Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment: Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto, Ontario
ORIGINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Dillon Consulting Limited (Toronto) 235 Yorkland Boulevard, Suite 800 Toronto, Ontario M2J 4Y8 T 416-229-4646 F 416-229-4692
Archaeological Licence P1030 (Beales) MTCS PIF P1030-0002-2017 ASI File 17EA-061
13 April 2017
Archaeological & Cultural ASI Heritage Services 528 Bathurst Street Toronto, ONTARIO M5S 2P9 416-966-1069 F 416-966-9723 asiheritage.ca
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment: Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto, Ontario
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) in the City of Toronto has been carried out in advance of its detailed design. The assessment entailed consideration of the proximity of previously registered archaeological sites, the original environmental setting of the project area, and its nineteenth- and twentieth-century development history. This research has led to the conclusion that there is potential for the presence of significant Euro-Canadian archaeological resources related to the 1870 Don Breakwater and the circa 1880 Toronto Dry Dock. Accordingly, this report recommends that construction excavations in the area of potential for these features be subject to a program of archaeological monitoring to document their remains, if any, prior to their removal.
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page ii
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC.
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Project Manager: David Robertson, MA Partner - Director, Planning Assessment Division
Project & Field Director: Eric Beales, MA (P1030) Archaeologist, Project Manager - Planning Assessment Division
Report Preparation: Eric Beales
David Robertson
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i PROJECT PERSONNEL...... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT ...... 1 1.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT ...... 1 2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 1 2.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 2.2 NORTH KEATING CHANNEL PRECINCT SUMMARY HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 3 2.3 INVENTORY OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 4 3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...... 5 3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING ...... 5 3.2 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ...... 7 3.3 THE PREDEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE AND MODELLING ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL ...... 8 3.4 REVIEW OF HISTORIC MAPPING AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ...... 8 3.5 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 9 4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 10 4.1 ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL ...... 10 4.2 EURO-CANADIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL ...... 10 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 11 6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION...... 12 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES ...... 13 8.0 IMAGES ...... 15 9.0 MAPS ...... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Registered Archaeological Sites within an Approximate 1km Radius of the Project Area ...... 7 Table 2: Archaeological Inventory: Summary of Features and Significance Evaluations (ACMS 2008) ...... 11
LIST OF IMAGES
Plate 1: The abandoned Toronto Dry Dock Co. facility (from Stinson and Moir 1991)...... 15 Plate 2: British American Oil in 1934 (Toronto Port Authority Archives, PC 1/1/10769)...... 15 Plate 3: Typical conditions within the derelict portions of the study area...... 16 Plate 4: Typical conditions under the Gardiner within the study area...... 16 Plate 5: Active industrial yard at 570 Lake Shore Boulevard...... 17 Plate 5: Active industrial yard at 520 Lake Shore Boulevard...... 17
LIST OF MAPS
Figure 1: Location of the Gardiner Expressway Hybrid Design Alternative 3...... 19 Figure 2: The nineteenth- and twentieth-century development of the Gardiner Expressway Design Alternative 3 study area...... 20 Figure 3: The development of the study area as reflected on twentieth-century aerial photography...... 21 Figure 4: Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment of the Gardiner Expressway Design Alternative 3 study area - assessment of archaeological potential ...... 22
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 1
1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT
1.1 Development Context
ASI (Archaeological Services Inc.) was retained by Dillon Consulting Limited to conduct a Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment of Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) of the reconfiguration of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East from approximately 80 metres west of Cherry Street to the Don Valley Parkway in the City of Toronto (Figure 1). The project area is located within Keating Channel Precinct West in the Lower Don Lands. The proposed realignment measures approximately 1,045 metres in length, traversing an area of archaeological potential as identified by the City of Toronto Archaeological Management Plan (cf. ASI 2004a) and the previous Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment undertaken as part of the Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) and Integrated Urban Design Study for the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration (ASI 2010). The study area defined for the purposes of this report encompasses approximately 1.624 hectares (Figure 1).
This assessment, required as part of the joint Waterfront Toronto and City of Toronto Individual Environmental Assessment of the Gardiner reconfiguration, was conducted under the project management of David Robertson and the project and field direction of Eric Beales (MTCS PIF # P1030-0002-2017). All activities carried out during this assessment were completed in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act, RSO (1990) and regulations made under the Act, and the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011).
Permission to access the project area and to carry out all necessary activities necessary for the completion of the assessment was granted by Dillon Consulting Limited on April 7, 2016.
2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
2.1 Background
The project area is located at the former mouth of the Don River in lands that historically made up part of Ashbridge’s Bay marshes at the eastern end of Toronto Harbour, south of the Government Reserve.
The land which comprises the former York Township was alienated by the British from the native Mississaugas by provisional treaty number 13, known as the “Toronto Purchase,” dated at the Bay of Quinte on September 23, 1787. Due to certain irregularities contained in the original document, this purchase was confirmed by a second treaty dated August 1, 1805. Between 1784 and 1792, this part of southern Ontario formed a part of the judicial District of Montreal in the Province of Quebec (Anonymous 1891:32-35).
The first township survey was undertaken by Augustus Jones in 1791, when the base line was established. The name proposed for this tract of land was “Dublin Township.” Two surveys for a town plot at Toronto had been made by Gother Mann and Alexander Aitkin as early as 1788. These plans were not used, and a new survey for the Town of York was undertaken by Alexander Aitkin in the summer of 1793. This plan consisted of just ten blocks, bounded by George, Adelaide, Berkeley and Front streets. By the summer of 1797, the survey of the town had been enlarged and included land as far north as Lot (Queen) Street, and
ASI Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 2 westward to Peter Street (Firth 1962:11, 21; Winearls 1991:591). The areas between Parliament Street and the Don River and from Peter Street to the Humber River were reserved for the use of Government and the Garrison, respectively. Lands north of Queen Street were laid out in 100 acre Park Lots which were offered to members of the Executive Council and other government officials as compensation for the expense of having to move to York and sell prior improvements which were made while the government sat at Niagara.
The town and township were re-named ‘York’ by Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe in 1792, either after the County of Yorkshire in England, or as a compliment to Prince Frederick, who was then the Duke of York (Gardiner 1899:216-217). Family tradition relates that the name was suggested by Captain John Denison, a brewer in the town, who is said to have told Simcoe that “No Yorkshireman would live in a place called Dublin.” The name of the town reverted back to ‘Toronto’ when the settlement was elevated to the status of a city in 1834 (Martyn 1978:28-30).
The town and township comprised part of the East Riding of York in the Home District which, between 1792 and 1800, was administered from Niagara. Plans were unofficially forwarded for York to be the capital of Upper Canada in the winter of 1796 and in February 1798 it was selected as the “seat of Government on mature deliberation” by the Duke of Portland (Firth 1962:24, 47). On January 1, 1800, the Home District was elevated into a separate administrative district from Niagara. Following the abolition of 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 counties in 1851-52 (Armstrong 1985:143).
When it was announced that York had been selected as the temporary capital of Upper Canada all government officers were required to relocate from the town of Newark (now Niagara-on-the-Lake) to the north shore of the lake. Some officials, such as William Jarvis, were reluctant to abandon the homes and property which they had improved in Niagara. Large blocks of land called “Park Lots” were set aside, which extended between Queen and Bloor streets. These Park Lots were granted to members of the Family Compact and to those who were friendly towards the government, as an incentive for them to move, and also as partial compensation for any losses which they might sustain thereby.
In 1805, it was noted that the town “is much increased within the last two or three years, and several very good houses have been built by the different officers of government.” Other public buildings, such as the court house and House of Assembly, had not been fully completed. The gaol was a “tolerable building, and in a healthy situation.” The town was “well furnished with every necessary convenience and the market well supplied.” The private stores were “very respectable” but the prices “rather high.” The streets were “tolerably uniform, and exhibit a handsome prospect from the lake.” The society was “highly respectable, and its hospitality is experienced by every visitor” (Boulton 1805:43-45; Smith 1846:225).
The population of York increased gradually before the War of 1812, but showed a significant growth during the 1820s. In 1797, for instance, the total number of inhabitants within the town was estimated at 212 persons. Within the space of one decade, this number had doubled to 414. By 1824-1825, the town contained 1,679 residents. By 1834, when Toronto was incorporated as a city, the population had reached 9,254, and by 1845 this number had doubled again to 19,706 (Mosser 1984:7, 67, 157; Smith 1846:193; Walton 1837:41).
ASI Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 3
2.2 North Keating Channel Precinct Summary Historical Context
The North Keating area in its natural state was an area of shifting channels, small islands, sandbars, and marshland. The sandbar that defined the boundary between Toronto Harbour and Ashbridge’s Bay joined the mainland in the vicinity of Cherry Street. A trail from Toronto to the outer sandbar crossed this area, and a few summer cottages and boathouses had begun to appear on maps of the late nineteenth century.
The earliest industrial establishment in the study area appears to have been the Toronto Dry Dock Company. By the mid 1870s, shipping interests were promoting a dry dock for Toronto, since at that time the nearest repair facilities were at Port Dalhousie on the Welland Canal, or in Kingston. Therefore, in 1881, a company was formed and obtained a 21-year lease on a plot of land 600 feet by 677 feet on the south side of the Don River, near the foot of Cherry Street. The intent was to construct a dry dock 60 feet wide and 280 feet long, which would have handled any vessel capable of using the Welland or St. Lawrence River canals. Although the dock was to have been completed in 1882, newspaper accounts in 1884 indicated that the works had already been abandoned, as it became apparent that frequent silt deposition made dock operations unfeasible (Plate 1). The company had spent a total of $26,600 on the dry dock – in 1901, the City contemplated buying the property for $5,000 (ASI et al. 2008).
During much of the late nineteenth century, the city spent considerable energy in addressing the issue of silting at the mouth of the Don River. In 1870, a long, timber crib breakwater was built on the south side of the river—roughly at the foot of Cherry Street into the harbour to a point below Berkeley Street. By 1878, the Globe noted that the Don channel still needed to be frequently dredged. Additionally, although the docks along the Don generated adequate revenue, they were expensive to maintain because of the large volumes of silt carried by the river. Therefore, in 1886, the rotted remains of the breakwater were abandoned, and the following year the City embarked on channelizing the river upstream of the Grand Trunk Railway bridge. No work was undertaken at that time south of the bridge, as it had not yet been decided whether the mouth of the Don should be in the harbour to ease navigation, or in Ashbridge’s Bay to take the loading of silt and sewage (ASI et al. 2008).
The sewage problem finally drove the City’s engineering department, in 1893, to dredge a channel—later known as the Keating Channel—from Toronto harbour to Coatsworth’s Cut at the end of Ashbridge’s Bay, some 3 1/3 miles in length. Approximately four years later, the Don River was extended south to join this cut in a design intended to produce a current that would flush effluent out of the bay. In addition, land reclamation commenced to expand the small triangle of land between the old Don and the Keating Channel. This seems to have been driven, at least in part, by the dumping of municipal garbage, as the City Engineer’s Annual Report of 1901 noted the expense of hauling street cleaning and garbage to the marsh due to lack of dumping grounds in the central city. This new land was seen as a good location for factory sites, and by 1913 two concerns—the National Iron Works on the west side of Cherry Street and the British American Oil Co. on the east (Plate 2)—were established in the area. While the old mouth of the Don was not filled directly by these processes, it seems to have gradually silted in over time, although it did not disappear totally until the completion of the Harbour Commissions’ land fill operations in 1912. In 1906, the connecting channel was replaced with an alignment to the east, creating a straighter route from the railway bridge (ASI et al. 2008).
In spite of these efforts, it appears that the Keating Channel proved to be no more effective than earlier attempts. The 1901 City Engineer’s Report noted that the east end of the harbour was so filled with debris coming down the Don River that it could not be used for regular navigation. The following year, the Federal Department of Public Works indicated that it would not dredge the harbour until the City did something to stop the flow of debris down the Don into the harbour. This threat galvanized City council to provide funding for interceptor sewers, and a treatment plant on Ashbridge’s Bay. This work was ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 4 completed in 1909. The final changes to the Don River occurred when permanent concrete retaining walls were constructed in both the Keating Channel and Don River by the Harbour Commission in 1914 (ASI et al. 2008).
2.3 Inventory of Historical Developments within the Project Area
Nineteenth- and twentieth-century development at the mouth of the Don was exclusively industrial in character or related to engineering projects aimed at managing the river and its effects upon the harbour. Numerous studies have summarized these developments and outlined their salient characteristics as potential archaeological resources (ASI 2007, 2010; ASI and HRL 2004; ASI et al. 2008). The key features located within the project area, either whole or in part, consist of the following:
Project Area Inventory of Historical Features Don Breakwater The 1870 breakwater, built at the mouth of the Don River, extends along the general alignment of Lakeshore Boulevard and the Gardiner between roughly Berkeley Street and Cherry Street. The structure was in ruins by 1886. Deeply buried remains may survive, although it is highly unlikely that the cribbing forms a continuous feature (ASI and HRL 2004). Accordingly, the 2008 ACMS recommended archaeological monitoring during any construction/redevelopment activities in the area. Toronto Dry Dock The Toronto Dry Dock was planned as a 60 foot wide and 280 foot long facility capable of servicing any vessel using the Welland or St. Lawrence River canals. Although the dock was to have been completed in 1882, newspaper accounts in 1884 indicated that the works had already been abandoned, as it became apparent that frequent silt deposition made dock operations unfeasible. The precise location of the dry dock is not known; lacking the same permanence as a pier, most cartographers left it unplotted. Based on its position on the 1896 City of Toronto Ashbridge’s Bay Reclamation Plan, it is likely located near the foot of Cherry Street between the curve of Lakeshore boulevard and the northern end of the Cherry St. bridge which spans the Keating channel. Photographs of the abandoned site appear to indicate that it was built of timber cribs. Portions of the cribbing and other associated features may survive, although the site was heavily redeveloped by the British American Oil Co. (ASI and HRL 2004). Accordingly, the 2008 ACMS recommended archaeological monitoring during any construction/redevelopment activities in the area. National Iron Works The National Iron Works complex appears on maps by 1910 on lands being created at the former mouth of the Don River. The site, which was acquired by the company from the City in 1909, had been a sandy spit prior to large scale filling. The original facility, which consisted of a large production plant, was expanded considerably over subsequent years. All buildings were demolished in the 1980s. Stinson and Moir (1991) noted that the foundations of many of the buildings likely remain buried on the site and recommended that these remains be exposed and preserved for interpretation. This recommendation was reiterated in ASI and HRL (2004), wherein it was noted that such work need not be accompanied by archaeological investigation. These recommendations were also included in the 2008 ACMS. Toronto Iron Works Ltd. Founded in 1907, the Toronto Ironworks Ltd. foundry was located on the east side of Cherry Street north of the Keating Channel. The site appears on the 1910 Goads Atlas maps, during which period the buildings multiplied. On the 1931 edition, however, it is noted that the works are “silent.” Few traces may be expected to have survived subsequent demolition and development of the area. Accordingly, the 2008 ACMS did not recommend any archaeological interventions. British American Oil The British American Oil Co. was the first of the many refineries that were established in the precinct. The circa 1913 core of the facility has been included within this inventory for this reason. By 1931, the complex had expanded from its original site west as far as Cherry Street. Stinson and Moir (1991) noted that the foundations of many of the buildings likely remain buried on the site and recommended that these remains be exposed and preserved for interpretation. This recommendation was reiterated in ASI and HRL (2004), wherein it was noted that such work need not be accompanied by archaeological investigation. These recommendations were also included in the 2008 ACMS.
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 5
3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
3.1 Physiographic Setting
The eastern portion of Toronto’s waterfront has been extensively modified over the past 175 years. Much of the shorefront consists of modern fill which was dredged, dumped and shaped in the early part of the twentieth century, with some sections of the port lands completed as late as the 1960s. The pre and post- fill history of the area represents a succession of pre-contact Aboriginal use followed by military occupation, town planning, and the extensive expansion of transportation networks and subsequent industrialization. Over time, the consequent changes to the landscape have been dramatic, including not only the southerly extension of waterfront lands, but also modifications to the flow of the Don River, burial and channelization of its tributaries, and alterations to other pre-existing natural features such as sand spits, marshes and the peninsula which led to the present day Toronto Islands. The Don River and the sand spit at its mouth, represent the most significant natural features in the vicinity of the project area.
The project area lies within the Iroquois Plain physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam 1984), which is the former bed of glacial Lake Iroquois. In the Toronto area, the Lake Iroquois strand is situated approximately 4.5 km inland from the current Lake Ontario shore. Below the strand, the Quaternary sediments are dominated by outwash sands typical of nearshore deposits. The balance of the plain, towards the modern lake shore, is dominated by fine sediments of silt and clay, typical of off-shore deposits, overlying till (Chapman and Putnam 1984; Gravenor 1957).
Glacial Lake Iroquois came into existence by about 12,000 B.P, as the Ontario lobe of the Wisconsin glacier retreated from the Lake Ontario basin. Isostatic uplift of its outlet, combined with blockage of subsequent lower outlets by glacial ice, produced a water plane substantially higher than modern Lake Ontario. Beginning around 12,000 B.P., water levels dropped stepwise during the next few centuries in response to sill elevations at the changing outlet. By about 11,500 B.P., when the St. Lawrence River outlet became established, the initial phase of Lake Ontario began, and this low water phase appears to have lasted until at least 10,500 B.P. At that time the waters stood approximately 100 m below the current level, but isostatic uplift was already raising the outlet at Kingston so that by 10,000 B.P., the water level had risen to about 80 m below the present level. Uplift since then has continued to tilt Lake Ontario upward to the northeast, propagating a gradual transgressive expansion throughout the basin, flooding the mouths of the creeks and rivers that rim the basin (Anderson and Lewis 1985; Karrow and Warner 1990).
In the vicinity of the project area it has been estimated that the earliest Lake Ontario shoreline (circa 10,400 B.P.) was about five kilometres south of its present location. Over the following millennia, the shoreline gradually moved northward. Even by about 5,000 B.P., however, it is still unlikely that Toronto Harbour, protected by the submerged bank of sediment associated with the emergent Toronto spit, had yet begun to fill. Between about 5,000 and 4,000 B.P., the Nipissing Flood phase increased water levels to near or slightly above nineteenth-century levels (Anderson and Lewis 1985; Weninger and McAndrews 1989). Levels subsided by three to four metres again between about 4,000 and 3,500 years ago, and by circa 3,000 B.P., the shoreline was established more or less in the location at which it stood at the time of the founding of York in the 1790s.
Precisely when the sand spit emerged from Lake Ontario is currently unknown, although this would have depended on enough sediment having accumulated from erosion and littoral transport of material from the Scarborough Bluffs. In addition to the accretion of sediments transported by longshore drift, the spit was also subjected to on-going erosion. Growth of the spit would occur as long as the net result of these processes was a gain in sediment, whereas the spit would shrink in periods when the net result was a loss. ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 6
Early commentaries suggest gradual growth of the sand spit until the 1850s followed by a period of declining accretion and then erosion. This has been attributed to a decline in the quantity of sediment being eroded from the Scarborough Bluffs.
In addition to on-going erosion, the sand spit has also been subjected to periodic catastrophic erosion. When first mapped the spit was a peninsula attached to the mainland by a slender isthmus. In 1852, a storm breached the isthmus and subsequent wave action enlarged the breach to about 45 metres. In 1858, another storm enlarged the breach to about 450 metres, and the gap had grown to about 1200 metres by the mid-1860s (Krentz 1985: 13). Under such a dynamic regime, the development of soils on the sandy substrate was likely quite retarded, with regosols likely the norm. Natural fertility would be low except in depressional situations where organic material would accumulate. The rolling nature of the topography, varying between dry sandy ridges and backwater basins, would have imparted considerable complexity to the soil drainage.
By the time the Toronto Islands sand spit began forming, sometime after about 7,000 B.P., an essentially modern forest had become established throughout southern Ontario. Under the widely used ecological zonation developed for Ontario by Hills (1958) and revised by Burger (1993), the Toronto lakeshore is situated in forest Site Region 7E. Under median moisture regimes and eco-climates, the climax forest in this region tends to be co-dominated by hard maple (Acer saccharum) and beech (Fagus grandifolia), often in association with basswood (Tilia americana), red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and bitternut hickory (C. cordiformis). It is doubtful, however, that such a forest would have developed on the Toronto Islands sand spit. Given the inferred low fertility of the sandy soil and the complex interplay of drainage regimes, the original vegetation was likely a patchwork of dry uplands with early to mid-successional taxa such as cottonwood, black cherry, oak, white pine, and hard maple, wet lowlands with oak, ash, elm, and hickory, and wetlands with shrubs and emergent vegetation. This interdigitation of habitats and locally high bio-diversity would no doubt have given rise to a very rich coastal wetland ecosystem similar to other Great Lakes examples such as Long Point on Lake Erie.
The original character of the lower Don is captured in the following description by Pearson (1914):
The river was so very serpentine that one would have to go about three miles to go in a straight line. There were long stretches of meadow land between the windings of the river, and a good deal of marsh. This, as well as the marsh between the harbour and Ashbridge’s Bay, was a great place for muskrats, and numbers were trapped.
Scadding’s history of Toronto (1873:167) indicates that, as one progressed upstream, the marshes gave way to meadow at about the present position of Riverdale Park, approximately two kilometres inland. He too made note of the “morasses” which characterized Ashbridge’s Bay and the contiguous marshes through which the Don flowed into Lake Ontario (Scadding 1873:3-4). The riparian marsh he describes as “one thicket of wild willow, alder, and other aquatic shrubbery,” including witch hazel, dogwood, highbush cranberry, wild grape, blue iris, reeds, and cattails (Scadding 1873:153, 159). He also refers to an island near the mouth of Castle Frank brook where wild rice grew plentifully (Scadding 1873:167). Pearson (1914:116) mentions “many stately elms” on the river flats, as well as wild plum, butternut, gooseberry, and currants in abundance.
At their confluence, the east and west branches of the Don are deflected westerly by a large relic baymouth bar that was formed at the mouth of the embayment in glacial Lake Iroquois. In addition to this extensive deposit of sand and gravel, most of the Iroquois Plain that flanks the lower Don Valley was capped by nearshore deposits of glacio-lacustrine sand. This porous substrate seems to have had ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 7 considerable influence on the upland forest that surrounded the lower Don Valley. In the late eighteenth century, travelling to their summer retreat of “Castle Frank” near present-day Bloor and Bayview streets, Governor and Mrs. Simcoe followed a trail along Yonge Street and then easterly to the Don through shady pine plains covered with ferns (Sauriol 1981:61).
3.2 Previous Archaeological Research
In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled for the subject property and surrounding area, three sources of information were consulted: the site record forms for registered sites housed at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS); published and unpublished documentary sources; and files located at ASI.
In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the MTCS. This database contains archaeological sites registered within the Borden system. Under the Borden system, Canada is divided into grid blocks based on latitude and longitude. A Borden block is approximately 13 km east to west, and approximately 18.5 km north to south. Each Borden block is referenced by a four-letter designator, and sites within a Borden block are numbered sequentially as they are found. The subject property is located in Borden block AjGu.
No archaeological sites have been registered within the limits of the subject property. Fifteen sites have been documented within approximately one kilometre of the subject property’s boundaries (Table 1), all of which are related to the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century development of the City of Toronto, although the Thornton Blackburn and Smith-Barber sites also yielded limited evidence of precontact Aboriginal occupation.
Table 1: Registered Archaeological Sites within an Approximate 1km Radius of the Project Area Borden Site Name Cultural Affiliation Site Type Researcher AjGu-16 Thornton Blackburn Afro-Canadian Residential Smardz 1985 AjGu-17 St. James Cathedral Euro-Canadian Cemetery Jansusas 1985, ASI 2002, 2012 AjGu-35 Lindenwold/Worts Estate Euro-Canadian Residential ASI 1996 AjGu-39 St. Paul’s Catholic Cemetery Euro-Canadian Cemetery HHI 1998 AjGu-41 First Parliament Euro-Canadian Institutional ASI 2000 AjGu-46 Gooderham Windmill Euro-Canadian Industrial ASI 2003 AjGu-54 Barchard Box Factory Euro-Canadian Industrial ASI 2004 AjGu-64 Toronto Lime Kiln Works Euro-Canadian Industrial Archeoworks 2009 AjGu-65 Bright-Barber Euro-Canadian Residential ASI 2010 AjGu-66 Smith-Barber Euro-Canadian Residential/Industrial ASI 2010 AjGu-82 King Caroline Euro-Canadian Residential ASI 2013 AjGu-85 Berkeley House Euro-Canadian Residential ASI 2013 AjGu-94 Britain Street Euro-Canadian Cemetery Irvin 2016 AjGu-95 Esplanade Crib and Wharves Euro-Canadian Commercial/Industrial Freisenhausen 2014 AjGu-98 City Corporation Wharf Euro-Canadian Commercial/Industrial ASI 2015 ASI=Archaeological Services Inc. HHI=Historic Horizon Inc.
In addition to the previous Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment undertaken as part of the IEA (ASI 2010), the project area also falls within the study area considered by the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the East Bayfront, West Don Lands and Port Lands Areas (ASI and HRL 2004), the Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (ASI 2007) and the Waterfront Toronto Archaeological and Conservation Management Strategy (ASI et al. 2008). While a number of other assessments have been carried out on adjacent properties, the findings of these latter studies are of limited relevance given the highly variable character of historical land uses and accompanying taphonomic processes. ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 8
3.3 The Predevelopment Landscape and Modelling Aboriginal Archaeological Resource Potential
Water is arguably the single most important resource necessary for any extended human occupation or settlement. Since water sources have remained relatively stable in southern Ontario after the Pleistocene era, proximity to water can be regarded as the primary indicator of archaeological site potential. Accordingly, distance to water is one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modelling of archaeological site location.
The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011:17-18) stipulate that undisturbed lands within 300 m of primary water sources (lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, etc.), secondary water sources (intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes, swamps, etc.), ancient water sources, and the shorelines of extant or former waterbodies are considered, at a generic level, to exhibit archaeological potential.
The generic MTCS distance to water potential model has been refined for the City of Toronto, as part of the City’s Archaeological Management Plan, currently in development. According to the Interim Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the City of Toronto (ASI 2004), undisturbed lands within 250 m of an extant or formerly mapped river or creek, or within 250 m of the pre-development shoreline of Lake Ontario, have potential for the presence of precontact Aboriginal archaeological sites. In addition, this potential zone is extended to any floodplain lands, and to lands in close proximity to the Lake Iroquois strand (i.e., lands above and within 200 m of the strand, or below and within 100 m of the strand).
Reconstructions of the mid-Holocene lake levels suggest that the project area was likely within 300 metres of the Lake Ontario shoreline between approximately 3,000 and 5,000 years ago, after which time the lake reached its current level. The project overlaps with the deltaic mouth of the Don River prior to the major engineering works of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that resulting in the straightening of the channel and reconfiguration of its mouth.
3.4 Review of Historic Mapping and Aerial Photography
The lands that make up the study area are generally centred on the original main channel of the Don River as it turned east to empty into the east side of Toronto Harbour. The lower Don was radically transformed by engineering projects intended to counteract siltation and pollution problems at the east end of the harbour and the creation of the Port Lands industrial area through large-scale land-making operations, as discussed in Section 3.2.2. Contemporary mapping (Figure 2) charts the evolution of the area.
The George Philpotts Plan of York and the 1842 James Cane Topographical Plan... show the early nineteenth-century course of the river in a relatively consistent manner. The earlier 1813 Sketch of the Ground in Advance of York... by George Williams is lacking in detail beyond the immediate shore line zone southeast the Town of York. Mid-nineteenth maps such as Dennis and Fleming’s 1851 Topographical Plan..., the 1857 Fleming, Ridout and Schreiber Plan of Toronto..., and the 1872 Wadsworth and Unwin Map of the City of Toronto, show the river to be largely unchanged, although some developments are shown adjacent to it. By 1857, the Grand Trunk Railway’s Don Station and freight depot had been established at the end of Mill Street, north of the study area in what is today GO Transit’s Don Yard. The 1872 map shows the Don Breakwater on the south side of the river and a wharf used by the Toronto and Nipissing Railway (later the Northern Railway) on the north side of the river at the foot of Cherry Street. This map also indicates that a new terminus for the Toronto and Nipissing had been proposed on the south side of the river, although this development was never realized. ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 9
The early editions of the Goad’s fire insurance plans provide few details for the study area, as it was still located beyond the limits of the developing city. The Don Breakwater is shown in the 1884 and 1890 editions, but by 1893 the breakwater is no longer depicted, coincident with the construction of the Keating Channel immediately south of the study area.
The 1910 Goad’s Atlas and the 1912 Harbour Commissioner’s harbor plan show the opening of new river outlets to the Keating Channel in the extreme east part of the study area and the emergence of National Iron Works, Toronto Iron Works and the British American Oil refinery on either side of Cherry Street. The 1923 Goad’s sheet shows British American Oil had numerous structures fronting on rail spurs located on the north side of the Keating Channel. Two of these buildings are identified as “stills.”
By the end of World War II, period aerial photographs (Figure 3) demonstrate that virtually the entire study area east of Cherry Street had been absorbed by British American Oil’s tank farms. Refinery operations continued throughout the 1950s-1970s period, although in declining scale beginning in the mid-1960s. By the early 1980s all of the refinery’s storage tanks and most of it supporting structures had been removed.
3.5 Existing Conditions
A property inspection was conducted on April 13, 2017, in order to refine the basic understanding of the archaeological potential of the subject property and to determine the degree to which development and landscape alteration may affect that potential. The weather on the day was appropriate, with mixed sun and cloud.
The study area is composed of the lands bounded by the south line of the existing elevated Gardiner Expressway from a point approximately 80 metres west of Cherry Street to the Don Valley Parkway on the east side of the Don River. The north boundary of the study area corresponds with the south limit of the Canadian National Railway corridor and the GO Transit Don Yard.
The study area is overwhelmingly characterized by it post-1910 industrial land uses and by its relationships to the past and present engineering and transportation infrastructure (river, rail and road) that surrounds it.
Almost all of the buildings related to the industrial development of the area, including all of the fuel storage tanks that once dominated the area have been removed, which, outside of footprint of the Gardiner Expressway itself, has created a landscape of variable topography that has been colonized by successional scrub brush, which is essentially “abandoned” or “derelict” land, subject to illicit and uncontrolled refuse dumping (Plate 3). The area below the Gardiner, in contrast presents a level graded surface devoid of any growth, which is more actively maintained (Plate 4).
Two industrial operations remain active within the study area, both of which are set within open compounds surrounded by fences and screens (Plates 5 and 6).
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 10
4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Aboriginal Archaeological Resource Potential
As noted in Section 3.3, the project area is located at the former deltaic mouth of the Don River as it emptied into Lake Ontario. Despite the fact that this locale would have been extremely attractive to precontact aboriginal peoples, the potential for the recovery of precontact aboriginal material within the project area is essentially nil. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century development activities related to river engineering, industrial uses, abandonments, etc. have obliterated the original topography project area.
This conclusion is consistent with the statements concerning the removal of archaeological potential (“disturbance”) outlined in Section 1.3.2 of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011:18).
4.2 Euro-Canadian Archaeological Resource Potential
Figure 4 provides the general locations of the historical features that have been inventoried for the purposes of this assessment and the numerous previous studies of this portion of the industrial waterfront (ASI 2007, 2010; ASI and HRL 2004; ASI et al. 2008). These consist of:
the 1870s Don Breakwater; the 1880s Toronto Dry Dock; the early twentieth-century National Iron Works; the early twentieth-century Toronto Iron Works Ltd. and the early twentieth-century phase of the British American Oil storage depot (“tank farms”).
The archaeological significance, or cultural heritage value or interest, of these features was subject to evaluation as part of Waterfront Toronto’s Archaeological Conservation and Management Strategy (ACMS). Within the ACMS system, each identified resource is ranked on a scale of 0 to 5 points for five significance criteria (Feature Type, Feature Integrity, Age, Landscape Setting and Quality of Documentation), to arrive at a total score out of a possible total of 25 points. Features that score 10 points or less are assigned a Grade 3 ranking (no form of mitigation or monitoring is considered necessary). Those that score from 11 to 17 are assigned a Grade 2 ranking, for which limited archaeological fieldwork [monitoring] is recommended. Finally, Grade 1 resources (for which archaeological test excavations and possible mitigation efforts are necessary) are those that score 18 or higher (ASI et al. 2008).
The ranking of a particular resource as either Grade 1, 2 or 3 is a statement concerning its potential archaeological significance, rather than its overall historical significance. This is a subtle but important distinction. While a feature may be of relatively high historical significance in the development of the waterfront, its archaeological investigation may not lead to any new insights into its character or function, or have any meaningful role in any effort to preserve, commemorate and interpret any visible physical remains of the site (ASI et al. 2008).
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 11
Table 2: Archaeological Inventory: Summary of Features and Significance Evaluations (ACMS 2008)
Feature/Resource Significance Evaluation Criteria (Each criterion rated on a scale of 0-5)
Significance Ranking
ge and Recommended Action Comments Historical Importance Landscape Setting Quality of Documentation Total Score Feature Type Feature Integrity A Don Breakwater 3 3 3 2 0 — 11 Grade 2: Documentation Deeply buried remains may survive, during construction although it is highly unlikely that monitoring. the cribbing forms a continuous feature. Toronto Dry Dock 4 3 3 2 0 — 12 Grade 2: Documentation Deeply buried remains may survive, during construction however the area was heavily monitoring. redeveloped by British American Oil. National Iron 2 2 2 2 0 — 8 Grade 3: No Foundations may remain. Previous Works archaeological action studies (Stinson and Moir 1991) required. have recommended that these be exposed for interpretation. Such work need not be accompanied by archaeological investigation. Toronto Iron 2 1 2 2 0 — 7 Grade 3: No Few traces may be expected to have Works Ltd. archaeological action survived subsequent development required. of the area. British American 2 2 2 2 0 — 8 Grade 3: No Foundations may remain. Previous Oil archaeological action studies have recommended that required. these be exposed for interpretation. Such work need not be accompanied by archaeological investigation.
The Don Breakwater and Toronto Dry Dock are considered Grade 2 resources for which archaeological monitoring of construction activities is an appropriate mitigative option (ASI et al. 2008).
The National Iron Works, Toronto Iron Works and British American Oil complexes are considered Grade 3 resources for which no archaeological actions are required (ASI et al. 2008).
These rankings and conclusions are consistent with statements concerning the evaluation of archaeological cultural heritage value or interest as outlined in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011).
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the findings of the Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment research, the following recommendations are made:
1. Construction excavations required for the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East reconfiguration should be subject to a program of archaeological monitoring in order to document any remains of the 1870 Don breakwater and the circa 1880 Toronto Dry Dock that may be present. In order to compensate for all potential sources of error inherent to historic map interpretation, monitoring should take place in the western quarter of the study area as indicated on Figure 4. ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 12
During preliminary site work the site should be visited on a regular basis to inspect the progress of the initial removals/testing, etc. When bulk excavation approaches an elevation of approximately 76 m ASL, the presence of a monitoring archaeologist on site should be of sufficient frequency and duration to ensure that any remains of the breakwater and dry dock or any contemporary superstructures that may be present are documented, through photography and the preparation of measured drawings. In the absence of an archaeological monitor on site, any potentially significant archaeological resource that may be encountered during excavations anywhere on the subject property should be preserved intact to allow the archaeologist to record its salient attributes or carry out whatever other form of mitigation is appropriate.
Any physical remains of the National Iron Works, Toronto Iron Works and British American Oil complexes that may survive within the study area are not regarded as archaeological resources, consistent with previous archaeological assessments and planning studies that have considered the general Keating-Lower Don Lands precincts.
2. The remainder of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East reconfiguration study area may be considered free of further archaeological concern. No further archaeological assessment is required outside of the monitoring area identified in this report (Figure 4).
3. Should the proposed work extend beyond the current study area, then further archaeological assessment must be conducted to determine the archaeological potential of the areas of impact.
Notwithstanding the results and recommendations presented in this study, Archaeological Services Inc. notes that no archaeological assessment, no matter how thorough or carefully completed, can necessarily predict, account for, or identify every form of isolated or deeply buried archaeological deposit. In the event that archaeological remains are found during subsequent construction activities, the consultant archaeologist, approval authority, and the Cultural Programs Unit of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport should be immediately notified.
The documentation related to this archaeological assessment will be curated by Archaeological Services Inc. until such a time that arrangements for their ultimate transfer to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, or other public institution, can be made to the satisfaction of the project owner(s), the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and any other legitimate interest groups.
6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION
The following advice on compliance is provided:
This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990, c 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological field work and report recommendations ensure the conservation, preservation and protection of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, a letter will be issued by the Ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development.
It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological field work on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 13
further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with sec. 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33, requires that any person discovering or having knowledge of a burial site shall immediately notify the police or coroner. It is recommended that the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services is also immediately notified.
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES
Anonymous 1891 Canada: Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890, volume 1. Brown Chamberlin, Queen’s Printer, Ottawa. Anderson, T.W., and C.F.M. Lewis 1985 Postglacial Water-Level History of the Lake Ontario Basin. In Quaternary Evolution of the Great Lakes, edited by P.F. Karrow and P.E. Calkin, pp. 231-253. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 30. Armstrong, F.H. 1985 Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Dundurn Press, Toronto. ASI (Archaeological Services Inc.) 2004 A Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the City of Toronto (Interim Report). Prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. in association with Cuesta Systems Inc., Commonwealth Historic Resources Management Limited, Golder Associates, and Historica Research Limited. Available at http: www.toronto.ca/culture. 2007 Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment — Existing Conditions Don Mouth Naturalization and Portlands Flood Protection Project, City of Toronto, Ontario. Report on file, City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services and Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. 2010 Coordinated Provincial Individual/Federal Environmental Assessment and Integrated Urban Design Study, Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration, City of Toronto, Ontario: Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment. Report on file, City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services and Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. ASI et al. (Archaeological Services Inc, Historica Research Limited, The Tourism Company and Maltby & Associates Inc. 2008 Waterfront Toronto Archaeological Conservation and Management Strategy.
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 14
Goad, C.E. 1880-1923 Goad’s Atlas of the City of Toronto. Charles E. Goad, Toronto. Gravenor, C.P. 1957 Surficial Geology of the Lindsay-Peterborough Area, Ontario, Victoria, Peterborough, Durham, and Northumberland Counties, Ontario. Memoir 288. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa. Hills, G. A. 1958 Forest-Soil Relationships in the Site Regions of Ontario. In First North American Forest Soils Conference, pp. 190-212. Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Karrow, P.F., and B.G. Warner 1990 The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In The Archaeology of Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 5-36. Occasional Publication 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London. Krentz, D. 1985 The Geomorphic Evolution of the Toronto Islands. Unpublished Senior Honours Essay, Department of Geography, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo. Martyn, L.B. 1978 Toronto: 100 Years of Grandeur. The Inside Stories of Toronto’s Great Homes and the People Who Lived There. Pagurian Press, Toronto. Mosser, C. 1984 York, Upper Canada. Minutes of Town Meetings and Lists of Inhabitants 1797-1823. Metropolitan Toronto Library Board, Toronto. MTC (Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture) 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto. Pearson, W.H. 1914 Recollections and Records of Toronto of Old. William Briggs, Toronto. Phillpotts, R. 1818 Plan of York, BB37. Dated September 24, 1823, reportedly surveyed 1818. Royal Engineers Department, Quebec. Sauriol, C. 1981 Remembering the Don: A Rare Record of Earlier Times Within the Don River Valley. Consolidated Amethyst Communications Inc., Scarborough. Scadding, H. 1873 Toronto of Old: Collections and Recollections Illustrative of the Early Settlement and Social Life of the Capital of Ontario. Adam, Stevenson & Co., Toronto. Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer, Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. H. & W. Rowsell, Toronto. Stinson, J., and M. Moir 1991 Built Heritage of the East Bayfront. Environmental Audit of the East Bayfront/Port Industrial Area Phase 2 Technical Paper 7. The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, Toronto. Toronto Harbour Commissioners — Plans showing Shore Lines and General Conditions of the North-East Section of Harbour from Princess Street to East of Cherry Street and Location of Don River 1907 – also Development of National Iron Corporation Property as to filling etc., 1909 to 1930 Wadsworth, V. B. and C. Unwin 1872 Map of the City of Toronto shewing real estate exemptions from taxation, compiled and drawn by Maurice Gaviller, C.E. & P.L.S., from plans filed in the Registry Office and the most recent surveys Walton, G. 1837 The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register with Almanack and Calendar for 1837. T. Dalton and W.J. Coates, Toronto. Weninger, J.M., and J.H. McAndrews 1989 Late Holocene Aggradation in the Lower Humber River Valley, Toronto, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 26:1842-1849 Williams, G. 1813 Sketch of the Ground in Advance of and Including York, Upper Canada. Plan dated November 1813. Winearls, J. 1991 Mapping Upper Canada 1780-1867. An Annotated Bibliography of Manuscript and Printed Maps. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 15
8.0 IMAGES
Plate 1: The abandoned Toronto Dry Dock Co. facility (from Stinson and Moir 1991).
Plate 2: British American Oil in 1934 (Toronto Port Authority Archives, PC 1/1/10769).
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 16
Plate 3: Typical conditions within the derelict portions of the study area.
Plate 4: Typical conditions under the Gardiner within the study area.
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 17
Plate 5: Active industrial yard at 570 Lake Shore Boulevard.
Plate 6: Active industrial yard at 520 Lake Shore Boulevard.
ASI
Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration, Hybrid Design Alternative 3 (North) – Keating Channel Precinct City of Toronto Page 18
9.0 MAPS
See following pages for detailed mapping.
ASI
±
LEGEND BASE: Gardiner Expressway Hybrid 0 250 Design Alternative 3 Study Area Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Services Meters 528 Bathurst Street Toronto, ONTARIO M5S 2P9 Gardiner Expressway Hybrid ASI PROJECT NO.: 17EA-061 DRAWN BY: EJB 416-966-1069 | F416-966-9723 | asiheritage.ca ASI Design Alternative 3 Alignment DATE: 4/7/2017 FILE: 17EA-061Fig1 Figure 1: Location of Gardiner Expressway Hybrid Design Alternative 3 Williams 1813 Philpotts 1818 Cane 1842 1858 Boulton Atlas
Wadsworth and Unwin1872 Goad's Atlas 1884 Goad's Atlas 1890 Goad's Atlas 1899
Goad's Atlas 1910 Toronto Harbour Plan1912 Goad's Atlas 1924
Various Scales Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Services Gardiner Expressway Hybrid ± 528 Bathurst Street Toronto, ONTARIO M5S 2P9 Design Alternative 3 Study Area 416-966-1069 | F416-966-9723 | asiheritage.ca ASI PROJECT NO.: 17EA-061 DRAWN BY: EJB ASI DATE: 4/12/2017 FILE: 17EA-01Fig2 Figure 2: The nineteenth and twentieth-century development of the Gardiner Expressway Design Alternative 3 Study Area ASI 1947 1981 1965 Providing Archaeological& CulturalHeritageServices 416-966-1069 | F 416-966-9723 |asiheritage.ca |F416-966-9723 416-966-1069 528 Bathurst Street Toronto, ONTARIO M5S 2P9 M5S ONTARIO Toronto, Street Bathurst 528 1953 1985 1967 1957 1969 1992 OF THE STUDY AREA APROXIMATE LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION 1977 1961 2002 DATE: APR 2017 ASI PROJECT NO.: 17EA-061 VARIOUS SCALES FILE: 17EA-061 FIG3.AI DRAWN BY: DAR
Figure 3: The development of the study area as reflected on twentieth-century aeral photography. ±
3
Archaeological Potential Zone (Toronto Dry Dock and Don Breakwater) Stage 2 Archaeological Monitoring and Documentation Required 5
6
4
Gardiner Expressway Hybrid Structures as depicted in1842 Structures as depicted in1884 0 150 Design Alternative 3 Study Area Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Services Location and Orientation Structures as depicted in1858 Structures as depicted in1912 Metres 528 Bathurst Street Toronto, ONTARIO M5S 2P9 of Photograph ASI 416-966-1069 | F416-966-9723 | asiheritage.ca Approximate Location of ASI PROJECT NO.: 17EA-061 DRAWN BY: EJB Structures as depicted in1872 Toronto Dry Dock DATE: 4/12/2017 FILE: 17EA-061Fig4 Figure 4: Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment of the Gardiner Expressway Design Alternative 3 study area - assessment of archaeological potential