Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas
GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Environmental Project Report Addendum
APPENDIX C2: Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas
Final Cultural Heritage Report:
Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment
Table Union5-1 Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
For
[INSERT DISCIPLINE] BASELINE CONDITIONS REPORT
Prepared by:
AS I
Reviewed by:
Gannett Fleming Project No. 060277 Metrolinx Electrification Project
Contract No. QBS-2014-IEP-002
Prepared By: Morrison Hershfield 2/3/21 i | P a g e Submittal Date: February 2021 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
METROLINX GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION
Quality Assurance
Document Release Form
Name of Firm: Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI)
Document Name: Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact
Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Submittal Date: February 3, 2021
Discipline: Task 18 – RCUS TPAP
Prepared By: Lindsay Graves Date: January 21, 2021
Reviewed By: Amber Saltarelli Date: January 29, 2021
Approved By: Andrew Gillespie Date: February 3, 2021 Project Manager
The above electronic signatures indicate that the named document is controlled by ASI, and has been:
1. Prepared by qualified staff in accordance with generally accepted professional practice. 2. Checked for completeness and accuracy by the appointed discipline reviewers and that the discipline reviewers did not perform the original work. 3. Reviewed and resolved compatibility interfaces and potential conflicts among the involved disciplines. 4. Updated to address previously agreed-to reviewer comments, including any remaining comments from previous internal or external reviews. 5. Reviewed for conformance to scope and other statutory and regulatory requirements. 6. Determined suitable for submittal by the Project Manager.
GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
REVISION HISTORY
Revision Date Comments
00 August 12, 2020 Revised Submission to Metrolinx.
01 February 3, 2021 Final Submission to Metrolinx.
GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment USRC Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Executive Summary ASI was contracted by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC, on behalf of Metrolinx, to conduct a Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment (hereafter CHR) of the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) Hydro One (HONI) Conflict Areas Study Area (Project Study Area). As part of the Metrolinx Electrification Program, Metrolinx is working with HONI to define the areas in the vicinity of Metrolinx rail corridors where proposed electrification infrastructure will conflict with existing HONI Infrastructure (i.e., HONI transmission lines) and to establish Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements that may need to be fulfilled in relation to the identified conflict areas. With respect to the Metrolinx USRC, there is existing HONI infrastructure in conflict with the proposed electrification infrastructure between approximately USRC Mile 0.72E to 1.72E (City of Toronto) which will therefore need to be installed/relocated in order to mitigate the conflicts. The Project Study Area (Figure 1-1) includes the following properties with a 50 metre buffer: • Lower Sherbourne Street Bridge (Subway); • Parliament Street Bridge (Subway); • Cherry Street Bridge (Subway); • Esplanade Transformer Station; • Don Fleet JCT (including new and existing sites adjacent to Lower Don Trail); and • Portion of the Corktown Commons, where future steel monopole is proposed that will be studies under a separate addendum. The purpose of this report is to present an inventory of all known or potential built heritage resources (BHRs) and cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs), identify existing conditions of the Project Study Area, provide a preliminary impact assessment, and propose appropriate mitigation measures. This CHR follows guidelines presented in the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) Sample Tables and Language for “Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment” and Environmental Project Reports (EPR) under Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) for Proponents and their Consultants (MHSTCI 2019). The results of background historic research, background document review, and field review revealed a study area with an urban land use history dating back to the early nineteenth century. A total of five BHRs and two CHLs were identified in the Project Study Area, which includes three provincial heritage properties (PHP)s, one provincial heritage property of provincial significance (PHPPS), one potential BHR, one National Historic Site/Proposed Heritage Conservation District, and one potential CHL. Direct impacts to the three PHPs have been identified: Lower Sherbourne Street Subway, Parliament Street Subway and Cherry Street Subway (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3). Indirect impacts have been identified to the three PHPs (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3) and the Cherry Street Tower, a PHPPS (BHR 4). No direct or indirect impacts to the Eastern Avenue Bridge (BHR 5), Distillery District National Historic Site/Proposed Heritage Conservation District (CHL 1), or Don River Heritage Plaques and Bridge Abutment Remnants (CHL 2) have been identified. Based on the results of the CHR, the following recommendations have been developed:
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 iv | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
1. Selection of construction staging and laydown areas will follow Metrolinx’s selection procedures which include avoiding heritage attributes wherever possible or effectively mitigating impacts where not possible. 2. Direct impacts to the Lower Sherbourne Street Subway, Parliament Street Subway and Cherry Street Subway (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3), all PHPs, are anticipated as a result of a proposed utility bridge adjacent to the south elevation of each bridge. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) (ASI, in progress) for each bridge is recommended to determine appropriate site-specific mitigation measures. a. The HIAs must be prepared in accordance with MHSTCI Information Bulletin No. 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties (2017) to identify alternatives and mitigation and monitoring commitments to avoid or lessen impacts on the Cultural Heritage Value and heritage attributes of the PHP, based on the PHP’s Statement of Cultural Heritage Value (SCHV). b. HIAs will be conducted during the TPAP and updated during detailed design as appropriate should designs change, and the recommendations of these HIAs will be followed and adhered to by the Contractor during subsequent design stages and construction. 3. Indirect impacts to the heritage attributes of the following PHPs and PHPPS are possible due to installation of new/modified infrastructure: Lower Sherbourne Street Subway, Parliament Street Subway, Cherry Street Subway (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3) and the Cherry Street Tower (BHR 4). The following mitigation measures will be adhered to: a. To ensure these properties are not adversely impacted during construction, baseline vibration monitoring should be undertaken in advance of construction. Should this advance monitoring assessment conclude that the structures on these properties will be subject to vibration impacts: i. Preferred Option: Plan construction activities to avoid adverse vibration impacts. ii. Alternative Option: Prior to construction, if it is found that there is potential adverse impacts as a result of the vibration zone of influence, a qualified engineer should include impacted properties in the condition assessment of structures within the vibration zone of influence. Further, Metrolinx must make a commitment to repair any damages caused by vibrations. b. The area should be monitored for vibration impacts during construction, and immediately cease work if acceptable vibration thresholds are exceeded until the above has been undertaken. 4. During design, the recommendations of all HIAs and this CHR will be followed and adhered to during design and construction, including but not limited to strategies to protect heritage attributes. 5. Should additional HONI Conflicts within the USRC be identified that were not considered as part of this report (or other Metrolinx studies), then the conflicts will be assessed by a qualified cultural heritage professional, documented and submitted to the MHSTCI for review. The exact documentation to be submitted to the MHSTCI will
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 v | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
depend on the nature of the conflict, its location within the USRC and any previous reports prepared. 6. This report should be submitted by the proponent to heritage staff at the City of Toronto, the MHSTCI, and any other relevant stakeholder with an interest in this project for review and comment.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 vi | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Project Personnel
Senior Project Manager: Lindsay Graves, MA, CAHP Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist | Senior Project Manager, Cultural Heritage Division
Project Coordinator: Katrina Thach, BA (Hon) Archaeologist | Project Coordinator, Environmental Assessment Division
Report Preparation: Michael Wilcox, PhD Cultural Heritage Technician | Technical Writer and Researcher, Cultural Heritage Division
Alexis Dunlop, MSc Manager – Laboratory and Fieldwork Services, Operations Division
Graphics Preparation: Robin Latour, MSc Archaeologist | Geomatics Specialist, Operations Division
Report Reviewer: Lindsay Graves
Johanna Kelly, MSc Cultural Heritage Associate | Project Manager - Cultural Heritage Division
Rebecca Sciarra, MA, CAHP Partner | Director - Cultural Heritage Division
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 vii | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Qualified Persons Involved in the Project
Lindsay Graves, MA, CAHP Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist |Senior Project Manager - Cultural Heritage Division
The Senior Project Manager for this Cultural Heritage Report is Lindsay Graves (MA, Heritage Conservation), Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist and the Environmental Assessment Team Coordinator for the Cultural Heritage Division at ASI. She was responsible for: overall project scoping and approach; review and confirmation of field survey findings; development and confirmation of technical findings and study recommendations; application of relevant standards, guidelines and regulations; and implementation of quality control procedures. Lindsay is academically trained in the fields of heritage conservation, cultural anthropology, archaeology, and collections management and has over 15 years of experience in the field of cultural heritage resource management. This work has focused on the assessment, evaluation, and protection of above ground cultural heritage resources. Lindsay has extensive experience undertaking archival research, heritage survey work, heritage evaluation and heritage impact assessment. She has also contributed to cultural heritage landscape studies and heritage conservation plans, led heritage commemoration and interpretive programs, and worked collaboratively with multidisciplinary teams to sensitively plan interventions at historic sites/places. In addition, she is a leader in the completion of heritage studies required to fulfil Class EA processes and has served as Project Manager for over 100 heritage assessments during her time at ASI. Lindsay is a full, professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (Environmental Assessment Area of Practice).
Michael Wilcox, PhD Cultural Heritage Technician, Cultural Heritage Division
Michael Wilcox was responsible for preparing and contributing to research, site survey activities, and technical reporting. Michael is a professional historian with subject matter expertise in Ontario’s social, political, religious, education, and labour history. His current focus is on background research and assessment of cultural heritage resources, buildings, and landscapes in Ontario. He has over a decade of combined academic and workplace experience in conducting historical research and crafting reports, presentations, articles, films, and lectures on a wide range of Canadian history topics. Michael is proficient in gathering data, conducting literature reviews, evaluating key themes and trends, and synthesizing findings into clear and concise prose.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 viii | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV PROJECT PERSONNEL VII QUALIFIED PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS IX 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
1.2 BACKGROUND OF EPR ADDENDUM/NATURE OF CONFLICT 2
1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 3 2 METHODOLOGY 6 2.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 6
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 8
2.3 SCREENING METHODOLOGY 8
2.4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW 9
2.4.1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE REPORTS ...... 9
2.4.2 REVIEW OF ONGOING CULTURAL HERITAGE REPORTS ...... 10
2.4.3 REVIEW OF HERITAGE INVENTORIES ...... 10
2.4.4 REVIEW OF CITY OF TORONTO DATABASES ...... 11
2.4.5 FIELD SURVEYS ...... 11
2.5 PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 11 3 THEMATIC HISTORY 14 3.1 INTRODUCTION 14
3.2 INDIGENOUS LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT 14
3.3 TOWNSHIP SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT 16
3.3.1 THE TOWN OF YORK AND YORK TOWNSHIP ...... 16
3.4 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF UNION STATION RAIL CORRIDOR 18
3.5 REVIEW OF HISTORICAL MAPPING 20
3.5.1 NINETEENTH-CENTURY MAPPING ...... 20
3.5.2 TWENTIETH-CENTURY MAPPING ...... 22 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 28
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 ix | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
4.1 FIELD REVIEW 28
4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES 29 5 PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 29 6 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY DATA COLLECTION 35 7 RESULTS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 36 8 REFERENCES 38 APPENDIX A: HERITAGE PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION 42
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Outline of Southern Ontario History and Lifeways ...... 14
Table 4-1: Inventory of Known and Potential Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes ...... 30
Table 5-1: Identified Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Preliminary Impact Assessment, and Recommended Mitigation Measures ...... 29
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Location of Project Study Area ...... 4
Figure 1-2: Lower Sherbourne Street Utility Bridge, General Arrangement ...... 5
Figure 3-1: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on an 1862 map of the City of Toronto (Browne 1862) ...... 21
Figure 3-2: Location of the Project Study Area Overlaid on an 1878 Map of the City of Toronto (Miles & Co. 1878) ...... 22
Figure 3-3: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1903 Fire Insurance Plan (Goad 1903) ...... 23
Figure 3-4: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1924 Fire Insurance Plan (Goad 1924) ...... 24
Figure 3-5: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1947 aerial photograph (City of Toronto Archives 2020) ...... 25
Figure 3-6: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1975 aerial photograph (City of Toronto Archives 2020) ...... 26
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 x | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Figure 3-7: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1992 aerial photograph (City of Toronto Archives 2020) ...... 27
Figure 4-1: Location of Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the Project Study Area ...... 34
List of Plates
Plate 1: Facing southwest on Lower Sherbourne Street ...... 28
Plate 2: Facing south on Lower Sherbourne Street ...... 28
Plate 3: Facing west along south of USRC East corridor ...... 29
Plate 4: Facing north on Cherry Street towards USRC East Corridor ...... 29
Plate 5: Lower Don Valley Trail and the Don River at rail corridor, looking south ...... 29
Plate 6: Corktown Common, looking north ...... 29
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 xi | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Description As part of the Metrolinx Electrification Program, Metrolinx is working with Hydro One (HONI) to define the areas in the vicinity of Metrolinx rail corridors where proposed electrification infrastructure will conflict with existing HONI Infrastructure (i.e., HONI transmission lines) and to establish Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements that may need to be fulfilled in relation to the identified conflict areas.
With respect to the Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC), there is existing HONI infrastructure in conflict with the proposed electrification infrastructure between approximately USRC Mile 0.72E to 1.72E (City of Toronto) which will therefore need to be installed/relocated in order to mitigate the conflicts. The proposed solution to mitigating the conflicts are as follows:
• Relocating Hydro One transmission infrastructure using utility bridges adjacent to the Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Bridge (Subway)1, Parliament Street USRC Bridge (Subway) and Cherry Street USRC Bridge (Subway)2;
• Relocating two (2) overhead circuits and one (1) underground circuit to a new underground transmission corridor from the Esplanade Transmission Station (TS) to the Don Fleet Junction (JCT).
o Proposed underground transmission corridor is to accommodate a spare circuit, therefore, the relocated corridor will be designed to contain up to four (4) transmission cables utilizing a combination of surface troughs, cable banks and utility bridges;
• Replacement of three (3) existing potheads, and replacement/extension of existing chain link fence with durisol wall to capture existing Hydro One Tower #9 at the existing Don Fleet JCT (located on the east side of the Lower Don Trail); and
• Removal of existing Hydro One Tower #10A, installation of two (2) new BPEX structures3, overhead connection of two (2) circuits from BPEX structures to existing Hydro One Tower 9, and installation of durisol wall at the new Don Fleet JCT (located on the west side of the Lower Don Trail).
Additionally, Metrolinx and Hydro One have identified the need to locate an additional Hydro One transmission structure (i.e., steel monopole) between the Lower Don Valley River and Corktown Commons to accommodate clearance requirements for the USRC Overhead
1 Utility bridge at Lower Sherbourne Street will be attached to the future expanded bridge, as approved in 2018 under the USRC East Enhancements Environmental Project Report. 2 Proposed utility bridges are anticipated to be a truss structure clad in either horizontal or vertical fins, regardless of which treatment options are applied. 3 Each BPEX structure will contain three (3) new potheads.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 1 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Catenary System (OCS). A future addendum is to be completed to address environmental assessment requirements; at which time the significance of potential impacts will be determined.
As a result, Metrolinx will assess the potential impacts of these proposed works and will document the changes within the 2021 GO Rail Network Electrification Significant EPR Addendum Report.
1.2 Background of EPR Addendum/Nature of Conflict Metrolinx and Hydro One, as EA co-proponents, completed a TPAP in 2017 in accordance with Ontario Regulation 231/08 – Transit Project and Metrolinx Undertakings for electrification of six GO-owned rail corridors from diesel to electric propulsion, including: Union Station Rail corridor, Lakeshore West Rail corridor, a portion of the Kitchener Rail corridor, Barrie Rail corridor, Stouffville Rail corridor, and Lakeshore East Rail corridor. The scope of the TPAP included examining the potential environmental effects of building, operating and maintaining the electrified GO system, including the various project components listed below:
• Traction power supply
o Tap locations
o Tap structures
o High voltage connection routes
• Traction power distribution
o Traction power substations
o Switching stations
o Paralleling stations
o Gantries
o Access roads
o Underground duct banks and aerial supply
o Overhead contact system
o 25 kV feeder routes
• Ancillary components
o Grounding and bonding
o Bridge modifications
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 2 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
o Existing maintenance facility modifications
o GO layover facility modifications
o GO station modifications
The Study Area for the GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP was generally defined as the existing GO rail right-of-way (ROW) to be electrified plus the 7m OCS/Vegetation Clearing Zone, 25kV feeder routes (plus 7m Vegetation Clearing Zone), the Tap and Traction Power Facility (TPF) sites, and the Tap/TPF ancillary components such as access roads. The specific study area for the Stouffville rail corridor extended from the Scarborough Junction (off Lakeshore East corridor) to Lincolnville Station.
The Notice of Completion for the TPAP was published on October 11, 2017, and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (now Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks [MECP]) Minister’s Notice to Proceed with the Transit Project was issued on December 11, 2017.
Subsequent to the approval of the GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP in 2017, Hydro One issued the Transmission Line Relocation Study Report (Phase 2) for the Rail Corridor Electrification to Metrolinx (December 14, 2018). This report identified conflicts with the proposed Metrolinx OCS infrastructure and the existing Hydro One transmission assets at multiple locations along the rail corridors, including locations within and around the USRC (Mile 0.72E to Mile 1.72E) that were not known at the time of preparing the GO Rail Network Electrification EPR. The mitigation of these conflicts will require Hydro One to relocate transmission infrastructure using utility bridges, relocate transmission lines to an underground corridor, and replace/install structures within the Don Fleet Junction to accommodate clearance requirements between Hydro One’s transmission line conductors and the conductors of the proposed USRC OCS structures.
1.3 Purpose of this Report ASI was contracted by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC, on behalf of Metrolinx, to conduct a Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment (CHR) of the USRC HONI Conflict Areas Study Area (Project Study Area, see Figure 1-1) following the MHSTCI TPAP guidance document (MHSTCI 2019). A more detailed description of the Project Study Area is provided in Section 2.2.
The purpose of this report is to present an inventory of all known or potential built heritage resources (BHRs) and cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs), identify existing conditions of the Project Study Area, provide a preliminary impact assessment, and propose appropriate mitigation measures.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 3 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Figure 1-1: Location of Project Study Area
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 4 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Figure 1-2: Lower Sherbourne Street Utility Bridge, General Arrangement
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 5 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
2 Methodology
This CHR relies and builds on the results of the USRC East Enhancements – Environmental Assessment Cultural Heritage Screening Report (AECOM 2018), which considers adjacent properties within a 5 m buffer of the limit of disturbance along USRC East. It also relies and builds on the results of the GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP Cultural Heritage Screening Report (ASI 2017), which defined its study area generally as the existing GO rail ROW to be electrified plus the 7m OCS/Vegetation Clearing Zone, 25kV feeder routes (plus 7m Vegetation Clearing Zone), the Tap and TPF sites, and the Tap/TPF ancillary components such as access roads.
2.1 Regulatory Requirements Although the Ontario Heritage Act (MHSTCI 1990) is the main piece of legislation that determines policies, priorities and programs for the conservation of Ontario’s heritage, many other provincial acts, regulations and policies governing land use planning and resource development support heritage conservation including:
• The Planning Act, which states that “conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest” (cultural heritage resources) is a “matter of provincial interest” (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 1990). The Provincial Policy Statement, issued under the Planning Act, links heritage conservation to long-term economic prosperity and requires municipalities and the Crown to conserve significant cultural heritage resources (Government of Ontario 2020). • The Environmental Assessment Act, which defines “environment” to include cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community. Cultural heritage resources, which includes archaeological resources, BHRs and CHLs, are important components of those cultural conditions (Ministry of the Environment 1990).
All Ontario government ministries and public bodies prescribed under Ontario regulation 157/10, which includes Metrolinx, are required to follow the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, prepared under section 25.2 of the Ontario Heritage Act, when making any decisions affecting cultural heritage resources on lands under their control (MHSTCI 2010).
Under the TPAP, the proponent is required to consider whether its proposed transit project could a have potential negative impact on the environment. Under the process an objection can be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) about a matter of provincial importance that relates to the natural environment or has cultural heritage value or interest.” The MECP expects a transit project proponent to make reasonable efforts to avoid, prevent, mitigate or protect matters of provincial importance.
The MECP’s Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Transit Projects (Transit Guide) provides guidance to proponents on how to meet the requirements of Ontario Regulation
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 6 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
231/08. The Transit Guide encourages proponents to obtain information and input from appropriate government agency technical representatives before starting the TPAP to assist in meeting the timelines specified in the regulation, including the submission of a draft EPR for review and comment prior to issuing a Notice of Commencement (Ministry of the Environment 2014).
Among the pre-planning activities outlined in Section 4.1 of the Transit Guide, a proponent is advised to conduct studies to:
• identify existing baseline environmental conditions; • identify project-specific location or alignment (including construction staging, land requirements); and • identify expected environmental impacts and proposed measures to mitigate potential negative impacts. The MHSTCI has prepared guidance on the preparation of CHRs within the TPAP process (2019). This guidance is applicable to the current undertaking. The 2019 MHSTCI guidance states that such studies will:
1. Identify existing baseline cultural heritage conditions within the study area. The consultants preparing the CHR will need to define a study area and explain their rationale. MHSTCI recommends that the study area for the report include, at minimum, the project footprint and adjacent properties. Alternatively, the study area may include the project footprint and a study zone that is located immediately beside the footprint and extends a certain distance. The report will include a historical summary of the development of the study area and will identify all known or potential BHRs and CHLS in the study area. MHSTCI has developed screening criteria that may assist with this exercise: Criteria for Evaluating for Potential Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (MHSTCI 2016).
2. Identify preliminary potential project-specific impacts on the known and potential BHRs and CHLs that have been identified. The report should include a description of the anticipated impact to each known or potential BHR or CHL that has been identified.
3. Propose and recommend measures to avoid or mitigate potential negative impacts to known or potential cultural heritage resources. The proposed mitigation measures are to inform the next steps of project planning and design (MHSTCI 2019).
Where a known or potential BHR or CHL may be directly and adversely impacted, and where it has not yet been evaluated for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI), completion of a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) is required to fully understand its CHVI and level of significance. The CHER must be completed within the TPAP. If a BHR or CHL is found to be of CHVI, then a HIA will be undertaken by a qualified person. The HIA will be completed in
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 7 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto consultation with MHSTCI and the proponent as early as possible during detail design, following the TPAP.
While some cultural heritage landscapes are contained within individual property boundaries, others span across multiple properties. For certain cultural heritage landscapes, it will be more appropriate for the CHER and HIA to include multiple properties, in order to reflect the extent of that cultural heritage landscape in its entirety.
2.2 Description of Study Area The Project Study Area includes the following properties including lands located within 50 metre buffer (Figure 1-1):
• Esplanade TS on Lower Sherbourne Street. • USRC East Rail Corridor from just west of Lower Sherbourne Street to just west of the Don River. • Corktown Common. The Project Study Area has been deemed sufficient given the previous heritage screening work undertaken in the area, and will sufficiently address any potential direct and indirect impact resulting from the proposed works identified in Section 1.1.
2.3 Screening Methodology This Cultural Heritage Report follows guidelines presented in the MHSTCI Sample Tables and Language for “Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment” and Environmental Project Reports (EPR) under Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) for Proponents and their Consultants (MHSTCI 2019). The objective of this report is to present an inventory of known and potential BHRs and CHLs, and to provide a preliminary understanding of known and potential BHRs and CHLs located within areas anticipated to be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project.
In the course of the cultural heritage assessment, all potentially affected BHRs and CHLs are subject to inventory. Generally, when conducting an identification of BHRs and CHLs within a study area, three stages of research and data collection are undertaken to appropriately establish the potential for and existence of BHRs and CHLs in a geographic area: background research and desktop data collection; field review; and identification.
Background historical research, which includes consultation of primary and secondary source research and historical mapping, is undertaken to identify early settlement patterns and broad agents or themes of change in a study area. This stage in the data collection process enables the researcher to determine the presence of sensitive heritage areas that correspond to nineteenth and twentieth-century settlement and development patterns. To augment data collected during this stage of the research process, federal, provincial, and municipal databases and/or agencies are consulted to obtain information about specific properties that have been
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 8 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto previously identified and/or designated as retaining cultural heritage value. Typically, resources identified during these stages of the research process are reflective of particular architectural styles, associated with an important person, place, or event, and contribute to the contextual facets of a particular place, neighbourhood, or intersection.
A field review is then undertaken to confirm the location and condition of previously identified BHRs and CHLs. The field review is also used to identify properties that have not been previously identified on federal, provincial, or municipal databases or through other appropriate agency data sources.
During the cultural heritage assessment, a property is identified as a potential BHR or CHL based on research, the MHSTCI screening tool Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (Ministry of Heritage, Tourism and Sport 2016, now administered by the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries), and professional expertise. In addition, use of a 40-year-old benchmark is a guiding principle when conducting a preliminary identification of BHRs and CHLs. While identification of a resource that is 40 years old or older does not confer outright heritage significance this benchmark provides a means to collect information about resources that may retain heritage value. Similarly, if a resource is slightly younger than 40 years old, this does not preclude the resource from having cultural heritage value or interest.
2.4 Background Information Review To make an identification of known BHRs and CHLs within the Project Study Area, various completed and on-going technical heritage reports were reviewed.
2.4.1 Review of Previous Cultural Heritage Reports Cultural heritage studies undertaken within parts of tthe Project Study Area and which have been completed and approved were reviewed. These include:
• Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements – Environmental Assessment Cultural Heritage Screening Report (AECOM 2018) • Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements – Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report and Recommendations Report, Lower Don River Trail, Toronto, Ontario (AECOM 2018)4 • Final OnCorr Due Diligence – Cultural Heritage Gap Analysis: USRC Corridor (ASI 2019) • OnCorr Due Diligence Project – Richmond Hill Corridor Non-Priority Properties Cultural Heritage Assessment Report – Existing Conditions, City of Toronto and York Region, Ontario (ASI 2020)
4 AECOM determined that the Lower Don River Trail, which was identified as a potential cultural heritage resource in the USRC EE CHSR, does not have CHVI and is not a PHP or PHPPS.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 9 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
• Four USRC Subways (Bridges) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. 2016) • Union Station Railway Corridor: Cherry, Scott & John Street Interlocking Towers Cultural Heritage Reports, Volumes 1-3 (Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. 2013) • Cherry Street USRC Interlocking Tower Heritage Impact Assessment (Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. 2014) 2.4.2 GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP, Final Cultural Heritage Screening Report (ASI 2017)Review of Ongoing Cultural Heritage Reports Cultural heritage studies currently in progress within the Project Study Area were also reviewed. These include:
• Ontario Subway Line (Ongoing; in vicinity of Project Study Area) • Union Station Rail Corridor East Enhancements Heritage Impact Assessment, Draft Report (AECOM 2019) – Prior to the installation of the proposed HONI utility bridge, the Sherbourne Street Subway PHP will be extensively modified with the anticipated construction of the USRC Expansion Bridge. The USRC Expansion Bridge is anticipated to extend the subject bridge on the south in order to facilitate an increase of two rail tracks on the USRC. The impacts of the proposed USRC Expansion Bridge are described and assessed in a separate HIA (AECOM 2019), which includes the following description of the proposed USRC Expansion Bridge works: The recommended plan for the Lower Sherbourne Street USRC subway consists of adding an extension to the north and south face of the subway to accommodate future track E0 (on the north side) and tracks E7 and E8 (on the south side), as well as a mounted conduit on the south side extension. However, for the purposes of this HIA, only the extension to the south is being considered at this time as the work on the north side will be undertaken at a later detailed design phase. The southern extension includes the extension of the concrete abutments and two of the three frame lines that support the extended steel deck beams above…Bicycles lanes will also be incorporated into the northbound and southbound lanes of Lower Sherbourne Street (AECOM 2019:11). 2.4.3 Review of Heritage Inventories A number of resources were consulted in order to identify existing BHRs and CHLs within or adjacent to the Project Study Area. These resources include:
• Historical maps (including historical atlases, topographic maps, and aerial photography); • The inventory of Ontario Heritage Trust easements [Accessed 21 May 2020] (Ontario Heritage Trust n.d.); • The Ontario Heritage Trust’s Ontario Heritage Plaque Guide: an online, searchable database of Ontario Heritage Plaques [Accessed 21 May 2020] (Ontario Heritage Trust n.d.); • Toronto’s Historical Plaques website [Accessed 21 May 2020] (Brown 2019);
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 10 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
• List of Provincial Heritage Properties maintained by MHSTCI (MHSTCI consulted for identified PHPs and PHPPS in the Project Study Area, email communication 20 May, 25 May 2020 and 01 June 2020); • Inventory of known cemeteries/burial sites in the Ontario Genealogical Society’s online databases [Accessed 22 May 2020] (Ontario Genealogical Society n.d.); • Canada’s Historic Places website: available online, the searchable register provides information on historic places recognized for their heritage value at the local, provincial, territorial, and national levels [Accessed 22 May 2020] (Parks Canada n.d.); • Directory of Federal Heritage Designations: a searchable on-line database that identifies National Historic Sites, National Historic Events, National Historic People, Heritage Railway Stations, Federal Heritage Buildings, and Heritage Lighthouses [Accessed 24 May 2020] (Parks Canada n.d.); • Canadian Heritage River System: a national river conservation program that promotes, protects and enhances the best examples of Canada’s river heritage [Accessed 24 May 2020] (Canadian Heritage Rivers Board and Technical Planning Committee n.d.); and, • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites [Accessed 24 May 2020] (UNESCO World Heritage Centre n.d.). 2.4.4 Review of City of Toronto Databases • Heritage Register Map [Accessed 24 May 2020] (City of Toronto n.d.);5 • Heritage Property Search Tool [Accessed 24 May 2020] (City of Toronto 2019a); and • Office Consolidation Toronto Official Plan 2019 [Accessed 24 May 2020] (City of Toronto 2019b).
2.4.5 Field Surveys Field survey allows for the documentation of potential BHRs and CHLs, a more detailed recording and assessment of existing conditions, assessment of potential impacts to potential or known heritage attributes, and for the identification of appropriate mitigation measures. A field survey of the Project Study Area was undertaken by Alexis Dunlop (ASI) on 1 June 2020, to document the existing conditions from the existing public rights-of-way.
2.5 Preliminary Impact Assessment Methodology To assess the preliminary impacts of the proposed infrastructure improvements on identified BHRs and CHLs in the Project Study Area, identified resources were considered against a range of possible impacts as outlined by the MHSTCI (MHSTCI 2019). Impacts may be positive or negative, direct or indirect, and may affect the property’s potential cultural heritage value or interest. Additional factors such as the scale or severity of the impact, whether any changes are
5 Listed properties 197, 197A, and 207 Eastern Ave were noted in data review but these are no longer extant and are not included in the results of this report.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 11 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto temporary or permanent, and if the alterations are reversible or irreversible, should be considered.
The MHSTCI (MHSTCI 2019:10) states that “a direct adverse impact would have a permanent and irreversible negative affect on the cultural heritage value or interest of a property or result in the loss of a heritage attribute on all or part of the property”.
Examples of such impacts include, but are not limited to:
• removal or demolition of all or part of any heritage attribute; • removal or demolition of any building or structure on the property whether or not it contributes to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property (i.e. non-contributing buildings); • any land disturbance, such as a change in grade and/or drainage patterns that may adversely affect the property, including archaeological resources; • alterations to the property in a manner that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with cultural heritage value or interest of the property. This may include necessary alterations, such as new systems or materials to address health and safety requirements, energy-saving upgrades, building performance upgrades, security upgrades or servicing needs; • alterations for access requirements or limitations to address such factors as accessibility, emergency egress, public access, security; • introduction of new elements that diminish the integrity of the property, such as a new building, structure or addition, parking expansion or addition, access or circulation roads, landscape features changing the character of the property through removal or planting of trees or other natural features, such as a garden, or that may result in the obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; • change in use for the property that could result in permanent, irreversible damage or negates the property’s cultural heritage value or interest; and • continuation or intensification of a use of the property without conservation of heritage attributes.
The MHSTCI (MHSTCI 2019:10) states that “an indirect adverse impact would be the result of an activity on or near the property that may adversely affect its cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage attributes”.
Examples of such impacts include, but are not limited to:
• shadows that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the visibility of an associated natural feature or plantings, such as a tree row, hedge or garden; • isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship;
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 12 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
• vibration damage to a structure due to construction or activities on or adjacent to the property; and • alteration or obstruction of a significant view of or from the property from a key vantage point. The MHSTCI (2019:11) states that “positive impacts are those that may positively affect a property by conserving or enhancing its cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage attributes”. Examples of such impacts include, but are not limited to:
• changes or alterations that are consistent with accepted conservation principles, such as those articulated in MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties, Heritage Conservation Principles for Land Use Planning, Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; • adaptive re-use of a property – alteration of a heritage property to fit new uses or circumstances of the of property in a manner that retains its cultural heritage value of interest; and • public interpretation or commemoration of the heritage property.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 13 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
3 Thematic History
3.1 Introduction This section provides a brief summary of historical research. A review of available primary and secondary source material was undertaken to produce a contextual overview of the Project Study Area, including a general description of the current understanding of Indigenous and Euro-Canadian settlement and land use.
3.2 Indigenous Land Use and Settlement Southern Ontario has a cultural history that begins approximately 11,000 years ago. The land now encompassed by the City of Toronto has a cultural history which begins approximately 10,000 years ago and continues to the present. Table 3-1 provides a general summary of the history of Indigenous land use and settlement of the area.6
Table 3-1: Outline of Southern Ontario History and Lifeways
Period Archaeological/ Material Culture Date Range Lifeways/ Attributes
PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD
Early Gainey, Barnes, Crowfield 9000-8500 Big game hunters BCE
Late Holcombe, Hi-Lo, lanceolate 8500-7500 Small nomadic groups BCE
ARCHAIC
Early Nettling, Bifurcate-base 7800-6000 Nomadic hunters and gatherers BCE
Middle Kirk, Stanley, Brewerton, 6000-2000 Transition to territorial settlements Laurentian BCE
Late Lamoka, Genesee, Crawford Knoll, 2500-500 BCE Polished/ground stone tools Innes (small stemmed)
WOODLAND PERIOD
Early Meadowood 800-400 BCE Introduction of pottery
6 While many types of information can inform the precontact settlement of the City of Toronto, this summary table provides information drawn from archaeological research conducted in southern Ontario over the last century. As such, the terminology used in this review relates to standard archaeological terminology for the province rather than relating to specific historical events within the region. The chronological ordering of this summary is made with respect to two temporal referents: BCE – before Common Era and CE – Common Era.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 14 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Period Archaeological/ Material Culture Date Range Lifeways/ Attributes
Middle Point Peninsula, Saugeen 400 BCE-CE Incipient horticulture 800
Late Algonkian, Iroquoian CE 800-1300 Transition to village life and agriculture
Algonkian, Iroquoian CE 1300-1400 Establishment of large palisaded villages
Algonkian, Iroquoian CE 1400-1600 Tribal differentiation and warfare
POST-CONTACT PERIOD
Early Huron, Neutral, Petun, Odawa, CE 1600-1650 Tribal displacements Ojibwa
Late Six Nations Iroquois, Ojibwa CE 1650- 1800s
Euro-Canadian CE 1800- European settlement present
The Project Study Area is within Treaty 13, or the Toronto Purchase. At the end of the eighteenth century, the British Crown wished to connect the Cataraqui (present-day Kingston) and the Niagara settlements and mandated Sir John Johnson to acquire the tract of land north of Lake Ontario between the Trent and Etobicoke Rivers (Surtees 1984:37). In September 1787, 626 people gathered at the head of the Bay of Quinte while 391 converged to Toronto. Johnson and his subordinate in the Indian department, Colonel John Butler, reported to the Colonial administration that they had reached an agreement with the Mississaugas but failed to keep good records of their meeting (Surtees 1984:37–38). Different interpretations exist regarding the extent of the lands agreed upon during these meetings. A deed, signed by Chiefs Wabikane, Neace, and Pakquan of the Mississauga of the Credit First Nations, as well as by John Collins, Louis Kotte, and Nathaniel Lines, is believed to refer to the 1787 Quinte Carrying Place meeting. However, the descriptions of the land were left blank and the names of the Chiefs were inscribed on three separate pieces of paper that have been annexed later to the deed (Surtees 1984:39; Fullerton and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2015:22). It is also unclear if the £2,000 worth of goods, including guns, ammunitions, and tobacco received by the Mississaugas were intended as land payments or as gifts for their support to Britain (Fullerton and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2015:16; Surtees 1984:39).
In the summer of 1788, Lord Dorchester, Sir John Johnson, and Colonel John Butler distributed the goods promised to the First Nations. They further negotiated with the Mississauga Chiefs the northern limit of the lands discussed the previous year (Surtees 1984:40–41). No deed of
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 15 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto these negotiations exists. The Mississaugas recall that the depth of the land corresponds to as far back as a gunshot can be heard (therefore the name of “Gunshot Treaty”) or 10 miles. In contrast, letters from the Crown representatives refer to Rice Lake and Lake Simcoe, located respectively at 13 miles and 48 miles north of Lake Ontario, as northern the boundaries (Fullerton and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2015:17–20).
Despite all the inconsistencies with the 1787 and 1788 negotiations, the land north of Lake Ontario was surveyed and sold to settlers. In the following decade, Lieutenant Governors Simcoe and Russell searched clarifications from Indigenous leaders, without success (Surtees 1984:45–46).
In 1805, the Crown, as represented by William Claus, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs approached the Mississaugas of the Credit with the intent of identifying the land in question and formally purchasing it from the Mississaugas. The formal deed of surrender confirming the Toronto purchase was drawn up and executed on August 1, 1805. In addition to confirming the 1787 transaction made with Sir John Johnson, the deed included a detailed legal description of the boundaries of the surrendered parcel, which comprised some 250,880 acres (101,528 ha.) of land delineated to the West by the Etobicoke Creek and forming a rectangular parcel of about 28 miles north-south by 14 miles east-west (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs 2016). Present-day cities within these lands include Etobicoke, Toronto, North York and Vaughan (Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2017). In payment for these lands, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation received 10 shillings and were allowed continued use of Etobicoke Creek for fishing (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs 2016). However, the revised boundaries of the 1805 purchase appeared to be much larger than was originally described and the Mississaugas of the Credit were never informed by the Crown that there was any question about the validity of the 1787 purchase.
Due to the inconsistencies between the 1787 and 1805 treaties, and the fact that the Crown did not disclose to the Mississaugas in 1805 that the previous treaty was invalid, this treaty was subject to a specifics claims process in 1998 – ultimately leading to a $145,000,000 settlement in 2010 between the Federal government and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2017).
3.3 Township Survey and Settlement 3.3.1 The Town of York and York Township The first Europeans to arrive in the area were transient merchants and traders from France and England, who followed Indigenous pathways and set up trading posts at strategic locations along the well-traveled river routes. All of these occupations occurred at sites that afforded both natural landfalls for Great Lakes traffic and convenient access, by means of the various waterways and overland trails, into the hinterlands. Early transportation routes followed existing Indigenous trails, both along the lakeshore and adjacent to various creeks and rivers (ASI 2006).
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 16 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Between 1784 and 1792, this part of southern Ontario formed a part of the judicial District of Montreal in the Province of Quebec. Augustus Jones undertook the first township survey for York in 1791, when the base line, corresponding to present day Queen Street, was established (Winearls 1991:591; Firth 1962:11). The Township comprised part of the East Riding of the County of York in the Home District, which, between 1792 and 1800, was administered from Niagara. York was planned to be the unofficial capital of Upper Canada in the winter of 1796. However, it was not until February 1798 that it was selected as the “seat of Government on mature deliberation” by the Duke of Portland. On January 1, 1800, the Home District was elevated into a separated administrative district from Niagara. Following the abolition of the Districts in 1849, the Home District was succeeded by the United Counties of York, Peel, and Ontario in 1850. Ontario and Peel were elevated to separate county status in 1851-52 (Firth 1962:24-47; Armstrong 1985:143).
Established in 1793, the Town of York was initially a small ten-block site north of Front Street and between George and Berkeley Streets. The town grew in both population and geographic size over the following four decades, and was incorporated as the City of Toronto on March 6, 1834. The etymology of ‘Toronto’ is most likely related to the Toronto passages (ASI et al. 2007). It is thought to be derived from the Mohawk word tkaronto which means “where there are trees standing in the water” or from the Huron-Wendat word toronton meaning “place of meetings”/ “place of plenty.” Late seventeenth and early eighteenth century French sources refer to Lake Simcoe as Lac Taronto, which is thought to be on account of the fish weir at the Narrows between Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching (NRCAN 2007). By 1670, Lake Simcoe is also found labeled on a number of early French maps as Lac de Taronto and in 1686, the Humber carrying place was known as the Passage de Taronto. In turn, that river became known as Riviere Taronto. On the other hand, Nicolas Perrot, a seventeenth century explorer, interpreter, and fur-trader, used Toronto in his memoirs to apply to the old Huron country evacuated in 1650. He also noted that Toronto was used by Cadillac in a letter at the turn of the seventeenth century and by the remnant populations of the exiled Hurons, Petuns and Neutrals as the name of the region from which they had been expelled fifty years before by the Iroquois.
In the nineteenth century, many villages surrounded Toronto. However, as the population of the city grew, the need to expand was evident. As such, several villages were annexed to Toronto, including Riverdale, Rosedale, the Annex, Seaton Village and Sunnyside during the 1880s (Careless 1984).
The evolution of the city continued at an even greater pace through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with the consolidation of rail systems and the growth of numerous industrial and commercial operations within the city limits and along the rail corridors. Urban planning became more coordinated in the twentieth century, and a move toward more spatial control was made in 1904 with legislation that controlled non-residential land use in the city. This was soon applied to residential areas, as municipal officials attempted to alleviate certain kinds of congestion and undesirable overlap. The development of internal urban transport also
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 17 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto promoted a wider spread community and the establishment of discrete business and residential districts (Careless 1984).
Economic prosperity and urban opportunity drew people to various parts of the city to live and work. Industrial districts followed the railway lines, and new immigration and more land annexation, including North Toronto and Moore Park in 1912, resulted in strong population growth. The geographic area of the city doubled between 1891 and 1912, and the population grew from 181,000 to 378,000 during the same period. During the 1920s, a dramatic economic boom fueled the construction of new office towers – a total of 14 between 1922 and 1928. Increased automobile use necessitated improvements to local roads and crossings (Armstrong 2014).
Few new buildings were constructed during the 1930s depression, and unemployment remained high until the war economy lifted companies up and out of their downturns. Before the Second World War ended, a post-war reconstruction plan was put together for the city, and this represented the first overall approach to urban planning since Governor Simcoe envisioned plans for York in 1793. Residential lots were divided and subdivided as the city’s density increased, new office buildings and manufacturing plants filled in open spaces, and public transportation networks were expanded. With largescale immigration in the postwar period, Toronto’s population continued to grow, as did its place as an economic, social, and cultural hub (Dendy 1993). Toronto is Ontario’s capital city and Canada’s largest municipality.
For more details on the early history of York, particularly in the vicinity of what is now the Union Station Rail Corridor, please see the CHER on the Four USRC Subways (Bridges) produced for Metrolinx in 2016 (Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. 2016).
3.4 Historical Development of Union Station Rail Corridor The first railway lines along the harbourfront’s eastern section were built by the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) in the 1850s and completed in 1856. West of the Don River, the route followed Toronto’s historic shoreline into Union Station along what was then the industrial area of The Esplanade. Other railway companies that built or used infrastructure such as stations, freight yards, and tracks in the harbourfront area in the decades thereafter include the Toronto and Nipissing Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), the Credit Valley Railway (CVR), Canadian Northern Railway, and the Toronto Belt Line (AECOM 2018).
The most important building which facilitated travel in the vicinity of the harbourfront in late nineteenth century Toronto was Union Station. The first iteration of Union Station was built by the GTR in 1858 at the corner of Front and Bay Streets. The station was initially shared by the GTR, the Great Western Railway (GWR), and the Northern Railway Company of Canada (NR) for use of their trains travelling along the Toronto waterfront. By the 1870s, the original station was deemed inadequate and a new station, designed in the Italianate/Second Empire style by Thomas Seaton Scott, was built at the same site in 1873. This station was later expanded and rebuilt in the 1890s and remained in use until the early twentieth century (City of Toronto n.d.).
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 18 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
In 1906, the CPR and GTR established the Toronto Terminal Railway (TTR) to construct, maintain, and operate a new Union Station and associated trackage in Toronto (Toronto Terminals Railway 2020).7 While two buildings were erected over the following eight years, service inefficiencies quickly became evident in the booming city. As such, TTR began construction on the third Union Station in 1914. However, the undertaking was delayed due to worker and material shortages during World War I as well as the collapse of the GTR in 1919. Although the station was completed in 1921, a legal disagreement between the Harbour Commission, the City, and the railways over grade separation prevented the completion of associated infrastructure along the corridor, which was dealing with increased freight and passenger traffic (AECOM 2018). For more information about the history of the grade separation project, please see the CHER on the Four USRC Subways (Bridges) produced for Metrolinx in 2016 (Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. 2016). The politics of this legal disagreement were made more complicated because this period marked the beginning of a major land reclamation project along the waterfront. What is now the Union Station Rail Corridor sits largely upon in-fill on Toronto Harbour. Throughout the 1920s, the Harbour Commission initiated the in- fill of a large swath of the harbour south of the Esplanade and Union Station, enabling industrialization on Toronto harbour and expansion of the rail corridor and associated infrastructure (Alamenciak 2013). The Harbour Commissioners who organized this enormous development sought to establish industrial land for railways, but also to improve commercial access and recreational use along Toronto’s waterfront (McLeod and McNeil 1979; Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. 2016; AECOM 2018).
A plan was approved in 1924, and construction commenced on final grading, platforms, tracks, bridges, subways, and a viaduct in the corridor. The old railway line along the Esplanade was deemed insufficient to be able to handle the expected growth in traffic because of its at-grade road crossings and space constraints to build supplementary tracks. The new layout saw the construction of a viaduct – an elevated railway embankment – cut across the new in-filled areas east of Union Station where it met up with the old railway line at Cherry Street (AECOM 2018). Further, subways – a structure which facilitates a road passing beneath a railway track – were introduced below the USRC in the 1920s. Broadly, subways were needed because long delays at level crossings were no longer tolerated by residents, whether pedestrians or those using their horses or automobiles. In the case of the USRC, subways were constructed to facilitate traffic between the downtown core and the harbourfront. Other infrastructural developments included the construction of trackage in the new industrial port lands, the rebuilding of the Don Sorting Yard, and the raising of the Belt Line Railway along the Don River so that it could sync up with the new viaduct mainline (AECOM 2018).
Other important developments followed the official opening of the new Union Station in 1927. Of significant importance was an electro-mechanical interlocking system. Completed in 1931, it was created to navigate the complexities of safe and efficient entries and exits along the USRC. Three Interlocking brick towers, at John, Scott, and Cherry Streets, were built to control the
7 For more information about the TTR, particularly in relation to the USRC’s eastern section, please see the CHER on the Four USRC Subways (Bridges) produced for Metrolinx in 2016 (Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. 2016).
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 19 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto traffic, and each one was created so that its basement was affixed to the retaining wall of the viaduct (AECOM 2018).
Between the 1920s and 1965, the USRC enabled both passenger and CN freight traffic. However, freight traffic was moved north of Toronto in 1965, thus necessitating the closure of freight sorting yards along the USRC, and dramatically reducing freight trains passing through the corridor. In its place, the USRC saw dramatic growth in passenger traffic with the emergence of commuter service provided by GO Transit, which was created in 1967. With the increase in passenger service, new tracks were built on the USRC over the following few decades. Furthermore, the areas adjacent to the railway transformed. Since the 1950s, the area surrounding the USRC has shifted from industry to commercial and residential uses, as well as vehicular transportation corridors such as Lake Shore Boulevard and the Gardiner Expressway. One of the few places to retain its industrial heritage is the Distillery District. However, while this site has retained many old industrial buildings, it is now primarily a commercial and tourist zone. In the last two decades, efforts have been made to redevelop more land in this area for recreational use. Perhaps the most visible incarnation of this change has been the creation of Corktown Common, a large public park located north of the USRC and west of the Don River (AECOM 2018).
Recently, ownership and operation responsibilities have changed on the railway. The City of Toronto purchased Union Station from TTR in 2000 while the USRC’s rail assets came under GO Transit control. Between 2000 and 2009, TTR was contracted by the City of Toronto and by GO Transit to maintain and oversee construction activities for Union Station, the train shed, and the USRC. As of 2009, Metrolinx took control of the USRC (Toronto Terminals Railway 2020).
3.5 Review of Historical Mapping 3.5.1 Nineteenth-Century Mapping The 1862 Browne Map of the City of Toronto (Browne 1862) and the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of York County (Miles & Co. 1878) were reviewed to determine the potential for the presence of historical resources in the Project Study Area during the nineteenth century (Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2).
It should be noted, however, that not all features of interest were mapped systematically in nineteenth-century maps of Ontario. In particular reference to the Ontario series of historical atlases, features of interest were not always provided given that the atlases were financed by subscription, and subscribers were given preference with regard to the level of detail provided on the maps. Moreover, not every feature of interest would have been within the scope of the atlases. In addition, the use of historical map sources to reconstruct/predict the location of former features within the modern landscape generally proceeds by using common reference points between the various sources. These sources are then geo-referenced in order to provide the most accurate determination of the location of any property on historical mapping sources. The results of such exercises are often imprecise or even contradictory, as there are numerous potential sources of error inherent in such a process, including the vagaries of map production
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 20 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
(both past and present), the need to resolve differences of scale and resolution, and distortions introduced by reproduction of the sources. To a large degree, the significance of such margins of error is dependent on the size of the feature one is attempting to plot, the constancy of reference points, the distances between them, and the consistency with which both they and the target feature are depicted on the period mapping.
The 1862 Browne Map shows that much of the Project Study Area was not yet constructed, as it is shown within Toronto Harbour at this time. Only when the railway corridor meets the shoreline at the foot of Cherry Street does it sync up with the extant railway line, which is visible all along the shoreline. Moving west to east, the extant structures adjacent to or near the railway include the Gooderham’s Windmill (later the Gooderham & Worts Distillery) to the north of the railway at Trinity Street and Gooderham’s Wharf to the south; the Grand Trunk Railway Workshop north of the railway, east of Cherry Street; and a Rolling Mills industrial building north of the railway, near the corner of Front Street and East Street. East of Cherry Street, the railway runs alongside the north shore of the Don River, and the area to the north is largely industrial.
Figure 3-1: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on an 1862 map of the City of Toronto (Browne 1862)
The 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas continues to show that much of the subject railway corridor was not yet constructed. In 1878, much of the area east of Union Station was still part of Lake Ontario. At that time, the Grand Trunk Railway went northeast from Union Station, along the
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 21 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto modern-day Esplanade then east along the shoreline before taking on its current trajectory between Cherry Street and the Don River.8 Overall, the atlas shows that the Project Study Area was in an urban and largely industrial environment. The rail corridor is situated south of commercial, service, and industrial buildings and north of several waterfront wharves in Toronto Harbour.
Figure 3-2: Location of the Project Study Area Overlaid on an 1878 Map of the City of Toronto (Miles & Co. 1878) 3.5.2 Twentieth-Century Mapping In addition to nineteenth-century mapping, fire insurance plans and aerial photographs from the twentieth century were examined. This report presents maps and aerial photographs from 1903, 1924, 1947, 1975, and 1992 (Figure 3-3 to Figure 3-7). These do not represent the full range of maps consulted for the purpose of this study but were judged to cover the full range of land uses that occurred in the area during each period.
Much like the nineteenth-century mapping discussed above, the 1903 Fire Insurance Plan of the City of Toronto shows that the proposed underground hydro corridor to be located beneath the USRC was still located within the harbour and along the Don River, south of the railway line that
8 Note that the map’s depiction of the Grand Trunk Railway line as north of the green line between the Cherry Street Bridge and the Don River is inaccurate, probably a result of the inadequacies of late nineteenth-century mapping. The green line should be placed directly over the track between these locations.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 22 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto was extant at that time. Moving from west to east, what is now the Esplanade Transformer Station was the location of the Polson Iron Works, located on a waterfront pier. Other piers/wharves are found south of the then extant railway line. The map depicts significant residential and industrial development north of the railway all through the Project Study Area, with the most visible conglomeration being the buildings of the Gooderham and Worts Distillery. Also depicted are several railway buildings, including a GTR depot west of the Distillery and the GTR Workshop to the east, as well as several unnamed buildings. While only a single track was depicted in the area in 1878, there are now several tracks/spurs, most evident between Cherry Street and the Don River. The area that is now the Corktown Common was the site of large industrial factories and residential streets.
Figure 3-3: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1903 Fire Insurance Plan (Goad 1903)
The 1924 Fire Insurance Plan shows the extension of a few of the piers into Toronto Harbour and the realignment of the Don River south of its natural placement. These developments marked some of the most visible displays of the extensive in-fill that had begun to occur south of the railway corridor that had been constructed in 1856. The wider study area continued to be largely industrial, with both large and small industrial buildings both north and south of the railway corridor. Of particular importance was the removal of residential streets and houses north of the railway between Cherry Street and the Don River, and their replacement by a vast network of new railway spurs and outbuildings owned by Canadian National Railways (CNR).
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 23 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Lands adjacent to the Don River’s west side – the site of today’s Corktown Common – also shifted to become entirely industrial.
Figure 3-4: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1924 Fire Insurance Plan (Goad 1924)
The 1947 aerial photograph shows that the USRC was now operational in its current alignment. The most striking difference between all previous mapping and this 1947 photograph is the extensive in-fill south of the rail corridor. In the 1920s, landfill was added below the entire stretch of the Project Study Area, allowing for extensive industrialization. Many new buildings are evident, as are several spur lines to serve them, both north and south of the rail corridor. While not visible, it is clear that underpasses have been constructed on Lower Sherbourne, Parliament, and Cherry Streets, because the roads are connected on either side of the rail corridor. Overall, the photograph depicts the vicinity of the railway in an entirely urban-industrial context.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 24 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Figure 3-5: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1947 aerial photograph (City of Toronto Archives 2020)
The 1975 aerial photograph demonstrates that the USRC continued to be located within an urban-industrial environment. Large building complexes adjacent to the corridor are visible from west to east of the Project Study Area. The most noticeable and significant development is the completion of the Gardiner Expressway, which runs adjacent to the rail corridor through much of the Project Study Area.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 25 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Figure 3-6: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1975 aerial photograph (City of Toronto Archives 2020)
The 1992 aerial photograph shows some degree of consistency with the 1975 image described above, though there are noticeable differences. Between Lower Sherbourne and Parliament Streets, adjacent to the railway on the north side, the former industrial buildings have been completely removed and replaced with low rise townhouses and apartment buildings. The original railway line that travelled on the south side of the distillery and then down the Esplanade along the former Lake Ontario shoreline is no longer visible or operational. Further to the east, the large oil tanks have been removed south of the railway, as have may of the former industrial buildings on the north side.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 26 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Figure 3-7: Location of the Project Study Area overlaid on a 1992 aerial photograph (City of Toronto Archives 2020)
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 27 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
4 Existing Conditions
4.1 Field Review A field review of the Project Study Area was undertaken by Alexis Dunlop of ASI on 1 June 2020, to document the existing conditions from the existing rights-of-way. The existing conditions are described below and captured very generally in Plates 1 to 6.
For ease of description, the Project Study Area will be described in a west to east direction. The most western part of the Project Study Area is the Esplanade TS, located on the west side of Lower Sherbourne Street adjacent to the railway corridor. Moving east the adjacent landscape of the Project Study Area consists of low-rise cooperative housing developments to the north and the Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard to the south. Past Parliament Street, the Project Study Area is bounded by the Distillery District, a large parking lot, and the Corktown Common to the north and the Gardiner Expressway and an industrial/construction site under development to the south. The Lower Don River Trail and the Don River is located at the eastern limits of the Project Study Area. Field review confirmed that the buildings and landscapes at Esplanade TS (rebuilt circa mid-1980s) and the landscaped urban parkland at Corktown Common (completed in 2014) are not over the 40 year old threshold and were therefore not considered BHRs or CHLs.
Plate 1: Facing southwest on Lower Sherbourne Plate 2: Facing south on Lower Sherbourne Street Street
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 28 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Plate 3: Facing west along south of USRC East Plate 4: Facing north on Cherry Street towards corridor USRC East Corridor
Plate 5: Lower Don Valley Trail and the Don River Plate 6: Corktown Common, looking north at rail corridor, looking south
4.2 Identification of Known and Potential Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Based on the results of the background research and background document reviews, agency data collection and field review, seven BHRs and CHLs were identified within the Project Study Area. Of these, there are five known BHRs/CHLs, and two potential BHRs/CHLs that were identified during desktop review. A detailed inventory of these are presented in Table 4-1, and mapped in Figure 4-1.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 29 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Table 4-1: Inventory of Known and Potential Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
BHR/CHL Type of Heritage Description of Property and Known or Potential Reference Location Ownership Photographs/ Digital Image Property Recognition Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Number
The Lower Sherbourne Street Subway was built in 1927 as part of the Waterfront Viaduct grade separation Lower project, a joint undertaking of the City of Toronto, CNR Known BHR - Sherbourne Mile 0.75, and CPR. The subway is a riveted steel plate girder BHR-1 Metrolinx Provincial Heritage Street USRC East bridge with two concrete abutments and three frame lines Property Subway supporting the steel deck beams above. For further information regarding CHVI and identified heritage attributes, see Appendix A.
South elevation, looking north
The Parliament Street Subway was built in 1927 as part of the Waterfront Viaduct grade separation project, a joint undertaking of the City of Toronto, CNR and CPR. The Parliament Known BHR - Mile 1.00, subway is a riveted steel plate girder bridge with two BHR-2 Street Metrolinx Provincial Heritage USRC East concrete abutments and three frame lines supporting the Subway Property steel deck beams above. For further information regarding CHVI and identified heritage attributes, see Appendix A.
South elevation, looking north
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 30 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
BHR/CHL Type of Heritage Description of Property and Known or Potential Reference Location Ownership Photographs/ Digital Image Property Recognition Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Number
The Cherry Street Subway was built in 1928-1929 as part of the Waterfront Viaduct grade separation project, a joint undertaking of the City of Toronto, CNR and CPR. The Cherry Known BHR - Mile 1.25, subway is a riveted steel plate girder bridge with two BHR-3 Street Metrolinx Provincial Heritage USRC East concrete abutment and three frame lines supporting the Subway Property steel deck beams above. For further information regarding CHVI and identified heritage attributes, see Appendix A.
South elevation, looking north
The Cherry Street Interlocking Tower was built in 1930- 1931 by the CPR for its co-owned TTR. The brick railway Known BHR - structure, also known as the Cherry Street Signals Cherry Provincial Heritage 385 Cherry Tower, is located on the north side of the USRC on the BHR-4 Street Metrolinx Property of Street east side of Cherry Street. The three-storey tower is a Tower Provincial solid brick structure on concrete foundation. For further Significance information regarding CHVI and identified heritage attributes, see Appendix A.
North elevation
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 31 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
BHR/CHL Type of Heritage Description of Property and Known or Potential Reference Location Ownership Photographs/ Digital Image Property Recognition Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Number
The former Eastern Avenue Bridge is an abandoned bridge crossing the Don River between Sunlight Park Road to the east and Corktown Commons to the west. Built in 1933 as a replacement for an older bridge Mile 1.84 of (predating 1909), it is a 144-foot Truss bridge that Richmond formerly carried vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In 1964, Eastern Hill Potential BHR – the bridge was severed from the road network in the area City of BHR-5 Avenue Corridor, Identified during with the construction of the Don Valley Parkway and Toronto Bridge east of Desktop Review Eastern Avenue bypass. However, it was never torn Corktown down. While access was blocked, some people have Common been able to break through the fencing. According to www.historicbridges.org, this bridge “is a rare example of a highway Baltimore truss bridge, and an even more rare example of a truss bridge with three truss lines in Canada.” (Holth)
South elevation, looking north9 The collection of former Gooderham & Worts Distillery Border is brick and stone buildings which were constructed Parliament between 1859 and 1927 is a National Historic Site and is Street to currently an important arts, culture, and entertainment the west, Known CHL– district in the City of Toronto. It is recognized for having railway National Historic national and architectural importance because: it is an Distillery corridor to Site, Proposed imposing landmark, containing a number of buildings that District the south, Heritage collectively bear witness to the evolution of the Canadian Proposed Cherry Various Conservation 10 CHL-1 distilling industry. Heritage Street to owners District, and Conservatio the east, contains several The Distillery District Heritage Conservation District Study n District and the buildings was undertaken in 2016 and remains ‘under study’. The buildings designated under following buildings are designated under Part IV of the on the part IV of the OHA OHA: north side of Mill St. to • 42 Mill St., 55 Mill St, 60 Mill St, 70 Mill St, 390 the north Cherry St., and 2 Trinity St (Bylaw 154-76) • 18 and 20 Trinity St (Bylaw 301-97) Looking south within the district
9 Information about and image of the Eastern Avenue Bridge comes from the OnCorr Due Diligence Project: Richmond Hill Corridor Non-Priority Properties CHAR (ASI 2020) 10 A full description of its CHVI and list of character-defining elements is provided at Canada’s Historic Places website (https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=1195)
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 32 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
BHR/CHL Type of Heritage Description of Property and Known or Potential Reference Location Ownership Photographs/ Digital Image Property Recognition Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Number
Bala Underpass West bank Public of the Don The Don River Heritage Plaques and Bridge Abutment Space: River, Don Remnants are located in a public space associated with City of Commemor River Corktown Common, on the west bank of the Don River Toronto & ative Bicycle Potential CHL – just north of the CNR Bridge. It features 1856 abutments Toronto and CHL-2 Plaques Trail just Identified during stones from the original rail crossing at this location, Region and 1856 east of Desktop Review which have been reused for seating in a public space Conservatio abutments Corktown along the Don River Bicycle Trail. The plaques n Authority stones as Common at commemorate the Lower Don River railway crossing and commemor the Bala the straightening of the Don River in 1892. ative Underpass features
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 33 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Figure 4-1: Location of Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the Project Study Area
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 34 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
5 Preliminary Impact Assessment
Of the seven known and potential BHRs and CHLs identified in the Project Study Area, three BHRs will be both directly and indirectly impacted, and one additional BHR will be subject to indirect impacts only. The two identified CHLs will be neither directly nor indirectly impacted (Table 5-1). The intent of this CHR is to assess the USRC HONI Conflict infrastructure, including utility bridges and HONI relocation.
Table 5-1: Identified Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Preliminary Impact Assessment, and Recommended Mitigation Measures
BHR/CHL Type of Location Heritage Preliminary Impact Mitigation Measures Reference Property Recognition Assessment Number Direct Impacts: Preferred Option: Avoid alterations to this bridge. Direct impacts are anticipated as a result of the Alternative Option: Should it be construction of a proposed determined that there is no other utility bridge adjacent to the technically feasible option, complete an south elevation of this HIA (in progress) to determine bridge. appropriate site-specific mitigation measures. Lower Provincial Mile 0.75, BHR-1 Sherbourne Heritage Indirect Impacts: USRC East Indirect impacts to the Street Subway Property heritage attributes of this To ensure this property is not adversely BHR are possible due to the impacted during construction, baseline proposed work identified in vibration monitoring should be Section 1.1, which may result undertaken in advance of construction. in limited and temporary Should this advance monitoring adverse vibration impacts to assessment conclude that the structure this BHR. on this property will be subject to vibration impacts: • Preferred Option: Plan construction activities to avoid adverse vibration
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 29 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
BHR/CHL Type of Location Heritage Preliminary Impact Mitigation Measures Reference Property Recognition Assessment Number impacts to the structure on this property. • Alternative Option: Prior to construction, if it is found that there is potential adverse impacts to this BHR as a result of the vibration zone of influence, a qualified engineer should include this BHR in the condition assessment of structures within the vibration zone of influence. Further, Metrolinx must make a commitment to repair any damages caused by vibrations. The area should be monitored for vibration impacts during construction, and immediately cease work if acceptable vibration thresholds are exceeded until the above has been undertaken.
Direct impacts are Direct Impacts: anticipated as a result of the Preferred Option: Avoid alterations to construction of a proposed this bridge. utility bridge adjacent to the Alternative Option: Should it be south elevation of this determined that there is no other Provincial bridge. Parliament Mile 1.00, technically feasible option, complete an BHR-2 Heritage Street Subway USRC East HIA (in progress) to determine Property Indirect impacts to the appropriate site-specific mitigation heritage attributes of this measures. BHR are possible due to the Indirect Impacts: proposed work identified in To ensure this property is not adversely Section 1.1, which may result impacted during construction, baseline in limited and temporary vibration monitoring should be
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 30 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
BHR/CHL Type of Location Heritage Preliminary Impact Mitigation Measures Reference Property Recognition Assessment Number adverse vibration impacts to undertaken in advance of construction. this BHR. Should this advance monitoring assessment conclude that the structure on this property will be subject to vibration impacts: • Preferred Option: Plan construction activities to avoid adverse vibration impacts to the structure on this property. • Alternative Option: Prior to construction, if it is found that there is potential adverse impacts to this BHR as a result of the vibration zone of influence, a qualified engineer should include this BHR in the condition assessment of structures within the vibration zone of influence. Further, Metrolinx must make a commitment to repair any damages caused by vibrations. The area should be monitored for vibration impacts during construction, and immediately cease work if acceptable vibration thresholds are exceeded until the above has been undertaken. Direct impacts are Direct Impacts: anticipated as a result of the Provincial Preferred Option: Avoid alterations to Cherry Street Mile 1.25, construction of a proposed BHR-3 Heritage this bridge. Subway USRC East utility bridge adjacent to the Property Alternative Option: Should it be south elevation of this determined that there is no other bridge. technically feasible option, complete an
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 31 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
BHR/CHL Type of Location Heritage Preliminary Impact Mitigation Measures Reference Property Recognition Assessment Number HIA (in progress) to determine Indirect impacts to the appropriate site-specific mitigation heritage attributes of this measures. BHR are possible due to the Indirect Impacts: proposed work identified in To ensure this property is not adversely Section 1.1, which may result impacted during construction, baseline in limited and temporary vibration monitoring should be adverse vibration impacts to undertaken in advance of construction. this BHR. Should this advance monitoring assessment conclude that the structure on this property will be subject to vibration impacts: • Preferred Option: Plan construction activities to avoid adverse vibration impacts to the structure on this property. • Alternative Option: Prior to construction, if it is found that there is potential adverse impacts to this BHR as a result of the vibration zone of influence, a qualified engineer should include this BHR in the condition assessment of structures within the vibration zone of influence. Further, Metrolinx must make a commitment to repair any damages caused by vibrations. The area should be monitored for vibration impacts during construction, and immediately cease work if acceptable vibration thresholds are exceeded until the above has been undertaken.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 32 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
BHR/CHL Type of Location Heritage Preliminary Impact Mitigation Measures Reference Property Recognition Assessment Number To ensure this property is not adversely impacted during construction, baseline vibration monitoring should be undertaken in advance of construction. Should this advance monitoring assessment conclude that the structure on this property will be subject to vibration impacts: • Preferred Option: Plan construction No direct impacts to this activities to avoid adverse vibration BHR are anticipated. impacts to the structure on this property. Provincial Indirect impacts to the • Alternative Option: Prior to Heritage Cherry Street 385 Cherry heritage attributes of this construction, if it is found that there BHR-4 Property of Tower11 Street BHR are possible due to the is potential adverse impacts to this Provincial proposed work identified in BHR as a result of the vibration zone Significance Section 1.1, which may result of influence, a qualified engineer in limited and temporary should include this BHR in the adverse vibration impacts to condition assessment of structures this BHR. within the vibration zone of influence. Further, Metrolinx must make a commitment to repair any damages caused by vibrations. The area should be monitored for vibration impacts during construction, and immediately cease work if acceptable vibration thresholds are exceeded until the above has been undertaken.
11 The Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries has granter her consent to relocate the Cherry Street Tower to a new location at Corktown Commons. This relocation work is not within the Electrification scope of work.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 33 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
BHR/CHL Type of Location Heritage Preliminary Impact Mitigation Measures Reference Property Recognition Assessment Number Potential Built c. Mile 1.84 of No direct or indirect Heritage Richmond Hill impacts to this property are Eastern Avenue Resource – BHR-5 Corridor, east anticipated as a result of the No further work. Bridge Identified of Corktown proposed work identified in during Desktop Common Section 1.1.12 Review Known Cultural Heritage Border is Landscape – Parliament National Street to the Historic Site, west, railway Distillery District Proposed No direct or indirect corridor to the Proposed Heritage impacts to this property are south, Cherry CHL-1 Heritage Conservation anticipated as a result of the No further work. Street to the Conservation District, and proposed work identified in east, and the District contains Section 1.1. buildings on the several north side of buildings Mill St. to the designated north under part IV of the OHA Bala Underpass West bank of Potential Public Space: the Don River, Cultural No direct or indirect Commemorative Don River Heritage impacts to this property are Plaques and Bicycle Trail CHL-2 Landscape – anticipated as a result of the No further work. 1856 abutments just east of Identified proposed work identified in stones as Corktown during Desktop Section 1.1. commemorative Common at the Review features Bala Underpass
12 The Project Study Area originally included all of Corktown Common and adjacent properties, rather than just the southeast portion. As a result, BHR 5 appears to be well outside the Project Study Area limits.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 34 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
6 Summary of Community Data Collection
Community data collection was undertaken to gather information on known or potential BHRs and CHLs within and/or adjacent to the Project Study Area, and to collect any other data related to known or potential cultural heritage value or interest in the Project Study Area. Requests for information were sent to the following:
• Julia Murnaghan, Senior Project Manager, City of Toronto (email communications 20 May 2020 and 21 May 2020) communicated that there are no additional known cultural heritage resources in the Project Study Area to note. • Karla Barboza, Acting Team Lead, Heritage MHSTCI (email communication 20 May 2020, 25 May 2020 and 1 June 2020) provided a list of PHP and PHPPS in the Project Study Area. • Kevin De Mille, Natural Heritage Coordinator, Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) (email communications 20 May 2020 and 25 May 2020), confirmed that the OHT does not have any conservation easements or Trust-owned properties within the Project Study Area. • S. Vangelli, Waterfront Toronto (email communications 20 May 2020 and 27 May 2020). No response received at time of drafting this report. Following submission of the CHR in August 2020 for agency review, additional comments were received in November 2020 from the MHSTCI and the City of Toronto and addressed in the revised report.
Round Three of public consultation was held online via Metrolinx’s engagement and public consultation website at https://www.metrolinxengage.com/en/engagement-initiatives/go- expansion-program-pic3. The Metrolinx Engage platform is the hub for interested stakeholders and members of the public to learn more about Metrolinx’s projects and programs, including the GO Expansion Program. Participants were also able to visit the website to find out how they can participate in consultation, provide feedback, and submit questions publicly.
Information regarding the proposed utility bridge was available on the website over a two-week period (November 27, 2020 to December 11, 2020), and the active commenting period was open to the public during this time. Following December 11, 2020, the active comment period ended; however, the public was still able and encouraged to ask questions through the online question and answer section, as information remains available online throughout the Addendum. Additionally, updated information regarding the proposed utility works at the Don Fleet Junction will be presented during February 2021, at which time the public will be encouraged to provide feedback and comment.
Refer to Section 5.3.3 and Section 5.3.4 of the GO Rail Electrification EPR Addendum 2021 for additional detail regarding stakeholder and public feedback received as part of the third and fourth rounds of public consultation.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 35 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
7 Results and Mitigation Recommendations
The results of background historical research, background document review, and field review revealed a study area with an urban land use history dating back to the early nineteenth century. A total of five BHRs and two CHLs were identified in the Project Study Area, which includes three PHPs, one PHPPS, one potential BHR, one National Historic Site/Proposed Heritage Conservation District, and one potential CHL. Direct impacts to the three PHPs have been identified: Lower Sherbourne Street Subway, Parliament Street Subway and Cherry Street Subway (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3). Indirect impacts have been identified to the three PHPs (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3) and the Cherry Street Tower, a PHPPS (BHR 4). No direct or indirect impacts to the Eastern Avenue Bridge (BHR 5), Distillery District National Historic Site/Proposed Heritage Conservation District (CHL 1), or Don River Heritage Plaques and Bridge Abutment Remnants (CHL 2) have been identified.
Based on the results of the CHR, the following recommendations have been developed:
1. Selection of construction staging and laydown areas will follow Metrolinx’s selection procedures which include avoiding heritage attributes wherever possible or effectively mitigating impacts where not possible. 2. Direct impacts to the Lower Sherbourne Street Subway, Parliament Street Subway and Cherry Street Subway (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3), all PHPs, are anticipated as a result of a proposed utility bridge adjacent to the south elevation of each bridge. An HIA (ASI, in progress) for each bridge is recommended to determine appropriate site-specific mitigation measures. a. The HIAs must be prepared in accordance with MHSTCI Information Bulletin No. 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties (2017) to identify alternatives and mitigation and monitoring commitments to avoid or lessen impacts on the Cultural Heritage Value and heritage attributes of the PHP, based on the PHP’s SCHV. b. HIAs will be conducted during the TPAP and updated during detailed design as appropriate should designs change, and the recommendations of these HIAs will be followed and adhered to by the Contractor during subsequent design stages and construction. 3. Indirect impacts to the heritage attributes of the following PHPs and PHPPS are possible due to installation of new/modified infrastructure: Lower Sherbourne Street Subway, Parliament Street Subway, Cherry Street Subway (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3) and the Cherry Street Tower (BHR 4). The following mitigation measures will be implemented and adhered to: a. To ensure these properties are not adversely impacted during construction, baseline vibration monitoring should be undertaken in advance of construction. Should this advance monitoring assessment conclude that the structures on these properties will be subject to vibration impacts: i. Preferred Option: Plan construction activities to avoid adverse vibration impacts.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 36 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
ii. Alternative Option: Prior to construction, if it is found that there is potential adverse impacts as a result of the vibration zone of influence, a qualified engineer should include impacted properties in the condition assessment of structures within the vibration zone of influence. Further, Metrolinx must make a commitment to repair any damages caused by vibrations. b. The area should be monitored for vibration impacts during construction, and immediately cease work if acceptable vibration thresholds are exceeded until the above has been undertaken. 4. During design, the recommendations of all HIAs and this CHR will be implemented and adhered to during design and construction, including but not limited to strategies to protect heritage attributes. 5. Should additional HONI Conflicts within the USRC be identified that were not considered as part of this report (or other Metrolinx studies), then the conflicts will be assessed by a qualified cultural heritage professional, documented and submitted to the MHSTCI for review. The exact documentation to be submitted to the MHSTCI will depend on the nature of the conflict, its location within the USRC and any previous reports prepared. 6. This report should be submitted by the proponent to heritage staff at the City of Toronto, the MHSTCI, and any other relevant stakeholder with an interest in this project for review and comment.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 37 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
8 References
AECOM 2018 Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements - Environmental Assessment Cultural Heritage Screening Report.
Alamenciak, Tim 2013 Toronto’s Waterfront: Dredging up the Past to Build the Future August 6.
Armstrong, Chris 2014 Making Toronto Modern: Architecture and Design, 1895-1975. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal.
Armstrong, F. H. 1985 Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Dundurn Press, Toronto.
ASI, (Archaeological Services Inc.) 2006 Historical Overview and Assessment of Archaeological Potential Don River Watershed, City of Toronto. Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, Toronto.
2017 GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP Cultural Heritage Screening Report. Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, Toronto.
2019 Final OnCorr Due Diligence - Cultural Heritage Gap Analysis: USRC Corridor. Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, Toronto.
2020 OnCorr Due Diligence Project - Richmond Hill Corridor Non-Priority Properties Cultural Heritage Assessment Report – Existing Conditions City of Toronto and York Region, Ontario. Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, Toronto.
ASI, (Archaeological Services Inc.), Cuesta Systems Inc., Commonwealth Resources Management Limited, Golder Associates, and Historica Research Limited 2007 A Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the City of Toronto (Interim Report). https://www.toronto.ca/explore-enjoy/history-art-culture/.
Brown, A. 2019 Toronto’s Historical Plaques. Toronto’s Historical Plaques. April 14. www.torontoplaques.com.
Browne, H.J. 1862 Plan of the City of Toronto Shewing the Government Survey and the Registered Subdivision into Lots According to Plans Filed in the Office of the City Registrar.
Canadian Heritage Rivers Board and Technical Planning Committee n.d. The Rivers – Canadian Heritage Rivers System Canada’s National River Conservation Program.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 38 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Canadian Heritage Rivers System. http://chrs.ca/the-rivers/.
Careless, J.M.S. 1984 Toronto to 1918: An Illustrated History. James Lorimer & Co., Toronto.
City of Toronto n.d. Heritage Register Map. City of Toronto. http://cot- planning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PanelsLegend/index.html?appid=a90bf1e72b694db5a4892dc6b170688 d. n.d. A Station with a Rich History. https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=2765962c8c3f0410VgnVCM10000071d60 f89RCRD.
2019a City of Toronto’s Heritage Property Search. http://app.toronto.ca/HeritagePreservation/setup.do?action=init.
2019b Official Plan. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/8f06- OfficialPlanAODA_Compiled-3.0.pdf.
City of Toronto Archives 2020 Aerial Photographs, 1947-1992. City of Toronto. https://www.toronto.ca/city- government/accountability-operations-customer-service/access-city-information-or-records/city-of- toronto-archives/whats-online/maps/aerial-photographs/.
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs 2016 Toronto Purchase, No. 13. Treaty Texts – Upper Canada Land Surrenders. https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1370372152585/1581293792285#ucls13.
Dendy, W. 1993 Lost Toronto. Images of the City’s Past. McClelland & Stewart Inc, Toronto.
Firth, E., editor, 1962 The Town of York 1793-1815: A Collection of Documents of Early Toronto. The University of Toronto Press for the Champlain Society.
Fullerton, K.A., and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2015 The Rouge River Valley Tract Unsurrendered Traditional Lands, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (Formerly Known As Mississaugas of the New Credit Indian Band). Statement of Claim. Submitted to the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario.
Goad, C.E. 1903 Atlas of the City of Toronto and Vicinity, From Special Survey Founded on Registered Plans and Showing All Buildings and Lot Numbers.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 39 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
1924 Atlas of the City of Toronto and Vicinity.
Government of Ontario 2020 Provincial Policy Statement. Toronto, Ontario.
Holth, Nathan Eastern Avenue Bridge. HistoricBridges.org. www.historicbridges.org.
McLeod, P., and M. McNeil 1979 Parkdale: A Centennial History. Parkdale Centennial Research.
MHSTCI, (Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries) 1990 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 [as Amended in 2019].
2010 Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf.
2016 Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, A Checklist for the Non-Specialist. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/tools.shtml.
2017 Information Bulletin No. 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties.
2019 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) Sample Tables and Language for “Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment” and Environmental Project Reports (EPR) under Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) for Proponents and Their Consultants. On file with the author.
Miles & Co. 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York and the Township of West Gwillimbury & Town of Bradford in the County of Simcoe Ontario. Miles & Co., Toronto.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 1990 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.
Ministry of the Environment 1990 Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. Province of Ontario.
2014 Guide: Ontario’s Transit Project Assessment Process. https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/1799/3-8a-6-ea-transit-projects-en-pdf.pdf.
Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2017 The Toronto Purchase Treaty No. 13 (1805). http://mncfn.ca/torontopurchase/.
NRCAN 2007 The Real Story of How Toronto Got Its Name.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 40 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto http://web.archive.org/web/20131109063329/http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography- boundary/geographical-name/geoname-origins/5697.
Ontario Genealogical Society n.d. OGS Cemeteries. Digitals Collections & Library Catalogue. http://vitacollections.ca/ogscollections/2818487/data.
Ontario Heritage Trust n.d. Easement Properties. Ontario Heritage Trust. https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/property- types/easement-properties. n.d. Provincial Plaque Program. Ontario Heritage Trust. https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/programs/provincial-plaque-program.
Parks Canada n.d. Canada’s Historic Places. www.historicplaces.ca. n.d. Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/search- recherche_eng.aspx.
Surtees, R. 1984 Indian Land Surrenders in Ontario 1763-1867. Research Branch, Corporate Policy, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. 2013 Union Station Railway Corridor: Cherry, Scott & John Street Interlocking Towers Cultural Heritage Reports, Volumes 1-3.
2014 Cherry Street USRC Interlocking Tower Heritage Impact Assessment.
2016 Four USRC Subways (Bridges), Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report.
Toronto Terminals Railway 2020 Toronto Terminals Railway History. http://www.ttrly.com/about/history/.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre n.d. World Heritage List. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/.
Winearls, J. 1991 Mapping Upper Canada 1780-1867. An Annotated Bibliography of Manuscript and Printed Maps. University of Toronto, Toronto.
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 41 | P a g e GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto
Appendix A: Heritage Property Documentation
Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 Rev. 01 42 | P a g e
Metrolinx Interim Heritage Committee – Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
Property Name: Cherry Street USRC Bridge (Subway), Toronto Description of property:
The Cherry Street USRC Subway passes under the eastern portion of the USRC in downtown Toronto. The Subway is a riveted steel plate girder bridge, providing a 66’-5” road allowance under the elevated rail corridor. Two concrete abutments and three frame lines support the steel deck beams above. Each frame is roughly 170’ in length, composed of four three-panel sections separated by expansion joints. In each section the middle panel has cross bracing. The Subways provide two sidewalks on the east and west sides, with two lanes of traffic between them. The Subway was built between 1928 and 1929 as part of the Waterfront Viaduct grade separation project, a joint undertaking of the City of Toronto, CNR and CPR.
The Cherry Street USRC Subway is a Provincial Heritage Property.
Cultural Heritage Value:
The Cherry Street USRC Subway is of cultural heritage value or interest for its historical, design and contextual values.
Historical Values The Cherry Street USRC Subway is associated with historical themes at the local level. The Subway is associated with the City of Toronto`s efforts, spearheaded by the Public Works Department and the Toronto Harbour Commission, to improve rail and water transportation along the reclaimed shoreline.
The Cherry Street USRC Subway is part of a set of four almost identical underpasses along the eastern portion of the USRC. The others, at Lower Jarvis, Lower Sherbourne and Parliament Streets have nearly identical designs, structural systems and aesthetics. The major difference is their respective widths, which vary depending on the number of tracks that pass atop. The aesthetic and functional relationships of the Subways connect them with a single infrastructural undertaking, the construction of the Waterfront Viaduct between 1925 and 1930. The viaduct is a raised rail embankment used to carry train traffic east of Union Station. The raised tracks allowed road traffic to pass under the rail corridor through the use of Subways. This eastern portion of the future USRC had been planned since 1909, but the public-private nature of the agreement, World War I, and the subsequent bankruptcy of the GTR delayed the project into the 1920s. By the time the project was completed, the USRC was a continuous, grade separated east-west rail corridor serving Union Station.
Design Values The Cherry Street USRC Subway demonstrates design values at the local level.
20 Bay Street, Suite 600 20, rue Bay, bureau 600 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3
Page 2 of 3
The Subway demonstrates a high standard of accuracy in its construction. The steel frame joinery remains tightly aligned, and is generally in excellent condition. The concrete abutments and deck fascia utilize elegant falsework, and also retain a very high level of structural integrity. The concrete-encased steel plate girder design is representative of Subway structures built as part of the USRC Grade Separation Project.
Contextual Values The Cherry Street USRC Subway has contextual values at the local level.
The Cherry Street USRC Subway is strongly associated with transportation infrastructure, specifically with the Waterfront Viaduct. The Subway`s industrial materials and location within the massive embankment help to define the area as a railway corridor. The proximity to, and visual connections with the former Gooderham and Worts distillery, and the abandoned Victory Soya Mills Silos support the industrial character that once defined the entire area.
Through the rail lines it carries, the Subway is physically connected to the broader railway corridor, and Union Station. Its close relationship with the Cherry Street Interlocking Tower emphasizes its functional and historical connections to the railway corridor.
Heritage Attributes:
The heritage attributes essential to the cultural heritage value of the Subway are:
• Attributes related to its historical associations at a local level including: • its construction between 1928 and 1929 as one of four similar Subways in the Waterfront Viaduct, a major part of the City of Toronto’s initiative to establish a continuous, grade-separated rail line across the southern part of the city
• Attributes related to its design associations at a local level including: • The concrete-encased steel plate girder design and structural configuration • The precise construction, and excellent overall condition of the built up steel frame sections • The concrete abutments and deck fascia: board-formed with elegant falsework panelling and curved returns to the south, all in excellent overall condition
• Attributes related to its contextual associations at a local level including: • its location within the elevated USRC corridor • the view of the Subway and adjacent Cherry Street Interlocking Tower, looking south on Cherry Street from Mill Street. • its historic and functional connections with the Cherry Street Interlocking Tower • its visual connection with the former Gooderham & Worts distillery site to the north • its visual connection with the Victory Soya Mills Silos to the south Page 3 of 3
Metrolinx Heritage Property Location:
Figure of Cherry Street USRC Subway
Metrolinx Interim Heritage Committee – Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
Property Name: Lower Sherboune Street USRC Bridge (Subway), Toronto Description of property:
The Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Subway passes under the eastern Union Station Rail Corridor at Lower Sherbourne Street, in downtown Toronto. The Subway is a riveted steel plate girder bridge, providing a 66’-5” road allowance under the elevated rail corridor. Two concrete abutments and three frame lines support the steel deck beams above. Each frame is roughly 78’ in length and is composed of six panels, four of which are cross braced. The Subways support two sidewalks on each side, with two elevated bike lanes and two lanes of traffic between them. The Subway was built in 1927 as part of the Waterfront Viaduct grade separation project.
The Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Subway is a Provincial Heritage Property.
Cultural Heritage Value:
The Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Subway is of cultural heritage value or interest for its historical, design and contextual values.
Historical Values The Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Subway is associated with historical themes at the local level. The Subway is associated with the City of Toronto`s efforts, spearheaded by the Public Works Department and the Toronto Harbour Commission, to improve rail and water transportation along the reclaimed shoreline.
The Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Subway is part of a set of four almost identical underpasses along the eastern portion of the USRC. The others, at Lower Jarvis, Parliament and Cherry Streets have nearly identical designs, structural systems and aesthetics. The major difference is their respective widths, which vary depending on the number of tracks that pass atop. The aesthetic and functional relationships of the Subways connect them with a single infrastructural undertaking, the construction of the Waterfront Viaduct between 1925 and 1930. The viaduct is a raised rail embankment used to carry train traffic east of Union Station. The raised tracks allowed road traffic to pass under the rail corridor through the use of Subways. This eastern portion of the future USRC had been planned since 1909, but the public-private nature of the agreement, World War I, and the subsequent bankruptcy of the GTR delayed the project into the 1920s. By the time the project was completed, the USRC was a continuous, grade separated east-west rail corridor serving Union Station.
20 Bay Street, Suite 600 20, rue Bay, bureau 600 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3
Page 2 of 3
Design Values The Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Subway demonstrates design values at the local level. The Subway demonstrates a high standard of accuracy in its construction. The steel frame joinery remains tightly aligned, and is generally in excellent condition. The concrete abutments and deck fascia utilize elegant falsework, and also retain a very high level of structural integrity. The concrete-encased steel plate girder design is representative of Subway structures built as part of the USRC Grade Separation Project.
Contextual Values The Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Subway has contextual values at the local level.
The Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Subway is strongly associated with transportation infrastructure, specifically with the Waterfront Viaduct. The Subway`s industrial materials and location within the massive embankment help to define the area as a railway corridor, and support the industrial character that once defined the entire area.
Through the rail lines it carries, the Subway is physically, historically and functionally connected to the broader railway corridor, including Union Station.
Heritage Attributes: The heritage attributes essential to the cultural heritage value of the bridge are: • Attributes related to its historical associations at a local level including: o its construction in 1927 as one of four similar Subways in the Waterfront Viaduct, a major City of Toronto initiative to establish a continuous, grade-separated rail line across the southern part of the city • Attributes related to its design associations at a local level including: o The concrete-encased steel plate girder design and structural configuration o The precise construction, and excellent overall condition of the built up steel frame sections o The concrete abutments and deck fascia: board-formed with elegant falsework panelling and angled returns to the south, all in excellent overall condition • Attributes related to its contextual associations at a local level including: o its location within the elevated USRC corridor
Page 3 of 3
Metrolinx Heritage Property Location:
Figure of Lower Sherbourne Street USRC Subway Property Boundary
Metrolinx Interim Heritage Committee – Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
Property Name: Parliament Street USRC Bridge (Subway), Toronto Description of property:
The Parliament Street USRC Subway passes under the eastern portion of the USRC at Parliament Street, in downtown Toronto. The Subway is a riveted steel plate girder bridge, providing a 66’-5” road allowance under the elevated rail corridor. Two concrete abutments and three frame lines support the steel deck beams above. Each frame is roughly 114’ in length and is composed of two four-panel sections, separated in the middle by an expansion joint. Two of the four panels are cross-braced in each section. The Subways provide two sidewalks on the east and west side, and two lanes of traffic between them. The Subway was built in 1927 as part of the Waterfront Viaduct grade separation project.
The Parliament Street USRC Subway is a Provincial Heritage Property.
Cultural Heritage Value:
The Parliament Street USRC Subway is of cultural heritage value or interest for its historical, design and contextual values.
Historical Values The Parliament Street USRC Subway is associated with historical themes at the local level. The Subway is associated with the City of Toronto`s efforts, spearheaded by the Public Works Department and the Toronto Harbour Commission, to improve rail and water transportation along the reclaimed shoreline.
The Parliament Street USRC Subway is part of a set of four almost identical underpasses along the eastern portion of the USRC. The others, at Lower Jarvis, Lower Sherbourne and Cherry Streets have nearly identical designs, structural systems and aesthetics. The major difference is their respective widths, which vary depending on the number of tracks that pass atop. The aesthetic and functional relationships of the Subways connect them with a single infrastructural undertaking, the construction of the Waterfront Viaduct between 1925 and 1930. The viaduct is a raised rail embankment used to carry train traffic east of Union Station. The raised tracks allowed road traffic to pass under the rail corridor through the use of Subways. This eastern portion of the future USRC had been planned since 1909, but the public-private nature of the agreement, World War I, and the subsequent bankruptcy of the GTR delayed the project into the 1920s. By the time the project was completed, the USRC was a continuous, grade separated east-west rail corridor serving Union Station.
Design Values The Parliament Street USRC Subway demonstrates design values at the local level.
20 Bay Street, Suite 600 20, rue Bay, bureau 600 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3
Page 2 of 3
The Subway demonstrates a high standard of accuracy in its construction. The steel frame joinery remains tightly aligned, and is generally in excellent condition. The concrete abutments and deck fascia utilize elegant falsework, and also retain a very high level of structural integrity. The concrete-encased steel plate girder design is representative of Subway structures built as part of the USRC Grade Separation Project.
Contextual Values The Parliament Street USRC Subway has contextual values at the local level. The Parliament Street USRC Subway is strongly associated with transportation infrastructure, specifically with the Waterfront Viaduct. The Subway`s industrial materials and location within the massive embankment help to define the area as a railway corridor. The visual connection with the abandoned Victory Soya Mills Silos supports the industrial character that once defined the entire area.
Through the rail lines it carries, the Subway is physically, historically and functionally connected to the broader railway corridor, including Union Station.
Heritage Attributes: • Attributes related to its historical associations at a local level including: o its construction in 1927 as one of four similar Subways in the Waterfront Viaduct, a major City of Toronto initiative to establish a continuous, grade-separated rail line across the southern part of the city • Attributes related to its design associations at a local level including: o The concrete-encased steel plate girder design and structural configuration o The precise construction, and excellent overall condition of the built up steel frame sections o The concrete abutments and deck fascia: board-formed with elegant falsework panelling and angled returns to the south, all in excellent overall condition • Attributes related to its contextual associations at a local level including: o its location within the elevated USRC corridor o its visual connection with the Victory Soya Mills Silos to the south
Page 3 of 3
Metrolinx Heritage Property Location:
Figure of Parliament Street USRC subway Property Boundary
Metrolinx Interim Heritage Committee – Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
Property Name: Cherry Street Interlocking Tower
Description of property: The Cherry Street Interlocking Tower (also known as the Cherry Street Signal Tower) is a brick railway structure built in 1930-1 that sits on the north side of the Union Station Railway Corridor (USRC) near the Cherry Street USRC subway. The boundaries of the heritage property are the footprint of the 1930-31 building and its exterior stairway plus three (3) metres on the south and east sides. On the west, a narrow strip continues on the south boundary along the USRC to the opposite side of the bridge covering the subway. The boundary captures the iron railing of the bridge, the tower structure constructed in 1930-31, and the tower’s stairs. Because the immense interlocking machine is embedded into the tower structure, it is considered to be part of the property. Since its construction, the tower system and personnel have managed signals and switches for railway traffic in the USRC. The Cherry Street Interlocking Tower was designed in 1930 by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) for its co-owned Toronto Terminals Railway Company (TTR). The tower is a solid brick structure on a concrete foundation featuring various design elements rendered in brick, stone and wood. Its form and details are consistent with railway architecture of the period. The three-storey building is set into the railway viaduct embankment at the Cherry Street USRC subway. The track (south) side of the tower is two storeys above grade with the projecting director’s bay at the centre of the third storey; the north side is three storeys with a 1950s addition. The building is covered by a steep hip roof, with a copper cap and with flared eaves. Inside, the tower contains a functioning electro-mechanical interlocking system from the 1930s, including power systems, racks of relays, a control board and the interlocking machine.
Cultural Heritage Value: The Cherry Street Interlocking Tower and its immediate site is a property of Provincial cultural heritage value due to its context, historical associations, design and technical achievement. The tower is part of a unique cultural landscape – the Union Station Railway Corridor. The corridor is one of the main influences in the structure of the broader Toronto urban region. Key elements of the corridor include Union Station and its associated buildings, the three interlocking towers, the raised viaduct and the USRC subways and bridges. The USRC is associated with the growth and apotheosis of railway services and technologies in Ontario and Canada. The features also help establish recognition of the corridor as a historic resource in the city of Toronto. Historically, the building is associated with railway architecture in general and, more specifically, to the CPR’s long legacy of producing some of Canada’s most important and celebrated architectural
20 Bay Street, Suite 600 20, rue Bay, bureau 600 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3 Page 2 of 4 works in the areas of transportation and industry in all provinces, including Ontario. For the Cherry Street Tower, CP designed a building that was perfectly suited to its technical function and shared the noble masonry detailing and building silhouette common to the other Towers in this part of the corridor. The tower also served an important role in showcasing commitments to rail safety and helped mark the entry to one of Canada’s most important landmarks in the early 20th century – Toronto’s Union Station. The Cherry Street Tower is also a fully intact workplace dating from 1931. Workers who operated and maintained the interlocking system were part of a relatively small, but highly specialized, trade that sought recognition as a distinct category of railway worker. The Cherry Street Tower was one of three buildings conceived as a set to house expensive and technically sophisticated interlocking equipment, and to ensure the safe operation of trains. Functionally, the tower was designed to provide maximum visibility outwards to the rail corridor and to provide spaces and finishes required to segregate and protect specialized equipment and work procedures. Without the interlocking equipment and the services of signaling staff, the safe and efficient operation of trains in the busy corridor would have been impossible. The equipment also provides evidence that interlocking technology was sufficiently developed and proven in the 1920s that it was able to remain in use for many decades. The lower level of the Cherry Street Interlocking Tower also marks the original street level almost at the grade of Lake Ontario’s shoreline.
Heritage Attributes: The attributes of the Cherry Street Interlocking Tower and its immediate site that contribute to cultural heritage value are set out below in the categories of context, historical associations, exterior and interior design, and technical achievement.
Key contextual attributes of the Cherry Street Interlocking Tower include:
Its location adjacent to the tracks Its full integration into the retaining wall of the corridor’s viaduct The iron guard rail fencing along the top of the Cherry Street subway bridge to the west of the tower The tower’s orientation towards the tracks and along the tracks Clear views along the tracks in both directions
Key attributes of its historical associations include:
Elements associated with railway architecture of its period, especially its shape, scale and solid masonry construction Its eclectic styling with a picturesque silhouette and restrained detailing and proportions Its form and construction as seen in its rectangular shape, hip roof with flared eaves, restrained and noble detailing, and solid masonry construction The organization of the building around the operation of the interlocking machine and its power sources The apparent complexity of the equipment and the separation of functionality by floor for the equipment and personnel
Page 3 of 4
Key exterior design attributes of the Cherry Street Interlocking Tower include:
The high proportion of elements surviving from its original period of design and construction, including its original form, massing, scale, window and door arrangements The hierarchy of the building as seen in its materials and detailing, with: o a poured-in-place concrete foundation o all brick ground and first storeys o a stone beltcourse band capping the foundation and brick soldier courses marking the ground and first storeys Its silhouette, composed of a rectangular block surmounted by a steep hip roof with wide flared eaves Its symmetry in plan and appearance Its solid, well-detailed mid-brown brick construction laid in common bond with horizontal mortar joints raked back from brick face and with vertical joints struck flush with brick Its orientation toward the track as seen in its long rectangular plan parallel to the tracks, the main entrance facing the tracks and the arrangement of most windows toward views of the tracks The principal entry door at ground level with its oak door frame and mouldings, and its glazing with divided lights and a transom The restrained application of masonry detailing, such as the soldier course at the first floor, the blind arches above the windows, and contrasting limestone elements, including keystones, stone sills, and the carved bracket below the Train Directors’ bay The shape and scale of the projecting Director’s Bay with its view to the tracks The projecting bay of the Train Directors’ control desk facing the tracks, including: o the opening for a large undivided window o the narrow window returns o the formed concrete spandrel wall below the windows o the moulded copper profile at the window heads, and o the exposed concrete floor of the bay supported by robust carved limestone brackets The generous scale of the windows on the second storey, organized symmetrically in groups of three on each side of the bay and on the two ends of the building Exposed and decoratively carved wood rafters and exposed roof boards at flared eaves projection The copper roof cap All exterior elements that are consistent between the three interlocking towers The key interior design attributes include: The prefabricated steel staircase, newels and welded-wire mesh screen Original oak doors and frames Original oak window frames, casings, mullions and sills Original finishes in the train operation room. Key attributes related to technical achievements of the Cherry Street Interlocking Tower are: Its construction using pier caissons Page 4 of 4
The functional hierarchy of the building, with a workshop and power controls in the basement, the relay racks on the ground floor, and the interlocking machine and office on the first floor Access stairs linking all floors The holding basin for the battery array The interlocking machine, consisting of metal cabinets containing the electro-mechanical interlocking bed and its associated relay and inspection compartment in the middle of machine The track diagram board The relay racks, electrical relays from the 1930s onwards, and the related electrical cables The electrical concrete conduit built into the structure The electrical control board in basement battery room
Metrolinx Heritage Property of Provincial Significance Boundaries: