guidelines design decisions urban specific planning upon impact that provisions of the resources are addressed inaccordance withthe heritage cultural involve that matters planning use land addition, In Plan. Official the of policies the implement which by-law(s), zoning applicable the as well as Plans, Secondary including Plan, Official Toronto of City the to conform to required is development level, municipal the At Plan”). (“Growth Horseshoe Golden Greater the Plan for and Growth the with conflict (“PPS”) not or to 2014 conform to Statement, Policy with consistent Provincial be the to required the is of development provisions Act, the with accordance In Ontario HeritageAct. Other documents Planning 19 INTRODUCTION 1.2 20 INTRODUCTION 1.2 Conservation DistrictPlan: Act the of V Part HCD. designated the for Plan District Conservation Heritage a adopt also would as aheritageconservationdistrict(HCD).Thisby-law area defined a designating by-law a pass to councils the heritage of V cultural Part interest. of or value being as property individual an enables municipal councils to pass a by-law designating and preservation in the protection province of Ontario. Part IV of conservation, the Act heritage for framework The The OntarioHeritageAct e) c) b) a) d) lists thefollowingasrequired contentsofaHeritage

a managing and change intheheritageconservationdistrict;and objectives stated the achieving policy a or interest oftheheritageconservationdistrict; a district; designating thearea asaheritageconservation a the district; in properties of and district conservation heritage 31. s. 6, c. 2005, 42. section under permit a obtaining without property, the on building or structure any of interior the than property,other the of part any conservation heritage a district may carry out or permit to in be carried out on property of owner the that and nature in minor are that alterations rvds h legislative the Ontario HeritageActprovides statement explaining the cultural heritage value heritage cultural the explaining statement ecito o te eiae trbts f the of attributes heritage the of description ecito o te leain o cass of classes or alterations the of description ttmn o ojcie t b ahee in achieved be to objectives of statement ttmns gieie ad rcdrs for procedures and guidelines statements, nbe municipal enables Act Ontario Heritage protected heritageproperty willbeconserved”. the of attributes heritage “the that demonstrated been has it and evaluated been has development proposed the where adjacent except property heritage protected on to lands alteration site and development permit not shall authorities planning that provides 2.6.3 Policy while conserved, be shall landscapes heritage cultural andsignificant resources heritage built significant that directs 2.6.1 Policy heritage, cultural to respect With promote astrong economy. to and safety; protect and health to public and communities; environment the strong support to order in patterns use land and development promoteefficient to intended are PPS the of V Part in expressed directions policy main The development. and to planning related use land interest provincial of matters on direction came providesPPS The 2014. effectpolicy 30, into April of as (PPS) Statement Policy Provincial current The (2014) The ProvincialPolicyStatement feasible, asbuilt-upareas are intensified. of culturalheritageandarchaeological resources where cultural heritageconservation,includingconservation of support in strategies other and policies Plan Official implement and develop will municipalities that provides 4.2.2(e) Policy area”. station transit “major a within is located within an Urban Growth Centre and that a portion is it that given intensification), accommodating on focus a (i.e. Growth Plan the to area” pursuant “intensification 2006. The landswithintheDistrictwouldbeconsidered an 16, June on effect into came Plan Growth The Golden Horseshoe(2006) The GrowthPlanfortheGreater it.” on impact physical and visual mitigate to and property cultural heritagevalues,attributes andcharacterofthat the conserve to designed “be will Register Heritage the propertyon Register.a to, adjacent or on, Development Heritage Actand/orincludedontheCity’s the Heritage under designation through protected be or interest, includingHeritageConservationDistricts,will value heritage cultural of properties that provides section The resources. heritage to respect with policies provides amended, as Plan, Official the of 3.1.5 Section specific appeals. site- outstanding of number a with effect in now is 199 OPA 2015. 12, May dated Order Board a by approved and modified was and Board, Municipal Ontario the to appealed subsequently was 199 No. OPA 2013. 4th, and 3rd April of meeting its at policies realm public and heritage new adopt to 199) (OPANo. Amendment Plan Official an adopted Council City the result a As realm. public the ofthe and resources heritage areview affect that policies including Plan Official its of review The CityofToronto iscurrently undertakinga5-year will occuroninfilland redevelopment sites. development new most that recognizes It realm. public architecture, highqualityurbandesignandavibrant good transit, by supported is which intensification and out a vision encouraging contextually appropriate growth certain policies and land use designations. The Plan of sets exception the with 2006, 6, July on (“OMB”) Board Municipal Ontario the by approved substantially was and 2002 26, November on adopted was Plan”) (“the of Toronto City the amalgamated for Plan Official The (2006) The CityofTorontoOfficialPlan Ontario 21 INTRODUCTION 1.2 22 INTRODUCTION 1.2 the heritagebuildingsintheircontext. 4.4 Policy character.with compatible be should buildings new that heritage provides its including realm, public area’s the of quality the strengthen to used be will Plan Improvement Community King-Parliament the comprising projects improvement community the that provides 4.3 Policy 37). Section to (pursuant agreement such heritagebuildingare secured through asatisfactory of maintenance and restoration conservation, historic if only maximum specified be otherwise the above increased may structure heritage one least at a containing on lot buildings of height the that provides 4.2 Policy moreagreements.appropriateor legal one of means by rehabilitation, re-use andrestoration ofheritagebuildings area andthattheCitywillseekretention, conservation, the to essential are buildings heritage that provides 4.1 policies provides Plan regarding Secondary Heritage and Community Improvement. Policy the of 4 Section set thestageforreurbanization. area where change is both expected and desired and to inan growth guide to established policy, Plan Official approved is Plan Secondary The area. Plan Secondary the in included is boundary HCD the of portion eastern Lawrence St. and residential neighbourhood excluded). As Esplanade such, the north- The (with south the to Don River to the east, and the Canadian National Railway the north, the to East Street Jarvis Queen west, the by to Street bound generally area the to applies Plan”) Secondary (“the Plan Secondary King-Parliament The Secondary Plan The King-Parliament Heritage Preservation National Standardsin of Toronto. and conservation of heritageresources withintheCity 2008 as the official framework for planning, stewardship and Guidelines wereTorontoby adopted in Council City including heritageconservationdistricts.TheStandards conservation approach to heritage resources in Canada, accepted and consistent a establishes document This of Historic PlacesinCanada. for the Conservation takes Plan HCD guidance from Parks Canada’s Neighbourhood Lawrence St. The Standards andGuidelines of theHCDpolicies: guideline documents were considered in the preparation and regulatory following The documents. Plan Master other and Areas Improvement Community Guidelines, Design Urban categories, by By-law Zoning covered of number area a an across extends boundary HCD the above, noted policies applicable the to addition In Other Provisions ------Improvement Plan(2006); The (2000); Urban Design Guidelines(2013); Downtown T King-Parliament UrbanDesignGuidelines(2004); Design Guidelines(2005); St. Lawr 694, Chapter Signs, General); Code Municipal Toronto of City City amended; New amended; Former all BuildingDesignGuidelines(2013); f oot B-a 1621 (dps new a (adopts 196-2010 By-law Toronto of t Lwec Nihorod Community Neighbourhood Lawrence St. iywd Znn B-a 5921, as 569-2013, By-law Zoning City-wide ein td fr h Od on f York of Town Old the for Study Design City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86, as 438-86, By-law TorontoZoning of City ence Neighbourhood Focused Area Urban Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary ------Improvement - Community King-Parliament - - - - Plan (2015). Redevelopment Study(2002);and (2001); Old (2011); Heritage Toronto (2013); Heritage Plan (1997); The St. T Old rnos l Tw Got ad otniy A Continuity: and Growth Town Old oronto’s arne akt egbuho BA Master BIA Neighbourhood Market Lawrence Town Toronto Revitalization Action Plan (2002), on oot: Hrtg Lnsae Guide Landscape Heritage A Toronto:Town Lighting Master Plan for Old Town Toronto nepeain atr ln o Od Town Old for Plan Master Interpretation 23 INTRODUCTION 1.2 24 INTRODUCTION 1.2 ATEMENT OFCULTURAL 2.

ST HERITAGE VALUEINTEREST AND

2.0 26 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.0 Cover: Church and Adelaide. Cityof Toronto Archives, Series372, Sub-series58, item 67. District tothesouthwest. the west,andUnionStation Heritage Conservation north, Corktowntothenortheast, theFinancialDistrictto Garden DistrictandSt.Jamesneighbourhoodsto the neighbourhood tothesouth,Cabbagetown, the The area isalsobordered bytheSt.Lawrence residential Yonge Street. south againincludingthebuildingsoneastside of sides ofVictoria Street uptoFront Street East,and then boundary encompasses both west ends. The western propertiesthe exceptionofnorthern ateastand north andsouthsideofAdelaideStreet are includedwith Street border formsthenorthern ofDistrict;both border takesinthewestsideofBerkeleyStreet. Adelaide of that intersection; north of King Streetcorner East, the includes the51Divisionpolicestationatnortheast from Front Street EastnorthtoKingStreet Eastand edge is defined by the side western of Parliament Street border takesinbothsidesofFront Street East.Itseastern area totheeastofToronto’s downtown core. Itssouthern The St.Lawrence Neighbourhoodisalarge mixed-use St. James’Cathedralanditsnumerous theatres. landmarks, including the St. Lawrence Market and Hall, and institutions its numerous of virtue by significance Thirdly, theDistrict has contextual,social and community includes itsconcentrationof19thcenturybuildings. District hasitsowndistinctivephysicalcharacter, which the CityofToronto andcapitalofOntario;Secondly, the forUpperCanadaandwhichevolvedinto government footprint ofthetownYork, whichwastheseatof factors. TheDistricthashistoricalvalueastheoriginal Lawrence Neighbourhood HCDisbasedonthree The culturalheritagevalueandinterest oftheSt. office and meeting halls, were all built within the District. hall, policestation,church, jail,courthouse,school,post City’s city The market, the including functions, civic first and theWalks andGardens reserve alongtheshoreline. York reserve tothewest;government east; establish themilitaryreserve andtheconstructionofFort relation tothiscentralcore thatmeasures were takento in was It buildings. Parliament First the of siting the and survey of the original 10 blocks defining the town of York that occurred within its boundaries. These include the events significant of number the by enhanced further is the birthplaceof City ofToronto. Its historical value and politicalevents,theDistrictmaybecharacterizedas very real sense,intermsofcommunityactivity, commerce The District has significant historical value, because in a of Consumers’Gasbuildings. of historicindustrialbuildings,includingaconcentration warehouse halfincludesanumber buildings;itseastern commercial century 19th numerous and Park, Berczy Building, Flatiron Gooderham the Park, and Cathedral the St. Lawrence Market, St. Lawrence Hall, St. James’ halfincludes the gaol,andcourthouse.Itswestern land parcels originallyreserved forthechurch, themarket, the and York,site of Buildings town Parliament First the The Districtencompassestheoriginal10blocksof District HistoricalValue Map 2:Map -1797Survey Government Reserves period are stilllegibletoday. Theyincludetheoriginal establishedinthat in 1834.Thedevelopmentpatterns harbour, and its incorporation into the City of Toronto the into extended that lots water the of infilling the with westwardpattern in1797,itsexpansionsouthwards its initialgrowth periodwith theextensionofstreet its designationasthecapitalofUpperCanadain1796, 1849) encompassedthefoundationoftownYork, urban fabric.TheDistrict’s earlydevelopment (1793 to character remains legible intheextantbuildingsand The historicalvalueoftheDistrict’s originalandevolving Hospital Reserve Reserve Reserve House Court Court Gaol Gaol Reserve Reserve Reserve School School Market Church archaeologically significantarea. The District’s richhistoryalsosignalsitspotentialasan to1920. 1850 from intensification of period a initiated harbour the in lots water the of infilling the and 1849, of fire the following reconstruction the rail, the of advent half aswellalongtheharbourtosouth.The half,andindustrialbuildingsintheeastern the western the gradualconcentrationofcommercial warehouses in originally reserved lands. This early period also marked andthe blocks residential continuous useofthechurch andmarketontheir 10 first the of grid street Original 10 Blocks 1793 Walks andGardens Reserve Parliament Buildings Government 1797 First Reserve 27 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.0 28 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.0 William andGeorge GooderhamandJamesWorts. MacKenzie; Lyon William Berczy; William Hunter; Peter the AdministratorofUpperCanada;LieutenantGovernor Russell, Peter Canada; first Upper of the Governor Lieutenant Simcoe, Graves John included have These of the City and with some of its most prominent citizens. The Districtisalsoassociatedwiththefoundingfathers Lawrence Centre fortheArts. of the Confederation resulted in the creation of the St. The initiativeundertakeninthe1960sforcentenary in. filled and lots water into subdivided was harbour the relationship tothewaterfront wasinexorablyaltered as increased economictradeanddevelopment.TheCity’s 1850s, whichalongwiththeharbourgrowth, greatly fabric resulted from theadventofrailin the urban to change significant A Hall. Lawrence St. rebuilt asthepresent daySt.James’Cathedraland original church andmarket,whichwere subsequently part ofthecentre oftheneighbourhood,including anextensive destroyed 1849 in fire accidental, albeit oftheWhiteHouse.Amorethe burning substantial, York, leadingtotheretaliatory attackonWashington and HouseinFort and thedestructionofGovernment Buildings Parliament the of burning the York, of town the of occupation American an in resulted 1812 of War States inthelate1700sandearly1800s.Thesubsequent from Loyalists leaving the newly independent United early expansionwastheresult ofmigrationpressures link ittoawiderhistoricalframeworkandstory. Therapid Many oftheeventsthathavemarkedDistrict’s history City of Toronto Archives, Fonds1525, File8, Item52. Figure 5: thesoutheastcornerofKingStreetEastandChurchStreet, Demolitionat 1971. Reference Library, Toronto PublicLibrary. Figure 4: DemolitionoftheSt. Market’s Lawrence FrontStreetCanopy, 1952. Virtual City of Toronto Archives, Series372, item108. Figure 3: SouthsideofFrontStreetEast, lookingwestfrom Wellington StreetEast, 1913. of windows,andlittleporosity atstreet level. footprint, amore uniformelevationwithrepetitive bays the industrialbuildingsare characterizedbyalarge strong, continuoushorizontaldatumline.Bycontrast, frame andentablature ofthesestorefronts create a correspondwhich inturn tothestorefront widths.The individual buildingsorinverticalbaysofwiderbuildings, of thistypologyisexpressed asasinglelot,eitherin grain finer The roof. mansard a or cornice expressed three storeys with regular window bays and either an design withastorefront base,abovewhichsittwoto evolution. The commercial warehouses have a tripartite District’s overallphysicalcharacterandhistorical Two historical building typologies exemplify the of theresulting streetwall totheoverallstreet widths. lines withshared partywalls;aswelltherelationship continuous street elevations of buildings built to their lot of visualcontinuitywithintheDistrict,arisingfrom the the widthofright-of-way. Thisgeneratesasense ten to storey buildings,withstreetwall heightsnotexceeding five with interspersed buildings storey four to of theheritage buildings in the District consists ofone are sometimeslarger inscale, thepredominant scale Sites. Althoughmore recent developmentapprovals IV oftheOntarioHeritageAct,and4NationalHistoric Part under designated were that buildings 65 Register, buildings thatwere listed in theCityofToronto’s Heritage 45 contained District the development, Plan’s this and Study HCD the of time the At buildings. century 20th stems from itshighconcentration of19thandearly The District’s culturalheritagevalueandinterest also District PhysicalCharacter Figure 7: 70 The Esplanade, anexampleofIndustrialbuilding Figure 6: 67-69FrontStreetEast, anexampleofaCommercial Warehouse building 29 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.0 30 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.0 areas suchastheCity’s Financial District. contrast totheintensityand thebuiltformofnearby in ahistoricenclavewithin theCityinproximity and in and builtformofthestructures withintheDistrictresults addition tosuchbuildings,theoverallphysicaltexture and identityoftheSt.Lawrence Neighbourhood.In character the structuresdefine landmark help important Alumnae Theatre, andSt.JamesCathedral.Such within significant the City. Examplesinclude the Gooderham Building, architecturally and unique are that interest. Oneelementarisesfrom thenumberofstructures out as representative of its cultural heritage value and Two elementsoftheDistrict’s physicalcharacterstand the physicalcharacterofDistrict. abundance ofthetallbuildingbuiltformtoundermine value oftheDistrictandthere ispotentialforanover- such buildingsdonotcontributetotheculturalheritage not impactedtheDistrict’s physicalcharacter;however ten storeys. To date,thenumbersofsuchbuildingshave asfiveto high as buildings on base taller significantly constructed buildings within the District with heights are some, more recent existing or approved but not yet the cultural heritage value of the District. Similarly, there throughout theNeighbourhood,butdonotcontributeto well astowersonbasebuildings.Thesecanbefound as step-backs, gradual with buildings storey ten to five More recent building typologies within the District include proportions ofthewindows. ofstorefrontsornamentation andcastiron work;andthe decorative detailing ofthebrickandstonework; the the use of stone for more prominent buildings; the predominant useofbrick, whichisoftenpolychromed; Other architectural characteristics includethe Figure 9: 55FrontStreetEast, steb-backbuilding acontemporary 81-83 FrontStreetEast Figure 8: brick, Polychrome stonedetailingandornamentalstorefrontsat decorative 2.0

LEGEND Listed in Toronto Heritage Register Intention to Designate under Part IV - OHA Designated under Part IV - OHA

National Historic Site STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST

Map 3: Properties on the City of Toronto’s Heritage Register, 2015

31 32 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.0 District, provide importantgreen spaces. with David Crombie Park immediately to the south of the Courthouse Square andtheSculpture Garden, together Park, James St. Park, Berzcy District. the within located Anglican Church ofCanada,isahistoricreligious anchor Cathedral, asthehomeofDioceseToronto andthe reinforce andsustainculturalactivities.St.James edges The theatreandwestern clustersattheeastern their inceptionbeenfocalpointsforcivicactivities. Hall andthenorthsouthmarkets,whichhavesince value tothecommunityatlarge includeSt.Lawrence and interest andoftheDistrictreinforcing itssocial institutions anchoringthebroader culturalheritagevalue ambience from across theCityandbeyond.Examplesof the District to enjoy its attractions and participate in its numerous institutionsthatcontinuetoattractvisitors contains “Old Town” The landmark. City identifiable an In addition,onabroader scaletheDistrictservesas characterizes theSt.Lawrence Neighbourhood. community activismandneighbourhoodpridethat and community. Thissocial value is evident inthe strong framework oftheDistrictcreates astrong senseofplace life in the City of Toronto. In this regard the contextual Local neighbourhoodcharacterisakeycomponentof operates bothlocallyandonamuchbroader and scale. interest value heritage cultural This significance. framework fortheDistrict’s socialandcommunity character as described above, establish a contextual The District’s historic value, togetherwithitsphysical Significance District SocialandCommunity Built Form City’s FinancialDistrict. density andthebuiltformofnearbyareas suchasthe asa ispreserved historic enclaveinproximity andincontrasttothe which District, the of significance impact oftheseattributesgeneratesthecontextual its archaeological elements andpotential.Theoverall landscape andstreetscape attributes,itsfunctionand form, built its of consist These elements. five of terms The District heritage attributes may be considered in 2.1 thesymmetryatupper levelsofbuildingfacades; - thevertically-orientedfenestration; ------

defines thecommercial blocks; the the streetwalls tothewidthofstreets; the pr warehouses andtheindustrialbuildings; the lines; the buildingconstructiontofr predominant scaleofthebuildings. the skyviewsfr streetwall; most buildingsnotexceedingsixstoreys atthe with buildings, storey ten to five with interspersed the onetofourstor views tothedowntowncore; context of theDistrict , aswell the resultant engenders asenseofplacewithinthehistoric District (Yonge Street), whichlowerscalepresence proximity tothetallbuildingsofFinancial the lower STATEMENT OFHERITAGEATTRIBUTES distinctive built form typologies of commercial fine-grained vertical rhythm of facades that offacades rhythm vertical fine-grained edominantly equalproportion -scale buildingsoftheDistrictare in om thesidewalkresulting from the ey predominant scale, ont andsidelot of theheight Landscape - thelandmarkbuildings; ------the orientationofmainentrancestowar the useofbrick(r bays, pilasters,columns)inbuildingfacades; stor the articulationofhorizontalrhythm(stringcourses, pathways, including: provide green space,leisure spaceandpedestrian the urbanparks, between thecityandformerlowerbeach; and TheEsplanadewhichmarksthedifference the changeinelevationbetweenFront Street East the surrounding buildings; of place,andcreate focalpointsinrelation to which connectustothepast,provide asense The the expr streets; brickwork; of masonry, includingtheuseofpolychrome anddetailing overall qualityoftheornamentation CourthouseSquar - Sculptur - - - - theexpr - theuseofmansar ------eys, cornices) andverticalrhythm(window eys, cornices) abu ifl suh f rn Sre East and Street of Front south infill harbour views of landmark buildings and open spaces, Market LanePark; Ber St. JamesPark;

essed rooflines, including: czy Park; essed cornices. e Garden; and gardens andpublic squares that ed andbuff) andstone, the d roofs; and e. ds major 33 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.1 34 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.1 Streetscape - Thestr ------storefronts; Street EastatChurch Street; Esplanade thatreflect theoldshoreline; in gradebetweenFront Street EastandThe 10 blocks; Street edgeoftheoriginal thatmarksthenorthern York’s Church and Jail Reserves, and east of Jarvis Street edgeofthetown thatmarksthenorthern the bendofAdelaideStr Street; the distinctivepedestrianstr neighbourhood; the Lawrence Market; the pedestrianculturallifer circulation around theSt.Lawrence Market; Street andJarvisStreet, whichassistsinpedestrian the medianonFr Street EastandKingStreet East; the bus service; and Railway Street Toronto the of birthplace the the str the animated its northandsouthends; the enclosedvisual the the bendinFr confluence of Front Street East with Wellington high-levels of pedestrian activity along Front marked and unmarked gateways to the eetcar linealongKingStreet East,whichwas eet gridoftheoriginal10blocks; streetscapes and pedestrian-oriented ont Street Eastandthe change ont Street EastbetweenChurch character ofToronto Street at eet EastwestofJarvis eet lightsonToronto elated totheSt. - - distinct commercial pockets, including: blocks, enhanceconnectivity, andsometimeshave pedestrian connections,whichbreak downlarge the laneways,narr Far - ScottLane; - OakHallLane; - Colbor - - - CourtStr - Colbor - AbbeyLane; - LeaderLane; - - NicholsonLane; - DukeMews; - T ------Rodega Lane; Old PostOfficeLane; Pompadour Lane; aylor’s WharfLane; quhars Lane; ne Lane; ne Street; and eet. ow streets, andmid-block Function - - - theadaptiver ------community andcity, including: educational, communityandculturallifeofthe the continuousr Neighbourhood; the continuousmixed-usecharacterof activities, including the film industry within the City; the importance commercial warehouse storefronts; the continuouscommer the landoriginallyreserved forthem; St. Lawrence Market and St.James’Cathedral on cultural linktothepast.Suchstructures includethe structures within the District preserves a built form The continuousoperationofnumer King Edwar - - Geor - St.Lawr - NorthandSouthSt.Lawr - St.James’Cathedral; ------(CanStage); Theatre, The Canadian Stage Company Peoples’ Young Company, Opera Canadian Theatre, Alumnae Arts, Performing the for St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts, Sony Centre ge Brown College-St.JamesCampus; ence Hall; e-use ofindustrialbuildings; of theDistrict as asetting for artistic ole ofkeyinstitutionsinthesocial, d Hotel. cial useof19 ence Market; ous historic th century Archaeological thelosthistoricsites - TheAr - - - - Original10Blocks. - - - - - The sitesofthefirstSt.Lawr First ParliamentBuildingsSite;and chaeologically SensitiveAreas (ASAs); , including: ence Market 35 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.1 36 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.2 the St.Lawrence Neighbourhood. upon focus addressing thephysicalcharacterandfunctionof will Plan District this of objective overall to themanagementofchangewithinDistrict, function andarchaeological elements.Lookingforward the Districtincludeitsbuiltform,landscape,streetscape, social andcommunityvalue.Theheritageattributesof consists of its historic value, physical character and its The culturalheritagevalueandinterest oftheDistrict qualities for the benefit of current and future generations. by its heritage attributes in order to preserve these cultural the conserve heritage valueandinterest oftheDistrictasmanifested and protect to is Plan District The overallobjectiveofthisHeritageConservation 2.2

STATEMENT OFHCDOBJECTIVES the objectives. numeric sequencedoesnotestablishapriorityamong out below. set are Plan Although the following sections are numbered, the of this objectives Specific 3. 2. 5. 4. 1.

the City’s FinancialDistrict; density andthebuiltformofnearbyareas suchas historic enclaveinproximity andincontrasttothe storey scaleofbuildings,anditscharacterasa District, includingitspredominantly onetofour resour Conserve theHeritageAttributesofheritage Attributes. is describedingeneraltermstheHeritage as embodiedinitsphysicalcharacter, which Conserve the Maintain andreinfor interest oftheDistrict; further, complementtheculturalheritagevalueand streetscapes are compatiblewiththeircontextand and alterationstobuiltform,landscapes construction, new Manage changewithintheDistrictsuchthat and socialvenues; landmark containingimportantcultural,institutional City identifiable an as role broader its of terms in premised onitsdistinctphysicalcharacterand a neighbourhoodwithdistinctlocalidentity of significance Conserve andenhancethesocialcommunity the District; street-related, pedestrian-scaledenvironment of of thetallbuildingsaround Yonge Street andthe District, and thedifferentiation between the scale ces aswellthegeneralfabricof cultural heritage value of the District h Dsrc i trs f t rl as role its of terms in District the infill development, additions development, infill ce thehistoricheightof 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. streetwalls articulated and strong the ce 7. 6.

appropriate investigationisundertaken. resources are protected untilsuchtimeas Ensur signage andstreetscape treatments; Buildings sitethrough meanswhichwillencourage reserve Parliament First the and lands government including theoriginal10blocks, Enhance pedestrian connections; of complete streets, pedestrian amenities and and civicactivitythrough theestablishment community and uses related to public gathering Encourage andpr the publicrealm; landscape, signage,andcivicdesigntoenhance Pr the area; Pr sight lines; Street East,byminimizinglossofskyviewsand Pr features from netnewshadows; Pr interest ofcontributingbuildings andtheDistrict; adverse impactontheculturalheritagevalueand proposed builtformdonot result inunacceptable heritage properties where thoseusesandthe Support andencouragetheadaptiver the neighbourhoodandcity; Recognize that characterizethemainarteriesofDistrict. Reinfor mt eclec i sresae lighting, streetscape, in excellence omote of out and into views and vistas identified otect King along particularly streetscapes, the otect heritage shadow-sensitive identified otect e thatknownandpotentialarchaeological the legibility of the historic urban fabric King Street East as the historic artery of omote acontinuedsenseof e-use of 37 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.2 38 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE AND INTEREST 2.2 3.

CHARACTERIZA TION OFDISTRICT

3.0 40 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.1 Cover: Wellington andChurch, 1915. Cityof Toronto Archives, Series372, Sub-series100, Item108. The Districtboundary, therefore, includes: 3.1 ------

identity oftheDistrict. the warehouses andtheindustrialbuildings; of theearlyT the buildingsthatcharteconomicdevelopment George Brown College; endsoftheDistrict,and at thewestandeastern the area andthecityatlarge, including thetheatres the Flatiron BuildingandSt.Lawrence Hall; neighbourhood’s visualidentity, includingthe the buildings andthefirstCityHall; and jail, and thelocations of the First Parliament church, themarketandmeetinghall,courthouse institutions ofthecityToronto, includingthe the ar the which were definedsoon after; in 1793, as well as those immediately to the west DELINEATION OFDISTRICTBOUNDARIES original 10 blocks of the town of York surveyed cultural and educational institutions that serve buildings that contribute to the overall visual landmark buildings that form the eas related toearlycivic andreligious oronto, includingthecommercial

The boundarylimitsrunalongr residential buildings. is markedbythemuchmorerecent the neighbourhood railway linesof the city, characterof the predominant to theoriginal Park tracesitsorigins David Crombie income andsociallydiversecommunity. While the linear a mixed to develop initiative municipal the 1980s around form anareawithadistincthistoryandcharacter, based Front StreetEast. The blockssouthofFrontStreetEast was excluded. The boundaryincludesbothsidesof A sectionofthesouthernedgeStudy large Area and westerncornersforreasonsdiscussedabove. of theeastern Street Eastwiththeexceptions Adelaide The northernborderencompassesbothsidesof Map 4. lines andthecentrelines ofroads, where indicatedon ear andsideproperty Map 4:Map HCDBoundary LEGEND HCD PlanBoundary 41 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.1 42 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.1 of Properties. on Maps5,6and7aswellinAppendixC–Schedule identified are typologies these to belonging Properties some ofToronto’s mostdistinctivehistoriclandmarks. they contributetotheDistrict’s heritagecharacteras their by unique and/orexceptional physical attributes. Together, defined often are they fact, In materiality. or necessarily share commonarchitectural styles,detailing within theDistrict.Thesehistoricbuildingsdonot Landmark buildingsconstituteathird buildingtypology that characterizethetypologieswithinDistrict. The followingsectionoutlinesthekeyphysicalattributes Study.HCD the in discussed is District the in typologies Industrial the Building typology. Theevolutionofthesebuilding and typology Warehouse Commercial overall physicalcharacterandhistoricalevolution:the Two historicalbuildingtypologiesexemplifythedistrict’s 3.2

BUILDING TYPOLOGIES 43 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.2 44 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.2 Commercial WarehouseTypology–CommonAttributes Map 5:Commercial Warehouse Typology Map - Recessedentrances - Glazedstor ------stone detailing 2m–4.5m, averagestorefront widthof5m–9m) storefronts roof) Distinct tripartitedesign(stor Red, buf Narr Thr Expr ee tofivestorey height ow rhythmoffaçades(averagebaywidth essed separationbetweenupperstoreys and f orpolychrome brickwork,oftenwith efronts withwoodormetalframes efront, upperstoreys, ------pilasters, cornice, fascia,and/orcastironpilasters, cornice, detailing Romanesque Revivalstylisticinfluences roof withdormers Flat r in theupperstor Regularly-spaced andvertically-orientedwindows upper storeys) Glazing Decorative Italianate, oof withexpressedormansard/gable cornice proportions (75–95% storefronts, 20-35% ecascl Scn Epr, and Empire, Second Neoclassical, storefront surrounds, often including eys LEGEND Commercial Warehouses Figure 10: Street, 61-75Jarvis examplesofCommercial Warehouse buildings Figure 11: PrototypeofaCommercial Warehouse building

TRIPARTITE DIVISION Glazed Storefront Upper Storeys (75-95% Glazing) (20-40% Glazing) Roof NARROW VERTICAL ARTICULATION VERTICAL NARROW (Bay Widths 2-4.5metres) Warehouse building Figure 12: 35FrontStreetEast, an exampleofaCommercial Brick Windows Vertically-oriented Cornice Expressed Cornice Dormers Brick Detailing Stone or Contrasting Mansard Roof Narrow Base Recessed Entrance Fascia Structure) Frame (Secondary Structure) Surround (Principle 45 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.2 46 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.2 Map 6:Map Industrial Buildings Industrial BuildingTypology–CommonAttributes T - Lar - Glazingpr - - - ge buildingfootprint - - - - - width of3m-6m) bays V Uniform elevationswithr wo totenstorey height ertical articulationofelevations(averagebay oportions (15–40%) epetitive windowsand Flatr - Lessdetailingonupperstor - - Lackofpor ------Raised gr stone detailing Red orpolychr oofs withsimplecornices ound floorlevelsfrom the sidewalk osity atstreet level ome brickwork,sometimeswith LEGEND Industrial Buildings Industrial eys Figure 13: 204KingStreetEast, anexampleofaIndustrialbuilding Figure 14: PrototypeofanIndustrialbuilding UNIFORM ELEVATION withRepetitive Windows andBays (Glazing 20-40%,Bay Widths: 3.5-6metres) LARGE BUILDINGFOOTPRINTLARGE Figure 15: 219FrontStreetEast, anexampleofaIndustrialbuilding at Street Level Lack ofPorosity Level from Sidewalk FirstRaised Floor Division ofBays Vertically Expressed Brick Detailing Brick Stone orContrasting Upper Storeys Less on Detailing Simple Cornice 47 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.2 48 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.2 Landmark Buildings–ListKeyedtoMap7 Map 7:Map LandmarkBuildings - Flatir - - - - SouthSt.Lawr - - - - oronto PostOffice(1); - - - - - Sony Centr King Edwar Old T St. Lawr St. Lawr 4 on Building(3); 2 ence Hall(7); ence Centre fortheArts(5) ; 1 5 e forthePerformingArts(4); d Hotel(2); 15 ence Market(6); 3 14 13 7 6 12 11 10 ------and 14) Y St. Bank ofUpperCanada De LaSalleInstitute Fourth Y Paul BishopHouse Alumnae Theatr ork CountyCourthouse(15). ae’ ahda ad ahda Centre Cathedral and Cathedral James’ 9 ; and ork PostOffice(10); e (8); (9); (11); LEGEND (12); Landmark Buildings 8 (13 Figure 18: South St. Market Lawrence Figure 17: BankofUpperCanada Figure 16: Building Flatiron Figure 20: St. JamesCathedral Figure 19: KingEdwardHotel 49 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.2 50 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.3 two ofthefollowingcriteria: in order toidentifywhethertheproperty meetsatleast each property withintheDistrict’s boundaryindividually, consisted of reviewing the Built Form Inventory sheet for The methodology used to identify Contributing Properties two categoriesofproperties. Different setsofpoliciesandguidelinesapplytothese not contributetotheheritagecharacterofDistrict. District, and“non-contributingproperties,” whichdo which contributetotheheritagecharacterof theDistrict boundary intotwocategories:“contributingproperties,” within properties all of classification the for foundation the set Study HCD the during Inventory The compilationandevaluationoftheBuiltForm 3.3 ------

District. Pr Landmark or Buildings Buildings (Section3.2);and/or Industrial Warehouse Buildings, Commercial – Typologies Building Pr Register; Pr operty’s agelinksitclearlytothehistoryof operty belongstooneofthe District’s three Heritage Toronto’s of City the on is operty CATEGORIZATION OFPROPERTIES cmlt ades it f otiuig n Non- and Contributing of Contributing Properties canbefoundinAppendixC. list address complete A a whole. character ofneighbouringproperties andtheDistrictas heritage the impact significantly to potential the them evolution alongsidethecontributingproperties gives heritage characteroftheDistrict,theirproximity toand the to contribute individually not do Non-Contributing that do not meet at least two of the above criteria. While Non- as Contributing classified Properties, as were all remaining properties were integrity architectural have of theDistrict.Properties thatwere determinednotto integrity toeffectively contribute totheheritagecharacter to determinewhethertheyretained enougharchitectural least two of the above criteria were then reviewed again at meet to determined were that properties District All Map 8:Map ContributingProperties LEGEND Contributing Properties 51 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.3 52 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 4. Regrowth andredevelopment (1970stotoday) 3. Industrialandcommercial decline(1920sto1970s) 2. Intensificationperiod(1850to1920) 1. Earlydevelopment(1793to1849) were elaboratedintheHCD Study: each leavingitstraceontheurbanfabric.Theseperiods understood be through four historic periods of can significance; development Its York. of town the as 1793 in has undergone continuouschangesinceitsfounding District canbecategorizedasanEvolvingthat The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation 3.4

CHARACTER SUB-AREAS character withineachCharacterSub-Area. the nuancedexpression oftheDistrict’s overallheritage and are intendedtoinformageneralunderstandingof Sub-Area, each of elements non-heritage and heritage describe theextantcharacter, historyanduseofthe District. Thelistsofcharacteristicsinfollowing section respond tovariationsofthebuiltformthroughout the and thePolicies Guidelines inSections5.0and6.0tomore effectively for to allow order in identified were Sub-Areas Character The District. the within Sub-Areas Character identified six the characterize that features trends and unique and boundaries the identifies section the neighbourhoodbetweensub-areas. Thefollowing District hasevolvedovertime,asonemovesthrough sub-areas helptoprovide astrong senseofhowthe streetscapes andopen spaces thatconstitutethese sub-areas on different of theDistrictindifferent ways.Theextantbuildings, mark their left significance of The wavesofdevelopment associated witheach period Map 9:Map CharacterSub-Areas LEGEND Front Street Sub-Area Adelaide Street Sub-Area Market Sub-Area Flatiron Sub-Area HouseCourt Sub-Area King -St. James Sub-Area 53 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 54 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 Built Form Periods ofSignificance King –St.JamesSub-Area - Oldestr - - - - Built outtofr - - - - EarlyDevelopmentPeriod(1793–1849) ------IDA factories as OntarioDesignCentre Brown and Co. factories as George Brown College, Adaptive in theDistrict Clusters Toronto’s HeritageRegister High in heritagestreetscape Sympathetic today) Regr - 1970s) Industrial Intensification Period(1850-1920) - - Banksandindustrialbuildings(1900-1920) ------owth and Redevelopment Period (1970s - of King Street East, west of Original 10 Blocks Evolution Primarily infilldevelopment commercial warehouses (1850-1900) St. Commer King Street 215 East). East, Street King (200 College Brown George and East) Street Adelaide 435 - 427 East, Street King 260 - (254 Centre Design use ofindustrialclusterssuchastheOntario re- adaptive East; Street King 333 as such development ofnewcommercial complexes ocnrto o poete o te iy of City the of properties of concentration ow ofretail buildingsinthecity of some of the oldest (pre-1850) buildings Lawrence Hall, St. James Cathedral and Cathedral James St. Hall, Lawrence n Cmeca Dcie eid (1920s Period Decline Commercial and eue f nutil lses Christie clusters: industrial of re-use ont property line,pedestrian-oriented contemporary infill of “missing teeth” “missing of infill contemporary cial warehouses along the south side f ig tet ein District; Design Street King of - - Str - - - Narr - - - - Pr - Glazedstor ------Contributing Ar Street East,clustered aroundStreet Sherbourne condominiums primarilyonnorthsideofKing Ar Sky Pr Contributing Pr Street andJarvisStreet, alongLombard Street north side of Adelaide Street East between Church Newer fivetofifteenstor Contemporary buildings backdrop oftheFinancial Districtskyline intermittent tallerbuildings ominent corner lots ominent corner institutional and industrial of integrity chitectural edominantly twotosixstoreys buildings,with - - industrial clusters - - 19 - - r - - eetwall: ------ow verticalrhythmoffacades views looking east and looking west, with the George Street toChurch Street) industrial buildings) Edwar Neoclassical (southsideofKingStr Pr St. Lawr St. Street Centre ows ofcommercial warehouses dmnnl 1 – 0 es o Church of east 20m – 10 edominantly th James Cathedral and St. James’ Diocesan c.banksandhotels efronts withrecessed entrances in Kn Ewr Htl , banks, , Hotel, Edward (King dian ence Hall chitectural Styles: operties include: oe ad ae building base and tower ey residential buildingson eet East, Str - Str - Map 10:Map King–St. JamesSub-Area eetscape andLandscape - - Animated usesatgrade - North-southstr - East-weststr - - - eet widths: - - - - - of KingStreet East) Adelaide Street East) side ofKingStreet East, JarvisStreet and Italianate Gothic Revival(St.JamesCathedral) Second Empir (storefronts along north and south and north along (storefronts e (storefronts alongsouthside eets –20m eets –20m - Movement: - Gr - - - - Highly mixed-use: een space: - - Mid-blockconnectionstoFr - Str - - NorthedgeofMarketLanePark - Sculptur - St.JamesPark ------commercial atgrade) commer Park Pedestrian connectionsthr activity High eetcar ees f uooie n pedestrian and automobile of levels cial, institutional,residential (with e Garden ough St.James ont Street East 55 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 56 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 Periods ofSignificance Court HouseSub-Area - - - - - 1970s) Industrial Intensification Period(1850-1920) - - - - new officetowersduringthisperiod. the Districtledtoconstructionofseveral westward shiftofcommercial activityoutof Pr Old House oximity toYonge Street followingthe Toronto Post Office, York County Court County York Office, Post Toronto n Cmeca Dcie eid (1920s Period Decline Commercial and Built Form - - - - Str ------Toronto Street East, tallerbuildingsalongKingStreet Eastand T Site Historic National one Register,Toronto’s Heritage High Contributing ar Contributing Pr Hub in thelate19 wo to six storey buildings along Adelaide Street Adelaide along buildings storey six to wo ------12m–66m - eetwall: ------of banking, insurance companies and utilities and companies insurance banking, of Modern architecturalModern style Newer Italianate andNeoclassical 2 Excelsior LifeInsurancetower Y T Consumers’ GasHeadquarters Seventh PostOffice Frederick Cumberland(andco.) ocnrto o poete o te iy of City the on properties of concentration rust andLoanCompanybuilding ork County(Adelaide)CourtHouse buildings designed by E.J. Lennox, 2 by th omril ulig: Mid-Century buildings: commercial century; significant buildings remain chitectural styles: operties include: Streetscape /Landscape Streetscape Map 11:Map CourthouseSub-Area - - - - Str ------Neighbourhood the Somewhat secludedtransitionzonebetween Court HouseSquar Almost exclusivelycommer and (west), between CourtStreet andKingStreet East downtown (east), Street Church to Mid-block - T - eet widths: - - Financial District and the St. Lawrence Court Lane–6m Adelaide Str oronto Street, KingStreet East, pedestrian links from Toronto Street eet East–20m e park cial landuses

57 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 58 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 Built Form Periods ofSignificance Flatiron Sub-Area Str - - Narr ------buildings on corner lots buildings oncorner Pr architectural ornamentation. Street –includingoriginalcastiron façadesand side of Front Street East and south side of Colborne Ar properties, landmarkbuildings High large scalebuildings,downtownskyline Juxtaposition of19 (1920s-1970s) Industrial Intensification Period(1850-1920) edominantly three tosixstoreys withafewtaller south along warehouses of integrity chitectural 10m –20m - - - eetwall: - - - ow verticalrhythmofstorefronts – today) Regrowth andRedevelopmentPeriod(1970s sparked furtherinvestmentduringthe scale urbanrenewal intheneighbourhood, 1960’sreflect the Arts largethe for ambitions Sony of commercial activity Wharves, ocnrto o lse ad designated and listed of concentration Centre and the St. LawrenceCentreSt. the Centreand for n Cmeca Dcie Period Decline Commercial and shoreline infill, rail, westward shift westward rail, infill, shoreline th century buildings and modern centurybuildingsandmodern - - - Builtouttofr - Pedestrianorientationofbuildings ------Iconic Industrial W Contributing Pr with thebackdrop oftheFinancialDistrictskyline. looking west,framedbyonetotenstorey buildings V and Wellington Street East(formerlythe‘CoffinBlock’) East Street Front of confluence towards formerraillines unload shipsdockedbehindthem and load to windows) (now bays loading and floor were constructed with retail spaces onthemain Contributing ar iews of the Flatiron Building from Church Street Church from Building Flatiron the of iews rhue o suh ie f rn Sre East Street Front of side south on arehouses - - - Flatir - - Second Empir ------Rows St. Lawr Sony Centr Italianate (war Street)and Colborne several warehouses along Front Street East Romanesque Revival(Flatir Industrial buildingsonTheEsplanade Front Street East East, Street Wellington Street, Colborne on epne f adak ltrn ulig to building Flatiron landmark of response warehouses on The Esplanade oriented Esplanade The on warehouses on Building of 19 ont property line ence Centre fortheArts chitectural styles: operties include: th e century commercial warehouses ehouses) e (warehouses) on Building, Streetscape /Landscape Streetscape - - Str - Map 12:Map Sub-Area Flatiron - - - Street relates tooriginalshoreline Change (Berczy Park) the characterandamenitiesofDistricttoday opportunities forparkspacethatcontributesto Mass - Fr - eet widths: - - Esplanade –20m W demolition in the post-war era created ligo Sre Es, ct Sre, The Street, Scott East, Street ellington ont Street East–25m n rd aog hrh tet n Scott and Street Church along grade in ------buildings, heritage significant by framed is - - - - residential (withcommercial atgrade) from UnionStationandtheFinancialDistrict Gateway East from thewest towards theFlatiron muralanddownFront Street dropped bythedowntown skylinefrom east, Iconic Active which canbeviewedthrough theparkatallangles Park Highly High levelofpedestrianactivity uses at grade – retail, restaurants and patios iw twrs ltrn ulig back- Building, Flatiron towards views ie-s: omril institutional, commercial, mixed-use: to the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood – 59 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 60 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 Built Form Periods ofSignificance Market Sub-Area - - Str ------EarlyDevelopmentPeriod(1793–1849) ------Street in theDistrictaround Front Street EastandJarvis Cluster from the1980’s, 1990’s andearly2000’s Cluster V storeys) taller building(109Front Street East–twelve Pr grade Adaptive on southsideofFront Street East) the street (Market Square, infill and adaptive re-use complements heritagecharacterandbringslifeto Contemporary today) Regr Intensification Period(1850-1920) with thebackdrop oftheFinancialDistrictskyline. looking west,framedbyonetotenstorey buildings iews of the Flatiron Building from Church Street Church from Building Flatiron the of iews edominantly twototenstorey buildings,one 14m –20m - - commer - SouthSt.Lawr - eetwall - - - - owth andRedevelopmentPeriod(1970s– area East bringsnew life andinvestmenttothe Residential developmentalongFr of eight to ten storey residential buildings residential storey ten to eight of of some of the oldest (pre-1850) buildings (pre-1850) oldest the of some of re-use of warehouses with active uses at uses active warehouseswith re-useof cial warehouses eieta dvlpet that development residential ence Marketandhotels ont Street Streetscape /Landscape Streetscape - Movement: - - - Boulevar - Str ------grade. residential buildingsallhavecommercial usesat flexible street and South North markets, andinMarketLane between traffic pedestrian Mix Recent r Historic Contributing Pr Neoclassical(war - - - SouthSt.Lawr - - - - JarvisStr - MarketStr - Fr - - eet widths: ------of commercial and residential land uses, Italianate (war Contributing ar East toSculpture Garden) Market Street southofFront Street East East betweenNorthandSouthmarkets, into streets around theMarket(Front Street Lane, Far Mid-block pedestrianconnections(Market High Fr Rows ont Street East–30m40m ont Street East - major through-traffic artery d streetscape alongFront Street East ra f omre n hg lvl of levels high and commerce of area edevelopment ofMarketStreet asa level of pedestrian activity, overflowing activity, pedestrian of level of 19 eet –20m quhars Lane,lanefrom Front Street operties include: eet –15m th century commercial warehouses ehouses) ence Market chitectural styles: ehouses) Map 13:Map MarketSub-Area 61 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 62 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 Built Form Periods ofSignificance Front StreetSub-Area - - Str - - - - Distinctgr ------efrig rs Cntg, aain Opera Canadian Company; civic–51Division Police) CanStage, – arts performing Adaptive vacant lots,parkingvaryingstreetwall heights North sideofFr Contributing ar Contributing Pr Toronto’s HeritageRegisterwithashared history High Intensification Period(1850-1920) South sideofFr - T - - - - RomanesqueRevival(factories) - - T ------eetwall: ------Original 10Blocks North sideofFr east endtotherail/harbour Orientation ofbuildings(andindustries)at Italianate (factories) William DaviesPorkPackingPlant Consumers Gas(atParliamentStr Consumers’ Gas(atBerkeleyStr Standar Berkeley Castle Gooderham &Worts, harbour, rail) Heavy ocnrto o poete o te iy of City the on properties of concentration wo totenstorey buildingheights oronto Street RailwayStables re-use (office space – Berkeley Castle; –Berkeley space (office re-use ouping of19 d Woolen Mills nutil ciiy poiiy to (proximity activity industrial chitectural styles: operties include: ont Street East:more setbacks, ont Street East:12m–20m ont Street Eastwaspartof th centuryfactories eet) eet) Streetscape /LandscapeActivity Streetscape - - - - Movement - Str ------the neighbourhood a /ala hb os; ie f t Lawrence St. Foundry of site house; hub /Railway Gas Jail/Consumers’ Buildings/Third Parliament First Properties Non-Contributing by occupied sites development currently underredevelopment, otherpotential orContemporaryarchitecturalModern styles contemporary) tallerresidential buildingswithPost east end. end, institutional,commercial andcivicusesat York, andSt.Lawrence residential neighbourhood High W Mix ofcommer Fewer T Includes ransition area betweenDistilleryDistrict,townof s ed f u-ra cneprr (90s - (1980’s contemporary Sub-Area: of end est - - North-Southstr - Fr - eet widths - - - - District Less Major thr eeomn pesr, eea properties several pressure, development active usesat grade than in otherparts of ont Street East–20m rhelgcly estv aes st of site areas: sensitive archaeologically pedestrian traffic than other areas of areas other than traffic pedestrian ough-traffic artery cial andresidential usesatwest eets –20m Map 14:Map FrontStreetSub-Area 63 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 64 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 Built For Periods ofSignificance Adelaide StreetSub-Area - Mor - Str ------EarlyDevelopmentPeriod(1793–1849) ------Contributing Pr intermittent tallerbuildings Pr buildings Emer Adaptive r today) Regr Intensification Period(1850–1920) edominantly twotosixstorey buildingswith - - - - - 12m–20m - - - - eetwall: m ------e varyingsetbacksthaninmajorityofDistrict owth andRedevelopmentPeriod(1970s– ging contemporary11+storey condominium Christie Br and BankofUpperCanada T Alumnae Theatr Studio City, Gilletteindustrialbuildings Drug Paul BishopHouse Residential densification. and factory Imperial Optical. Gillette City, Company Studio Trading factory, Drug factory; Co. and Industrial period remain Significant oronto’s First Post Office, De la Salle Institute e-use ofindustrialclusters rdn Cmay Ipra Optical, Imperial Company, Trading operties ulig icuig hite Brown Christie including buildings own andCo. eieta bidns rm this from buildings residential e Streetscape /LandscapeActivity Streetscape - - - Movement - Str ------Contributing ar (with commercial atgrade)publicfacilities (educational, cultural and religious), residential Highly neighbourhoods T asto ae t Crtw, os Park Moss Corktown, to area ransition - - - - North-Southstr - - eet widths: ------T Cluster and Front Street East Less of BerkeleyStreet Major Adelaide Str East Street Adelaide between JarvisStreet and Sherbourne on detailing Deco around BerkeleyStreet o omry nutil ulig wt Art with buildings industrial formerly wo ie-s: omril institutional commercial, mixed-use: pedestrian traffic than King Street East Street King than traffic pedestrian through-traffic artery, opening up east up opening artery, through-traffic f ue An Rvvl architecture Revival Anne Queen of chitectural styles: eet East–20m eets –20m Map 15:Map Adelaide StreetSub-Area 65 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 66 CHARACTERIZATION OF DISTRICT 3.4 4.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

4.0 68 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 4.0 Cover: Rear Laneof71Colborne Street. City of Toronto Archives, Series 372, Sub-series 58, Item535 following sectionsoftheHCDPlan. the in out laid policies the with along HCD, the within whole andwillgenerally apply toindividualproperties a as HCD the to interventions any to apply will Canada ofHistoricPlacesin Guidelines fortheConservation Policies and Terms, theStandards and of Reference As per HCD Policy 10 of unique context of the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood HCD. articulate how these Principles will be applied within the build onthefoundationoftheseguidingprinciples,and sections following the in Guidelines and Policies The Council as the City guiding document for heritage Torontoproperties. by adopted been and Guidelineshave The 2007. in Culture of Ministry Ontario the Heritage Properties,issuedby ofBuilt the Conservation Places (2010),are followed by the of Historic Standards and Guidelinesfor the Conservation document, Canada’s Parks in identified “Standards” and provincial direction onheritageconservation.The guiding principles.Theseprinciplesexpress federal 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 are based on the following The policies and guidelinespresented in theSections HCDs inToronto – Procedures, 8 Guiding Principles in Standards 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 2010) of HistoricPlaces Guidelines fortheConservation “Standards”, fromStandardsand

to limitdamageandlossofinformation. archaeological resources, take mitigation measures resources in place.Where there ispotentialfordisturbing archaeological preserve and Protect undertaken. is intervention subsequent any until or nochangetoitscharacter-defining elements. coexisted. combining features of the same property that never from other historic places or other properties, or by sense of false historical a development create by not adding Do elements use. and place time, its of calling forminimalintervention. their ownright. in character-defining elements become have time, Conserve location isacharacter-defining element. Do not move a part of an historic place if its current elements. character-defining repairable or intact its alter substantially or replace remove, not Do Conserve Pr Find Recognize eachhistoricplaceasaphysicalr Conserve otect and, if necessary, stabilize an historic place a use for an historic place that requires minimal heritage value by adopting an approach an adopting by value heritage changes to an historic place that, over that, place historic an to changes h hrtg vle f n itrc place. historic an of value heritage the (Parks Canada, ecord 10. Additional StandardsRelatingtoRehabilitation 9. 8. 7.

the historicplace. the new elements compatible with the character of physical insufficient of detailing and material form, the make evidence, is same there the of Where versions elements. sound of detailing and with new elements that match the forms, materials them replace exists, evidence physical sufficient too severely deterioratedtorepair, andwhere are elements character-defining Where elements. Repair future reference. on close inspection. Document any intervention for identifiable and place historic the with compatible character-defining elements physically and visually Make are there surviving prototypes. of where parts elements, missing character-defining any or kind deteriorated in extensively Replace methods. recognized conservation using materials their reinforcing by ongoing basis. Repair character-defining elements Maintain value whenundertakinganintervention. means gentlest possible for any intervention. Respect heritage the Use needed. intervention the appropriate to determine elements defining Evaluate theexistingconditionofcharacter n itreto nee t preserve to needed intervention any ahr hn elc character-defining replace than rather character-defining elements on an elements character-defining - 12. 14. 13. Additional StandardsRelatingtoRestoration 11.

Cr historic place. the from distinguishable and to subordinate with, compatible visually and physically work new the historic place or any related new an construction. to Make additions new any creating when elements Conserve Replace sound versionsofthesameelements. of detailing and materials forms, the match that elements new with them replace exists, evidence severely too deteriorated to repair and where sufficient physical are Where period. elements restoration character-defining the from elements Repair work isremoved inthefuture. new the if impaired be not will place historic an of construction so that the essential form and integrity and detailing are based on sufficient physical, sufficient documentary and/ororalevidence. on based are detailing and materials forms, whose features new with period ae n nw diin o rltd new related or additions new any eate ahr hn elc character-defining replace than rather isn faue fo te restoration the from features missing the heritage value and character-defining 69 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 4.0 70 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 4.0 sake ofefficiency. the for materials prematurelyhistoric replacingadjacent to lead can so doing Not concurrently. undertaken be can work repair and maintenance that so durability, or lives service and compatible have materials also should New assemblies materials. existing the to materials, well- suited are that using methods construction and includes assemblies compatibility “Physical following excerptfrom theParksCanadatexthere: the include to beneficial is it so section, following the and This conceptisreiterated throughout theguidelinesin to subordinate with, explained. further is places fromhistoric distinguishable compatible being work (2010), Standard 11iselaborated andtheconceptofnew Guidelines and Standards the of 34 page On Conservation ofHistoricPlacesinCanada,2010) Conservation (Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines for the place more thanalarge, well-designed addition.” ill-conceived additioncouldadverselyaffect anhistoric small, a size; of question a not is Subordination value. heritage its impair or place historic the from detract not must addition the that mean to understood best is This An additionshouldbesubordinate tothehistoricplace. place inamannerthatrespects itsheritagevalue. historic the complementing thus contrast, pointed and form existing the of imitation mere between struck be must balance appropriateTo an place. this, accomplish historic the from, distinguishable yet with, compatible Additions ornewconstructionshouldbevisually to asingletimeperiod. later additionstoabuildingorstructure solelytorestore destroynot Do period. another of expense the at period Respect for The building’s: Do not restore history to one without alteringitsintegrity. Repair toreturntheresource toitspriorcondition, materials. like with Repair Respect for original fabric: intervention Minimal maintains theheritagecontentofbuiltresource. necessary. absolutely except finishes, where and materials building replace than -rather Repair/conserve Respect forhistoricmaterial: site diminishesculturalheritagevalueconsiderably. integral component of a building or structure. Change in an is Site them. save to means other no is there unless buildings move not Do Respect for the originallocation: photographs, drawingsandphysicalevidence. historic as such documentation historic on based be should work Conservation conjecture. on base restoration not Do evidence: Respect for documentary Culture, 2007) Properties Conservation ofBuiltHeritage Eight GuidingPrinciplesinthe (Ontario Ministryof osrain rjcs n ter ih ot cn be can costs high avoided. major their upkeep, and regular projects With conservation necessary. be not will Maintenance not blurthedistinctionbetweenoldandnew. should additions new and time, own their of products from distinguishable old. Buildingsorstructures shouldberecognized as be should work New Legibility: removed andstored, allowingforfuture restoration. numbered, are stones original the wall, stone a into put design and technique. e.g. When a newdoor opening is to originalconditions. This conserves earlier building returned be to able be should Alterations Reversibility: Wt cniuu cr, uue restoration future care, continuous With : 71 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 4.0 72 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 4.0 AND GUIDELINES FOR 5.

POLICIES CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES

5.0 74 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.0 The definitions of all terms identified in identified terms all of definitions The achieve eachpolicy. to how on directions specific provide policies) following Properties. “Guidelines” (in regular font,bulletedlists heritage valuesandmanagingchangeonContributing Cover: King EastofChurch Street, circa1890s. Cityof Toronto Archives, Fonds1478, Item33. (in Neighbourhood HeritageConservationDistrict.“Policies” for ContributingProperties intheSt.Lawrence The followingsectioncontainspoliciesandguidelines following section can be found in Appendix A: Definitions bold font)provide rulesfor conservingcultural italics in the 5.1.1 5.1 Policies andGuidelinesforContributingProperties. intervening of theproperty. Thenextsteps,planningand the appropriate interventionsthatprotect andmaintain fundamental basis for developing and evaluating contributing property methodology thatbeginswithunderstandingthe conservation approach establishes athree-step been adoptedbytheToronto CityCouncil.Its for provides thebasisfor PoliciesandGuidelines of Historic PlacesinCanada for the Conservation Parks Canada’s documentStandardsandGuidelines CONTEXT a.

cultural heritage values and Contributing Properties. This document has

Appendix E:HIATerms ofReference). Heritage ImpactAssessment (HIA)process (see determined thr This documentationandevaluationmaybe UNDERSTANDING of umented, andoncetheimpact been determined. itage valuesandattributeshas additions onthoseculturalher of thepr al heritage value and permitted onlyoncethecultur contributing property may be Additions proposed , are integratedintotherest ofthe operty havebeendoc and ough theCityofToronto’s . Thisunderstandingisthe alterations and/or alterations to a heritage attributes attributes - - -

5.1.2 der todetermineappropriate interventions, a. c. b.

take intoaccount: In or from otherplaces,properties orhistoricperiods. orcomponents adding historicbuildingfeatures evolution anddevelopmentoftheproperty by Do much oftheheritagefabricaspossible. appropriate scope ofworkandtopreserve as any interventions,inorder todeterminethe deterioration of heritagefabric prior to planning Determine thecauseofanydistr - - - - Additions andalterationstoa and oftheDistrictasawhole. and attributesoftheproperty to theculturalheritagevalues property andhowitcontributes of theheritagefabricthat based onafirmunderstanding contributing property mustbe - - - - not create a false sense of the historical identified periodsofsignificance; historic architectural styles,typologiesand the building’s current conditions. building overtime;and the changesthathavebeenmadeto original architect or builder; the intentionsanddesignprinciplesof ess, damageor

75 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.1 76 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.2 5.2.1 5.2 of theDistrictasawhole. the individualproperty’s heritagevaluesoverthose Historic Sitesshouldprioritizetheconservationof Part IV of the Interventions onproperties designatedunder heritage valuesandcharacter-defining elements. its defines that Significance of Statement a has within theSt.Lawrence NeighbourhoodHCD.Each National HistoricSites,fourofwhichare located attributes. ParksCanadaalsocommemorates identified their and properties individual Act, whichprotects the cultural heritagevalueof designated underPartIVoftheOntarioHeritage the St.Lawrence Neighbourhood HCDare also Heritage Act. Many properties located within District are designatedunder PartVoftheOntario All properties located within a Heritage Conservation CONTEXT

DESIGNATIONS EXISTING NATIONALHISTORICSITESANDPARTIV and maintained. Historic Sitemustbepr itage Act and/or as a National der PartIVoftheOntarioHer pr tage attributesforanindividual of thisPlan,theidentifiedheri In additiontother operty thatisdesignatedun Ontario Heritage Act equirements or as National otected heritage - - - 5.2.2

butes. tural heritagevaluesandattri servation ofDistrict-widecul take precedence overthecon Statement ofSignificancewill IV designatingby-laworinits specified in the property’s Part heritage values and In conservation ofthe quirements oftheHCDPlan, ignation conflictswiththere or NationalHistoricSitedes ments ofaPartIVdesignation situations where the require

attributes cultural ------

5.2

LEGEND Listed in Toronto Heritage Register Intention to Designate under Part IV - OHA Designated under Part IV - OHA National Historic Site

Map 16: Existing Heritage Protections POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES

77 78 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.3 5.3.1 5.3 - - - - c. b. a.

purposeful damagetotheproperty. neglect, deferred maintenance or is not the result of demolition by value of the the loss ofheritage integrity lost; and the heritage the

Guidelines forNon-ContributingProperties. policies all and guidelines under follow to required be will property be be re-evaluated. If the property is determined to of the property (ie. as a contributing property) may If property Do notdemolishabuildingon protected against demolitionbyneglect. By-law, ensure that contributing properties are As pertheCityofT DEMOLITION a demolition permit is granted, the classification sidered when: uting propertiesmaybecon The demolitionofbuildingsthat of buildingsthatare oncontrib applications forthedemolition will not be permitted; however are oncontributingproperties contributing property hasbeen non-contributing, theredevelopment ofthe withtheintentionofreconstructing it. integrity and value of contributing property oronto’s Property Standards Section 6 – Policies and Section 6–Policies contributing and - -

5.3.2 respective heritageconservationdistrictplans. of demolitions properties inHCDsmustbeaccordance with that requires 199 OPA and Act, take placeinaccordance withtheOntario Heritage that thedemolitionofproperties inHCDsmayonly require By-Law Standards Property the and Code HCDs from demolitionbyneglect.TheMunicipal Standards By-Law protects heritage properties in be property locatedinan HCD.TheProperty application permit submitted fortheproposed demolitionofany heritage that requires within HCDs.ArticleIVoftheMunicipalCode Heritage Register, including properties located demolition ofaproperty on theCityofToronto’s a 199 requires Heritage ImpactAssessmentfortheproposed (OPA) Amendment Plan Official CONTEXT

lationships to considered asdemolition. relocated, therelocation willbe to bedismantledinorder tobe whole. Whenabuildingneeds location, retaining historicre be conserved in their original Contributing Sub-Ar ings, streetscapes, Character eas andtheDistrictasa properties must adjacent build - - 5.4 preserved andprotected. integrity ofthebuildingorstructure ismaintained, heritage character, visualandstructuralheritage heritage attributesinorder toensure thatthe minimum standards forrepairing andreplacing Part Vdesignatedheritageproperties, aswell for maintenanceandoccupancyofPartIV standards minimum specifies By-Law This Law. of theCity of Toronto Property Standards By- Also refer toArticleV(HeritageProperty Standards) property andtheprotection ofitsheritagevalues. to ensure thelong-termsurvivalofheritage anddeteriorations defects addressing as defined of Historic PlacesinCanada,is the Conservation the ParksCanada’s StandardsandGuidelinesfor minimal intervention, as described in Standard 3of sound maintenancestrategy. Theprincipleof prevention approach are anintegralpartofa property to preserving theintegrity ofthecontributing current andhistoricalconditions andisessential based onanassessmentandunderstandingofthe Ongoing andregular maintenance shouldbe CONTEXT

MAINTENANCE . Regularinspectionsandaproactive 5.4.1 h. g. f. e. d. c. b. a.

impact thelifecycleofheritagefabric. repairs are compatible with and do not negatively discreet. it exists. elements are maintained. during maintenanceandrepair work. damage orexposure todamagingmaterials possible, whenrequired. in order totake corrective actionassoon for moisture penetration and insect infestation assemblies wall exterior regularly;monitor walls until repair workis undertaken. Stabilize deteriorated recognized conservationmethods. heritage fabriconanongoingbasis,using Maintain Ensur Install windowcleaningsystemsthatar Pr Ensur Pr Clean andr their tection and preservation of and will ensure thelongtermpro be maintainedinamannerthat Contributing eserve the unique patina of materials, where materials, of patina unique the eserve otect adjacentproperties from accidental e thatthematerialsandmethodsusedfor e thatwatershedding and diversion attributes. contributing properties cultural epair damagedmaterialsinexterior heritage fabric as required, properties must heritage value andtheir e -

79 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.4 80 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.5 5.5 having jurisdictionisencouraged. new technologicalsolutionswiththeauthorities compliancestrategiesand Reviewing alternative cultural heritage values of the contributing property. meet that intent without negatively impacting the codes isessentialfordevelopingapproaches that compliance. Anunderstandingoftheintent be considered whenundertaking workforcode of Historic PlacesinCanada,should Conservation Parks Canada’s StandardsandGuidelinesforthe reversibility, asdescribedinStandard 3ofthe The principlesofminimalinterventionand CONTEXT

CODE COMPLIANCE

5.5.1

property andtheDistrict. attributes ofthecontributing cultural heritagevaluesand does notnegativelyimpactthe be adher tainability requirements must curity, accessibilityandsus pertaining to health, safety, se Curr ent codesandstandards ed toinawaythat - - 5.6 for specificheritageattributesofaproperty. landmark properties or as a secondary treatment Restoration maybeappropriate forcertain negatively impact theculturalheritagevalueofproperty. not would significance of period the and the recreation of lost or components from otherperiodsofitshistory history, suchthattheremoval ofbuildingfeatures is a property tied primarilytoasingleperiodofthatproperty’s of significance historic the when A its heritagevalue”(italicsadded). , while protectingat a particular period in its history place, or of an individual component, as it appeared recovering or representing thestateofan historic “the actionorprocess of accuratelyrevealing, ‘Restoration’ as: defines ofHistoricPlacesinCanada Conservation Parks Canada’s StandardsandGuidelinesforthe CONTEXT Restoration project isanappropriate undertaking

RESTORATION heritage attributes from 5.6.2 5.6.1 c. b. a.

that nevercoexistedonthebuilding. historic periods,anddonotcombinefeatures elements from otherplaces,properties or development by adding historic building Do missing ordeterioratedbeyondrepair. Replace from period. therestoration Repair ratherthanr neglected orobscur od which have been removed, butes from therestorationperi project, reinstate heritageattri materials beingr tation oftheearlierformsand supporting historicdocumen must be based on thorough its history. primarily toaspecificperiodin When undertakinga value ofthepr ate whenthecultural heritage ing propertymaybeappropri The not create a false sense of historical in-kind any in-kind restoration Restoration heritage attributesthatare eplace heritageattributes operty islinked of a ecovered. ed. restoration contribut projects - - - - -

81 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.6 82 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.7 5.7 h giac rqie t blne e interventions new balance to required guidance the these Alterations Parks Canada’s Standards 10 to 12 form the basis for heritage value.” or anindividualcomponent,whileprotecting its or compatiblecontemporaryuseofanhistoricplace, “the actionorprocess ofmakingpossibleacontinuing defines ‘Rehabilitation’as: of Historic PlacesinCanada, which Conservation Parks Canada’s StandardsandGuidelinesforthe are derived from the Rehabilitation Standards of The policies for has acorresponding meaning.” to restore, renovate, repair ordisturband‘alteration’ “’alter’ meanstochangeinanymannerandincludes follows: The CONTEXT

Ontario HeritageAct(2005) defines ALTERATIONS policies. Theirobjectiveistoprovide altering a contributing property alterations as

its culturalheritagevalues of theproperty nordetractfrom anunderstandingof contributing property replacingthan rather while them; repairing and components thosebuildingfeatures fabric by ofheritage prioritize thepreservation onheritageattributesmustthereforeInterventions do notnegativelyimpacttheheritagefabric. the useofmaterialsandconstructionmethodsthat to speaks compatibility physical while proportions; is achievedwithappropriate design,massingand be achievedonbothscales.Visual compatibility Compatibility withtheculturalheritagevaluesmust as well as on the Alterations includeinterventionsonheritageattributes respecting itsculturalheritagevalues on acontributing property withmaintainingand contributing property as a whole. mustneither affect theintegrity andattributes. on the interventions . 5.7.2 5.7.1 a. b.

Replace property inform, material anddetailing. be compatiblewiththeheritageattributesof andcomponentsto the newbuildingfeatures design configuration, original their establish to and where there is insufficient historical evidence damaged to determine their original conditions When the research. ones basedonexisting examples or historical the form, material and detailing of the original building the originalcannotberepaired. The replaced the pr able from theheritagefabricof subordinate toanddistinguish and visually compatible with, property mustbephysically Alterations butes oftheproperty. than replace theheritageattri property Alterations features andcomponentsshouldmatch features in-kind operty. heritage attributeshavebeentoo must repair rather the toacontributing to a heritage attributes contributing where - - 5.7.3 a.

impact through a HeritageImpactAssessment. contributions maybeweighedagainsttheir cultural heritagevalueoftheproperty. These by thealteration’s contributionstotheoverall potentially negativeimpactsmustbemitigated the property are notnegativelyimpacted. Any that the cultural heritage value and for new openings or structural elements ensure discouraged. Where originalmaterialisremoved Removal of removal ofheritagefabric. where theyminimizethelossor property may be permitted only Alterations heritage fabricisstrongly toacontributing attributes of 83 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.7 84 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.8 5.8 property impact the heritageattributes of the contributing other newconstructionshouldalsonotnegatively property the architectural expression ofthecontributing The designofthenewworkshouldrelate to contributing propertywhileremaining compatible. by ensuringthatitisdifferentiated from the values andintegrityofthecontributingproperty The protecting itsheritagevalue.” historic place,oranindividualcomponent,while continuing orcompatiblecontemporaryuseofan “the actionorprocess ofmakingpossiblea defines ‘Rehabilitation’as: ofHistoricPlacesinCanada,which Conservation Parks Canada’s StandardsandGuidelinesforthe are derived from the Rehabilitation Standards of The policiesforAdditions CONTEXT

addition mustpreserve the culturalheritage ADDITIONS iftheyare removed inthefuture. whilenot copying it. New additionsand to acontributingproperty

5.8.2 5.8.1 b. a.

or removed inthefuture. negatively impactedifthenewworkisreversed property character andintegrityofthecontributing Design Assessment. the potentialimpactthrough aHeritageImpact These contributionswillbeweighedagainst overall mitigated bytheaddition’s contributionstothe Any potentiallynegativeimpactsmustbe of theproperty are notnegativelyimpacted. that theculturalheritagevalueandattributes in order toaccommodate additions,ensure discouraged. Where originalmaterialisremoved Removal of the property. removal of heritage fabric from where theyminimizethelossor property may be permitted only rials oftheaddition. architectural detailsandmate massing, height,pr ty, withregard tothelocation, Additions fr ordinate to and distinguishable visually compatiblewith,sub property mustbephysicallyand Additions om thecontributingproper cultural heritagevalueoftheproperty.cultural additions anditsheritageattributeswouldnotbe to a to a heritage fabricisstrongly sothatimpactontheform, contributing contributing oportions, - - - 5.9 MASSING

CONTEXT Massing addresses the exterior form of a building properties. The angular plane reinforces the streetwall and its spatial relationship to its immediate context heights and the sky views characteristic of certain as perceived from the public realm. It encompasses Character Sub-Areas. the overall proportions of a building, its relationship The existing streetwall height of the contributing to its neighbouring buildings, and its impact on the property is the primary reference point for the scale and character of the streetscape. Massing is development of additions within or above the interrelated to the composition of the streetwall, the streetwall. The secondary reference point is the roof, as well as the architectural expression of the streetwall context established by contributing building envelope openings properties located on the same block as the property The height of the District streetwalls are predominantly in question. Where a contributing property on the equal or lower than the width of the right-of-way and block is significantly set back from the front property provide sky views from the sidewalks. The pedestrian

line, its main elevation shall not be read as a streetwall. 5.9 experience of these historic proportions is part of In Character Sub-Areas where angular planes apply, the heritage character of the District. The policies the angular plane shall be measured from the front and guidelines presented here aim to reinforce this property line, at the top of the building face. reading and experience. The step back and angular The policies and guidelines were developed to plane policies reflect and respect the character of recognize the variation of built form within the District. the different streets as captured by the Character These differences are characterized in the Character Sub-Areas. The step-back principally preserves the Sub-Areas and described in more detail in Section three dimensional integrity of individual contributing 3.4.

Uniform height of roof line, cornice, and/or podium among adjacent structures

Consistent street width maintains continuity of streetwall and views POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES Uniform setback from the property line

Figure 21: Streetwall Characteristics in the HCD 85 5.9.1 Additions and alterations to a 5.9.2 Additions and alterations to a contributing property must re- contributing property must be spect primarily the massing designed so that whole, or sub- and the streetwall height of the stantial portions of, heritage historic building, and second- buildings are retained and the arily other contributing proper- three-dimensional integrity of ties within the same block. these buildings is conserved.

a. Do not incorporate facades or isolated building features or components into additions as two- dimensional objects. b. Retain the contributing property, including all streetwalls facing a street or open space by stepping back any new vertical addition

5.9 a minimum of 10m from the streetwall of the contributing property.

Contributing and Non-Contributing Properties St. Lawrence HCD Plan, 2015

20 12 15 14 42 42 16 1615 12 12 12 18 14 16 12 20 20 9 15 14 20 11 7 28 12 16 23 18 11 5 22 15 13 13 7 31 25 17 10 12 9 6 12 20 12

11 35 66 16 20 11 18 13 16 11 16 13 17 20 12 12 17 8 9 35 66 9 12 9 14 11 1818 151314 9

16 16 13 19 12 1813 20 23 16 14 16 7 14 15 14 14 8 14 14 10 18 25 15 10 9 20 24 14 LEGENDLEGEND 20 20 ContributingKing - St. James Properties Sub-Area POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES Non-ContributingCourt House Sub-Area Properties Flatiron Sub-Area Market Sub-Area Adelaide Street Sub-Area Front Street Sub-Area 10 Existing Streetwall Height (metres) Contributing Properties Map 17: Existing Streetwall Heights - Contributing Properties 86 5.9.3 Additions and alterations to a contributing property must MEASURING ANGULAR PLANE respect the context of the property’s applicable Char- Conceptual illustrations showing acter Sub-Areamethods for measuring (see angular Section plane 3.4 – asCharacter outlined in the HCD planSub-Areas) policies. , and must protect the massing FRONT PROPERTY LINE EXISTING of that Character Sub-Area’s STREETWALL HEIGHT streetwalls by building within EXISTING CONTRIBUTING angular planes where they ap- PROPERTY ply. Figure 22: How to Measure Angular Plane Requirements - Contributing Properties

a. Flatiron Sub-Area - 450 angular plane applies.

0 b. Market Sub-Area - 45 angular plane applies. 5.9 c. King - St. James Sub-Area - 450 angular plane applies to building elevations facing all streets except for George Street, Frederick Street, FRONT PROPERTY LINE

Sherbourne Street,FRONT PROPERTY LINE Princess Street, Ontario Street, and Berkeley Street. This will help to ensure a smooth transition between the King – St. James Sub-Area and the Front Street and Adelaide Street Sub-Areas.

LEGEND King - St. James Sub-Area Court House Sub-Area Flatiron Sub-Area Market Sub-Area POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES Adelaide Street Sub-Area Front Street Sub-Area 45 degree angular plane applies

Map 18: Application of 45 degree Angular Plane within the Character Sub-Areas 87 88 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES 5.9 5.9.4 a.

and landscaping. include appropriate pedestrian-scale lighting This spacemustread asapublicplaceand space oramid-blockpedestrianconnection. to grade-related, publically-accessible open The space within the setback must be dedicated and will be reviewed onacase-by-case basis. buildings onablockextendtothefront lotline, will beconsider Setbacks forpublically-accessibleopenspaces Infill frontage. the fullextent of theproperty the front lotlineandmustbuild additions ed onlywhenthemajorityof mustbuild out to