Wellington Destructor Consultation Summary

Future Uses of the Wellington Destructor Consultation Summary

April 25, 2017, 6:30 – 9:00 pm St. Mary’s Elementary School, Gym 20 Portugal Square, Toronto, ON

This report was written by Casey Craig and Nicole Swerhun (Swerhun Facilitation).

The Wellington Destructor was built in 1925 as a large purpose-built brick garbage incinerator. The site was in active use until incineration of solid waste was halted in the mid-1970s, when it became a waste transfer station. The transfer station was decommissioned in the 1980s, and the site has been vacant since. The City of Toronto owns the property and recently secured and mothballed the site until such time as a more permanent and appropriate use is determined. The City of Toronto is exploring new uses to revitalize the vacant building, celebrate the heritage, and meet a number of civic objectives. An important part of determining new uses involves consulting with the public. The City of Toronto Real Estate Services Division, together with City Planning, and Economic Development & Culture Division, undertook consultations to engage the public on the future uses of the Wellington Destructor. The purpose of the consultation was to introduce the public to the process underway to determine the potential future uses of the building, and to seek public feedback about these potential future uses and the vision for the site. Swerhun Facilitation was commissioned to run these public consultations, which included a public meeting and an online survey. Both the public meeting and the online survey aimed to answer the following overarching questions:

• What objectives should the City consider for the future uses of the Wellington Destructor? • Are there any specific uses that would be a great match for the site, and why? • What uses would not be a great match for the site, and why? This final report integrates the questions, discussions, and ideas shared by the public and panelists at the public meeting, and feedback shared through the online survey. Part I of the report provides a summary of the public meeting and participant feedback. Part II of the report provides a summary of the online and paper survey results. Part III of the report provides an overall summary of common themes that emerged across all feedback. The results of the consultation will help inform the RFP the City issues for seeking a partner for development of the site. The following attachments can be found at the end of the report:

• Attachment A: Agenda • Attachment B: Panel Discussion Synopsis • Attachment C: 28 Bathurst Context Map

Page 1 of 19

Part I: Public Meeting Summary Overview Over 40 members of the public participated in the meeting hosted by the City of Toronto on Tuesday, April 25th, 2017 to explore ideas for potential future uses of the Wellington Destructor. The purpose of the meeting was to:

• Introduce the public to the process underway to determine the potential future uses of the Wellington Destructor; and • To seek public feedback and ideas about the potential future uses and visions for the site. Councillor Mike Layton opened the meeting with welcoming remarks, and noted the high level of public interest and excitement around the building’s future. Nicole Swerhun (Swerhun Facilitation) reviewed the agenda (see Attachment A) and briefly introduced the evening’s five panellists. Scott Barrett, with City of Toronto Real Estate Services, delivered an overview presentation providing a high level review of the history of the Wellington Destructor, current context, and a brief photo tour of the building’s interior spaces. A panel discussion followed, facilitated by Nicole, after which participants had a chance to ask questions and discuss ideas with the panelists and City staff. Workshop stations were set up inside the gym to collect public feedback. Stations invited input on what people value about the Wellington Destructor, what people think about the City’s preliminary objectives for redevelopment of the building, and collected ideas for future uses of the building, including desirable and undesirable revenue generation options for the site. The questions asked at the stations mirrored the questions asked in the survey. About 15 participants contributed feedback at the workshop stations. Participants provided feedback through the workshops, and in writing by completing hard copies of the City of Toronto’s online survey on the future uses of the Wellington Destructor. Participants were encouraged to complete the online survey and share it with neighbours and friends, noting the deadline for survey feedback of May 16, 2017. The online responses and the hard copy responses to the survey were analyzed and summarized together, and the results are presented in the third part of this report. Panel Discussion As part of the public meeting, the City of Toronto invited five panelists to kick start the conversation about potential new uses for the site. Collectively, the panelists brought expertise and experience with real estate, development, adaptive reuse, heritage, architecture, energy, environment, and community building to the discussion. Using their own unique lenses, panelists were asked to share their big, bold, and exciting ideas and visions for the future of the Wellington Destructor. The five panelists were:

Panelists remarked that the Wellington Destructor is an inspiring building with grand, architecture and incredible potential to become something great while maintaining links to its past. Panel questions and resulting discussions are summarized below. See Attachment B for a detailed synopsis of the discussion.

Page 2 of 19

What do you think would be an exciting way to use the Wellington Destructor (noting the building is a designated heritage site and residential uses will not be permitted)? • Involve people in the decision making process, and ensure that the new use reflects the needs of those who live, work, and learn nearby. • Integrate public and private uses and create more open spaces that support recreation and family leisure. Provide public uses like restaurants and markets on the lower level and the ramp. • Create an art gallery on the large upper floor and artist rental and retail space in the smaller areas. • Incorporate low carbon energy, solar power on the roof, geothermal underground as an energy source, and light electric transportation on site. Given your experience with similar buildings, are there one or two important lessons you’ve learned that you can share with us as we think about the future of this site? • Develop a strong vision for the site that can generate excitement, interest, and support. • Test out different uses in a non-permanent way to see how the community responds. • Find a balance between protecting heritage aspects of the building and using it to its full potential. • Build in flexibility so the building can easily respond to different generations’ needs. • Incorporate and build upon the passive design features of the architecture (i.e. large windows that require less electricity for lighting, air quality, and air circulation). • Be open to the idea that community needs may be best met through uses delivered by the private sector. Determine the needs of the community and provide the uses that best meet those needs. • Create a strong partnership to help encourage investment in the building. What kind of tenant mix might make sense for the site? • Diversity is key. There is no ideal tenant mix, but diversity of uses will help bring different audiences to the building as they pass by every day, or because it has become a destination. • Market tenants that subsidize community services. A bakery and a brewery could be good market rent tenants that could help subsidize arts and innovation uses. Results of the Public Meeting Following the panel discussion, the floor was opened to participants to ask questions of the panelists and City staff. Following questions, participants had the opportunity to provide additional feedback by visiting the workshop stations or filling out a paper copy of the online survey. The summary below captures questions and feedback from the public meeting, the panel discussions, and the workshops (i.e. ranking, dot, and checkmark exercises). City staff responses are noted in italics. Survey results, including the feedback received through the four paper surveys completed at the public meeting, are summarized in the second part of this report. Questions of clarification 1. What are the heights and densities proposed on adjacent development sites, and what is the size of the designated park space south of Stanley Park? One participant shared a contextual map

Page 3 of 19

developed by the Friends of Fort York in support of the 28 Bathurst site rezoning (to parks and open space). The map shows park land and new planned developments in the area (see Attachment C). The only development site near the Destructor is the 2 Tecumseth site, previously a pig abattoir. Community consultations are happening now before a development application is submitted. The site is zoned industrial – it is under the process of rezoning now. A participant at the consultation from TAS invited attendees to their public meeting to address this development. 2. Are there any plans to connect the site with the existing trail system and green spaces? Brick Works is accessible in many ways without even going inside, which is really nice. The West Toronto Rail Path will connect the west side of Toronto down to Front Street. There will be a new Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge that will touch down just south of Stanley Park, connecting to the parks system to the north. These kinds of connections have been top of mind. Transportation and built form have been considered. Pedestrian connections along the rail corridor and through the Wellington Destructor site and the former abattoir site were introduced during the 2014 Secondary Plan update. Development applications that are submitted will be assessed according to the Secondary Plan, which will protect views to and from Fort York and the pedestrian and cycling connections proposed. 3. Is the site contaminated, and if so, how much? The City assessed the building, but found mostly stable contaminants including lead paint, and stable asbestos, which can easily be dealt with in the redevelopment process. The biggest contaminant was the garbage on site, which has since been cleared away. The garbage was contaminated with animal feces and mold, so none of it was recyclable. Overall guiding advice Participants had many specific comments and suggestions, but they also shared overall guiding advice for the City to consider during redevelopment of the Wellington Destructor, including: • Be innovative. Learn from opportunities and challenges of precedents but do not be limited by them. • Do not duplicate what we already have in the neighbourhood. We have enough cafes and breweries. Daily foot traffic may not support a baker, florist, etc. – things that already exist elsewhere in the community. • Consider phasing and transitional uses before a longer term use is established. Take the Hearn as an example. The space is currently used periodically, specifically for special events. Transportation options are provided, encouraging and enabling people to cycle. Staff note added after the meeting: this may not be possible due to the current structural condition of the building. • Prioritize cycling, walking and transit access to the building. Develop the Wellington Destructor as a car-free destination with no parking on site. To encourage people to arrive using alternatives to cars, create pleasant and well connected paths, parks, and bike routes leading to the building. • Ensure the building is affordable for all tenants and users. Remember that certain uses appeal to certain demographics (e.g. high end restaurants may not be affordable to the general public). Think of the cost and who can afford to be here, and who gets to participate.

Page 4 of 19

• Acknowledge the history of the site in its new use. Retain the name ‘the Wellington Destructor’. Find a made-in-Toronto option that acknowledges the history of the site as a civic asset that was once a place of production, industry, and working class.

• Incorporate universal design and active design under one roof. Universal design would allow the building to be easily accessed and understood by people of all abilities, and active design would integrate physical activity into everyday routines. Objectives for the redevelopment of the Wellington Destructor About 15 participants provided feedback on the City’s redevelopment objectives of the Wellington Destructor, which include: conservation of the heritage values of the building through adaptive reuse; achieving financial sustainability for redevelopment and ongoing operations; finding uses that are compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; and, creating a facility of City-wide interest or significance. Each of the objectives received participant support. Some participants suggested that the objectives can all be achieved without having to sacrifice one for the others. Participant feedback on objectives is summarized below. • Conserve the heritage value of the building through its adaptive reuse: Architecture, heritage significance, and adaptive reuse were most commonly identified as the values participants found most important to the Wellington Destructor. • Create a facility of City-wide interest or significance: Providing community benefit was also commonly identified as supported objective, though less often than heritage and adaptive reuse. • Find uses that are compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood: Many participants also said they value the ability for the property to provide public space for the surrounding neighbourhood. • Multiple uses preferred over single use. Many participants expressed support for the inclusion of multiple uses within the building. • Two additional redevelopment objectives were suggested: Social objectives and affordability. Uses participants would most and least like to see at the Wellington Destructor The City provided a list of potential categories for new uses of the Wellington Destructor and asked participants to identify the kinds of uses they would most and least like to see on site. About 15 participants provided feedback in response. General use categories • Participants said they would most like to see Arts and Culture, Recreation and Leisure, and Community and Social Services. Some suggested single, specific uses within these categories, but many provided combinations of two or more uses within these categories. • Participants said they would least like to see Pubs and Breweries, Office Space, and Specialty Retail. Many said they would least like to see uses within these categories as exclusive use of the space. Specific revenue generating uses The City of Toronto would like to include some revenue generating uses as part of the redevelopment of the building. Participants suggested the following specific uses would be most appropriate and least appropriate for the building and neighbourhood should revenue generating uses be required as part of the redevelopment of the site.

Page 5 of 19

• When asked to consider what kinds of revenue generating uses would be most appropriate for the building, participants most often suggested the following: music venue; events space for rent; art gallery or cultural event space; incubator for clean technology or food; athletic space; filming location; and outdoor gardens. • When asked to consider what kinds of revenue generating uses would be the least appropriate for the building, participants most often suggested the following: non-public uses; exclusively office use; parking; bars and clubs; breweries; restaurants; commercial office space; large “chain” stores (including Starbucks); large event space; and space for big ticket events. No clear consensus emerged about the appropriateness of large event space as a revenue generating use; many participants said that a music venue or event space would be appropriate, while many others said that these kinds of large events spaces would result in noise and congestion in the neighbourhood. Specific suggestions for new uses at the Wellington Destructor Participant suggestions are organized below under the City’s preliminary objectives for the redevelopment of the Wellington Destructor. Ideas have been placed under the objective they most closely relate to, however many of the ideas could support many, or other objectives altogether. Adaptive reuse • Most of the proposed uses would support the City’s adaptive reuse objective. Specific comments regarding adaptive reuse of the building included: acknowledge the history of the site and the neighbourhood as a place of production, industry, and working-class, while looking ahead; and ensure this building remains a civic asset. Community benefit • Space for artists – studios, maker spaces, and large scale, industrial, dirty spaces. Participants said that artist spaces, particularly along the rail path are quickly being lost to redevelopment (e.g. the Coffin Factory building). Big, industrial artist spaces are needed in this area. • Art galleries and cultural spaces: Participants said the building would make a great gallery or cultural space showcasing contemporary art. • Large activity spaces: Given the Wellington Destructor’s size, participants said it could provide much needed large spaces gymnastics, or a dance studio that could not fit on the ground floor of the average condo. Athletic space was also suggested, including a gym, hockey rink, or track. • Daily community uses: A farmers market, café, a raised outdoor garden bed, a “library of stuff” (tools, kitchen, seeds, etc.) and other such uses that invite community to the space were also suggested. • Outdoor, open spaces: Participants suggested creating a pedestrian friendly plaza-like space, with a lot of public seating. • Kid friendly spaces: Participants said they would like to see a child-friendly space. Environmental sustainability • Technology and Innovation: Participants suggested a clean technology or food incubator, or a geothermal powered vegetable garden. • Urban agriculture uses: Participants suggested the inclusion of beehives and rooftop gardens, and the retention of the trees on the site.

Page 6 of 19

Financial and economic sustainability • Event spaces: Participants suggested rental space to host special events, weddings, and a music venue, provided the noise was minimally disruptive to the surrounding neighbourhood. Some preferred other uses over events space as the neighbourhood already can become overly congested during other events. • Start-ups and social enterprises: Participants said that many new start-ups are generated every year and typically, small start-ups need space to meet, to host students, and to work. Incorporate something similar to the Centre for Social Innovation (CSI) that provides space for different kinds of innovators. Start-ups will generate jobs and incubator space will provide conditions for new businesses and ideas to grow and thrive. • Film location: A few participants said the building would be a great filming location. Other advice: Participants provided the following process advice at the public meeting regarding the consultation.

• Continue talking to the public and widely advertise consultation activities to all, including condos. • Make the public meeting more accessible to people with limited mobility • Provide bike parking at public meetings.

Next Steps Scott Barrett thanked everyone for their participation, and Councillor Mike Layton encouraged everyone to fill out to online survey and share it with neighbours and friends until the May 16, 2017 deadline. The feedback will help frame the Request for Proposal (RFP) for a private partner to redevelop the site. As part of the next steps, City staff will issue a RFP for technical advisors to assess the building by the end of June 2017. City staff will also issue an RFP for a development partner near the end of 2017.

Page 7 of 19

Part II: Public Survey Summary The City of Toronto conducted an online survey as part of consultation for determining future uses of the Wellington Destructor. The purpose of the survey was to present and seek feedback on proposed values, objectives, priorities for the Wellington Destructor building, and to collect new ideas for potential new uses of the building. The results of this survey, along with the feedback collected at the April 25, 2017 public meeting, will inform the RFP the City issues for seeking a partner for development of the site. The survey was launched on April 11, 2017 and was open for five weeks until May 16, 2017: two weeks before the public meeting and three weeks after the meeting. The survey had 8 questions and took approximately 10 minutes to complete. A total of 474 survey responses were received, with 319 complete responses. This report provides an aggregate summary of the 470 online responses and the four paper survey responses received at the public meeting. Respondent Profile 275 respondents provided postal code information (58%). About half of those who provided postal code information were from neighbourhood and surrounding area (54%). Of those respondents:

• 19% were from the South Niagara, King and Spadina, Bathurst Quay, or Harbourfront West area • 35% were from the surrounding neighbourhoods, including Liberty Village, Little Portugal, and nearby areas of King, Richmond and Adelaide. The majority of respondents were 24-44 years old (67%) and 45-64 years old (23%). A few respondents were 65 years old or older (2%) and some respondents were 15-24 years old (6%). Values, Priorities, and Objectives 1. What do you value about the Wellington Destructor? Respondents were asked to identify from a list which characteristics of the Wellington Destructor building are most important to them by selecting one or more of the following: its architecture; public space; the potential of the exterior of the site to provide gathering space for the community; its location in the heart of a neighbourhood adjacent to areas of new growth; and its historic relevance. Participants also had the opportunity to write in their own characteristics. The building’s architecture and/or its value as public space were most frequently identified as most important to respondents (66% and 64%, respectively), and many respondents indicated that more than one of the characteristics was important to them.

Page 8 of 19 Table 1: What do you value about the Wellington Destructor? (options provided by the City of Toronto) Percentage Count Its architecture 65.9% 242 Public space 64.0% 236 Its location in the heart of a neighbourhood 221 adjacent to areas of new growth 59.9% The potential of the exterior site to provide 56.9% 210 gathering space for the community Its historic relevance 50.3% 186 Other, please specify: 8.0% 29 Total Responses 364

29 respondents provided comments in the ‘Other’ section. Many of the comments expanded on, or were consistent with the above five characteristics. Other characteristics respondents said they value about the Wellington Destructor included:

• Its potential to reflect all five of the City’s proposed values through multiple uses including studio and retail art spaces, professional and community-based cultural activities; • Its ability to attract tourists, particularly given its location near other popular destinations; • The land surrounding the building that could provide more parks and greenspace connections; • Its size and variety of interior spaces suitable for different types of new uses; • The ramp leading up to the building; • The name ‘Wellington Destructor’ as a unique historical identifier that can inspire something different in the building; and • None – Five respondents said they did not value anything about the building, with two stating that the building may be historic, but it is an eyesore and it should be removed.

2. What are your priorities for the redevelopment of the Wellington Destructor? Respondents were asked to identify how they would like to see the Wellington Destructor building used by selecting a preference from the following list: multiple uses within the building; one use occupying the entire building; and no preference. Participants also had the opportunity to write in their own priorities. Over half of those who responded to this question indicated they would prefer to see multiple uses within the building (56.1%), and about one quarter of respondents indicated they had no preference (24.3%), with comments in the “Other” section that they could see value either option depending on the specific uses.

Page 9 of 19 Table 2: What are your priorities for the redevelopment of the Wellington Destructor? (options provided by the City of Toronto) Percentage Count

Multiple uses within the building 55% 201 One use occupying the entire 10% 35 building No preference 24% 87 Other, please specify: 11.% 40 Total Responses 363

40 participants wrote down additional priorities for the redevelopment of the Wellington Destructor in the “Other” section, including:

• Public and community uses. The building should remain open to the local as well as broader Toronto public, and should incorporate, but not be restricted to, private businesses. Prioritize public space that provides socially responsible, community-based programming that animates and engages with the neighbourhood. • Arts and culture space. Prioritize arts and culture spaces for small non-profit theatre and arts organizations that are being pushed out of the city due to unaffordable rents. • Sustainable repurposing of a large character building, contributing to resilience building and making Toronto the greenest city in the world; • Opportunities for recreation, such as a paintball field, athletic fields, and a rec centre with a gym. • Affordable housing. Some said that affordable housing should be prioritized on this site, while others strongly suggested that non-residential uses were a priority. Note that while residential uses may be a priority for some respondents, residential uses are not permitted on site. • Tear down and start over. Some suggested tearing down the building to develop a new part of the neighbourhood, or to increase the park space on the site. Staff note added after the meeting: the building is listed on the heritage register and the Official Plan requires its conservation. The City is committed to the adaptive reuse of this property.

3. To what degree to you support the City of Toronto’s preliminary objectives for redeveloping the Wellington Destructor? Respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the following list of objectives for the redevelopment of the Wellington Destructor building: adaptive reuse; community benefit; environmental sustainability; and financial and economic sustainability. Participants also had the opportunity to write in their own objectives. Respondents most often indicated they agreed with adaptive reuse and community benefit objectives (70% and 69% strongly agreed, respectively). Many respondents indicated that they agreed with the environmental sustainability (52%) and financial and economic sustainability objectives (30%), though about 17% of respondents indicated no opinion on the latter.

Page 10 of 19 Table 3: To what degree do you support the City of Toronto’s preliminary objectives for redeveloping the Wellington Destructor? (options provided by the City of Toronto)

Strongly Disagree No Agree Strongly Total Disagree Opinion Agree Responses Adaptive reuse (reusing an old site or building for a purpose 13 4 6 81 247 351 other than which it was built or (3.7%) (1.1%) (1.7%) (23.1%) (70.3%) designed for) Community benefit 11 7 20 73 241 352 (3.1%) (2.0%) (5.7%) (20.7%) (68.5%) Environmental sustainability 9 9 34 115 181 348 (2.6%) (2.6%) (9.8%) (33.0%) (52.0%) Financial and economic 17 22 59 146 101 345 sustainability (5.0%) (6.4%) (17.1%) (42.3%) (29.3%)

31 respondents offered additional objectives in the “Other” section, which included:

• Balance all four objectives. All of these objectives are essential, and all should be possible within one building to some degree. A solution should face the tension between building preservation and development, and use it to generate new ideas. As an example of balanced objectives, consider a community centre that is rentable to corporations, with the cheapest rates for non- profit users and free space for charities. • Combine arts and culture with economic development. Co-locate arts and cultural spaces with commercial or non-profit commercial enterprises. Arts and cultural uses build community fabric of the city, and private sector businesses are important for sustaining the building and bringing in diverse users. Economic development opportunities include local small business incubation programs or food and urban farming as a platform for entrepreneurship. • Temper revenue generation expectations. Revenue generation for its own sake is not recommended. Suggesting that the building’s uses should entirely cover its costs is a short sighted indicator of financial and economic sustainability. Community-centred sites pay back in many ways, like increased property values, even if they require a subsidy to operate. • Focus on public enjoyment of the building and the open space. The building should be repurposed into a place the public can enjoy; a place that is creative, engaging, inclusive, and a productive use of space. Make efficient use of the park space opportunities (e.g. Fort York connections, Garrison Point Public School, convert space above the rail lines with a park). • Provide affordable and accessible space. Certain uses can exclude groups of individuals based on class or income level. Ensure that new uses within are affordable to a diverse set of users. • Be innovative with this new use. There is an opportunity to do something special here. Whatever the use, do not convert the building to condos, lofts, or housing.

Page 11 of 19 Ideas for New Uses 4. Which of the following uses would you like to see considered for the site? Respondents were asked to rank a given list of use categories according to those they would most and least like to see considered for the site. Based on 325 partial or complete responses, results indicated the following preferences for uses, with 1 being a use category they would most like to see, and 9 being a use category they would least like to see: 1. Arts and Culture 7. Pubs, Breweries, etc. 2. Recreation and Leisure 8. Specialty Retail 3. Community and Social Services 9. Office Space 4. Cafes and Dining 5. Green Initiatives * Seven respondents indicated 6. Technology/Innovation Sector ‘No preference’

Table 4: Which of the following uses would you like to see considered for the site? (options provided by the City of Toronto)

Ranking from 1 to 9 (where 1 is a use people would most like to see and 9 is a use people would least like to see)

Use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Categories Responses

Arts and 103 66 56 41 14 27 6 7 5 325 Culture (31.7%) (20.3%) (17.2%) (12.6%) (4.3%) (8.3%) (1.9%) (2.2%) (1.5%)

Recreation 59 73 55 44 40 25 10 11 4 321 and (18.4%) (22.7%) (17.1%) (13.7%) (12.5%) (7.8%) (3.1%) (3.4%) (1.2%) Leisure

Community 50 46 51 42 34 31 24 20 14 312 and Social (16.0%) (14.8%) (16.4%) (13.5%) (10.9%) (10.0%) (7.7%) (6.4%) (4.5%) Services

Cafes and 25 39 44 45 53 44 33 23 7 (2.2%) 313 Dining (8.0%) (12.5%) (14.1%) (14.2%) (16.9%) (14.1%) (10.5%) (7.4%)

Green 38 36 36 39 47 35 37 29 15 312 Initiatives (12.2%) (11.5%) (11.5%) (12.5%) (15.1%) (11.2%) (11.9%) (9.3%) (4.8%)

Tech / 15 26 24 37 40 38 47 56 19 302 Innovation (5.0%) (8.6%) (8.0%) (12.3%) (13.2%) (12.6%) (15.6%) (18.5%) (6.3%)

Brewery, 23 20 30 28 48 35 35 37 43 299 Pub, etc. (7.7%) (6.7%) (10.0%) (9.4%) (16.1%) (11.7%) (11.7%) (12.4%) (14.4%)

Specialty 9 9 17 25 14 35 59 63 67 298 Retail (3.0%) (3.0%) (5.7%) (8.4%) (4.7%) (11.7%) (19.8%) (21.1%) (22.5%)

Office 7 11 9 15 21 30 45 46 112 296 Space (2.4%) (3.7%) (3.0%) (5.1%) (7.1%) (10.1%) (15.2%) (15.6%) (37.8%)

Page 12 of 19

77 respondents answered the follow up question “Besides those listed above, what other uses should be considered for the site?” Many of the suggested uses fell into the categories listed above, and these were merged with the responses from question five to be analyzed and reported on together. Some of the most commonly suggested other uses included:

• Market. Many respondents expressed interest in a local food market, similar to the St. Lawrence Market. A farmer’s market, food and beer from local producers, crafts, and small businesses could be integrated in one place, using both the indoor and outdoor spaces; the building could host a market on the weekend and small business, cafes, and dining during the week. • Small scale employment. A couple of respondents said the site should include small scale industrial trades to connect the building back to its former industrial heritage, e.g. blacksmithing, carpentry, etc. as well as local economic and/or social enterprise incubators. Staff note added after the meeting: this may conflict with Parkland uses and will need to be evaluated in that context. • Kid friendly spaces. A couple of respondents noted they would like to see natural parks for exploring the environment and the inclusion of indoor and/or outdoor play spaces for kids. • Public gardens, parks, and greenspace. Respondents emphasized that the building and surrounding open space should remain open to the public. Some suggestions for publically accessible outdoor spaces included a winter garden, an aviary, parks, and space for urban farming, and community gardening. • Residential Development. Residential uses are not permitted on site, however many respondents provided mixed opinions on the matter. Some said they did not want to see any residential uses on site, and others said they would like to see housing mixed in with other uses on this site. Some suggested affordable housing for low income households, artists and their studios, and others suggested condo developments. • Mixed ideas about a pub or brewery. Opinions on pubs and breweries were mixed. Some respondents would like to see pubs and breweries on site to animate the space. Others expressed that the City has enough pubs and breweries, and they are likely not compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. 5. What other ideas do you have for how the building could or should be used? 175 respondents answered this question, “What other ideas do you have for how the building could or should be used?” Respondents provided general advice around selecting uses for the Destructor, as well as specific uses to be considered. General directions for the future of the site There were a number of recurring messages from many respondents related to how the building could or should be used. The following overarching themes emerged from the feedback:

• Develop a mixed use, multi-purpose building. Combine community and cultural development with economic development uses including a market, retail, food uses (cafes, restaurants, etc.), and commercial and/or office space accommodated all in one building. Build in flexibility through moving walls and floor heights.

Page 13 of 19 • Activate the space at all times. Incorporate daytime uses (offices, community and social services, retail, cafes, etc.), nighttime uses (events, dining, pub/brewery, etc.), and weekend uses (markets, craft fairs, etc.) across all seasons to make the building and surrounding site safe, accessible, and productive. • Create a community focused social gathering space for the public. Provide a space where individuals and families from the community and the public at large can gather (indoors and/or outdoors) for recreation, enjoying greenspace, and community events. • Carve out affordable space for non-profit, community, and arts and culture groups. Rental space should be prioritized for groups that are increasingly unable to afford expensive commercial rentals. • Connect to the surrounding greenspace network and community and cultural assets. Connected the building to the surrounding community through a strong network of protected cycling infrastructure and bike trails around and leading to the space. Link the building to Stanley Park, Fort York, Trinity Bellwoods, the West Toronto Railpath extension, and the Bentway. • Protect Toronto’s vibrant and unique character. Provide arts and cultural work spaces at the Destructor to help protect Toronto’s vibrant and unique character. Incorporate revenue generating office uses (e.g. tech/media sector tenants) to help subsidize the affordable space for arts and cultural uses. • Look to Brick Works, Wychwood Barns, and St. Lawrence Market as examples. Be inspired by these examples of mixed-use, recreation, environment, arts and culture - supportive places to inform the Destructor model. Specific suggestions for future uses of the site Respondents provided a number of suggestions for specific new uses for the Wellington Destructor. Suggested future uses are organized by category below with the most commonly suggested categories and uses listed first. Arts and Culture

• Museum. Many respondents suggested the site become home to a Museum of Toronto. The museum could house artifacts from Toronto archaeological sites and detail the evolution of the City from a manufacturing centre to a financial centre. Other ideas included photography, First Nations, history, nature, citizenship or diversity, industrial heritage, and a children’s museum. • Gallery. Many respondents expressed interest in an art gallery, suggesting contemporary or modern art (e.g. Tate Modern) – a space for temporary shows, sculpture, art, and fairs; a space for flexible, collaborative exhibits, combining art with local history and heritage. • Arts and culture hub with affordable retail and workspace for artists. Include a mix of affordable workspace, performance, art exhibition and retail, and community spaces to strengthen the cultural scene in this part of the City. Include workshops for woodworking, welding, glassblowing, industrial style arts, etc. • Live music, events, performance, and theatre space. Many respondents said that the community is in need of a live music venue, which would support Toronto’s Music City idea. Such space could also provide opportunities for visual artists to showcase their work. Respondents also frequently suggested rental space for medium and small events and for theatre groups to practice and perform.

Page 14 of 19 • Education and Learning Centres for arts or city building. Many respondents suggested a place for the instruction and practice of arts or a centre for exploration and advancement of urban issues. • Indigenous cultural space. A couple of respondents suggested the Destructor become an aboriginal celebration centre, showcasing history and culture of First Nations peoples. Community and Social Services

• Social services hub to support a growing community and low income households, including child care, a library, a school, a daycare, or a parent drop-in centre. • Community Centre. Trinity Bellwoods is the nearest Community Centre, which is too far. A Community Centre could provide services, recreation and programming for every generation, including community meeting rooms, games rooms, a pool, a weight room, fitness classes, etc. Recreation and Leisure

• Kid friendly space. Many respondents said that the community lacks family friendly recreation and green spaces. Incorporate indoor and/or outdoor parks, a splash pad, a running path, a play structure, and picnic areas, into and around the building. • Cycling hub. Many respondents suggested a hub for bike cycling oriented activities and services (e.g. a DIY bike repair). Consider a partnership with a cycling co-operative. • Sports facilities. Many respondents suggested sports and active recreational uses for the building and the site, including a basketball court, adventure playground, skating and/or hockey rink, indoor climbing gym, an indoor and/or outdoor skate park, or bike rink (e.g. Sunnyside Bike Park near Lakeshore and Parkside). Residential Uses

• Affordable housing. Although residential uses are not permitted on site, many respondents suggested earmarking the space for environmentally sustainable affordable housing for low income households. Emergency housing and supportive housing were also suggested. Employment and Revenue Generating Uses

• Market. Many respondents suggested the building include a weekly farmer’s market or a year- round market for fresh local food, mini restaurants, small shops, arts and crafts, cafes, and retail, with complementary outdoor space. • Incubator space for small business and collaborative space for small start-up companies and entrepreneurs from food and tech sectors. • Modern employment and industry space (e.g. micro-manufacturing) in recognition of the neighbourhood’s industrial heritage. • Office space. Some respondents suggested general office space as a new use for the building. Environment and Energy

• Sustainable waste management centre. In recognition of the site’s former use, many respondents suggested the building become an office dedicated to innovative waste management and recycling services, or research on urban waste reduction.

Page 15 of 19 Education

• Interactive learning centre. Many participants suggested creating a centre dedicated to learning that would be open to the public and school groups, and supported by shops, cafes, and galleries. Specific topics included history, languages, multiculturalism, urban and environmental sustainability initiatives. Parks and Green Initiatives etc.

• Green houses, green roofs, and community gardens. Many respondents said they would like to see more indoor and outdoor opportunities for sustainable urban farming through co-op or community gardens or green houses. • Green technology hub. A number of respondents suggested creating a hub for green technology in the building; a hub for climate change engagement and action. • Additional green space. Many respondents said they would like to see more green space around the building for recreation and enjoyment. Make Use of All Spaces

• Rooftop and ramp space. Some respondents suggested making use of the rooftop for markets, cafes, restaurants, gardens, a lookout, etc. 6. The City would like to include some revenue generating uses as part of the redevelopment of the building. a) Identify the types of revenue generating uses you think would be the most appropriate for the building and neighbourhood. Of the 237 respondents who answered this question, most provided more than one revenue generating use that they thought would be appropriate for the building and the neighbourhood. Revenue generating uses respondents said would be most appropriate are listed below with the most commonly suggested uses listed first.

• Cafes and dining. Respondents most often indicated food and drink uses as most appropriate for the building and the neighbourhood. Cafes and coffee shops were most commonly suggested revenue generating uses, particularly in combination with other complimentary uses such as restaurants, small independent retail, and offices. Restaurants and dining options were also often suggested, as well as local, small ‘mom and pop’ type shops. Breweries and pubs were also suggested, often under the condition that they are local and small. • Arts and culture. Respondents commonly suggested arts and culture uses as appropriate for revenue generation on site. Frequently suggested uses included a Museum of Toronto, or a museum in partnership with a large corporation like the Guggenheim; a gallery; a performance venue for music and/or theatre; a maker space for large industrial crafts or small art studios; a film location; or an Indigenous Celebration Centre. • Employment. Employment uses were frequently suggested as appropriate revenue generating options for the Wellington Destructor. Respondents suggested office space for lease or for rent to small

Page 16 of 19 businesses or social enterprises, as well as meeting spaces, tech and innovation sector space, and space for large industrial trades and manufacturing. • Specialty retail and markets. Many respondents said they would like to see small, independently owned retail shops that provide locally produced goods. The most frequently identified retail options for revenue generation included specialty retail, pop ups, vintage shops, crafts shops, and affordable food shops. Markets were commonly suggested as a way to integrate food, crafts, and local goods in one space. • Events and rental space. Respondents suggested revenue generating public and private events space for rent for weddings, festivals, and community events. Tiered pricing was suggested for community or non-profit events to make the space more affordable. • Community and social services. The most commonly identified community use for revenue generation was a daycare. Other community oriented uses included community services, a community centre offering sports and recreation, and education spaces for community classes and workshops, and adult learning opportunities. • Recreation and leisure. Many respondents suggested recreation related revenue generating uses for the building. Suggestions included a gym, a kids play zone, a skate park, a golf driving range, an arena, a soccer field, a bike rental or cycling facility, or a gathering space for the community. • Green initiatives. Some respondents suggested urban agricultural uses, community gardens, or green houses as appropriate revenue generating uses. • Residential. A small number of respondents expressed that the best opportunity for revenue generation would be to sell the building for residential development, noting that despite the growth in the surrounding area, there is still a shortage of housing in the City. • Revenue generating uses should not be a priority. A small number of respondents noted that revenue generation should not be a condition of redevelopment on the site. Providing space to non-profits and space for public use should be the main goal of the project. b) Identify the types of revenue generating uses you think would be the least appropriate for the building and neighbourhood. Of the 206 respondents who answered this question most identified more than one revenue generating use that they think would be least appropriate building and the neighbourhood. The uses respondents said would be least appropriate are listed below with the most commonly suggested uses listed first.

• Large format retail and “chain” stores. Respondents most frequently said that they would not like to see large format retail, chain, franchise or big box restaurants, retail, banks, supermarkets, cafes, or fast-food. Neighbourhood scale or local retail options were suggested instead.

Page 17 of 19 • Office and private business. Offices use, particularly as a primary or singular use of the building, was frequently identified as one of the least appropriate uses. Offices would be primarily a private use that would render the building inaccessible to the public, and office space is well supplied in nearby neighbourhoods like Liberty Village. Some noted that office use would be appropriate in combination with other more public uses. Many respondents commented further that private businesses and fully commercializing the space would also not be appropriate. • Breweries, pubs, and bars. Respondents frequently said they do not think a brewery is an appropriate use. Reasons included the potential noise generated by patrons and the availability of plenty options on King Street and Queen Street West. More unique uses will add variety to the neighbourhood and attract different users to the area. Some respondents said breweries, pubs, and bars would be appropriate only if they are local and small. • Retail. Respondents had mixed opinions about retail. While many respondents said they would most like to see specialty retail and local shops on site, just as many opposed retail uses on site. These respondents said that they would least like to see retail uses in general, and exclusive high-end retail uses, in particular. Some said that the neighbourhood is already well served by retail on Queen Street West, Bathurst Street, and King Street, and that retail tucked away from the main streets in this location would not likely be successful. • Residential. Housing uses (i.e. condos, lofts) were commonly identified as least appropriate for the building and the neighbourhood. Respondents said there is enough residential development taking place in and around the Wellington Destructor, which will need to be served by amenities and public space. Housing would be a private use, making the property inaccessible to the public. That said, residential uses are not currently permitted on site. • Nightclubs and party venues. Respondents commonly identified nightclubs, party venues, and late night music venues as inappropriate uses. Such uses would be incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood because of loud music and crowd noise, littering, and potential safety issues associated with them. • Inaccessible to the public. Many respondents stated generally that any use that turned the building into a private space that would be inaccessible by the public would be inappropriate. Furthermore, uses that privilege one demographic group over another would also be inappropriate. For example, pubs and breweries that are not accessible to youth and children, and are mainly open at night, or high end restaurants or retail that are only accessible to wealthy patrons. • Restaurants. Restaurants in general, and high end restaurants in particular, were commonly listed as inappropriate uses for the building. However, some respondents said that a restaurant could be an appropriate accessory use to complement other uses within the building.

Page 18 of 19 Part III: Summary of Common Themes Consultation feedback on the redevelopment of the Wellington Destructor revealed areas of clear common ground, and areas where there appears to be differences of opinion among the public. The summary below captures common themes from the public meeting and the online survey.

Preserve the architecture and provide valuable public space. Respondents most frequently indicated that they value the building’s architecture and its potential to provide public space, and that adaptive reuse and community benefits were the most important objectives for redevelopment. Many respondents noted that several, or all, objectives could be achieved with the right mix of new uses. Animate the site with a mix of public and private uses at throughout the day in all seasons. Respondents frequently said that the site should incorporate a mix of new uses that activate the site throughout the day and in the evening in all seasons. Both the building and the property should remain accessible to the public and affordable to for all users and potential tenants.

Mix arts and culture and economic development uses. In many of the responses, thoughtful combinations of uses were offered together. Respondents often suggested a mix of arts and culture and economic development uses, noting that the expectation of revenue generation on site should be reasonably balanced with the ability to maintain public and community uses on site.

A museum, a gallery, and spaces for the arts were most commonly suggested uses. Without being asked to consider revenue generation, respondents most commonly suggested a museum, a gallery, art studios and maker space, a market, a live music venue, and events space. Many of these uses were also suggested as appropriate revenue generating uses. Cafes, restaurants, and small independent shops were most commonly suggested as appropriate revenue generating uses. When asked to consider revenue generating uses, respondents most often said cafes and restaurants, small independent retail shops, or employment space for small business and the tech and innovation sectors would be most appropriate for the building and neighbourhood. Large “chain” stores and standard office space were mostly commonly suggested as inappropriate revenue generating uses. Respondents most often said large “chain” stores and standard office space, would make the building inaccessible to the public and would not be a good use of space.

Mixed opinions on breweries and pubs. Some said pubs and breweries would help activate the space in the evenings and bring sufficient revenue to the building. Others said there are enough pubs and breweries nearby and such uses would be incompatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

Mixed opinions on standard retail. Those who said retail would be an appropriate revenue generating use often suggested retail in combination with cafes, dining, and arts and cultural uses to provide a variety of attractions on site. Those who said that retail would be an inappropriate use said that there is enough retail available nearby, and that commercialization of the site would render it inaccessible to the public.

Mixed opinions on residential. While residential uses are not permitted on site, a small number of respondents said residential uses help increase availability of housing in the city. Another small number of respondents said they would prefer to see the property redeveloped as public space uses instead.

Page 19 of 19 Attachment A – Meeting Agenda Future Uses of the Wellington Destructor Tuesday, April 25, 2017 St. Mary’s Elementary School, 20 Portugal Square (Bathurst and Richmond), Gym 6:30 – 9:00 pm

AGENDA

Meeting To introduce the public to the process underway to determine the potential purpose: future uses of the Wellington Destructor, and to seek public feedback about these potential future uses and vision for the site.

6:30 pm Open House & Review of Display Boards

7:00 pm Welcome, Introductions and Agenda Review Councillor Mike Layton, City of Toronto Nicole Swerhun, Swerhun Facilitation

7:10 The Wellington Destructor – An Important City Owned Building (Presentation) Scott Barrett, Real Estate Services – City of Toronto

7:30 Facilitated Panel Discussion Lawrence Zucker, President of Osmington Seana Irvine, Evergreen Brick Works Fernando Carou, Environment & Energy Division – City of Toronto Don Loucks, Heritage Architect Zahra Ebrahim, Co-Lead – Doblin

7:50 Facilitated Question and Answer between Participants, the Panel, and City staff

8:15 Facilitated Workshops (2 stations: Objectives and Uses)

Key questions for participants:

1. OBJECTIVES What objectives should the City consider for the future uses of the Wellington Destructor?

2. USES Are there any specific uses you think would be a great match for the site? If so, what are they? And why do you think it’s a good match? What would you not like to see at the site, and why?

3. ANYTHING ELSE

9:00 Adjourn

Attachments Attachment B – Panel Discussion Synopsis Five panelists with collective expertise and experience in real estate, development, adaptive reuse, heritage, architecture, energy, environment, and community building were invited to share their big, bold, and exciting ideas for new uses for the Wellington Destructor building at the public meeting. The five panelists were:

• Lawrence Zucker, Osmington Inc. (Osmington is the City’s partner at Union Station); • Seana Irvine, Evergreen Brick Works (another site of adaptive reuse); • Fernando Carou, City of Toronto – Energy and Environment Division (he leads the Community Energy Planning Program); • Don Loucks, Heritage Architect (who worked on the John Street Roundhouse); and • Zahra Ebrahim, Doblin (Zahra is a designer and urbanist). The synopsis below captures many of the ideas shared by the panelists during the public meeting, but it is not intended to serve as a verbatim transcript. Q1: Recognizing that there are two important things we know for sure – the Wellington Destructor is a designated heritage site and residential uses will not be permitted – what do you think would be an exciting way to use the building?

SEANA: Any adaptive reuse of this building should be rooted in community, like the type of project that was developed at Wychwood Barns. Ideally, the new use would be something visionary, something to draw people in from beyond the neighbourhood.

ZAHRA: A ‘gradient’ of uses and an ambient texture to the space is what comes to mind. This could be a great community space with a brewery, but also a place where people can bring their kids to run around on a rainy day. I’m thinking of the Borough Market in London, England as an example – something that’s a little grubby and messy. That said, with the designated parks space around the building, the site should be constantly publically accessible, so public and private access will have to be negotiated. This site should deliver more open public space to the neighbourhood, especially because of nearby growth and the number of new condos in the Liberty Village area. This could be a great / the great “third space” for people in the area.

FERNANDO: This is an opportunity for an innovation hub, a source of low carbon energy that can transition us to a low carbon future.

DON: Granville Island is the image that is conjured when I imagine the future of this building – a place that incorporates a lot of different uses, while the building remains as a link to the past. Additional open space is increasingly important.

LAWRENCE: The location of the building is incredible given its proximity to growth. This is a real jewel for the City of Toronto, especially since the City can control what happens here. It can enhance the surrounding community and the rest of the city too. As someone with a real estate background, condos or a shopping mall would seem fitting, but once I visited the space, it became clear that it is a jewel for the community and the City of Toronto – there is so much potential here.

Attachments The tipping space could be a great art gallery space, but there is also room for leasing out small studios to artists, providing work space integrated throughout spaces that are also open to the public. You could also provide places for people to buy the local art here, too. The building could also become a great incubator space – an inspiring space with grand, beautiful architecture and lighting. The columns are also special. I imagine the lower level as very public and used on a daily basis with the potential for lots of food uses. The ramp could be like a pier (think Santa Monica / Malibu) for restaurants and farmers markets.

Q2: Given your experience with similar buildings, are there one or two important lessons you’ve learned that you can share with us as we think about the future of this site?

DON: The building is not precious, but it is important. There are so many old buildings struggling to find uses (like churches whose congregations are dwindling). This space is flexible. Find a balance between protecting it and really using it to its fullest potential.

SEANA: Evergreen learned many lessons from the Brick Works. Having a vision is really important (which is what this process is hoping to achieve). Brick Works harnessed the history of the site and worked with nature to create the ‘sustainable City of the future’. The team created the demand by coming up with a creative vision. Nobody said ‘this’ is what they wanted – but we developed the vision and it was heavily supported. It was a kernel of something rich and exciting that withstood legal financial, and construction challenges.

LAWRENCE: In the world of retail, things change quickly (e.g. fashion, online shopping, etc.). This place needs to be flexible. It needs to be more than just meeting rooms. The building should be enjoyed by the wider community, but it would have to be sensitive to the surrounding community as well. A private partner is going to have to make a big investment and will likely need 50 years or so to recoup their investment – so this needs to be a long term partnership. A strong partnership will help encourage a private partner to make the required investment in the building.

FERNANDO: Tinker with the space and see what works. Get the vision from the community, and encourage community members to take an active role. The building looks extremely adaptable and useable. The building’s use may change over time. Different generations will want different things and the building should be able to respond to this. The building has amazing bones. The City does not build like this anymore; we no longer build for beauty, we build to cost-effectiveness. The building incorporates elements of ‘passive design’ throughout, and we should consider incorporating these kinds of elements into the building in its future. For example, the building’s architecture allows light to come deep into the building, design from a time when electricity was not available throughout the building. The same ‘passive’ theme is demonstrated with the garbage being fed to the incinerator by gravity, and the abundance of windows contributing to good air quality and circulation. There is an elegance to this kind of passive design. Energy conservation through passive design can only go so far. We can responsibly conserve all the energy we want but we will still be using energy – so energy should come from a low carbon source.

ZAHRA: Coming back to the idea of a ‘gradient’ or a ‘spectrum’, there is a negotiation between the viability and the desirability of uses. People need that ‘third place’ in communities (that is not home or

Attachments work). There is a negotiation between the wants/wishes/needs – there should be a balance of all three, and a balance between public and private space. Each of tonight’s meeting participants are here as a proxy for others in the community, which is great, and will help build interest. We need to make sure that we are steering towards actual community needs. We may end up realizing that the community actually needs those ‘private’ services in the space, and it is important to recognize this.

Q3: What kind of tenant mix might make sense for the site?

ZAHRA: When taking the GO train, for example, there are threshold spaces before you get home. Maybe you stop in those spaces, maybe you don’t. The tenant mix should be in service of the Wellington Destructor as a threshold – a place people walk through every day but that is also a destination. It should be a place for the key things I need in my community (whether that’s coffee or a driver’s license renewal), but also for cool things to show visitors to Toronto.

LAWRENCE: The market rents might be needed to subsidize community service uses to make this place viable. A bakery and a brewery could be good market rent tenants that could help subsidize arts and innovation uses. The building could provide daily needs like bread, coffee, beer, fresh fruits and vegetables, which would help bring people to the space that also provides arts, culture, and community services.

FERNANDO: The roof, underground, and the interior are all key to the redevelopment. There could be solar power on the roof, geothermal underground as an energy source, and the internal space could be used for light electric transportation. We need sustainable transport options, like electric bikes.

SEANA: There is no magic formula for tenant mix. Ideally, the tenant mix would be based on the purpose and vision for the building. A coffee shop is often a good idea that brings people in to the building. In the Distillery District, Balzac’s started out as just a small coffee cart, and grew from there. Artists became interested and involved and it expanded. Farmers markets and food also draw a lot of interest. Take a light touch and see how it builds. The key is diversity. Tech sector, a florist, innovation uses – the mix is critical to bring different audiences to the building and see what works.

DON: The building should be inclusive and generate activity. There should be a functional use that still pays the bills.

Attachments Attachment C – 28 Bathurst Context Map

Attachments 28 Bathurst Site 28 Bathurst The Well Future Surrounding Rail Deck Park Minto Westside Developments Block 36 North The Coffin Factory 89-109 Niagara St Bathurst Bridge Lower Garrison Rehab Creek Park 2 Tecumseth (Formerly Mouth of Future the Creek Park) Wellington Multi-Use Trail Destructor Fort York Stanley Park South Extension Future Park

Link to Fort York Pedestrian & West Toronto Railpath Cycle Bridge

Garrison Point

The Bentway