Conservation and the Crosstown: Exploring the Intersection of Retail Heritage and Transportation Infrastructure in Toronto

Home , Caledonia station, Chaplin station, Corso Italia (Toronto), Fairbank station, Little Jamaica, Reggae Lane

CONSERVATION AND THE CROSSTOWN: EXPLORING THE INTERSECTION OF RETAIL HERITAGE AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN TORONTO

By: Sophia Sousa Supervised By: Laura E. Taylor

A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

November 29, 2018

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... iii FOREWORD ...... iv INTERSECTING THE PLAN OF STUDY ...... v INTRODUCTION ...... 1 METHODOLOGY ...... 6 CHAPTER 1 ...... 9 ORDINARY BUILDINGS & ORDINARY (COMMERCIAL) STREETS ...... 9 PHYSICAL & INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE...... 11 DISPLACEMENT & PROTECTION OF RETAIL HERITAGE ...... 12 GENTRIFICATION & TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 14 CHAPTER 2 ...... 17 EARLY HISTORY: VILLAGE OF FAIRBANK ESTABLISHMENT ...... 17 THE TORONTO BELTLINE & ON-STREET RAIL ...... 21 POST-WAR, LITTLE JAMAICA, & THE CROSSTOWN ...... 24 CHAPTER 3 ...... 28 SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?...... 28 INCENTIVES: WINDOW CLEANING & A FLOOR MAT ...... 33 HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS & OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE CROSSTOWN PROJECT ...... 35 BALANCING HERITAGE CHALLENGES & PRIORITIES IN TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ...... 37 IMPRESSIONS OF THE EGLINTON CROSSTOWN LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT ...... 39 CHAPTER 4 ...... 41 RETAIL HERITAGE IN ONTARIO’S PLANNING FRAMEWORK ...... 41 BUSINESS CLOSURES, INTENSIFICATION, & CHANGE ...... 44 THE FUTURE OF LITTLE JAMAICA ...... 51 CHAPTER 5 ...... 55 REFERENCES ...... 60 APPENDIX A ...... 66 APPENDIX B ...... 67

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 EGLINTON CROSSTOWN LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE – ROUTE MAP …………………………………………….. p. 2

FIGURE 2 RESEARCH STUDY AREA – YORK-EGLINTON BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA ……………………….…… p. 3

FIGURE 3 BUILT FORM TYPOGRAPHIES IN YORK EGLINTON BIA ………………………………………………………………… p. 18

FIGURE 4 MAP OF VAUGHAN ROAD SOUTH OF EGLINTON IN 1884 …………………………………………………………… p. 19

FIGURE 5 EVOLUTION OF MCFARLANE’S HOTEL IN THE VILLAGE OF FAIRBANK ……..………………….……………… p. 20

FIGURE 6 TORONTO BELTLINE TRAIL NORTH OF THE YORK-ELGINTON BIA ……………………………….……………… p. 22

FIGURE 7 OAKWOOD AVENUE LOOKING SOUTH FROM EGLINTON AVENUE WEST …………………………………… p. 24

FIGURE 8 EGLINTON AVENUE WEST LOOKING EAST FROM DUFFERIN STREET ……………………………..…………… p. 26

FIGURE 9 DISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE YORK-EGLINTON BIA BY DECADE ………….. p. 29

FIGURE 10 DISTRIBUTION OF ‘LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE’ RATING FOR BUSINESS LOCATION ………….……………… p. 30

FIGURE 11 NORTHSIDE SHOPS ON EGLINTON BLOCKED BY CONSTUCTION STORAGE AND FENCING …….…… p. 32

FIGURE 12 CROSSLINX STATION CONSTRUCTION IN THE RESEARCH AREA ………………………………………..………… p. 34

FIGURE 13 VACANT STOREFORNTS ON EGLINTON AVENUE WEST IN THE YORK-EGLINTON BIA …….…………… p. 46

FIGURE 14 CONSTRUCTION OF THE EMPIRE MIDTOWN AT OAKWOOD AND EGLINTON ……………..……………… p. 50

FIGURE 15 MURALS IN REGGAE LANE SOUTH-EAST OF OAKWOOD AND EGLINTON …………………………………… p. 54

i | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Professor Laura E. Taylor, thank you for agreeing to be my supervisor, for your direction, guidance, and revisions throughout this research process, and most importantly, for sharing your love of heritage. To Professor Abidin Kusno, thank you for your insight throughout the development of my Plan of Study and unique perspectives that strengthened this research as the second reader for the major paper proposal.

To Nick, City Builder, Ellie, Josie, and the 40 business owner participants, thank you for being such an integral part of this research. Without sharing your stories, your experiences, and insights, this research would not have been possible.

To my mom, dad, friends, and family, thank you for your unwavering support of my academic journey and completion of this paper. To my fiancé George, thank you for the study dates and the coffee. Last, but certainly not least, a big thank you to my sister Monica - once again your brilliance and wonderful editing skills transformed this paper, I am forever grateful.

ii | P a g e

ABSTRACT

Local shopping streets are places where physical and intangible cultural heritage coexist and foster retail heritage. In Ontario’s planning framework, heritage planning emphasizes physical assets and property leaving reatil heritage unrecognized and subject to imminent erasure in planning practices in Toronto. One threat to retail heritage is regional transportation infrastructure implementation such as the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit (ECLRT) Line in midtown Toronto – one of the largest transit infrastructure undertakings in Canadian history. Through a case study approach of the York-Eglinton Business Improvement Area, this research paper examines the correlation between retail heritage of the local commercial street and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT implementation to answer the fundamental research question of how retail heritage is contested in relation to large-scale transit projects in Toronto. The research highlights the relationship between regional and local transit infrastructure priorities while simultaneously determining impacts to the commercial street, concluding with recommendations of proactive measures to protect retail heritage including the incorporation of intangible cultural heritage within planning legislation, processes, and practices.

Keywords: Commercial Street, Retail Heritage, Transportation Infrastructure

iii | P a g e

FOREWORD

“It begins with little changes you suddenly notice in your neighbourhood. The local hardware store or shoe repair shop closes down overnight; steel gates shutter the window where cans of Rust-Oleum and wrenches lay in the sun; a ‘For Rent’ sign replaced the tattered Cat’s Paw logo for leather lifts … The sports bar where the Italian owner always had the TV turned to a soccer match yields first to a video store and then to a Starbucks. The serial repetition of small stores that defined the city’s neighbourhoods for so long is gradually broken up, imploded by new investment, new people, and ‘the relentless bulldozer of homogenization’” – Sharon Zukin in Naked Cities, 2010, p. 6

As a Torontonian, born and raised in the inner-city, I have been privy to Toronto’s local shopping streets. Whether it be purchasing traditional breads and cheeses in Little Portugal on Dundas Street West, visiting my eye doctor on College Street, or running errands at my family physician, pharmacy, florist, hairdresser, and even saying ‘yes to the dress’ on St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto’s commercial streets have been an extension of home through numerous encounters and life-long relationships I have built with business owners. In 2005, I saw, firsthand, the disruption caused by construction of the St. Clair right-of-way Streetcar route, and its affect on business operations, commuters, and residents (myself included), including dug up sidewalks, inaccessible wooden plank entries to shops, and streetcars replaced by busses that merged with vehicle traffic resulting in congestion, longer travel times, and overall an indescribable frustration.

Five years later, the project was completed, and in 2012 I conducted an undergraduate research study which ultimately proved that construction of the new streetcar route resulted in rapid turnover of businesses as community staples closed and were replaced by boutique shops and corporations such as

Starbucks and Shoppers Drug Mart. It was at this time my interest in the concept and conservation of

Retail Heritage was ignited. When I heard of the commencement of construction of the Eglinton

Crosstown Light Rail Transit Line, the next major east-west roadway north of St. Clair Avenue, I became

iv | P a g e

FOREWORD

curious if Eglinton was going to experience the same consequences of transportation implementation.

Through a case study of the York-Eglinton Business Improvement Area (BIA), I found that Ontario’s planning framework and management of large-scale transportation projects contests retail heritage resulting in the risk of permanent removal.

INTERSECTING THE PLAN OF STUDY

My Area of Concentration titled ‘Planning, Heritage Landscapes, and Urban Open Spaces’ immediately commences with the introduction of heritage – a concept that is entrenched in values, culture, traditions, history, and memory that is often used in conservation of physical historic places. New trends in academia and the heritage conservation practice has resulted in the introduction of intangible cultural heritage, a concept that was introduced by UNESCO in 2003 (Kalman, 2014). Two guiding questions in my Plan of Study are “What is intangible cultural heritage? What are techniques to make the intangible visible?” The concept of intangible cultural heritage is the foundation of this major research as

Retail Heritage, the central idea explored in this paper, is a culmination of both physical and intangible cultural heritage. Retail heritage extends from the built form to the relationships and connections, much like the ones I have been privileged to part-take in, that occur in Toronto’s local shopping streets creating unique character and experiences. The Plan of Study has three components; Urban-Regional Planning and

Design, Heritage Landscapes, and Urban Open Spaces, all of which intersect with this major research paper.

Urban-Regional Planning and Design is discussed in two key ways; first through priorities and debates on the design of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, as there was disagreement from municipal and provincial planners regarding the number of stops and therefore raising the question of whether the LRT line is servicing locals or regional residents as a transit thoroughfare. The second is the balancing of stakeholder objectives as described in the Plan of Study and the research study as the province,

v | P a g e

FOREWORD

municipalities, the proponent (Metrolinx), landlords, residents, and business owners including research participants were all involved in the planning of the line, albeit in different capacities.

Heritage Landscapes was the component prioritized in the research. In the Plan of Study, definitions and discussions on heritage landscapes are tied to a geographical place – a concept that was continuously mentioned by heritage planning professionals in this research study. The term “heritage” is tied to property within Ontario’s planning framework and subsequent municipal practices, therefore incorporation of intangible cultural heritage into planning processes is fundamental to safeguard retail heritage in Toronto. In my Plan of Study, I stress the importance of exposing alternative histories within heritage landscapes, doing so in this research paper. The York-Eglinton BIA is marketed as the

International Market but is informally recognized as Little Jamaica. To present a holistic study of retail heritage in the BIA, it was vital that Caribbean heritage in the neighbourhood was discussed with business owners and presented in the research.

In my explanation of the third component in the Plan of Study, Urban Open Spaces, I note that urban open spaces are not limited to the physical environment, but social interactions and cultural celebrations occur in these locations which connects to the concepts of intangible cultural heritage and retail heritage discussed throughout this paper. Furthermore, urban open spaces include vernacular landscapes and local shopping streets, descriptors that can be applied to the research area as the York-

Eglinton BIA has established organically overtime resulting in unique neighbourhood characteristics and retail heritage that is worth conserving.

vi | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

Toronto’s commercial streets are fundamental to everyday life in the city, yet these spaces are constantly subject to redevelopment pressures that compromise their retail heritage. Retail heritage of the local shopping street extends beyond the physical historic buildings and landscapes, encompassing social heritage, a form of intangible heritage, that is fostered within the commercial street. Intangible cultural heritage, as defined by UNESCO, is “the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills groups and individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage… transmitted from generation to generation” (Kalman, 2014, p. 18). Toronto’s commercial streets are places of physical and intangible heritage and their very existence is threatened by the lack recognition within the existing planning framework.

Regional transportation infrastructure development is one specific threat to local retail heritage.

The regionally imposed planning system burdens local governance with infrastructure development and in the case of Toronto, results in underserved local transit in a well-connected regional system (Addie,

2017). Large-scale regional infrastructure projects alter everyday functions of the commercial street, negatively impacting local business longevity, resulting in business closures, displacement, and possible gentrification. In Toronto specifically, there has been at least one retail heritage landmark that has been demolished yearly since 2012 including Honest Ed’s and Stollery’s, all in walking distance to transit hubs, corridors, and higher order transit lines. Signs of harmful consequences related to poor construction management emerged with the installation of the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit Project (ECLRT) - the largest transit expansion project in Toronto’s history (Figure 1).

The York-Eglinton Business Improvement Area (BIA), on Eglinton Avenue West between Dufferin

Street and Marlee Avenue, is part of the Crosstown’s 10-kilometre underground stretch. Due to lane restrictions imposed by street level construction and adjacency to the Allen Road Expressway, traffic

1 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 1: EGLINTON CROSSTOWN LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE – ROUTE MAP

YORK-EGLINTON BIA – STUDY AREA UNDERGROUND ALIGNMENT ABOVEGROUND ALIGNMENT INTERMODAL LRT STOP MAINTENANCE & STORAGE FACILITY

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT is located in midtown Toronto spanning 19 kilometres from western Mount Dennis Station east to Kennedy Station. The York-Eglinton Business Improvement Area contains two stations, Fairbank and Oakwood, and is situated between two intermodal LRT stations, Caledonia and Cedarvale. Source: Metrolinx. (2018). The Eglinton Line: Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project. [Digital Image]. http://www.thecrosstown.ca/sites/default/files/images/crosstownroutemaplarge.jpg

patterns and local access in the BIA have been altered resulting in loss of business revenue, disruptions to everyday social practices, and above average business closure rates on Eglinton Avenue West since the commencement of ECLRT construction (Skinner, 2017). Compared to other BIAs on Eglinton Avenue,

York-Eglinton is disproportionately impacted as two interchange stations, Caledonia Station, with future proposal to intersect GO Transit’s regional train line to Barrie, and Cedarvale Station, which will connect to the Toronto Transit Commission’s Line 1 Yonge-University-Line’s Eglinton West Subway Station, are in close proximity to the study area. Furthermore, two ECLRT stations, Fairbank Station and Oakwood

Station are simultaneously under construction in the BIA. The proposed transit stations make the neighbourhood desirable for real-estate redevelopment which threatens local retail heritage.

2 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 2: RESEARCH STUDY AREA – YORK-EGLINTON BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA

Legend:

Future Oakwood Station

Future Fairbank Station \ Empire Midtown Condominium (Under Construction)

York Eglinton Business Improvement Area in midtown Toronto. The BIA is bordered by Dufferin St. to the West, Bowie Ave. and Livingstone Ave. to the North, Marlee Ave. and Winona Dr. to the East, and Lanark Ave. and private lanes to the south. The research will be restricted to businesses along Eglinton Ave. W. within the BIA. Source: York-Eglinton Business Improvement Association (n.d.). York-Eglinton Business Improvement Area [Digital Image]. Retrieved from: http://www.yorkbia.ca/about-bia/membership/

The local commercial landscape in the York-Eglinton BIA has shifted since commencement of

ECLRT construction with the introduction of a new mixed-use development and rapid business

changeover. Empire Mid-town, a 16-storey mixed-use condominium, for instance, is currently under

construction near the Crosstown’s Oakwood Station (Figure 2). Meanwhile, several businesses have

closed at above average rates since the start of street level construction in 2015, replaced by new

boutique shops that can afford higher rents and more expensive leases. Unlike other BIAs along Eglinton,

there are no secondary plans specific to the York-Eglinton BIA leaving the area subject to the objectives

outlined in the Eglinton Connects Study (2013), a blanket project document that identifies the

neighbourhood as ideal for future mid-rise buildings through right-of-way transit permissions.

3 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

The York-Eglinton BIA is part of the commercial strip nicknamed ‘Little Jamaica’ – a vibrant

Caribbean cultural hub, known for its festive reggae music, ethnic food stores, and barber shops that diminished due to Crosstown construction. However, the presence of the Caribbean Community in the

BIA was seldomly acknowledged within the planning processes and practices associated with the

Crosstown, an exclusion discussed by several research participants. In a comparable study of the nearby

St. Clair Avenue West post streetcar implementation in 2010, Zhuang (2013) noted that “municipal public policy addressing economic development, land use, and transportation planning in relation to ethnic retail development has been relatively uninformed. There is urgent need to explore the planning processes underlying the spatial and physical changes of ethnic retailing neighbourhoods” (p. 92). In this paper, through discussion and analysis of the York-Eglinton BIA, I explore how retail heritage, specifically threats to intangible cultural heritage of the local commercial street, is contested in relation to large-scale transportation projects.

This paper is divided into five chapters. Chapter One is a literature review that explores definitions, concepts, and key thinkers related to the interconnections of retail heritage, transportation, and the commercial street. Chapter Two is a commercial historical overview the York-Eglinton BIA, commencing in the mid-nineteenth century until the start of the street level Eglinton Crosstown LRT construction in 2015. In Chapter Three, findings from in-person business owner surveys and interviews with planning professionals including construction impacts to business operations, heritage considerations in the planning of the Crosstown project, and overall impressions of the ECLRT are presented. Chapter Four discusses survey and interview results in relation to existing literature such as the role of cultural landscapes and possible introduction of retail heritage in Ontario’s planning framework, displacement and gentrification as a result of Crosstown implementation, and the loss of

Caribbean heritage within the York-Eglinton BIA. Chapter Five offers recommendations to help sustain retail heritage of the local shopping street amid transit implementation projects including (re)defining

4 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

retail heritage in Ontario’s planning legislation, creating proactive heritage conservation tools, offering local business incentives, reducing the scope of transit projects to minimize business disruptions, and future research opportunities. The remainder of this introductory section describes the methodology and research design undertaken in completing this research paper.

5 | P a g e

METHODOLOGY

To gather a holistic understanding of the relationship between retail heritage, the commercial street, and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT transit development project, a combination of methods including archival research, on-site surveys with business owners in the York-Eglinton BIA, semi-structured interviews with planning professionals, sites visits, and photography were incorporated in the design of this research paper. Since the start of Crosstown LRT construction, business owners in the York-Eglinton

BIA reported disruptions to daily business operations, negatively impacting the neighbourhood’s retail heritage. As a result, the York-Eglinton BIA was selected as a case study to address the foundational research question, “How is retail heritage of Toronto’s commercial streets sustained and/or contested in relation to large-scale transit projects?”. The first step in this study was completion of online archival research to build a historic understanding of Eglinton Avenue West, particularly the area encompassed by the York-Eglinton BIA. To further explore the historic formation of the York-Eglinton commercial street and early area history, in-person visits to the Toronto Archives and Toronto Reference Library were necessary. Establishment of the built form along the Crosstown corridor was studied using Goads Fire

Insurance Plans, Ariel Photographs, and Might City Directories from 1830 to 1998 to determine the relationship between historic place, past local public transit implementation, and contemporary redevelopment pressures in relation to transit infrastructure.

In-person surveys were completed with business owners in the York-Eglinton BIA between

Dufferin Street and Marlee Avenue over two days in mid-March 2018 (See Appendix A for full list of survey and interview information and Appendix B for a sample survey). The surveys intertwined with site visits as the surveys were conducted in a ‘walk-in’ basis capturing a variety of perspectives from older, newer, chain, and entrepreneurial shops. The intent of interviewing business owners was to grasp an understanding of how everyday life along Eglinton has changed during Crosstown construction and how these shifts may be affecting the social and built heritage of the commercial street. Although

6 | P a g e

METHODOLOGY

predetermined questions were prepared on a written survey and asked verbally, the surveys were held in a conversational manner, allowing themes and lived experiences to emerge organically. Of the approximate 200 businesses in the BIA, 40 businesses participated in the semi-structured survey. Surveys were conducted over two days during non-peak hours and lasted from 5 minutes to 30 minutes - a short time frame was preferred to reduce disruptions to the business day resulting in a higher likelihood and willingness to participate. The research design placed emphasis on surveys with business owners as compared to interviews with planning professionals to highlight lived experiences and ongoing changes in the BIA that impact York-Eglinton’s retail heritage. Surveys were transcribed and colour coded thematically in Microsoft Excel based on major paper sections allowing for evident overlaps and opposing ideas addressing the specific research questions as answered by local business owners.

Interviews with four participants were completed following business owner surveys. The first was an in-person unstructured interview with Nick, the York-Eglinton BIA chairman whose family has owned a men’s formal wear shop since the 1960s. The second interview, with City Builder, a municipal planner and Eglinton Connects Study expert, was completed via e-mail exchange. Third, an in-person semi-structured conversation with provincial Heritage Planner, Ellie, and Heritage Advisor, Josie, was completed where discussion on provincial legislation and processes related to heritage conservation emerged. As the literature notes (Addie, 2017; Pagliaro & Spurr, 2017) there is a divide in transportation planning in Toronto between the local and regional therefore, interviewing planners in municipal and provincial roles was instrumental in understanding disparities in impact of local transportation projects in

Toronto between regional and local governments. Similarly, heritage policies are provincial jurisdiction yet, the heritage designation process falls under municipal authority therefore, interviews with professionals captured opinions of the local and regional government. Despite multiple attempts to arrange interviews and/or e-mail correspondence, I did not receive a response from Metrolinx, Crosslinx,

The Toronto Star, or City of Toronto’s Heritage Preservation Services for this research project. A follow-

7 | P a g e

METHODOLOGY

up phone interview was completed with York-Eglinton BIA chairman Nick in September 2018 to clarify and confirm information that was provided during the business owner surveys.

Interviewees were determined using a snowball method and LinkedIn search. Participants were contacted via email where consent, confidentiality, research intent documentation, and researcher contact information were provided. All interviewees were offered the option to provide a pseudonym to be used in the research to maintain confidentiality. Only one interview, with the provincial heritage planners, was recorded and transcribed using the Google Docs voice tool. In keeping with the same format as the surveys, interviews were colour coded thematically in Microsoft Excel to help organize information based on major paper sections.

Six site visits, the first in January 2018 and the last in November 2018, were completed during the 11-month duration of the research project, averaging once every two months to grasp an understanding of changes occurring in the BIA case study area. I took all photographs presented throughout this paper, unless otherwise specified, during site visits to capture changes occurring to the local shopping street and as construction progress visual monitoring tools.

8 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1 Literature on Retail Heritage, Transportation, and The Commercial Street

Retail heritage is a concept that is seldomly discussed in literature. Heritage is often a term researched in relation to the built form however, with UNESCO’s introduction to the definition of

‘intangible cultural heritage’ in 2003, the last fifteen years of heritage literature has begun shifting toward an understanding of both physical and non-material attributes that form retail heritage (Kalman, 2014).

This literature review examines the interconnections of heritage, the local shopping street, large-scale transportation projects, and gentrification as these concepts are rarely discussed collectively. Academic literature published in the last five years has been highlighted to keep discussions contemporary and relevant to the York-Eglinton case study area. The works of key thinkers including Jane Jacobs, Sharon

Zukin, Harold Kalman, Robert Shipley and Karen Reyburn, Katherine Rankin and Heather McLean, and

Philip Hubbard are explored. The literature is divided thematically in four sections; Ordinary Buildings &

Ordinary (Commercial Streets), Physical and Intangible Cultural Heritage, Displacement and Protection of

Retail Heritage, and Gentrification and Transportation Infrastructure. The intent of this literature review is to highlight the importance of retail heritage, the changes occurring in the local shopping street, and overall, the need for future research pertaining to retail heritage and large-scale transportation projects.

ORDINARY BUILDINGS & ORDINARY (COMMERCIAL) STREETS

Ordinary buildings and ordinary streets are essential to the longevity of retail heritage as crucial urban vernacular landscapes. In 1961, Jane Jacobs believed that cities needed old buildings, not limited to rehabilitated expensive buildings, but ordinary, plain, low-value, run-down buildings as neighbourhood bars, pawn shops, restaurants, antique dealers, and bookshops establish in these spaces (Jacob, 1961, p.

187). Because small shops contribute to a community's sense of place, the local retail street is a

9 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

fundamental expression of a community's roots and aspirations (Leow, 2017). Older buildings generate a collective cultural legacy, shared sense of place, are more adaptable and flexible to multiple uses, are linked to more pedestrian activity, and produce distinctive urban designs (Powe et al., 2016). In terms of design, traditional facades of older buildings on main streets create unique experiences for merchants and pedestrians, however, street design and function are equally, if not more important than individual historic buildings (Dover & Massengale, 2014). Despite these proven benefits of historic buildings discussed in the literature, heritage buildings can be victims of neglect, fall to disrepair, or are abandoned, presenting a multitude of issues when the renovation process commences. Due to constraints, owners, developers, and architects prefer the ‘easier approach’ of demolition and rebuilding, leaving adaptive reuse as an underutilized conservation strategy (Hill, 2016).

The literature emphasizes streets as central to good urban design practices, high quality of life, and vibrant public places. Streets, as described by Jacobs (1961, p. 30) are “the main public places of a city… its most vital organs”. Streets are fundamental to designs of cities as the spaces in between buildings, contributing to placemaking and the public realm (Dover & Massengale, 2014). Public space is continuously controlled by urban elite to compete for investment and tourism, however, the disorderliness of the street allows for creative intervention challenging hegemonic memory in the process

(Ripmeester, 2010). Streets are places where life bustles and successful entrepreneurship occurs, therefore, there is a need for economic development officers and planners to support distinctive local business (Powe et. al, 2016).

Currently, there is a failure in Toronto to recognize the role of streets as central historic assets as there is a tendency to protect individual properties rather than the street in its entirety. One protective measure for commercial streets is Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD) where multiple buildings can be simultaneously designated under section 39.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act (MTCS, 2018). However, as

Shipley and Snyder (2013) discovered in their research on Heritage Conservation Districts in Ontario,

10 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

historic elements beyond the physical built form within these designated areas are often disregarded. As a result, my research considers the potential of the street wholly as historic place and explores the possibility of introducing a concept of retail heritage, capturing both physical and intangible cultural heritage, into the Province of Ontario’s planning framework as a proactive protective measure.

PHYSICAL & INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

Loss of commercial heritage and historic place in Ontario has been a prevalent for more than a decade. Shipley and Reyburn (2003) call for a need to incentivize heritage protection and strengthen regulation and funding to prevent the neglect and loss of historic assets. Toronto’s commercial streets are places where cultural heritage, both physical and intangible, co-exist forming retail heritage. In describing the commercial street, Zukin (2012) writes:

Local shopping streets are simultaneously a site of social, economic, and cultural exchange. Unlike the standardized architectural designs and transnational ownership of both central shopping streets and suburban malls, they provide a ‘face’ of local and cultural identity. They do this through small scale social interactions; by the rootedness of individually owned shops in local economies; and by the on-going cultural negotiation, on the part of the store owners, customers, and habitués … (p. 282).

The York-Eglinton BIA is a place where social, economic, and cultural exchanges occur daily in local shops creating and maintaining a unique identity and retail heritage worth conserving. Intangible cultural heritage is a broad term within cultural heritage capturing these immaterial exchanges. Intangible cultural heritage incorporates social practices, verbal traditions, artistic performances, traditional events, knowledge, and skills (Kalman, 2014). As stated within the UNESCO definition, intangible cultural heritage is “constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity” (Kalman, 2014, p. 18). Crosstown construction amplified changes to the environment in the York-Eglinton BIA, altering the street’s sense of local place and compromising its cultural continuity. In this research paper, I adopt

11 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

Kalman’s (2014) definition of intangible cultural heritage as the York-Eglinton’s commercial street is a place where many elements of intangible cultural heritage are evident, particularly social everyday practices, which when merged with built heritage, form retail heritage.

Commercial streets are spaces of social encounters where differences are mediated through mutual dependencies and where local connections are established (Rankin & McLean, 2015). These mutual social dependencies and encounters result in social mix of the commercial street. ‘Social mix’ is defined as the coexistence of various cultural or socio-economic groups in the same place. Long-term residents find comfort in ethnic ownership, producing a sense of place through informal gatherings

(Takahashi, 2017). Within the city however, 'social' and 'culture' are intrinsically different as culture may be used as a strategy for class segregation with culture having been associated with the elite (Gibson &

Kong, 2005). This practice alienates the social from culture leaving the social as unrecognized heritage and open to the risk of erasure. According to Barrere (2016) “cultural heritages play a strong role in both economic and social life – even though the majority remain informal, without public protection and without explicit management” (p. 92). Although there is a new wave of conservation of intangible heritage the dominance of physical heritage protection is common in practice and in the literature.

Further, there is minimal academia focused on retail heritage of the commercial street especially on social elements. Therefore, in this paper, I have contributed to filling the gap in the literature in relation to retail heritage, specifically intangible retail heritage.

DISPLACEMENT & PROTECTION OF RETAIL HERITAGE

Commercial streets act as places of cultural representation through varied ethnic retail availability and historic built form, especially in Toronto, one of the most diverse cities in the world. Retail gentrification has been seldomly researched within gentrification studies. In instances where retail gentrification is mentioned, it is in relation to the socio-economic status of the surrounding

12 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

neighbourhood which influences changes to the shopping street while the opposite is rarely examined

(Hubbard, 2017). However, Hubbard (2017) notes that literature in North America has begun exploring retail change as an instigator for gentrification. Protection of commercial streets in Toronto is crucial yet, as argued by Rankin et. al (2016), urban planners fail to recognize the importance of commercial streets which in turn become increasingly more fragile and are subject to redevelopment pressures and gentrification – a theme that is echoed by various authors in the literature. The challenge for municipal governments, particularly planners, is to preserve historic amenities of a neighbourhood while simultaneously ensuring that existing long-standing residents are not displaced (McCabe & Ellen, 2016).

Similarly, as argued by Zukin et al. (2009), though cities have zoning regulations, urban policy strategies, and economic development plans, few choose to intact laws that protect ‘mom-and-pop shops’; however, planning interventions to improve the longevity of small business operations have established in some American cities. For instance, chain stores are only permitted on a case-by-case basis in San

Francisco; tax incentives have been banned from large retailers in Phoenix; to halt the influx of chain store establishment a development moratorium was declared in Fort Collins, Colorado, and in Seattle, a historic business support program is being developed (Leow, 2017). In 2006, the City of San Francisco created Special Use Districts (SUD) an anti-displacement approach within the zoning code. Planners were given authority to support or stop activities that threaten the historical or cultural character of an area as a response to the unprecedented development associated with the city's technology boom, curbing displacement of small businesses (Buckley & Graves, 2016). In Ontario, the city of Hamilton and Ottawa have already begun proactive heritage listing processes for historic sites and buildings (Keenan, 2017).

Social preservation - the choice of certain individuals to live in small towns or the central city among 'older-timers' with the desire to sustain and embody the authentic social space - emerged as a concept within the literature (Brown-Saracino, 2004). Social preservationists and gentrifiers tend to be misconstrued as both groups are residentially mobile and well educated. The difference however, is that

13 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

preservationists have no desire to alter the existing community, and intend to preserve difference of place, the built fabric, culture, and people. Social preservationists understand community to be a group of individuals bound by class, race, ethnicity, religion, and fundamentally, way of life (Brown-Saracino,

2004). Though intentions differ, both can result in neighbourhood changes as social preservationists inadvertently contribute to neighbourhood shifts.

Toronto's commercial streets cater to immigrant populations and act as a place of cultural identity (Rankin, Kamizaki, & McLean, 2016). Commercial spaces contribute to the "just city" as these spaces provide services to marginalized and vulnerable populations, help mitigate displacement pressures in Toronto's inner suburbs, and raise questions about racialized spatial inequality within the multicultural city (Rankin & McLean, 2015). BIA case studies typically examine Toronto’s individual ethnically identified

BIAs including: Little Italy, Greektown on Danforth, Gerrard India Bazaar, Corso Italia, and Little Portugal

(Hackworth & Rekers, 2005; Zhuang, 2013; Takahashi, 2017). Little research has examined the overlap of multiple ethnic and cultural identities within a given BIA. Varied interpretations of retail heritage based on individual cultural identity has been explored within this research paper specifically the York-Eglinton BIA which is also commonly known as the ‘International Market’, a place where many cultural identities, affiliations, and heritages coexist.

GENTRIFICATION & TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

In large-scale transit implementation projects, retail heritage in the commercial street is vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. In addition to their vital social and economic functions, commercial streets provide affordable services and goods in working-class and poor neighbourhoods

(Rankin & McLean, 2015). Yet, Hackworth and Rekers (2005) argue that commercial streets are extensions of residential ethnic enclaves and, whether intended, function as branding mechanisms for gentrification. As defined by Hackworth and Rekers (2005, p. 213) "gentrification is the reinvestment of

14 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

urban space for the use of more affluent clientele". In the 1970's gentrification was a response by municipal governments to counter private disinvestment of the inner city resulting in negative consequences for lower-class residents (Hackworth & Smith, 2001). Moskowitz (2017) argues that the term gentrification has been widely explored in academia and that most frequently, the term is the cumulative result of distinct factors. Yet, gentrification is a deliberate process that impacts the quality of life for existing residents. As Moskowitz (2017) writes:

Gentrification is a purposeful act, not just a trend, and so it needs a definition that recognizes the actors and actions behind it. Gentrification, at its deepest level, is really about reorienting the purpose of cities away from being spaces that provide for the poor and middle classes and toward being spaces that generate capital for the rich (p. 22).

Zukin (2016) summarizes gentrification in three paradoxes; unanticipated, unimportant, and uneventful.

Unanticipated is inevitable through disinvestment and depletion of neighbourhoods; unimportant when compared to other urban issues such as racial segregation and urban poverty, gentrification is less significant especially as suburbs continue to grow at unprecedented rates; and uneventful as the movement of people from their homes is the basis of the housing market (Zukin, 2016). Within a gentrification study of Toronto, changes in the commercial street mimic those of residential areas with an increase in bars, high end restaurants, and the establishment of Starbucks locations (King, 2016).

There is a correlation between large-scale urban infrastructure implementation and gentrification in Toronto. In their study of gentrification and implementation of urban rapid transit in Toronto, Grube-

Cavers and Patterson (2015) noted that that public policies, transit construction, and associated investments possibly influence the beginnings of gentrification with notable implications such as rising living costs, community conflicts, and displacement. In the Corso Italia BIA along St. Clair Avenue, the streetcar right-of-way disputes from local businesses resulted in legal action. In 2003, the Official Plan named St. Clair an “avenue” study area and along with the new street designation and streetcar, mix-use and higher density developments were constructed (Zhuang, 2013). In relation to the Eglinton Crosstown

Light Rail Transit project, regional goals overpowered municipal interests as the TTC advocated for more

15 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

stops to support quality local service while Metrolinx planners argued fewer stops resulting in a faster line to better serve the region (Addie, 2017). This debate raises questions about the intersection of the regional planning imagination and local needs and functions.

Within the real-estate market, policy considerations regarding affordability of commercial spaces are not emphasised as residential affordability is prioritized (Rankin & McLean, 2015). Gentrification studies are largely based in residential turnover with commercial spaces as products of residential shifts.

Gentrification literature, including social preservation texts, largely emphasize the position of the social preservationist and gentrifier, resulting in the under-representation of perspectives of those who are displaced. The relationship between how transportation implementation and shifts in the commercial street impact local residential areas has been investigated in this research paper. If retail heritage of the commercial street is obliterated, then I believe there are irreversible consequences for local business owners and residential populations.

16 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2 Eglinton Avenue West: History and the Crosstown Development

Heritage is one of the most contested characteristics in our cities, particularly in one of the most culturally diverse urban centres like Toronto. There is however, a consistent battle between formal and informal heritages, hiding histories that are unpleasant, and promoting heritage assets that contribute to

‘placemaking’ through promotion of positive imagery and tourism profitability. Toronto is commonly described as a “City of Neighbourhoods” anchored by distinct shopping streets that express and service local cultural identities. With unique history, everyday lived experiences, and diverse built form, the local shopping street in the York-Eglinton BIA is one of these distinct places. Unlike other heavily marketed BIA and heritage areas in Toronto, York-Eglinton is a place of informality, entrepreneurship, and vibrancy with little corporate presence – distinguishing characteristics that create invaluable and unique meaning. The built topography in the BIA along Eglinton Avenue West exemplifies the distinct area features and the layers of historic place that form the existing retail heritage landscape (Figure 3). In this chapter, through showcasing the varied histories, from initial area establishment to present-day that contribute to York-

Eglinton’s unique identity and sense of place, I hope to provide evidence of the importance of sustaining the area’s retail heritage.

EARLY HISTORY: VILLAGE OF FAIRBANK ESTABLISHMENT

Eglinton Avenue West (previously named York-Vaughan Road) was the division between York

Township and Metropolitan Toronto prior to City of Toronto’s amalgamation in 1998. Eglinton was formerly the fringe of the City of Toronto and therefore was not a designed or planned avenue but the result of distinct local settlements, a mix of satellite towns, industrial rail settlements, postwar neighbourhoods, and garden suburbs (E.R.A., 2013). Two historical settlements, Cedarvale and the Village of Fairbank, were located where the York-Eglinton BIA is presently. In 1912, Sir Henry Mill Pellatt, the

17 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 3: BUILT FORM TYPOGRAPHIES IN YORK EGLINTON BIA

Built form along the commercial street in the York-Eglinton BIA showcasing various development phases and building types. The pre-war high street and individual potential heritage properties have been identified. Source: E.R.A. Architects Inc. (2013). Eglinton Crosstown Study: Heritage Analysis. Toronto, ON: E.R.A. Architects Inc. for the City of Toronto.

builder of Casa Loma, registered a subdivision named “Cedar Vale” bounded by Eglinton Avenue to the

North, Vaughan Road to the South, Oakwood to the West, and Bathurst to the East (Dunklelman, 2002).

The subdivision was named in honour of Cedarvale Ravine, a neighbourhood steeple that was threatened by plans of the Spadina Expressway (Dunklelman, 2002). Most of the BIA however is located within the former Village of Fairbank and organic settlement originating at the Dufferin, Eglinton, and Vaughan Road intersection, with over 200 years of indigenous, commercial, and institutional history.

Commercial activity in the area dates to the mid nineteenth century with the establishment of small inns along Vaughan Road (McDowell, 2000). Dufferin Street was the third concession road established in the area although the southern stretch from Eglinton to St. Clair was impassable due to the swampy conditions of Cedarvale Creek. As a result, more popular routes into the area included Vaughan

Road and Lake View Avenue, now Oakwood Avenue (Thomas, 1996) (Figure 4). Situated on high ground,

Vaughan Road was initially used as an indigenous trail (McDowell, 2000). According to the 1824

Goedmann’s Map, Vaughan Road spanned from Eglinton and Dufferin linking to another well-known

18 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 4: MAP OF VAUGHAN ROAD SOUTH OF EGLINTON IN 1884

Commercial concentrations were along Vaughan Road and Lake View Avenue (Oakwood Avenue) as both were used as popular thoroughfares between Toronto, York, and Vaughan. Though subdivided into lots, Eglinton Avenue West contains mostly farmland and is sparsely developed. Source: Charles Goads, Fire Insurance Plan (1884). Toronto Archives Online. Retrieved from: http://jpeg2000.eloquent-systems.com/toronto.html?image=goads_atlas/1884/g1884_pl0037.jp2

Indigenous trail, Davenport Road. Parallel to Castle Frank Brook (Cedar Creek) and Taddle Creek, Vaughan

Road was the connection between Toronto, York, and Vaughan Townships (McDowell, 2000). The Road was planked in 1850 and replaced by gravel within a decade (Orr, 1980). By 1878, Vaughan Road was redirected to its modern-day location (Orr, 1980).

Commencing at the intersection of contemporary Dufferin Street and Eglinton Avenue West spanning 200 acres, Fairbank was an unincorporated village with a hotel, post office, and railway station by the mid 1890s (McDowell, 2000). Early settlement in Fairbank dates to 1815, predating streets, therefore homes and addresses were identified by the farm name. The area’s name originated from this practice named after the Parson farm known as “Fairbank” adjacent to the intersection of Dufferin and

Eglinton (Thomas, 1996). In 1834, a hotel was established on the north-west corner of Dufferin and

19 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 5: EVOLUTION OF MCFARLANE’S HOTEL IN THE VILLAGE OF FAIRBANK

McFarlane’s Hotel, one of the first 1913 – In 1877, the village of Fairbank 2018 – Canada Post is still operating on commercial establishments in Fairbank, Post Office established and remained site today, 140 years after establishment. in 1874 at Dufferin St. & Eglinton Ave. on site after hotel fire in 1912. Crosstown construction of Fairbank Source: Boylen, J. C. (1954). York Township: An Source: Charles Goads, Fire Insurance Plan (1913). Station’s Secondary entrance has Historical Summary. The Municipal Corporation Toronto Archives Online. Retrieved from: http:// of the Township of York and The Board of jpeg2000.eloquentsystems.com/toronto.html? restricted access to the store. Education of the Township of York: Toronto, ON. image=goads_atlas/1910_1912_v2/g1910_ Source: Photo Taken by Sousa on November 19, 2018 1912_pl0052-Key_Plate-2.jp2

Eglinton. In 1867, the site was leased from Martha Smith to Francis McFarlane where the inn remained

on site until it burnt down in 1870 (Orr, 1980). McFarlane’s Hotel was central in the development Village

of Fairbank. In 1874, McFarlane purchased .26 acres from Joseph Watson on the north-east corner of

Dufferin and Eglinton (approximately 600 ft north of Eglinton) where the new McFarlane Hotel (also

known as The York Vaughan House) was constructed (Figure 5). That same year, next door to the hotel,

the first post office was established in the home of William Todd. In 1877, post office operation moved to

McFarlane’s hotel where McFarlane became the first postmaster (McDowell, 2000). By 1906, Fairbank

had some commercial activity with a blacksmith shop located on Vaughan Road, a grocery store and meat

market, and a hotel (Orr, 1980). In 1912 however, McFarlane’s hotel was destroyed by a fire reopening as

the Fairbank Hotel further north at 2418 Dufferin St. (Orr, 1980). In 1912, a post office was rebuilt on

site, an institution that remains on site today servicing the Fairbank community, 140 years after initial

establishment contributing to York-Eglinton’s local retail heritage.

20 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

Schools and churches were established in Fairbank in the mid and late nineteenth century.

Fairbank’s first school, School Section 16, was a log house built in 1825 on Lot 2, Concession 3 on Dufferin

Street. The log house was replaced by a red brick building in 1863 and was extended in 1908. In 1927, the small brick school was demolished and replaced by a large facility, Briar Hill School (Orr, 1980). In 2011,

Briar Hill was shut down during an accommodation review and was subsequently demolished (Cinello,

2017). Foundations from the original 1863 building and 1908 extension were uncovered during 2015 demolition however, a new townhouse subdivision was constructed over the remains in 2017 (Cinello,

2017). The first churches were established in the mid 1800’s later replaced by St. Hilda’s Anglican church built in 1895, Fairbank United Church Methodist in 1889 followed and Fairbank Presbyterian Church built in 1914 (McDowell, 2000; Thomas, 1996). Roman Catholics began practicing in the area around 1922, and the building of St. Thomas Aquinas Roman Catholic Church followed in 1926 (Thomas, 1996).

THE TORONTO BELTLINE & ON-STREET RAIL

Public transit was fundamental to the growth of Fairbank with initial neighbourhood development connected to the 1892 Toronto Beltline and subsequent growth in 1924 when Toronto

Streetcar Railway operation commenced (Dunklelman, 2002). The Fairbank settlement grew in the mid

1850’s in part with the establishment of the Ontario, Simcoe, and Huron Railway in 1853. The nearest stations, Davenport and Weston were still a fair distance from Fairbank (Thomas, 1996). In the 1880’s, the

Toronto Beltline Corporation was established by influential businessmen with the desire to develop and sell large lots on the city’s fringes to prospective residents who would then construct their own houses on the newly formed parcels (Board of Education, 1987). The parcels surrounding the railway were coined as

‘The Highlands of Toronto’, marketed as a place to escape the “grime and scent and smoke of the city

[with] restful surroundings” (Board of Education, 1987; p. 101).

21 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 6: TORONTO BELTLINE TRAIL NORTH OF THE YORK-EGLINTON BIA

Stonework on beltline trail in recognition of former railway Location of historic Fairbank Station on beltline trail Source: Photo taken by Sousa on June 21, 2018 Source: Photo taken by Sousa on June 21, 2018

In July 1892, the Toronto Belt Line Railway commenced operation with Fairbank Station situated

at Dufferin Street between Castlefield Avenue and Eglinton Avenue West (Figure 6). The line remained

operational until November 1894 when economic depression coupled with high fare prices resulted in the

failure of the railway. The fare from Fairbank Station to Union Station was 25 cents (McDowell, 2000). The

38-kilometre beltline encircled the city, commencing at Union Station, travelling on the west-side of the

Don River, to Moore Park north of Mount Pleasant Street to Yonge. The western portion commenced at

Bathurst and Eglinton, extending to Forest Hill and Fairbank, eventually joining the Canadian Northern

Line where trains would travel south to Union Station completing the loop (Board of Education, 1987).

The development of the Beltline ensured the that Fairbank was established as a mixed area, primarily for

industrial use. Working-class suburbs emerged as a desire and need for working-class homeownership at

the fringe of the city, located near Eglinton’s western rail lines where industry established; this commonly

resulted in unplanned and unregulated owner-built housing (E.R.A., 2013). The railway was later used for

industrial purposes, with service resuming in 1910 and again terminated in the early 1970s, despite

considerations in the 1920’s to use the Western loop as a commuter line (Board of Education, 1987).

22 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

The closure of the Toronto Belt Line resulted in limitations of public transportation from Fairbank to the central city. Two options were available; the Northern Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway which were both inconvenient (Orr, 1980).

On August 25, 1913, a streetcar line along St. Clair Avenue from Yonge Street to Caledonia Road opened providing an alternative method of public transportation (Orr, 1980). Residential subdivision lots in Fairbank were divided for small low-cost owner-builder homes and by 1915, the suburb of Fairbank was listed in the City of Toronto Directory (Orr, 1980). Many residents lived in small three-room bungalows, and several of the dwellings in Fairbank were ‘shacks’, built by English, Irish, and Scottish immigrants (Thomas, 1996). Despite conversions from the shanties of Shacktown to brick homes, with access to municipal services, Fairbank was still relatively under-developed (Board of Education, 1987).

According to Thomas (1996), fields and forests occupied most of Fairbank until the 1920s as the impassible conditions on Dufferin Street kept the settlement isolated from other growing areas in

Toronto. In 1924, the York Township Street Railways was established, entering in an agreement with the

Toronto Transit Commission to construct and operate the Oakwood Avenue Streetcar Line (Figure 7) between St. Clair Avenue and Eglinton Avenue West and the Rogers Street Line between Oakwood

Avenue and Dufferin Street in 1925 (Board of Education, 1987; Orr, 1980). With the completion of Rogers and Oakwood lines residential development boomed in Fairbank adjacent to the transit lines, while industry grew along railway corridors (Board of Education, 1987).

The Great Depression in the 1930’s had drastic negative impacts to residents of Fairbanks as many were working in the nearby Canadian Kodak and Canadian General Electric factories. Due to the inability to pay township taxes, several mortgage holders and homeowners in Fairbank lost their properties. An estimated 16,000 residents with the Township of York faced severe poverty by 1932

(Board of Education, 1987). To assist impoverished populations, the City of York maintained a relief program issuing vouchers for local stores and businesses for essential items including clothing and

23 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 7: OAKWOOD AVENUE LOOKING SOUTH FROM EGLINTON AVENUE WEST

1924 – Oakwood Ave. prior to street paving 1949 – Streetcar tracks on Oakwood Ave. 2018 – Former CIBC Bank Building in and installation of streetcar tracks turning west on Eglinton within the York- York-Eglinton BIA. Today the building Eglinton BIA. CIBC building on right. houses a Pizza Pizza. Source: City of Toronto Archives, Source: City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 16, Series 71, Item 3434 Series 381, s0381_fl0021_1d6401-10 Source: Photo taken by Sousa on November 19, 2018

food in exchange for public labour such as lawn-mowing and snow-shovelling (Board of Education, 1987).

Despite economic precaution and assistance programs, York Township faced total bankruptcy in 1933

leading to the supervision of the provincial government (Board of Education, 1987). The onset of World

War II in 1939 diminished economic hardships as local factories reopened to supply wartime material.

Meanwhile, as men went to fight in the war, women started taking on new professional roles, leading to

the establishment of daycares (Board of Education, 1987).

POST-WAR, LITTLE JAMAICA, & THE CROSSTOWN

Throughout the 1930’s and 1940’s, residents and shopkeepers in the York-Eglinton BIA were

primarily from England, Ireland, and Wales (Township of York, 1930 -1949). Commercial activity was

sparse consisting of a few grocers, local fruit shops, butcher shops, dry goods, hardware shops, a shoe

repair shop, barber, a Dominion bank branch at Dufferin Street, Toronto Conservatory of Music, and a

Loblaws (Might Directories Ltd., 1930-1939). The Eglinton High Street was largely established in the 1940s

24 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

where two- and three-storey buildings and individual commercial units formed a continuous street wall sharing similar characteristics to Toronto’s other commercials streets including St. Clair, College, and

Bloor (E.R.A., 2013). In the 1940’s, grocers and butchers remained dominant on Eglinton Avenue West while boat builders, dairy stores, fish shops, and the Colony Theatre established near Vaughan Road

(Might Directories Ltd., 1940-1949).

Eglinton remained largely underdeveloped until the mid-1950s when Metropolitan Toronto, a newly-formed regional governing body, implemented planning policies which included new road improvements to assist growth, specifically for families moving to the suburbs which generated more space in downtown neighbourhoods for new immigrants (City of Toronto Urban Design, 2013). The changes in infrastructure in the 1950s, including the decommissioning of streetcar service and introduction of bridges that connected the eastern and western part of the avenue and the newly built terminus of the Yonge Subway line at Eglinton, supported growth and connected the segmented pre-war high street (E.R.A., 2013) (Figure 8). The neighbourhood’s 1950 demographic make-up was primarily

European with those of English, Irish, Italian, and German backgrounds dominating followed by individuals from Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg, Ukraine, Israel. The 1950’s also saw the sparse beginnings of immigrant arrivals from Jamaica, India, Ethiopia, Turks and Caicos, Bahamas, and British Virgin Islands into the area (Township of York, 1955). The commercial street expanded through the establishment of various shops and services specializing in clothing, fabric, paint supplies, laundromats, snack bars, appliances, radios, music, gifts, hairdressing, cigars, and dry cleaning (Might

Directories Ltd., 1950-1959). Aside from the arrival of individuals from South American countries including Brazil and Argentina, the ethnic composition in the York-Eglinton BIA remained consistent through the 1960s. The local shopping street on Eglinton Avenue West was car-centric as motor shops and automotive repair garages opened. Bakeries, beauty salons, ladies wear, insurance, real estate brokers, dentists, and supermarkets established during the 1960’s (Might Directories Ltd., 1960-1969).

25 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 8: EGLINTON AVENUE WEST LOOKING EAST FROM DUFFERIN STREET

1919 – A single detached dwelling 1954 – The commercial street has 2018 – Royal Bank building remains on surrounded by farmland with a established. A Loblaws shop and north-side of Eglinton. Fairbank Station

passengers on a horse and buggy Royal Bank are pictured on the left construction is underway on the south-side. Source: Boylen, J. C. (1954). York Township: An Source: Boylen, J. C. (1954). York Township: An Historical Historical Summary. The Municipal Corporation of the Summary. The Municipal Corporation of the Township of Source: Photo Taken by Sousa on November 19, 2018 Township of York and The Board of Education of the York and The Board of Education of the Township of Township of York: Toronto, ON. York: Toronto, ON.

Local shops were integral to Little Jamaica’s identity where cultural staples like patties, roti, and

hard-dough bread could be purchased (Spurr, 2018). The 1960’s saw an increase in Jamaican immigration

in the York-Eglinton BIA, many of whom were women that immigrated through the Government of

Canada’s West Indian Domestic Scheme (Spurr, 2018). In the 1970s and 1980s nearly 100,000 Jamaicans

immigrated to Canada, many of which established in Toronto near Eglinton Avenue West, resulting in the

largest Jamaican settlement outside of Jamaica (Heritage Toronto, 2015). By the mid-1990’s, the area was

nicknamed ‘Little Jamaica’ (Greenwood, 1995). The stretch on Eglinton Avenue West between Vaughan

Road and Oakwood Avenue has the highest concentration of Caribbean restaurants, services, and shops

in Toronto (Dunklelman, 2002). Little Jamaica was also famously known for its recording studios, record

shops, and influential reggae artists such as Lillian Allen, Messenjah, and The Sattalites (Heritage Toronto,

2015; Spurr, 2018). In 1981, the York-Eglinton BIA was officially formed and reformed in 1999 as the

International Market to reflect the cultural diversity of the local shopping street (York-Eglinton BIA, 2018).

26 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

In 1985, the Toronto Transit Commission proposed a rapid bus route along Eglinton in the

Network 2011 Plan. The proposed busway was later replaced by a subway based on traffic demand studies and rumoured political pressures from neighbouring municipalities specifically Etobicoke and York who preferred the subway to the busway (Bow, 2015). In 1994, excavation of the line commenced with

Allen Station located adjacent to the York-Eglinton BIA however, construction was immediately halted by then new Premier Mike Harris in 1995 (Bow, 2015). After much debate of redesign and project scope, the municipal and provincial governments announced a new transit plan in 2011 prioritizing the 19-kilometre,

Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit Line with 15 stations and 10 stops spanning from Jane/Black Creek east to Kennedy (Metrolinx, 2018). Construction on the $5.3 billion transit project commenced in 2011 with tunneling in 2013 and at grade station construction in 2015. The Eglinton Crosstown LRT (Line 5) is expected to open in 2021 (Spurr, 2018).

York-Eglinton’s historic settlements were supported by local, low-rise commercial services and shops – a unique feature still present in the area today. The neighbourhood grew with the implementation of regional and local transit, connecting the area to near-by neighbourhoods and the downtown core.

However, the local shopping street which was once initially supported by public transit now faces destruction by a new public transit project. The existing planning framework supports new dense development that will permanently alter the existing landscape by displacing older businesses with new boutiques and the distinct low-rise commercial buildings with mixed-use condominium towers.

Construction and eventual completion of the Crosstown LRT will compromise the local retail heritage in the York-Eglinton BIA.

27 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3 Challenges and Opportunities of Retail Heritage on Eglinton Avenue West

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?

Discussions with business owners and tenants on Eglinton Avenue West revealed key findings and themes related to Crosstown construction management, business closures, incentives, and impacts to everyday business operations including parking, noise, dust, automotive traffic, and access. Of the 40 businesses that were surveyed, the oldest business in the study area opened in 1945 with the newest establishment opening a few weeks prior to the participating in the survey in 2018 (Figure 9). Several participants noted an unprecedented rate of businesses closures in recent years, some after decades of operation that have been replaced by newer establishments resulting in a loss of community fixtures and retail heritage. A significant number of businesses, close to 40%, established within the study area after below-grade construction of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT commenced in 2011 and street level construction in 2015 aligning with the reported record business changeover.

Several businesses, specifically those pre-dating construction, voiced that ‘remaining in the neighbourhood’ was integral for access to the local customer base, and adjacency to the local community maintained longstanding relationships resulting in sustained business success. In response to the possibility of leaving the area, Participant 3, a hair supplies store owner who has been in the neighbourhood for nearly 40 years stated, "I can't, I would lose my business. It's been around and people know who we are, it's called good will. Our customers know us because we're here." This desire to stay in the neighbourhood due to long-term relationships with clients was repeated by many of the participants with business owners and tenants noting that their clientele was elderly and accustomed to their location and businesses offerings. As Participant 25 stated, "If people don't come and find you, we may lose business. We have older clients”. Leaving the York-Eglinton BIA area would be a gamble, specifically for establishments who have built relationships with patrons for decades.

28 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 9: DISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE YORK-EGLINTON BIA BY DECADE

Year of Business Establishment in the York-Eglinton BIA 20

5 Number of Participants of Number 0 1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's 2010's Decade

Nearly half the participants established post-Eglinton Crosstown construction reflecting the high turnover of business closure and opening since commencement of construction.

When asked to rank the importance of remaining on Eglinton Avenue West on a scale ranging from very unimportant to very important, 34 of the 40 or 85% participants responded with either slightly important, fairly important, or very important while the remaining businesses rated neutral to remaining in the neighbourhood (Figure 10). Despite some minor indifference, none of the participants rated staying in the York-Eglinton BIA as unimportant. Willingness to relocate was related to length of business tenure in the BIA as newer businesses, specifically those who opened after ECLRT construction commenced, were more likely to move than older businesses. Furthermore, there was direct correlation between where a business initially located during its establishment and willingness to move outside the BIA.

Businesses that were previously located elsewhere were more accepting of possible relocation while businesses that initially established within the BIA stated that closing altogether was a more probable outcome than relocation. For those who said they would move, relocation would not take place within adjacent neighbourhoods, rather participants mentioned moving to north Toronto, south Toronto, and

29 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 10: DISTRIBUTION OF ‘LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE’ RATING FOR BUSINESS LOCATION

Business Owner Rating of Importance in Staying in the York-Eglinton BIA

Very Important 22

Fairly Important 9

Slightly Important 2

Neither 6

Slightly Unimportant 0

Fairly Unimportant 0

Very Unimportant 0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Participants were asked to rate the importance of retaining the business location in the York-Eglinton BIA. All participants agreed to a level of importance in staying within the BIA, while a few participants were neutral to the possibility of relocation.

other municipalities as rents were deemed more affordable.

Regarding effects on business, nearly 80% of those surveyed reported direct negative impacts from LRT construction including drastic decrease in sales and customer volume as daily patterns for regular customers have shifted, resulting in a significant business ‘slowdown’ for several participants. As noted by Participant 32, "most of the businesses closed, so [customers] don't come. They go somewhere else. Business has really slowed down; we’re considering closing. This area is very down, very bad". The remaining participants reported no change in business while one owner stated that although business is not as profitable as it was initially, it has improved as drilling has ceased and obstructions to the roadway have been removed improving vehicle access.

Reduction and removal of parking were the biggest reported issues as a result of Eglinton

Crosstown construction. The parking on Eglinton within the BIA was described as “horrible”, “terrible”,

30 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

and “non-existent”. A few participants noted that a new condominium development, Empire Midtown on

Oakwood and Eglinton, removed one of two Green P Parking lots within the study area, however, below grade public parking is proposed as part of the new redevelopment. Only those with on-site parking, generally on the western side of the BIA near Dufferin Street, were somewhat neutral toward parking conditions. Several participants voiced concerns regarding limited parking availability as on-site construction workers were parking in remaining spaces leaving few available for customers, clients, and local business employees. Subsequently, ticketing due to new parking regulations was described as problematic as customers were unable to access shops with ease and therefore were deterred from coming to the area.

Despite connotations that traffic in the area had worsened, there was a mix of opinions regarding automotive traffic conditions. Descriptors varied from “congested” and “busy”, to “decreased” and “reduced”. Respondents discussed that Crosstown construction resulted in changes in driving patterns with potential customers avoiding the area all together, while other participants mentioned that traffic was at the same volume but appeared to be more congested due to lane restrictions and the introduction of new temporary traffic lights. As Participant 24, a local library manager, mentioned, the

"street looks dead because of construction, businesses have closed. We don't get a lot of people because it's hard to get here, busses have to reroute - it's been a hassle. Always heavy, it's a fight”. Several participants noted that traffic was bad during the morning and evening rush hours, however during the day traffic has been reduced significantly. Despite the mix of opinion, a commonality emerged in that travel times by car or by bus from Dufferin Street to the Allen Road (Eglinton West Subway Station) have severely increased becoming a major inconvenience for customers, employees, suppliers, and delivery agents resulting in issues for everyday business operations.

Pedestrian access was a concern specific to businesses located in close proximity to station construction sites as fencing, storage of construction materials, and parked vehicles took over sidewalks

31 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 11: NORTHSIDE SHOPS ON EGLINTON BLOCKED BY CONSTUCTION STORAGE AND FENCING

Promotional signs advertising ‘still open’ Restricted sidewalk access near material Storage containers and temporary businesses on construction fencing storage site with large variety store winterized work stations have been built, closing sale signage further restricting sightlines to the street. Source: Photo taken by Sousa Janurary 20, 2018 Source: Photo taken by Sousa on August 23, 2018 Source: Photo taken by Sousa on November 19, 2018

forcing pedestrians to take alternative walking paths. One section, on the north side of Eglinton between

Times Road and Oakwood Avenue near Oakwood Station, was disproportionately impacted as the

sidewalk has been closed and replaced with a six-foot fenced-in construction storage area (Figure 11).

Despite “Eglinton is Open for Business” banners along street-facing fences to promote individual

businesses, participants in this section stated that the fencing was discriminatory causing an invisibility

to the street and potential customers therefore greatly reducing business. Similarly, pedestrian access in

the Dufferin and Eglinton, near future Fairbank Station, was blocked by fencing and storage of

construction materials however, businesses were not hidden behind fencing as the storage was contained

on the station site at the intersection. As noted by Participant 29, "the boardwalk was completely blocked

for six months. The walking around is crazy, you have to walk around the entire construction area. You

can't even jaywalk, it's all blocked off". In addition to obstructed sidewalks, wayfinding signs were limited

displaying only specific business, all of which were chain or franchise establishments including

McDonalds, Subway, and Tim Hortons.

32 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

INCENTIVES: WINDOW CLEANING & A FLOOR MAT

Dust due to construction has increased however businesses located near station construction areas like Fairbank Station at Dufferin Street and Oakwood Station at Oakwood Avenue reported a disproportionate increase of dust and dirt compared to other participants within the study area (Figure

12). Overall, shop owners mentioned that maintaining an aesthetically appealing storefront required frequent and, in some instances, daily sweeping, dusting, and window cleaning. Noise was reported similarly to dust conditions as those closest to station locations were impacted most especially during drilling phases. Otherwise, noise appeared to be a non-issue. Surrounding noise and drilling, business owners did mention how drilling resulted in other property issues including power outages, impacts to plumbing systems, and in some cases, rat infestations.

Regarding incentives, most business owners said that they received no help from “the government” highlighting the lack of support from the City of Toronto; specifically, lack of financial assistance and/or tax breaks to help businesses stay open during the construction process. Few owners noted that the York-Eglinton BIA holds meetings and provides printed materials with Crosstown project and area updates. Over half of the participants surveyed stated that the only ‘incentives’ they received were a floor mat and a monthly window cleaning service provided by Metrolinx. The benefit of the cleaning service was questioned by several participants including Participant 33, the owner of a newly opened beauty shop; "we were offered window cleaning and no one has shown. Why would they give us mats? They give us mats and doesn't help at all”. Despite the offer, some participants noted that

Metrolinx only cleaned their shop windows once while others mentioned that no one has come to clean the windows since the initial inquiry.

On-site Crosslinx staff and subcontractors have become regular customers which is a form of incentive however this group remains as an untapped potential customer base. Modifying business operations to encapsulate the influx of on-site workers as a possible business improvement strategy was

33 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 12: CROSSLINX STATION CONSTRUCTION IN THE RESEARCH AREA

Oakwood Station Construction in August 2018 Fairbank Station Construction in August 2018 Source: Taken by Sousa on August 23 2018 Source: Taken by Sousa on August 23, 2018

discussed by York-Eglinton BIA chairman, Nick, who stated, “it’s hard how to tell people how to sustain a business, I can’t give advice if people won’t accept advice … No one had retrofitted themselves to capture the construction workers. Like a bar opening during construction hours or issuing coupon booklets. Uber

Eats is doing really well.” The suggestion of adapting to a new customer base has been met with some hesitation. The incorporation of new technologies however has been fundamental to the sustainability of businesses throughout the construction processes within the BIA. Some participants, most notably take- out and fast food establishments, reported an increase in deliveries as a response to a decrease in walk-in customers. Use of software applications like Uber Eats, and e-commerce or online shopping features have allowed establishments to continue business operations by changing how business has been traditionally conducted, thereby offering alternative access to their existing customer base while expanding to include new customers. Business owners were generally optimistic regarding the incorporation of new technologies to sustain business operations however, street blockages, traffic, and lack of parking spaces has generated problems with optics involving the movement of physical goods from shops to customers.

34 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS & OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE CROSSTOWN PROJECT

After completing 40 surveys with local business owners in the study area and an interview with

York-Eglinton BIA Chairman Nick, I had the opportunity to interview planning professionals. The first interview was with City Builder, a municipal urban designer, transportation planning manager, and

Eglinton Connects Study expert, and the second, a joint interview with provincial Heritage Planner, Ellie, and Heritage Advisor, Josie. Alternative themes emerged in the interviews, compared to those discussed by business owners during the surveys including heritage considerations within the Crosstown project, challenges and priorities of planning transportation infrastructure projects, and heritage as a concept in association to property.

Cultural heritage evaluations for the Eglinton LRT were completed in 2010 by Metrolinx under the Environmental Assessment Act. Following the environmental assessment was the Eglinton Connects

Planning Study: Heritage Analysis completed by E.R.A. Architects Inc. (2013) commissioned by the City of

Toronto which identified heritage assets along the Crosstown route. The study recommended opportunities to incorporate heritage buildings into the design of Crosstown stations and facilities through adaptive reuse and repurposing. For example, Kodak Building 9 located on the western edge of the Crosstown route is proposed as a new bus terminal and transit facility. Similarly, as stated by City

Builder, a former bank building with heritage attributes will be repurposed as Mount Pleasant Station’s main entrance. In other instances, as in the case of the Firehall building at Chaplin Station and a former bank near Mount Dennis, modifications were made to site development plans to ensure the conservation of heritage features of Crosstown adjacent buildings. However, as noted by City Builder, the repurposing and retaining of heritage buildings or attributes has complicated the construction processes as there has been difficulty allocating work space that adheres to current standards. Mount Pleasant illustrates this complication as the exterior façade was dismantled, stored, and reassembled. With regards to the York-

Eglinton BIA, five buildings were identified as potential heritage resources.

35 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

Aside from the identification of heritage buildings in the Eglinton Connects Heritage Analysis

(2013), the report incorporated character areas along Eglinton Avenue. Specific to retail heritage, City

Builder stated, “urban design guidelines were created and included in the policy recommendations that supported the retention of fine grain retail shop front pattern and the complementary public boulevard on main streets.” The York-Eglinton BIA was recognized as a character area in the analysis, identified as a

‘high street’ or ‘international market’. The high street, a British term used for identifying the main street of a town, is adopted in the report to describe the two- to three-storey buildings with small individual shop frontages that form a streamline commercial streetscape (E.R.A., 2013). Within the description of character areas in the heritage report however, emphasis was placed on the evaluation of individual properties as built form assets, a common practice in planning described by Ellie:

What we tend to see is this individual property-by-property screening and valuation of properties which can lose some of that value and some of the streetscape thinking. That's something we see in practice and something I think we need to work with consultants and proponents on better adjusting their study area and their way of thinking about properties and their relationships to each other. The limitation in the practice is a result of the Ontario Heritage Act which establishes legislation for the designation of specific heritage properties. Identification of heritage attributes, regardless of individual cases, must undergo the same six-step designation process including identification of the property, property research and evaluation, Notice of Intention to designate, passing and registering the designation by-law, listing the property on the municipal register, and lastly, listing the property on the provincial register (MTCS, 2006a). As stated by Ellie “it’s all treated the same way, it’s all just property”.

Unlike individual property designations, Heritage Conservation Districts tend to extend beyond built heritage in order to capture characteristics of historical place and local cultural identity (MTCS, 2006b).

The process of designating Heritage Conservation Districts is much more extensive, containing 13 steps, several of which require approval from governing bodies including city council, municipal heritage committees, the public through consultations, and the Ontario Heritage Trust (MTCS, 2006b). The

36 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

complex 13-step process can be a deterrent from pursuing formal district designation therefore individual property designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is a more popular approach to heritage conservation.

BALANCING HERITAGE CHALLENGES & PRIORITIES IN TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

The challenges of balancing heritage and transportation priorities within infrastructure projects are dependant on stakeholder interests. Specific to the Eglinton Crosstown Project, City Builder noted that some key challenges in planning the ECLRT included creating a vision that would incorporate recognition of the diverse character in built form and public realm, sensitive and supportive intensification while maximising infrastructure investment, and the supervision of incremental growth based on the desires of various stakeholders such as Metrolinx, ward councillors, residents, City of

Toronto divisions and agencies, consultants, and special interest groups. The balance of stakeholder desires was echoed by Ellie who commented that within the context of transportation projects, intensification, rapid transit, heritage, and environmental impacts are all considerations. However, Ellie stated that within planning itself, specialized disciplines are on an unspoken hierarchy where transportation planning priorities rank above those in heritage planning:

In my practical experience, I find that Heritage is seen as a lower priority in some cases. It's seen as something that you can identify at the beginning but in terms of meaningfully mitigating impacts that's not factored in early on in the process. It's kind of like ‘we'll figure out our project and then we’ll mitigate for heritage as a condition later’. It feels like in practice it’s a lower priority than others. Conservation and heritage is often seen as an extra expense that is in some cases is maybe unnecessary over and above the other priorities. When in fact if you do your studies early on and factor it into your planning, avoidance perhaps could be an actual option. Your costs won’t be that much more. As discussed by Ellie, heritage conservation priorities rarely proactively approached and are often perceived as an additional expense and secondary priority. If heritage was considered earlier in planning processes, subsequent planning tools would be more effective in mitigating impacts to heritage assets.

37 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

The act of balancing priorities extends to the inter-governmental relationship between the legislator (The Province of Ontario) and the implementor (City of Toronto). As Josie stated, within cultural asset identification and heritage designation processes, three key provincial planning documents were acknowledged; the Provincial Policy Statement, which sets out the overall planning framework; the

Environmental Assessment Act, used in land-use planning to evaluate cultural heritage assets within environmental assessment processes; and the Ontario Heritage Act, which formally designates heritage properties. For instance, when questioned about the Ontario Heritage Act and provincial involvement in the planning processes, Josie replied:

The Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities to protect their properties, to designate them. It's a way of offering protection in provincial legislation but it's implemented on the municipal level. We would almost never, as a province and a ministry, see planning applications, a demolition permit, or anything like that so we're just not involved in the planning process at that level. If any ministry were involved it would be Municipal Affairs and if there was cultural heritage identified within that project, then they would consult us as a partner ministry, but we're not directly involved. Provincial policy and regulations apply to all municipalities and are developed with the intent to be open- ended and high level allowing the proponent and/or the municipality to implement with some flexibility which was the case in the Eglinton Crosstown project and the Eglinton Connects Study. According to City

Builder, “municipal planning priorities are framed by the provincial planning priorities. We ensured that there is a clear and consistent policy cascade as we went from Provincial Policy Statement to municipal planning policies as contained in the Official Plan”. Emphasis within the Eglinton Connects Study area was placed on consistency from the Provincial Policy Statement to Toronto’s Official Plan to ensure that transit infrastructure investment and subsequent intensification would aid in long-term incremental growth set out in existing provincial and municipal policies.

Balancing the priorities of multiple municipalities emerged as a topic of conservation with the provincial planners and appeared to be a non-issue. According to Ellie, daily operations at the provincial level require reviews of municipal plans such as Official Plans however reviews are completed on a case-

38 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

by-case and entirely individualized basis. Only in the instance where provincial legislation requires a review does the consideration of the needs of multiple municipalities simultaneously occur. Both provincial interviewees noted that investment in municipal heritage staff was fundamental in achieving heritage conservation particularly in smaller municipalities. Josie noted that over the past five years, there has been noticeable provincial-wide trend of municipal heritage planning departments expansions and an increase in overall heritage staff. The City of Toronto has various instruments for heritage conservation including provincial planning legislation, investment in planning materials and broader studies, and a dedicated Heritage Preservation Services Department. A core challenge however is the rate of development in Toronto which is straining on the municipality’s heritage department. According to Ellie,

“[Toronto’s] just bogged down. Despite having heritage planning staff, they're just overwhelmed by the volume of applications and I think sometimes they're playing catch-up. Again, the issue of heritage being a lower priority these issues become exacerbated.” Overall, the challenges with planning the Eglinton

Crosstown included capturing priorities from various stakeholders and ensuring that planning types such as heritage and transportation planning were disciplines were acknowledged in design, planning, and implementation processes.

IMPRESSIONS OF THE EGLINTON CROSSTOWN LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT

More than 80% of businesses were in support of or are neutral toward the Crosstown LRT project. This approval was echoed by planning professionals who were in favour of the project as the LRT would provide efficient transit to an underserved area, support intensification, and overall be beneficial to Toronto. The key disagreement with the LRT however is how the project has been managed including lack of communication from project management teams to local businesses which has result in negative opinions from participants. As Participant 20 stated, "I don't see a problem with the project. The issue is how they manage the project and damage to the area. We give them feedback and see nothing”. For

39 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

those who were not in favour of the project, the project timeline was a major concern as the project was described as “taking forever” by several businesses.

Participants were positive overall about the future and long-term benefits of the Eglinton

Crosstown LRT questioning however, if they are able to sustain their business until the completion of the project. As Participant 31, a floral shop owner whose family has owned the shop since 1947, reflected on the project, "I’m very favourable, I live here. I think it will rejuvenate. It's hard to say what will happen.

The project has been built on the back of small businesses—future businesses will benefit. We're a community fixture and would like to stay.” Within regard to design of the ECLRT, Participant 26 noted that there were too many stations which has resulted in additional construction sites, more stations, and in the end, transit vehicles will not reach full speed potential as frequent stops will be required.

Furthermore, older businesses noted that the initial Eglinton West subway line from 1994 should have been completed as ground had already been broken on the project 20 years ago and the current LRT project is simply “too late”.

40 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4 Discussion of Findings Related to Heritage Literature and Transportation Implementation Projects

RETAIL HERITAGE IN ONTARIO’S PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Local shopping streets in Toronto are a culmination of physical and intangible cultural heritage that together form retail heritage often however, heritage conservation strategies highlight built heritage.

I believe Heritage Conservation Districts are proactive approaches to protecting local commercial streets in Ontario however, to appropriately capture retail heritage, these districts should not be limited to designated buildings within a specified geographic area, rather, the spaces in-between and the everyday social interactions of these in-between spaces need to be taken into consideration in the provincial and municipal planning framework. One example is the Queen Street West Heritage Conservation District in

Toronto which incorporates intangible elements of retail heritage including “vibe, memories, stories, and area legacy” in conjunction with physical elements including “role of the streetcar, rhythm of storefronts, architectural features, and human scale” while adhering to the contributing and non-contributing provincial building designation criteria (City of Toronto, 2006). Retail heritage however is not a term that is defined within Ontario’s planning framework regardless of global trends and scholarship advocating for the inclusion of intangible cultural heritage into planning practices (See Buckly & Graves, 2016; Kalman,

2014; Zukin, 2012; Zukin 2010).

‘Cultural landscape’ is contextually a similar term and the most comparative to intangible cultural heritage and the concept of cultural landscapes is widely used within provincial and municipal planning frameworks in Ontario. There has been a shift in the definition of cultural landscape to be more inclusive of intangible cultural elements. According to Ellie, cultural landscapes have conventionally been defined by places where intense human modifications have been made while more recently, definitions cultural landscapes comprise of untouched places of cultural or spiritual significance. The overarching

41 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

definition of cultural landscapes is found in the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), a high-level policy document. The inclusion of cultural landscapes within the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), as noted by

Josie, urges the conservation of cultural landscapes and encouragement of recognizing a ‘sense of place’ to support long-term economic prosperity. According to the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), a cultural landscape is defined as:

A defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, main streets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trail ways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (p. 40). Main streets are included in this definition and therefore are a recognized example in the provincial policy as areas of possible cultural heritage value. The limitation as articulated by Josie, is the necessity of tying cultural heritage landscapes to a specific geographical location despite the intangible aspects or elements that help form the landscape. Vernacular urban spaces, such as streets, are places were cultural heritage is produced through social interactions and everyday uses (Zukin, 2012). In the context of the local shopping street, Zukin (2012) interprets intangible cultural heritage to encompass “the social practices that develop in vernacular urban landscapes” (p. 282). Retail heritage of the local shopping street, as in the case of York-Eglinton, is the combination of daily intangible aspects such as social interactions and the built heritage of the vernacular urban landscape. Cultural landscapes as defined within the 2014

Provincial Policy Statement present a challenge as intangible elements cannot always be physically actualized resulting in the impossibility of, as echoed by both provincial heritage planners, “drawing a line on a map”. Within the Heritage Analysis conducted by E.R.A. Architects Inc. (2013) as part of the Eglinton

Connects Study, Cultural Heritage Landscapes is:

A relatively new tool for the stewardship of large-scale ensembles of cultural assets. Cultural Heritage Landscapes are currently supported in the Provincial Policy Statement,

42 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

but are not yet integrated into the Ontario Heritage Act. The use of this tool will require careful consideration (p. 85). As stated by E.R.A. (2013) in the above statement, planning legislation in Ontario is limited in protecting intangible cultural heritage as the concept of cultural heritage landscapes has not yet been incorporated into the Ontario Heritage Act. Similarly, Ellie described that protections for local businesses, the commercial street, and the immaterial often fall beyond the scope of heritage protection legislation within the Province of Ontario unless the main street is located within a Heritage Conservation District.

Heritage Conservation Districts allow municipalities to recognize and designate character areas in advance of development where there are properties of heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Heritage Conservation Districts are not to be ‘turned into museums’, rather these districts are to be part of future growth as layers of history can be maintained while simultaneously accommodating new development (Shipley and Snyder, 2013). As expressed by Josie, Heritage Conservation Districts are the primary conservation tool for retail heritage in Ontario as they are the only way “sense of place and flavour” can be captured while still accommodating new development. However, Heritage Conservation

Districts are geographic locations formed of contributing and non-contributing buildings and therefore is driven by property-by-property designation rather than, as described in the definition of cultural landscapes within the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, the “interrelationship’ of buildings”. In their research on Heritage Conservation Districts in Ontario, Shipley and Snyder (2013) concluded that in the planning practice identification and use of district designations has become increasingly more common however, there is little exploration in understanding the relationship between Heritage Conservation

Districts and their potential role in economic development.

Land-use planning legislation has the tendency to objectively approach property which can be a disadvantage as removal of the meaning of places including history, identity, ethnicity, social interactions, and daily uses that shape retail heritage are underprioritized and/or often neglected. Ethnic retail centres and strips like York-Eglinton’s ‘International Market’ are physical indicators of increasing multiculturalism

43 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

yet current policy prevents proactive planning approaches which can benefit ethnic retailing (Zhuang,

2013). After observation of changes to St. Clair Avenue’s Corso Italia BIA post streetcar implementation in 2010, Zhuang (2013) urged the need for municipal interdepartmental collaboration and intervention to pursue beneficial multicultural planning approaches in Toronto and the consideration of ethno-cultural and/or multicultural backgrounds in land-use and land developments (Zhuang, 2013). The omission of multicultural backgrounds in planning is evident in the Eglinton Connects Heritage Analysis and despite identification of the York-Eglinton BIA as a character neighbourhood, priority was given to identification of five buildings as potential heritage assets with minimal acknowledgement of the neighbourhood’s

Caribbean history, which was briefly mentioned in a footnote (E.R.A., 2013). Jacobs (1961) argued that all zoning is suppressive as it creates conformity yet zoning for diversity protects against destruction of historically valuable buildings as historic buildings do not conform to contemporary zoning restrictions.

Hubbard (2017) suggests that local shopping streets or high streets need to be understood in a social- spatialization context that encapsulates the continued collective imaginaries associated with and interactions within a landscape. Planning for the local shopping street must take into consideration the characteristic of the built form from a time prior to hegemonic zoning regulations and the feeling of place as articulated by Hubbard’s (2017) social-spatialization description. The current planning framework in

Ontario and subsequently Toronto, emphasises land-use legislation and regulations, as a result, fundamental components including everyday social interactions that contribute to intangible cultural heritage are not captured thus, retail heritage in Ontario’s planning framework is contested.

BUSINESS CLOSURES, INTENSIFICATION, & CHANGE

Local retail spaces are facing unparalleled decline and disappearance, an outcome of retail globalization trends and real-estate development pressures (Gonzalez & Waley, 2013). In the context of

44 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

the British high street for instance, Hubbard (2017) argues that changes in the retail market toward increase in online shopping in combination with a ‘cloning phenomenon’ of chain stores replacing local character shops has resulted in a 4% increase in vacancy of British High Street between 2011 and

2014. Local shopping streets in Toronto, like Eglinton Avenue West, are no exception. According to the

Canadian Commercial Real Estate Outlook report by TD Economics (2017), over 3 million square feet of retail space was built in Toronto in 2016 and 2017, primarily in the city’s major shopping centres including nearby Yorkdale Mall. Despite the increase in retail square footage, the retail vacancy rate dropped to a decade low of 4.8%, however, preference was given to available retail spaces within the city’s malls. As of

March 2018, of the 193 street level businesses on Eglinton Avenue West within the York-Eglinton BIA, 43 or 22% of businesses were closed displaying ‘for rent’ or ‘for lease’ signage. More than double the closures were on the northside near fenced off construction zones compared to the unobstructed southside (Figure 13). Correspondingly, as of October 2018, 39 or 20% of the 193 street level businesses on Eglinton were vacant, the majority of which I previously observed as closed in March.

Participants noted a trend in unprecedented business closures as a result of disruptions caused by

Eglinton Crosstown LRT construction. Several participants discussed paying rent out of their personal savings to sustain business operations, including covering rent, in the hope that their business would survive the street-level construction phase of the Crosstown project. As stated by Participant 30, "there are so many [businesses] closed here. People were losing business and paying rent out of pocket”. Due to decreased profitability resulting in the inability to pay rent comfortably, many stores emptied.

Participants discussed the loss of long-time businesses as disheartening for the community, noting that new businesses tend to be boutique shops or dispensaries that open and close rapidly. As BIA chairman

Nick stated:

I’m excited to see changes but saddened to see friends and family in the area leave. It burdens me emotionally and physically. It's social bullying. It hurts. If you don’t build reasons for the community to be connected, they won’t be. The comforts are not here. We don’t have bakeries and coffee shops.

45 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

FIGURE 13: VACANT STOREFRONTS ON EGLINTON AVENUE WEST IN THE YORK-EGLINTON BIA

Several neighbouring businesses closed on the Culturally affiliated Jamaican business vacant on the south- north-side of Eglinton Ave. West near Oakwood Station side of Eglinton Ave. West near future Oakwood Station Source: Taken by Sousa on January 20, 2018 Source: Taken by Sousa on August 23, 2018

Of the surveyed participants, nearly half categorized their businesses under two umbrellas; beauty

including barber shops, hair salons, and beauty supply stores, while another large sample fell within the

electronic repair categories which included cell phone, computer, and general electronic repair. As for the

comforts Nick described, none of the participants categorized their businesses as a bakery, while the only

three coffee shops, two of which, Tim Hortons and Coffee Time, were franchised establishments, and the

other is a local yarn shop with a coffee bar that is heavily used by construction workers.

As Zukin (2010) writes, the loss of authentic urban spaces and gentrification of the shopping

street is a global pattern that displaces long-time residents underpinned by political growth rhetoric

which creates predictable upscaled neighbourhoods. The integration of new business types in the York-

Eglinton BIA could help promote and support the economic vitality of the commercial strip by providing

comfort goods and services to existing clientele, however, the arrival of new businesses may result in an

‘upscaling’ of the neighbourhood catering to a new customer base thereby, drastically altering and

extinguishing connections with the local community. Businesses closures have influenced the loss of

46 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

repeat-customers resulting in a rapid turnover with new businesses opening and closing within a few months. As shared by participant 21, "a lot of closures especially with mom-and-pops. New business turnover quickly. Dispensaries have opened and closed. A lot of older businesses have loss loyal client base". Despite current rapid turnover rates of new businesses, a difference of opinion regarding local redevelopment between older and newly established businesses may emerge post-construction. In the study of super-gentrification of the Brooklyn Heights neighbourhood, Lees (2003) found that newer businesses owners were more accepting of neighbourhood changes including high rents which displaced former local businesses, franchises established in the neighbourhood, and the construction of several high-rise residential buildings. With businesses continuously closing, several owners are uncertain of whether they can maintain their current situation to see the possible benefits of the Crosstown.

Concerns regarding unwanted and forced changes including density, new building regulations and the influx of new developments in the area emerged in conversations with businesses owners. Retail change is not merely the result of market shifts and changes in consumer behaviour, rather retail change is a consequence of synchronised market and state strategies (Gonzalez and Waley, 2013). The Crosstown project generated the need new municipal land-use planning strategies and guidelines however, these regulations promote intensification and density of the transit corridor and the commercial street thereby favouring new landlords and tenants who can afford costs associated with change. As Participant 7 stated, "they're going to do that they want. When the subway opens, developers will get their way. The city doesn't give a shit. The city screwed all the stores on St. Clair. If you're lucky enough to ride it out, people will prosper if not you will get squeezed out when the big boys move in.” As per Nick, Eglinton

Avenue West was the southern border of where the municipality of York and City of Toronto met prior to the Megacity amalgamation in 1998. As a result, the built form along Eglinton Avenue West in the study area adheres to city standards from two former municipalities; the northside complying with the municipality of York and the southside complying with the former City of Toronto. This difference is

47 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

particularly evident in street patterns in the BIA as several north-south streets, like Dufferin Street, do not align when meeting at Eglinton while other streets, like Oakwood Avenue and Marlee Avenue, stop entirely. The commercial buildings also adhere to former standards and have not seen much renovation and upgrading over the past 100 years since initial construction. As a result, there is belief that the City of

Toronto will use the Crosstown construction to regulate and standardize the built form along Eglinton.

According to Nick, “the City of Toronto is going to create forced change. With the incoming condo and

LRT, we’re going to be forced into new city standards. The newest high fibre community is coming – it changes the types of businesses in the community”. In some instances, state intervention or state-led gentrification can accelerate and support more drastic change in neighbourhoods. In the 25-year observational study of New York's Harlem and Brooklyn's Williamsburg, Zukin et al. (2009), found that with state-led redevelopment, Harlem shifted toward a more corporate landscape but retained the majority of local businesses. However, Williamsburg's market-led redevelopment resulted in equal numbers of new entrepreneurial businesses and local businesses with little corporate presence. The York-

Eglinton BIA is still fortunate to house a majority of entrepreneurial businesses however, with municipal and provincial planning intervention for the Crosstown, it is likely that changes in the neighbourhood will become more attractive to corporate investment.

Contemporary city building standards are anticipated, by business owners, to bring unparalleled change in the neighbourhood with the commercial street expected to shift in character with the integration of new technologies which will encourage the establishment of new business types and a shift in the built form which will result in higher density. Mount Dennis, a Crosstown adjacent neighbourhood north-west Toronto undergoing Crosstown construction, has felt redevelopment pressures based on proximity to the new LRT transit line. As authors Rankin and McLean (2015) write, the real estate vision for the neighbourhood is aimed at replacing current residents with a more affluent population. As per

City Builder, a balanced approach was undertaken in the Eglinton Connects Study to enhance

48 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

opportunities for future residential and commercial developments with priority given to mix-used designs in identified intensification focus areas. Although transit-oriented development that supports increased density is beneficial for transit ridership, consequences can be environmental changes and social inequity

(Cervero et al., 2017). In the observation of Detroit’s M-1 streetcar line, now the QLine, Moskowitz (2017) explains that the new infrastructure is pro-gentry as the initially proposed public transit line would connect the northern suburbs to downtown. However, plans were revised to decrease the line’s proposed length to approximately one-fifth of its original size, connecting only the downtown business centre to Midtown’s education and art district (Moskowitz, 2017). Along the transit line, high-end residential buildings have already appeared, with QLine supporters admitting that despite the appearance of being designed as a public transit line, the QLine is overtly a real estate development tool (Moskowitz,

2017). Empire Midtown, a 16-storey, 219-unit condominium and townhouse development under construction at the south-west corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Oakwood Avenue (Figure 14), has been advertised as the “pioneer of the new midtown… a catalyst for major revitalization [in] the next up and coming neighbourhood” (Empire Communities, 2018). Despite the benefits of public transportation access the Crosstown will provide the BIA, the construction of the Empire Midtown signifies that planning strategies have proven in favour of inevitable redevelopment in the York-Eglinton BIA.

The question of who will benefit from area changes emerged in conversations with participants as a division between landlords and tenants was mentioned by several business owners in relation to new developments and possible profitability. As a couple of long-standing tenants explained:

We don't see relief from this. Landlords have decided to jack-up the rent. I would like rent control for small businesses after this project is done. It’s almost a gentrification. Now rent is rising in the neighbourhood. Little businesses like this just get swept up. It's nothing new, it’s just a shame that Toronto's becoming increasingly more unaffordable overall. Landlords themselves are going to do well (Participant 23). Obviously, I'm negative, it won't help. It's been declining for years, there's going to be no one left. One-by-one we're just going to give up. What are they going to do? Tenants can't get compensation, they don't pay us tenants. They pay the landlords. No one explained the extent of what was going to happen, we're as good as gone (Participant 39).

49 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

FIGURE 14: CONSTRUCTION OF THE EMPIRE MIDTOWN AT OAKWOOD AND EGLINTON

Advertising of Empire Midtown Local road closure with parked Empire Midtown Condominium at on scaffolding at the condominium construction vehicles due to Empire construction well underway at construction site Midtown development Oakwood and Eglinton Avenue West Source: Photo taken by Sousa on Janurary 20, 2018 Source: Photo taken by Sousa on August 23, 2018 Source: Photo taken by Sousa on November 19, 2018

Landlords were overall more accepting of the Crosstown project and there was mention of benefiting

from the LRT as there is the possibility to sell the building and profiting from the increase property values

once the project is completed. Tenants on the other hand noted that once the project is completed, rent

could possibly increase to an unaffordable rate resulting in further business closures and unrented units.

In Toronto's Little Portugal BIA, roughly half of all businesses are owned by Portuguese entrepreneurs

(47%) with the remaining half owned by non-Portuguese business owners (53%) who form the majority of

the BIA board. However, Portuguese individuals owned the majority of properties (over 70%) within the

BIA, renting to non-Portuguese tenants as the number of local Portuguese entrepreneurs is dwindling

(Takahashi, 2017). Little Portugal still maintains its cultural identity as majority Portuguese landlords have

the economic pull to ensure sustained representation within the area despite evidence that the

demographics of the commercial strip are evolving. In a follow up interview, six months after our initial

discussion, Nick confirmed that unlike a dominant ethnic landlord group as in the Little Portugal BIA, the

York-Eglinton BIA has more equitable distribution of business ownership and landlords from various

cultural backgrounds including Caribbean, European, Filipino, and South American with each group

50 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

fluctuating in ownership from 15-25% with 10% of businesses being owner-occupied. Nick stressed that the rapid turnover of businesses has resulted in daily fluctuation of business ownership and business types including a new animal hospital and two law firms – the possible onset of Zukin’s (2010) forewarned commercial upscaling and boutiquing in York-Eglinton.

THE FUTURE OF LITTLE JAMAICA

The York-Eglinton BIA has officially labelled the area “The International Market” while unofficially, the area is known as “Little Jamaica” in recognition of the neighbourhood’s Caribbean heritage. Hackworth and Rekers (2005, p. 215) suggest that Business Improvement Areas are a mix of commercial construction, commodified culture, and local traditions in commercial spaces that are used as tools to produce gentrification through frames of “organic expression of immigrant culture on the landscape”. Local cultural affiliation and neighbourhood identity emerged in my conversations with participants where several self-identified Caribbean businesses vocalizing concern for the area’s cultural future while others stated that the majority of ethnic businesses have already closed and the area is in a state of transition with the future of identity as uncertain. As Participant 21, Eglinton West Jamaican shop owner expressed:

We’re the last record shop, one of the last cultural shops for the Caribbean and Jamaican culture. If business gets rough, we will try to stay. Some cultural shops have closed but there has been a cultural change. There are different cultures. No longer the heart of the Caribbean city. People have moved to the suburbs and boroughs. Many of the owners who discussed heritage expressed that the neighbourhood was treated differently from other culturally-affiliated commercial strips in Toronto, and other parts of Eglinton, particularly the

Bathurst and Yonge intersections that were said to be receiving preferential treatment from governing authorities while facing similar Crosstown construction conditions.

51 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

The York-Eglinton BIA is immediately adjacent to the Eglinton West Subway Station which will soon connect to the Crosstown’s Cedarvale Station. However, unlike the eastern interchange at the

Yonge-Eglinton intersection, there are no secondary plans or additional studies for the York-Eglinton BIA area beyond the Eglinton Connects Study. Yonge-Eglinton on the other hand, has a dedicated secondary plan and falls within the boundaries of the City of Toronto’s Midtown in Focus, a City Planning-led initiative in response to the area changes, including rapid intensification “to ensure that growth positively contributes to the vitality and quality of life in one of Toronto’s most dynamic neighbourhoods” (City of

Toronto, 2014). Midtown in Focus includes a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment as one of the study components with the intent to identify properties of cultural heritage value and provide vision for the character areas (City of Toronto, 2014). Unlike the Eglinton Connects Study Heritage Analysis which examines the cultural heritage and built form of the commercial street at large, the Cultural Heritage

Resource Assessment of Midtown in Focus identifies individual properties with heritage significance. The efforts of the Midtown Study have already resulted in a council-approved mass listing of 247 heritage properties on main streets within near the Yonge-Eglinton intersection, 42 of which are on Eglinton

Avenue, just east of York-Eglinton (Toronto City Council, 2017). As for the York-Eglinton BIA, there is only one parcel, St. Hilda’s Anglican Church, listed in the City of Toronto’s Municipal Heritage Register with no designated heritage buildings under the Ontario Heritage Act, no heritage study being undertaken, and the neighbourhood is not identified as a designated district (City of Toronto, 2018).

Historic preservation was formerly the movement of protecting ‘authentic’ places, has transformed to a tool for commercial redevelopment through what Zukin (2010) calls the experience of origins including the conservation of historic buildings and districts, encouraging small-scale boutique establishment, and cultural branding of neighbourhoods. There are economic governance structures that support the conservation of heritage according to value. Value is based on a multitude of issues from beauty, quality, special significance contributing to a particular community such as historic buildings and

52 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

cultural traditions. Therefore, heritage is tied to consumption and commodification. As Barrere (2016) writes “heritage is at once both a cultural and an economic resource. With the commodification of heritages fast increasing, their supply seeks to match diverse – and sometimes conflicting demands” (p.

90). Economic pull determines and defines heritage which can be problematic as in some instances, heritages are erased, and in others, heritages can be exploited for monetary profit while simultaneously certain groups or industries are excluded from participating in heritages. Little Jamaica is one example that has been excluded from partaking in heritage. In Toronto, several BIAs have been named in official recognition local cultural heritage including Little Italy, Corso Italia, Little Portugal, Greektown on the

Danforth, Gerrard India Bazaar, Chinatown, and Korea Town. Little Jamaica’s recognition on the other hand has been limited to a laneway – Reggae Lane (Figure 15). As Participant 3 voiced:

Reggae Lane? Everyone gets a street and we get a lane. It matters who occupies the space. Other areas of Eglinton are approached differently - demographics matter. Jamaicans have been dispersed. I support progress but you need to be more sensitive to people in the neighbourhood. If you want to change the area, you should buy out the businesses. People who made a name for this area are no longer here. Restricting Jamaican heritage to a laneway exemplifies an inequity of participating in the formal heritage of the local street and an insensitivity by governing officials to the communities’ demographics.

Respondents stated that many Caribbean owners have chosen to ‘close shop’ and move elsewhere favouring suburban areas in the GTA while others pointed to the lack of black landlord and ownerships resulting in a displacement for the Caribbean community with further threat of looming redevelopment pressures. As Hubbard (2017) writes:

While retail gentrification can enhance the quality of the local shopping provision, provide new economic opportunities and enhance the local built environment through reaestheticization, the benefits are unequally felt. It’s incomers who benefit from retail gentrification, with longer-term residents often forced to relocate where retail and cultural facilities are more in keeping with their tastes and budgets. The replacement of an ‘ethnic’ goods store by a wholefood deli or upmarket boutique is not just a cultural transformation of a ‘whitening’ of a local retail environment; it’s also a class transformation that can be a harbinger of a more fundamental change in a locality (p. 5).

53 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

FIGURE 15: MURALS IN REGGAE LANE SOUTH-EAST OF OAKWOOD AND EGLINTON

Reggae Lane Entrance from Oakwood Avenue Mural at Reggae Lane Entrance from Eglinton Ave. West Source: Photo taken by Sousa on Janurary 20, 2018 Source: Photo taken by Sousa on Janurary 20, 2018

In the context of Toronto, we tend to observe this class transformation as the upscaling of places catering to a specific demographic. The intersection of race, affordability, property ownership, and displacement surfaced in a conversation with Participant 18; “It's still the heart [of the Caribbean Community] but there aren't as many Black owners. There's a different treatment”. Unlike Participant 18, Participant 16 argued that through Jamaican owners have been displaced along with the area’s Caribbean heritage. In their study in Leeds, Gonzales and Waley (2013) found that retail gentrification was a product of wider residential

gentrification processes that disproportionately impact lower-income and minority groups. This was echoed by Zukin (2010) in the study of New York’s Harlem, as the rezoning of 125th street resulted in the displacement of low-income black residents in a commercial gentrification process that was supported by planning regulations catering to new shopping opportunities. Overall, there was no consensus among participants on whether York-Eglinton is still a cultural centre for the Caribbean community. As one barber stated, the future of Little Jamaica remains uncertain as completion of the ECLRT and subsequent changes including new mix-use developments will determine if there a place for Caribbean heritage in

York-Eglinton’s future. For now, Little Jamaica remains engulfed in the “International Market”.

54 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 Conclusion: Recommendations for Heritage within Transportation Projects

Local commercial streets are integral to long-term sustainability of Toronto’s celebrated diversity and quality of place. However, as I argue in this research paper, retail heritage of the local shopping street is jeopardized as social everyday practices and exchanges are not suitably captured within

Ontario’s planning framework and municipal and provincial planning practices. Since 2010, numerous unprecedented local and regional transit projects planned, undertaken, and executed in Toronto which compromise these culturally significant streets including one of the largest transit infrastructure projects in Canada, the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. Implementation of the Crosstown and subsequent redevelopment has been met with contention by local business owners as a decrease in sales, business closures, reduction of on-street parking, and redevelopment pressures resulted in the overall loss of cultural and ethnic retailing and services as vocalized by local business owners and research participants within the

York-Eglinton BIA.

Through this case study of the York-Eglinton BIA, an area informally recognized as “Little

Jamaica”, business owners have expressed a feeling of abandonment from the planning processes feeling as if their communities have been destroyed without their consent. This is particularly evident with

Caribbean shop owners who expressed that construction mismanagement, including reduction of pedestrian and vehicle access, lack of incentives for local business owners, and blockages of storage frontages has resulted in the dispersion of the “heart of the Caribbean community”. Furthermore, additional planning studies, particularly the Midtown in Focus, have been undertaken by the City of

Toronto to guide growth while exploring protective proactive heritage measures in the Eglinton-Yonge neighbourhood next door, has advanced inequitable planning processes and practices. Despite the availability of planning tools within Ontario’s planning framework, including Heritage Conservation

55 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5

Districts in the Ontario Heritage Act, retail heritage of the local shopping street in Toronto remains contested as cultural landscape protection has yet to be legislated at the provincial level and therefore remains largely unrecognized in municipal planning practices. The exploration of the challenges with heritage legislation and opportunities of possible conservation that impact our local shopping streets is intended to allow ample time for dialogue prior to undertaking planning decisions that will permanently alter the retail heritage of these spaces. Below are recommendations that I believe would help sustain retail heritage of Toronto’s local commercial streets throughout the planning and implementation of public transportation infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION 1: (Re)define heritage within provincial planning policies and practices to capture retail heritage emphasizing intangible social and cultural aspects.

Ontario’s Heritage legislative framework including legislation such as the Ontario Heritage Act and Environmental Assessment Act are dependant on the affiliation to physical property. Often in the planning practice, designation of Heritage Conservation Districts comprise of individually designated properties within a specified area, neglecting the intangible cultural heritage and social elements that form retail heritage. Spaces between formally designated or listed buildings within commercial streets along with everyday social exchanges are invaluable contributors to shaping places where retail heritage flourishes. Therefore, to appropriately capture retail heritage within legislation and planning practices in

Ontario, Cultural Landscapes should be legislated within the Ontario Heritage Act to expand heritage definitions and review practices beyond individual properties to assessments of the relationship and interactions between people, streets, and clusters of properties. This would allow for the examination of everyday social and cultural functions within landscapes deterring stand alone building designations thereby strengthening opportunities to safeguard retail heritage.

56 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5

RECOMMENDATION 2: Enhance municipally-managed proactive conservation tools, policies, and/or strategies for commercial heritage properties and cultural retail landscapes near transit corridors, hubs, and higher order transit within the City of Toronto.

Production and implementation of municipal conservation tools, policies, and/or strategies would provide the opportunity and time to appropriately review, discuss, and designate possible heritage clusters proactively rather than as a reaction to development applications. Transportation corridors and higher order transit areas trigger redevelopment as they support higher density allocations and accessibility. With the City of Toronto experiencing rapid development rates, these municipally run tools, policies, and/or strategies would provide appropriate review times for demolition permits and designation procedures within a high-volume quick turnover system. The Midtown in Focus is a good example of a proactive municipal tool in response to the Crosstown however, future proactive tools should be inclusive of heritage beyond individual property designations. The purpose of this recommendation is not to halt development but provide equitable instruments to better assist in the conservation of commercial heritage properties and landscapes within change management processes.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Offer better incentives that support local businesses within major transit project construction areas.

Incentives for business owners within the study area were minimal. Several business owners noted that support from the City of Toronto, Government of Ontario, and Metrolinx would help sustain businesses throughout the construction process. Some possible incentives include subsidizing rent, rent control, or financial aid, free advertising online, training and monetary support assistance with e- commerce or online retail applications, providing free parking to replenish on-street parking that has been removed, and reduce parking tickets for employees, business partners, and customers to assist in smooth daily business operations improving the longevity of establishments with transit project areas deterring displacement and gentrification.

57 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5

RECOMMENDATION 4: Reduce the scope of the future transit projects to by implementing designs with less stops and/or building the project in parts in order to minimize disruptions that compromise retail heritage.

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT has resulted in negative consequences for businesses with the York-

Eglinton BIA including loss of revenue and increases in business closures. Participants place culpability on the scope of the project which subsequently led to a lack of parking, blockages of businesses for storage of construction materials, dust, noise, and inaccessibility to the area due to lane reductions, rerouting, and heavy rush hour traffic. Reducing the scope of the project would help mitigate business disruptions during the construction process would assist in fewer negative impacts particularly as less stop and/or stations would lower the construction timeline at street level resulting in less disruptions. Fewer stations would permit LRT vehicles to reach higher speeds benefiting public transit riders. Eglinton Crosstown LRT is the largest urban transportation infrastructure undertaking in North America. Unlike other projects transportation projects like the Toronto Subway that was built in phases, the Eglinton LRT line is being built at once in resulting in greater lane reduction, traffic flow issues, and unprecedented disruptions in everyday practices in midtown Toronto. If the construction project was in smaller sections, traffic would be able to flow in other areas and construction crews could be concentrated in one area at a time, mitigating impacts to the avenue at large.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Complete comparative future research studies of additional neighbourhoods along Eglinton Avenue undergoing Crosstown LRT construction and Avenue Studies of commercial streets in Toronto that have undergone similar transportation projects to better understand overall impacts to the local commercial street and retail heritage.

This research project examined the retail heritage and impacts to the local commercial street amid transit redevelopment within the York-Eglinton BIA. Some participants alluded that the project management in the York-Eglinton BIA was handled ‘differently’ than other parts of Eglinton undergoing to same project and other avenues in Toronto that have undergone similar transit redevelopment. To better

58 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5

understand if there have been inequitable project management practices along the Crosstown route, future comparative case study research should be conducted on Eglinton. Conducting case study research comparing the Crosstown LRT project with similar contemporary projects in Toronto along commercial streets undertaking higher order public transit projects would help determine if issues faced by businesses in the York-Eglinton BIA are unique, if impacts are dependant on geographic location, or if there are problematic patterns within project management processes in Toronto overall that compromise operations of local shopping streets and conservation efforts of retail heritage. Existing scholarship that examines the interconnection of transportation planning, heritage planning, and retail heritage is relatively unexplored. Studies that overlap these planning types and their implications would inform improvements to conservation strategies and contribute vital research of intangible cultural heritage in an under-informed research area.

59 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Addie, JP D. (2017). Governing the Networked Metropolis: The Regionalization of Urban Transportation in Southern Ontario. In Keil, P., Hamel, P., Boudreau, JA., & Kipfer, S. (Eds.), Governing Cities Through Regions: Canadian and European Perspectives. (pp. 121-142). Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Barrere, C. (2016). Cultural heritages: From official to informal. City, Culture and Society, 7(2): 87-94. Retrieved from: http://journals2.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/details/18779166/ v07i0002/87_chfoti.xml

Brown-Saracino, J. (2004). Social preservationists and the quest for authentic community. City and Community, 3(2), 135-156. doi:10.1111/j.1535-6841.2004.00073.x

Bow, J. (2015). “The Eglinton West Subway”. Transit Toronto: Public Transit in the GTA, Today and Tomorrow. Retrieved from: https://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5112.shtml

Boylen, J. C. (1954). York Township: An Historical Summary. The Municipal Corporation of the Township of York and The Board of Education of the Township of York: Toronto, ON.

Buckley, J. M., & Graves, D. (2016). Tangible benefits from intangible resources: Using social and cultural history to plan neighborhood futures. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2), 152-166. doi:10.1080/01944363.2016.1141663

Cervero, R., Guerra, E., & Al, Stefan (2017). Beyond Mobility: Planning Cities for People and Places. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Cinello, E. (2017). Sold! Two historic schools gone and more on the block. Living Toronto, Janurary 23. Retrieved from: https://livingtorontojournal.com/2017/01/23/sold-two-historic-toronto-schools-gone- and-more-on-the-block/

City of Toronto (2018). Heritage Property Register. http://cot-planning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Panels Legend/index.html?appid=a90bf1e72b694db5a4892dc6b170688d

City of Toronto. (2014). Midtown in Focus. Retrieved from: https://www.toronto.ca/city- government/planning-development/planning-studies-initiatives/midtown-in-focus/

City of Toronto Urban Design. (2013). Eglinton Connects Planning Study: Eglinton Story. Retrieved from: https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/urban_design/files/pdf/eglinton_story.pdf

60 | P a g e

REFERENCES

City of Toronto. (2006). Queen Street West: Heritage Conservation District Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-5172.pdf

Dover, V., & Massengale, J. (2014). Street Design: The Secret to Great Cities and Towns. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Dunklelman, D. (2002). Your Guide to Toronto Neighbourhoods. Toronto, ON: Maple Tree Publishing Inc.

Empire Communities (2018). Empire Midtown. Retrieved from: https://empirecommunities.com/ community/midtown/

E.R.A. Architects Inc. (2013). Eglinton Crosstown Study: Heritage Analysis. Toronto, ON: E.R.A. Architects Inc. for the City of Toronto.

Gibson, C., & Kong, L. (2005). Cultural economy: A critical review. Progress in Human Geography, 29(5), 541-561. doi:10.1191/0309132505ph567oa

Gonzalez, S., & Waley, P. (2013). Traditional retail markets: The new gentrification frontier? Antipode, 45(4), 965-983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01040.x

Greenwood, H. (1995). Boothby visits ‘Little Jamaica’. Toronto Star, September 14. Retrieved from: http://ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca /docview/437331786?accountid=15182

Grube-Cavers, A., & Patterson, Z. (2015). Urban rapid rail transit and gentrification in Canadian urban centres: A survival analysis approach. Urban Studies, 52(1), 178-194. doi:10.1177/0042098014524287

Hackworth, J., & Rekers, J. (2005). Ethnic packaging and gentrification. Urban Affairs Review, 41(2), 211- 236. doi:10.1177/1078087405280859

Hackworth, J., & Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification. Journal of Economic and Social Geography, 92(4), 464-477. doi:10.1111/1467-9663.00172

Heritage Toronto (2015). “Toronto’s Reggae Roots” Heritage Plaque. Toronto, ON: Heritage Toronto.

Hill, S. (2016). Constructive conservation – a model for developing heritage assets. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 6(1): 34-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD- 04-2015-0013

Hubbard, P. (2017). The Battle for the High Street: Retail Gentrification, Class and Disgust. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

61 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Random House.

Kalman, H. (2014). Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. New York, NY: Routledge.

Keenan, E. (2017). The simple way to save Toronto's heritage: Keenan. Toronto Star, April 03. Retrieved from: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/03/the-simple-way-to-save-torontos-heritage- keenan.html

King, R. L. (2016). The hidden pockets in Toronto where gentrification is really happening. TorontoStar, September 13. Retrieved from: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/09/13/the-hidden-pockets- in-toronto-where-gentrification-is-really-happening.html

Lees, L. (2003). Super-gentrification: The case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Studies 40 (12), 2487-2509. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000136174

Leow, K. (2017). How cities can save small shops. CityLab, July 24. Retrieved from: https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/07/how-cities-can-save-small-shops/534684/

Might Directories Ltd. (1833-1969). Digital City of Toronto Directories, 1833-1969. Toronto, ON: Might Directories Ltd. Retrieved from: https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/history-genealogy/lh-digital-city- directories.jsp

McCabe, B. J., & Ellen, I. G. (2016). Does preservation accelerate neighborhood change? examining the impact of historic preservation in New York City. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2), 134-146. doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1126195

McDowell, M. (2000) Heritage Toronto: Walking Tour of Village of Fairbank. Fonds 481, Series 2338, File 100. City of Toronto Archives: Toronto, ON.

Metrolinx (2018). “History”. Eglinton Crosstown. Retrieved from: http://thecrosstown.ca/node/440

Moskowitz, P. (2017). How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood. New York: Perseus Books.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2014). Provincial Policy Statement, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10679.aspx

Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. (2018). Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18

62 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. (2006a). Desginating Heritage Properties. A Guide to Municipal Desgination of Properties Under the Ontario Heritage Act. Retrieved from: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_DHP_Eng.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. (2006b). Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to District Designations Under the Ontario Hertiage Act. Retrieved from: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HCD_English.pdf

Orr, J. (1980). History of the Village of Fairbank. Fonds 481, Series 2338, File 100. City of Toronto Archives: Toronto, ON.

Pagliaro, J., & Spurr, B. (2017). How politics, not evidence, drives transit planning in Toronto. Toronto Star, September 18. Retrieved from: https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/09/18/how- politics-not-evidence-drives-transit-planning-in-toronto.html

Powe, M., Mabry, J., Talen, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2016). Jane Jacobs and the value of older, smaller buildings. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2), 167-180. doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1135072

Rankin, K. N., & McLean, H. (2015). Governing the commercial streets of the city: New terrains of disinvestment and gentrification in Toronto's inner suburbs. Antipode, 47(1), 216-239. doi:10.1111/anti.12096

Rankin, K. N, Kamizaki, K. & McLean, H. (2016). Toronto’s Changing Neighbourhoods: Gentrification of Shopping Streets. In Zukin, S., Kasinitz, P, & Chen, X. (Eds.), Global Cities, Local Streets: Everyday Diversity From New York to Shanghai. (pp. 140-169). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ripmeester, M. (2010). Missing memories, missing spaces: The Missing Plaques Project and Toronto’s public past. City, Culture and Society,1(4): 185-191. Retrieved from: http://journals2.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/details/18779166/v01i0004/185_mmmst mppatpp.xml?q=canada&search_in=anywhere&date_from=&date_to=&sort=relevance&op=AND&q= City%2C+Culture+and+Society&search_in=JOURNAL&sub=

Shipley R. & Reyburn K. (2003). Lost Heritage: a survey of historic building demolitions in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 9(2):151-168. DOI: 10.1080/1352725032000085278

Shipley, R. & Snyder, M. (2013). The role of heritage conservation districts in achieving community economic development goals. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(3): 304-321. DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2012.660886

63 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Skinner, J. (2017, October 11). Toronto plan could offer hope for struggling Eglinton businesses. Retrieved from: https://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story/7605165-toronto-plan-could-offer-hope-for- struggling-eglinton-businesses/

Spurr, B. (2018). In a city desperate for more transit, for Toronto’s Little Jamaica it could be bad news. Toronto Star, March 24. Retrieved from: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/03/08/in-a-city- desperate-for-more-transit-for-torontos-little-jamaica-it-could-be-bad-news.html

Takahashi, K. (2017). Toronto’s little Portugal: Gentrification and social relations among local entrepreneurs. Urban Geography, 38(4), 578-605. doi:10.1080/02723638.2016.1176695

TD Economics (2017). Canadian Commercial Real Estate Outlook. Toronto, ON: TD Economics. Retrieved from: https://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/qef/Can_CRE_Outlook2017.pdf

The Board of Education for the City of York. (1987). City of York: A Local History. Series 654, File 201. City of Toronto Archives: Toronto, ON.

Thomas, W. G. (1996). The Legacy of York. Series 654, File 202. City of Toronto Archives: Toronto, ON.

Toronto City Council. (2017). Inclusion on the City of Toronto’s Heritage Register – Midtown in Focus Phase 1: Main Street Properties. Retrieved from: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItem History.do?item=2017.PG22.5

Township of York. (1930-1996). York Assessment Roles. Series 545. City of Toronto Archives: Toronto, ON.

York-Eglinton BIA. (n.d.) “About the BIA”. Retrieved from: http://www.yorkbia.ca/about-bia/

Zhuang, Z. C. (2013). Rethinking multicultural planning: an empirical study of ethnic retailing. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 22(2), 90-116. Retrieved from: http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/ps/i.do?p=EAIM&sw=w&u=yorku_main&v=2.1&it=r &id=GALE%7CA369220853&asid=2d9e2cda41244d123a6c24fc12ee8146

Zukin, S. (2016). Gentrification in Three Paradoxes. City & Community, 15(3). doi: 10.1111/cico.12184

Zukin, S. (2010). Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Zukin, S., Trujillo, V., Frase, P., Jackson, D., Recuber, T., & Walker, A. (2009). New retail capital and neighborhood change: Boutiques and gentrification in new york city. City & Community, 8(1), 47-64. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2009.01269.x

64 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Zukin, S. (2012). The social production of urban cultural heritage: Identity and ecosystem on an amsterdam shopping street. City, Culture and Society, 3(4), 281-291. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2012.10.002

65 | P a g e

APPENDIX A

LIST OF SURVEYS & INTERVIEWS

Surveys with participants 1- 23: March 19, 2018

Surveys with participants 24-40: March 20, 2018

Interview 1: Nick, York-Eglinton BIA Chairman, March 20, 2018

Interview 2: City Builder, Program Manager Transportation Planning, City of Toronto, April 20, 2018

Interview 3: Ellie, Heritage Planner and Josie, Heritage Advisor, Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport, May 15, 2018

Interview 4: Nick, York-Eglinton BIA Chairman, September 17, 2018 (Follow-up Interview)

66 | P a g e

APPENDIX B

EGLINTON CROSSTOWN - BUSINESS QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Is the business located between:

Dufferin St. Northcliffe Blvd. Glenholme Ave. Oakwood Ave. Alameda Ave. & Northcliffe Blvd. & Glenholme Ave. & Oakwood Ave. & Alameda Ave. & Marlee Ave.

2. Which of the following best describes nature of the business?

 Bakery  Coffeehouse/Cafe  Fast Food / Take-out  Bar  Clothing Store  Corner / General Store  Shoe Store  Food Store  Financial Institution  Medical Office  Hair Salon  Nail Salon  Restaurant  Other: ______

3. In which year did your business open on Eglinton Avenue West? ______

4. Has your business always been at this location? ______Previous Location: ______

5. How important is it that your business remain on Eglinton Avenue West?

Very Fairly Slightly Neither Slightly Fairly Very Unimportant        Very Important

6. Would you consider relocating your business?  Yes  No  Uncertain If so, where? Why? If not, how come? ______

7. Do you think Crosstown construction has affected your business? If so, how? ______

67 | P a g e

APPENDIX B

8. Have you noticed changes in the following: a) Parking: ______

b) Automotive Traffic: ______

c) Dust: ______

d) Noise: ______

e) Access: ______

f) Business Closures: ______

9. Has your business been offered any incentives?  Yes  No  Unsure  Prefer Not to Answer If so, what kind? From who? ______

10. Do you support the LRT project?  Yes  No  Neutral  Prefer Not to Answer Overall, what do you think about the Crosstown project? ______

11. Is there anything you think I missed or anything else you’d like to talk about regarding the Crosstown Project? ______

68 | P a g e