North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

4 Beaumont Road

NORTH ROSEDALE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN

Prepared by:

E.R.A. Architects Inc. 10 St. Mary St. Suite 801 Toronto, Ontario M4Y 1P9

Date: May 03 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

AA MMeessssaaggee ffrroomm tthhee PPrreessiiiddeenntt ooff tthhee NNoorrtthh RRoosseeddaalllee RRaatteeppaayyeerrss AAssssoocciiiaattiiioonn

Fellow North Rosedale Residents:

The North Rosedale Ratepayers Association is pleased to enclose a copy of the Heritage Study for North Rosedale. This study has been in the works for more than 15 months. Our Heritage Committee, chaired by John Hogarth, and more than 50 volunteers have worked together, guided by E.R.A. Architects Inc. The study provides a brief but interesting history of the early development of North Rosedale. Additional research, including a photograph and other information for each of the 917 residential properties in North Rosedale, is now available on our upgraded web site (www.northrosedale.ca).

This report, describing the heritage merits of North Rosedale, is the result of the tremendous enthusiasm and many hours of labour on the part of a group of community-minded volunteers. We hope this study provides North Rosedale residents – present and future -- with a clear link to the origins of their community. It presents a strong rational for the adoption of a historical district for North Rosedale. The initiative and costs were underwritten by the NRRA, and supported by the help and donations of generous individuals in our community, as well as the City of Toronto.

The study has found that North Rosedale’s streetscapes have significant heritage value with 51% of the homes rated as having historical merit. North Rosedale has many significant and historical buildings on a scale that create a unique and exceptional streetscape -- bounded on three sides with ravines still in their natural state. Few neighbourhoods have such a rich architectural variety of homes, many built by renowned architects using classic styles, and many of which have been home to historically significant Canadians.

This report presents the rationale for North Rosedale to be declared a heritage conservation district by The City of Toronto. This proposal has been unanimously supported by the NRRA board of directors. The designation will provide important tools to manage future change in our community so that the best parts of our heritage and the “feel” of our streetscapes are preserved. Heritage guidelines have been developed to provide guidance and assistance to those wishing to make changes to the fronts of their properties.

Why is heritage preservation in the interests of individual property owners in North Rosedale? First, stable neighbourhoods enhance property values because they remain desirable communities. Second, guidelines such as these allow property owners to renew and make improvements while ensuring individual actions don’t have a negative impact on the streetscape. Third, the charm of what we have in the centre of a burgeoning city is truly worth preserving for many generations to come.

You can check out the information about your property on our website. Please feel free to add any relevant and interesting information by following the instructions.

Finally, on behalf of the NRRA Board and all members of the North Rosedale community, we thank all the volunteers for their many contributions to this study. Special thanks go to Councillor Kyle Rae for his enthusiasm and support, and to ERA Architects, particularly Michael McClelland and David Winterton, for their guidance that has made this report such a credible document.

On behalf of the NRRA Board,

J. Patrick Howe NRRA President

ERA Architects Inc. Page 1 May 3 2004

North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

AAcckknnoowwllleeddggeemmeennttss

When the NRRA first publicly announced it was undertaking a Heritage Conservation District Plan we were overwhelmed with 55 local residents volunteering to help with the research. Subsequently we have also had literally hundreds of community minded neighbours contribute money towards this most worthwhile study.

In particular the NRRA would like to thank the following group of volunteers for outstanding commitment and exceptional work done on behalf of our community. The dedication, enthusiasm and leadership shown by this group of volunteers is inspiring.

Gill Fortier Dorothy Macdonald Ed Freeman Carolyn MacLean Rona Gray Jim MacLean Marie Hall Nancy McFadyen Annabelle Heintzman Brian Pearson John Hogarth Michael Rodger Patrick Howe Guy Upjohn Sue Howe Kathy Von Laetham Harvey Kalles Niki Warrington Marian Lawson Jane Wilton

The following lent their time and their digital camera prowess in documenting the houses of the neighbourhood: Ed Freeman, David Greyson, Gavin Illingworth, and Brian Pearson.

In particular we commend Guy Upjohn and his consistently pleasant attitude as he tirelessly inputted all the data for the study.

Thank you all for your efforts.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 3 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

TTaabblllee ooff CCoonntteennttss

A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH ROSEDALE RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION ...... 1

LETTER FROM CITY COUNCILLOR ...... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 4

LIST OF FIGURES...... 5

1.0 SUMMARY OF THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN...... 6

2.0 BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN...... 8

2.1 PLAN METHODOLOGY...... 8 2.2 PLAN AREA ...... 8 3.0 ACHIEVING A HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ...... 9

3.1 CITY OF TORONTO (PRE-AMALGAMATION) OFFICIAL PLAN ...... 9 3.2 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT...... 10 4.0 DISTRICT ANALYSIS ...... 11

4.1 COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT 1791-1850...... 11 4.2 DEVELOPMENT 1850 - 1910 ...... 12 4.3 DEVELOPMENT 1910 – 1950...... 17 4.4 DEVELOPMENT 1950 – 2003...... 22 5.0 HERITAGE CHARACTER STATEMENTS ...... 23

5.1 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER STATEMENTS...... 23 Pre 1900 - “Victorian” ...... 24 1900-1916 – Edwardian to mid-Great War...... 24 1917-1929 – Mid war to pre-Depression ...... 25 1930-1945 – Great Depression / WWII ...... 25 1946-1967 – Post War to Centennial Expo 67...... 26 1968 - Present...... 26 5.2 STREETSCAPE CHARACTER STATEMENTS ...... 27 Zone 1 – Ravine Lands ...... 28 Zone 2 - St. Andrews College Lands...... 29 Zone 3 - Gore Lands...... 30 5.3 HERITAGE EVALUATIONS ...... 32 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION...... 35

6.1 MUNICIPAL POLICY...... 35 6.2 WHEN A HERITAGE PERMIT IS REQUIRED...... 35 6.3 WHEN CITY COUNCIL ISSUES HERITAGE PERMITS ...... 38 6.4 APPEALING CITY COUNCIL’S DECISION...... 38 6.5 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION CONTENT...... 38 6.6 HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ...... 38

ERA Architects Inc. Page 4 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

7.0 DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES...... 39

7.1 DEFINITIONS...... 39 7.2 GUIDELINES FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO HERITAGE BUILDINGS ...... 40 7.3 GUIDELINES FOR NEW BUILDINGS, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO UNRATED BUILDINGS...... 40 7.4 GUIDELINES FOR DEMOLITION ...... 41 7.5 GUIDELINES FOR LANDSCAPE/STREETSCAPE...... 41 8.0 GLOSSARY ...... 42

EDWARDIAN CLASSICISM 1900-1930...... 42 ANGLO-PERIOD REVIVALS 1890-1930...... 42 BUNGALOW 1900-1945...... 43 DOMINION MODERN 1945-1975...... 43 NEO- EXPRESSIONISM MID-1950’S-...... 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 45

APPENDIX 1: LOSS OF ORIGINAL CHARACTER...... 47

APPENDIX 2: LOST INSTITUTIONS OF NORTH ROSEDALE ...... 48

APPENDIX 3 – TYPICAL PAGE FROM HOUSE PATTERN BOOK...... 50

LLiiisstt ooff FFiiigguurreess

Figure 1: District Plan Study Area ...... 7 Figure 2: 1878 Map of Toronto and York County showing township lots ...... 11 Figure 3: Map of Yorkville (bounded by heavy line) and its vicinity: 1875...... 12 Figure 4: Outline of shore bluff of glacial Lake Iroquois (early Lake Ontario)...... 14 Figure 5: Subdivision plan for "Rosedale Park", 1884...... 15 Figure 6: North Rosedale – 19th Century Development (from Goad’s Atlas, 1890)...... 16 Figure 7: Harton Development Map, 1908 (the arrows indicate the purported golf link holes)...... 17 Figure 8: Olmsted’s general plan of Riverside, Illinois (1869)...... 18 Figure 9: North Rosedale, 1923. Goad's Atlas...... 19 Figure 10: 338 Douglas Drive - Eden Smith Architect 1912 ...... 20 Figure 11: 83 Roxborough Drive Alfred Chapman Architect (1913) ...... 21 Figure 12: 4 Beaumont Road (Frank Darling of Darling and Pearson, 1899)...... 24 Figure 13: 112 Roxborough (1914) ...... 24 Figure 14: 93 Roxborough Drive (Alfred Chapman - designed and occupied - 1927)...... 25 Figure 15: 67 Roxborough Drive (Mackenzie Waters, 1935)...... 25 Figure 16: 1 Douglas Drive (1956)...... 26 Figure 17: 4 Old George Place (Ron Thom, 1968) ...... 26 Figure 18: North Rosedale sub-zones of Development ...... 27 Figure 19: North Rosedale Heritage Evaluations ...... 34

ERA Architects Inc. Page 5 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

11...00 SSuummmmaarryy ooff tthhee HHeerriiittaaggee CCoonnsseerrvvaattiiioonn DDiiissttrriiicctt PPlllaann

Municipalities throughout Ontario have been designating Heritage Conservation Districts since 1979. There are now 64 in place across the Province1. The process of designating a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) starts with a municipal by-law (a study By-Law ) whereby City Council permits a detailed study of a proposed Heritage Conservation District to go forward. The resulting study is referred to as a Heritage Conservation District Plan by the Ontario Heritage Act. A separate designation by-law must be passed by Toronto City Council based on the recommendation to implement the findings of the plan.

This plan is the result of a City of Toronto study by-law authorizing a Heritage Conservation District Plan to be undertaken for North Rosedale. It has been prepared for consideration by City Council, and proposes the formal recognition of North Rosedale, under the Ontario Heritage Act, as a Heritage Conservation District.

The objectives of this Heritage Conservation District plan are:

to conduct research, documentation and complete a comprehensive evaluation of the historical and architectural character of North Rosedale as a means to evaluate and establish the heritage character of the neighbourhood;

to encourage and facilitate the participation and input of local residents, as well as the Municipality, in pursuing and promoting the awareness of the preservation of neighbourhood character;

to develop design guidelines to assist property owners and decision makers to assess appropriate changes and development proposals within the district, whether for altering existing buildings, or for new construction;

to recommend the establishment of a heritage advisory committee to ensure that development in North Rosedale is proactive and sympathetic to its unique heritage character. This committee will allow the community to have input on the nature of new development in the district.

The plan includes a description of North Rosedale, a brief development history, and an architectural analysis of the built form within the boundaries of the neighbourhood. It recognizes North Rosedale as an historic Toronto neighbourhood, benefiting from unique architectural diversity, history, streetscape character and wooded ravine boundaries. The plan recommends the creation of a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as a tool to aid the City and the residents of North Rosedale in strengthening and protecting the neighbourhood’s unique character.

The overall goal of the HCD will be to ensure the retention and preservation of North Rosedale’s heritage resources and to guide change so that it contributes to its architectural

1 Ontario Ministry of Culture, current at July 2003.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 6 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

and historical character. It provides guidelines so that when changes are proposed, they continue to reflect North Rosedale’s architectural and historical character. This is a resident-supported concept as shown by the financial support of its residents.

Don Valley/ old Belt Line Railway

Park Drive Reservation Mount Pleasant Road

Figure 1: District Plan Study Area (Encircled by heavy line)

ERA Architects Inc. Page 7 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

22...00 BBaacckkggrroouunndd ttoo tthhee PPlllaann

In North Rosedale there are many features, both natural and built, that make it unique in Toronto. Tree-lined streets and a predominance of architecture from the twenties and thirties are found in this secluded residential neighbourhood, bounded by ravines and reached by four vehicle access points. It is a combination of these features - and a history of prominent citizenry - that have made North Rosedale a prime residential location in Toronto. Recently, however, this neighbourhood has become a victim of its own appeal: construction activities – renovations, house expansions, and in-fills – are increasingly eroding some of the unique and characterful qualities of North Rosedale (refer Appendix 1).

To mitigate the possible negative impacts of this trend, the North Rosedale Ratepayers Association (NRRA - www.northrosedale.ca) held a public meeting in November, 2002 to gauge interest in proceeding with a heritage preservation study of their neighbourhood. ERA Architects Inc. (ERA) was retained by the NRRA to act as a professional resource for this plan.

2.1 Plan Methodology

Compiling the plan required numerous public consultations, extensive historical research and investigative work, and the formation of a NRRA working committee to co-ordinate and direct these activities. Community volunteer teams researched the history of each North Rosedale property, determining dates of construction, pattern of ownership over the first ten years since construction, and other information where available. Other volunteers assisted by compiling digital photographs of the North Rosedale built and natural form.

The information gathered by more than fifty community volunteers was sorted to form a comprehensive digital database of North Rosedale, containing historical data and photographs for each individual property. ERA used this database to develop an historical evaluation of the properties in North Rosedale, and to identify key patterns of neighbourhood development and architectural trends.

2.2 Plan Area

The boundaries of the study area are largely dictated by geography. These boundaries are also easily intuited: the northern boundary is the CPR railway line (along the base of the Lake Iroquois shore cliff). eastern is the Don Valley and Moore Park ravine, southern is the Park Drive Reservation Lands (ravine), western is Mount Pleasant Road and David A. Balfour Park.

The NRRA, which has been in existence since the twenties, also uses these boundaries to define its jurisdiction. The study area is shown in Figure 1 on the preceding page.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 8 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

33...00 AAcchhiiieevviiinngg aa HHeerriiittaaggee CCoonnsseerrvvaattiiioonn DDiiissttrriiicctt

3.1 City of Toronto (pre-amalgamation) Official Plan

The Official Plan outlines Toronto’s vision for the future shape of the city; it is a legally binding, statutory document, approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As a policy document, it guides the City in its decisions about growth and change, and how growth and development can be achieved. The Official Plan addresses how the City of Toronto will implement municipal requirements outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act.

Specific to Heritage Conservation Districts, the Official Plan states:

"It is the policy of Council to designate property to be of architectural or historical value or interest and take all necessary steps to ensure the preservation and conservation of all buildings, structures and other significant features of the property." (Section 5.4)

"It is the policy of Council to designate Heritage Conservation Districts within the City on the basis of appropriate studies and to take all necessary steps to encourage preservation and conservation of heritage buildings, structures and sites, including all areas in the public domain, within such districts." (Section 5.5)

A new Official Plan for the City of Toronto was drafted following amalgamation in 1998. This Plan was passed by City Council in November 2002 and is currently awaiting approval at the Provincial level. One of the objectives of the new Official Plan for the City is to protect stable neighbourhoods, and HCDs are one tool that can aid in the protection of such areas. Specifically, the new Official Plan states that:

“significant heritage resources will be conserved by…designating areas with a concentration of heritage resources as Heritage Conservation Districts and adopting conservation and design guidelines to maintain and improve their character” (Heritage Resources, Policy 1(b)).”

“Development will respect and reinforce the physical pattern and character of established neighbourhoods, with particular regard to…conservation of heritage buildings, structures, and landscapes.” (Neighbourhoods, Policy 5(h)).

ERA Architects Inc. Page 9 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

3.2 Ontario Heritage Act

The Ontario Heritage Act 1990 is the Provincial legislation that regulates the protection of heritage resources within Ontario. A property that has been formally recognized under provisions contained in the Act is referred to as a “designated” property. Based on these provisions, municipalities are able to consider heritage designations of either individual properties or whole neighbourhoods. The procedure for designation of a neighbourhood is summarized as follows:

The Municipality defines an area to be examined for future designation and consults with its Municipal Heritage Committee (in this case, the Toronto Preservation Board).

After examination of the study area the Municipality may designate a Heritage Conservation District through a by-law.

The Municipality notifies affected property owners and informs the Ontario Heritage Foundation of the designation.

Anyone may appeal Council’s creation of a Heritage Conservation District. If such an appeal is launched, it will be heard by the Ontario Municipal Board. If the Board approves Council’s action, the municipal by-law comes into effect.

Designation of a property under the Ontario Heritage Act (either Part IV - individual designation or Part V - Heritage Conservation Districts) means that the Municipality, with the advice of its Municipal Heritage Committee, reviews (and approves or refuses) demolition permits, building permits and planning applications. All changes affecting the reasons for designation – primarily the building’s heritage character - are examined to ensure that they are protected adequately. For properties within a Heritage Conservation District, review is confined to exterior portions of the property visible from the street (except in the case of demolition). In the City of Toronto, the Municipal Heritage Committee is the Toronto Preservation Board. The City Section that administers heritage activities is Heritage Preservation Services, a unit of the Culture Division (HPS - tel. 416-338-1077).

Currently there are seven HCD’s within the City of Toronto: Wychwood Park Fort York East Annex the Cabbagetown/Metcalfe Area Draper Street South Rosedale Yorkville/Hazleton

ERA Architects Inc. Page 10 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

44...00 DDiiissttrriiicctt AAnnaalllyyssiiiss

4.1 Colonial Development 1791-1850

The story of Toronto neighbourhoods begins with the first surveying and land-parcelling of Upper Canada, a project begun after the Constitutional Act of 1791. The British project for Upper Canada required prolific surveying expeditions (to prepare the land for orderly settlement and purchase), infrastructure planning (roads, transportation and military facilities etc.) and an ambitious colonial bureaucracy to carry it out.

Bureaucrats and surveyors organized the Province into large administrative districts which eventually evolved into Counties. These Counties were subdivided into townships and the townships organized by parallel surveyed lines (which would eventually become roads), called Concessions. The Concessions were numbered, starting from a major geographical feature, which in the case of Toronto was Toronto Bay, on Lake Ontario.

Usually this surveying did not respond practically (or aesthetically) to major geographical features. For example, lot divisions were cast over many of Toronto’s ravines. This set up the future east-west property lines of Toronto enclave neighbourhoods, like Rosedale, Deer Park, Forest Hill and Lawrence Park.

The Town of York (Toronto), which was the anchor for these early neighbourhoods, grew from ten original urban blocks. These blocks were bounded on the north by the estate Park Lots (not to be confused with the larger Township Lots) that extended from Lot Street (Queen Street) to the second Concession Line from the Bay (Bloor Street). The City began to expand in earnest by the 1840s, with most residential development occurring south of Bloor Street. Figure 2: 1878 Map of Toronto and York County showing township lots (the heavy line is Yonge Street)

ERA Architects Inc. Page 11 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

4.2 Development 1850 - 1910

The clearing of Yonge Street, one of the first provincial highways, was part of the larger Colonial ordering enterprise. Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe envisioned Yonge Street connecting York to the Upper Great Lakes. Yonge Street is of particular relevance to the development of northern Toronto, as many farms and villages developed along its length and its concession intersections. Yorkville was one such settlement, and it played a significant role in expanding Toronto’s northern “frontier” along Yonge Street, towards Rosedale.

Yorkville

Yorkville emerged as a toll village at the intersections of Bloor Street and Yonge Street. Farmers travelling to market in York could repair to the village inn in order to avoid both paying two tolls in one day and travelling all day and night back to their farms. Significant settlement started in Yorkville when Sheriff William Jarvis and Joseph Bloor entered into the speculative business of laying out village lots. Yorkville was incorporated as a village in 1853: its eastern boundary included much of South Rosedale and a small portion of North Rosedale. Figure 3 below shows this relationship between Yorkville and South Rosedale. North Rosedale remained undeveloped at this stage.

N o r t h

R o s e d a lle Yonge Street

South Rosedalle Y o r k v iilllle

Bloor Street

Figure 3: Map of Yorkville (bounded by heavy line) and its vicinity: 1875.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 12 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

South Rosedale

The area east of Yonge Street, which would eventually become known as South Rosedale, originally consisted primarily of dense forest, ravines, and streams. Rosedale took its name from the Rosedale farm, which stretched from Lamport Avenue to Yonge Street, and Park Road to Roxborough Street. The farm was built in 1821 and purchased by Sheriff William Jarvis three years later. The deep wooded ravines afforded Rosedale a measure of protection and seclusion, but made road and bridge building very difficult. The first road into the property started south of Severn’s Brewery on Yonge Street (east side, north of Davenport) and wound into the ravine, crossed the creek and climbed up to the farm. Around 1835 Jarvis built a more direct route down Roxborough, and today’s Cluny Drive. The first development in the Rosedale estate area is shown on an 1854 map of the Rose- Park subdivision (not shown); this, and further development, can be seen in the 1875 Map of Yorkville (Figure 3).

North Rosedale, in a sense, remained one ravine too distant for development and would not see any significant building or property subdivision until the twentieth century, especially until the building of Glen Road bridge in 1881 and the completion of the ravine roads, (Roxborough in particular). Residential development in South Rosedale continued more or less steadily from the 1860’s on.

North Rosedale

The east-west township lots that cut across the northern boundary of North Rosedale (Lots 17, 18, 19) changed hands over many years but generally remained in large tracts for real estate speculators to publicize. These subdivision registrations were seldom realized and were relegated to maps. This well-known strategy generated name recognition, boosted funding potential and, in some cases, secured infrastructure investment. For example, the Rose-Park subdivision first appeared in maps as early as 18542. Infrastructure investment was required for North Rosedale lot subdivisions, as access to the plateau would remain very difficult without it. Edgar Jarvis, a nephew of Sheriff Jarvis, built the original North Iron Bridge over the Park Drive Reservation in 1881. The City eventually bought it from him at a fraction of the cost.3 This provided the first real access point into North Rosedale, paving the way for residential development on his (and other speculators) lands.

In 1884 the Canadian Pacific Railway mid-town line began service though North Rosedale. This industrial line, which followed the shore bluff of the ancient glacial Lake Iroquois, formed the northern boundary of the neighbourhood (see figure 4). This boundary was further emphasized when a high fence was erected to enclose the railway (the pedestrian bridge passing over the railway was erected in the 1940s).

2 Yorkville in Pictures 1853-1883. 1978: 4 3 ibid, page 4

ERA Architects Inc. Page 13 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Figure 4: Outline of shore bluff of glacial Lake Iroquois (early Lake Ontario); courtesy Ed Freeman.

The next step in opening up North Rosedale was the provision of public transportation. In 1889 a group of businessmen formed the Toronto Belt Line Railway Company, a commuter railway that would connect new areas to the north with the then rapidly expanding City.4 Services to stations including Moore Park, Fairbank and Lambton Mills (among others) started in July 1892. Part of this rail line ran through the Moore Park Ravine, forming North Rosedale’s eastern boundary. The Toronto Belt Line Railway Company failed in 1894 after just 28 months in operation. Today, the remnants of the Belt Line provide recreational trails.

The first lots to sell in North Rosedale were those closest to Jarvis’s newly-built Glen Road Bridge, on Beaumont Road. Many of the first purchasers were speculators who bought several lots in the hopes of capitalizing on their investments; these buyers were not disappointed - the market value on these lots skyrocketed from $1,200 in 1884, to $2,500 in 1885, and to $2,650 in 1887.5 Occupants of these lots included Francis Despard, secretary- treasurer of the Ammonia Company of Toronto, and Julian Sale of the Julian Sale and Company, manufacturers of pocket books.6 In about 1880, the Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company was formed in Glasgow, Scotland. This company held licenses to conduct business in the two Provinces, with the Ontario operations occurring mostly in North Rosedale. Shortly after formation of the company, the plan for “Rosedale Park” was registered (see Figure 5). The first block of land placed on the market comprised lots on both sides of Bin-Scarth Road, named after the Toronto manager of the Scottish-based company. The Rosedale Park subdivision provided very large residential lots, and a

4 www.geocities.com/chrisdube_1/beltline.htm (visited November 21, 2003) 5 Crawford, B. Rosedale. 2000: 129 6 Crawford, B. Rosedale. 2000: 130

ERA Architects Inc. Page 14 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

comparatively low residential density. Access to many of these lots remained difficult however, because few other roads led north into the North Rosedale area (Mount Pleasant Road did not yet exist), and public transit service was inadequate. Consequently, investment was slow in coming, and the Rosedale Park subdivision did not develop in this form.

Figure 5: Subdivision plan for "Rosedale Park", 1884.

Nearly ten years after Glen Road Bridge was constructed, the rate of development in North Rosedale was still slow. The 1890 Goad’s Atlas shows the first pockets of development on Bin-Scarth and Glen Road, as well as within the smaller lot subdivisions to the north of Summerhill Avenue (refer to Figure 6).

ERA Architects Inc. Page 15 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Occupation Address Date

Teacher 43 Standish Av 1922 Labourer 45 Standish Av 1908 Bricklayer 48 Standish Av 1928 Gardener 63 Standish Av 1911 Foreman 70 Standish Av 1908 Grocer 408 Summerhill Av 1923 Granite Cutter 410 Summerhill Av 1911 School Inspector 428 Summerhill Av 1928 School Steward 438 Summerhill Av 1912

Table: Example of Worker Housing north of Summerhill Avenue

Figure 6: North Rosedale – 19th Century Development (from Goad’s Atlas, 1890).

ERA Architects Inc. Page 16 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

4.3 Development 1910 – 1950

After the turn of the century, Toronto entered a period of rapid economic and population growth. At this time, Harton Walker, who started the Harton Walker Real Estate Company in 1889, was associated with the Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company7 - owners of most of the North Rosedale real estate. In 1908, Walker released a new subdivision plan for lands owned by the Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company (previously identified as Rosedale Park, Figure 5). North Rosedale Park, as it was renamed, was vastly different to the previous plan of subdivision on these lands, having nearly twice as many land parcels than the previous one (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Harton Development Map, 1908 (the arrows indicate the purported golf link holes).

The Scottish origins of this new subdivision are evident in its street names. Highland Avenue was so named to represent the many Scottish Highland shareholders of the land company. MacLennan and Edgar avenues were both named after advisors to the company - the Honourable Justice MacLennan, then on the Supreme Court bench at Ottawa, and Sir James Edgar, Q.C. and Speaker of the House of Commons. Whitney Avenue was named after the then Premier of Ontario, Sir James Whitney.

7 Crawford, B. Rosedale. 2000: 131

ERA Architects Inc. Page 17 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

The sweeping street layout of Harton’s subdivision differed greatly from the typical Toronto rectilinear street grid. This layout reflected a growing trend in urban reform of the time, aimed at making cities more healthy, moral and equitable. Beginning with the work of landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted (1822-1903), this movement became known as the City Beautiful Movement.8 Olmsted’s creation of Central Park, New York (Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, begun 1858), and the ambitious design for Mount Royal Park, Montreal (Olmsted 1874-77), set an impressive precedent in urban park design. Riverside, Illinois is considered the best example of Olmsted's residential suburb design (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Olmsted’s general plan of Riverside, Illinois (1869).

Olmsted’s designs were meant to counteract the rapidly industrialized 19th-century landscape with natural, greener living environments. His residential design principles included “gracefully curved lines [in street layouts], generous spaces, and the absence of sharp corners…the idea being to suggest and imply leisure, contemplativeness and happy tranquillity.”9

While not entirely conforming to these principles, many aspects of Walker’s North Rosedale Park streets layout demonstrate Olmsted’s suburban planning ideas (refer Figure 8): the inner roads of the community were made as scenic as possible, that is, the streets are

8 Kalman, H. A History of Canadian Architecture. 1994: 649 9 http://www.essexheritage.org (visited November 4, 2003)

ERA Architects Inc. Page 18 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

curvilinear and produce a triangular traffic park and the use of right angle intersections has largely been avoided. The North Rosedale streetscape design, and to a similar degree that of South Rosedale, is significant because it is unlike that of any other of that vintage in Toronto.

The 1923 Goad’s Atlas (refer Figure 9) shows the neighbourhood layout to be almost as we know it today. Douglas Drive and St. Andrews Gardens are laid out, and significant residential development has occurred on Roxborough, Whitney, Bin-Scarth, Edgar, Highland and Edgewood. Saint Andrews College (1905 – 1927) and Government House (1911 – 1961) are shown on this map. These institutions both influenced development in North Rosedale, and their very location there suggests the growing status of North Rosedale accorded by Toronto’s elite. Development pressure was so great at this time that the St Andrew’s College lands were earmarked for subdivision. The College eventually moved out of North Rosedale four years later. (Detailed information on St Andrew’s College and Government House is included in Appendix 2).

The Toronto Lacrosse Grounds, originally part of the St. Andrews College, was spared this subdivision. These grounds, which had seen the inaugural Grey Cup football game played on December 9th 1909, eventually became Rosedale Park. The previously undeveloped parts of North Rosedale served as the Rosedale Golf Course, which also relocated north in that same year.

St. Andrews College

Government House

Figure 9: North Rosedale, 1923. Goad's Atlas.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 19 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

The immediate pre- and interwar period was a time of great advancement in a distinctively Canadian domestic architecture (refer to Journal of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada July 1928 Recent Domestic Architecture in the Province of Ontario). Architects like Eden Smith (see below), John Lyle (champion of a truly Canadian sensibility in architecture, who took motifs from Canadian architectural history and iconography), Hugh Allward, a prominent architect (and son of Canada's most important monumental sculptor in the first third of this century Walter Allward), and Alfred Chapman (important in the application of stylized Canadian motifs for decoration) all left their marks in North Rosedale.

Eden Smith (1858/9-1949) was an admired Toronto architect who understood ‘proper’ British architectural heritage and adapted it to an (Upper) Canadian climate and society. He was most active from the turn of the century to the Great War.

Through his house designs, many of which can be found clustered in the areas of Rosedale, Wychwood Park and the Annex, Eden Smith developed a new and ‘appropriate’ aesthetic and a housing type that had a strong influence on local domestic architecture.

Figure 10: 338 Douglas Drive - Eden Smith Architect 1912 (B rating: prominent architect, excellent situation, contributes to the heritage character)

Domestic architecture in Toronto at the close of the nineteenth century was typically arranged with front double parlours, front entrance and kitchen extension in the back, with little regard for compass orientation. Eden Smith houses in contrast demonstrated great concern for their environments. They typically employ a side entrance (allowing more usable space on the street façade, giving access to more light), have most principal rooms face south (even if this meant rear placement, an area normally reserved for the kitchen or servants quarters) and create some relationship between the house and its garden. At the time, the placement of the main entrance at the side was considered quite radical, despite the fact that it was couched in ‘English’ architectural vocabulary.

His architecture celebrates the modest, “styleless” functionality of the vernacular. In North Rosedale, the following houses are attributed to Eden Smith:

ERA Architects Inc. Page 20 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

20 Bin-Scarth Rd. 1906 260 Douglas Dr. 1915 338 Douglas Dr. 1912 17 Edgar Ave. alteration 1912, garage 1913 97 Glen Road alteration 1912 119 Glen Road 1911

Alfred Chapman (1879 – 1949) is one of Toronto’s distinguished architects. Educated at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, and gaining practical experience in New York City, Chapman began practising architecture in Toronto in 1907. Around this time he won competitions for various commissions including the Toronto Public Reference Library (now the U of T Bookstore) and, in the partnership of Chapman and McGiffen, Knox College.10 Throughout the interwar period, in partnership with J. Morrow Oxley, Chapman was involved with many other notable commissions including the Princes’ Gates, CNE (1927), Toronto Hydro Building, Carlton Street (1932) and the Royal Ontario Museum, Queen’s Park (1932). While most of his projects involved similarly large commissions, Chapman was also responsible for smaller houses of great charm. Chapman’s many works are still evident across Toronto today, from the striking civic structures of the downtown to picturesque residences of North Rosedale, all three of which were designed and built for himself and his family, and all on Roxborough Drive. Chapman’s Rosedale houses are:

77 Roxborough Drive (Chapman and McGriffin, 1913) 83 Roxborough Drive (Chapman and McGriffin, 1913) 93 Roxborough Drive (Chapman and Oxley, 1927)

Figure 11: 83 Roxborough Drive Alfred Chapman Architect (1913) (C rating: prominent architect but appears to have undergone some alterations i.e. painting; contributes to the heritage character of the area)

10 Chapman, H. Alfred Chapman: The Man and his Work. 1976: 4-6.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 21 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

4.4 Development 1950 – 2003

By 1950, cities were making adjustments to new social realities that were occurring throughout North America. The end of World War II brought with it a housing crisis for returning veterans and refugees, and an ever-increasing urbanized, itinerant population. To counter this shortage, super-block public-housing projects began appearing and in some instances completely replaced pre-existing neighbourhoods (for example, Regent Park South, Cabbagetown). While North Rosedale did not suffer this fate, to a small degree it succumbed to another common solution to the housing problem, which saw many larger homes in the formerly elite Victorian neighbourhoods (for example, areas around Jarvis, and Pembroke) converted to apartments and rooming houses.

Coinciding with this period of urban renewal was the suburban expansionist movement, facilitated by the relatively affordable and highly desirable motorcar. In a typical traffic engineering solution of the time, Mount Pleasant Road was cut through part of the Park Drive Reservation in 1950. This road was designed to facilitate suburban expansion - it is for fast traffic, and one could easily drive past two of the four entry points to North Rosedale without realizing it. The creation of this Road was the only real impact incurred by North Rosedale during the 1950s boom period (it severed Roxborough Dr.), and it could be argued that it served to further segregate North Rosedale from the expanding City.

Some more recent buildings and renovations contribute to and support the character of North Rosedale. Many of these homes replicate historic styles evident throughout the neighbourhood; however, it is difficult to assess the heritage value of these recent buildings. As such, buildings from the 1960s onwards have generally not been examined in this plan. An exception to this is some fine examples of modernist homes designed by prominent architects. These include:

Eberhard Zeidler, #11 Beaumont Road John C. Parkin (for John B. Parkin Associates), residence on 3 Old George Place (1960) Ron Thom, residence at 4 Old George Place, The Fraser Residence (1968) – well documented and appears in “Canadian Architecture 1960/70” book Barton Myers, residence on 51 Roxborough (1974) – well documented modern house

ERA Architects Inc. Page 22 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

55...00 HHeerriiittaaggee CChhaarraacctteerr SSttaatteemmeennttss

Residential streets in any neighbourhood have a unique character. This character is a function of age, location, setbacks and lot size, periods of construction, landscape character, topography and socio-economic history. Some streetscapes may be unpleasant due to lack of landscape, too much traffic noise and ill-scaled and poorly maintained buildings, but these negative aspects can be improved through community will and action. Other streets are pleasant in intangible ways that can nevertheless be described, and it is this character that we seek to enhance and protect.

Heritage character statements define and describe the sometimes subtle qualities of neighbourhoods (or buildings) and objectively try to identify their constituent elements. These descriptions serve to guide new development to understand and complement existing character.

North Rosedale sits on a secluded plateau bounded by the Park Drive Reservation ravine and the Moore Park Ravine which meet at the Don Valley. These ravines provided a natural defence from encroaching development because they obstructed its progress: development in North Rosedale would either have to go around or wind through these ravines (lengthy and arduous) or build across them with bridges (costly). So, originally a hindrance to development, the ravines serendipitously formed a natural boundary for the residential enclave of North Rosedale.11

Exploring these ravines, it is possible to forget you are in the middle of an urban area in close proximity to the downtown. Robert Fulford describes Toronto’s ravines as being “…what the canals are to Venice and hills are to San Francisco.”12 The richly vegetated ravines bounding North Rosedale have played a prominent role in shaping and maintaining its enclave character and natural heritage. This is evident in both its unique streetscape as well as its few and notable entry points across the ravines.

5.1 Architectural Character Statements

The built environment of North Rosedale can be divided into corresponding aesthetic thresholds of the twentieth century, periods where strains of economics, politics and architectural design were more or less consistent. North Rosedale’s influential periods of development are detailed below. They include:

Pre 1900 - “Victorian” (mostly Queen Anne); 1900-1916 - Edwardian to mid-Great War; 1917-1929 - mid war to pre-Depression; 1930-1945 - Great Depression / WWII; 1946-1967 - post War to centennial – Expo 67; and 1968-present.

11 Zeidler, E. The Nature Trails of Rosedale in Exploring Toronto. 1972: 88. 12 Fulford. Accidental City 1995: 37

ERA Architects Inc. Page 23 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Pre 1900 - “Victorian” Few North Rosedale houses were built in 19th Century. Those that were are mostly near Glen Road Bridge and Beaumont Road.

Figure 12: 4 Beaumont Road (Frank Darling of Darling and Pearson, 1899) (B Rating: pre –1900; prominently located; prominent architect)

1900-1916 – Edwardian to mid-Great War Many North Rosedale homes are built in this period, the majority of which are located south of Summerhill Avenue. The dominant style here is Edwardian classicism, however some fine Arts and Crafts designs are located throughout.

Figure 13: 112 Roxborough (1914) (C rating: good example of style, contributed to heritage character)

ERA Architects Inc. Page 24 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

1917-1929 – Mid war to pre-Depression The desire for Canadian influence in art and architecture was strongly felt in this post-war period. Most Victorian decorative exuberance was rejected, perhaps a result of the sobering trauma of the war and its sacrifices. Refined and still largely academic Tudor and Georgian styles are common. There was a proliferation of pattern books for houses in this period (refer Appendix 3).

Figure 14: 93 Roxborough Drive (Alfred Chapman - designed and occupied - 1927) (B rating: Prominent location; prominent architect; good example of style)

1930-1945 – Great Depression / WWII In this period, domestic architecture began to respond to the influence of modernity and its machine aesthetics, exhibiting a more reductive expression than the previous architectural period. The styles have recognizably Tudor and Georgian forms, but are reduced and geometrized, and sometimes display Art Deco and Art Moderne influences.

Figure 15: 67 Roxborough Drive (Mackenzie Waters, 1935) (B rating: prominent location; prominent architect; interesting/rare example of style).

ERA Architects Inc. Page 25 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

1946-1967 – Post War to Centennial Expo 67 Development in this period is characterized by modern ranch style homes. Additionally, some extreme renovations of older homes replaced historical detail.

Figure 16: 1 Douglas Drive (1956) (unrated; too recent to be evaluated in terms of heritage significance) 1968 - Present Some very fine modern and post-modern homes were constructed in this period, which was dominated by renovation and rebuilding. The following well-known architects built in North Rosedale: Barton Myers, Ron Thom, John Parkin, and Eberhard Zeidler.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 26 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

5.2 Streetscape Character Statements

Streetscape character defines the qualities of a neighbourhood’s sense of place taken from the pedestrian scale and as one would experience it walking down the street. Generally, ‘streetscape’ means the architectural and landscape character of the immediate streets, and defines the qualities of elements such as landform, landscape and tree canopy, building form, proportion and scale, separation, setbacks and materiality.

In examining streetscape character, it is useful to correlate historical development patterns with topography. In doing this, three distinct sub-districts (zones) of development can be identified in North Rosedale. These three zones, all of which exhibit their own development patterns, architectural heritage and streetscape character, have been labelled “Ravine Lands,” ”St. Andrew’s College Lands,” and “Gore Lands.” North Rosedale’s proposed zones of historical development are depicted in figure 18 below.

Figure 19: North Rosedale sub-zones of historical Development

ERA Architects Inc. Page 27 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Zone 1 – Ravine Lands Description The “Ravine Lands” zone includes the first North Rosedale lands to be developed. It is bounded by the ravines to the southwest and east. The northern boundary of the Ravine Lands is the rear property line of the houses on the south side of Douglas Drive (Township lot #18 boundary), Chorley Park and ravine properties up to Governor’s bridge. Topography/Development This zone’s relationship to the ravines is definitive of the genius locus (spirit of the place). The steep slopes and dense vegetation can be described as the chief characteristic of the local terrain. Although not evident from the street, entry to North Rosedale is through or across the ravines, so their presence is palpable. Architecture The Victorian and Edwardian architecture within this zone indicates the age of many of the houses. The majority of the architecture is of above average scale, size and architectural articulation and generally is balanced between the asymmetrical and varied elevations of the (revived) English vernacular and the symmetrical, but not strictly formal, English classical and colonial models (often simply referred to as Georgian). Some fine Arts and Crafts style houses dot the zone. Materials/Details In terms of an architectural mood, qualities of heaviness and stolid permanence predominate, due to the abundance of thick brick or stone masonry (red brick predominates) and punctuated windows. This is somewhat balanced with the lightness of wood detailing in the Queen Anne style, especially in gable half timbering. Many well- detailed dormers and high pitched roofs are noted. Soffits vary widely and eaves are of inconsistent heights. Rooflines are varied, gabled and often highly dramatic or picturesque. Types Many houses fit the centre-hall entrance layout type. Few of these employ porches. Edgar Avenue has the most consistently-proportioned street elevations (close to the golden rectangle of 8:5, width to height), typical of most of the centre-hall houses in the district. Lots Lot sizes in this zone vary by street but generally they are neighbourhood-average to very large (e.g. 93 Highland Avenue). As mentioned, many of these lots have striking aspects on the ravines, and are designed to maximize the ravine topography (modern houses on the south side of Beaumont and the extreme eastern curve of Roxborough are good examples of this). This topography presented an opportunity for architectural drama that the modernist architects of the 1960’s and after pursued with aplomb.

Elements of the Ravine Lands character include: • Ravine edge topography; • Olmsted (curvilinear) subdivision pattern with larger than average lot sizes; • Good examples of Victorian, Edwardian and Arts and Crafts architecture; varied and asymmetrical elevations balanced with English classicism; • Complementary mix of inter-war and modern styles in ravines; • Dwelling height & scale of large proportions – grander than average scale; • Front, side and rear dwelling setbacks vary, but larger than average; • Front yards characterized by a variety of large trees and leafy canopy; • Quality stonework and brick masonry with robust and simple classicized detailing;

ERA Architects Inc. Page 28 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Zone 2 - St. Andrews College Lands

Description The St. Andrews Lands zone is the intermediate area of North Rosedale, bounded by Douglas Drive to the south and Summerhill Avenue to the north. This zone, part of which was laid out on grounds of the former St. Andrews College (see appendix 2), has a more rectilinear street layout than the rest of North Rosedale. Topography/Development After the turn of the twentieth century and especially after World War One, development continued apace in this, the core of North Rosedale. In the last area of the zone to be developed (Douglas Dr. and Whitehall Road, west of MacLennan), there is much consistency in the proportion of houses, size of set backs and house layout types. The effect is of a coherent overall street design. There is a sense of well-scaled order and a pleasant quasi-urban spatial enclosure compounded by a tree canopy. Non-conformity with the existing streetscape should be strongly resisted here as one odd development could trouble the whole street composition. Architecture The dominant architectural style of this period is again Edwardian Classicism, but slightly less elaborate than in the Ravine zone. There are some period revivals, some good Arts and Crafts examples and a greater number of more typical Toronto red brick “foursquares.” Many of these, especially on St. Andrews Gardens, sport generous front porches. These porches generally have brick bases and painted wood pillars and soffits. These elements are sometimes the only classical detail on the building. They are generally seen balanced with 2 storey wood bay windows. Materials/Details Brick predominates again but is combined with more light coloured stucco and half timbering than in the Ravine zone. There is more variation in brick colour too (although red/brown still predominates), with some attractive tawny examples, and some interesting experiments in clinker brick, an Arts and Crafts favourite. The general colour tone is an earthen, organic tone of light brown to red. The eastern part of the zone has varied gables and picturesque rooflines while the western part of the zone has geometrically simple, and sometimes steep gable roofs. Generally, roof pitches are medium to steep. Eaves heights are remarkably similar throughout the zone. East of MacLennan Ave. especially, soffits are deep (min. 18”), often with bracketed articulation. Many of the houses display well- detailed dormers, bay windows and articulated gables. Types Generally, the houses on Whitehall are side hall front entrance types while on Douglas Drive they are centre-hall entrance types. St Andrews Gardens has varied house types.

West of MacLenan the house types are simplified and styles are generally “applied to the brick box.” As mentioned, the houses on Douglas Drive and Whitehall Road are of consistent size, proportion (rectangular 8:5 - width to height - on Douglas or cubic on Whitehall), height and layout. On Whitehall Road there is an alternation of exterior detailing (alternating reductive Georgian or Tudor styles), where building elements such as window shapes, door treatments, roof pitches and ornamentation are alternated. For example, half timbering and tudor arches on one house are juxtaposed with brickwork, classical portals and denticulated cornice moulds on the next. This pattern has been maintained, as most original dwellings remain intact, and there are relatively few

ERA Architects Inc. Page 29 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

interventions of modern infill. Many of the houses feature controlled amounts of quality building materials which include some ashlar at entry surrounds, copper for flashings and bay window tops etc. Lots Lot sizes in this zone are consistent with those throughout North Rosedale, but slightly smaller west of MacLennan and larger east of Glen Road. Elements of the St Andrews Lands character include: • Flat topography; • Rectilinear subdivision pattern with curvilinear distortion at St. Andrews Gardens; • Variety of Edwardian, Arts and Crafts, Tudor and Georgian architectural styles; • Regular front and side setbacks, consistent with adjoining dwellings; • Consistent eaves line; • Well defined street face enclosure west of MacLennan; • Applied ornamentation to brick “box” in area west of MacLennan; • Large prominent street trees providing good canopy coverage;

Zone 3 - Gore Lands

Description This is the northernmost zone within North Rosedale, and includes lands between Summerhill Avenue and the CPR train tracks. This zone is the most densely built-up settlement of North Rosedale, differing from the other zones by smaller lot sizes and side setbacks. Topography/Development Some lots were developed in the 19th century when these lands were at the fringe of urban life, close to the pastures and farms of the countryside. Because these are north-south streets the building elevations have a more equal exposure to daylight than in the other zones. Topographically, there is a significant rise from Summerhill towards the CPR line. Architecture The higher density found in this zone is balanced by a relatively modest scale of housing, with some smaller front yards and minimal side yard setbacks. The architectural styles of the housing stock vary, ranging from simple undecorated foursquares, semidetached town houses, workers cottages, unusual flat roofed art moderne homes and a collection of sturdy modest bungalows [see definition in Glossary] with full-width, low slung verandahs. These verandahs suggest inhabited “street rooms” that mere porches do not and add an element of street life perhaps not as evident in the other zones. Land uses still vary in this zone today, with pockets of light commercial located on Summerhill. Materials/Details This zone is the least consistent materially. Nevertheless, the majority of houses are red/brown brick with controlled amounts of ashlar stone. There is some half-timbering and a few very interesting brick pre-W.W.II flat roofed houses that add an art moderne flavour to the streetscape, especially on Astley Avenue. There have been some modest modern interventions and ambitious post-modern architectural renovations.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 30 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Some light-coloured stuccoing has occurred in some of the renovated homes. White clapboard siding is seen in many front gables. Because of this, if the materiality of the other zones could be described as dark, due to the patina of old red brick, stone and dark slate roofs, this zone seems the lightest in tone. Roof lines vary widely and except for the flat roofed houses are generally pitched with simple dormers. Types Edgewood Crescent is a good example of an intact Edwardian streetscape of well-detailed foursquares with generous porches, a preponderance of half timbering in steep gables and some very excellent examples of gambrel roofed houses. The eaves are typically deep with articulated soffits. The houses display a similarity of proportions which can be read obliquely from the curves of the S-shaped street. The house proportions are generally cubic with side hall entrance types. Projecting bays and porches are common. The streetscape in this zone is dictated by smaller property frontage and smaller lot sizes.

Elements of the Gore Lands character include: • Topography: consistent rise to northern ridge; • Lot sizes are smaller than average, with deeper yards and narrow street frontage; • Dwelling setbacks are non-uniform; side setbacks are much smaller than average; • Great variety of architectural styles, proportions; • Complementary mix of inter-war, modern styles and typical Toronto bungalows etc.; • Higher density housing closer to commercial centre; • Street trees vary in spacing, species and frequency;

ERA Architects Inc. Page 31 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

5.3 Heritage Evaluations

All properties within a Heritage Conservation District are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Furthermore, properties are individually categorized to identify the buildings that contribute more significantly than others to the district’s heritage character. Four categories are used for this purpose.

Evaluations of all the buildings in the study area were undertaken by the team and presented to the residents’ committee (refer Appendix 4). Evaluations were based on existing documentation; they could foreseeably change as additional information becomes available. The evaluation categories are:

"A": Buildings that are individually outstanding and have actual or potential national or provincial significance. The building must have one or more of the following criteria:

it is one of the earliest remaining buildings in the neighbourhood, it shows a significant design by a prominent architect, it exhibits a significant construction showing excellence of materials and craftsmanship, it had or has an historically significant occupant, and it contributes to the heritage character of the HCD.

“B”: Buildings that are noteworthy for their overall quality and have citywide significance. The building must have one or more of the following criteria:

it is a pre-1900 building, it is a post-1900 building designed by a prominent architect, it meets "A" criteria but has undergone alterations, it is a prominently located property, and it contributes to the heritage character of the HCD.

“C”: Buildings that contribute to the heritage character and context of the neighbourhood. The building must have one or more of the following criteria:

it meets "B" criteria but has undergone alterations, it exhibits no current evidence of design by a prominent architect, and it contributes to the heritage character of the HCD.

"Unrated": Buildings which are not of national, provincial, citywide or contextual heritage significance and do not contribute to the heritage character of the HCD or buildings which are too recent to be accurately evaluated for their heritage value.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 32 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Properties that are in the “A” or “B” categories are landmarks of significant merit and stand on their own. The evaluation of the "C" category is related to the context of a neighbourhood. Examined on an individual basis, or in an isolated context, it is difficult to attribute a "C" category building heritage status, but within an area of heritage significance a "C" property is a property which contributes to the overall heritage character of the neighbourhood, district or area, and which merits preservation because of its contribution to and support of the neighbourhood character.

Outbuildings and gardens have not been evaluated separately from principal structures as these elements are not included in the reasons for designation.

Some recent buildings contribute to and support the character of the HCD. Many of these homes replicate historic styles in response to their neighbourhood context; however within the context of a heritage plan, it is difficult to fairly assess the heritage value of these recent buildings. Several buildings from the last period (1968 to 2002) have not been rated. In time, these buildings should be considered for their own potential heritage value. There are some very fine modernist homes designed by prominent architects. These have been rated.

A map of the proposed North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District showing the evaluation of each building is included on the next page (Figure 19). Unrated buildings are unshaded. Of the 919 buildings in the area, the number of heritage buildings is 467 or approximately 51% of all buildings in the area.

‘A’s 6 (<1%) ‘B’s 43 (5%) ‘C’s 418 (45%) Total 467 (51%)

This is substantially more than the number of heritage buildings in North Rosedale currently recognized by the City of Toronto. Pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, the City maintains a list of all designated properties within Toronto, be they designated individually or as part of a district. This list is referred to as the Inventory of Heritage Properties (the “Inventory”). In addition to designated properties, the Inventory also includes heritage properties that have not been formally designated under the Act but are similarly worthy of protection. In this instance, such properties are referred to as being “listed”. The total number of North Rosedale properties currently included on the City’s Inventory of Heritage Properties is as follows:

Designated 1 0.1% Listed 13 1.4% Total 14 1.5%

ERA Architects Inc. Page 33 May 3 2004

1 0 7

2 1

1 3 1

L S 11 S 9.

7 9

1 3 3 T

T 73

1 0 0 D R

L D O O

S O W N R

L O S H 1 5

3 T

L B S

1 3

T 7 O

C R

R O

9 4

1 3

9 74

U L

S E 77

G 5

S 5

C 117 C

1 1

4 A S

E L H

S 3

N E

1 0 6 1 3 4

E S

T S 1 2

0 7

5 5

T 8

103 B 1 4 5

R N

1 7 4

D T

7 P

1 9 4

L 1

S 1

8. T D 5

R 80

S 1

H T U 0 1 ( 0 1

A L ) 1 1 O 5

S T S 82

L S

1 1 2 1 3 5 D

8 a

S 8 1 1 i 1 5

5 6 9.

5 d

6 1

1 9

L S

6 1

0 4 1 5

2 7 2

1 . 1

1 1 7.8

166 B

1 5

6 a

8 l

1 6 7 10

r 2 L

S .9

1 2 0 (170C) P 170 (170A) a 117 r .6 (170B) k W

1 9

L E L

S L

S 172 N 1

0 L

6 S

T .

S 6 L

1 2 4 S

L T L 1 7

1 S S

L L

H S

1 A 1

2 11 S

7 L

. S 4 M

O U

174 N

M T

S P

T L

1 2 6

E 1 7 3

A T

S L

A L

N S

T L

T EVALUATIONS DRAFT HERITAGE - May 3 2004 DISTRICT CONSERVATION HERITAGE NORTH ROSEDALE

P L

L S S R

D L L

S S

S L

L L T

T L

L L

1 S

176 S

1 S

3 L

. L

5 L P

S G S 1 3

0 L

T t S

G 1

M R O N T

L U P L E A A T S N D R

3 L H S

3 o P

L 1 7 7 A

N S

1 2 3 4

N 1

1 a

S L

0 S S

3 7

.9 D

3 k

L T

L W

W P

S L

L S

S L L S

D S

S S

a 1 7

9 L

H 1 S

L 1 1 S 3

7 4 T r

.9 r

L i k

S v T

1 e e

2 2 L

e 5.3 S

R P

h L

S t

a L

e R

H a

s S

L L

S S l

e 1

0 s

2 M 2.

O 2 r

e 4

L U S N D 8

T v

L 1

r S

P 1 1 2 L

L 2

r a

1 E v

AS 4 6 A i

L N 4

T L a

S R R

1 D

2 S

L e

o S

L G

S H D L

i L L S 3

L A

L S

S L S

S N

n S o

C IH

n R

L E

L L

S S

L 1 L

6 S

33 S a HI

S 1

1 2 G L 3 S

2 2 H d P

9 n C 29 .4 L 7

L A N

3 S D

A a

d C L R S

L E

S L

R L

S s

S 2 5

1 k T 4 5 1

1 C

1 T

L H 4

.3 H S 6

D L S

4 2

1 R r

1 r T 4 2 G

D 6 s

1 i L

T L

L t

v S

14 S H L

3 S

S T L 5 w 6 5 10 R 5 1

A 2 T 3.5 e

1 1 e

4 3

5 5 N L

s 2 S

5 R C 0 9

D o

A r 9 14

6 a

v . 6 R 10 9

a L

S L 1 O

49 S S 5

t 1

D i

X 5

L 1

L S

a L S

11 18 S

T 7 N

.4 B n

5 14 n 3 7 O

O 5 4

1 d 51 15 2 12 1 1

8 W

(1 L 4.6

51 s A R

) a 20

E n 1 7

d U 1 18

0 U

6 L

. S 1 5 L

9 R

G G 22 L

L 1 S

1 S 6 5

5 2 5 D 5 6 L

9 A L 1 2 S

1 a 1 S L

1 T

8 S

. 22 W C C .

1 D r

D R

R 1 9 24 s

R 1 t E E 2

R 6

L L

I .

S 7 o

S S

C C 3

57 2

E L E

1 E S

6 8 26 H N N 26

1 5 e

16 6 1 T T 4

2 A

1 1.8 23

1 R

L S

R R

o L

D D

5 L

9 S

S a 7

2 28

L U

9 1 S

5 d

. 0 L D 6 25 S

1 1 M

6 6 28

3 6

5 5 5 5 8 8 8

8 15 M

H 30 a

G E

L L 6 n 3

S 1

S 1 H

1 L

6 A 27 d H

L N

5 S 1 32 6 0

D 4 1 s

2 I

2. 32 L

A 3

L S

V 1 L

5 65 3

1 E A

6 L 29 S

7 9 2 36 L - 3 4 6 0 3 V

. S

a 0 L

1 S

9 E

r L

S 2

L S

k 0

6 4 9 1 3 1 7 6 0 D 38 11 7 7 31 7 1 .5 T

r 40 (38A) i 1 v 2 4.

1 9

e T

7 L

5 S 40

3 4 33

R 7

1 (42)

S S 7 e 0

1 8 1 44 1 C

1 0. L

s 2 L

106 T L

S P

e 44

L S

35 r

2A (44A) R v

7 11 4 7.4 a 1 48

7 t

i (46)

o 39

L L

1 46A S 7 2

n 77

8 A 5 1

M L

T 1 52 48

L a 2 L

S 2 L

.0 S

P 43 (50)

L L

S 1 S

8 d

0 4

4 4

4 5 5

5 5

2 2 2 2

R L

7 7 7 S 9 7 5 5 9 4

. 4

1 9 52 7 8 T 83 56

2 47

L S 1 13 8 2.0

A 54

S V 6

8 5 T

1 O 5 E

1 1

60 8

L L S

S 58 U

L L

S S

T R H

1 1 4

G R

H 6

T . L

8 L

O S

L S

7 1 S

9 4 6

8 o 5

L 7 L

S S H

s X

L e

1 1 6

GREGORY AVE 1 B 1 A d

R 7.

3 L S 0

1 a 1

2 O L

l 1 L S

24 S

e .4 9 3 6

R D 8

6 P 9

1 1 8 56

5 62

O L

a S 5

5 A

T 1

9 1

4 r

U 4 .0

k V

2 64 C L L

G S

7 2 C 0 2

1 79 3

H 7 R C

117 a S

. a 8 2

58 r

r W 7

D 5 66 O

T 1 s 2 t

R H 6

W o

2 2

1 81

6 L

I S

w 7

7 E L

T 60 1 L

2 70 e

2 S

2 4

1 0 0

R . 0 O D

3 R

83 A

o 1

6 L 7 9 0

M 8

a L 1 8

2 L L

S S

A 9 D a 74

8.9 d

R A

Y O 62 d 2 8

1 8

N L

T 1 S 2 85

L 8 . a

D 8

Q 6

1 L 8

4 n

4 S

R I 78 8

2 5

L S n

V 1

S d 3 0 1

6 64 E d

1 s

R 22 87

.0 s

4 L 1

L S 82

S 9

L 8 S 8

S 8 S

MAY ST 9 T

7 O

5 1 D

. L G

E L

9 L O

S R

G S S

P 89 L 5 6 66

2 84

9 2 9

3 93

S L

2 2 2 2

1 S

7 L

1 S

1 S 3 2

2 4.4 88

L S

95 M 9

T 6 9

3 7

L L S

118 S 92

.2 E

T T

1 8

1 05 L

3 S

L L L

4 L

L L S S S

S S C H O

L F I E L D 97 A V E H

1 0 0

1 0 11 S 1 96 I 7 L

.6 4

L L

S S

1 L

3 S A

6 L

V 0

4 98

1 5 0

1 2 73 0 13

8 11 1 1 3

9. 103

0 L 5

7 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 6 6

6 100

L L

S S

T 2 4

9 0 S 1

6 0

92 1 1 .

5 T 105

0 7 104

9 5 2

8 T

S L

S 1

L 2 S 1 8

L .

S 4 0

1 0

L S

S L

L S

S S M S A L S C E N N A N

A V

7 E L 7 S 12

1 T

. L

3 3 S S L

S 7

L 8

T T T

T T

L S

90 S .7 7

9 T L

S 1 1 0 5

S 3 2

1 2

8 2 3 3

1 5

3 3

80 1

2 5

5 9

1 1 25

107 1

L S

S 1

L L

2 L L

S S S

4.0 S

8 T 7

5 4

1 1 1 2

0 C

1 L

1 S L P 8

S . 4 82 P

1 9 3

R 8 109

7 2

6 L 1

5 1 S

9 L R

L 1 1 4 S

110 D S

R T 3 9

.5 3 T

L I 84

S 8

V 1 8

9 1 1 1 1 1

E 8 1

H T T

1 0

R 2

9 1

1 1 8

S 86

4 9 3

H 1 1 6

L R

S 1 1 1 5 L L

1 V 1

9 S

.7 4 A

L A

S L

T S

9 N

I 3 4

O S

D L

S S 2 3 1 N 1 1 8

L 8 1 1 7 S

1 1

1 . 1 5 0

9 6

A L S 3 6 9

V T T

127

E T

L .0 S

8 9

S 3

1 1 9 L S

2 7

8 1 1 L 2

0 S

S O

2 1

9 12 1 7

4 0 .9 U

1 1 1 3 7

12 5

1 20

0 D

S 121 130

0 0

1 L 4 G S 1 1 3 3 1 2

2 2

. S 1 9 14

1 9 A 6

1 A 6

1 T

0 1 2 0

A 4 3

S 8 5 R 22 .4

G T L

L 16

L 123 L

L D

S 4 0 E 4 3 7

N 1

L D

R S 1 2 18 4

R 12

D 3 E

9 .

1 5 6

R 4 6

21 0

138

L 2

0 17 E 24

A ) ( 8 0 4

4 8

0 1 4 1 1 2 L 20 6

117S 7 125 G

.7 L D S

0 A ) ( 1

142 4

4 0

S 1 1

N 2

3 19 26

0 0

9 S

T L

2 1

S 4

9 L O

S L 4 1

5 5

.1 S 1 2 2 2

8 L T L

S 22 127 146 21 D L

S 12

L 4 1

L . 28

S 6

1 1

2 1 R B 5 4

T B R 8

R O

102 -

S S

4 I

L e I 4 9 S 1

2 D 1 3 0

B 1 X 30 4

a 13 1

8. L . 23

1 5 150 T

u ( B

1 0 10 E D 4

) 9

B 24

2 7 O 6

O 2 P L

I S

N T

S A

o S

8 15 N

P 0 R

5 3

. 1

8 L L 1 3

S 2 T R S

n 10 154 6 S

a 25 32

8 2 131 4 H

I O

t r

V 17 T 12

1 6

A k

1 .

. 26 U 6

5 108 P S 1

T R

S 8

D L

a G

1 5

7 158 r

H 2 r

H 9 34 42

4 6 i 1 3

1 19 19

v .

1 1 9 27

R 6 1 2 3

e 4

t 1

D D

1 30

L t

8 S S

S R

8 3

R 162 4 e 2

1 3

1 6

1 29

2 T L 36 3

S 1

e 2 4 T 4 1

135 L 2 44 S L

1 9

S .4

2 r

(

T 32

v 166

1 1 1 3

L 38 1

1 S

1 a

1 31 4 3

4 4

7 L 7

t S

6 3 A 1 9 1

1 2 ) i 2

2 ..65 o

6 137

L 170

34 S

40 S

1 4 4

L 33 6 3

1 1 8

6 7 1 1

T 3 6 6

. 2

a 4

3 1 36 3 L

3 9 S n

T 46 14

L 7

d 174 S . ( 42 5

2 S

L A S

s ) 1 38

L 2

S 35

M 3 8

1 7 1

M L

S 40 44

E 178 S

1 37

S 7

(37A) H

1 1 4 4

1 6

( 7 2 T 1 7

. 5 I 0

1 3

4 8

2 L

1 1 4 4 0 L ) 182 46

0 S

1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3

39 L

2 2 2 2

S T 2

87 9

1 1 1

. 1 T

2 V

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 8 6

T 4 E 7 9 L 1

1 S

1 A

3 T 2

L 6

S G 6 186 .2

L G

E L 48

L N E

S N 41

D R R

1 4 8 D 1 8

D 3

1 R

9 1 L 1 L S

9.0 S ( 0 7 4 0 )

5 T

L L L

S S S W 50

5 44

T T T

8 7

117 1

.3 S T

4 7

L 4

T S

190 49

S L

S G 52

6 7

4 C

4 1 1 5 0 D L

i P

9 1

n 12 R 0 8 4 A ) ( 0 S 8 7

L 4

L .4 S

S 5

1 1 1 1 4

3 3 3 3

B 48

1 1 1

1 T

L 1 5 2 S

0 4

6 8

P L ) 0 A ( 8 9 4

9. S

L 0

L L L

9 5

S S 1 1 1 S

50 2

L L r

5 4 4 S S

L 6 6

1 1

U 8 8

S 6 1

0 0

k 3

L 2 S 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 8 8 8 4 8 2

S .5

D M

1 5

4 O

L 5 L

S 4

3 S S

O 1 2 0

0 8 U 8 8 1 1 4

T T 4

L 1

S S 6 G 9 9 2 1

A 52 2 6 N .

8 0 L

S L 6

L 2 0 4 4

5 S JEA

L N ST S 4 8 S 3

T T

L L

1 L

S S

L L S

8 S D

R S S

L .7 S

L L

3 S

54 R

( ( ( ( 0 0 9 9 4 4

0 4 0 9 4 9

8 5 4

0 3

2 1 1 1 1 2 0 8

7 (56)

A A A A

) ) ) 0 0 0 ) A A A 0 ( ( ( 9 9 9 A ( 9 4 4 4

4 ) ) ) 87 ) . 1 1 1

5 1 L

5 9 9 1 S 7

3 5

4 L 5

1 S

1 T 1 2 2 4 5 5 9 3 .0

7 T 5

L L S

58 S

L S

L 5 S 6 1

1 0

S S 2 4 4

6 9

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 8 0

8 8 8

1 2 8 4

8 L 8 1

W 0

S 8 8 1 8

.8 8

7 2

8 4 60 7 0

L L

1 S S 6 1

T T 9

T T

) 8 ( 9 Church 1

L Demo L

L N

S S

T T

T 125

E T .6 L

0 2

T T T 0

L L

S L L L

L L

L L L L

S S

S S S

S S

S S S S

5 8 9 Y 9

3 T

11 T 8 9

A .8 GLEN R 0 2 D 2

1 1 V 64

9 1

0 1 1

5 2 2 2 2 ( ( ( ( 0 0 0 0 5 3 3 3 3 ) ) )

. ) 6 L L

4 5

S 4 1

O 2

6 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0

1 1

L 1

T T

S 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 5

5 0

6 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

L 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

L L

1 1 6

6 8

0 S 1

S S 9 2

9 1 1

1 1

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 2

0 7

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 X 7

6 6 .

7 7

7 7 8

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

3 3 T

5 5

15 B 2

2 6

2 2 2

2 1 9

66 2 O

4 0 7 2

P 1 6 3

T G

R E D E a W

r 4 O

k D

2 4 2 C

17 T 2 6 U R T E

10 S

5 T

. L 0 9

3 2

68 S T

1 6 G 5

r 2

T 1

H 3 L

1 6 1

v S .1

T S 2 1

T 1

1 e

0 T

1 L

S 1

.5 0

2 8

19 2

D 3 2 2

5 1

R 1

1 30 9

70 1 7

R 1 7

6 2

e 1

2 1

7 . 9 1 3

3 2

5 1

s 18

e 32

6 1 2

v 2 2

1 9

1 L

9.3 S

1 5

21 2

2 L 3 2 2 1

6 2

S 34

1 5 7

t 2

2 1 2

8 7

L L

S S

o S

B 6

96 5

. L

S 36

2 2 I

2 T

N 0

2 1 7

2 2 0 3 6 2 2 3

76 3

L 3

S 23

a C

171 G 33

2 2

T 2 N

s 119 22

H 78 25 .3

1 9

2 R

7 R L 1

2 2 7 6

S 3 D

L 2

D 3 S 8 8

3.9 80

S 8 2

T 24 2

L 1 S 2

27 2

5 3

3 3

. 3

3 3

5 9

3 0

1 2

3 1

2 8

0 2

2 1

82 2

9 2

0 0

0 C

2 2 3

2 3 9

8 9

2 4 6 3 2

0 8 4

1 2 2

L 7

5 0 8

S 8 P 2 6

0 R 3 2 12 2 26 0.0

L S 6

29 L S

86 177 6

T S

L L 7 7 7 7 L 5 5 5

5 T S S

1 L

0 S 2 S

8 T N D E

R L L . G

1 7 S

2 1 2 2

7 6

28 7

L .

6 T S

S 8 T

T T T W

31 T L

8 S

5.1 88 179 T T D

4 O H

8 U

0 GL

1 L

2 S A I 0

. S 3

T 2 L 2 8 3

8 2 3 S 3 D 3

3 3 3

3 3

3 R 9

3 3

1 2 2

0 2

2 5

5 5 7

2 9

9 3

90 3

2 1

9 3 33 9

9 9

1 L 5

S 3 1

L 3 7

L L

1 L S

E 1 L S S

8 S S

1 1 0 3

1 L

2 8 9 0 L 92 0 1

S .2

3 3 Y 0

3 3 S

L S 1 9 4 29

1 .2

L 9 S

7 S 4 A 1

9.6 35 83 2 9

L 2

V S

S 1

3 1

E 9 9

6 .2 T

L L

S S

2 9

184 4 4 9 L 5 8 32 1 S

37 12 T 85

T 0 S 8

5 .0

S L

T S 2 9 6

Demo L 78. S 6 39 18

7 12

2.9

B 4

2 9

8 4 L A 8 9 S

6 4

Y 3

6 A

4 T 2 3 4

2 2 3 T

1 V T 0 2

6 6 2

8 5 5

8 6

4 4 5

6 8

I 6

8 0

4 L

L S 8

E 18 S 6 L

W S 8 3 7 0 7 0 7

A 0 L

41 S L V

S E 80

L .

S 0

1 L T

L S

2 S

S L

o L

S 4

S L S

S . S T 2 S A N S I D H

E V

r A

l e T 19

0 y

103

. L

0 S

R 7 R O X P 7

D B L

H S

G L S 3 1 U 0

L O 6

S R 1 O r 9 0 6 7 1 2 (6 5

3 0 k 8 5.1 )

S 1

S 2 4

5 7

0 3 5 6 3 3 5

2 3 3

4 L 2

L 3 1

2 3

S 1 4

S 9 2

3 8 1 5 7

3 7 9

7 6

5 3 1 .

2 0

L S 6 7 1 2 1 9 6

2 1 (

0 1 5 2 3 1

6 4 2

6 . 8

0 0 A 0

0 ) 6 2

L 5 9 S 8

D 6

3 1 119 O 6

. 5 7 1 9 4 6

4 U 5

S T

T 10

G 6 7. 3 1 1

8 5 3

0 L

S L

6 (

A 1

4 6

11 4

9 ) A

. S

9 5 S 9

L S L

E 5

D 7

1 Y

1 L S

1 A .4 R

V 5 5 3 E

1 2

1 4

0 5

8 3 3 T

6 5 1 12 2.3 4

L S

S L

S S 8 4 4 o

.2 7

e l 78

.3 t

a 3 6 L 3

3 1

7 9 2

1 3

r i

2 2 . 2

1 n 7

5 k

2 3 R

3 L 9 a

5.3

v n

G i n e O

a V e

8 T

5 L E . S 7 r R N P O 101

a R .8 S r k B D 11 G

4.4 E

3 8 3

11 7.1

9 "RAVINE LANDS" "RAVINE 7.3 COLLEG AN "ST. LEGEND "GORELANDS" E LANDS" DREW'S na ed unrat C B A lot 19 lot 18 lot lot 17 lot North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

66...00 IImmppllleemmeennttaattiiioonn

6.1 Municipal Policy

For the implementation of the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District, City Council may consider the following actions:

1) The North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District, with boundaries as illustrated in this report, be designated as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

2) All individual properties within the District be added to the City of Toronto’s Inventory of Heritage Properties as properties designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; and that the evaluations of the individual buildings included in this report be adopted. (Properties already designated under Part IV will remain designated under Part IV of the Act and will not be designated under Part V).

6.2 When a Heritage Permit is Required

The City of Toronto has adopted a streamlined process for the issuance of permits in Heritage Conservation Districts through a delegation by-law. The following is a brief description of the process and is based on the standard procedures adopted for other Heritage Conservation Districts within Toronto.

A building permit is generally required for any new structure, addition or renovation to all buildings and structures in the City of Toronto. A permit will generally be approved if it complies with the Ontario Building Code, local zoning by-laws, and other applicable laws and regulations. In such cases, approval will be granted by the City’s Building Division staff; the building owner is responsible for complying with all building requirements.

Property owners within Heritage Conservation Districts must undergo exactly the same review process – a building permit will be required for any new structure, addition or renovation. The only difference in this instance is that the building permit may require additional approval from the City’s Heritage Preservation Services (HPS) Section.

Heritage Preservation Services reviews building permits and planning applications for all properties within a heritage conservation district. Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act makes an important qualification to this:

No person, shall in the area defined by the by-law [heritage conservation district] erect, demolish or remove any building or structure, or alter the external portions therefore, without a [heritage] permit.

This means interior alterations do not require the additional approval of Heritage Preservation Services.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 35 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

A Heritage Permit is not required for interior alterations or landscaping, including plantings, walkways and driveways.

In addition, Council has determined that a Heritage Permit is not required for:

an alteration that is not visible from the street, exterior painting of wood, stucco or metal finishes, repair, using the same materials, of existing exterior features, including roofs, wall cladding, dormers, cresting, cupolas, cornices, brackets, columns, balustrades, porches and steps, entrances, windows, foundations and decorative wood, metal, stone or terra cotta, installation of eavestroughs, weatherproofing, including installations of removable storm windows and doors, caulking and weather-stripping, and installation of exterior lights.

Although a permit is not required in the above instances, property owners and residents are encouraged to conform to the spirit and intent of the Heritage Character Statement for the HCD.

Permit applicants are encouraged to meet with City staff in the Heritage Preservation Services section of the Culture Division regarding proposed work. These meetings will help City staff to understand the proposal and assist applicants in meeting the guidelines.

Should an alteration not require a building permit but relate to a matter not exempted from the requirement of a heritage permit as described above, a separate Heritage Permit may be issued by Heritage Preservation Services staff. Heritage Permits are for alterations visible from the street including matters such as: new aerials, antennas, skylights, vents, exterior air conditioning unit, masonry cleaning or painting, and replacement of existing architectural features, such as windows.

Although delegating this authority to staff, City Council can nevertheless decide that it, rather than staff, will assume responsibility over any given permit application. Furthermore, at any time prior to the issuance of a heritage permit, City Council, at the request of the Ward Councillor, can assume responsibility for a specific permit application.

The heritage permit application process is displayed in chart format on the following page.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 36 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Heritage Permit Application Process

Applicant Meets With Staff (recommended)

Heritage/Building Permit Heritage District Application Made Advisory Committee (5 residents)

Staff Review Application and Provide Comment

Applicant Adjusts Proposal

Proposal Complies With Proposal Does Not Guidelines Comply With Guidelines

Staff Issue a Heritage Deputations to Toronto Permit Preservation Board and Community Council

Decision is Made By City Council

O.M.B. Appeal

ERA Architects Inc. Page 37 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

6.3 When City Council issues Heritage Permits

When a Heritage Permit application does not, in the view of City staff, comply with the district design guidelines, or when it involves the demolition of a structure in the conservation district, City Council will decide on the application. In making its decision, Council will be provided with the advice of the City’s Heritage Preservation Services Section.

6.4 Appealing City Council’s Decision

Section 44 of the Ontario Heritage Act provides an appeal process. The applicant for a heritage permit may appeal the decision of Council on alterations or new construction to the Ontario Municipal Board.

In the case of an application for a demolition permit, council’s decision is final. However, in the case of refusal of a demolition permit, an applicant may proceed despite Council’s refusal if 180 days have elapsed from the date of refusal and the applicant has a valid permit for a replacement building issued under the HCD section of the Ontario Heritage Act. As stated above, if Council refuses such a permit for a replacement building, an applicant may appeal Council’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (O.M.B.).

6.5 Heritage Permit Application Content

An application for a permit for work in a conservation district must contain the following information:

Address of the property, Name and address of the property owner, A description of the proposed work, including all of the following: a site plan/sketch showing the location of the proposed work drawings of the proposed work showing materials, dimensions and extent of the work to be undertaken, any written specifications or documentation for the proposed work, photographs showing the existing building condition where the work is to take place, any research or documentation in support of the proposal including archival photographs of the property, pictures or plans of similarly styled buildings in the community, and a signed statement by the owner authorizing the application.

6.6 Heritage Conservation District Advisory Committee

The residents of North Rosedale will establish a Heritage District Advisory Committee comprised of five residents to advise City staff regarding applications under review. Heritage District Advisory Committees have been established in Wychwood Park, Cabbagetown and South Rosedale.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 38 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

77...00 DDiiissttrriiicctt DDeessiiiggnn GGuuiiiddeellliiinneess

The following guidelines are established for managing property alteration and development in the Heritage Conservation District with a view to the preservation of the existing architectural character of the District and its streetscape as defined in the Heritage Character and Streetscape Character Statements. All exterior alteration and development visible from the street within the District will require prior approval of Heritage Preservation Services, and in some cases City Council, in addition to other existing building and planning approvals unless exempted under the terms of the delegation by-law described above.

The intent of these guidelines is to ensure that alteration and development in the District enhances and sustains its unique character, as defined in the Heritage Character Statement of this plan. Assistance in interpreting these guidelines will be available from staff of Heritage Preservation Services.

7.1 Definitions

Italicized terms included in these guidelines have the following meanings:

Category "A": Buildings of national or provincial significance as identified in the Heritage Evaluation in this study or determined by further review and evaluation.

Category "B": Buildings of citywide significance as identified in the Heritage Evaluation or determined by further review and evaluation.

Category "C": Buildings of contextual significance, which contribute to the heritage character of the HCD as identified in the Heritage Evaluation or determined by further review and evaluation.

District: The North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District

Heritage Character: As defined by the Heritage Character Statement in this plan.

Heritage Buildings: Buildings in the District in "A", "B" and "C" categories.

Unrated Buildings: Buildings not included in category “A”, “B” or “C”, which are not of national, provincial, citywide or contextual heritage significance, do not contribute to the heritage character of the HCD or are too recent to be accurately evaluated.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 39 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

7.2 Guidelines For Alterations And Additions To Heritage Buildings

Most construction in the District will occur as alterations or additions to existing buildings. It is the intent of these guidelines to encourage the preservation of existing heritage buildings, to aid sensitive and contextual design for new work, and to strengthen and support the heritage character of the District.

1. Alterations and additions to heritage buildings should maintain or enhance rather than detract from the existing architectural style and character of the building and those surrounding it. To this end:

Reasonable effort should be taken to repair rather than replace significant architectural elements. The building should be examined carefully, together with buildings of similar architectural style, to determine what changes have already occurred before commencing an alteration or addition. If architectural elements have been removed from the building, it may be attractive and feasible, although not necessary, to re-introduce these missing elements as part of a proposed alteration. Porches, original doors and window sashes are examples of these elements. Using heritage buildings in the District and the building concerned as a guide, alterations and additions should be consistent with their size, scale, proportion and level of detail. No alteration or addition should visually overwhelm the building in question or neighbouring buildings. Additions should preferably be at the rear of the building. Alterations and additions should, to the extent reasonable, maximize the use of materials that predominate in the building concerned or in buildings of similar architectural style in the area. Existing wall to window ratio and proportion should, in general, not be materially altered. Windows, doors and details should relate in scale and proportion to those of the existing building. The height of an addition generally should not exceed the height of the ridge of an existing sloping roof or the height of the existing roof or parapet.

2. The principles and guidelines in paragraph 1 need not apply to alterations and additions that do not have a significant visual impact when viewed from the street. 3. Integral garages and below grade entrances are strongly discouraged.

7.3 Guidelines For New Buildings, Alterations And Additions To Unrated buildings

1. New buildings and alterations and additions to unrated buildings should contribute to and not detract from the heritage character of the District.

2. New buildings and alterations and additions to unrated buildings should be designed to be compatible with the heritage buildings, in terms of scale, massing height, setback, entry level, materials and fenestration.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 40 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

3. The roof profile and the location of the eaves lines or the roof parapet should be designed so that the apparent height and form of the roof is compatible with that of the streetscape.

4. Integral garages and below grade entrances are strongly discouraged.

7.4 Guidelines for Demolition

Guidelines in this section are for all buildings in the District. In general demolition is to be discouraged but it is acknowledged that the impact of demolition may vary depending upon the heritage evaluation category of the building in question.

1. Demolition of a building in the "A" or "B" category is to be vigorously opposed through the utilization, if necessary, of all heritage preservation protections afforded by law.

2. Demolition of buildings in the "C" category is discouraged. It will only be considered appropriate if the proposed replacement building, as shown in the issued building permit, is equally able or more able to contribute to the heritage character of the District and is acceptable under these guidelines and the zoning by-law.

3. Demolition of an unrated building will generally be permissible if the replacement building, as shown in the building permit application, contributes to the heritage character of the district and is acceptable under these guidelines and the zoning by-law.

7.5 Guidelines for Landscape/Streetscape

The following landscape/streetscape guidelines are non-mandatory and are for property owners who wish to contribute to the overall appearance of their street and neighbourhood. Throughout the entire North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District:

1. The preservation of existing landscapes, trees and mature vegetation, in both the public and private realm, is encouraged.

2. The planting of species characteristic to the district is encouraged, especially when replacing dying specimens.

3. The overall heritage character will be enhanced through the introduction of landscape, streetscape and infrastructure improvements.

4. Front yard parking is discouraged.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 41 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

88...00 GGllloossssaarryy

Architectural Styles: there are blurry lines between residential styles, and many hybrids. We have developed our definitions from well known reference texts: Patricia McHugh’s Toronto Architecture: A city guide, Blumenson’s Ontario Architecture and Gowan’s The Comfortable House.

Edwardian Classicism 1900-1930

The pure style is represented by mannered and geometrized classical mouldings, with keystones and other details rendered in contrasting stone. The distilled residential style is somewhat square and simple with some classical elements like classicized posts as porch support.

Anglo-Period Revivals 1890-1930

Or as Patricia McHugh (Toronto Architecture.) categorizes: English Cottage Style, Jacobethan, neo-Tudor, etc. These styles descend from 16th century cottages and manor houses of England and are reincarnated by renowned English architects of the turn of the century, Voysey, Lutyens and, slightly before them, Shaw. Their styles were copied and distilled into the suburbs of North America.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 42 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Bungalow 1900-1945

Bungalow refers to a style of house popularized in the United States before WW1 and consists of low cottage-like houses exhibiting exposed carpentry, hence the often-applied qualifier ‘Craftsmen Bungalow.” “Another… feature is exposed structural framing. Purlins, rafters, plates, braces and posts are highly visible in gable ends, under eaves as well as supporting members for the extensive porches and verandas. Building material varies, but most favoured was the combining of rustic textures, such as stone or brick with a siding such as horizontal board or shingle.” (Blumenson 1990: 176) [images of Bunglaows on Standish and Glen, respectively]

Dominion Modern 1945-1975

Dominion Modern refers to a strand of orthodox Canadian International style modernism which “allow[s] only understated and subtle expressions of individuality. Rather than wilful flamboyant display, good architecture presents a discrete anonymous public face” (Graham 1995: 29). [Image of house at 3 Old George Place (1960), architect John C. Parkin, for John B. Parkin Associates.]

ERA Architects Inc. Page 43 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Neo- Expressionism mid-1950’s-

Neo Expressionist modernism refers to a strand of Canadian modernism that is influenced by west coast post-war architecture and is applied also to “individual, sculptural buildings whose sweeping curves and surprising juxtapositions of form are meant to confront the more common rectangularity of the built environment” (McHugh 1989). It is responsive to nature and landscape and espouses an expressive, often organic use of forms as opposed to the rectilinear, more orthodox International modernism style.

11 Beaumont, from the ravine. (A rating: excellent siting, very prominent architect, good example of style/period)

ERA Architects Inc. Page 44 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

BBiiibbllliiiooggrraapphhyy

Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture; A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the Present. Markham, Fitzhenry & Whiteside 1990.

Brown, Douglas. Eden Smith; Toronto’s Arts and Crafts Architect. Mississauga, 2003.

Chapman, Howard D. Alfred Chapman: the man and his work. Toronto: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, Toronto Region Branch, 1978.

Craig, Gerald. Upper Canada, The Formative Years 1784-1841. Toronto. McClelland and Stewart 1963.

Crawford, Bess Hillery. Rosedale. Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 2000.

Dendy, William. Lost Toronto: images of the city's past. Toronto : McClelland & Stewart, c1993.

Ede, Carol Moore. Canadian Architecture 1960/70. Toronto : Burns and MacEachern, 1971

Fulford, Robert. Accidental City : the transformation of Toronto. Toronto, ON.: Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 1995.

Glazebrook, G. P de T. The Story of Toronto. Toronto, U of T Press, 1971.

Gowans, The Comfortable House; North American Suburban Architecture 1890-1930. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1985.

Kalman. H, Architectural History of Canada vol. II. Toronto. Oxford University Press, 1994.

Livesey, Graham, Twelve modern houses, 1945-1985 : from the collections of the Canadian Architectural Archives. Calgary : Aris Press, 1995.

Lundel, Liz. Estates of Old Toronto. Erin, ON. Boston Mills Press. 1997.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture: a city guide 2nd ed. Toronto : McClelland & Stewart, 1989.

Ontario Ministry of Culture. ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT - Part V HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. List of current Provincial HCD's provided by Paul King, Heritage and Libraries Branch, November 2003.

Smith, Kenneth. North Rosedale Park Map: Chart for a Chapter for Change. Unpublished essay. Date unknown.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 45 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Bibliography (continued):

Somerville, W.L. “Recent Domestic Architecture in the Province of Ontario.” Journal of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada 5:7, July 1928 pp. 253-268

Somerville, W.L. Is our Domestic Architecture Mediocre? JRAIC 9:4 April 1932, pp. 97-103

Zeidler, Eberhard. Exploring Toronto. Toronto, Toronto Chapter of Architects and Architecture Canada, 1972.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 46 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

AAppppeennddiiixx 11::: LLoossss ooff OOrriiiggiiinnaalll CChhaarraacctteerr

Figure 18: 9 Whitney Ave, before and during demolition

Figure 19: 39 Whitney Ave. before and during demolition

ERA Architects Inc. Page 47 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

AAppppeennddiiixx 22::: LLoosstt IInnssttiiittuuttiiioonnss ooff NNoorrtthh RRoosseeddaalllee

St. Andrew’s College

St. Andrew’s College, a Presbyterian school for boys in the area west of McLennan Avenue, was designed to accommodate 150 boarders and up to 300 day boys. The property of 23 1/2 acres was purchased from Mrs. Geo. Dickson in 1903. The architect for the school was J. Wilson Gray (born and trained in Edinburgh), who also designed the Confederation Life Building, Winnipeg, Knox Presbyterian, Toronto (Spadina at Harbord), St. Paul’s Presbyterian, Toronto (Bathurst and Barton, now Toronto Buddhist Church), and additions to the Confederation Life Building on Richmond Street, Toronto. Gray’s building was completed in 1905 and used until 1927 when St. Andrews College left this location for roomier grounds in Aurora. During 1918-1919 the federal government put pressure on the school to relinquish the property for use as a military hospital, however this use was never effectively implemented. Graduates of St. Andrew’s College include Lawren Harris (painter, Group of Seven) and Vincent Massey (first Canadian-born Governor General).

Figure 10: Images of St. Andrew's College showing bucolic setting. (Courtesy St. Andrew’s College Archives, from prospectus)

ERA Architects Inc. Page 48 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

Government House 1911-1961

In 1909 a competition was held for the Lieutenant-Governor’s House and a French Renaissance design won. However, the Provincial Architect (F.R. Heakes) advised that the entries were unacceptable and he prepared a new design himself. By 1911 a different site had been chosen at Chorley Park when construction commenced and continued till 1915. A lavish vice-regal mansion was built, complete with sumptuous halls and large, tended grounds.

The grand building, not to mention the matching trappings of the office of Lieutenant- Governor, proved costly to maintain and politically difficult to justify - especially during the Depression. The Province ceased using Government House for vice-regal purposes in 1937. Figure 11: Images of Government House During World War II the building became a military hospital – probably due to the salubrious qualities of the natural setting. The mansion was also used to receive refugees when the Hungarian revolution collapsed in 195613.

The building was demolished in 1961 to some public outcry, but also to some applause, since through lack of maintenance and shifting tastes, the place had become run down and was, to some, outmoded and ostentatious. Unlike St. Andrew’s College after demolition, the lot was not developed but, happily, became a public park.

13 Dendy, W. Lost Toronto. 1993: 220-221

ERA Architects Inc. Page 49 May 3 2004 North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Plan

AAppppeennddiiixx 33 –– TTyyppiiiccaalll ppaaggee ffrroomm HHoouussee PPaatttteerrnn BBooookk Page from "The Home Plan Book" from The Home Builder's Service Bureau. Toronto, 1924.

ERA Architects Inc. Page 50 May 3 2004 4 Old George Place