VISIONS FOR THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT, II: FORGING A REGIONAL IDENTITY, 1913-68

Wayne C. Reeves*

Major Report No. 28

Originally prepared as part of a heritage report for the Planning Department

*Department of Geography University of Toronto

Centre for Urban and Community Studies University of Toronto April 1993

ISSN: 0316-0068 ISBN: 0-7727-1365-0

$10.00 ABSTRACT

This paper provides a general overview of waterfront-centred or -related planning in the Toronto area during the period 1913-68. In 1912, the Commissioners brought forward the first comprehensive plan for the . The second such plan - radically different in scale and character was unveiled in 1967 by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. In the intervening years, efforts to forge a regional identity had taken place on several fronts. The topics discussed include the advocacy of a metropolitan political unit before World War II; the City of Toronto's master plan of 1943; the creation of inter-municipal planning boards and other regional authorities prior to 1953, and the preparation of physical plans by these organizations. Their proposals thoroughly conditioned the work of Metropolitan Toronto after its formation in 1953. For Metro, the waterfront provided the crucial setting for a vastly expanded regional infrastructure, including sewerage and water supply facilities, expressways, and regional parks. Attempts to develop a conservation strategy for the lakeshore were also made, propelled in part by the lobbying of community groups. The regional waterfront's importance was underscored when Metro initiated a comprehensive planning process in the early 1960s. The content of and responses to Metro's 1967 plan, and Metro's involvement with other waterfront ventures through 1968 (when Council adopted the plan), are also examined here.

PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is based on a heritage study commissioned in 1991 by the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department for its new Waterfront Plan. Visions for the Metropolitan Wateifront: Planning in Historical Perspective (February 1992) reviewed the genealogy of planning ideas in and for the Toronto region, from the onset of the railway era in the 1850s to the adoption of Metro's first Waterfront Plan in 1968. The objective of Visions was to provide background information on the emergence and changing character of Toronto-area planning, so that Metro's staff could situate their ideas in a long tradition of envisioning the waterfront. The first half of the original study, dealing with the period 1852-1935, comprises Major Report No. 27 of this series; the second half, which brings the story up to 1968 (after returning to 1913 to examine Metro's institutional origins), appears here in revised form.

Visions complemented another heritage study that I prepared for Metro. Regional Heritage Features on the Metropolitan Wateifront (December 1991; revised and published by Metro in June 1992) identified regionally significant structures, sites, and areas on the Metropolitan lakefront and in the lower river valleys. In this discussion of development on Metro's past and present waterfronts, note is taken of what actually materialized from some of the plans and proposals outlined in Visions.

Plans and proposals are not the conventional stuff of "heritage," though an enlarged sense of the field is emerging. To this end, I would like to thank Lynn Morrow at Metro Planning for initiating the study, and Glenn Miller and Pamela Leach for seeing it through to completion. Visions, however, had its genesis in a paper presented at "Toronto's Changing Waterfront: The Built and Unbuilt Environment," a workshop held in 1990 at the Centre for Urban and Community Studies. I am grateful for the comments tendered by the workshop participants, and for the support of the organizers, Roy Merrens, Michael Moir, and Judith Kjellberg Bell. The assistance given by the staff of the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library (particularly the Metro Urban Affairs Library), the , the Toronto Harbour Commission Archives, several University of Toronto libraries (Architecture, Engineering, Government Documents, and Robarts), and the Canadian Waterfront Resource Centre was invaluable. I am especially indebted to Michael Moir of the Toronto Harbour Commission Archives and Ted Relph and Jim Lemon of the University of Toronto for their advice and for reviewing the present manuscript, and to Judith Kjellberg Bell of the Urban Centre for seeing it to publication. The errors and interpretations remain my own.

WCR

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

INSTITUTIONALIZING THE REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE, 1913-53 2

Local and Provincial Initiatives Before World War II 2 Toronto's 1943 Master Plan 9 Regional Authorities Take Shape 14

ENVISIONING THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT, 1953-68 24

Expanding the Sewerage and Water Supply Systems 24 Toward a Network of Expressways 29 Building a Regional Parks System 42 Conservation Planning in the Metropolitan Watershed 57 The Regional Waterfront as a Planning Unit 72 Metropolitan Toronto's 1967 Waterfront Plan 82 Responses to the 1967 Plan 94 Metro's Involvement with Other Waterfront Ventures 103

RETROSPECT &PROSPECT 115

BIBLIOGRAPHY 126 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACPC Advisory City Planning Commission CAC Civic Advisory Council, Committee on Metropolitan Problems CNE Canadian National Exhibition CNEA Canadian National Exhibition Association CNR Canadian National Railway COA Canadian Olympic Association CPAC Community Planning Association of Canada, Greater Toronto/Toronto Region Branch CPR Canadian Pacific Railway CPSBH Committee for the Preservation of Small Boat Harbours CTA City of Toronto Archives DVCA Don Valley Conservation Authority EDJPC East District Joint Planning Committee ETPB Township Planning Board GTA HVCA Humber Valley Conservation Authority UC Inter-Island Council MTARTS Metropolitan Toronto and Region Transportation Study MTPA Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area MTPB Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board MTPD Metropolitan Toronto Parks Department MTRCA Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority MTRD Metropolitan Toronto Roads Department OAA Association of Architects OALA Ontario Association of Landscape Architects ODPD Ontario Department of Planning and Development OGTA Office for the Greater Toronto Area OISE Ontario Institute for Studies in Education OMB Ontario Municipal Board OPPI Ontario Professional Planners Institute ORMB Ontario Railway and Municipal Board OWRC Ontario Water Resources Commission PPA Project Planning Associates Ltd. QEW Queen Elizabeth Way RLUT Robarts Library, University of Toronto RCFTW Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront RDHP Rouge River-Duffin Creek-Highland Creek-Petticoat Creek TACPAC Technical Advisory Committee on Parks and Conservation TCPB Toronto City Planning Board TCR Toronto-Centred Region THC Toronto Harbour Commissioners TSPB Toronto and Suburban Planning Board TTC Toronto Transit Commission TYPB Toronto and York Planning Board 1

INTRODUCTION

"During the two years that it has been my good fortune and privilege to occupy the Mayor's chair, I have had ample time to realize that the successful administration of so great a city as Toronto involves not merely an intimate knowledge of municipal affairs, but also of metropolitan problems." Thus G.R. Geary opened his inaugural address to in 1912. 1 Geary later resigned in mid-term to become Corporation counsel, though "metropolitan problems" likely had little to do with this unusual move. Nonetheless, issues of regional growth and development were increasingly on the City's agenda in the early 20th­ century. These issues gave rise not only to a wide array of physical plans, but also to the discussion of new institutional and planning arrangements for the Toronto area.

The development of regional organizations and metropolitan planning in the Toronto area during the period 1913-68 is an important focus of this study. The drive to reorganize existing municipalities into a single political unit, and to define an appropriate physical context in which to plan and deliver various hard services, took decades to mature. After some 30 years of debate, several new public agencies were formed in the late 1940s to address large-scale concerns. The forging of a regional identity quickened in 1953 with the creation of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. While Metro was a novel entity both in Toronto and North America, its activities were much conditioned by earlier plans and proposals. Metro's work after 1953 embraced and furthered a local planning tradition which sought to address problems and opportunities comprehensively and on a regional basis. 2

In all this, the waterfront had a crucial role to play. Many of the most important elements of Metro's new physical structure - water filtration and sewage treatment plants, expressways, and parks - were positioned there by the late 1960s. Increasing the utility of the waterfront was a constant Metropolitan objective after 1953. The lakeshore's special character was noted in Metro's 1959 draft Official Plan and given prominence in its 1967 Waterfront Plan. The 1967 plan and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners' (THC) 1912 plan represent the most comprehensive waterfront visions ever brought forth for the region. Metro's jurisdictional mandate and territory allowed it to vastly expand the THC's sense of scale, while identifying new land-use opportunities and bringing a highly imaginative dimension to regional design. At the same time, forces within the metropolitan community helped shape Metro's planning and development agendas by furnishing the impetus to prepare a general waterfront plan, and by challenging the logic of specific waterfront policies and projects. The general merits of large-scale public intervention and certain lines of action

1Toronto City Council Minutes 1912, Appendix "C," 1.

20n this point, see Wayne C. Reeves, Visions for the Metropolitan Toronto Wateifront, I: Toward Comprehensive Planning, 1852-1935, Major Report No. 27 (Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, 1992). 2 may have been well-established by the time Metro took form, but they were not immune to reconsideration and change.

This study, then, provides a broad overview of metropolitan-oriented activity before 1953 and a detailed tracking of Metro's waterfront-related activities through 1968, the year Metro Council adopted the 1967 plan. Examined first is the institutionalization of the regional perspective in the Toronto area the protracted efforts to organize large-scale public authorities and develop the rationale for, and content of, metropolitan planning (1913- 53). The evolution of Metropolitan policy vis-a-vis the waterfront is then explored in terms of water supply, sewerage, expressways, parks, and conservation work. Also examined is how planning strove to integrate these and other functions and guide public and private development in the metropolis and on the regional waterfront (1953-68). Emphasis is placed on the official record, on the plans and reports commissioned by or submitted to various public bodies, and the latter's minutes and annual reports. These materials are supplemented by contemporary press discussions and secondary sources. Neither a full assessment of the issues surrounding the plans nor the nature of their implementation are addressed here; these subjects, while worthy of study, lie beyond the scope of this paper.3

INSTITUTIONALIZING THE REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE, 1913-53

Local and Provincial Initiatives Before World War II

The creation of a metropolitan administrative unit in the Toronto region was discussed as early as 1913, when the City of Toronto held a conference with 25 adjacent municipalities to "discuss informally whether our common needs warrant us in providing in some permanent way for concerted action. "4 The City's interest in concerted action was well­ founded, for Toronto reached its "peak of urban growth rates" in 1912, thanks in part to the

3For a recent survey of the Toronto-area waterfront literature, see H. Roy Merrens, The Redevelopment of Toronto's Port and Waterfront: A Selected Bibliography, Working Paper No. 11 (Toronto: Canadian Waterfront Resource Centre, 1992). For broad historical studies of the Metropolitan waterfront, see Brian D. Bailey, A History of the Toronto Waterfront ([, Ont.]: Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 1973); Wayne C. Reeves, Regional Heritage Features on the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront (Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, 1992). On general historical works pertaining to the Toronto region, see F.H. Armstrong, Toronto: The Place of Meeting (N.p.: Windsor Publications, 1983); J.M.S. Careless, Toronto to 1918: An Illustrated History (Toronto: James Lorimer/National Museum of Man, 1984 ); James Lemon, Toronto Since 1918: An Illustrated History (Toronto: James Lorimer/National Museum of Man, 1984); Robert R. Bonis, A History of Scarborough, rev. ed. (Scarborough, Ont.: Scarborough Public Library, 1968); Esther Heyes, Etobicoke: From Furrow to Borough (Etobicoke, Ont.: Borough of Etobicoke, 1974); Etobicoke Historical Board, Villages of Etobicoke (Weston, Ont.: Argyle Printing, [1985)).

48. Morley Wickett, Conference re Metropolitan Area, Held at Toronto, October 22nd, 1913 (Toronto, 1913), 1. 3 annexation of and Moore Park. 5 As well, Ontario's first planning legislation was passed in 1912, the year Ontario Hydro proposed a system of electric radial railways for Southern Ontario. These latter two initiatives were strongly oriented toward Toronto and its surrounding region.

The conference's organizer - Toronto businessman, City alderman, and famed municipal reformer S. Morley Wickett - claimed that a Metropolitan Area was "not a policy of annexation; it is simply a policy of co-operation. " Wickett chaired the City's Special Committee on Transportation and, to no one's surprise, emphasized regional transportation issues at the conference. Yet he also attended to electrical power, water supply, sewage disposal, and (to a much lesser extent) housing and open space concerns. 6 He also commented on the Province's new planning law. The City and Suburbs Plans Act of 1912 had given Toronto the power to inspect and approve subdivision plans within five miles of the municipal limits, and Wickett acknowledged that this had already created "some feeling of resentment" over suburban road layouts [fig. 1]. Nonetheless, he pushed for an approach to the challenges facing the Toronto region that was both cooperative and comprehensive. On the boundaries of a metropolitan area, Wickett claimed that "[t]he contour of the country, the water basins and drainage areas would seem to be more important factors than mere sentiment, for physical conditions permit of more satisfactory and economic ... administration. "7 While bearing in mind the "natural drainage area" between the Oak Ridges Moraine and , the radius of a Toronto metropolitan area was set at about 20 miles, which included Oakville, Brampton, Richmond Hill, and Whitby and was then an hour's travel from the City.

The general committee of the conference later adopted a series of recommendations - among them the creation of a "Metropolitan Commission" with the power to approve subdivisions and deal with policing, water supply, and sewerage requirements - and named Toronto to act as the lead agency. Though the idea gained City Council's endorsement in 1914, no further action materialized. 8 This was probably due to the economic downturn

5James Lemon, "Plans for Early 20th-Century Toronto: Lost in Management," Urban History Review, 18 (1989): 17. These were Toronto's last major annexations until 1967, when Swansea became part of the City.

6Wickett, Conference re Metropolitan Area, 1. On Wickett's role as a structural reformer, see John C. Weaver, "Order and Efficiency: Samuel Morley Wickett and the Urban Progressive Movement in Toronto, 1900-1915," Ontario History, 69 (1977): 218-34. The conference had its origins in a motion by Alderman John Wanless "that the Committee on Transportation be and are hereby requested to secure information anent the control of a metropolitan area outside the City, and are authorized in connection therewith to confer with the authorities of the ... Township of York." See Toronto City Council Minutes 1913, 5 May, minute 569; ibid.,

App. "A, II 1455.

7Wickett, Conference re Metropolitan Area, 4; S. Morley Wickett, Memorandum re Metropolitan Area (Toronto, 1913), 1.

8Toronto City Council Minutes 1914, App. "A," 252-55. 4

NOTE.. ~t~edt~:,~11 ~t l~tua;:t Hu: 5u.Ld.vmM l1tb:tbt.t!d.lnt lol:!I ol•l'l"ll•rtd• wtHtln lwt mtluo( Hte.Cll'iltmlh, lite crltin.1r.I Tovri~h.ip'Rtll!.d. .Al\Q\,(l>T'IC.e~musl bcwiditntd PJi IO ftat un !!:llhel"' eudt, t~~:i 1 s~::~11; ~:t .ti.It. width ol 86 feet,

• AbVIS

NOT<- THE FUTURE Wilh&.vr:n.t h.'J Ml-'" uap1Uil"" ,..._ ;- SU.t..r. IK Hll..lo.5 ~ nimc: cf \ht ~'l'ttls 5ht:i ... n tort . , n n ? !cseilk&n76£..tw\d-.

Figure 1. The "Toronto urban zone," 1929. As prescribed under the Planning and Development Act of 1918, Toronto obtained some control over new subdivisions within five miles of the City limits. The curved lines demarcate the limit of the urban zone. On the waterfront, the zone extends from near in Long Branch to just east of Markham Road in Scarborough. [Toronto Advisory City Planning Commission, Report ... with Recommendations for the Improvement of the Central Business Section of the City of Toronto] 5 which began in 1913 and slowed the pace of suburban subdivision. As well, City politicians may have felt that the City and Suburbs Plans Act (overhauled as the Planning and Development Act in 1917 and 1918) amply controlled development on the urban fringe. The outbreak of war in 1914 also diverted attention to other pressing matters. At any rate, the Metropolitan Commission was not Toronto's only regional initiative that failed in 1913. A legislative bid earlier that year to form an alliance with the townships of Etobicoke, York, and Scarborough proved equally abortive. 9

The metropolitan idea was revived during the 1920s on several fronts. In 1920, the THC's chief engineer and manager, E.L. Cousins, suggested that the Province organize a different sort of "Metropolitan Commission. 11 This body would manage industrial, commercial, and recreational development within a vaguely defined "Metropolitan Industrial District. " With the commission acquiring and holding land and releasing it as the need arose, Cousins felt Toronto would be better positioned to compete with other Ontario municipalities. 10 This proposal was altered considerably in a 1922 report to the THC's chairman, Robert Home Smith, by Norman D. Wilson, the THC's engineer responsible for surveys and lands. Wilson felt that some form of regional organization might overcome the weaknesses of the existing planning legislation. His "Metropolitan District," comprised of Toronto, , , Weston, , Etobicoke, York, and Scarborough west of Markham Road, would be regulated by a "Toronto District Planning Authority," a body having powers on par with the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board (ORMB).11 The City pursued a related if rather conservative objective that year. It unsuccessfully tried to have the ORMB amend the curved boundaries of Toronto's five-mile "urban zone," a geometry which had created many problems in administering the Planning and Development Act. 12

9In January 1913, Toronto sought empowering legislation from the Province "to enter into an agreement with ... York, Scarboro and Etobicoke, to map out a metropolitan district for Greater Toronto, within a limited area of the City; whereby the City and Townships shall agree to give the jurisdiction over all local improvements, franchises, health regulations, transportation, street extensions and public utilities, so as to plan ahead of future annexations of new territory; the City to have a supervising jurisdiction over the territory within a certain radius of the City to be determined; no franchise in future to be granted or extended without the City's consent." The Province refused to sanction this idea. See Toronto City Council Minutes 1913, App. "A," 48. Elsewhere, Canadian precedents for regional organization were set that year with the formation of the Winnipeg Water District and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage District. See Morris Knowles, "Metropolitan Districts for Planning and Administration," Canadian Engineer, 33 (1917): 156 and 158.

1°Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC), Annual Report 1920 (Toronto, 1921), 35. Cousins was also the City's "industrial commissioner," responsible for promoting economic development. As for the THC, it had pursued a landbanking approach since being created in 1911. While preferring to issue long-term leases for its lands, the THC began selling property in non-strategic areas (such as away from the dockwalls) in 1917.

11 Norman D. Wilson, Memorandum on a City Planning Authority for Toronto and District (Toronto, 1922), 22-41.

12Toronto City Council Minutes 1922, App. "A," 208 and 267. 6

Perhaps inspired by these initiatives and by the "balkanization of the suburbs" 13 around Toronto, the new Conservative government considered passing legislation in 1924-25 to create a "Toronto metropolitan district." The City, however, was neither prepared to annex its suburbs nor submit to what it saw as provincial meddling. On two occasions in 1924 and again in 1925, City Council expressed its disapproval of the metropolitan bill. "I am extremely sorry that this project is to be forced upon the people of Toronto," said mayor Thomas Foster in his inaugural speech for 1925:

If the proposal is that we should contribute to the support of outside municipalities, I have no hesitation in characterizing it as unjust and unjustifiable. The people of Toronto are not in the mood to submit to it. As things are, we contribute much to the Provincial revenue, and we will not agree to the taxes of our citizens being handed over to other municipalities. 14

While civic lobbying apparently helped scuttle the bill before its reached the floor of the Ontario Legislature, a measure of local support existed for the idea. John Fisher, a Toronto publisher, argued in 1925 and again in 1929 for a 2,500-square-mile "metropolitan county" spanning the City of Toronto and the counties of York, Halton, Peel, and Ontario [fig. 2]. To counter both "excessive centralization" and sprawl along the region's highways, Fisher pushed for the expansion of existing centres of population (such as Brampton and Oshawa), the designation of "clearly defined areas" for food production, an enlarged public transportation system, and "an equalization of taxation and an adjustment of land values. "15 Rather than tackle these pressing large-scale issues or consider the relevance of American­ style regional planning, Toronto resorted to making a lavish City Beautiful plan for its downtown core in 1928-29. 16

13Lemon, Toronto Since 1918, 34. Fuelled by rural-suburban bickering over services and taxation, eight new municipalities were created in the Toronto area between 1911 and 1930. Splitting off from Etobicoke Township were Mimico (1911), New Toronto (1913), and Long Branch (1930); out of York Township sprang Leaside (1913), (1922), Forest Hill (1924), (1924), and Swansea (1925). This process militated against the quick formation of a metropolitan unit.

14Toronto City Council Minutes 1925, App. "C," 3-4. Also see ibid. 1924, App. "A," 425 and 1716; ibid. 1925, App. "A," 135. The metropolitan idea was nurtured within the government by George S. Henry, Minister of Public Works and Highways.

15John Fisher, The Metropolitan County of Toronto (Toronto, 1929), 5-16. Most of this pamphlet had appeared earlier in the press; see Toronto Globe, 3 March 1925. On professional support for the basic idea, which took note of the work of Norman D. Wilson and the Province, see "Metropolitan County of Toronto," Canadian Engineer, 46 (1924): 181.

16See Toronto Advisory City Planning Commission, Report ... with Recommendations for the Improvement of the Central Business Section of the City of Toronto (Toronto, 1929). On the rise of regional planning in the United States during the 1920s, see Mel Scott, American City Planning Since 1890 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 198-227. 7

, I J I

I

The Proposed METROPOLITAN COUNTY OF TORONTO See pa(!es sev.,n, ten and eleven for explanation of thi$ map.

Figure 2. John Fisher's proposal for a "Metropolitan County of Toronto," 1929. The physical extent of this idea, originally brought forth in 1925, approximates that of the present Greater Toronto Area. [Fisher, The Metropolitan County of Toronto] 8

During the 1930s, attention was directed in the Toronto area to regional organization rather than planning per se. 17 Early in the decade, the City rejected annexing two of its smaller township suburbs because of the perceived high costs. 18 This prompted several responses. The County of York, which felt that its rural areas shouldered a disproportional tax burden relative to its suburban municipalities, organized a Metropolitan Area Committee in 1933 to analyze regional issues and present its grievances to the Province. A year later, County Council adopted the committee's recommendations to divide suburban and rural York County and establish "a Metropolitan County of Toronto and the suburban municipalities adjoining it. "19 This prompted the Tory government - now led by George S. Henry, who had pushed the metropolitan idea in the mid-1920s - to commission a study of public administration in Greater Toronto.

The 1935 report, prepared by University of Toronto political scientist A.F.W. Plumptre, was issued as the financial stringencies of the Depression rocked the Toronto area's municipalities. Only Toronto, Swansea, and Forest Hill did not default on their capital debt payments; across the region, essential public expenditures were deferred, building up a backlog of needed improvements. To help remedy this situation, Plumptre recommended the forced amalgamation of the region's "unlucky thirteen independent governments" and the formation of an advisory body, the "Toronto Metropolitan Planning Commission. 1120 Foreshadowing the creation of the Borough of Etobicoke in 1967, Plumptre treated the lakeshore communities between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek as a special case. He proposed that the area below Bloor Street become a single political unit, thanks to its relative self-sufficiency in terms of employment, services, and "community self-consciousness"; its membership on the proposed planning commission would ensure

17In 1930, the City organized a Department of City Planning and Surveying, and a committee of departmental heads released what would be Toronto's last major plan until 1943. See Toronto Advisory City Planning Committee, Report ... on Street Extensions, Widenings and Improvements in the City of Toronto (Toronto, 1930).

18See George Wilson, Report of Commissioner of Finance upon the Proposed Annexation of York and East York Townships (Toronto, 1930); R.C. Harris, Report re Suggested Annexation of Townships of York and East York to City of Toronto (Toronto, 1931).

19While County Council wished otherwise, consensus apparently existed that the northern (or rural) parts of Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough would not form part of the Metropolitan County. See York County Council, Interim Report of the Metropolitan Area Committee (N.p., 1934), 2, 5 and 11; Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), Decisions and Recommendations of the Board fre the Applications of Toronto and Mimico], 20 January 1953 (Toronto, 1953), 66. County Council did not move further to implement the committee's recommendations.

20 A.F. W. Plumptre, Report on the Government of the Metropolitan Area of Toronto, to Hon. David Croll, Minister of Municipal Affairs (Toronto, 1935), 4 and 112. The unlucky 13 were the City of Toronto; the Towns of Leaside, Mirnico, New Toronto, and Weston; the Villages of Forest Hill, Long Branch, and Swansea; and the Townships of East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, and York. 9 coordination with the larger region. 21 Plumptre's report went to the new Liberal government and obtained a lukewarm response. A provincial committee to study "Municipal and Related Problems in Toronto and its Neighbouring Municipalities" was not struck until 1938. Rumours that Toronto would be forced to annex its suburbs were rife in 1939, but nothing materialized. The issue merited even less attention after war broke out later that year.22

Toronto's 1943 Master Plan

Despite waning provincial interest, the metropolitan idea underwent a vigorous revival in the early 1940s. Ironically, the development of a fresh perspective on the region was left to the City of Toronto, which since 1913 had rejected both provincially-imposed solutions and further large-scale annexations. New regional thinking, part of a more general revitalization of urban planning in Toronto, emerged from the Toronto City Planning Board (TCPB). This body was struck by City Council in 1942, after lobbying by the Toronto Board of Trade, the Bureau of Municipal Research, the Toronto Trades and Labour Council, and the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA).23 The TCPB's Master Plan for the City of Toronto and Environs was issued at the end of 1943. Early in the planning process, chairman J.P. Maher made sure the TCPB's efforts centred on large-scale policy-making, while avoiding what he considered to be past follies. "From my conception of Town Planning, " said Maher,

I cannot see how it is possible to create and develop a Master Plan by having Departmental heads sketch the projects they are anxious to have constructed. Perhaps the best proof of the futility of isolated projects as a substitute for Town Planning, is the extension of University Avenue. It is the botched remnant of a grandiose project, conceived to be comprehensive because of its bigness, but isolated because not based on a sound planning policy formulated in keeping with fundamental Town Planning principles. It cost the ratepayers $4,500,000.24

21 Plumptre, 147-48.

22Toronto Telegram, 1 April 1939; Civic Advisory Council of Toronto, Committee on Metropolitan Problems (CAC), First Report, Section One (Toronto, 1949), v-vi; Timothy J. Colton, Big Daddy: Frederick G. Gardiner and the Building of Metropolitan Toronto (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), 55-56; Lemon, Toronto Since 1918, 74. The Telegram claimed that no local consensus existed on the annexation issue: Toronto, Forest Hill, Swansea, Leaside, and Weston opposed the idea; Etobicoke, York, East York, and Scarborough were in favour; Mimico, New Toronto, and Long Branch wanted to establish their own city.

230n the local impetus provided by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation for centralized planning in the 1940s, see Lemon, Toronto Since 1918, 81-111.

24J.P. Maher, "Two Reports to City Planning Board, 1942." City of Toronto Archives, RG 1 Reports, Box 6. Earlier, A.F.W. Plumptre had condemned the City's proposals of 1929 and 1930 as being plans for motorists which Jacked a "general plan" character. See Plumptre, 106. 10

The master plan was conceived as part of a post-war reconstruction program which hopefully would attract financial support from the senior levels of government. The aim of this "people's plan" was to control and direct "natural growth," coordinating the development of the Metropolitan Area as "one geographic, economic and social unit." According to the TCPB, the City's political boundaries bore "no relation to the social and economic life of its people .... [and] in a planning sense ... have no significance. "25 A "Metropolitan Area Planning Authority" and a "Regional Planning Authority" were suggested as palliatives. Cooperation was urged between municipalities within a 100-square-mile area to avoid the chronic problem of scattered land subdivision on the urban fringe. In fact, the TCPB attended to issues on the fringe as much as in the City itself.

In terms of thematic comprehensiveness, physical scope, and conceptual presentation, the master plan was an obvious departure from earlier efforts [fig. 3]. Old ideas were, however, recast into new forms. As "metropolitan park reserves" linked by a low-speed driveway, the Don and Humber valleys and their tributary ravines were to be kept free from "encroachment and vandalism. 11 Yet they would serve more than just a recreational function. As distinctive elements in the urban structure, they posed "barriers between residential and industrial districts, ... break[ing] up residential parts of the City into well-defined separated neighbourhoods, arresting the spread of continuous bricks and mortar to uncontrolled limits. "26

The plan put the waterfront to a number of ends. Mainly it was to be a place for housing and industry, respecting established or emergent patterns of development. West of Etobicoke Creek and in eastern Scarborough, the lakeshore fell within an agricultural belt. This zone, lying beyond a nine-mile radius from Yonge and Queen, acted as the "metropolitan limit." In Toronto, provision for motor traffic along the waterfront was given a new twist. Though praising the -Fleet Street-Keating Street axis as an "efficient get-away street," the TCPB predicted it would eventually become "just another local commercial highway with all its attendant disabilities." The alternative was a new "superhighway" running from the newly-opened Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) to a revamped Kingston Road. This "direct express connection" between Toronto's waterfront and the provincial highway system would be required with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway,

25Toronto City Planning Board (TCPB), The Master Plan for the City of Toronto and Environs (Toronto, 1943), n.p. This document, apparently prepared for widespread public distribution, is a summary of TCPB, Second Annual Report (Toronto, 1943). On the scheme, see E.G. Faludi, "Master Plan for Toronto Would Modernize City," Saturday Night, 59, 20 (1944): 9; Lemon, "Plans for Early 20th-Century Toronto," 24-25. On its place in the history of Canadian metropolitan planning, see Gerald Hodge, Planning Canadian Communities: An Introduction to the Principles, Practice and Participants (Toronto: Methuen, 1986), 70.

26TCPB, Second Annual Report, 17. 11

G E N D lir[;W ANO £XI.STING - SVl'tRHIQMWA'!'S .. f~~tT~~!AANl.l) ~!):~~£~ A E$1DCNTIAJ.. RUltVU.O"WCNT ARU.S MOO(L ,.U9t.IC MOUSING ARtA =~~icc~'"J~Vfr~fltl PAOSPEC:TIVt AO.COO PO,.UL.ATIOH t::33 !lt'tc: ~:~c:we!i.; r::::lUli\l'IAN t.IWi'f TOJilONTa ~ ~"';~g~•i:.~wjl~1 M A $ T R P A N 4 3 - PIH'.$UIT CITY i.IMIT

Figure 3. The City of Toronto's master plan for the "Toronto Metropolitan Area," 1943. The major waterfront proposal is a superhighway running from the Queen Elizabeth Way to Woodbine Avenue. This alignment would connect with other north-south superhighways and a revamped Kingston Road. Along the lakeshore, the urban limit extends from Etobicoke Creek to about Markham Road. [Toronto City Planning Board, The Master Plan for the City of Toronto and Environs] 12 which the planners felt would heighten the City's standing as a distributional centre.27 In order to avoid disrupting two residential areas (the Eastern Beaches and Fallingbrook), the superhighway would be routed up Coxwell A venue and not rejoin Kingston Road until well inside Scarborough's western boundary.

The superhighways program promoted industrial and residential expansion not only in the City, but throughout the Toronto region and beyond. Several arterial spurs were run northward from the lake as part of a network promoting Toronto's hinterland connections. Near the Princes' Gates, one spur would funnel traffic to Northern Ontario from the western edge of the City's "principal industrial area. 11 The Don Valley accommodated another spur on its way to Guelph and London. A third alignment along Mimico Creek serviced the Malton (now Pearson International) Airport, which had opened in 1938.

In an appendix to the 1943 plan, one of Canada's leading regional geographers contemplated planning on a scale far exceeding that of the proposed Metropolitan Area. D .F. Putnam drew attention to conserving the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine, and to reforesting marginal agricultural lands. His proposed "conservancy district" included a "peripheral driveway" linking Oshawa and Hamilton, and the establishment of parks at Mount Nemo, the Credit Forks, and other sites [fig. 4]. Parks at Heart Lake and in the Rouge Valley were among those suggested within the agricultural belt, which would enjoy "protective planning" that stabilized stream flows and soil erosion. The lakeshore - termed "the most important geographical feature of the Toronto region" drew much comment. 28 Its heterogeneous land use pattern alarmed Putnam, given the recent conversion of prime farm land "to suburban residential areas, to large ornamental private estates, to industrial sites and to shack towns and rural slums. 11 Little provision for waterfront recreation had been made in the conversion process. Putnam, who was especially worried about the shoreline between Toronto and Hamilton, warned that "by the time a demand arises within the area itself no suitable [recreational] sites will be available."

The problem of specifying an appropriate planning and administrative unit for the Toronto region was much discussed in the 1940s. Related to this was the issue of what issues were to be addressed within that unit. For Putnam, a challenge lay in reconciling the political with the biophysical, ensuring that one took the other into account:

From a geographical viewpoint, the so-called Toronto region is only a small part of a much larger region; its claim to consideration as a regional unit rests largely in its

27TCPB, Second Annual Report, 12 and 13. The QEW opened in 1939. On the rise of superhighways in the Toronto area, see Robert M. Stamp, QEW: Canada's First Superhighway (Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1987).

28TCPB, Second Annual Report, 26. For another significant statement on the Toronto environment from this time, see Griffith Taylor, "Topographic Control in the Toronto Region," Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 2 (1936): 493-511. E l REE El D HI H YS LEGEND C RCIJ AT ON LANO USE ~

-AttlllOI - Figure 4. D.F. Putnam's "regional greenbelt and highways" scheme, from the City of Toronto's master plan, 1943. Proposals include express highways, regional parks and parkways, and a "conservancy district" embracing the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment. Burlington (lower left), Oshawa (lower right centre), and the Toronto Metropolitan Area (lower centre) all have strong physical links with the conservancy district; Toronto's connection is via the Humber Valley. [Toronto City Planning Board, Second Annual Report] (.;.)"""" 14

relationship to the Toronto Metropolitan Area. The creation of a rural green belt and the undertaking of any other measures of a conservational nature should be planned in harmony with both these relationships. It is not out of place here to urge the setting up of machinery to study the whole question of conservation needs in Ontario, and particularly in the older settled region.29

Regional Authorities Take Shape

Legislatively, the "machinery" which addressed conservation needs becam(! the Conservation Authorities Act of 1946. 30 The act permitted municipalities in a watershed, or a group of watersheds, to develop policies and programs to conserve the natural resources of the area under their jurisdiction. The authorities themselves were to be established on local initiative: municipal councils petitioned the Province to hold an organizational meeting, a resolution calling for the creation of an Authority was passed, and an order-in-council established the Authority and its physical domain.

Amid pressing needs for flood control and reforestation, Ontario's first conservation authority was organized in the Etobicoke Valley in 1946. Its territory was expanded in 1949 to include the Mimico Creek watershed. Elsewhere in the Toronto region, the Don Valley Conservation Association took form in 1947 with the slogan, "Conservation, Restoration, Beautification and Recreation"; led by Charles Sauriol, the Association's work and that of the Don Valley Conservation Authority (DVCA, organized 1948) was promoted in his magazine, The Cardinal. The year 1948 also brought the establishment of the Humber Valley Conservation Authority in the largest watershed of the Toronto region. 31

29TCPB, Second Annual Report, 27.

30The Canadian precedent for adopting a broad view of conservation with an urban planning component was the federal Commission of Conservation (1909-21). See Alan H. Armstrong, "Thomas Adams and the Commission of Conservation," Plan Canada, 1, 1 (1959): 14-32; Alan F.J. Artibise and Gilbert A. Stelter, "Conservation Planning and Urban Planning: The Canadian Commission of Conservation in Historical Perspective," in Roger Kain, ed., Planning for Conservation (London: Mansell, 1981), 17-36. On the development of a conservation ethos in Ontario, see Arthur Herbert Richardson, Conservation by the People: The History of the Conservation Movement in Ontario to 1970 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Conservation Authorities of Ontario, 1974).

31 Richardson, 28 and 100-01; Charles Sauriol, "Beginnings of the Don Valley Conservation Association," The Cardinal, 13 (1954): 6-7. The Humber Valley Conservation Authority (HVCA) took form after the City of Toronto and the Township of King petitioned the Province. At the organizational meeting, a resolution to create an authority passed in a 17-4 vote, and 17 municipalities (among them Toronto, Etobicoke, and Swansea) were declared part of the HVCA. An 18th member was added in 1954. See HVCA, A Scheme for the Development of Multiple-Purpose Conservation Areas in the Humber Watershed (Bolton, Ont., 1956), n.p. A grassroots approach to conservation long predated the authorities. For one local example originating in 1923, see R.M. Saunders, Toronto Field Naturalists' Club: Its History and Constitution (Toronto, 1965), 9. 15 Comprehensive watershed reports were prepared under the aegis of the Conservation Branch of the Province's Department of Planning and Development (ODPD). The reports covered such topics as water, land use, forestry, wildlife, recreation, and history, and laid out proposals for flood control and water conservation, reforestation, heritage management, and multiple-use conservation areas. The lakefront content varied with each jurisdiction. Reports on the Humber (1948) and the Don (1950) contained none at all, partly because of the pyramidal configuration of these watersheds, partly because of their severely degraded (and apparently irrecoverable) lower reaches, and partly because most of the solutions appeared to lie upstream. These issues were articulated well in a 1954 DVCA trail guide. The first site interpreted was Keating Channel, where "there is often ... more sewage than river water": "The most necessary measure of conservation for the lower Don is to stop pollution at every point where it now enters the river. In addition, reforestation of the headwaters areas would assist in regulating the flow of water, and thereby keep the river clean. "32

The Etobicoke Valley report (1947) took a different if still ambivalent approach to the waterfront. The flats and lakeshore adjoining Etobicoke Creek at Long Branch had been occupied on a year-round basis since the early 1920s, and flooding in this "shack town" (to use Putnam's term) had become a regular event of increasing concern. The ODPD's proposed channel improvements would displace only a few residents, leaving the rest at continued if lower risk on the floodplain. 33 It is unclear if this reflected an unwillingness to expend public funds or a reluctance to disturb private property interests and an existing community, or both. Not until the early 1950s were preliminary arrangements made for a small park in the area. With the coming of in 1954, the implications of this policy of limited intervention became tragically clear.

The Conservation Authorities Act was not the only significant piece of provincial legislation passed in 1946. Under the Planning Act, municipalities could strike local planning boards; the Minister of Planning and Development could form regional boards cutting across local boundaries. In both cases, official plans could be prepared "to secure the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants. "34 The Province appointed the Toronto and Suburban Planning Board (TSPB) later in 1946, with J.P. Maher as chairman, Frederick G. Gardiner as vice-chairman, and representation from the 13 Toronto-

32Don Valley Conservation Authority (DVCA), Don Valley Conservation Trail (Toronto, 1954), 9. The trail was established in 1952. Also see Ontario Department of Planning and Development (ODPD), The Humber Valley Conservation Report (Toronto, 1948); ODPD, The Don Valley Conservation Report (Toronto, 1950). The ODPD was created in 1944.

330DPD, The Etobicoke Valley Conservation Report (Toronto, 1947), 272-73.

34For the background to the Planning Act, see John D. Hulchanski, "The Origins of Urban Land Use Planning in Ontario, 1900-1946" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1981). On the larger context of regional planning at this time, see John Friedmann and Clyde Weaver, Territory and Function: The Evolution of Regional Planning (London: Edward Arnold, 1979). 16 area municipalities. Gardiner forged a link between conservation and regional planning when he spoke on the latter topic at an Ontario conservation convention in 1946. Optimistically, he believed that cooperation on regional issues was possible "if we proceed on sane and sensible lines. 1135

The TSPB issued its first and only report in 1947. With jurisdiction over the 250 square miles bounded by Steeles Avenue, Lake Ontario, the Rouge River, and Etobicoke Creek - the future corporate limits of Metropolitan Toronto - the TSPB considered matters of an "inter-municipal nature" such as public transit, sanitation, transportation, parks, and land use. Support was thrown behind the City's 1943 master plan. The green belt concept was of especial interest, with the TSPB urging a "joint acquirement" program on the part of the City and York County [fig. 5]. Of the 4,500 acres desired, some 2,700 were owned privately and thus "liable to development in a manner not in conformity with the green belt program. "36 Included among the TSPB 's other proposals were the industrialization of the eastern Scarborough waterfront (where abundant raw land and ready rail access were available), the development a unified system of arterial roads, and the creation of a single public transit network.

The TSPB also recommended that it be reconstituted to include not only Toronto and its suburbs, but all of York County. This was done in 1948 and the Toronto and York Planning Board (TYPB), now chaired by Gardiner, got down to work. Fostering rapid regional growth was clearly its objective, and this meant territorial reorganization for the efficient delivery of hard services. In the TYPB's opinion, "if progress is to be made some new administrative set up must be devised at least for the Metropolitan Area." The key issue was "not what needs to be done, but rather how those services can be effectively provided in an area divided into a number of separate autonomous municipalities. 1137

As the TYPB made clear in its 1949 report, unification imposed by the Province was the only reasonable solution. In contrast to earlier proposals, the TYPB's metropolitan scheme included only the eight municipalities lying between the Humber River and Scarborough Township. Other areas in the region were excluded either because of their mainly rural character (including much of Scarborough and Etobicoke) or their potential for independent amalgamation (such as the lakeshore municipalities west of the Humber), or

35Frederick G. Gardiner, "Regional Planning," in ODPD, Conservation in South Central Ontario (Toronto: Baptist Johnston, 1948), 104. Also see Richardson, 19-20 and 99-100. Maher later chaired the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board (MTPB) from its inception in 1953 until his death in 1961; he also sat on (and usually chaired) the TCPB between 1942 and 1958.

36Toronto and Suburban Planning Board (TSPB), Report (Toronto, 1947), 14. The City supported the scheme; the County did not.

37Toronto and York Planning Board (TYPB), Report (Toronto, 1949), 44 and 4. As reeve of Forest Hill, Gardiner had earlier led the attack on just such an idea. See Toronto Telegram, 1 April 1939. 17

k'E'Y PLAN Of THE INNfQ GQff N 6ELT

Figure 5. The Toronto and Suburban Planning Board's "inner green belt" scheme, 1947. Relative to the 1943 master plan, the parkland acquisitions and parkway alignments proposed are shown in great detail. The inverted-U configuration of the belt, straddling the Humber and Don valley systems, follows the 1943 plan. The only waterfront link is at the Humber mouth (left centre). The text provides no key to the numbers on this plan. [Toronto and Suburban Planning Board, Report] 18 because their direct access to the lake left them free of the water and drainage problems facing upstream communities. 38

Broad-based interest in some form of union had, in fact, been growing through the late 1940s and early '50s. In 1947, the Town of Mimico applied to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for the creation of a regional "Board of Management" to administer major public services. 39 A year later, the community-based Civic Advisory Council of Toronto (CAC) began studying potential improvements in governmental structure and in the delivery of public services in the region. In 1951, CAC suggested that either a metropolitan county should be created out of 23 Toronto-area municipalities, or that Toronto and the surrounding 12 municipalities be amalgamated, and a regional authority formed [fig. 6]. 40 This recommendation had, however, already been overtaken by events. Premier had set up a Toronto Area Committee early in 1950, though he was soon informed that there was "little hope of the municipalities settling their problems amicably among themselves. "41 Meanwhile, two new applications had been filed with the OMB. The Village of Long Branch wanted an order to amalgamate Long Branch, New Toronto, Mimico, and "Etobicoke including the Village of "; the City of Toronto wanted full amalgamation with the adjacent 12 suburbs. The City's earlier stance - that annexation would be nothing but a burden had been reversed. Now, only by overcoming political fragmentation could equity be attained, efficiencies of scale achieved, and economic progress made. 42

The push for institutional reform also came from technical experts. With an industrial and demographic boom predicted for the area below Steeles A venue - thanks partly to Toronto's expected role as an "important seaport for ocean-going vessels" - the TYPB studied water supply, sewerage, transportation, and (for the area between Steeles

38TYPB, Report, 45.

390n the petition's rationale, see Mimico Research Committee, Metropolitan Area of Toronto and Suburbs (Mimico, Ont., 1949). At Metro Council's inaugural meeting in 1953, Gardiner acknowledged that Mimico's application "lit the fuse which started the chain reaction which ... brought us here today." See Metropolitan Toronto [Metro] Council Minutes 1953, 15 April, 9.

4°CAC, appointed by Toronto City Council to study postwar programs, grew out of the Toronto Reconstruction Council (established 1943) and was composed of various civic organizations. Its metropolitan work was sanctioned by "most" of the 13 Toronto-area municipalities. Its analysis of the region and the challenges facing it was both detailed and comprehensive, and the scale of its "metropolitan area" approximated that over which the MTPB eventually gained jurisdiction. See CAC, First Report, Section One (Toronto, 1949), First Report, Section Two (Toronto, 1950), and Final Report (Toronto, 1951); TCPB, History of Planning Organization in Toronto (Toronto, 1959), 7.

41 H. Carl Goldenberg, Report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1965), 24.

42Colton, 65; Lemon, Toronto Since 1918, 108-10. 19

\ . i-I TW. ·-OF ·-·-·-·-·-7 ~ ETOBICOKE

/\ ·,-.-n,u•to - ' 1,nc r ~ ii. ,,./ A·.::;-:.: ~ ,...., ,..,,,, ~ ·' \:, '. ~ ..,,,,,.,, ./Tiii! °' TOROllYo • \ ""'~ ./· .a"°'' ...- A.flt,.... \•\ // / ( --~ \

\ -""' 5TRElT!MUJ! .\ t ) ...... \ Vll14 BOUNOAAY' OF PRESlNT • UA9Aff t>E1'ElOPMENT POPULATION FGJAU lllCllC.IJU) ARE PoR 194& ·--·····...... 11

THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF TORONTO tc:.Ll ii MIUI AS OEPINEO BY THE COMMITTEE hr-'==···· • •

Figure 6. The "metropolitan area of Toronto," as defined for study purposes by the Civic Advisory Council, 1949. This territory, with the addition of Pickering Township, the Village of Pickering, and the Town of Ajax, later became the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. [Civic Advisory Council of Toronto, First Report, Section One] 20 Avenue and Lake Simcoe) land use issues. 43 While Plumptre had found the region's water supply and sewage disposal practices satisfactory in 1935, engineers were no longer so complacent. By 1949, lack of a "comprehensive coordinated plan" had become a serious problem. Entering the realm of politics, engineering consultants Gore & Storrie asserted that "unified control over water supply, sewage disposal and storm water is absolutely essential in order to protect the health of the citizens. "44 The $23.6 million works program they recommended was technically feasible; only the machinery for implementation was lacking. Similarly, Norman D. Wilson pushed for a "Metropolitan Arterial Roads Commission" and a public transit body developed on regional lines [fig. 7]. Wilson perceived a logical relationship between the scale of political organization and its geographical context. Arterial roads, public transit, water supply and drainage, sewage disposal, parks, and zoning all, he felt, were subject to "the compelling influence of the natural topography of the area, which prescribes a unitary solution. "45

The hard-services approach taken by the TYPB in 1949 essentially confirmed previous ideas. The waterfront was left largely to residential development, save for industrial pockets in central Toronto and eastern Scarborough. A "new and improved" waterfront highway linking the QEW and Woodbine Avenue was mooted, complete with subways and bridges to eliminate "intersectional interference." The major ravines faced an ambiguous future. While the green belt concept remained intact, the TYPB was uncertain if a "continuous highway" through the belt should be provided. Such a route would have to be designed to be attractive "only to those who value the green belt for the opportunities

43TYPB, Report, 44. The background studies were: Gore & Storrie, Report on Water Supply and Sewage Disposal for the City of Toronto and Related Areas (Toronto, 1949); Norman D. Wilson, A Transportation Plan for Metropolitan Toronto and the Suburban Area Adjacent (Toronto, 1948); and P. Alan Deacon, E.G. Faludi, and John Layng, County of York Planning Survey: Report (Toronto, 1948). Deacon, Faludi, and Layng argued (p. 2) that the political limits of the TYPB were artificial, and looked forward to the creation of a more logical planning unit in the future an area that was more than an administrative convenience. "In an ultimate sense," they noted, "the County of York, including the City of Toronto is only part of a true region since the direct influence of the City of Toronto also extends east and west beyond the County limits into the Counties of Halton, Peel and Ontario. This is to be expected since the main and dominant transportation routes of southern Ontario are east and west through Toronto." Another concern they addressed was the urbanization of water bodies on the Oak Ridges Moraine. The lakes were no longer viewed as a potential source of water for the City, but as regionally significant recreational resources which were increasingly becoming privatized.

44Gore & Storrie, Report on Water Supply and Sewage Disposal for the City of Toronto and Related Areas, 3 and 121-22.

45Wilson, Transportation Plan, 30. For a rather more audacious scheme unveiled prior to Metro's creation, see Frederick R. Harris of Canada Ltd., Transportation for Toronto: A Study of Needed Rapid Transit, Integrated with Express Highways and Street Arteries for Private Vehicles, for the Toronto Metropolitan Area (Toronto, c. 1953). Some $400-500 million worth of improvements were proposed, including a waterfront expressway running "from west of Long Branch to the vicinity of Port Union." -Tr--1 I I :.~~'I I i . r I I '

Fi I 0 0

TORONTOl"ll'T'ID•'OLITAN

Or!'!OTtS h·mnt Gl!:u;.H5tLT

~~Si!lli ~~~'fie~~~~~ ~7~~~ B0';,'.-T N:r_T:tos>aLIT~N AR.tA -=.= ~~~:.::·· n.u.~~t'P.3

To AtcOMPAl"I">' Rt"""" OM Ti:i: ... ~:>P01lT.o.T10,.. 5t11:v1u 'D'll -:><[ Tolltonto Mr.:rl*".OPO\..lT•1' Aiu>- ov ~ • ...... ,., 0 \.o.11L!!IOI'(, .Anu. \"4a'

Figure 7. Norman D. Wilson's "network of main highways" for the Toronto Metropolitan Area, 1948. The waterfront route - running north of the existing Lake Shore Boulevard and Exhibition Park - anticipates Wilson's later critique of Margison Babcock's alignment (see fig. 15). [Wilson, A Transportation Plan for Metropolitan Toronto and the Suburban Area Acijacent]

N...... 22 it provides for leisure and recreation . . . under no circumstances shall it form a speedway. "46 Yet a major arterial had already been identified for the Don Valley, with Gardiner literally scouting the terrain for possible alignments. 47

The TYPB brought up its second and final report in 1951. With its planning activities curtailed pending a decision on unification by the OMB, Gardiner and his board reflected on their lack of progress. Poor sewage disposal caused the greatest alarm. Upstream treatment plants were dumping effluent into the overloaded Don and Humber rivers at an alarming rate. While sewering areas north of Steeles Avenue was considered impracticable, the TYPB felt that pollution to the south could no longer be tolerated. The proposed remedial action entailed routing all sewage to a major disposal plant on the lakeshore. "Unless this is done," warned the TYPB, "it seems inevitable that the extensive park and recreation areas planned by the Board and the Don and Humber Conservation Authorities will be grouped around open sewers totally unsuitable for bathing and the many other purposes for which a water-course is such a valuable adjunct to a park. "48 Also stalled was a Don Valley highway network (offering a "first class connection between the Scarborough industrial areas and the waterfront"), large-scale reforestation, and the green belt, though York County Council had purchased a 600-acre tract on Lake Simcoe for parkland.49 The TYPB's efforts to distribute industry equitably throughout the suburbs had not met with success, either [fig. 8]. "The reasons for this," summed up the TYPB, "are of course the fact that the areas bordering the lake are geographically more attractive to industry than the northern area, and the ... difficulty of providing full municipal services in the latter. "50

During the period 1913-53, the idea of regional planning gathered public support and was enshrined, however modestly, in provincial legislation. In the Greater Toronto area, the City provided leadership with its innovative plan of 1943. Its regional vision was

46TYPB, Report, 11 and 35.

47Gardiner later recalled the engineering visions inspired by his valley rambles in the 1940s: "We'll move the railway over a piece. We'll tear down the hill. We'll shift the river over a piece, then we can have the highway through here." Quoted in Toronto Star, 15 November 1961. Also see Colton, 62-63.

48TYPB, Second Report (Toronto, 1951), 3. In Report on Water Supply and Sewage Disposal for the City of Toronto and Related Areas, Gore & Storrie (p. 16) had previously viewed the costs of cleaning up the lower Don and Humber for recreational use as exorbitant, and suggested building artificial swimming pools instead.

49TYPB, Second Report, 5. For the TYPB, planning well in advance of current needs could help avoid later regrets. The green belt, for example, would "undoubtedly be looked upon by future generations as one instance at least where the need for constructive foresight was appreciated by civic administrations of the present day instead of something that was overlooked fifty years ago when opportunity was knocking at the door."

50TYPB, Second Report, 7. Access to water alone did not make the lakeshore "more attractive"; a combination of highway, rail, and water linkages did. METROPOLITAN INDUSTRIAL AREAS &Ill EXISTING LAKE ONTARIO ~ PROPOSED - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

PLAN 3 Figure 8. The Toronto and York Planning Board's pattern of "metropolitan industrial areas," 1951. Existing industry was to be retained along the waterfront in Etobicoke, Swansea, Toronto, and Scarborough. A new manufacturing pocket was slated for the lakeshore in the vicinity of Morningside Avenue (far right). [Toronto and York Planning Board, Second Report]

N w 24 sustained by the later work of the TSPB and the TYPB. A widespread belief emerged that public policy could foster growth while directing it physically and functionally. But rapid and orderly development required large-scale coordination. The existing institutional arrangements were clearly insufficient, and something more than wishful "cooperation" between various municipalities was needed. Yet support for unification was by no means unanimous among the local municipalities. The reeve of Scarborough Township, Oliver Crockford, was one who roundly criticized the work of CAC, the TYPB, Norman D. Wilson, and Gore & Storrie. Crockford felt regional problems had been exaggerated, and existing institutions were capable of ensuring "orderly and controlled development." Wilson's proposed regional transportation agency was considered "so undemocratic and socialistic that it is unworthy of consideration by freedom loving Canadians." As well, a metropolitan council - the first step toward "Fascism or Socialism" - faced the daunting challenge of "organizing, administering, financing, developing and uniting an area as large as that proposed." "This," concluded Crockford, "is a task that only a superman or a dictator like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Tito would entertain. "51

At the same time that regional expansion was being vigorously promoted, a sense of limits to growth emerged. This was implied in the 1943 plan, with its inner green belt, agricultural zone, and conservancy district. Moreover, the idea of placing development on a sound environmental basis (and in the context of watershed units) led to the popular establishment of conservation authorities throughout much of the Toronto region by 1950. Yet, as one citizens' group put it, a "considerable measure of centralized control" still had to be organized and applied to make real the visions of this period, and to strike a balance between conservation and development. 52

ENVISIONING THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT, 1953-68

Expanding the Sewerage and Water Supply Systems

Centralized control - and the rise of a supermayor, if not a superman - came about in 1953 with Lorne Cumming' s OMB recommendations and the passing of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. Cumming rejected both Mimico's and Toronto's applications. Mimico's proposal dealt only with existing facilities, and would have no power to plan for future extensions and improvements; Toronto's scheme, while attractive in many ways, would likely bring administrative chaos, massive tax increases, and a lack of responsiveness to local concerns. Also, it was "bitterly opposed" by all of the suburban municipalities except Mimico. Cumming outlined his own proposal for the "organization of a suitable form of metropolitan government in the Toronto area" - a federal compromise between full

51 0liver E. Crockford, A Submission on Proposals for Unification of the Toronto Area (Scarborough, Ont.: Scarborough Township, 1950), 1, 17, 21, and 22.

52CAC, First Report, Section One, 5. 25 amalgamation and the creation of special-purpose authorities. The new municipality's root objective was to exercise those functions "considered vitally necessary to the continued growth and development of the entire area as an urban community. 1153 The 13 area municipalities would retain their boundaries and control over local services not assigned to the new institution. Most of Cumming's ideas found their way into the way into the Metro act, which received royal assent a mere six weeks after his report was tabled.

Leadership for the fledgling municipality - and continuity with previous regional initiatives was provided by Forest Hill lawyer Frederick G. Gardiner. Gardiner chaired Metro Council from its inception until the end of 1961, and his pivotal role in transforming the Metropolitan landscape has been frequently noted. 54 Pragmatically pro-growth in outlook, he emphasized the large-scale provision of hard services to create a physical infrastructure that would expedite orderly private development throughout the region. 55 In pointed contrast to the regional planning bodies which preceded Metro, the latter had the legislative and fiscal means to attain its goals.

On the question of planning, Gardiner held a somewhat ambiguous position. He participated actively in the affairs of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board (MTPB), using it as a vehicle to gain support for his ideas. The MTPB, created upon the dissolution of the TYPB late in 1953, oversaw the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (MTPA), which from 1953 to 1970 spanned 720 square miles and 26 municipalities.56 Gardiner expected a regional plan to be in place by the end of 1954, but waited considerably longer [fig. 9].

530MB, 31, 42, and 46. Cumming was "impressed" that the question of a suitable form of government for the Toronto region "[had] been the subject of a number of official and unofficial investigations and reports for more than 25 years, and that although there [had] been a fairly wide recognition of the need, no constructive action [had] been taken." In his recommendations (pp. 50, 52, and 62), he adopted many of the proposals made to the TYPB by Gore & Storrie and Wilson.

54For analyses in this light, see Harold Kaplan, Urban Political Systems: A Functional Analysis of Metro Toronto (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967); Albert Rose, Governing Metropolitan Toronto: A Social and Political Analysis, 1953-1971 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972). For a more recent study of Metro, see Philip Wichern, "Metropolitan Reform and the Restructuring of Local Governments in the North American City," in Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F .J. Artibise, eds., Power and Place: Canadian Urban Development in the North American Context (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986), 292- 322.

55 Seizing the opportunity, the unit size of the development industry in Metro expanded greatly from the early 1950s onward. In a corporate sense, this was Metro's private-sector parallel. On the rise of large development companies like the Development Corporation, Cadillac, Greenwin, Belmont, and Meridian, see Lemon, Toronto Since 1918, 122 and 134-36.

560utside Metro's municipal boundaries, the MTPB had only an advisory function within the MTPA. For sketches of Metropolitan planning into the 1970s, see A.J. Dakin, "The Evaluation of Plans: A Study of Metropolitan Planning in Toronto," Town Planning Review, 44 (1973): 3-30; A.J. Dakin, Toronto Planning: A Planning Review of the Legal and Jurisdictional Contexts from 1912to1970, Papers on Planning and Design No. 3 (Toronto: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Toronto, 1974). N O'I

I 11V/

I METROPOLITAN TORONTO LAND USE STUDY EXISTING PROPOSED .l K E 0 N f AR l C 1122Zl .....RESIDENTIAL...... 1:22al , ·~... , · , SAHO- Clll Ml'l'IO,Clf.. l'PJfl ..... •• ... ,.. ~- ... .OPEN SPACES .... D ...... , ...... ,._,.O•lltA.'°JIT ...... AlllD- U.llfD llH l'IOl"OIAUI ...... COMMERCIAL...... ::.;~,~.=~~;,';';'. .._ ... .INDUSTRIAL ...... lilBI

Figure 9. Metropolitan Toronto's existing and proposed land use patterns, 1954. On the waterfront, the major proposals focused on Scarborough and followed the recommendations of the Scarborough Township Planning Board. Save for a new industrial district between the Highland Creek mouth and Manse Road (centre right), the Bluffs were slated for residential uses. [Metropolitan Toronto 1954] 27 Gardiner chafed at the inaction he attributed to his planners. As he put it in 1959, the year a draft Official Plan finally appeared: "We have found that you can line your shelves with reports, plans, and models but eventually you must choose those projects which common sense tells you are most important, give them the necessary priorities and, as Robert Moses would say, put in the steam shovels and the bulldozers. "57

Lack of a comprehensive plan did not hamper Metropolitan activity, which was guided instead by the Finance Commissioner's 10-year capital works program. As the MTPB reflected in 1963, the early emphasis had "of necessity been largely on the basic and essential physical services"; with major works well in hand, Metro's second decade could focus "increasingly on social and community welfare." Some 76 per cent of the 10-year capital works program adopted in 1955 was devoted to roads, sanitation, and water; the 1963-73 program was to reduce this percentage by over half. 58

Evidence of putting-in (a la Moses) was most visible along the regional waterfront, where Metro's key responsibilities included major water supply and sewerage facilities, arterial roads and expressways, and Metropolitan parks. By the end of Gardiner's tenure, numerous proposals from the decade prior to 1953 (and even earlier) had become reality .59 Many, however, were not achieved without controversy and compromise. This reflected tension not only between local and regional interests, but between diverging regional objectives as well.

One of Metro's first engineering projects illustrates these points well. In 1954, plans were unveiled for a major sewage treatment plant at the mouth of the Humber River, to be built on the 60-acre Humber Valley Golf Course and 20 acres of adjoining land. The proposal, which involved the expropriation of 80 residential properties, promptly drew staunch opposition from local residents and Etobicoke Township. According to Etobicoke reeve W.B. Lewis, the facility would eliminate "a vital part of the green belt system of Etobicoke's Master Plan" and had provoked deep concern amongst citizens who had previously lived near "giant" sewage plants. 60 The Globe & Mail predicted that Gardiner

57Quoted in Colton, 95. In his role as public developer, Moses was New York's most important 20th­ century civic official. For a comparison between him and Gardiner, see Lemon, Toronto Since 1918, 145-47. On Moses, see Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York (New York: Knopf, 1974).

58MTPB, Metropolitan Toronto, 1953-63: A Decade of Progress (Toronto, 1963), 5.

59Metro's waterfront emphasis is evident in a "verbal tour" given by Gardiner in his 1958 inaugural address. See Metro Council Minutes 1958, App. "C," 2. Also note the excellent work summaries in the annual brochures published by Metro. See [MTPB], Metropolitan Toronto (Toronto, 1953-68).

wMetro Council Minutes 1954, App. "A," 323. On Etobicoke's Official Plan, see E.G. Faludi, Town Planning Consultants Ltd., A Master Plan for the Development of the Township of Etobicoke: A Thirty Year Program for Development, 1946-76 (Etobicoke, Ont., 1947); E.G. Faludi, Town Planning Consultants Ltd., 28

"would go down in history as the man who, while paying lip service to the green belt principle, was one of the chief architects of destruction in the green areas of the Humber Valley. "61 The newspaper alleged that he had a personal interest in a land development company operating in the area. Gardiner disavowed this in a speech to Metro Council, while passing no comment on the potential impacts of the plant. Without the plant, he argued, pollution in the river would soon reach the point that "anyone who wanted to canoe up it would have to put wheels on. "62

While the issue was referred to the OMB for a decision, the Humber plant's rationale and general location were supported by Metro's engineering and business communities. In a report to the Toronto Board of Trade, Norman D. Wilson commended the river mouth site as "natural and economic," noting that the overall health of the Humber watershed depended on the plant's construction:

It is very much to be desired that the Humber Valley be preserved as green belt and park land, and the river itself as a recreational waterway. The last is only possible if the draining into it of sewage effluent be discontinued. To the maximum extent possible, the river should be returned to its natural purity and so maintained.

For Wilson, sacrificing a relatively small portion of the green belt was necessary to protect the integrity of the larger system. 63 The OMB took a similar view when it ruled in Metro's favour. Work on the facility began immediately thereafter.

By 1956, the Humber plant was under construction, another at the Highland Creek mouth had been completed, and extensions to the Main sewage treatment plant at Ashbridge's Bay were in progress. These works reflected a principle enunciated in a 1954 report by Gore & Storrie of using the lakeshore and the lake for sewage disposal and water supply. In order to protect Metro's water supply and water-based recreational resources, Gore & Storrie's "ultimate goal" was to eliminate all sewage plant effluent from Metro's rivers. 64 Sewage would be brought safely in trunk mains to a limited number of

A Plan for Etobicoke (Etobicoke, Ont.: Etobicoke Township Planning Board, [1947]).

61 Toronto Globe & Mail, 14 October 1954.

62Metro Council Minutes 1954, App. "C," 13; Toronto Star, 23 February 1955.

63Norman D. Wilson, Proposed Humber Valley Sewage Treatment Plant (Toronto, 1955), 5-6 and 14. In his inaugural address before Metro Council in 1955, Gardiner claimed that Metro's engineers had originally intended to build the plant entirely atop the lower Humber marshes. This idea was abandoned likely on engineering rather than ecological grounds. See Metro Council Minutes 1955, App. "C," 9.

64Gore & Storrie, Report on Water Supply and Sewage Disposal/or the Metropolitan Area (Toronto, 1954), 4. Ordered by Metro Council in 1953, this report updated the firm's 1949 study for the TYPB, with works now totalling $104.3 million. On locating sewage treatment plants to minimize the pollution of streams and watercourses within Metro, see Metro Council Minutes 1954, App. "A," 201; on a policy proposal regarding 29 large, efficient treatment plants at the lake; overloaded local plants polluting the region's watercourses (and ultimately the lake) would be closed once the mains and treatment plants had been built. Judicious siting of water intakes and filtration plants in relation to sewage facilities was also possible, given Metro's ability to effect large-scale coordination.

Given this infrastructure philosophy, it is not surprising that in a five-year capital works program approved in 1954, Metro's highest water supply and sewerage priorities were lakefront-oriented [figs. 10-13]. 65 The top water supply projects were the rehabilitation and expansion of the Scarborough and R.C. Harris filtration plants and the John Street pumping station; the sewerage priorities were the expansion of the Main treatment plant and the construction of new facilities at the mouths of the Humber River and Highland Creek. These works were completed by the early 1960s; by 1965, seven of the eight upstream water wells and 11 of the 13 upstream sewage treatment plants had been closed. Another key element proposed for the water system was a westerly filtration plant, which Gore & Storrie predicted would be needed by 1970. While identifying no specific site, they urged that suitable lands west of the Humber be acquired and used for recreation on an interim basis. The acquisition went forward while the interim use did not. In 1968, the R.L. Clark Filtration Plant was officially opened on part of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital grounds. 66

Toward a Network of Expressways

Metro's proposed expressway system clearly drew on Toronto's 1943 plan, and through the 1950s its basic structure was generally accepted. But as the eight-mile lakeshore section demonstrated, the system's details could be hotly debated. In 1953, Council approved the drawing-up of plans for a waterfront expressway. The project was a "prime necessity" because the existing corridor already supported the "most concentrated [traffic

storm water drainage, see ibid., 201-202. Later, Metro Works saw the completed Humber plant as a key factor in reducing pollution along the western lakeshore, thus maintaining property values in the area. See Metropolitan Toronto Works Department, The Humber Treatment Plant, The Queensway (Toronto, n.d.), n.p.

65Metro Council Minutes 1954, App. "A," 137-43 and 192-98.

66Metropolitan Toronto 1954 (Toronto, 1954), 14-15; ibid. 1965 (Toronto, 1965), 22-25; Metropolitan Toronto Works Department, Westerly Filtration Plant, Information Bulletin 70-2 (Toronto, n.d.); Gore & Storrie, Report on Water Supply and Sewage Disposal for the Metropolitan Area, 2.5. For a local historical study, see Robert Steedman, "Water Supply and Sanitation in Toronto," Toronto Field Naturalists, 383 (1986): 18-28. On Metro's relation to the national context, see Letty Anderson, "Water-Supply," and Douglas Baldwin, "Sewerage," in Norman R. Ball, ed., Building Canada: A History of Public Works (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988), 192-220 and 221-44. (.;.) 0

I"·~--!--· -;-- :·-+;-- ~ ·! -­ I '· r _j .... , ). -~ I . 1., .... p K I N O RT. H ~ 0 I I -·+ ··-· . ..ljl I i ' •• +: .. /_;rJ±~·f_=~;~f~~~.. - I ; . ,,' ' .I. ----l'l ',I \, ..: -:?"'I=- _..,_..;..) • ·- v-·'• _ 11. 1:. -+ . '. \ j L .. -· • -h. -..._J : ',"-. I .,.: -- - '.•• ' . :~L-A: ' :1 ---L-1~ .. ,.:,. ' ' ·' ,--.,__..,___" ' c .1'.\)'R-s:·o·R 0 u ·(; H I • .___ • 1 I I . ~ ·-..."'.I-(·,,- ~-. '- •._ - .. I ?i.-. : /l1 ' ..,_ - r , i. 1,:; \. ...;. A.,. ,.-.:f. ' '' ST'- _,,,~~••n•HA I ', 1 '/ -·· ··-\WE - \., ~ ' ' I -f1··. ~ ·, ~ W,,t.. ~~··r ··~:.. ,__, --·-l-i;t-7' ·: \ """ ·- ' ~ - - r - ""'-ti ; ::; .. :1 + • I ' \! /. 'H-, c.• v: ,.. ..,,"I"' ·-·i . I ; ' ·-+';J+7J., : --- I' .:.r.i • '.Y•\,_s ; ft. I( ·.. r•·c~:· ·- '-1. '·,... ' l··· I : • t'+--- :St:. -. : ; . 0 •K Er' . . ~ , ~- ~ /:.~~~:~ :~.... ~] . ~ . E T O_t;J_ : ei·'-·-\-~-:j'.'.~ \)As·;· ~:y ,.. ~ .':;: -;~ L;;;/, \'r.:±;:;i ..... !~¥. '1 ·-··.. 7 . ··./!~!•·· - -;.1~1 ( \.. .~II\ ~·-- L. \ ... _ ...... WATER SUPPLY '=Q=- WELL FILTERED WATER TUNNEL 6°DIA. 8 TANK

ISLAND A. RESERVOIR (Water Purtfh:iatfot1 Plant) • PUMPING STATION L AKE c N I .Z\ ;~ ! :·\ D PURIFICATION PLANT ,,,, AUTHORIZED 1954

Figure 10. Metropolitan Toronto's water supply system, 1954. Improvements authorized along the waterfront include the expansion of the John Street pumping station and the R.C. Harris and Scarborough filtration plants, and their connection with new water mains. Note the municipal wells in Etobicoke, North York, and Markham Township, and the limited extent of water mains. [Metropolitan Toronto 1954] • l'l~l-~lrlll~3 Al'!M ~ w • orioot!ll:I pitmls Al'llll~ Al'!M~

Figure 11. Metropolitan Toronto's water supply system, 1967. In contrast to the situation in 1953, nearly all of Metro is served by lake-oriented plants. The construction of new water mains brought the closure of almost all municipal wells by this date. [Metropolitan Toronto 1967]

(.;.) ...... / \,).) N • ' L + t L t '. ii/j , · , :~.. I I • •X ' '/· .•. L, •. ' [ ,, I1 . . " I ' I . ·' ' .. >,f ' \-·"' ,_,.. ' ' i >-~ f-- tl ~ \,.~, ., 1,i!.. Y, ' L \2t_·,~ . ''' ~ . I I ' ' '., . . I' .' ~·_/. /<" ' • .' ;_ . .l.I' --.- - - '' --·' .... , ,-,,,' (• . "., o " • ,.. "' . " . ""'>·' ''-" ' " ... ., rr "· ,, \\ - ·o _,, !" I •., t + 1 j;r i ' ;_ .--~ i ; ~- ' ' ''-be· i,•,_:0 i , I , /, i -'' ' ' '· J ::.1''" 1 · ·-1- - · ~---~, ~'--t·----• · · · ' ·.\,.~ ·~~ •,..' H · >. • 1 ' "'>t;.f-- - ' ' -6 A.1-jR ' sr·o\ R, ,0 9 u, ""i · t.,./ t~r/~--r-- •'I ' '•~~~--,-I'*~:. ,,,,-'"\•, 1 -~!, ., '1 '• '"}.' \I :, . ,'jl _J - ; ---CR EKtS.T.. ' .{ DON Ml li.!l . " " I • ' • -· 'l'fi. ' . ' ~- · : J· '. I 21 • : · • --+ ... r---~ : ~"'' ·'ii.;," ~ ;i. __ ,L__ ,,,,, .- -~•s L....-L_____ --' ~~­ r1 ! . , , ~,~"-~'f~_,,,,ei ' --~ i-ij'.~~(.:;.ov' JT 0 C r.rE £~ i: \..._~ l (...,'}.~ .~;r' I

SEWAGE @ SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS - SANITARY INTERCEPTORS L l\ K f ONTARIO ii,ii~$3i::J~r.:&~ SEWERED AREAS .,,_,._,.,,,,_ AUTHORIZED 1954 QDDU .. STORM SEWERS

Figure 12. Metropolitan Toronto's sewerage system, 1954. Improvements authorized along the waterfront include the expansion of the Ashbridge's Bay (or Main) sewage treatment plant and the construction of new plants at the mouth of the Humber River and Highland Creek, and their connection with new trunk mains. [Metropolitan Toronto 1954] Figure 13. Metropolitan Toronto's sewerage system, 1967. With the construction of new (and rehabilitation and enlargement of old) trunk sewers and treatment plants, much of Metro was serviced by lake-oriented plants by the mid-1960s. In the process, most upstream p1ants and private facilities were abandoned. [Metropolitan Toronto 1967]

w w 34 movement] in Canada. "67 A functional study was undertaken by Margison Babcock & Associates, De Leuw Cather & Co., and Norman D. Wilson, and released in 1954 [fig. 14].

"Certain schemes previously proposed," began the Margison report, "have to be taken into account because, while perhaps inadequate in technical detail to meet today's requirements, they could be, nevertheless, of considerable merit in concept." The worthy precedents were apparently those which viewed the waterfront's paramount utility in terms of high-speed movement. Margison's least-cost solution was to run an expressway alternately atop or south of the existing Lake Shore Boulevard. This meant demolishing the Sunnyside Amusement Area (though an unspecified "general rehabilitation" was promised), and restricting waterfront access to four pedestrian overpasses between the Humber and Spencer Avenue. In front of Exhibition Park, lakefilling out to the existing breakwater would accommodate both the expressway and a new Lake Shore Road; access to the rebuilt seawall would be gained by another two footbridges. An alignment along the north side of Exhibition Park was rejected due to cost and because it was a "less favourable scenic location. "68 Instead, an interchange at Strachan A venue would be laid over Coronation Park and the Gore [fig. 15]. The expressway would then be elevated as far east as Carlaw Avenue, continuing on at grade to its terminus at Coxwell Avenue.

The Margison report opened by admiring the "coordinated basis" on which waterfront development had proceeded as a result of the THC's 1912 plan, with its reconciliation of previous conflicts regarding land use and movement. Wilson, however, felt the report failed on exactly those grounds and disassociated himself from its recommendations. In a letter to Gardiner and later to the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, aspects of the project were described as "so contrary to the public interest, so devoid of city-planning forethought," that it was unsupportable. 69 Wilson attacked the idea of an expressway that would often run within 200 feet of a fenced-off shoreline, with the lake accessible only by foot over long bridges. Moreover, elevating the expressway across central Toronto was deemed "as undesirable as it is unnecessary. Whatever structures are built now will remain for generations." Wilson rejected neither the idea of a waterfront expressway nor the design standards laid out in the Margison report; he opposed a specific route based "in large measure" on cost with scant consideration of other values. "The whole thesis of a waterfront for public recreation and enjoyment, which has governed city policy for the past thirty years is discarded, and the improvements including tree growth, developed during that period at substantial cost are sacrificed." Wilson's preferred northerly alignment might cost more, but

67Metropolitan Toronto Roads Department (MTRD), Triennial Report 1954-55-56 (Toronto, 1956), 21. Soon after Metro was created, the expressway was described as Council's "top priority." See Toronto Globe & Mail, 8 July 1953.

68Margison Babcock & Associates with De Leuw, Cather & Co. and Norman D. Wilson, Proposed Lakeshore Expressway for Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto: Functional Report (Toronto, 1954), 2 and 11. Margison Babcock prepared and submitted the report; De Leuw and Wilson were associated consultants.

69Quoted in Norman D. Wilson, Toronto Lakeshore Expressway (Toronto, 1954), 1. I .~ I ROADS I I H 1b D I ~Mil.ES

PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS •••••••••• PROPOSED ROADS METROPOLITAN ROADS (ASSUMED JAN. 1954) L AKE ONTARIO 276·8 Miles

Figure 14. Metropolitan Toronto's road system, 1954. A lakeshore expressway- essentially an eastward extension of the Queen Elizabeth Way - is proposed between the Humber River and Woodbine Avenue. A connection between this expressway and points north is given by the proposed Don Valley Parkway. [Metropolitan Toronto 1954]

UJ Vi 36

Figures 15-16. Margison Babcock's plans for the Strachan Avenue interchange on the proposed lakeshore expressway, 1954. In the original plan (top), the expressway ran south of Lake Shore Boulevard and over Coronation Park and the Gore in front of Exhibition Park (left centre). Bathurst Quay is at the upper right. In the alternate plan (bottom), the expressway ran north of Exhibition Park (lower right) and through the military cemetery east of Strachan (centre). [Margison Babcock et al., Proposed Lakeshore Expressway; Margison Babcock, Proposed Lakeshore Expressway, Comparison of Alternatives, Humber River to Spadina A venue] 37 it also boasted "outstanding advantages. 11 It would occupy the area reserved for electric radial railways in the 1912 plan and which had been the "generally accepted route for a relief highway" since the 1923 abandonment of Ontario Hydro's radials scheme. 7° Furthermore, the alternative route offered better access to the lake for both pedestrians and automobiles.

At first, Metro's Lakeshore Expressway Co-ordinating Committee and Roads Committee had few qualms with the Margison report, approving the functional plan in principle. Their reservations concerned traffic interchanges and other matters "of purely local planning," such as the number of pedestrian bridges and the potential impact of a new breakwater on navigation through the Western Gap. 71 But on the Executive Committee's recommendation, and after further representations were made by the Board of Trade and the Community Planning Association of Canada, Metro Council ordered a supplementary functional report [fig. 16].72 The Board of Trade echoed Wilson's concerns in its critique of the stretch between Bathurst Street and the Humber. If implemented, the Margison proposal would repeat a history where transportation interests won the day:

A barricaded multiple-lane, limited-access, high-speed road hugging the lakefront, designed for heavy traffic of which perhaps 35 % would be commercial, would ... have the undesirable consequences foreseen as surely as would a railway right-of-way in the same location. [This] expressway is not being designed, nor is it intended, for leisurely travel or scenic enjoyment; it is a strictly utilitarian highway and it ... should logically be kept as far away as circumstances permit from park lands or lands where a reasonable potential for recreational use exists. 73

With a growing Metropolitan population, burgeoning recreational demand, and a scarcity of public land along the regional shoreline, it was not enough merely to preserve such areas. Effort should be devoted to "develop, improve and beautify them for greatest possible use and enjoyment." Using the "natural" road alignment to the north would allow this. Even if its economic costs were greater, more substantial public benefits would accrue. The Board of Trade even looked forward to the day when all through roads south of the proposed expressway (then meaning Lake Shore Road and Lake Shore Boulevard) were removed between Exhibition Park and the Humber River.

7°Wilson, Toronto Lakeshore Expressway, 1-3. On the Ontario Hydro radial railway reservation, see Reeves, Visions, I, 47-55.

71 Metro Council Minutes 1954, App. "A," 622-28.

72For the revamped proposal, see Margison Babcock & Associates, Proposed Lakeshore Expressway for Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Comparison of Alternatives, Humber River to : Functional Report (Toronto, 1954).

73Metro Council Minutes 1954, App. "A," 631. 38 The Board of Trade also criticized the Canadian National Exhibition Association (CNEA) for endorsing the shoreline alignment, which would have added some 25 acres to Exhibition Park by filling in the protected waterway between the seawall and the breakwater. The support of neither the THC nor the federal government had been gained for the reclamation project, which was meant as compensation for lands taken for the expressway. If lakefilling was denied while the expressway went ahead, the result would profoundly affect waterfront activities during the CNE. In any case, access to and use of the lake would be restricted under the Margison scheme, and "perpetuate the undesirable traffic conditions which now exist. " The Board admitted that the northerly alignment would also impinge on Exhibition Park, though on its "least valuable part" - only "minor" buildings like the Dufferin Gate would be affected. The Board's approach to the Princes' Gates was declared "somewhat less objectionable" than Margison's, for some 30 acres would remain in the vicinity for the CNE's future expansion. The impact of the alternative alignment on was not considered.

After disassociating himself from the original Margison report, Wilson worked actively with the Board of Trade's Engineering and Planning Committee to ensure that the northerly alignment became Council's choice. He analyzed the construction costs of his and Margison's Humber-to-Spadina routes, finding them "strictly comparable" on economic grounds. Judged on this basis, Margison's alignment was in fact five percent cheaper, but Wilson maintained that his proposal was "a complete and finished job, in no way entailing, as does [Margison's], redevelopment of the western waterfront, the exhibition grounds, or other park areas at unstated costs, or underestimated but definitely substantial business damages, nor does it deprive the citizens of what is now available to them at virtually no other point, namely ready access to the water's edge for recreational purposes. "74

Wilson also found an ally in the THC, which generally supported his views on the northerly alignment. The THC's priorities were extending west across and the Humber into Etobicoke, enlarging the capacity of the road network between Parkside and Dowling avenues, and building a highway between Cherry Street and Woodbine Avenue all works "of extreme importance as the City develops as an important seaport." In addition to a new expressway nestled against the CNR line, the THC also proposed reorganizing Lake Shore Boulevard and Lake Shore Road. The existing sections would become one-way streets; a new section of Lake Shore Road would be built between Dowling and Spencer avenues, while Lake Shore Boulevard would be widened through Exhibition Park. These new arrangements spelled the end of the THC's declining Sunnyside Amusement Area, though "areas available for parks and car parking [would] be created. "75

74Norman D. Wilson, Summary ofEstimates for Various Alignments of the Proposed Lakes ho re Expressway from its Westerly Terminus Eastward to SpadinaAvenue, with Explanatory Notes (Toronto, 1954), 13 and 69- 70.

75THC, Toronto Lakeshore Expressway "Northerly Route": Explanation (Toronto, 1954), 1 and 8. The THC estimated that the acquisition of about 75 houses and lots in South Parkdale would be required. 39 Six plans and proposals were on the table when Metro Council decided the issue late in 1954. Noting "important divergencies of opinion" between the Margison, Wilson, and THC schemes, Gardiner considered it expedient to deal only with the Queensway and the east and west segments of the lakefront expressway. Once these sections were built, he argued, the "actual traffic" would somehow demonstrate the best course to follow for the Exhibition Park and central sections. 76 The Expressway Technical Committee declared its support for the northerly alignment between the Humber and Dowling Avenue, and for the original Margison route in Toronto's east end. Council adopted these recommendations, and shortly thereafter the CNEA agreed that an expressway along the north side of Exhibition Park was both "feasible and agreeable. "77 To avoid heavy property damages, the expressway was to be elevated midway through the park and return to grade at Spadina Avenue and Fleet Street. With compromises all around, construction began on the Queensway and the "F.G. ." The latter route was so christened in 1957, the year its extension through Scarborough to Highway 401 was approved. 78

Debate over the Gardiner Expressway's central section was, however, far from over. In 1958, the western segment of Canada's "first controlled-access urban freeway" opened between the Humber and Spencer Avenue, just west of Exhibition Park. 79 To the east, the integrity of Fort York - which had just undergone its second restoration in 1952-53 - was threatened by the northerly alignment. 80 With a coalition of 15 groups opposing the

16Metro Council Minutes 1954, App. "A," 1107.

71Metro Council Minutes 1954, App. "A," 1112-13 and 1168-69. Late in 1955, the first section of the expressway - known as the "Keating Street extension" opened between Leslie Street and Woodbine Avenue. See MTRD, Triennial Report 1954-55-56, 26.

18Metro Council Minutes 1957, App. "A," 1038-46. Also see MTPB, Lakeshore Expressway Extension, Leslie Street to Highway 2A (Toronto, 1957); De Leuw, Cather & Co. of Canada Ltd., Scarborough Expressway: Functional Planning Report (Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Roads Department, 1966); Scarborough City Planning Department, The Scarborough Transportation Corridor Study (Scarborough, Ont., 1984). Property acquisitions followed, though the expressway extension never took shape.

79MTRD, Biennial Report 1957-1958 (Toronto, 1958), 14. By that time, the Gardiner had resulted in the demolition of Sunnyside and 131 "buildings or houses" in South Parkdale. See MTRD, Triennial Report 1954- 55-56, 25. For Metro's response to early criticism regarding the Gardiner Expressway, the Queensway (which opened in late 1956), and Lake Shore Boulevard, see Metro Council Minutes 1958, App. "A," 1287-93. Also see John Richmond, A Teaiful Tour of Toronto's Riviera of Yesteryear (Toronto: Macmillan, 1961); Parkdale Centennial Research, Parkdale: A Centennial History (Toronto, 1978); Mike Filey, I Remember Sunnyside: The Rise and Fall of a Magical Era (Toronto: Brownstone Press, 1981).

800ttawa turned the fort over to the City in 1909. After decades of neglect, the fort was partially restored in 1932-34 for Toronto's centennial. The Toronto Civic Historical Committee, struck by City Council in 1949, took the fort's second renovation on as its principal endeavour. By 1954, the site had "resumed much of its old atmosphere, and [had] once again become the most interesting historical spot in the neighbourhood of Toronto." See Toronto Civic Historical Committee, Official Opening of Old Fort York (Toronto, 1953); H.R. Alley, Fort York, Toronto: An Historical Sketch, rev. ed. (Toronto: Toronto Civic Historical Committee, 40 encroachment, Gardiner threatened to move the historic site a third of a mile to the shoreline, where it would be more visible and provide a "source of inspiration" to motorists. This proposal only heightened public outrage. In what has been described as one of his few public retreats, Gardiner backed down, claiming he was "interested in progress and not in endless litigation with hysterical historical societies. "81 A more satisfactory arrangement was reached in 1959, which included Metro routing the expressway southward and giving Toronto $67 ,000 to rehabilitate the fort. 82 The expressway was opened to Spadina in 1962; the final barrier was removed east of the Don "without ceremony" in 1966.83

Work on a second expressway also began in the mid-1950s with a functional report on the proposed Don Valley Parkway. The Parkway was conceived as one element of a "radial expressway system" emanating from which would make Metro's valleys more "productive" [fig. 17]. "The Don Valley," argued the consultants, "not only provides an ideal location for such a route with a minimum of damage to industry and housing but also fits well into the pattern of radial highways which can be developed in the next few years to relieve local congestion and improve access to outlying areas." With its concern for private motor vehicles and commuters, the scheme was a great departure from the previous "radial" concept of publicly owned electric mass transit - not to mention the grand recreational parkways proposed earlier in the century, with their emphasis on preserving and enjoying the aesthetics of nature.

The Don Valley project gained Metro Council's approval in 1957. The functional imperatives of access and movement were paramount. The Parkway's 12.5-mile route, with its "rather singular situation of limited interference of existing facilities," took advantage of green belt land and other public property "in preference to acreage which can be

1954), 27.

81 Toronto Globe & Mail, 24 November 1958; Metro Council Minutes 1958, App. "A," 271-75 and 590; Colton, 142.

82ln a letter to the City of Toronto early that year, premier Leslie Frost supported moving Fort York and the adjoining military cemetery - both "desecrated by the faulty planning of the past century or more" - and offered to pay 50 per cent of the relocation and rebuilding costs. Metro Council rejected the Executive Committee's recommendation to accept this offer. See Metro Council Minutes 1959, App. "A," 43-45 and 2156. For Pierre Berton, Metro's intransigence stemmed from an unwillingness to disturb "other interests" - namely the CPR' s property. Metro eventually acquired this land for the new alignment, which evidently proved cheaper than relocating the fort. See Toronto Star, 6 January 1959; "Fort York Wins a Modem Battle," Ontario History, 51 (1959): 22-24.

83MTRD, Biennial Report 1965-66 (Toronto, 1967), 2. Footings posed a major problem, because the Gardiner's elevated route between Exhibition Park and followed an earlier shoreline: " [A] number of piles driven encountered either old timbers or boulders from rock-fill cribs that had been docks and wharves. As a result of this clash with Toronto's early history, nearly all of the footings required to be driven to bedrock ... " Between York and Jarvis streets, "massive old wharves, building foundations and barges" were uncovered. See ibid. 1959-60 (Toronto 1961), 5; ibid. 1963-64 (Toronto, 1965), 4. 41

METROPOLITAN TORONTO LANO USE STUDY PROPOSED .RESIDENTIAL . • .OPEN SPACES. . COMMERCIAL . . INDUSTRIAL.

D EY

Figure 17. The proposed Don Valley Parkway in the context of a radial expressway system for Metropolitan Toronto, 1955. The Parkway (right centre) was one of five spokes of an expressway system which had downtown Toronto as its hub and Highways 401 (top) and 427 (far left) as its rim. Note the Parkway's connection with the proposed lakeshore expressway; the first spoke west of the Parkway is Spadina Avenue/Road. [Foundation of Canada Engineering Corp. & Frederic R. Harris of Canada Ltd., Functional Report on Proposed Don Valley Parkway] 42 commercially developed," and to avoid "isolating valuable properties. "84 Construction began in 1958; a year later, the route was confirmed as part of Metro's expressway system [fig. 18]. In 1961, the Parkway's first section between Eglinton Avenue East and the Danforth was completed. The linking of the Parkway with the Gardiner in 1964 provided an expressway connection between the Don Valley and the waterfront, and improved truck access to the Port Industrial Area. 85

Building a Regional Parks System

Compared to water supply, sewerage, and road works, the development of a regional parks system might have been judged a low priority during Metro's early years. The MTPB nonetheless threw its support behind just such an entity in late 1954. The "Greenbelt" embraced the valleys of the Humber River, , the east and west branches of the Don, and Massey Creek. This 6,700-acre system was based on the TYPB's 1949 scheme and one suggested by the ODPD's Conservation Branch in 1953 [fig. 19].86 Some 2,864 acres were regarded as being especially vulnerable to development. Their acquisition through purchase or dedication was recommended, for an OMB decision regarding North York had apparently neutralized the use of zoning to protect such lands. As the MTPB put it, "if the Greenbelt, as envisioned for the last forty years, is to become an actuality it can only be by purchase either as an immediate wholesale operation or ... by the piecemeal acquirement of such parcels as are from time to time threatened with development. "87 The latter approach, with its inflated costs, was viewed with distaste. Metro Council nonetheless chose the incremental strategy, establishing a green belt acquisition fund and issuing an initial $927, 000 in debentures to begin assembling the system.

84Foundation of Canada Engineering Corp. and Frederic R. Harris of Canada Ltd., Functional Report on Proposed Don Valley Parkway (Toronto, 1955), 1and11; MTRD, Biennial Report 1957-1958, 11.

85 "Gardiner Expressway New Link to and from the Port," Port of Toronto News, 11, 4 (1964): 2-3.

860n the latter proposal, see ODPD, Draft of Proposed Scheme for a Humber Valley and Don Valley Greenbelt (Toronto, 1953). Curiously, the greenbelt idea was not part of the City of Toronto's Official Plan, adopted and approved in 1950. See TCPB, Third Report and Official Plan (Toronto, 1949).

87Metro Council Minutes 1954, App. "A," 167. The proposed system excluded lands adjoining Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Highland Creek, and the Rouge, which were then under separate study. The MTPB (ibid., 168) also examined another potential means of securing green belt properties. If the setting aside of the valley lands for recreational purposes "can be considered the preservation of a natural resource," acquisitions might be funded partly by Queen's Park and Ottawa under the Conservation Authorities Act. However, acquiring recreational lands had "not been accepted by the [senior governments] as a bona fide conservation measure except where complementary to a flood control project." The MTPB also worked on the assumption that "the valleys are not in themselves a natural resource any more than any other lands that may be suitable for recreational purposes" - a view antithetical to previous local conceptions of the green belt. ~

c•• ' I ' ' \. ' .... • ; l; ~ .. N ~ fci ' ;:; ' ·'-i~z ___ ff '.\" 0 R 'J" II .) ., ,.,~ "•

EXPRESSWAYS

EX15nNG

111111 UNOER CONS!IWCTION .HAlE ,_ llllllJllfflQ-- UNDER OONSIDl'JlATION PROPOSED EXPRESSWAY SYSTEM

Figure 18. Metropolitan Toronto's expressways plan, 1959. The major waterfront initiative is the Gardiner Expressway, extending from the Humber River to Highway 401 in the vicinity of Port Union Road, and connecting with an extension of Highway 400 at Strachan Avenue and the Don Valley Parkway. Part of the Gardiner and all of the Queens way had been built by the time this plan was issued. By 1967, the Gardiner Expressway had been completed from the Humber River to Woodbine A venue; its easterly extension through Scarborough remained on paper, as did the Highway 400 project running north from the lake. [Metropolitan Toronto 1959] .J:>. w t

i I ~/

. ~-·- r..:.., .....,,:"l ' ~,.i.·•" "i .,,)""'"''-' 1MIM1CO GREEN BELT ·"'L'otvr. I oNEW I • ) an~N•,;H !TORONTO/ PROPOSED GREEN BELT - PARKS L A K E ONTARIO il1il PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS GOLF CLUB G.C.

Figure 19. Metropolitan Toronto's proposed green belt system, 1954. The system is comprised of existing parks and publicly owned lands, golf courses, and (for the most part) valley properties awaiting acquisition. Conceived as a series of roughly parallel fingers extending down through the metropolis to the lake, the green belt is no longer seen as a way of limiting urban development (see fig. 3). [Metropolitan Toronto 1954] 45 In 1954, Metro Council adopted the Planning and Parks Committee's suggestions respecting the establishment of a Metropolitan park system. Distinctions were drawn between local and regional parks, and measures to protect, acquire, and administer the latter were discussed. The Planning and Parks Committee recommended an Official Plan be adopted showing the proposed system the river valleys, Toronto Island, and "such other parks of a regional nature as may be deemed of Metropolitan significance and recommended from time to time." Also proposed were the development of an acquisition program and the establishment of a Metropolitan Parks Department.

The Metropolitan Parks Department was formed in 1955. In 1956, parks commissioner T.W. ("Tommy") Thompson outlined the "basic philosophy" and future scope of the Metropolitan parks system - the term "green belt" having been largely abandoned by the Corporation. Unlike neighbourhood parks administered by the local area municipalities, Metropolitan parks

should be regional in appeal, serving large communities. They should have enough area to accommodate widely diversified interests and activities. Their development should be extensive, rather than intensive and because they will involve, in total, a very large land area they should be designed to be maintained effectively at minimum cost. Our regional parks should take advantage of the available valley land and be no less that 250 acres in area.

Recreationally they will provide those things which the neighbourhood park seldom offers, but which people increasingly demand. The tempo of modern living and the density of our population makes it essential that nature be preserved in those areas where it still exists. Metropolitan parks should offer opportunities for an outdoor experience - a basic need of people - in a manner which they can enjoy. But in addition to the day camps, council rings, extensive picnic facilities, bridle paths, nature trails and wilderness areas, they will serve as the laboratories for outdoor education and conservation. Indeed, the whole concept of Metropolitan parks should be consistent with the highest ideals of conservation itself.

By taking the greatest advantage of the natural aspects of these properties, it is hoped that development and maintenance costs can be minimized. 88

Thompson based his system largely on "distinctive topographical or other physical features which may merit exploitation for the benefit of the entire region rather than simply for local purposes." He saw major parks being established in the lower and middle Humber, Don, and Highland Creek valleys, on Toronto Island, in Township, and ultimately in the

88Metro Council Minutes 1956, App. "A," 349. Echoing Gardiner's pragmatism, Thompson continued: "Care should be taken to restrict enthusiasm and idealism to a sensible balance with reality, and strive always to keep within reasonable limitations. The unquestionable need for regional parks of considerable scope is recognized and the acquisition of the property should be the first consideration. Having acquired the property, a long-term plan for development can be worked out which will be within our means, not only to develop, but to maintain." For Thompson's 10-year, $21.6 million capital works program, see ibid., App. "A," 355-57. 46 upper reaches of the Humber and the Rouge. He also discussed the provision of "park drives," the term "parkway" now being inappropriate in light of the arterial planned for the Don Valley. In some cases, the drives would provide the chief means of access to major parks; in others, they would serve as an element of internal park development. As an example of the latter - and upon the Etobicoke Township Planning Board's prodding - a drive was to run up the Humber Valley from the lake to Scarlett Road.

As a whole, the Metropolitan waterfront received little treatment in the 1956 plan. While Thompson recognized a "very great" need for beaches within Metro, he expected that demands could be met by way of Toronto Island and the City of Toronto's facilities at Sunnyside, , and the Eastern Beaches. The acquisition of sites in Scarborough, Etobicoke, and the western lakeshore communities would be considered in an undefined "second stage" of Metropolitan park planning. 89 He called for additional beaches east and west of Metro patterned on a "regional or provincial park type of development," with ample provision for automobile use. The lakeshore was generally of concern at the river outlets - an approach consonant with that of the conservation authorities then operating in the Metropolitan area. Toronto Island was both the primary exception and Thompson's principal concern. Indeed, he later claimed that the development and maintenance of this area was his department's raison d'etre. 90

While Toronto Island had been the subject of many plans and proposals since the mid- 1800s, interest in the site boomed after World War II [figs. 20-21]. What uses were appropriate on the Island, given post-war housing and recreational needs? How would one get there? The first scheme, unveiled by the TCPB late in 194 7, embodied ideas that would often be repeated. These included replacing existing cottages with apartments and hotels; building a tunnel under the Western Gap, a cross-Island boulevard, and extensive parking lots; and expanding the Toronto Island Airport. Such proposals were challenged by the Inter-Island Council (IIC), a union of four residents' associations that argued in 1948, 1949, and 1953 simply for an improvement of the status quo - upgrading rather than drastically altering or eliminating the Island's natural assets and residential areas. "We see no reason why this small oasis in a desert of smog and traffic congestion should not be retained," said one IIC representative. 91

89Metro Council Minutes 1956, App. "A," 354 and 353. Earlier, a Metro Council motion to assume both Cherry Beach (THC lands now part of "THC Waterfront Park," managed by the City) and Toronto Island as Metropolitan parks had been referred to the Planning and Parks Committee, where the idea apparently died. See ibid. 1954, 12 January, min. 17.

90Metro Council Minutes 1966, App. "A," 2427.

91 Toronto Globe & Mail, 13 May 1953; Sally Gibson, More Than an Island: A History of the Toronto Island (Toronto: Irwin, 1984), 225-35. When the IIC evaluated various planning alternatives in 1948, the idea of converting the entire Island to parkland was dismissed because of its "great cost and no prospect of profit. " The "profit" referred to the contribution of residential and commercial leases to the civic treasury. See Inter­ Island Council, Brief ... Concerning the Future of the Island, vol. 2 (Toronto, 1948), 1. i

HARBOUR TORONTO

......

KEY SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT ~~'.:. -Qf- llESIDENTll!L AREAS

PARl(LAND TORONTO ISLAND ~ \ 0 Al IU'ltO....vtOCD IY YOllONTO tlY't fi't.ANNJ.IM IQUtlD .utO THI TOADNlO HA1t•ot.111 c.oMllU&IJOlllUl1 ~ , p. !.!.!.~-.!....!!_'H.' tMHT r.._ ~ ... 2 -T 'J' .,al'

Figure 20. A plan for Toronto Island, as proposed by the Toronto City Planning Board and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, 1951. Extensive lakefilling and dredging were proposed along with the construction of a tunnel under the Western Channel and a bridge over the East Gap (upper left and middle right), a cross-Island boulevard (with parking for 1,100 cars), and new recreational facilities, including a regulation-size rowing course. While the residential areas at Ward's and Algonquin islands were to remain, cottage and commercial development elsewhere was to be rationalized into a precinct containing apartments, .i::.. hotels, and a shopping centre. Also note the preliminary planning for the THC's Outer Harbour project (right). [Toronto -J Harbour Commission Archives, RG 3/3, Box 75, Folder 2] 48

Figure 21. A plan for Toronto Island, as proposed by the Inter-Island Council, 1953. The Council suggested maintaining and upgrading all of the existing residential areas. To be built were new recreational facilities, among them beaches, bathing stations, promenades, horticultural centres, and lavatories. The area of parkland would also be increased, partly through filling along the southern lakeshore; bird sanctuaries and a fish and wildlife reserve were proposed as well. [The Centre Islander, 13 June 1953] 49 By 1951, when the TCPB and THC issued a joint plan for the Island, the civic objective was clearly "to obtain the maximum use of this natural asset for the largest number of the citizens, to serve the 'many' not the 'few.' "92 This entailed filling in most of the lagoons to create land for housing, parks, parking, and a boulevard that now traversed both gaps. A year later, the peripatetic Norman D. Wilson argued that a fixed-link and automobile access were both desirable and inevitable: "Residential Toronto is now too far removed from the waterfront to make a streetcar and ferry ride to the Island inviting." Besides increasing use levels and eliminating ferry deficits, a motor boulevard could also separate day-use recreation grounds from summer and year-round residential areas - the "two historic uses 11 of the Island. 93

Toronto mayor had a rather more audacious sense of the Island's potential utility. In 1953, he suggested that the bayshore be devoted mainly to new warehouses and shipping facilities, joined to the mainland by a bridge over the East Gap. In this multiple-use scheme, commerce, recreation, and housing were to share the Island in a cheek-by-jowl manner reminiscent of the THC's 1912 plan for Ashbridge's Bay. While Lamport's proposal (unlike the 1912 plan) was attacked vigorously from all quarters, it nonetheless opened up the prospect of radical change on the Island.

A more singular vision came about with Metro's involvement in the issue. A month after Metro's creation, Gardiner claimed that one could not "divorce the development of the Island from Metropolitan planning. " He soon added that Metro would consider assuming control of the Island only if it "essentially" became a park.94 City Council offered the property to Metro on that basis in 1954, though it also decided to renew until 1968 all Island leases as they came due. The leases could, however, be terminated on one year's notice if required to fulfil a redevelopment plan.

The destructive visit of Hurricane Hazel later in 1954 confirmed (at least for Gardiner) that parkland serving regional needs was Toronto Island's true function. 95 In the property transfer approved in 1955 and consummated a year later, both park and residential areas were to come under Metro's jurisdiction. While Island residential development was then at its peak, all houses were to be eliminated as leases fell due. A last-ditch effort by Hans Blumenfeld, Metro's assistant director of planning, to maintain both parkland and housing in a car-free environment had failed; by the time the City formally relinquished the

92Quoted in Gibson, 230.

93Norman D. Wilson, Toronto Island and the Preservation of its Utility (Toronto, 1952), 8-9.

94Toronto Telegram, 15 May 1953; Toronto Globe & Mail, 26 June 1953.

95Toronto Globe & Mail, 30 October 1969. 50

Island, Metro's bulldozers were already at work. 96 The struggle over housing persisted nonetheless long past 1968, but by then only the stock on Ward's and Algonquin islands remained.

The question of access proved as vexing as residency in Metro's early years. A 1954 MTPB development plan was rejected because the "principal decisions" then to be made concerned access, not detailed land use. By February 1955, MTPB staff had prepared three reports examining the merits of ferry, tunnel, and bridge access. To foster recreational use, ideas were afoot once again to build a tunnel and roadway to and across the Island; one parking scheme would have accommodated 11,810 cars. In an oblique recommendation made by the Planning and Parks Committee, ferry service was to continue until it became necessary to provide "new facilities with greater capacity to move a large number of people between the Island and the mainland. "97

Thompson produced his own 10-year, $14.5 million plan for the Island early in 1956. 98 The area - termed Metro's "front door" by Gardiner - was to be developed solely for recreational and park purposes, emphasizing "the marine atmosphere peculiar to the Island." In the process, it would undergo a "dynamic type" of development while retaining "regions of passive interest." All residences and buildings were to be removed, save for those associated with the yacht clubs. In their stead, Thompson proposed raising the level of 435 acres of flood-vulnerable land, dredging a mile-long regatta course, and "improving the park aspect in a progressive manner to appeal to the whole spectrum of park users." Once again, this included building a tunnel, a roadway, and parking lots to obtain the "greatest use." Said Thompson: "This is an age when the majority of people expect to be able to drive an automobile to within a relatively short distance of the picnic table and beach, and to deny this privilege is to purposely restrict the use of any park area. "99 If the Island was truly to become a Metropolitan focal point, users from throughout the region had to be accommodated conveniently and in large numbers. Thompson also believed that automobile visitors would attract "more concessions of greater value" and, coupled with parking charges, augment Metro's revenues.

While Metro Council approved Thompson's plan in principle, the idea of maximizing use through automobile access proved short-lived. Once it became clear that federal money for a tunnel was not forthcoming, Metro reversed its access policy, supported ferry service, and adopted a revised program of development. The mid-1960s did see a revival of the

96Hans Blumenfeld, Life Begins at 65: The Not Entirely Candid Autobiography of a Drifter (Montreal: Harvest House, 1987), 236-39; Gibson, 247-48. For an early statement on Metro's demolition policy at Toronto Island, see Metro Council Minutes 1955, App. "A," 1623-24.

91Metro Council Minutes 1955, App. "A, 11 327-28 and 332.

98Metro Council Minutes 1956, App. "C, 11 6.

99Metro Council Minutes 1956, App. "A," 336 and 341. 51 tunnel scheme, motivated in part by the THC's desire to increase the viability of Toronto Island Airport at the Western Channel. The engineers hired by Metro, the THC, and the federal Department of Transport respected Council's policy of retaining ferry service to the Island. Their proposed tunnel, extending from Bathurst Quay to Han1an's Point, would have allowed TTC buses to run as far as the Island Filtration Plant, nearly doubling the existing ferry capacity and ensuring dependable winter service. 100 Ottawa, however, balked at the $9. 9 million cost, and the idea was dropped once again.

Thompson was undaunted neither by the lack of a fixed-link nor the Islanders' opposition to his clearance program. His attention continued to focus on the removal of cottages and the addition of more parkland and recreational facilities. 101 By the end of 1962, 290 of 652 leaseholds had been acquired by Metro, and Far Enough Farm and the Avenue of the Islands had risen in their place. Both tendencies were confirmed in Thompson's 1963 master plan for the Island [fig. 22]. According to this 20-year, $12 million scheme, the remaining 362 houses were to be removed by 1968 and replaced in large measure by new forms of commercial development. The plan was a deliberate move away from the existing "basic development," for Thompson hoped to add "those items calculated to add to the general enjoyment of the area as far as the general public is concerned." The items included Cosmorama, a model city containing "world famous landmarks laid out in a new, integrated town plan"; Sportsland, an area for competitive games requiring two or four players; Fun1and, an amusement area with mechanical rides; Children's Playland, including a puppet theatre; a rebuilt Centre Island ferry dock complex; a 380-boat public marina; and a variety of other concessions. 102 Council approved a staged lease-acquisition program, but deferred making a decision on most of the plan until transportation issues were explored more fully. The latter culminated in the 1965 tunnel study .103

100Atkins, Hatch & Associates Ltd., Consulting Engineers, Tunnel: Feasibility Study (Toronto, 1965), 2-3.

101 Thompson' s Island approach was to "increase the usefulness and improve the appearance" of existing park areas on the current budget, while using capital funds to acquire private properties. In his 10-year park system plan, the Island figured prominently in the "basic" $23.3 million budget, accounting for 22 per cent of land acquisition costs, 30 per cent of development costs, and 55 per cent of "required facilities" costs - in all, 28 per cent of the total parks budget (as of 1960). The Island also consumed 55 per cent of a "special facilities" budget of $27.8 million. See Metro Council Minutes 1965, App. "A," 591-93. As of August 1965, Metro Parks had spent $13.5 million on the entire regional parks system, devoting $7.3 million to the Island. See ibid. 1966, App. "A," 2434.

102Metropolitan Toronto Parks Department (MTPD), Toronto Island Park: A Re-evaluation of the Site and a Development Plan (Toronto, 1963), 9.

103Metro Council Minutes 1963, App. "A," 593-94 and 1870-73; MTPB, Report on Transportation to the Toronto Islands (Toronto, 1965), 1. The approved works included picnic facilities, walks, and lighting at Hanlan's Point and on Olympic Island; a new bridge linking Olympic Island and Island Park; and the building of a puppet theatre. The plan also proposed two major rationalizations of the Island land mass: joining Island Park and Mugg's Island (to give access to the public marina, increase group picnicking, and more centrally -- .,,. ~ Vi N

0

G\IEIU~ Po(:om: uHM

TOY ~loll'll

Cil

Y..cH'! CU;IJ!t

m.i:~7- P\..utt

J'[llUlJ' !~.:10• 1NTUli'"l. illt»T 000!.* ....,_. """"' ~-"~ METROPOUTAN PARKS DEPT TORONTO ISLAND MASTER PL.AN TDT.&L ~•• !Pt.An I DATE a-"41> I SCALE.i-·""'1-o"

Figure 22. A plan for Toronto Island, as proposed by the Metropolitan Parks Department, 1963. The remaining houses on Algonquin and Ward's islands were to be replaced by commercial recreation uses (Sportsland and Funland) and open parkland (lower and centre right). Other proposals include upgrading and extending beach and group picnic facilities; developing an internal land/water transport system; building a public marina in conjunction with the joining of Mugg's Island and Island Park (centre left); and consolidating Snug Harbour and Snake Island (immediately west of Algonquin Island) into one land mass for Cosmorama. [Metropolitan Parks Department, Toronto Island Park] 53 Work on a new Island master plan began in 1964, tempered by the findings of a public op1ruon survey. The survey reported that conflict was emerging between the "concepts" of conservation and development. The crux of the planning problem was

to conserve the natural features as much as possible despite increasing numbers of visitors and necessary reduction in park space due to buildings and other construction. The approval expressed by visitors with the Islands as they now are, suggests that the Parks Department's present formulae of careful conservation of natural features and conservative development of man-made features, is a sound experience to build on. 104

A seven-year, $4.4 million plan came before Metro Council in 1965. It resembled the 1963 plan in many ways, not least of which was a continued push for intensive commercial development. This stance was both paradoxical and ironic. On the one hand, it contradicted Thompson's naturalistic philosophy of regional parkland; on the other, it attempted to recreate the sort of Island character which Metro had systematically eliminated since 1956. At any rate, Algonquin Island was now targeted to host a par-3 golf course; Ward's was proposed as the site of an amusement park. Many other privately run concessions were actively sought as well.

The old philosophy of "basic" development had enduring appeal for Council, however. The 1965 master plan - save for its property acquisition schedule and its proposal to create a children's campground - was sent back to the Parks and Recreation Committee 11 for reconsideration and the submission of a balanced Parks Programme for the entire Metropolitan Toronto Area." 105 Equity considerations were evidently now on par with those of economy and conservation. Of the many commercial facilities proposed in 1963 and 1965, only Centennial Marina and a small amusement area at Centre Island materialized.

A second Metropolitan waterfront park took form at the Etobicoke Creek mouth during the 1950s. The park represented the only viable use of an area long prone to natural hazards. While lands adjoining the lower Etobicoke had long experienced flooding from both the river and the lake, the effects of this were not pronounced until the early 1920s, when year-round settlement of the flats began. To the dismay of some public bodies, flooding became an accepted part of local life. As the ODPD put it in the mid-1940s,

[i]t is unfortunate that the flats were ever occupied by permanent residents. Such a subdivision would not be approved to-day. The logical procedure would therefore be to move or reconstruct the cottages of the residents of the flats to approved

position the Centre Island ferry dock), and amalgamating the Snug Harbour-Snake Island complex (to make a single piece of usable land). Neither rationalization was executed.

104Metro Council Minutes 1965, App. "A," 609.

105Metro Council Minutes 1965, App. "A," 623-24. 54

locations, if possible within [Long Branch] village, and, if not to a prepared subdivision bordering the village. The flats could then be reforested and restored as a natural park for the benefit of the community. 106

Little action was taken. There had been no flood-related casualties at Long Branch; the Toronto area, moreover, was in the throes of a post-war housing shortage. Some engineering work was motivated by the 1948 flood, the most severe to date. Channel improvements were made and a new lake outlet was cut. It took a 1952 storm that destroyed several beach homes before Long Branch Council began acquiring properties on the lakeshore. The Etobicoke-Mimico Conservation Authority developed a park proposal for this locale, but Hurricane Hazel struck the area before federal and Metropolitan support could be secured. Seven people were killed, 13 houses were swept into the lake, and another 43 destroyed. 107

Public action was swift and thorough-going. "Half measures are no longer of any avail; the whole area must be cleared of remaining houses and made into a permanent park, 11 declared a Village Council brief. 108 Dispensing with the Authority's tentative scheme, all

183 properties on the floodplain were obtained for fl green belt purposes fl and many residents were relocated elsewhere in Long Branch. The grade of low-lying areas was raised as much as 40 feet, thanks to the cooperation of four levels of government and 133,019 truck loads of industrial waste. 109 The 58-acre Park officially opened in 1959.

At the end of the 1950s, Metro's attention turned toward the when it approved undertaking a physical survey of the area. While this project's principal aim was to determine erosion control requirements a subject first studied by Scarborough Township and a select committee of the Ontario Legislature in 1952, after record-high lake levels devastated Lake Ontario's north shore 110 it was also intended to help resolve the

106Quoted in Harvey Currell, Where the Alders Grow (Brampton, Ont.: Etobicoke-Mimico Conservation Authority, c. 1955), 31.

107Currell, 37. More generally, see Betty Kennedy, Hurricane Hazel (Macmillan, 1979).

108P .J. Bo ls by, In the Matter of the Corporation of the Village ofLong Branch, and in the Matter of the Use of Lands Affected by the Hurricane Disaster (Long Branch, Ont., 1954), 7.

109Metro Council Minutes 1954, App. "A," 1257-59; ibid. 1955, App. "A," 1304-05; MTPD, Grass and Trees ... and Sometimes Flowers: An Illustrated Report (Toronto, 1961), n.p.

110See Harold F. Burt, compiler, Report on Scarborough's Lakeshore Erosion (Scarborough, Ont.: Planning and Conservation Branch, Township Engineering Department, 1952). Using data collected in 1922 by Norman D. Wilson for a boulevard scheme, Burt calculated that the cliff summit had in places recessed as much as 310 feet in 30 years; the yearly recessional average across the Bluffs was 1.06 feet. Burt felt (p. 14) the problem could not be addressed at the municipal level. The solution lay in the "reasonable control of the mechanics of water levels in Lake Ontario." On the provincial inquiry, see Ontario Legislative Assembly, Repon of the Select Committee ... on Lake Levels of the Great Lakes (Toronto, 1953). On Wilson's study, which received 55 larger question of solid waste disposal in Metro. In 1958, a proposal had come forth to extend the foot of the Bluffs 1,000 feet south between Victoria Park Avenue and Highland Creek using sanitary fill. This approach was seen as possibly representing the "most advantageous and economic method" of dealing with solid waste, and had the desirable side­ effect of creating regional parkland. m It was soon followed by an idea which was as ambitious in terms of public use, if less radical in physical form.

In 1960, Thompson summarized five years of departmental progress and outlined the scope and cost of the regional parks system for the following decade. The 2,500-acre system forecast in 1955 was expected to grow to some 7,800 acres by 1970. The Bluffs were slated to absorb some of this growth. As the parks commissioner commented,

[t]he unique character of the Scarborough Bluffs suggest that a ribbon of land be retained along the top ... in public ownership. While it is obvious that the Bluffs constitute a most difficult erosion problem, and very large sums of money must be spent to solve this, it is nevertheless an extremely interesting geological phenomenon, which would integrate into a Metropolitan park system. n2

The idea of establishing a regional park at the Bluffs was soon adopted by Metro Council. Its origin lay in a lakeshore park concept outlined in Metro's 1959 draft Official Plan (see below). The need for a Metropolitan policy on the Bluffs arose from limited public ownership and rapid private development of a feature of international significance, though erosion control and the disposal of sanitary fill remained pressing issues as well. The parkland held by Scarborough Township was small in area and difficult to reach, while urbanization of the remaining large open tracts of topland was imminent. The building of "high-value" subdivisions along the Bluffs a matter of great local pride113 had already eliminated the possibility of a continuous park belt. Enlarging the public land base along a two-mile stretch east of Markham Road thus became a priority. Thompson gained support for having Scarborough transfer its lakefront properties to Metro, and having Metro purchase an additional 37 acres and begin negotiations to secure part of St. Augustine's Seminary .114 Other acquisitions soon followed.

Access, considered "key" to the Bluffs' regional utility, posed a dual challenge. Use of the existing "complicated residential street patterns" off Kingston Road was considered

Gardiner's endorsement in 1954, see Reeves, Visions, I, 76-77; Toronto Telegram, 2 January 1954.

111 Metro Council Minutes 1959, App. "A, 11 260.

112Metro Council Minutes 1960, App. 11 A, 11 590.

1130n this point, see Scarborough Township Council, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: The New Industrial Pulse of Toronto (Scarborough, Ont., [1960]), n.p.

114Metro Council Minutes 1960, App. 11 A," 1732-34. 56 both "impractical and undesirable," meaning that other routes (and adequate parking) would have to be created to "guarantee" the success of a Metropolitan park.115 Movement down the face of the Bluffs also required study. A footpath system linking top with bottom was contemplated. Thompson also suggested that cable lifts (such as those used on mountain slopes) might be employed, offering visitors "the greatest possible appreciation of the area."

As recommended by the Scarborough Township Planning Board, Metro decided in 1962 to create another regional park along the Bluffs. Updating his previous report, Thompson defined Metropolitan parks at Scarborough Bluffs West, Central, and East, and reviewed progress in assembling land at the western and central sites. It was hoped that all three would eventually link with a park established on fill at the foot of the Bluffs, and that "Bluffs East" (now East Point) might eventually be integrated with Highland Creek Park. 116 A 225-acre acquisition program for the area between Manse Road and Beechgrove Drive was approved, beginning with the transfer of 158 acres from the Township. (Interim access was to be provided by the local street network until the Gardiner Expressway was extended eastward through Scarborough, which never transpired.) A wrinkle was introduced into the plan in 1966 when Metro Parks transferred 35 acres to Metro Works for the latter's Frank J. Horgan Filtration Plant. As compensation, Scarborough Township had Metro acquire other waterfront properties nearby for parkland. 117

Meanwhile, Thompson was working on a park system plan, as ordered by Metro Council in 1965 when an Island master plan had come forth. A more inclusive approach to regional development was implied by this action, as opposed to treating Toronto Island as the overwhelming focus of Metro's energies. A draft system plan prepared that year was referred by the Parks and Recreation Committee to the MTPB for consideration, and in 1966, Thompson had the locations of 10 major regional parks approved. Among them were Exhibition Park, Toronto Island Park, South Humber Park, Highland Creek Park (including the Bluffs west to Manse Road), and Rouge River Park. "The Waterfront" - a park area then "not specifically defined" - was also included. 118

115Metro Council Minutes 1960, App. "A," 896. On the scaling down of Metro's acquisition program at Cathedral Bluffs, see ibid. 1961, App. "A," 1116-20. One section judged crucial to "alleviating the problems of poor or nonexistent public access and a dearth of potential off-street parking areas," was reduced from 4.6 to 1.1 acres apparently for reasons of economy.

116Metro Council Minutes 1962, App. "A," 2526-32. Because of the marshy conditions adjoining Highland Creek from Lawrence Avenue to the lake, little prospect existed there for "intensive development"; instead, the area was to be "retained as a wildlife retreat." See MTPD, Grass and Trees, n.p.

117Metro Council Minutes 1966, App. "A," 1733-34; ibid., App. "A," 2387.

ll8Metro Council Minutes 1966, App. ''A," 745-48. 57

Thompson also unveiled a 25-year development concept plan for the Metropolitan parks system in 1966. 119 He regretted doing so at a time when Island policy was unclear and the Metropolitan waterfront planning process (initiated in 1961 and discussed below) was still under way. Leaving his department's 1956 philosophy unaltered, Thompson discussed which activities were desirable in all or some of his parks, as well as an accelerated land acquisition program for the Central Don, South Humber, and Highland Creek, the development of these areas in conjunction with the Island as an "inner ring" of regional parks, and the establishment of a Metropolitan zoo.

Much attention was paid to Toronto Island in the 1966 concept plan, while other areas along the regional shoreline continued to receive short shrift - despite direction being given to address the latter by H. Carl Goldenberg's Report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto (1965). 120 Inexplicably, the 10-park system plan omitted Marie Curtis Park and the Bluffs east of Manse Road. Thompson did agree that the provision of beaches and small boat marinas, moorings, and launching facilities should proceed on a regional basis, but offered few details; Metro, he claimed, had already developed facilities "at every location within the system under our jurisdiction." This said, the creation and development of "Waterfront Park" ranked sixth on Thompson's list of seven priorities. His reluctance to expound on the lakeshore save for describing it as a "major factor" in the planning of his park system - perhaps avoided prejudicing the outcome of Metro's Waterfront Plan. "Until the area of responsibility is defined and a total concept approved," said Thompson, "little more can be said except that there should be horticultural opportunities related to the obvious aquatic vistas. "121 [fig. 23]

Conservation Planning in the Metropolitan Watershed

Beyond providing an impetus for Metropolitan park development, Hurricane Hazel had a profound impact on conservation activity and regional planning in the Toronto area. After taking 81 lives and causing $25 million in property damage, the disaster eventually prompted administrative reform within the region's conservation authorities. More immediately, the tenor of watershed planning changed. Whereas the ODPD's conservation

119Metro Council Minutes 1966, App. "A," 2426-49.

120Goldenberg's sole recommendation regarding parks and recreation was that, "[a]s it would benefit the area as a whole, responsibility for the development of the waterfront for park and recreational purposes should be exercised by the Metropolitan Corporation." See Goldenberg, 60.

121Metro Council Minutes 1966, App. "A," 2443. Taking a different tack, Thompson (ibid., 2436) cited the reconstruction of Island-related dock and terminal facilities as a drain on his capital works program, "to the detriment of true park development." While necessary, these works "can hardly be said to enhance the acceptability of the park system by the public, or, indeed, to perform any open space requirement." The costs of operating Metro's ferries - which he described as "a day-long transportation system for the Island residential population" - also diverted funds from "true park maintenance." Vi 00

Eidli1~1rig parks

f'ropo1111d parks

Nb1jQr 100;11 •llll1111

f'ot~n'lli1j·p1rl

Figure 23. Metropolitan Toronto's existing and proposed park system, 1967. The 10 regional parks approved in 1966 were North Humber and South Humber (left); Exhibition and Toronto Island (lower centre); Finch Dam, Willowdale Dam, and Central Don (middle and top centre); and Highland Creek and Rouge Valley (right). Other key waterfront initiatives include Marie Curtis Park (lower left) and the Scarborough Bluffs between Victoria Park Avenue and Markham Road (lower centre right). [Metropolitan Toronto 1967] 59 reports of the late 1940s had taken a rather complacent view of settlement on floodplains, the acquisition of such lands in the name of public safety was pursued vigorously after 1954. The idea of providing for public recreation on floodplains and related conservation lands also gained acceptability.

Such changes were apparent in the Province's 1956 conservation report for the Rouge-Duffin-Highland-Petticoat (RDHP) Conservation Authority. Large multiple-use conservation areas were proposed for the Rouge River and Highland Creek watersheds, compelling the removal of a growing number of cottages and permanent residences [fig. 24]. Protecting the Rouge as "wilderness parkland" or a nature reserve was especially crucial, for it contained the "choicest block of natural unspoiled wilderness in the lower reaches of any of the valleys of [Metropolitan Toronto]." "Such an irreplaceable area," argued the ODPD, "should obviously not be split into small private estates and securely fenced to exclude the general public." 122 This idea of restricting or even removing urban development for the public good echoed Thompson's "basic philosophy" for Toronto Island.

The RDHP report also emphasized the biophysical and recreational linkages between the valleys and the lakeshore. The waterfront merited considerable discussion in its own right, in contrast to the ODPD's earlier reports on the Don, Humber, and Etobicoke valleys. Two policies were suggested to manage the increased demand for shoreline recreation. One entailed securing the few natural beaches suitable for public use; the other held that "public access should be obtained to as much of the shoreline as possible and as much freedom of movement along it as possible should be arranged." The Authority suggested restricting private construction near the cliff edge, placing a strip of 200 to 500 or more feet in public ownership, and ensuring that beach access was not blocked off by private development. The creation of bluff-top parks was also viewed as desirable. As the ODPD summed up, "[t]he lakefront recreation resources are of such immense significance . . . for the whole Metropolitan area, that they must not be needlessly squandered. They must be carefully planned and secured before subdivision can take place." As a start, the report recommended acquiring seven acres of beach property at Port Union. In all, 282 acres of lakefront property were recommended for acquisition. 123

Ideas concerning the character of the RDHP survived much longer than the institution itself. In 1957, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTR CA) was

1220DPD, The Rouge-Duffin-Highland-Petticoat [RDHP] Conservation Report (Toronto, 1956), Recreation Section, 26 and 32. The RDHP Conservation Authority, established in the spring of 1954, embraced the watersheds of the Rouge River, Duffin['s] Creek, Highland Creek, and Petticoat Creek.

1230DPD, RDHP Conservation Report, Recreation Section, 50-51. 60

MAP OF ROUGE. DUFFIN. HIGHLAND B PETTICOAT WATERSHEDS SHOWING RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION AREAS

SCALE MILES I

~RTMEN'T OF PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT CONSERVATION BRANCH

Figure 24. Detail from the conservation area plan for the Rouge-Duffin-Highland-Petticoat Conservation Authority, 1956. The proposed conservation areas are shaded dark; the general limit of subdivided land is shaded light. Note the strong connections between the river valleys and lakefront, and the waterfront acquisitions recommended for Port Union and the Rouge River mouth. [Ontario Department of Planning and Development, The Rouge-Duffin-Highland-Petticoat Conservation Report] 61 formed through the amalgamation of the Etobicoke-Mimico, Humber, Don, and RDHP authorities. 124 The effectiveness of these four independent bodies had long been undermined by the representation of some municipalities on more than one authority. With consequent funding problems, the Etobicoke-Mimico Authority suggested a merger in 1950. The formation of Metro in 1953, the striking that year of a joint committee to consider "greenbelt and other conservation development of Metropolitan Toronto, "125 and Hazel's destructive visit in 1954 lent credence to developing a comprehensive flood control strategy and coordinating activity on a region-wide basis. As announced in 1957, the MTRCA's objectives were

good land use, leading to farm planning; control of flood damage by flood plain acquisition and construction of necessary dams and channel works; pollution control; reforestation of marginal and submarginal land; the establishment of conservation areas and historic sites; and the undertaking of a broad program of conservation information and education leading to effective regional land and water use. 126

These objectives were to be applied in 23 municipalities over an area of 950 square miles.

A close working relationship developed between Metro and the MTRCA. The MTRCA benefitted from the strong financial base provided by Metro; the latter gained a powerful voice on the Authority's board, exerting political influence far beyond the municipality's borders. 127 Under the terms of a 1957 agreement, valley lands acquired for conservation purposes within Metro by the MTRCA were to be turned over to the municipality for operation as regional parks. This policy, designed to "bring about maximum use of those lands [lying within Metro] which may have a dual park and

124The original MTPA also included a small portion of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, west of Etobicoke Creek in . Discussion here is confined to the MTRCA and its relation to Metro's present boundaries.

125This committee, apparently instigated by Gardiner and the Province, included representatives from the Humber, Don, and Etobicoke-Mimico conservation authorities, Metro, and the ODPD. See Metro Council Minutes 1953, App. "A," 109-10. A year later, Metro's Planning and Parks Committee recommended that its chairman, the Metropolitan Solicitor, and representatives from the MTPB, ODPD, and the conservation authorities meet informally to coordinate the development of a Metropolitan parks system with conservation activity. A related body, the Technical Advisory Committee on Parks and Conservation (T ACPAC), was established in 1959. See ibid. 1954, App. "A," 956; ibid. 1959, App. "A," 653-61.

126Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA), Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1957 (Woodbridge, Ont., 1957), n.p.

1270n Gardiner's role in effecting a strong Metropolitan presence on the MTRCA's board, see Richardson, 134-35. An amendment to the Conservation Authorities Act made Metro's membership equal at all times to the total number of members appointed by the other municipalities in the MTRCA. 62 conservation potential," had an immediate practical application. 128 At the same meeting where the land management agreement was approved, Metro Council approved an MTRCA water control scheme for the lower Humber Valley. Lands were to be acquired between Dundas Street and the lake for conservation purposes, with Metro developing the area for recreational use. This entailed rebuilding and extending the Humber Boulevard destroyed by Hurricane Hazel, protecting the natural character of the marshes (and possibly tripling their production of muskrat), and adding various park facilities. 129

Other development proposals for the lower Humber soon revealed conflict between recreation and conservation, however. In 1947, Etobicoke Township Council had endorsed both the acquisition of land along the Humber for a green belt, and the undertaking of a "Metropolitan Regatta Project." By "diverting, widening, and improving" the river between Bloor Street and the lake, an aquatic course was to take shape, complemented by a boulevard built along the east bank on reclaimed land. Implementation was left to the TSPB and the Province, though neither body acted on the scheme. 130 The Etobicoke Township Planning Board (ETPB) doggedly brought the idea before Metro twice in the 1950s. In 1955, the ETPB described the Humber in less than picturesque terms:

The river ... meanders aimlessly from side to side forming marshes, backwaters, and eroding cut-banks. It is a foul-smelling, polluted stream speckled with half treated sewage and refuse. Its stagnant backwaters are the prolific breeding grounds of a summer-long mosquito plague. Even so, it is the playground of many of our citizens. 131

To redeem the Humber - and provide recreational facilities "to suit many tastes" - the ETPB again recommended a regatta course and the elimination of all low-lying areas. Material for grade elevation would come from river dredging and from excavations at Metro projects nearby, including the Humber sewage treatment plant, the Humber trunk sewer, the Queensway, and the Gardiner Expressway. For the ETPB, meshing capital works projects with park development made economic sense. Metro's Planning and Parks Committee agreed, approving the project in principle. Gardiner enthused that the use of sanitary fill to

128Metro Council Minutes 1957, App. "A," 1456-60. Later, all lands deemed to have park potential in the MTRCA's water control schemes were turned over to Metro, to be developed and maintained at Metro's expense. See Metro Council Minutes 1961, App. "A," 379-80 and 1564; MTRCA Minutes 1961, B-225; ibid. 1963, B-346-47 and B-370-72.

129Metro Council Minutes 1957, App. "A," 1460-64. The lower Humber project was then the MTRCA's largest water control scheme, involving the acquisition of 200 acres of land and the construction of weirs and retaining walls. See MTRCA, Biennial Report 1957-58 (Woodbridge, Ont., 1959), n.p.

13°Faludi, E.G., Town Planning Consultants Ltd., A Plan for Etobicoke, 18-19.

131 Etobicoke Township Planning Board, Humber Valley Park (Etobicoke, Ont., 1955), n.p. 63 raise the grade of the river flats would be revenue-producing and help industries dispose of their waste products. 132

The MTRCA thought otherwise. Etobicoke's proposal was seen as "not in the best interests of conservation" for several reasons. Straightening the river and filling the marshes would increase channel velocity and reduce channel capacity, posing a threat to bridges during flood periods; the fill would be difficult to contain, increasing siltation of the main channel and constricting its flow; 27 bird species would likely disappear from the "immediate Toronto region" if the marshes were obliterated. 133 The MTRCA suggested a more modest scheme of improved facilities for boating, picnicking, hiking, fishing, and nature study. Also endorsed was the reconstruction of the Humber Boulevard above Bloor Street, and its extension southward - partly in the valley, partly on the existing road network - to the Queensway. In 1958, Metro Council adopted the scaled-down (and much cheaper) MTRCA plan, noting that at minimum it respected Etobicoke's desire to have all valley lands acquired for recreational and flood control ends. 134

Despite this policy, dreams of a regatta course on the lower Humber persisted. In 1961, construction of an Olympic-standard course within an artificial lake was proposed. A lobby group comprised of the Argonaut Rowing Club, the Canadian Canoe Association, and the Committee for the Preservation of Small Boat Harbours (CPSBH) pressed for public funds to undertake a feasibility study. While gaining the Parks and Recreation Committee's support, the idea was rejected in 1962 both by Metro Council and the MTRCA.135 Park development went ahead in the context of less elaborate plans which, for Thompson, accommodated both recreation and conservation. The Metro parks commissioner saw a balanced approach in retaining the east-bank marshes for wildlife, while filling the "large marshy bays" on the west side for picnicking and other passive uses. 136

132Metro Council Minutes 1958, App. "A," 380-83. Metro Council had already established a Humber Valley policy which envisioned a chain of parks straddling the river from Lake Ontario to Steel es A venue. See ibid. 1955, App. "A," 1691.

133MTRCA Minutes 1957, 395 and 397-400.

134Metro Council Minutes 1958, App. "A," 380-83.

135Metro Council Minutes 1962, App. "A," 838-42; MTRCA Minutes 1962, B-88. The MTRCA suggested that the group consider using one of the Authority's flood control reservoirs for regattas. On yet another unsuccessful aquatic course bid, see MTRCA Minutes 1965, B-135 and B-159.

136MTPD, Grass and Trees, n.p. In 1960, Metro approved a feasibility study for a public marina on the lower Humber, two years after the MTRCA had rejected a private application for moorings near the river mouth. The study, which was also to consider future docking needs across Metro, was apparently not undertaken until 1964. See Metro Council Minutes 1960, App. "A," 371-73; MTRCA Minutes 1958, 305. A public boat launching ramp was eventually built on filled land below Bloor Street, south of the Toronto Humber Yacht Club. 64

By 1966, when about 70 per cent of Metro's 5,000-acre park system had been secured through the MTRCA, a measure of strain had emerged between the two institutions. This stemmed from their differing goals and policies. The MTRCA's emphasis on conservation and flood protection had resulted in some "key" park acquisitions, likely on the toplands, "not being completed." (As the MTRCA put it in 1967, "Conservation may include parks, but parks are not necessarily conservation.") Metro's Parks and Recreation Committee was also concerned about the amount of "undeveloped" land in the park system. Thompson promised that the 2,200 acres in question would eventually be put to "Metropolitan use." He urged that "every effort should be made ... to influence the Authority acquisition program to coordinate with future development programs by the Department." Despite these frictions, the pursuit of mutual objectives had brought a considerable amount of land into the regional parks system, and a "happy inter-relationship" was said to exist. 137

On the surface, the MTRCA's work during the 1950s and '60s seemed to place little emphasis on the waterfront. This was evident in 1959 when the MTRCA released a major planning document. Apparently instigated by Gardiner, the Plan for Flood Control and Water Conservation was intended "to prevent a recurrence of the Hurricane Hazel disaster" through major engineering works. 138 Proposed remedial measures included dam- and reservoir­ construction, improvement of stream channels, acquisition of vulnerable floodplain lands, and an extended stream-gauging and flood warning system [fig. 25]. Beside flood control, other benefits were expected accrue: better-regulated summer flows would help abate stream pollution; bank erosion would be reduced (bringing a "marked reduction" in the silt 139 deposited in Toronto Harbour) ; fish and wildlife values would be promoted; a ring of

137Metro Council Minutes 1966, App. "A," 2431 and 2435; MTRCA, Conservation 1957-1967 (Woodbridge, Ont., 1967), 15. In 1966, MTRCA staff were ordered to report on how conservation measures would be coordinated with Metro's 25-year regional parks development concept, especially in regards to land acquisitions. See MTRCA Minutes 1966, A-69, B-194 and B-340-41. Between 1957-64, the MTR CA acquired 13,831 acres for $14.3 million, with about $8.9 million (62 per cent) coming from senior levels of government. Of the remaining $5 .5 million, Metro contributed some $2 .3 million. See MTR CA, Report on Land Acquisition Programmes and Policies of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Woodbridge, Ont., 1964), 16-18.

138MTRCA, Plan for Flood Control and Water Conservation (Woodbridge, Ont., 1959), iii. In 1957, Gardiner suggested that a comprehensive plan for flood control might bring federal funding for the MTRCA's projects. This idea subsequently became Metropolitan policy, initiating the MTRCA's planning process. See Metro Council Minutes 1957, App. "A," 788-89.

139In 1956, the DVCA spent $75,000 on dredging the Don between Keating and Queen streets as a flood control measure. Two years later, the THC requested (via Metro Works) that the MTRCA consider dredging Keating Channel and the lower Don as an improvement scheme. Action was needed immediately "to prevent a situation that shortly will lead to flood conditions." Between 1928 and 1945, the average annual dredging yield in Keating Channel had been 44,000 cubic yards. This average escalated to 133,000 cubic yards between 1954 and 1957; some 169,000 cubic yards were removed in 1957 alone. The THC attributed this increase to urbanization in the Don watershed and a lack of erosion control and channel maintenance. The MTRCA did f. I 0 1 ~ 0 "

~~ .t... ~.i!l!!.,IECJ TQ f!,@Q!HG ~

Al t'TtWllCOlINPWG STAriOfl'< l 01 LJ~ Cl..ffli o:IEEK-EUZA!!HH ST,"1M:RSU Ofl~HOlJStti!S • Cl.lrrm CAfU- '*' l HWY ARh-lttW:lS,HWSINti tll'.51) ~TION DR JQl/!!9 t.t:M

Figure 25. Flood-control reservoirs and channel improvements, as proposed by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 1959. Along the waterfront, the Etobicoke Creek mouth was identified as an area prone to flooding, and the lower Humber River was slated for channel improvements (lower centre). By 1967, the Authority had water control schemes in place on the lower Humber and the lower Highland Creek, and had developed a conservation area on the Rouge between Highway 2 and the lake. [Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Plan for Flood Control and Water 0\ Conservation] VI 66 water supply sources around Metro would yield a "strategic civil defense measure"; and ten artificial lakes suitable for recreational use would be created.

The artificial lakes were urgently required in a rapidly-expanding region where outdoor leisure facilities were woefully inadequate, and where the lakefront could apparently play but a minor role in meeting recreational demand. As the MTRCA saw it,

[t]he Lake Ontario waterfront in the Region provides comparatively little recreational benefit because the shore is almost entirely built up or privately owned. The Lake Ontario shore has few shallow, sandy beaches, the water is usually too cold for swimming, and the lake's edge is highly polluted in most areas. Because of this, there is an unbelievable concentration of pressure on the few remaining recreational facilities in the Region. In this comparatively small area which contains one-tenth of the population of Canada, and which produces one-quarter of all Federal income and corporation tax revenues, most of the natural recreational facilities have been sacrificed in favour of urban expansion and the production of national material wealth. It is essential that some of the national wealth produced by the Region be returned to the area through water and land conservation measures. 140

This comment, while obviously pitched toward securing funds from the federal government, expressed a certain loss of faith in recovering the waterfront as a public resource. For the MTRCA, a fresh beginning was literally to be made elsewhere in the region's watershed.

In the Flood Control Plan, attention was paid to the lakeshore only at the river outlets. At these points, the MTRCA identified possible channel improvements (as at the Etobicoke Creek mouth, where it had repaired piers in 1957-58); park construction; structures to be removed; and a program to acquire lands prone to flooding. In total, some 7, 200 acres throughout the entire region were to be secured for about $11. 6 million. Metro Council adopted the plan, for it provided flood damage control at "very moderate cost" to the corporation and offered "a realistic means" of implementing the green belt scheme - thereby improving the recreational facilities and "general attractiveness" of the region. The plan received approval (and, most importantly, funding) from Ottawa and Queen's Park in 1961.141

not response positively to the request. In 1962, the MTRCA informed the City of Toronto that it would not undertake a clean-up and dredging program in the lower Don, as it was a maintenance problem for which the Authority could receive no provincial grants. The matter was referred to Metro Works for consideration under its watercourse maintenance program. See Metro Council Minutes 1958, App. 11 A, 11 434-36; ibid. 1959, App. 11 A, 11 990; MTRCA Minutes 1957, 161; ibid. 1962, B-221-22.

140MTRCA, Plan for Flood Control, iv.

141Metro Council Minutes 1959, App. 11 A, 11 986-93. On the senior-level agreements, see MTRCA Minutes 1961, A-65-82. 67 The MTRCA's upstream emphasis was evident even where recreation (rather than flood control and water conservation) was the chief concern. A 1963 report, Pollution Control and Recreation in the Metropolitan Toronto Region, expressed this position. According to the MTRCA' s resource-oriented philosophy, recreation was a secondary objective of its conservation program. But by the early 1960s, actual and predicted leisure demand brought the idea of conserving for recreation to the forefront. As the MTRCA had asserted in 1959, the creation of valley green belts was becoming "more and more necessary as a factor in the public well-being and as an expression of public integrity. "142 Even within Metro, the MTRCA's lands had a special quality, being conceived as large tracts which "retain as much as possible their primitive character. "143 The physical integrity of these lands was, however, threatened by poor sewage disposal practices. Metro's facilities appeared to safeguard natural resources and their capability for recreation, but in the outlying areas "pollution and recreation inevitably will clash." While remedial works were proposed for the upper watershed, the MTRCA regarded the discharge of effluent into streams north of Steeles Avenue as unavoidable. Some watercourses would have to be sacrificed on rational grounds, for "all streams in the Region cannot be guarded zealously at the expense of progress. "144 The report was silent both on the implications of upstream pollution for the waterfront, and the latter's potential for recreation.

This said, the MTRCA had by no means been neglecting the waterfront. A variety of lakeshore initiatives had been pursued from as early as 1957, bearing largely on the Scarborough Bluffs and points east. Most were quickly abandoned in light of legislative and financial constraints, for the MTRCA had not been mandated to deal with the waterfront. Little seemed to change in the years following 1959, when the MTRCA's jurisdiction expanded to cover all lands lying between the old Etobicoke-Mimico and RDHP authorities, as well as Toronto Island and the watershed of Carruthers Creek - an area coincident with nearly all of the MTPA's waterfront. Many ideas from the 1950s would, however, be resurrected and implemented by the MTRCA in succeeding decades.

142MTRCA, Plan for Flood Control, 29.

143MTRCA, A Compendium of Information (Woodbridge, Ont., 1965), 31.

144MTRCA, Pollution Control and Recreation in the Metropolitan Toronto Region (Woodbridge, Ont., 1963), 1. Metro took a similar view of its watercourses in 1961 when it approved a maintenance program for some 200 miles of river and stream channels. These, argued Metro, "should be regarded as a major municipal facility in much the same manner as the sanitary sewer system." Their "maximum usefulness" was to be obtained by discharging storm waters to avoid local flooding; preventing the siltation of dams and Toronto Harbour; eliminating "unsightly and unhealthy pollution pockets"; and giving a "tidy appearance" to lands held by Metro and the MTRCA. See Metro Council Minutes 196!, App. "A," 257-59. 68

The key waterfront advocate within the MTRCA was the RDHP Advisory Board, led by Scarborough reeve A.M. ("Ab") Campbell. 145 On Campbell's motion in 1957, the RDHP Board demanded a program of erosion control at the Bluffs:

Whereas one of the outstanding historical and beauty spots of this region, known as Scarborough Bluffs, lies within the area under the jurisdiction of the Authority, and whereas much of this beauty is being destroyed and private and public property is being badly damaged by erosion, therefore this Board requests the [MTRCA's] Executive Committee to consider a scheme whereby some method of protection can be instituted, and because of the damage to the Lake Ontario shoreline and Toronto Harbour, the Federal Government be requested to share a large portion of the cost. 146

Continued lobbying in 1958 proved somewhat productive. The MTRCA, which had a first­ hand look at waterfront issues during a tour from Etobicoke Creek to Carruthers Creek, appropriated funds to assist the Great Lakes Geophysical Research Group with its "investigations" at the Bluffs. 147 As well, the MTRCA struck a Scarborough Bluffs Erosion Control Subcommittee to undertake its own study .148

Late in 1958, the MTRCA adopted most of a report on the Bluffs prepared by its field staff and the ODPD. Note was taken of the Province's erosion inquiry of 1952-53, especially a set of proposals never acted upon: direct provincial control of development on lands prone to erosion or inundation until protective works had been installed; the acquisition of such lands by municipalities and conservation authorities for "park, recreation or protective purposes"; the provincial funding of protective works on municipal lands; and the ad hoc preparation of provincial surveys and reports on protective works for private lands. The MTRCA's senior field officer, K.G. Higgs, pointed out that in addition to a range of possible engineering works, the prevention of encroachments on Scarborough's shoreline would form a key component of an erosion control program. Higgs sought to have Scarborough Township pass a bylaw under the Municipal Act prohibiting construction in specific areas, and have the MTRCA consider a scheme "for the acquisition of a strip of land

145Each of the old Etobicoke-Mimico, Humber, Don, and RDHP authorities retained an advisory board status within the MTRCA structure. Advisory boards for Flood and Pollution Control, Land Use and Reforestation, Conservation Areas, Historical Sites, and Information and Education also reported to the MTRCA's Executive Committee and full Board.

146MIRCA Minutes 1957, 386.

141MTRCA Minutes 1958, 189-90 and 54; ibid. 1959, 6, 123 and 133. The Great Lakes Geophysical Research Group was directed by G.B. Langford, who had worked previously with the Province on shoreline management issues. See G.B. Langford, Report on Lakeshore Erosion: Lake Ontario from Niagara to Cobourg (Toronto: Ontario Department of Planning and Development, 1949). In 1952, Langford updated this report for the Select Committee on Lake Levels of the Great Lakes.

148MTRCA Minutes 1958, 67, 330 and 333-37. 69 adjacent to the Scarborough Bluffs and for the complete control of the erosion of the Bluffs." Instead, the MTRCA sanctioned a review of federal and provincial legislation bearing on lakeshore erosion control; a survey to determine lands adjacent to the Bluffs where the erection of buildings should be prohibited; and preparation of a geological and engineering report on the extent, nature, and cost of possible control measures. 149

The MTRCA forwarded these proposals to Metro, asking the latter to bear one­ quarter of the cost of the $50,000 geological and engineering report. Metro readily agreed to this request. The survey did not appear to conflict with Metro's own sanitary lakefill proposal for the Bluffs, and might be of use "in giving consideration to the economic aspects of whether [lakefilling] is worthy of further study or not. "150 The Province was less enthusiastic. In 1959, it refused to fund the other 75 per cent of the study, prompting the MTRCA to abandon the project. In tum, the MTRCA rejected a RDHP Advisory Board proposal to prepare a scheme "for the acquisition and development of lake shore lands in [Scarborough, Pickering, and Ajax] for the purpose of controlling shoreline erosion and protecting lake front property. "151 The ever-persistent Campbell pursued this idea at a different scale in 1960. His motion to consider replacing the Bluffs Subcommittee with one charged with addressing the "whole lake shore problem" across the MTRCA was adopted, but the MTRCA's Executive Committee decided that the Authority could not "accept any responsibility in regard to lakeshore erosion in the Scarborough Bluffs area," or presumably elsewhere. 152 As reaffirmed in 1964, this was the MTRCA's stance until 1970, when it began building protective groynes at the Bluffs off Crescentwood Road. 153

In the 1950s and early '60s, a lack of immediate success also marked the efforts by the RDHP Advisory Board and Metro to have the MTRCA secure either a conservation area or parkland at the Bluffs. In 1958, the RDHP Board pushed for a large-scale acquisition

149MTRCA Minutes 1958, 56, 332-37, and 391-92. A report forwarded to Metro at this time was MTRCA, Report ... concerning Erosion Control and Preliminary Engineering for the Scarborough Bluffs (Woodbridge, Ont., 1959).

150Metro Council Minutes 1959, App. "A," 260.

151MTRCA Minutes 1959, 67, 233, and 264.

152MTRCA Minutes 1960, A-20 and B-23.

153ln 1964, Scarborough Township requested that the MTRCA consider undertaking erosion control measures in the Bellamy Ravine. TACPAC determined that the problem was a "local concern," and recommended that Metro not direct the MTRCA to do the work, despite the MTRCA's approval that year of pilot projects elsewhere for an erosion control assistance program. See MTRCA Minutes 1964, B-271 and B- 331-32. Later, the MTRCA sponsored a major Metro-wide report on erosion. An inventory of problem areas - which, for the Bluffs, included Bellamy Ravine, Greyabbey Ravine, and East Point - formed most of the report. The key recommendation was the development of a regional erosion control program. See James F. MacLaren Ltd., Consulting Engineers, Preliminary Erosion Inventory Report for Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Toronto, 1968), 16 and 23. 70 scheme along the Bluffs as the first step in creating "an historical and recreation conservation area." While Scarborough Township Council was amenable to transferring its waterfront holdings to the MTRCA and several large parcels were for sale, no action was taken. 154 A similar response greeted Metro two years later when it attempted to assemble lands for a new regional park. The MTRCA was asked to acquire property between Midland A venue and Markham Road as "conservation lands"; Metro was told that 11 existing legislation" prevented such action. ("Conservation lands" lay in the main valley systems between crests­ of-slope.) This forced Metro to seek other means of acquisition, including assumptions from Scarborough Township. 155

Where the RDHP Advisory Board did meet with considerable success was in the lower Rouge and the adjacent lakefront. Preparation of a scheme to acquire land there for conservation purposes was approved by the MTRCA in 1957. A year later, the idea of creating a 300-acre reserve received the support of the MTRCA's Conservation Areas Advisory Board. It was seen as the first step toward the 1,485-acre Rouge conservation area proposed in 1956. In 1959, the MTRCA formally adopted a scheme for the acquisition and development of the Lower Rouge Conservation Area. 156 The transfer by Pickering Township of 77 acres of marshland near the river mouth formed the nucleus of "CA 14. 11

As with the lower Humber, recreation and conservation each had their own place on the Rouge. With its productive marshes and valley slopes, the area south of Highway 401 was generally better suited to "preservation of existing wilderness than ... development of recreational facilities." While furthered by the purchase of some 20 winterized cottages on the floodplain, preservation efforts found a "natural 11 limit at the CNR line. South of the tracks lay a fine strand occupied commercially by Ferguson's Beach and Morgan Park. The MTRCA perhaps had qualms about the social life of these enterprises, noting that "[t]he inclusion of these beaches in our overall development program is necessary, so that recreational activity here will be controlled and conducted in a manner suitable to publicly owned land. "157

154MTRCA Minutes 1958, 557.

155Metro Council Minutes 1960, App. "A," 896; MTRCA Minutes 1960, B-36. The MTRCA acquired property in four categories: reforestation lands; forest and wildlife areas; conservation areas; and flood control and water conservation lands. See MTRCA, Report on Land Acquisition Programmes and Policies. While not the only means by which Metropolitan parkland was acquired, the MTRCA was (as noted above) the most significant in terms of total acreage. Metro also obtained property by expropriating flood hazard lands, by assuming lands from area municipalities, by purchase, and by donation.

156MTRCA Minutes 1957, 390; ibid. 1958, 188, 423-24; ibid. 1959, 55. In 1959, the MTRCA also approved a scheme for the Lower Duffin Creek Conservation Area between Lake Ontario and Highway 401, but balked at paying $700,000 to acquire land in Frenchman's Bay. The latter area did not become an MTRCA scheme until 1968. By this date, considerable property had been acquired for another MTRCA waterfront project at Petticoat Creek, just east of the Rouge.

157MTRCA Minutes 1958, 430-32. 71 Land acquisitions proceeded slowly after the Lower Rouge project was approved, despite constant prodding by the RDHP Advisory Board. Given the area's floodplain character, the Conservation Areas Advisory Board agreed that "CA 14" should become a water control scheme ("WC 28"), making it eligible for funding under the Flood Control Plan. With the latter's approval in 1961 - and amid growing concern for the lakeshore marshes across the Pickering waterfront - an acquisition program for the lower Rouge ("P 11 ") began in 1962. 158 The transfer to "P 11" was a judicious move; funds earmarked for the acquisition of conservation areas were routinely diverted to the flood control program during the 1960s. The RDHP's diligent lobbying helped as well, bringing out the purchase of Ferguson's Beach (900 feet of lake frontage on 4.5 acres) in 1966. 159

Once initiated, development of the Lower Rouge Conservation Area proceeded quickly, simply, and inexpensively - though not without a measure of controversy. The issue was not if or how the area should be developed, but which agency should be responsible for development and maintenance. In 1966, the MTRCA felt the obligation was Metro's; Metro felt otherwise. The lands then lay beyond Metro's borders, and thus beyond the purview of existing agreements with the MTRCA. Because an earlier attempt to have Metro accept lands at Petticoat Creek had failed, the MTRCA deferred consideration of a development plan for the lower Rouge, hoping Metro might relent. 160 This tactic failed, leaving the MTRCA to press ahead on its own terms. In 1967, the 157-acre Lower Rouge Conservation Area opened, the first of the MTRCA's 13 conservation areas to provide beach frontage on Lake Ontario. Save for new parking arrangements north of the rail line, development was entirely confined to the lakeshore strip: the modest 1967-68 budget of $53,200 featured a gatehouse, washrooms, changerooms, a refreshment booth, and a boat launching ramp. Visitors could swim in either the lake or an artificial pool dug into the beach. 161

During the period 1957-68, the MTRCA's material accomplishments on the regional waterfront were extremely limited. While elements within the MTRCA sought a more ambitious role for the Authority, legislative constraints often thwarted action. The

158ln 1961, the Executive Committee resolved "[t]hat because of the rapid extinction of many lakeshore marshes, the Authority enforce filling regulations to the fullest in order to protect the Pickering Marshes ... , and ... give top priority to the purchase of these lands." See MTRCA Minutes 1961, B-68. The MTRCA first adopted fill regulations in 1960.

1590n the RDHP Advisory Board's role in securing lands in the lower Rouge, see MTRCA Minutes 1961, B-69; ibid. 1965, H-2-4; ibid. 1966, B-98.

1(/JMTRCA Minutes 1966, A-70, B-428. The lower Rouge came under Metro's jurisdiction in 1974 when Scarborough annexed part of Pickering Township.

161MTRCA Minutes 1967, A-54; ibid. 1968, A-103 and A-174; MTRCA, Conservation 1967-68 (Downsview, Ont., 1969), n.p.; MTRCA, Tour of Authority Projects by Member Municipal Councils (Downsview, Ont., 1969). 72

MTRCA's inability to control large-scale private lakefilling is a case in point. In 1965, when Long Branch Village Council expressed concern over the dumping of apartment excavation fill into the lake, the MTRCA replied that neither its fill regulations nor the Conservation Authorities Act gave it jurisdiction over the matter. 162 A substantial MTRCA presence on the lakeshore would have to wait until the Province delegated additional powers. This happened in 1970. In the meantime, the MTRCA's interest in waterfront affairs remained keen if physically unfulfilled.

The Regional Waterfront as a Planning Unit

A more expansive view of the regional waterfront was taken in Metro's draft Official Plan of 1959. In fact, the presence of Lake Ontario and its implications for delivering hard services helped determine the planners' preferred configuration for the Metropolitan area. The notion of promoting an "urban ribbon of limited depth" along the lakeshore (rather than indefinite northward sprawl) derived mainly from water supply, storm water drainage, and sewage disposal considerations, though the preservation of agricultural and forest lands was also an issue. While "fair" groundwater sources existed north of Metro, future urbanization there would still rely on Lake Ontario for its water, requiring costly mains, pumping stations, and reservoirs. Increased storm water runoff would swell the danger of flooding in the lower reaches of the watershed, necessitating an extensive ameliorative program.

The "most critical" issue for Metro's planners, however, was sewage disposal. It most strongly influenced the ribbon-like shape chosen for future urban growth. Because running trunk mains great distances to the lake was unfeasible, new primary treatment plants would be required in urbanizing areas north of Steeles Avenue. This posed a grave pollution threat to areas downstream in Metro, including the waterfront. 163 The dubious state of water quality at Toronto's bathing beaches had already prompted a joint study by the City's Department of Public Health, the Ontario Water Resources Commission (ORWC), and the THC in 1957. At the City's request, a monitoring program was continued with participation by the Province and Metro, with Metro reporting on how its capital works program for sewerage might reduce shoreline contamination. 164

162MTRCA Minutes 1965, B-228.

163MTPB, The {Draft] Official Plan of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (Toronto: Carswell, 1959), 10-11 and 176-95.

164Metro Council Minutes 1959, App. "A," 1657-63. Also see Ontario Water Resources Commission (OWRC), Report on a Lakefront Survey of Water Quality, Waste Outfalls and Drainage Inlets of Lake Ontario within the Area Town ofBurlington to Scarborough Township Inclusive (Toronto, 1962); OWRC, Water Quality and Pollution Control in Metropolitan Toronto along Lake Ontario: Report on a Study, 1964-65 (Toronto, 1965). The OWRC was established in 1956. 73

The draft Official Plan offered an image of what form the Toronto region would likely assume by 1980 if the public and private sectors "pursued their interests in a rational way within the framework of existing institutions. "165 Metro had, of course, been pursuing its own rational course since 1953, and the plan reflected the municipality's past achievements as well as its future visions. Among the latter was a "genera,! scheme for lakefront development. "166 Not only would the shoreline provide the setting for new public works including an easterly extension of the Gardiner Expressway through Scarborough, water filtration plants in Scarborough and New Toronto, and the Lakeview sewage treatment plant in Mississauga - but it was now regarded as a linear resource worthy of comprehensive treatment. Toronto's waterfront was seen as a model, its diverse facilities having evolved "out of the simple recognition that the lake front represents the area's most flexible asset in the creation of important public uses." Such flexibility came about through lake filling. 167

One of the eight principles guiding the draft Official Plan held that the key natural features of the MTPA - the lakefront, the ravines, and the escarpment should be "utilized to the maximum extent. 11 Recreation was identified as the best use for most of the ravines, while the Rouge Valley formed the "only true 'green belt' which can be maintained in the Metropolitan Area. "168 This reiterated a long-held public objective and recognized the pace of urbanization within Metro during the 1950s, yet left the relationship between the valleys, recreational areas, and green belts rather obscure. Shortly after the draft Official Plan appeared, Gardiner helped fuel the confusion by implying that some unspecified non­ recreational form of development would enhance the green belt system. He recalled that in 1953 Metro's valleys had been "sitting idly by as an undeveloped heritage with no successful effort to change them into green belts and recreational areas. "169

For the waterfront, the dictum of maximum use meant accommodating a wide range of uses and providing for a high degree of public access to the shoreline [fig. 26]. The MTPB noted that the waterfront had historically served a variety of purposes, and must continue to do so "in balanced proportions." This meant distributing specific land uses equitably across the region while respecting the current pattern of development. Industry, for example, would be retained in the centre of the planning area (Toronto Harbour) and promoted at the margins (Pickering-Ajax and Clarkson) and near Highland Creek. The most

165MTPB, {Draft] Official Plan, i.

166This scheme was discussed in the section concerning parks and public open spaces. See MTPB, [Draft] Official Plan, 235-39 and plate 55.

167MTPB, [Draft] Official Plan, 238.

168MTPB, {Draft] Official Plan, S4 and 239.

169Metro Council Minutes 1960, App. "C," 2. -....] .j:>.

1111111

,, GENEllAl FD~ lAKEfRONT DEVEH'.)?MtNT PLATE

Figure 26. Metropolitan Toronto's "general scheme for lakefront development," 1959. Lakefilling was proposed for industry south of the Port Industrial Area; for unspecified parkland purposes in the vicinity of Exhibition Park; for "conservation beaches and possible scenic drive" off the Scarborough Bluffs; and for the creation of public beaches between the Humber and Etobicoke Creek. Toronto Island was reserved for parkland, save for the airport and the filtration plant; TTC ferries would provide public access. A new Metro park, involving tableland acquisitions, was proposed at the Bluffs between Midland Avenue and Markham Road. [Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board, The [Draft] Official Plan of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area] 75 innovative proposals, however, were aimed at the lakeshore's most conspicuous imbalance: a lack of parkland and public open space outside the City of Toronto.

Beyond the City, less than seven per cent of Metropolitan Toronto's shoreline was in public ownership. Much of this figure was comprised of non-parldand uses, and the area municipalities had few policies in place to remedy the situation. Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, for example, then occupied one-third of New Toronto's shoreline; the civic waterworks took up most of the remaining public land. The official plans for Long Branch (1946) and Etobicoke (1947) made no provision whatsoever for public waterfront parks, though Metro did build Marie Curtis Park on Long Branch's western edge in the late 1950s. As for Mimico's 1.5-mile waterfront, the MTPB had this to say:

The greatest topographical feature in the Town, the shore of Lake Ontario, has been used to poor advantage for the public. There are only two places [totalling 1.3 acres] where public access can be obtained to the lake and, of these, only Mimico Beach [now Amos Waites Park] provides any opportunity for recreational activity. The remainder of the lakeshore is almost entirely developed residentially, with over 60 % of its length occupied by apartment buildings. Even these have not been developed to best advantage and for the most part present a dismal picture of living room windows a few feet apart, the minimum number of apartments facing the lake, a pronounced lack of landscaping, and a wide belt of unattractive parking area between apartments and the water. 170

East of Toronto, Scarborough had acquired a handful of tiny and almost-inaccessible park properties atop the Bluffs. Scarborough's Official Plan (1957) reserved the face of the Bluffs as public open space, but did not anticipate any new major parks on the adjacent toplands. Pickering was silent on the future public use of the shoreline between Port Union Road and the Rouge. 171

Metro's 1959 plan sought to increase the region's beach frontage and related facilities, develop the scenic assets of the lakeshore, and provide for aquatic activities on an enlarged scale. These recreational objectives were to be met through lakefilling, land acquisitions, and the intensive development of Toronto Island. Save for the creation of a new Outer Harbour south of the Port Industrial Area, efforts to increase the public land base

170MTPB, Proposed Zoning Plan for the Town of Mimico (Toronto, 1960), 4.

171The seven per cent calculation and policy-related conclusions refer to Metro's present boundaries and are based on the following documents: E.G. Faludi, Town Planning Consultants Ltd., A Master Plan for the Development of the Township of Etobicoke; E.G. Faludi, Town Planning Consultants Ltd., A Plan for Etobicoke; Long Branch Village Council, Proposed Official Plan (Long Branch, Ont., 1956); Scarborough Township Council, Official Plan (Scarborough, Ont., 1957); MTPB, Development Policies in Pickering Township (Toronto, 1959-65); MTPB, Proposed Zoning Plan for the Town of Mimico; New Toronto Town Council, Official Plan of the New Toronto Planning Area (New Toronto, Ont., 1966). Also see Metropolitan Toronto Map (Toronto: Rolph Clark Stone, 1955); Street Guide and Map of Toronto and Vicinity (Toronto: Shell Oil, 1956). 76 focused on areas outside Toronto. Fill would create public beaches where the waterfront had already been developed privately (as in the communities west of the Humber) or where conservation measures were needed (as at the Bluffs, where a water's-edge scenic drive was also contemplated). Toplands adjoining the Bluffs would be acquired in order to protect the cliff faces and possibly allow for continuous pedestrian movement between Victoria Park Avenue and the Rouge. As well, a Metropolitan park was proposed for the two-mile stretch between Midland A venue and Markham Road. With improved accessibility of this sort, the Bluffs would finally enjoy "proper exploitation."

As a general planning strategy, Metro expected better public access to the lake to come from a better arrangement of non-recreational uses. While provision was made for those industries requiring lake frontage for shipping or a private water supply, this did not necessarily imply their "direct occupancy" of the shoreline. Where possible, land-water linkages should occur across a strip of open land. Similarly, water filtration and sewage treatment plants were to be accommodated in a way that permitted efficient operation but did not prejudice the "overall amenity of the lakeshore and its suitability for recreation use." The question of access through residential areas was approached more gingerly. Metro's objective was to secure "maximum public access to the lakeshore, with minimum interference to the residential uses. "172 Striking this difficult balance meant giving access to the Bluffs only in "selected" locations, though the plan offered no specific guidance on this. 173

The 1959 lakefront scheme owed much to a half-decade of lobbying by a citizens' group, the Greater Toronto (or Toronto Region) Branch of the Community Planning Association of Canada (CPAC). This group - a non-professional body "to which anyone interested in good planning may belong" - had long considered the lakeshore, Toronto Island, and the Etobicoke, Humber, Don, and Rouge valleys as the essential components of a Metropolitan parks system. At a CPAC-sponsored meeting in 1954, the future of the Island was deliberated along with the need to establish a body to administer Metropolitan parks, address conservation issues, and undertake recreational development on a regional basis. A land acquisition program incorporating the TYPB' s green belt scheme was also urged. 174

172MTPB, [Draft] Official Plan, 235.

173The question of recreational access and facilities at the Bluffs increasingly became a local issue. For example, the notion of providing neighbourhood facilities at Cudia Park (lying between Mccowan and Bellamy roads) was not warmly received by Metro; keeping with Thompson's "basic philosophy," a more limited level of development was desired. See Metro Council Minutes 1968, App. "A," 1309-10. On the difficulties of providing a western entrance to Cudia Park following a request by Scarborough Township, see ibid. 1965, App. "A," 878-79.

174Community Planning Association of Canada, Greater Toronto Branch (CPAC), Planning for the Lakefront and River Valleys (Toronto, 1954), n.p. CPAC was founded in 1946. The Toronto branch grew out of the Citizens' Housing and Planning and Association (established 1944); by 1968, it claimed over 600 members. 77 Obtaining an independent plan for the regional waterfront became CP AC' s foremost concern. Prior to the release of the 1959 draft Official Plan, Metro Council received a brief from the group. "Many fine small plans for the waterfront are now being made by our Councils, Boards and Commissions," noted CPAC, "but the concept of a great and harmonious Lakeshore design for Metropolitan Toronto is still lacking. "175 A wide-ranging critique of planning and development was offered. Retaining Toronto Island's unique identity was favoured over the provision of a fixed-link: "Without cars it has a sense of adventure, of remoteness and peace. With cars it becomes just another park." The filling-in of the protected waterway at Exhibition Park - Metro's compensation for City parklands taken for the Gardiner Expressway and the Queensway - was termed "expediency dumping," as the relative merits of aquatic and land-based uses in the area had not been fully examined. 176

Beyond addressing specific projects, CPAC argued for a better sense of the whole. Jurisdictional complexities and inadequate studies had blocked effective planning. While the waterfront served many functions, no single "power" existed to mediate between conflicting uses, to identify priorities, or to specify the best uses for particular sites. CPAC preferred no one use in the abstract; indeed, the group saw nuclear power plants co-existing happily with marinas, apartments, and recreational beaches, so long as the waterfront was "designed as a whole, from end to end." Lakefilling represented the essential means of creating a

See "History of CPAC," Community Planning Review, 14, 2 (1964): 1-49; Joyce M. Tyrrell, "CPAC Covers the Waterfront," Community Planning Review, 19, 4 (1969): 28-30. A citizens' "Committee on Open Space for Metropolitan Toronto" was formed in 1953, but little is known about this group.

175CPAC, The Wateifront of Metropolitan Toronto: A Brief ... to the Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Toronto, 1959), 1. Support for waterfront planning also came from H. Spencer Clark, who had organized the "Guild of All Arts" atop the Scarborough Bluffs in 1932 and developed the adjacent lands as " Village" in the 1950s. Clark provided advice to the MTPB on the extension of port facilities, the protection of Toronto Island during high-water periods, the use of industrial fill in land reclamation, erosion control and park development along the Bluffs, and a proposal for "an ultimate expressway at the foot of the Bluffs." Clark's "Guild Inn" and adjoining woods were acquired by the MTRCA in 1978. See H. Spencer Clark to M.V. Jones, Metropolitan Planning Commissioner, 12 November 1959, in MTPB, Wateifront Planning in Metro Toronto: Miscellaneous Papers (Toronto, 1959-63), n.p. Also see Hugh Walker, The Spencer Clark Collection of Historic Architecture (Scarborough, Ont.: The Guild, 1982); Reeves, Regional Heritage Features on the Metropolitan Toronto Wateifront, 150-55.

176Under a 1958 agreement, Metro had originally intended to create 43 acres of parkland between Coronation Park and Jameson Avenue by filling to within 75 feet of the breakwater. The City later opposed this scheme, arguing that the fill would not be placed at the point of greatest social need, that increasing small­ boat use favoured the retention of the protected waterway, and that the "valuable relationship" between Lake Shore Boulevard and the lake was "well worth preserving." Metro eventually filled in 29 acres, constricting less than half of the waterway's frontage and leaving the rest at least 250 feet wide. At the City's request, Metro also made new waterfront parkland west of Exhibition Park; this filled area is now Marilyn Bell Park. See TCPB, The Changing City: A Forecast of Planning Issues for the City of Toronto, 1956-1980 (Toronto, 1959), 32; TCPB, Proposed Lake Fill in Front of the Canadian National Exhibition (Toronto, 1960), 8; Metro Council Minutes 1961, App. "A," 543-46 and 823-24; MTRD, Biennial Report 1961-62 (Toronto, 1963), 37. 78 public shoreline, but only if it proceeded according to a large-scale, predetermined plan. (Ignoring local precedent, Daniel Burnham's Chicago plan of 1909 was held up as a model.) "A great waterfront," concluded CPAC, "grows not from piecemeal works projects, but from a great concept, clearly set forth. "177

CPAC did not regard the 1959 lakefront scheme as the culmination of its efforts. The group had succeeded in placing the regional waterfront on the public agenda, but a schematic plan and a few pages of text hardly reflected its significance. As a result, CPAC continued to press for a "great concept." Movement toward this goal quickened in 1961 when the MTPB and Metro Council endorsed a report on the need for a long range waterfront plan between Clarkson and Carruthers Creek.

"Everyone conscious of Toronto's location on the shore of Lake Ontario," began the MTPB, "must from time to time regret the amount of separation between the lakeshore and the urban hinterland, and be concerned with the lack of public access to the shore both from the built up area and from the as yet undeveloped lands. "178 Metro welcomed the interest expressed by CPAC, the City of Toronto's Waterfront Committee, and a group of "architects, sportsmen and publicists" who wanted to build facilities capable of attracting the Olympic Games to the Toronto waterfront. The MTPB was reluctant to support proposals not set in an adequate planning context. This included the Olympic bid:

Whatever its merits this ambitious project cannot be considered in isolation; it needs to be set into a developing framework for the whole waterfront. Assuming the necessary finances are made available and there is sufficient, sustained local enthusiasm for an Olympics enterprise, should that be allowed to dominate all other considerations for lakefront development? To ask this question does not mean it is an undeserving cause to bring the Olympic Games to Toronto or that it would be physically impossible to construct all the sports facilities planned ... Yet in the absence of any general, long term plan for the waterfront the sheer size of an Olympics project would leave very little time for thought or money for other equally worthwhile ventures. Priorities can only be established when all the competing claims have been listed and the possibility of their realization evaluated. 179

Metro's entree into this "developing framework" had been the draft Official Plan and its lakefront scheme. The latter, intended as the basis for more detailed proposals, strongly

177CPAC, The Waterfront of Metropolitan Toronto, 7.

178MTPB, Towards a Waterfront Plan: Report on the Need for a Long Range Waterfront Plan from Clarkson to Carruthers Creek (Toronto, 1961), 1.

179MTPB, Towards a Waterfront Plan, l. The Olympic proposal, fronted by architect C. Ross Anderson, had come before the MTPB and Metro's Parks and Recreation Committee in 1960. That year, TACPAC decided that such proposals could only be evaluated in the context of a long-range waterfront plan, and requested Metro's planning commissioner to prepare a report on the matter. See Metro Council Minutes 1961, App. "A," 2314-17. 79 influenced the thrust and content of the 1961 report. Concerns broached in 1959 were reiterated and elaborated upon, and many sections from the draft Official Plan appeared verbatim in the waterfront report.

The MTPB was now prepared to develop a comprehensive waterfront plan for two reasons. The first held that coordination and foresight would serve the public good:

[A] variety of private and public developments along the waterfront are taking place and are being planned individually whether there is a general scheme of development or not. Far better that all the parts of the development make a coherent picture than to risk haphazard growth and invite misallocation of available resources. Without a study and plan, some facilities will be provided and others will go by default. The distribution of competing uses will certainly be out of balance with any rational system of priorities. Further, the projects which go ahead in a piecemeal fashion without a general design pattern are likely to be less effective and more expensive to carry out.... [T]hinking ahead pays both in measurable economic terms and in the more intangible realm of rightness, convenience and aesthetic satisfaction.

The second rationale for plan-making rested on the "long term economics" of a broad conception of municipal health. It recalled the arguments made earlier in the century by the OAA and the Toronto Guild of Civic Art:

A healthy Metropolitan area is one which can compete with other areas. With growing prosperity it will no longer be enough to have industry and commerce, to eliminate bad housing conditions, to improve traffic and do all the other things which the public demands as normal functions of public activity. To grow and maintain its position a Metropolitan area must not only be a healthy place but it must be seen to be a healthy and attractive place. A town which has by nature certain gifts should exploit and display them to advantage. Toronto has the ravines, the river valleys and above all the lake. Not to use these gifts is wasteful, to spoil them is extravagant. 180

The idea of forging a coherent identity for the waterfront had its limitations, however. The MTPB was loath either to develop a waterfront plan that promised everything - such as "recreational facilities for all" and "unlimited private development opportunities" - or to undertake studies that led towards a utopian project, "however exciting and imaginative." Displaying the pragmatism characteristic of the Gardiner years, the MTPB instead argued for a scheme "which assigns priorities and is in keeping with the financial possibilities of the organization involved. "181

180MTPB, Towards a Watelfront Plan, 2. On the waterfront-oriented planning work of the OAA and the Civic Guild, see Reeves, Visions, I, 56-61.

181 MTPB, Towards a Watelfront Plan, 1-2. 80

This dry statement aside, the MTPB brought forth a number of innovative ideas. The interaction between various waterfront uses was considered with a view toward fostering better functional linkages and physical arrangements. Four shoreline relationships were identified: those extending inland away from the water (non-recreational functions), those using the shore intensively (beach facilities), those projecting away from it (aquatic activities), and those landscaping and scenic aspects that "visually bind together the land, the shore and the lake, using land where available in depth but mainly giving unity to the whole lakefront. "182 These relationships, the MTPB believed, could be enjoined on a site instead of specifying a single form of appropriate development. Enhancing accessibility and promoting aesthetics would, however, entail a rethinking of conventional development practices. For example, industry's close proximity to the lake appeared to spring "more from a misplaced tidymindedness in zoning than from any usefulness to the prospective industries. [With greater setbacks,] the useful industrial acreage lost to industry is negligible and the gain to amenity is very considerable." 183 Industrial concerns and public utilities were urged to landscape their grounds, dispensing with the long-held view that the waterfront was "a backyard which can be used for their untidy operations."

The 1961 report revived an interest in the character of the waterfront landscape that had been dormant since the early 1930s. Attaining a "similarity of design" readily comprehensible by the public was mooted as a basic principle. But similarity was not to be equated with uniformity. The MTPB rejected the idea (allegedly held by the TCPB) that all lakefront parkland should be designed to a common standard. Advocated instead was an approach sensitive to local context which achieved large-scale coherence. Metro aimed to create the "maximum amount of landscaped parkland uncluttered by uses which can equally well be provided in other parks closer to residential areas." At the same time, creating 11 continuity in appearance irrespective of land use 11 would promote the identity of Metropolitan Toronto. 184 Such identity might derive from the region's natural forms and processes:

[l]t would be a mistake to lay out formal ornamental parks, except perhaps in the central area of the lakefront where harbour, business and industry meet. Formal parks are city parks, but the lakefront is a natural setting where parkland should appear as close to nature as possible and not man made. . . . When the general concepts of landscaping are being worked out consideration would also be given to leaving larger tracts of land in a wild state and allowing undergrowth. Wild life could thus be encouraged to come back to the shores. Apart from fostering wild life undergrowth reduces maintenance costs. By using indigenous shrubs and trees it

182MTPB, Towards a Waterfront Plan, 4.

183MTPB, Towards a Waterfront Plan, 6.

184MTPB, Towards a Waterfront Plan, 15 and 16. On the relation between landscape character, position, and function, the report said this: "Each site, because of its natural features or the lack of them and because of its location, will suggest the kind of development and use which will give the maximum benefit." 81

should be possible to get vigourous growth and create that type of local character which would establish the Toronto waterfront lands as unique parklands. 185

Regional coherence might also be realized through "a genuine Lakeshore Boulevard" - an architecturally rich system of motorways which harkened back to the THC's 1912 plan. 186 The MTPB 's system embraced both existing roads and new parkways, the latter occupying newly created and acquired land. Design continuity would be effected by using standards "fundamentally different" from other roadway construction.

Several localities merited special attention in the MTPB report. A plan specific to the lying between Toronto Harbour and Toronto's central business district was called for. To bridge the railway lands, the MTPB suggested they be partly decked over and used for parking or as a helicopter terminal; the stretch between York and Jarvis streets held the most promise for "imaginative civic design." To the east, concern was expressed over the THC's Outer Harbour project, under way since 1959. Land was being created at the foot of Leslie Street at a rate of 17 acres per year, yet the final extent and configuration of the port's expansion was unknown. Moreover, its impact on pleasure boating in Ashbridge' s Bay and swimming at had not been investigated. 187 The MTPB sought to preserve public access to the port area for sight-seeing, and mused on the possibility of building a public marina in the Outer Harbour. Access and development issues at the Scarborough Bluffs were also discussed. The MTPB recognized that erosion control measures were necessary, even if these entailed partially regrading the cliff face and depositing sanitary fill in some ravines and along the lakeshore. 188 However, the sum effect of this was not necessarily seen as desirable:

The unique scenic beauty of the bluffs rests on the fact that they rise immediately above the lake and would be destroyed if land instead of water were at their foot along the entire length. It should be the aim to preserve at least a major part of the bluffs as close to their natural state as possible; developing parks on top and beaches,

185MTPB, Towards a Waterfront Plan, 26.

186MTPB, Towards a Waterfront Plan, 29. Water transportation was also discussed. Ferries were seen as an intrinsic part of the Island experience, and the emergence of high-speed commuter vessels was predicted.

1870n the project, see Arlene Gemrnil, Toronto's Outer Harbour Eastern Headland: The Changing Role of a Transportation Facility, Research Report No. 55 (Toronto: Joint Program in Transportation, University of Toronto/York University, 1978); H. Roy Merrens, "Port Authorities as Urban Land Developers: The Case of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and their Outer Harbour Project, 1912-68," Urban History Review, 17 (1988): 92-105.

188The OWRC was interested in the MTPB's approach to controlling pollution, and was especially concerned about the negative implications of using sanitary fill to curb erosion and create new land. See A.E. Berry, OWRC, to M.V. Jones, 2 August 1961, in MTPB, Waterfront Planning in Metro Toronto, n.p. 82

protected by groins at the foot, with access by footpaths and possibly at a few points by cable cars or escalators. 189

Metropolitan Toronto's 1967 Waterfront Plan

The MTPB' s background report spurred considerable interest in the idea of a regional waterfront plan, and brought continued lobbying by CPAC and other groups. While praising the earlier work of the City and the THC, the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade noted that it was "extremely important that opportunity be afforded for the exercise of similar vision at this point in time over the much broader waterfront of the expanded urban area. " The Board welcomed the prospect a new plan and offered to assist in its preparation. CP AC took a similar view, but also called for the establishment of an independent commission with planning and implementation powers. Metropolitan planning commissioner Murray Jones rejected this, as "any tendency to transfer an element of direct local government concern to a separate commission is . . . not to be encouraged." CP AC also argued that no public waterfront land should be alienated until a plan was adopted, and that uses intrinsic to the shoreline should be given top priority. The public's right of access to navigable waters was deemed the highest and most essential use. 190

These efforts were rewarded late in 1961 when Metro Council approved the preparation of a waterfront plan for the 50-mile stretch between Ajax and Clarkson. 191 A technical committee was struck to deal with the plan's preliminaries. A year later, Metro also organized a Waterfront Advisory Committee. 192 The latter was composed of civic representatives, the railway companies, the THC, the MTRCA, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, the Conservation Council of Ontario, the TTC, the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, the CPSBH, the Toronto Area Boating Council, and CPAC. CPAC, with a view toward expediting the planning process, organized a conference in 1962 to help define the nature of the plan, and to consider how it could be implemented and what

189MTPB, Towards a Waterfront Plan, 37.

190See C.H. Lane and J.W. Wak:elin, Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, to MTPB, 12 October 1961; A.R. Carr-Harris and F.G. Ridge, CPAC, to MTPB, 8 September 1961; M.V. Jones to MTPB, 15 September 1961, all in MTPB, Waterfront Planning in Metro Toronto, n.p; CPAC, The Importance of the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront (Toronto, 1961).

191Metro Council Minutes 1961, App. "A," 2314-17. The MTPB was then involved with a study group formed in 1960 to examine lak:efront planning and development in Halton and Peel counties. The scale of discussion soon expanded to cover the area between Oshawa and Niagara. These discussions likely gave Metro a good sense of problems and opportunities along a sizable portion of the Lake Ontario shoreline. See M.V. Jones to MTPB, 13 February 1962, in MTPB, Waterfront Planning in Metro Toronto, n.p.

192Metro Council Minutes 1962, App. "A," 2273-82. 83 the legislative implications might be. 193 The Waterfront Advisory Committee first met in 1963, the year Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon, Consulting Engineers & Town Planners, were hired to oversee the plan's preparation. At the end of 1967, The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (also referred to here as the Bousfield report, after its study coordinator and principal author) was transmitted to the Waterfront Technical Committee. The report was presented to the Waterfront Advisory Committee early in 1968 [fig. 27].

While the 1967 plan's illustrations displayed a penchant for Modernist design, the document was imbued with a sense of history and precedent. A historical sketch of the waterfront dealing mainly with the City of Toronto appeared in an appendix. The period 1911-60 was termed "The Years of Fulfilment," when the "first and only comprehensive lakefront plan the City has ever had" was conceived and largely implemented. 194 In the main text, frequent references were also made to the THC's 1912 plan, from which five plates and pages were reproduced. The THC's subsequent work was praised as well; Bousfield declared that only Chicago's waterfront surpassed Toronto's on the Great Lakes. But the THC's labours were now viewed as a point of departure, given contemporary challenges and opportunities:

The Plan of 1912 is finally nearing completion. The vision of an efficient, up-to-date harbour in the middle of an attractive waterfront has been faithfully pursued by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and other governmental bodies ever since. The result is the Port of Toronto, one of the best equipped ports on the Great Lakes, handling overseas ships as capably as lakers. To the east and west of it are lakeside parks, now being redeveloped by the city. To the south, the Toronto Islands are being transformed into a unique recreational area by Metropolitan Toronto.

Clearly it is time for a new plan, for change is constant. In the Inner Harbour, evidence of a new and fundamental change is apparent in the Marvo [or Harbour Square] Project, in which commercial and residential uses for the first time are displacing transportation and industrial uses at the central core of the waterfront. The ever-increasing trade in the port, however, points to the need for harbour facilities, elsewhere; an Outer Harbour is consequently taking shape near the Eastern Gap. West of the Humber, private development has all but sealed the public off from the

193 At this meeting, Metro parks commissioner Thompson staunchly maintained that Toronto Island was the overriding priority in Metropolitan waterfront development. See CPAC, Our Waterfront: Waterfront Conspectus Conference Report (Toronto, 1962). To spark and sustain public interest in the planning process, CPAC also intermittently published a newsletter, Waterfront Report. The group's pivotal role in initiating the Waterfront Plan was acknowledged on page 1 of the Bousfield report.

194Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon, Consulting Engineers & Town Planners [Bousfield], The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (Toronto, 1967), A7. In this sketch, the area west of the Humber received only passing note, while Scarborough and points east were not considered at all. Included in another appendix was a list, compiled by the Toronto Historical Board, of "Names, Places and Events of Historical Significance" which again implied that only the City's waterfront history was significant. 00 .pi.

GENERAL WATERFRONT PLAN

Figure 27. Metropolitan Toronto's "general waterfront plan" for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, 1967. From Clarkson (far left) to Ajax (far right), the overwhelming emphasis of the plan is on open space (shaded dark), with most new recreational lands to be created through lakefilling. The lettered balloons indicate sites for new marinas and launching ramps, swimming pools, bathing areas, and artificial lakes. The other large dark-shaded area (centre) was to support a wide array of land uses - open space, transportation, residential, institutional, and commercial (see fig. 31). The only new area designated and constructed for industry is along the south edge of the Port Industrial Area and on the Outer Harbour Eastern Headland (centre). To the left of the Outer Harbour are the Eastern Beaches; the lakefi11 projecting offshore and the artificial island were to provide space for Olympic facilities. The dashed line indicates a recreational "waterway." It was to be protected by lake structures mainly in Toronto alone. [Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon, The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area] 85

lake. There is a need to create a wholly new waterfront, as was accomplished in Parkdale nearly half a century ago. To the east, the Scarborough Bluffs remain undeveloped and forbidding. 195

The central concerns were limited access and the diminishing prospect of increasing it; ineffective land-water linkages; and poorly-guided lakeshore redevelopment. These problems derived in large measure from a poor distribution of planning resources. "The lack of a plan is everywhere evident beyond the city limits," rued Bousfield, "where public access is limited, the recreation potential has languished, and few residential or commercial developments have made advantageous use of the lakefront setting. "196 Only "nature and some sound development policies," coupled with agitation for a new waterfront plan, had meant that not all was lost.

The basic objective of the 1967 plan, then, was "a handsome waterfront, balanced in its land uses, complementary to adjacent areas, readily accessible and fully cognizant of the features which nature has provided." Six specific objectives were also identified: enlargement of recreational facilities, affording "virtually unlimited" public access to the lake; port expansion; promotion of industrial development along the lines suggested in the MTPB's 1961 report; provision for and stimulation of private redevelopment, especially apartments, hotels, restaurants and other "intensive uses" in areas of "apparent under use"; preservation of stable neighbourhoods; and "constructive use" of fill materials, the abundance of which had long been taken as evidence of regional prosperity. 197 Indeed, massive lakefilling became the means to the two most favoured ends - public recreation and private

195Bousfield, AlO. The Parkdale reference is to the TH C's lakefilling for and development of Lake Shore Boulevard and the Sunnyside Amusement Area in the 1910s and '20s.

196Bousfield, 1. This had been the TCPB's stance in its 1961 review of Towards a Waterfront Plan: "In the City the major policies ... were determined some time ago by the various agencies concerned. Thus the use of the waterfront has been determined along broad lines; the Toronto Islands will be developed for recreation by the Metropolitan Parks Department; the inner and outer harbours for shipping by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners; the outlying sections ... for park, recreation and related activities by the Toronto Parks Department. In the suburbs and outlying municipalities .. ., on the other hand, where the lands are largely in private ownership, comparable broad policies have yet to be determined. It would be the major task of the waterfront plan in these areas to establish broad policies and ways and means of bringing about effective public control so that they can be implemented in a fashion analogous to what has already been done within the City of Toronto." No policy changes were foreseen by the TCPB in regard to the City's waterfront, but such did emerge in the 1967 plan. See TCPB, "Commentary on MTPB report, 'Towards a Waterfront Plan,'" 12 September 1961, in MTPB, Waterfront Planning in Metro Toronto, n.p.

197Bousfield, 6-8. The plan termed "a guide and not a blueprint" had no fixed set of priorities, cost estimates, or timetable of expenditures. 86 redevelopment. 198 Metro's traditional role as a provider of utilitarian services was all but ignored.

At first, the idea of planning the 50-mile waterfront "as a unit" had been viewed as conceptually desirable. This proved untenable. Only the lake and the MTPA were held in common; few other relationships existed between the various points along the shoreline. To help "knit together" the recreational features, Bousfield proposed a scenic drive and a protected waterway, though even these elements were admittedly discontinuous. Similarly, "a kind of identity and continuity" was sought through the plan's architecture. But, with "uniformity and monotony" to be avoided, "universal good taste, clarity, and the expression of function" were left as the only guidelines to future waterfront design. 199 Planning was to concentrate on exploiting local opportunities within local limitations through area-specific objectives. Ensuring that all parts of the waterfront received treatment would hopefully yield a degree of comprehensiveness and "elementary coordination." The concept of "balance" as the equitable distribution of resources thus became central to the exercise.

The proposals for Etobicoke and Scarborough embodied these ideas. For the Etobicoke sector, the main objective was to encourage private redevelopment by creating an attractive public infrastructure. Large-scale lakefilling between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek would alternately push the existing shoreline southward or create new islands. Water-based recreational facilities occupied the islands, which were reached by access roads located to minimize disruption to existing neighbourhoods [fig. 28]. In certain areas, the waterfront hosted new residential and commercial development in an effort to revitalize the lakeshore communities. Housing for nearly 23,000 persons was to be provided in the sector, mostly in high-density units between Mimico Creek and the Humber.

The Scarborough sector was handled rather differently. Compared to Etobicoke, Bousfield felt that the need for "urban renewal" along the Bluffs was "slight." He did suggest that apartments might be developed over the long term at Guildwood, taking advantage of the local arterial network to make "dramatic use of the face of the Bluffs. 11 [fig. 29] Elsewhere, the creation of lakefront park areas through a "Limited Fill Alternative" became the preferred means of development. 200 A "Massive Fill Alternative" was rejected

198Potential conflict between these two emphases was apparent though not addressed in the plan. After touting the idea of a belt of public open space from Mississauga to Ajax with "virtually unlimited" access, Bousfield (p.8) noted that "[p]ublic ownership or access to every foot of lake shoreline is not an objective of this plan. Where appropriate, apartments, hotels, etc. should be permitted access directly to the water." He claimed that "direct" public access would exist to over two-thirds of the SO-mile MTPA shoreline, including 16 miles of beach and over 100 miles of lake frontage. The creation of some 5,000 marina spaces was also proposed, while public park acreage would nearly triple to 4,500 acres, "sufficient for an infinite variety of outdoor pursuits."

199Bousfield, 22.

200Jlousfield, 52 and 50. "' .. ,Ji!: ,., "" 0 .. "' f.Ol'ilf.fPT frn!l!CQKf: Ill ATf Nil, 1U

Figure 28. Metropolitan Toronto's physical design concept for the Etobicoke waterfront, 1967. A massive lakefilling effort, creating new islands in some areas and extending the shoreline southward in others, served largely recreational ends. Marinas, picnic areas, an artificial lake, recreation centres, aquatic clubhouses, sports fields, protected waterways, and new neighbourhood parks line the shore from Etobicoke Creek (upper left) to the Humber (far right). These features were linked by a scenic drive paralleling (and joined at eight points with) Lake Shore Boulevard. High-density residential and commercial uses are proposed for the area west of Mimi co Creek to the Humber. [Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon, The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area]

00 '1 00 00

!UGfll,$7'tD APAlt!MtNT /;l~'li.Ol¥1'/£,~'r

Figure 29. Metropolitan Toronto's proposed apartment complexes for the Scarborough Bluffs, 1967. This project was considered feasible in light of the existing road and land use pattern around the Guild Inn. The cliff-face placement of the 16-to-18 storey buildings maintained lake views from the existing apartments, while helping control erosion along the Bluffs. The apartments - a private sector undertaking - were protected by a publicly built breakwater, which might ultimately extend from Livingstone Road to Morningside A venue. [Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon, The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area] 89 because the feasibility of using waste materials had not been demonstrated. This meant that neither a continuous protected waterway nor a continuous scenic drive at the toe of the Bluffs could be offered. Instead, short stretches of protected water and a number of small marinas were to be formed; loop drives linked directly to arterial roads would be routed through Metropolitan parkland, as continuous movement along the toplands was now "obviously" impossible. 201 [fig. 30] Regional park initiatives were identified for "Needles Park" (at Brimley Road), "Meadowcliff Park" (between Bellamy and Markham roads), and "East Point Park" (at Beechgrove Drive). A major erosion control program was suggested as well, involving storm drainage interceptor works, shoreline filling, and the construction of groynes.

No sector was as complex or as ambitiously treated as Toronto's central waterfront. Lying between Ashbridge's Bay and Exhibition Park, it represented the greatest departure from the 1959 lakefront scheme, which Bousfield had used as the "basic hypothesis" of the 1967 plan. The central sector warranted a separate (if overlapping) planning document. Prepared by the THC and released early in 1968, A Bold Concept outlined a diverse array of objectives for the area, considered for the most part functionally obsolete and under intense redevelopment pressure. Through an enormous lakefilling effort, port expansion would occur adjacent to the new Outer Harbour, protected by two headlands; Toronto Island Airport would operate on a new, larger site off Gibraltar Point; an expanded Island Park would remain "a sanctuary from the automobile," though its utility would be enhanced by bringing vehicles across the Western Channel to parking lots on Long Pond; and Exhibition Park would be "revitalized" by a southward extension of its grounds [fig. 31] .202

The most radical proposal in the central sector was "Harbour City. " Extending from the foot of to Bathurst Quay and onto Toronto Island, it was to offer "a form of urban living virtually unique on the continent" to 50,000 people on a 400-acre site [fig. 32]. 203 A series of "spacious, informally arranged apartment complexes" would be linked by internal waterways, pedestrian pathways, and automobile routes. "It would seem to be in the general interest of the community to allow this section of the Port to be redeveloped in a manner compatible with the future adjacent uses," claimed J.H. Jones, the THC's chief engineer. 204 With existing port activities being shifted to the Outer Harbour, Harbour

201 Bousfield, 18.

202Bousfield, 32-33; J.H. Jones, A Bold Concept: A Conceptual Plan for the Development of the City of Toronto Waterfront (Toronto: THC, 1968), 29-30. On the THC's port-related work program after World War II, see Jeffery Stinson, The Heritage of the Port Industrial District: A Report for the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, vol. 1 (Toronto, 1990), 13; Jeffery Stinson and Michael Moir, Built Heritage of the , Environmental Audit of the East Bayfront/Port Industrial Area, Phase II, Technical Paper No. 7 (Toronto: Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, 1991).

203Bousfield, 10.

204Jones, 17. Jones, in fact, regarded Harbour City as the "keystone" of the central Toronto sector. \0 0

PHYSICAl DESIGN SC!l.R89RIJUGH PlAU NO. 11 Alil

Figure 30. Metropolitan Toronto's physical design concept for part of the Scarborough waterfront, 1967. Lakefilling extended the present shoreline and created a new island for recreational and erosion control purposes. Water-based activities similar to those provided in Etobicoke also appear here. Unlike most of the Scarborough waterfront, the scenic drive alternately follows the water's edge and the upper edge of the Bluffs. A pedestrian trail runs along the toe of the Bluffs at "Needles Park" (centre, west of Brimley Road) and "Cathedral Bluffs Park" (right, with marina). The area shown lies between Kennedy and Markham roads. [Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon, The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area] PHYSICAL DESIGN CONCEPT

·-- :e .r PLATE N! 12A

Figure 31. Metropolitan Toronto's proposal for the central Toronto waterfront, 1967. Little of the existing shoreline profile remained, given the massive lakefilling and new land uses proposed. Exhibition Park was reconnected with the lake via the partial burying of Lake Shore Boulevard and the creation of new islands tied to the shore. Other proposals include an outer harbour serving ocean-going ships and industry (right centre); a relocated and expanded Island Airport (bottom); a reconfigured Toronto Island used solely for recreation (centre); and "Harbour City," comprised of residential, commercial, and institutional uses (left \0 centre). [Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon, The Wateifront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area] """"' 92

Figure 32. Metropolitan Toronto's "Harbour City" proposal, 1967. The residential clusters, particularly the low-rise buildings, resemble Moshe Safdie's "Habitat" project for Expo '67. Stretching from York Street to Strachan Avenue to nearly one mile south of the existing Western Channel, Harbour City also included institutional and commercial uses. Internal movement was provided both by private automobiles (atop newly made land) and boats (through a lagoon network). [Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon, The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area] 93

City's 11 intensive uses 11 would complement those being touted for the railway lands and act as the ultimate extension of the downtown area. The project, moreover, would instil a "new vitality 11 in Toronto Island Park, treating it as a neighbourhood resource while providing motor access to its perimeter. The overall idea soon gained powerful support from the Province. It backed the Harbour City idea until early 1972, when local opposition and the apparently immovable Toronto Island Airport brought the scheme to an end. 205

The 1967 plan was both a creature of its times and an extension of earlier ideas. Like the 1912 plan, it promoted a wholesale reworking of the waterfront in form and function, offering both an enlargement of the public realm and development opportunities for the private sector. Yet the scale and character of the two plans differed greatly. The first point comes as little surprise, given the territorial jurisdictions of the THC and MTPB; the second point is crucial. The landscape proposed by the THC in 1912 was essentially a conservative one. It derived from a long-held local consensus on what the best uses of certain places were, and how the physical environment might be reshaped to accommodate these uses. As well, its two- and three-dimensional form drew upon norms of design well­ established across North America. Such cannot be said of the 1967 plan. In a vastly altered social and economic milieu, the development priorities of 1912 were inverted. Aesthetic and recreational concerns helped erode the status of waterfront industry especially between Yonge and Bathurst streets - and the notion of port activity was now associated as much with the weekend mariner as the laker captain.206 These new emphases were accompanied by a built form at once experimental and futuristic. Dispensing with traditional relationships of space and architecture, the proposed landscape was heir to the high-tech expressionism of Expo '67. And, as demonstrated by Ontario Place, portions of the waterfront indeed attained a future which the present has yet to catch up with. 207

205See Craig, Zeidler & Strong, Architects, Harbour City: A Preliminary Working Report for the Planning of a New Community (Toronto, 1970); Ontario Department of Trade and Development, A New Illustrated Concept for the Harbour City Development (Toronto, 1970); "Glamorous New Development for the Toronto Waterfront," Architecture Canada, 47, 6 (1970): 1, 4-5; "Harbour City, Toronto," The Canadian Architect, 15, 7 (1970): 24-31.

2060n the growing importance of small recreational craft at this time, see Johnson Sustronk Weinstein & Associates Ltd., Small Craft Harbours Study, Metropolitan Toronto and Region Waterfront (Toronto, 1975). Locational shifts in port and industrial activity within Toronto Harbour are discussed below.

207For obvious quotations from the Expo '67 landscape in the Bousfield report, see the geodesic dome (akin to Buckrninster Fuller's United States pavilion) in plate 6, and the overall treatment of Harbour City (a la Moshe Safdie' s "Habitat" complex) in plate 13B. While acknowledging Habitat's expensive nature, East York's planning commissioner urged Metro to refer explicitly to this housing type. See Alan McWilliam to W. Wronski, Metro Planning Commissioner, 4 July 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan (Toronto, 1968), n.p. The resemblance between Habitat and Harbour City grew more pronounced with Eberhard Zeidler's participation in the latter project. See Craig, Zeidler & Strong, Architects, Harbour City. Though Harbour City came to nought, Zeidler and the Province left the Expo-inspired Ontario Place as their mark on Toronto's waterfront (see below). 94

Responses to the 1967 Plan

Upon its release, the Waterfront Plan received general endorsement from Toronto­ area governments and public agencies. The CNE's Board of Directors were ecstatic at the prospect of expansion southward, and promptly accepted Metro's "offer" of 150 acres of additional land. 208 Such reactions were hardly surprising in light of efforts to forge a consensus over the years; the perceived benefits to the region as a whole also made the plan attractive. These benefits helped offset the plan's largely undefined costs, and helped enlist North York's support for the scheme:

A cost revenue analysis . . . would be a study in itself and in instances where recreational use is the sole aim, might even prove to be a deterrent to what is obviously a correct and essential social objective. Some objectives in life are beyond financial considerations but can be imperilled by picayune objections to their cost. If the authors of [the Waterfront] Plan wished to avoid such objections by excluding detailed financial estimates, then they were right to do so. Commitment to the objectives and principles of the Plan should not rely on an assumed limited financial capacity to carry out proposals, for financial ability can be, and often is, adjusted in proportion to the earnestness of the goal.209

This attitude differed significantly from the THC's 1912 waterfront plan. Arguments for implementation had then been based primarily on the direct returns arising from port and industrial development - not the intangible social values of a more beautiful metropolis, better recreational facilities, and enhanced civic pride. Like Metro in 1967, the THC in 1912 made no effort to calculate the economic benefits of its plan (though a $19 million price-tag was attached). Given the THC's manufacturing emphasis, however, Torontonians took it as axiomatic that the returns would be huge. Fifty-five years later, some parties felt that setting development priorities required a more rigorous cost-benefit approach. For Toronto's public works commissioner, Harbour City was a case in point. It was the only project touted as being financially self-sustaining; if it was as feasible as the THC claimed, it should be the first project to be approved and undertaken. 210

Swayed by the Waterfront Plan's lavish production, the press was initially enthusiastic as well. But a more sceptical view was soon expressed by the Toronto dailies. The Telegram expected that Metro chairman William Allen and Toronto mayor William Dennison would have to lobby hard at all political levels to achieve change. Mobilizing support for the plan from "public-spirited citizens" would be easy relative to the "inert MPPs and MPs

208L.C. Powell, CNE General Manager, to W. Wronski, 2 August 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Wateifront Plan, n.p.

209North York Planning and Development Department to North York Planning Board, 19 April 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Planning Board, n.p.

210R.M. Bremner to , 6 June 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Wateifront Plan, n.p. 95 who lackadaisically represent this area." For the Star, the success of the plan was more a question of action than vision: "If all those planning reports were dumped into Toronto Harbour, they'd provide enough fill to build those new islands the planners are now talking about. "211 In the comments on the plan received by the MTPB, implementation, the environment, large-scale land use relationships, and local impacts were key themes on which criticism and praise turned.

Tension was seen between protecting neighbourhoods while constructing regional facilities. The Etobicoke Borough Planning Board was concerned about the removal of water access to private properties via filling, and wanted more details on how the proposed scenic drive network would dovetail with the local road pattern. 212 It also urged that any filling for recreational ends should first remedy local park deficiencies rather than create regional facilities. The Etobicoke citizenry was both vocal and varied in its criticism of the plan. The Lakefront Owners Association, representing the long-established communities of Long Branch and New Toronto, questioned the potential loss of riparian rights and the legality of using filled Crown water lots for "speculative purposes. "213 Metro was urged to leave all lakeshore property untouched, and concentrate on building islands which would carry the scenic drive offshore. (This would have the added benefit of eliminating visitor parking on local streets.) One New Torontonian's ire was aroused by the apparent class bias of the plan: "There appears to be a real case of discrimination [as] the shoreline in Mimico is not used in any way. Why are the large homes in Mimico exempt and the smaller homes in New Toronto to be done away with?" 214 Some Long Branchers felt that the filling proposed might be "a screen to cover an offshore garbage dump," and that the new four-lane road was "not a scenic drive but an expressway." Was the waterway in front of Long Branch wide enough to support sufficient flushing action or to mitigate noise problems at the proposed offshore marina? The use of clean fill to extend Len Ford Park was welcomed,

211 Toronto Star, 12 January 1968; Toronto Telegram, I I and 12 January 1968.

212Similarly, Scarborough's concerns focused on the use of local streets to reach new regional parks (as at East Point) or as elements in the toplands scenic drive system (as at Cathedral Bluffs Park). In the latter case, it was feared that the proposed drive would not only affect homes along specific local roads, but more generally open up the entire neighbourhood street network to the regional population seeking access to the waterfront. See D. P. Easton, Scarborough Planning Commissioner, to Scarborough Borough Planning Board, 18 July 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p.

213D. Martin, Acting President, Lakefront Owners Association, to P.R. Longstaff, MTPB Secretary, 27 June 1968, in.MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.d.

214C.A. Harper to P.R. Longstaff, 21 June 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p. In the plan, filling operations skirted the estates at Mimico Beach "in deference to the resistance ... expected"; meanwhile, filling was projected along the entire New Toronto shoreline. See Bousfield, 41-42 and plate 14C. 96 given local experience with the waste dumped for Marie Curtis Park, and blowing coal dust and fly ash from the Lakeview Thermal Generating Station. 215

The difficulties of balancing local and regional concerns were well laid out (if not resolved) by the East District Joint Planning Committee (EDJPC). The EDJPC claimed that far more attention had been paid to erosion control and conservation issues in the adjacent Scarborough sector than in Pickering. While little new parkland was slated for its sector, the EDJPC nonetheless pushed for the creation of new regional parks given their relative simple lines of development. At the same time, the EDJPC recognized that more intensive use of the waterfront was warranted given future recreational demands and an ever-increasing population. Pressures for intensive use would also come from the implementation of the plan's amenities and transportation facilities, which would likely act as a "stimulus for development." Determining the balance between public and private uses on the waterfront was crucial. While assessment - "always a critical matter to local municipalities" - would be increased through private development, a public waterfront with an abundance of open space would attract many people to the area, making it "a more desirable place for the investment of private monies." Instead, private investment might be better located away from the lake edge, though some commercial ventures "could be incorporated into the open space concept, . . . offering a compromise to the concept of a publicly owned waterfront. " Scarborough's Guild Inn was cited as an exemplar of this approach. 216

While the EDJPC maintained that successful private development should not entail reduced public access to the water, public access itself was a thorny issue. Like Etobicoke, the EDJPC was concerned about the impacts of regional traffic in local areas. New regional parks would be unwelcome until access routes and cost-sharing arrangements had been worked out with the area municipalities. Again echoing concerns across the region, the EDJPC pointed out that some scenic loop roads in its sector were coincident with existing residential streets. The spectre of too much public success was also raised in another way. Improved access coupled with Metro's new amenities indicated "the desirability of, and future pressure in the area between Petticoat Creek and Rouge River for, multiple family development." Was this the sort of stimulus Metro desired? What required more thought were the implications of regional activity on the local context, and how local and regional interests might be reconciled - or perhaps separated physically.

In the central area, linkages between the Waterfront Plan and the adjacent urban structure (as built and as proposed) prompted much comment. A.J. Dakin, chair of the

215 Mary E. Ball and Kenneth L. Ball to F .R. Longstaff, 4 July 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p.

216East District Joint Planning Committee (EDJPC), "Report on the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area Waterfront Plan, Pickering Sector," 14 May 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p. The EDJPC was comprised of Pickering Township (which then embraced the waterfront area between Port Union Road and the Rouge River), Pickering Village, and the Town of Ajax. 97

University of Toronto's Urban and Regional Planning Department, urged further study of the relationship between the Inner Harbour and the city beyond, especially in terms of land use and communications. "A waterfront," pointed out Dakin, "has a back as well as a front, and the back is a major metropolitan edge. "217 As the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade put it, "Out of new development, both public and private, a grand entrance to a great new City must emerge which links the waterfront to the City centre. "218 To fuse the waterfront with the core, projects like Harbour City could not be viewed in isolation. A major transportation corridor and the vast landholdings of the railway companies had to be addressed as well. For the MTPB, the need for a central area transportation study was "recognized but ... considered to be premature"; plans for the railway lands and Exhibition Park would have to be "more firmly resolved" first. 219 In fact, many decisions concerning the central area were beyond Metro's control, such as the relocation of Toronto Island Airport and Inner Harbour industry away from the Harbour City site.

Relationships between the Waterfront Plan and the much larger region also attracted discussion. The East York Planning Board and the County of York Planning Office felt that Harbour City might provide "a counter force to urban sprawl and conceivably may help discourage city core deterioration. "220 Less charitably, York County claimed that some of Bousfield' s assumptions were faulty. While new recreational facilities on the waterfront might relieve pressure on County facilities (and, in turn, attract more County residents to Lake Ontario), Metro residents would continue to take a good deal of their recreation north of Steeles Avenue. Forces such as regional population growth, increased personal mobility, an improved highway system, and increased leisure time made this trend inevitable. Yet an opportunity existed to exploit the biophysical connections between York County and the Metropolitan waterfront. This entailed linking recreational facilities through the major river valleys, such as by "reopening the historic portage routes - waterfront, Humber, Don, Holland to Lake Simcoe." Related to this, and with an eye to avoiding new dump sites in York, the County endorsed Bousfield' s proposal to use a variety of fill sources in reclaiming land along the lake. "Not only are waste materials put to constructive use to provide

217A.J. Dakin to W. Wronski, 27 June 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p.

218W.E. McLean and J.W. Wakelin, Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, to MTPB, 19 August 1968, in MTPB, Supplementary Staff Report and Summary of Additional Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan (Toronto, 1968), n. p.

219MTPB, Supplementary Staff Report and Summary of Additional Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p.

220Alan Mc William, East York Planning Commissioner, to W. Wronski, 4 July 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p.; Conroy G. Dowson, York County Planning Office, "Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan: Staff Report," 15 July 1968, in ibid., n.p. That Harbour City might be viewed as a form of southward sprawl encroaching on the Inner Harbour - a unique and limited resource - was not addressed. 98 valuable waterfront acreage, but upstream County valleys can remain as a continuing resource for subsequent generations. "221

Environmental concerns were broached in many guises and scales, ranging from natural linkages within the Metropolitan watershed to fill-related pollution at the lake edge. On the latter, the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade argued that development priorities should be driven by fill requirements and characteristics. It questioned the plan's apparent reliance on sanitary fill as a means of creating new land; projects like Harbour City which were not dependent on the use of this material should be given top priority. The basic aim should be to not increase pollution in the lake as a result of the plan's implementation. While calling for research into the feasibility of using sanitary fill, the Board preferred to work with known quantities. To this end, it asked Metro to appropriate "generous funds" for land acquisition. 222

A.J. Dakin viewed the quality (and temperature) of lake water in a different light. He argued that the plan placed too much emphasis on boating and water sports to justify the overall proposal. Like the County of York, Dakin felt that Lake Ontario's "adverse public image" would continue to drive people north in search of better resorts. He suggested that "very careful study of the possible improvements in water quality are necessary before too much investment is committed to the water-oriented activities on the scale shown. "223 Consideration had to be given both to existing lake conditions and the potential for lakefilling and new facilities to exacerbate an already woeful state along the waterfront.

Shoreline water quality depended not only on appropriate lakefill materials, but also on the general health of the Metropolitan watershed. This caveat was voiced by the Streetsville Planning Board, which occupied an upstream position in the MTPA:

The statement of the authors of [the Waterfront Plan] that it will give [the MTPA] the finest waterfront in North America will be justified provided a serious effort is made to control or completely eliminate the pollution which is presently a serious problem in this area. Any attempt to complete the Waterfront Plan without first solving the water pollution problem will spoil the success of the Plan.... The

221 Conroy G. Dowson, York County Planning Office, "Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan: Staff Report," 15 July 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p. Dowson claimed that 60 to 85 percent of the people using County recreational facilities were Metro residents.

222McLean and Wakelin to MTPB, 19 August 1968, in MTPB, Supplementary Staff Report and Summary of Additional Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p.

223A.J. Dakin to W. Wronski, 27 June 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p. 99

Waterfront Plan should be complimented [sic] by better control of the watersheds that drain into the area. 224

In Streetsville's opinion, better control would come from strengthening the powers of the conservation authorities, particularly in regard to point and non-point discharges into the region's watercourses. This was not an issue that Metro could address directly. Yet it pointed to a certain indivisibility of waterfront planning and regional planning, and the plethora of actors that would have to be involved if the 1967 plan was to be implemented effectively.

More so than any other commentator, CP AC used environmental criteria to determine the merit of the Waterfront Plan. 225 "In the minds of many citizens," said CPAC, "the validity of the whole waterfront plan is linked to pollution control." Harbour City's physical configuration raised the prospect of stagnant, highly polluted water; a revamped Toronto Island Airport was unsatisfactory, given its flight approaches, proximity to high-rise buildings, and noise, and its cutting-off of Toronto Island Park from the open lake. Moreover, a need existed to identify those properties in which a public interest was to be safeguarded, and to identify creative means of protecting critical lands. And a different conception of "waterfront unity" was required:

CPAC ... asked that the waterfront be planned 'as a unit,' but on page 6 of the Waterfront Plan, the writer states: "It cannot be fairly stated that a waterfront, designed as a unit from end to end, was one of the objectives of the Plan."

The CPAC concept of unity was not a matter of design, e.g. a scenic drive, but a question of the totality or indivisibility of land, water and air in our environment. ... "Cross the boundaries of legal responsibility and appreciate the inexorable continuity of the shoreline, and accept the factors and the forces which interact along these margins continuously. Against this awesome authority of natural conditions, the human laws of division, subdivision rights, jurisdiction and compensations will seem both irrelevant and often self-contradictory. "226

CPAC called for studies on the plan's potential impact on the plants, fish, wildlife, and general ecology of the "shore and shallows," on the potential application of new technologies (including floating structures, underwater warehousing, water-based transportation, and pollution control measures), and to determine the "maximum use for all types of waste."

224C.W. Sherlock, Streetsville Planning Board Study Committee, to V.C. Dale, Chairman, Streetsville Planning Board, 27 June 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Watelfront Plan, n.p.

225For a recent extreme application of environmental determinism to urban and regional planning, see Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario, Draft Report (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1992).

226CPAC, "A Submission to the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Technical Committee," 17 July 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Wateifront Plan, n.p. The quotation came from an address by Patrick Horsbrugh at the 1968 Stratford Seminar on Civic Design. 100

CPAC continued its ecological critique at a symposium organized by it and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in 1969. Ian McHarg's Design with Nature - a seminal work integrating ecology and regional planning - had appeared that year, and environmental concerns were foremost in the minds of some participants.227 The Waterfront Plan was seen as having several deficiencies in this regard. Echoing points raised earlier by other critics, the plan's treatment of scale and linkage was considered problematic:

... the Waterfront was ... isolated from its hinterland: it was "too hard at the edges." As a consequence of this rigidity . . . there was a danger of several undesirable outcomes. (i) The Waterfront Plan, if developed in isolation, would not be "plugged into the continuous ecological circuit" formed by the river valleys, the lakeshore, and the lake. (ii) Also, in human terms, the "hard edges" of the ... Plan did not have "the sense of overall community that an ecologically oriented plan would have had," i.e., it lacks the sense of community that it would have had if it could have extended up the river valleys and thus encouraged the people to identify with their Waterfront. 228

Also called into question were the uses to which the waterfront was to be put, and how these uses had been decided upon. A fear of "the degradation of natural areas into mere recreational parks" and the limiting of diversity across the MTPA was expressed. Offering "easily accessible picnic grounds with recreational facilities" instead of "a more natural and less accessible environment" was seen as merely responding to existing values rather than promoting new ones. A lack of citizen involvement in the planning process was perceived, as few development alternatives had been laid out for public discussion. As one study group put it: "Do we want to have a very manicured front or park, promenade-type development? ... a thread of continuous ecological connection, in which bridges or urban activity could cross natural wilderness areas so that people could have access to a natural edge between land and water without destroying it? ... or a grand residential area?" 229

Setting development priorities - and defining the appropriate character of development - touched directly on the issue of implementation. Debate over the form of a suitable implementing body continued for several years, and a number of options were explored. Working through the existing municipalities and special-purpose agencies was one approach. The Toronto Redevelopment Advisory Council, for example, suggested that the

2271an L. McHarg, Design with Nature (Philadelphia: Natural History Press, 1969). McHarg's ideas on ecologically-based planning received a frosty reception when he met with the OAA that year. See A. Leman, "Report on OAA Convention," The Canadian Architect, 14, 4 (1969): 8-9.

2280ntario Institute for Studies in Education and Community Planning Association of Canada [OISE/CPAC], The Waterfront is for Living and Learning (Toronto, 1969), 20. For the degree to which these linkages were taken into account in the 1967 plan, see Bousfield, 14, 18, 37, 52, and 56. On CPAC's continued involvement in waterfront affairs, see Joyce M. Tyrrell, "CPAC Covers the Waterfront," Community Planning Review, 19, 4 (1969): 28-30.

2290ISE/CPAC, 29 and 20. 101 central sector be administered locally by the THC, given its Bold Concept and "proven experience and capability in the essential element of land reclamation on which the concept depends." The Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, which expected that some new "co­ ordinating and energizing body" would take shape, saw a rather more limited role for the THC. While the latter would undoubtedly create the physical base for Harbour City, it "may not be the logical body to carry out the commercial and real estate development. " Yet the Board of Trade felt that the harbour commissioners might "adapt their organization" to act, with the City of Toronto, as Harbour City's developer.230

The notion of either adapting current administrative structures or creating new ones proved popular. Reconstituting the THC as the "Metropolitan Toronto Harbour Commissioners" received serious consideration from Metro's Executive Committee, though the idea garnered little support from the City. 231 Also discussed was the formation of either a "Metropolitan Toronto and Region Waterfront Authority" or a new provincial agency; the latter might prepare and oversee a "Lake Ontario Waterfront Plan. 11 The MTPB preferred a joint approach, restructuring the THC to deal with the area between Dufferin Street and Coxwell A venue, and forming a new "Waterfront Conservation Authority" to address the balance of the MTPA. 232 Upon becoming Metro chairman late in 1969, Ab Campbell announced that his top priority was negotiating with Queen's Park and Ottawa for an implementing body. Campbell had been a strong waterfront advocate within the MTRCA since 1957, and a remodelled MTRCA was his preference. 233

A peculiar twist on the implementation process came in the summer of 1968, when the Waterfront Plan played a key role in Metro's bid for the 1976 Olympic Games. Metro chairman Allen saw the relationship between the plan (apparently a pet project of his) and the Games as reciprocal and mutually beneficial. Visions of a modern waterfront replete

230D.S. Anderson, Toronto Redevelopment Advisory Council, to W.G. Messer, MTPB, 20 August 1968, and McLean and Wak:elin to MTPB, 19 August 1968, in MTPB, Supplementary Staff Report and Summary of Additional Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p. The involvement of the THC and Metro in the Marvo/Harbour Square project is discussed below.

231The possibility of Metro assuming the THC's non-port-related lands - or even the entire THC - was mooted as early as 1967. Fearing a complete waterfront takeover by Metro, the City was cool to Allen's request for help in reforming the THC. See Toronto Star, 29 September 1967 and 10 June 1968; Toronto Telegram, 6 December 1967; Toronto Globe & Mail, 3 May and 12 August 1968; G. Cuthbertson, Metropolitan Auditor, to W. Wronski, 3 July 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p.

232MTPB, Implementation of the Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (Toronto, 1969), 27; CPAC, Waterfront Plan: Possible Implementing Structures (Toronto, 1970); F.N. Wood, Notes Concerning Waterfront Plans in the Toronto Region and Lake Ontario (N.p., 1970), 37.

233Toronto Star, 29 October and 2 December 1969; Toronto Globe & Mail, 17 and 21 April 1970. 102

234 with new Olympic-standard facilities would advance Metro's bid ; securing the Games would exert pressure on all stakeholders to implement the plan, and hopefully bring about federal and provincial funding. The Waterfront Plan formed the basis of Toronto's pitch to the Canadian Olympic Association (COA). Allen, who confidently extolled the plan's merits, felt Metro would win easily. He was disappointed; Montreal, building on the momentum of Expo '67, became the choice of the COA and the International Olympic Committee. 235

The COA's decision brought a degree of closure to Metro's planning process, given that the Olympics had partly inspired the MTPB's 1961 report, Towards a Waterfront Plan. It remains unclear to what extent the 1967 plan was prepared with an Olympic bid in mind. At any rate, the plan not only reflected the confident, progressive spirit of Canada's centennial year, but marked a profound shift in the political culture of Metro. Gardiner had had little use for grand spectacles like the Olympics, preferring to invest public monies in durable hard services which spurred business-like growth over the long term. His successors, Allen and Campbell, were less dogmatic in this regard. Circumstances forced them to devote much more energy to improving Metro's social well-being. The Waterfront Plan can be seen as an imaginative (or even extravagant) attempt to fuse social and economic objectives. 236

Undeterred by the COA's rebuff, Metro Council adopted the "concept and basic principles" of the Waterfront Plan in October 1968. In doing so, Council rejected the MTPB' s recommendations that the Waterfront Advisory Committee further consider means of implementing the plan; that funds be made available for land acquisitions "where development might prejudice implementation of the Plan"; and that additional studies be undertaken. Council did strike an interim Waterfront Development Coordinating Committee (essentially a technical steering body, though no terms of reference were laid out), and declared that a single authority should be charged with promoting, coordinating, administering, implementing, and financing the Waterfront Plan. The Bousfield report was then incorporated into Metro's 1966 "unofficial" Official Plan, which was "a statement of the policy of the Metropolitan Corporation for the planning of future Metropolitan works and services and ... a guide for future development in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. "237

234In the 1967 plan, the Eastern Beaches were identified as the most suitable site for an Olympic Village and associated sporting facilities. The land base was to be created though a massive offshore lakefilling effort.

235Toronto Telegram, 22 August and 9 September 1968; Toronto Star, 1 October 1968.

2360n Gardiner's functionalist sense of vision, and his antipathy to projects like Expo '67, see Toronto Star, 5 August 1969; Lemon, Toronto Since 1918, 147 and 149.

231Metro Council Minutes 1968, App. "A," 1960-63; Metropolitan Toronto Council, Metropolitan Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (Toronto, 1966), 1. While adopted by Council, the 1966 document was never submitted to the Province for approval. The Official Plan which was approved by the Province in 1980 did not explicitly incorporate the Waterfront Plan, though it did include waterfront policies. See 103

Metro's Involvement with Other Waterfront Ventures

Between 1953 and 1968, Metro developed other interests in the waterfront besides the large-scale provision of hard services and region-wide planning. For example, an awareness of the waterfront's cultural heritage began to emerge, albeit on an ad hoc and reactive basis. Inspiration was provided in part by celebrations surrounding Canada's centennial. At the Toronto Historical Board's request, Metro presented artifacts from the 1912 tug G.R. Geary and the entire 1932 tug Ned Hanlan to the Marine Museum of Upper Canada in 1966 and 1967. In the latter year, Metro also sanctioned the placing of a memorial to Etienne Brule, the first European to view Lake Ontario, on the buffer zone of the Humber sewage treatment plant. The Etobicoke Historical Society had pressed for this since 1959. (Metro's Works Committee wanted the area named "Discovery Site" so that it not be confused with a park, "which infers a land use other than that for which the land was purchased and now utilized.") Also approved in 1967 was the Canadian Archaeological Divers Society's erection of a cairn commemorating the still-visible remains of the Alexandria, wrecked off the Scarborough Bluffs in 1915.238

Heritage and development interests coincided - and collided - at Exhibition Park, which Metro assumed from the City in 1966. That year, Metro Council approved the permanent berthing there of the HMCS Haida, a retired Tribal Class destroyer which had arrived in Toronto in 1964. The ship was to be moored alongside the parklands created as compensation for those lost to the Gardiner Expressway on the Exhibition's north side. To make shore-side space for the ship, Metro also agreed to relocate Remembrance Drive away from the water. 239 By the time the Haida arrived at the Exhibition in 1971, the required space had been provided by filling-in the protected waterway out to the breakwater. It was, however, a minor alteration compared to the drastic changes which had taken place both on the ground and the drawing board.

The period 1966-71 was a vigorous one for planning and development in and around Exhibition Park. Prior to Metro's takeover of the grounds, the CNEA hired Dominion Consultant Associates to draft a plan to revitalize both the exhibition and the park. For Dominion, the CNE could not be considered in isolation from the "total entity" that was the "Central Lakeshore Park Area" - Exhibition Park, Toronto Island Park, Toronto Island

Metropolitan Toronto Council, Official Plan for the Urban Structure (Toronto, 1980), 42-51.

238 0n the tugs, see Metro Council Minutes 1966, App. "A," 2251-52 and ibid. 1967, App. "A," 2212-13. On Bn1le's commemoration, see ibid., App. "A," 297-98; T.W. Thompson, Metropolitan Parks Commissioner, Walking Tour of Lower Humber Valley (Toronto, n.d.), 2-3; Dan Brignoli, ed., The Founding of Toronto and the Francophone Presence from 1720 to Date (Toronto: La Societe d'histoire de Toronto, 1991). On the Alexandria, see Metro Council Minutes 1967, App. "A," 1882-83; Canadian Archaeological Divers Society, The Wreck of the S.S. Alexandria (N. p., 1967).

239Metro Council Minutes 1966, App. "A," 741-42 and 742-44. The City of Toronto originally approved the Haida's berthing at Exhibition Park in 1964, the year the ship was towed into the Inner Harbour. 104

Airport, Maple Leaf Stadium, HMCS York, Lakeshore (or Gore) Park, Coronation Park, Fort York, and other public lands south of Lake Shore Boulevard west to the Boulevard Club. Dominion recommended that, once Lake Shore Boulevard had been placed in a tunnel, the CNE should expand southward onto existing and reclaimed lands, and build new trade, exhibition, and convention facilities. In the expectation of vastly increased levels of use, Dominion also urged the construction ofrapid transit facilities; otherwise, the site would be overwhelmed by parking requirements. 240 Some of these ideas found their way into Bousfield's report a year later.

These preliminary efforts where overtaken by a far more expansive planning process initiated in 1968. That year, efforts by the South Parkdale Residents' Association to gain local facilities in and better access to Exhibition Park brought an unexpected response from Metro. Parks commissioner Thompson felt that correcting the local park deficiency of some 40 acres demanded "a bold solution," one coordinated with overall planning for Exhibition Park. He suggested that the CNEA's Survey and Planning Committee consider phasing out activities west of Dundonald Road. Redeveloping this area would mean the end of the Horticulture, International, Ontario Government, and Arts, Crafts & Hobbies buildings. A redesigned site, argued Thompson, would "add greatly to the enjoyment of the visitor both during the normal park season and, indeed, during the period of the Canadian National Exhibition. "241

Rather than simply adopt Thompson's ideas, Metro and the CNEA commissioned a five-volume master plan study from Project Planning Associates (PPA) in 1968. The THC's Bold Concept proposal formed the basis for much of PPA' s design work, which encompassed an area of some 300 acres. 242 PPA maintained that the popularity and success of the CNE had declined relative to its market area, and offered a number of explanations. These included limited connections between Exhibition Park and the lake; the "bleak unchangeable appearance" of the grounds, particularly in the east end; old buildings incapable of year-

240Dominion Consultant Associates Ltd. A Study of Exhibition Park: Its Present and Future Environment, Uses and Development (Ottawa, 1966), 1-5. Dominion expected that Queen's Park and Ottawa would finance part of the $12.5 million scheme, given the area's provincial and even national significance.

241Metro Council Minutes I968, App. "A," 1311-12. The notion of interchanging Exhibition Park and the Harbour City site was also discussed at that time. City alderman William Archer felt that the sale of Exhibition Park to private interests would go far toward realizing a "better and more modem CNE." In the process of weaving Harbour City into the urban fabric, Parkdale's traditional ties to the lake might be restored by decking­ over the railway and expressway corridors. Looking forward to a "great new community enterprise to succeed the CNE," the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade took a similar stance. See William Archer to W. Wronski, 30 July 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p.; McLean and Wakelin to MTPB, 19 August 1968, in MTPB, Supplementary Staff Report and Summary of Additional Comments on Metropolitan Wateifront Plan, n.p.

242 Project Planning Associates Ltd. (PPA), CNE Master Plan Study I: Inventory and Preliminary Analysis (Toronto, 1968), 4 and 12. Besides Exhibition Park, the study area included Coronation Park, Lakeshore (or Gore) Park, and HMCS York. Old Fort York and the Fort York Armouries were excluded. 105 round use; obsolete transportation and leisure facilities; failure to cater to "cosmopolitan tastes"; and a lack of modern exhibition facilities. 243 To counter this negative image, 11 redevelopment objectives were decided upon early in 1969: relation of the site to its surrounding context, particularly the lake and South Parkdale; improved linkages with the regional road and transit networks; year-round operation; diversification of use; coordinated and compact form; phased system of building replacement and construction; improved internal transportation and circulation; emphasis on expansion southward; appropriate geophysical design of new structures in the lake; flexible building designs on the Buckminster Fuller model; and maximization of comfort, perhaps meaning the enclosure of much of the site.

PPA's recommended $126.1 million concept - which included 350,000 square feet of new exhibition and trade show space and a major sports centre, along with widespread demolition - unnerved Metro and the CNE's Board of Directors. The MTPB took direct control of the planning process under the auspices of the CNE Planning Task Force, and by the end of 1969 a conceptual plan had been adopted by the CNEA. Many of PPA's objectives appeared in reworked form; the sports centre, for example, was now to be "community-focused," rather than support major-league events. The MTPB did place greater emphasis on public transit (thereby reducing the area of surface parking), on strengthening ties to Harbour City and the railway lands, on defining the midway as a dominant function (and the physical core) of Exhibition Park, and on shortening the park's east-west axis by setting aside for local purposes the area west of Dufferin Street, including the Ontario Government Building. 244 Metro Council endorsed the scheme in 1970, and ordered the MTPB and Metro Parks to prepare a master plan for the site. Touted as "rehabilitation," a radical restructuring of Exhibition Park was proposed in Metro's 1971 plan. If implemented, many of the site's historic features would have been destroyed. 245

Restoring Exhibition Park's original relationship to the water was a theme common to all plans from 1966 onward. PPA, for example, argued in 1969 that the park's "movement out and into the lake is not only desirable, but also a design objective necessary

243PPA, CNE Master Plan Study 3: Preliminary Concepts and Evaluations (Toronto, 1969), 14-17.

244Canadian National Exhibition Planning Task Force and MTPB, Exhibition Park Conceptual Plan (Toronto, 1969), 1-2, 8, and 11.

245MTPD and MTPB, Proposals for the Rehabilitation of Exhibition Park (Toronto, 1971). The site had "become obsolete in its present character" and required rehabilitation according to "rational principles." This entailed demolishing no less than eight major buildings and relocating the midway to Coronation Park. The latter act was justified on the grounds that "the existing trees will die in a few years having exhausted their normal life span." For a crucial rebuttal to the plan, see James Lorimer, The Ex: A Picture History of the Canadian National Exhibition (Toronto: James Lewis & Samuel, 1971), 116-33. On the significance of Coronation Park, see John Bacher, "A Living Memorial: A History of Coronation Park," Urban History Review, 19 (1991): 210-17. The master plan was approved by Metro Council in 1972, but the only major structure which fell as a result was the Electrical & Engineering Building. 106 to establish a new image. "246 To Metro's chagrin, it was the Province who seized this opportunity by building Ontario Place on a 96-acre site directly south of Exhibition Park. The project, announced by premier John Robarts at the opening of the 1968 CNE, responded to the CNEA's call for provincial aid to reverse the fair's apparent decline; as well, it was intended to promote the Province's own image and, as Robarts later put it, "perpetuate the success of Expo. "247 The project - arguably Sunnyside's successor - was also seen as a practical working-out of the ideas in Metro's Waterfront Plan, and the potential catalyst for redevelopment elsewhere along the shoreline. But even before the showcase-cum­ amusement park opened in 1971, Metro had attacked its lack of coordination with Exhibition Park and the CNE, noting that Ontario Place served as a substitute for, rather than an addition to, the latter. 248

Metro also became involved in several locally initiated planning ventures. The first of these emerged in 1959 - the year the long-awaited St. Lawrence Seaway opened - when the City of Toronto struck a Waterfront Committee. This body, formed after "proposals for a broader committee failed to stir enthusiasm within the broader area, "249 drew its membership from the City, Metro, the Province, the THC, citizens' groups, and private interests. Also in 1959, the TCPB debated the waterfront at length in a study of major planning issues facing Toronto. 250

The TCPB released a more detailed study of the waterfront in 1962. Although The Core of the Central Wateifront included a "Preliminary Draft Plan" for the entire Toronto

246PPA, CNE Master Plan Study 3, 14-15. PPA was aware that studies for a new lake-oriented Ontario Government pavilion were under way, but knew nothing of the details. See ibid., 55.

247Quoted in Arlene Gemmil, Ontario Place: The Origins and Planning of an Urban Waterfront Park, Discussion Paper No. 25 (Downsview, Ont.: Department of Geography, York University, 1981), 9. Also see Michael Hough, "Toronto's New Turn for the Lake," Landscape Architecture, 62, 1 (1971): 47-48; "Ontario Place: A $23 Million Catalyst for Toronto's Waterfront Development," Architecture Canada, 48, 6 (1971): 2-3; Arnold Edinborough, "Ontario Place: One Stunning Feature But Mostly Disappointing," Financial Post, 65 (28 June 1971): 17.

248MTPD and MTPB, Proposals for the Rehabilitation of Exhibition Park, 19. Ontario Place "constitutes ... a new barrier between Exhibition Park and the lake, usurps additional waterfront parkland for parking purposes and fails to overcome adequately the barrier against the lake presented by Lake Shore Boulevard." This said, Metro's own plans for the CNE in 1971 were influenced by comparisons between the site and Ontario Place. Expressing an unabashedly Modernist position, the Star's architecture critic said this about Robarts' project: "It will set a swinging example for other waterfront development, ... and it will hasten a long overdue redesign of the CNE. The existing CNE should be scrapped: it is unrealistic to expect a 19th century fair to entertain 20th century man." See Toronto Star, 11 March 1969.

249The reference is evidently to Metro. See TCPB, "Commentary on MTPB report, 'Towards a Waterfront Plan,"' 12 September 1961, in MTPB, Waterfront Planning in Metro Toronto, n.p.

250TCPB, The Changing City: A Forecast of Planning Issues for the City of Toronto, 1956-1980 (Toronto, 1959), 11-12, 15, and 32. 107 shoreline, discussion focused on the central section. Most of this area was slated for industrial use, in the form of marine terminals, grain elevators, sugar refining, and similar water-oriented industries, as well as light industries requiring a harbour location. Two "special" districts were identified, however. One embraced the railway lands held by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which were slated for mixed use under special control. The other area was bounded by Front, York, and Yonge streets and the Inner Harbour.

This second district - the "waterfront core" received the TCPB's closest scrutiny. It was regarded as the potential "symbolic centre" of the entire waterfront, strategically placed in relation to downtown Toronto and to port, industrial, and recreational activities on the Inner Harbour. In fact, the area between Bay, Yonge, and Harbour streets and Queen's Quay had been identified in Toronto's 1949 Official Plan as crucial to improving Toronto's "civic appearance. 11 For $750,000, the TCPB had then recommended that "Harbour Square" be created in front of the THC Administration Building. This public park was to serve as a "proper 'front door' to the City, and counteract as far as possible that unsightly railway viaduct that separates the heart of the City from its busy harbour." As a second major functional change for the area, the lands east, west, and north of the park would be zoned for buildings of the "head office type. 11251

The TCPB's 1962 proposal similarly aimed at overcoming the "visual, physical, and psychological barrier" between the central business district and the waterfront core. Given the large public landholdings in the area, the TCPB pushed for "comprehensive urban development"; this would benefit the Port of Toronto and ensure "maximum public access to and enjoyment of the waterfront. "252 To effect this, and to separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic, a series of plazas would be stepped down from a multi-modal transportation terminal at , crossing over the rail corridor to the water and what is now indeed Harbour Square [fig. 33]. Appropriate uses for the waterfront core included recreational facilities, motels and hotels, parking, corporate offices, and marine and transportation terminals; the area was viewed as undesirable for residential, competitive office, retail, and industrial uses. 253 These ideas formed part of the Plan for Downtown Toronto (1963),

251 TCPB, Third Report and Official Plan, 24-25. This plan, adopted by City Council and approved by the Province in 1950, also sanctioned the building of a new "Waterfront Highway" to relieve the overloaded Lake Shore Boulevard and bypass the Sunnyside Amusement Area and Exhibition Park, and the extensions of Queen Street west into Etobicoke and Keating Street from Leslie Street to Woodbine Avenue. The TCPB also expected that the THC would soon begin work on its Outer Harbour project, placing stress on the road network in and around the Port Industrial Area. The project did not begin until 1959.

252TCPB, The Core of the Central Waterfront: A Proposal (Toronto, 1962), 8.

253While generally endorsing the City's objectives, the Board of Trade urged that the central waterfront be the site of port and public functions, not offices: "[l]t is of great importance to maintaining the strength of downtown to prevent uses which are more appropriately accommodated there from spilling over into the harbour area." Bringing all lands in the area into "unified public ownership" was also proposed. See 108

.. ·-· .. ·. " ~·.' :::.::·-~·~.' 0 .,:__.' .-· .-. ---· ... '

\ --L-i I I I I I I I I I I

Figure 33. Detail from Toronto's redevelopment scheme for the central waterfront, 1962. Following the Bay Street axis and giving grade-separated pedestrian access to the water, a series of plazas was stepped down from Front Street to the harbour at "Queen's Quay Deck." Parks and mixed-used complexes line the water's edge between Yonge and York streets. [Toronto City Planning Board, The Core of the Central Wateifront] 109 adopted by City Council in 1965 and approved by the Province four years later.254 Supportive public infrastructure was also forthcoming. Metro Roads claimed that the elevated Gardiner Expressway - including its architectural design - would foster redevelopment in the vicinity. 255

Private redevelopment plans for Toronto's central waterfront had a direct bearing on Metro. In 1963, the THC and the Marva Construction Company proposed building five high-rise apartments, an office tower, an apartment hotel, a motor hotel, a commercial mooring basin, a THC terminal warehouse, a 4-acre public park, and a new ferry terminal and docks on the Harbour Square site. The deal between the two was conditional on the THC resolving ferry terminal arrangements with Metro. In 1960, Metro had abandoned the idea of building a fixed-link to Toronto Island. Instead, the TTC's ferry fleet was acquired and turned over to Metro Parks to manage. This was done in 1962. Metro and the THC had, however, begun discussing the fate of the mainland ferry terminal the previous year. Negotiations stalled because the THC was then working on a redevelopment scheme for the area, and wanted the terminal to be integrated functionally and architecturally with this project.

Worried that the Marva project might be incompatible with the aims of the Waterfront Plan, Metro's Waterfront Advisory Committee asked the MTPB to review the project as soon as its "general principles and concept become firm proposals," and before the City's approval process began. Thompson expressed concern over the adequacy of storage facilities, the number of ferry slips, and, above all, the number of parking spaces. He also sought clarification of Metro's financial contribution and its terms of lease. The MTPB nonetheless pronounced Marva's scheme compatible with the preliminary objectives

Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, A Commentary on "The Core of the Central Waterfront" (Toronto, 1963), 3 and 6.

2540n the role an improved central waterfront could play in enhancing the "diversity and attractiveness" of the downtown area, see TCPB, Plan for Downtown Toronto (Toronto, 1963), 10, 23, and 46-48. The waterfront principles of 1962 were soon reaffirmed, with high-density residential uses prescribed for the Bay­ York district. See TCPB, Proposals for a New Plan for Toronto (Toronto, 1965), 12-13 and 41.

255 "This section [of the Gardiner Expressway] has been designed aesthetically to eliminate a feeling of massiveness and enhance redevelopment through this area.... Concrete columns supporting the deck are tapered and six-sided rather than square, and the transverse girders between columns are arched, presenting an aesthetic appearance to those driving the ... Lake Shore Boulevard which runs beneath it." See MTRD, Biennial Report 1961-62, 2; ibid. 1963-64, 1. At this time, the City's "barrier" attack focused on the Toronto Grade Separation (or Railway Viaduct), not the Gardiner. The reverse has since become true, spawning a host of studies. The most recent of these concluded that the Viaduct was immovable, unlike portions of the Gardiner. See IBI Group, Toronto Central Waterfront Transportation Corridor Study, Report 15 (Toronto: Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront [RCFTW], 1991), 42 and 98-106. Also see Ferguson, Ferguson Architects, Guiding the Gardiner: A Plan for the Expressway's Place in the City (Toronto: Toronto Task Force on the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor, 1986); OAA, "A Charette in the City": The Gardiner Expressway (Toronto, 1987), etc. 110 of the Waterfront Plan. It was approved in principle by Metro Council and the Toronto Waterfront Committee late in 1963. While a tripartite agreement was finally reached a year later, the ferry terminal issue continued to bedevil the project - which in any event was stalled due to financing problems. The THC completed the new docks in 1966, but it was 1972 before the terminal opened. As Thompson lamented, the "total concept with respect to the public or quasi-public aspects of the development has suffered from a lack of co­ ordination. "256

In 1968, two further proposals surfaced (without Metro's direct participation) for the central waterfront and environs. Both departed radically from Toronto's traditional urban form and echoed the design ethos of the Bousfield plan. Buckrninster Fuller unveiled "Project Toronto," an urban design exercise commissioned by CFTO-TV and the Toronto Telegram. Fuller, who saw the lack of a strong link between downtown Toronto and the central waterfront as a "major omission" of the 1967 plan, hoped to remedy the perception that, "when moving around in the downtown, one is totally unaware that Toronto is a waterfront and not a prairie city. " The barriers presented by the Gardiner Expressway and the railway lands were to be overcome by "The Galleria, 11 a long, glass-enclosed pedestrian extension of University Avenue. By linking King Street with the harbour, Toronto's "true topographical context 11 would be reclaimed. 257 Adjoining the Galleria, and acting as terminal features in the axial scheme, were the "Gateway Tower" office building and the "Crystal Pyramid" trade centre. Redevelopment would spread west of these structures onto the railway lands. The Galleria itself would end at high-density residential development on

256E. Comay, Metropolitan Planning Commissioner, to MTPB, 9 October 1963, in MTPB, Waterfront Planning in Metro Toronto, n.p.; W. Grant Messer, Metropolitan Waterfront Advisory Committee, to MTPB, 8 November 1963, in ibid., n.p,; Metro Council Minutes 1963, App. "A," 2197-2206; ibid. 1964, App. "A," 2083-88 and 2119-26; ibid. 1968, 528-32, etc.; "Island Ferries Find New Home," Port of Toronto News, 19, 2 (1972): 9. After filling-in the Bay Street slip and building a new dockwall for Harbour Square, the THC claimed the Marvo project would "change the Central Harbour area beyond recognition." See "The Port and its Cosmopolitan City," ibid., 12, l (1965): 2-3. This was true, though it did not happen as quickly as the THC expected. Due to the delay, and in anticipation of the Outer Harbour being built, the THC decided to construct Marine Terminal 51 south of the Ship Channel, near the East Gap. In 1967, the Marvo project appeared in an exhibition on past, present, and future Canadian waterfronts. See "Waterfront Exhibition, 1967 RAIC Convention," Architecture Canada, 44, 5 (1967): 29-40. Marvo's interests were taken over by Campeau Corporation in late 1968; soon after, a new proposal was broached and a new agreement struck. Revised objectives for Harbour Square were adopted by City Council in 1973, though construction of the first apartment tower and the hotel had already begun. The apartment tower was completed in 1974; the hotel opened a year later. See Toronto Central Waterfront Planning Committee, Past Plans: Bayfront Area (Toronto, [1975]), 15- 21. For broader perspectives on this area, see Gene Desfor, Michael Goldrick, and Roy Merrens, "A Political Economy of the Water-frontier: Planning and Development in Toronto," Geoforum, 20 (1989): 487-501; Gene Desfor, Michael Goldrick, and Roy Merrens, "Redevelopment on the North American Water-frontier: The Case of Toronto," in B.S. Hoyle, D.A. Pinder, and M.S. Husain, eds., Revitalising the Waterfront: International Dimensions of Dockland Development (London: Belhaven Press, 1988), 92-113.

257Fuller-Sadao/Geometrics, Project Toronto: A Study and Proposals for the Future Development ofthe City and Region of Toronto (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 29 and 30. Also see "Project Toronto: Comments," Architecture Canada, 45, 7 (1968): 45-46. 111 the water. Apartments would occupy islands created by modifying the existing dockwall between York and Bathurst streets; the Inner Harbour would thus be drawn up to the Gardiner Expressway, which would protect the boats moored under it. As well, housing pods were to float offshore [fig. 34]. Though the Province apparently considered studying the project's feasibility, interest soon withered away. 258

The other scheme was "Metro Centre." In 1966, preliminary work on a 187-acre, $1 billion development for the area enclosed by Front, Yonge, and Bathurst streets and the Gardiner Expressway was launched by the railway companies, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. 259 Their main yards were to be phased out, and in their place a variety of new uses were to appear. These included a new transportation terminal (and the end of ), a communications centre, a commercial component, and a residential area for 20,000 people. Planned as a three-dimensional megastructure, Metro Centre proposed to "reunite" the city and the waterfront through an elaborate system of grade-separated movement. This, coupled with its architecture, rejected any extension of the existing City fabric of streets and blocks into the area. 260 Linkages between the project and the waterfront were articulated no better, thanks to the uncertain future of Harbour City. Nonetheless, Metro Centre's proponents saw their project as "a chance to make the urban environment work, particularly if the [Waterfront Plan] ... is implemented to enhance the setting. "261 Despite being approved by City Council and the OMB, Metro Centre was abandoned in 1974 - save for the CN Tower and the Metro Toronto Convention Centre -

258Toronto Telegram, 4 June 1968.

259Toronto Star, 2 March 1966.

260Toronto City Planning and Development Department, Railway Lands Part II: Development Concept (Toronto, 1983), 10. In its review of the Waterfront Plan, the railway companies' planning consultant pushed for improved transportation links between the railway lands, the central core, and the waterfront, and welcomed the THC's proposal to relocate those port and industrial activities west of Yonge Street to the Outer Harbour. See Stewart M. Andrews, Community Development Consultants, to W. Wronski, 26 June 1968, in MTPB, Comments on Metropolitan Watelfront Plan, n.p. The TCPB also hoped that better city-waterfront linkages would arise with the redevelopment of the railway lands. The latter would might provide a "natural transition from the existing development downtown to the new developments proposed in [Bold Concept]." How well this transition worked was to inform the City's judgement of the overall venture. See Dennis A. Barker, Toronto Chief Planner, to TCPB, in MTPB, Comments on the Metropolitan Watelfront Plan, n.p.

261 Toronto Globe & Mail, 12 September 1968. 112

Figure 34. Buckminster Fuller's scheme for the central Toronto waterfront, 1968. The "Galleria," a glassed-in street running south from King Street and paralleling an extended University Avenue, terminates at a hotel on the harbour (lower right). The water's edge is drawn up to the Gardiner Expressway and housing pods float offshore (bottom). [Fuller-Sadao/Geometrics, Project Toronto] 113 amid strong public criticism and doubts regarding its economic feasibility. 262 Plan-making soon resumed for this derelict area, and continues to this day.

Meanwhile, Etobicoke - first as a township, then as a borough - had begun planning for its waterfront. In 1964, Township Council approved in principle a scheme for the area lying between the Humber and just west of Mimico Creek. This area had regressed from a "colourful summer resort" to a motel strip which had first blocked public access to the lake and then deteriorated with the advent of the QEW-Gardiner Expressway corridor. The remedy involved the acquisition and filling of water lots; the creation of a wide public beach backed by a second Lake Shore Boulevard and high-rise hotels; the building of river­ mouth marinas; the establishment of a lagoon park around the sewage treatment plant on Mimico Creek; and the provision of access from the QEW to Park Lawn Road [fig. 35].

Promotion of this "Canadian riviera" was rife with political overtones. Etobicoke reeve John MacBeth claimed the Township "did not want to wait for two or three years" for a waterfront plan covering the entire MTP A, given the pressing needs of his municipality.263 Metro's response came several months later. Completion of the "Lake shore Municipalities Sector Plan" was accorded top priority in Metro's waterfront planning process. Metro decided to seek the acquisition of a water lot from the Province outside the existing water lots "to start long-term filling operations for the public recreation area," and promised to fill a Township-owned waterlot west of Mimico Creek for a boat launching facility. Principles of development which reflected Etobicoke's aspirations were also established by the Waterfront Technical Committee. 264 In 1965, Bousfield' s conceptual plan for the area was approved in principle by Etobicoke Township and the Village of Long Branch, though the towns of Mimico and New Toronto raised objections. Three years later, the Etobicoke Planning Department reported the plans of 1965 and 1967 conformed closely, yet Metro had satisfactorily addressed the concerns of Mimico and New Toronto. 265

262 0n the project as proposed and revised, see Community Development Consultants, Metro Centre Development Plan and Program: A Study for the Development of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways Lands in Central Toronto (Toronto, 1968); Metro Centre Developments Ltd., Metro Centre: Further Study and Plan for the Central Harbour (Toronto, 1971). On responses to Metro Centre, see "Developments East and West," Canadian Business, 42, 4 (1969): 80-81; MTPB, Metro Centre: A Review of the Proposed Development on the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway Lands in Downtown Toronto (Toronto, 1970); Richard Bebout, ed., The Open Gate: Toronto Union Station (Toronto: Peter Martin Associates, 1972).

263Toronto Globe & Mail, 2 March 1964.

264Metro Council Minutes 1964, App. "A," 1021-25.

265G.G. Muirhead, Etobicoke Planning Department, to W. Wronski, 14 August 1968, in MTPB, Supplementary Staff Report and Summary of Additional Comments on Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, n.p. 114

Figure 35. Etobicoke Township's plan for the lakeshore from west of Mimico Creek (top left) to the Humber River (lower right), 1964. The existing motel strip was to be transformed into a public beach backed by a remodelled Lake Shore Boulevard and high-rise development; marinas were to be built at the river mouths. [Toronto Globe & Mail, 2 March 1964] 115 The creation of the Borough of Etobicoke in 1967 brought a new dimension to waterfront planning in Metro. That year, the Borough commissioned an appraisal of the former lakeshore municipalities of Etobicoke, Mimico, New Toronto, and Long Branch. 266 The appraisal concluded that the area was in decline and that a dual program of community and socio-economic planning was needed. In 1968, an exhaustive study was prepared which was to serve as the basis for a district or secondary plan. The Wyllie report followed Metro's waterfront planning principles and proposals, and was in fact completed after Etobicoke Borough Council and the Etobicoke Planning Board had tendered their comments on the Bousfield report. By creating public amenities and adding to the area's land base, Metro would provide the catalyst for private redevelopment. Such activity was most apparent in Humber Bay's superblock complexes, though intensification along Lake Shore Boulevard to the west was also suggested in the 1968 study.

Perhaps the most significant advance over Metro's work was Wyllie's proposal for a "Central Park." The park was to be constructed on the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital grounds (opened 1889), after the buildings and patients had been removed. It was to serve as a physical break in Lake Shore Boulevard's new high-density form, give access to the lakeside scenic drive, and act as the "central unifying focus for socio-recreational interaction" in the area [fig. 36].267 Since that time, the notion of creating a "central park" has persisted through several planning exercises and, with the Hospital's 1979 closing and subsequent land transfers, been partially realized. Perhaps more importantly, the retention and adaptive re-use of the site's historic features has become a strong objective of the South Etobicoke community. 268 This suggests both an enduring interest in waterfront affairs and an important shift in the values brought to the planning process themes which have characterized the entire Metropolitan waterfront since 1968.

RETROSPECT & PROSPECT

No area in the Toronto region has been as richly or continuously imagined - or as persistently debated - as the waterfront [fig. 37]. Such interest dates back to the late 18th­ century. Since at least 1913, the political and administrative possibilities of the Toronto region itself have also been richly imagined. Thinking in a metropolitan way dates back some 80 years; by the mid-1920s, a zone approaching the dimensions of the present Greater Toronto Area (GT A) was being contemplated. Yet amid this expanding sense of scale, the

266Earl Berger & Associates and Donovan F. Pinker Associates Ltd., Management & Urban Planning Consultants, Lakeshore Appraisal, Borough of Etobicoke (Etobicoke, 1967).

267Wyllie, Ufnal, Weinberg & Scheckenberger, Town Planners, Lakeshore Study, Borough of Etobicoke (, Ont., 1968), 36.

2680n this point in the context of a redevelopment proposal for the Hospital site and adjacent lands, see Hemson Consulting Ltd. and Baird/Sampson Architects, Lakeshore Neighbourhood Planning and Design Report: Revised Concept Plan and Analysis of Area Wide Issues (Toronto, 1992), VII-13-14. I-" -0\

~ § 4 ~

- '"lllfi •• ~··

---. ,, ~ '~ ~ ) 1 · !' .. )' "' "

Figure 36. A proposal for the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital site and environs, 1968. The existing hospital landscape, which had not been addressed in Metro's 1967 plan, would be razed to make way for "Central Park" (centre). A southward extension of the shoreline, coupled with offshore lakefilling, would made space for additional recreational grounds and a new scenic roadway (right). High-density office and residential development was planned for various points along Lake Shore Boulevard (left). [Wyllie, Ufnal, Weinberg & Scheckenberger, Lakeshore Study, Borough of Etobicoke] 117

CONCEPTUAL 19 8 5

1959

1834

Figure 37. Toronto's once and future shoreline, 1834-1985 (as projected in 1972). The material result of 19th-century plans for the Esplanade and its extension, and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners' 1912 scheme, can be seen in the 1886, 1912, and 1959 profiles. The new major features of the 1971 profile are Ontario Place and the Outer Harbour Eastern Headland (or Leslie Spit). The "conceptual" 1985 profile - of which little was realized - is based on Metro's 1967 Waterfront Plan. [Toronto Island Public School, A History of the Toronto Islands] 118

waterfront remained a focal point. Summed up here is the practice of envisioning the Toronto waterfront and its regional context for the period 1913-68; also offered are some observations on related activity over the past 25 years. 269

From 1913 onward, discussion of an appropriate scale for a Toronto metropolitan area confronted the biophysical logic of planning and delivering services on a watershed basis, and the political reality of a host of municipal bodies differing in size, character, and needs. Sketching a five-mile planning radius around Toronto, as the City and Suburbs Plans Act of 1912 did, was clearly insufficient, but the consensus needed to resolve the metropolitan question took decades to form. While the City of Toronto's commitment was evident in the 1943 master plan, it took an unprecedented "decision" by the OMB to bring matters to a head, and to bring about the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act in 1953. Provincial legislation from the mid-1940s had, however, already led to several regional institutions. Their territorial extent later found a parallel in the MTP A. Metro's 1967 Waterfront Plan enjoyed the MTPA's original compass of 720 square miles, which was cut back in stages to Metro's political boundaries between 1970 and 1974.

The cutting-back process stemmed from the Province's own regional planning initiatives. The first of these was the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Transportation Study (MTARTS), conceived in 1962 as a transportation planning exercise for 3,200 square miles along the lakeshore. A broader interest in land-use issues soon emerged, however, and MTARTS formed the conceptual basis for the "Toronto-Centred Region" (TCR). In turn, the TCR was related to the Province's "Design for Development" program, announced in 1966 and elaborated in a series of policy statements. The program aimed at creating a system of comprehensive regional planning throughout Ontario, and a new tier of government at the regional scale. MTARTS and Metro provided inspiration in both regards. In 1968, premier John Robarts praised Metro as "one of the most successful forms of local government in operation anywhere"; municipal affairs minister Darcy McKeough described MTARTS as the first example of "truly regional" planning in Canada, and the "developmental framework within which we can test our Regional Government ideas. "270

269In 1967, Bousfield (p. 20) estimated that it would take 20 or 30 years to implement the Waterfront Plan. In response to changing conditions during this time, he expected "countless tests, decisions, amendments and re-amendments ... , and waterfront planning and replanning [to] be continuous." Few of his predictions proved so accurate. For useful guides to the recent scene, see Laura Taylor, ed., Toronto Wateifront Charette: Background Report (Toronto: Ontario Professional Planners Institute [OPPI]/OAA/Ontario Association of Landscape Architects [OALA], 1989); Merrens, Redevelopment of Toronto's Port and Wateifront.

2700n the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Transportation Study (MT ARTS) and early statements by the Province on regional planning and development, see MT ARTS, Growth and Travel, Past and Present: A Study of the Basic Components of Growth in the Toronto-Centred Region, Report No. 1 (Toronto: Province of Ontario, 1966); MT ARTS, Choices fora Growing Region: A Study of the Emerging Development Pattern and its Comparison with Alternative Concepts, Report No. 2 (Toronto: Province of Ontario, 1967); MTARTS, Transportation/or the Regional City: Statement of Principles and Recommendations, Report No. 3 (Toronto: Province of Ontario, 1967); Ontario Department of Treasury and Economics (ODTE), Design for Development: 119

Creating new regional governments proved to be much simpler than guiding development within the 8,600-square-mile TCR, unveiled in 1970. While Robarts recognized that the existing "lakeshore urbanized area" would continue to experience development accommodating an estimated 5.7 million people in "identifiable" communities by the year 2000 he advocated a policy of decentralization to prevent "a swollen growth" in and around Metro. Rapid growth on Metro's fringe was nonetheless promoted after 1970 by the new regional municipalities of York, Peel, and Durham, creating a situation for Metro analogous to the one faced by the City of Toronto in 1953. While interest in the TCR idea per se had ebbed away by the mid-1970s, the search for an ideal planning unit for Toronto and its waterfront endures in concepts like the "GTA" and the "Greater Toronto Bioregion. "271

Viewed over a longer period, the pursuit of such a unit has always been marked by tension between local and regional interests. Protecting one's own municipal turf (and resisting provincial incursions into local autonomy) long thwarted the realization of the metropolitan idea. With pleas for greater cooperation being ignored repeatedly, the big stick of legislation became the sole means of prompting action. A combination of de jure and de facto powers - the Metro act and Frederick G. Gardiner - led to a program of rapid infrastructure development in the Toronto area. The program was proclaimed an overwhelming success by the Royal Commission of 1965. But as the Metropolitan waterfront demonstrated, forging a regional identity was fraught with controversy. In Metro's early years, few struggles were more highly charged than those concerning land use on Toronto Island or the alignment of the Gardiner Expressway.

In the 15 years following Metro's creation, the physical form and conception of the regional waterfront experienced great change.272 Under Metro's guidance, the lakeshore became the setting for an infrastructure long called for; it also became the subject of large­ scale planning and design. Interest focused on making the waterfront useful, and increasing

Statement by the Prime Minister of the Province of Ontario on Regional Development Policy (Toronto, 1966); ODTE, Design for Development, Phase Two: Statement by the Hon. John Robarts, Prime Minister of Ontario [and] Statement by the Hon. W. Darcy McKeough, Minister ofMunicipal Affairs (Toronto, 1968), 7 and 11-12.

271 The TCR's lakeshore area extended roughly from Bowmanville to Grimsby. See ODTE, Design for Development: The Toronto-Centred Region (Toronto, 1970), 2. On the TCR idea, see MTPB, Miscellaneous Papers on the Toronto-Centred Region (Toronto, 1970); Richard S. Thoman, Design for Development in Ontario: The Initiation of a Regional Planning Program (Toronto, 1971); Frances Frisken, Planning and Servicing the Greater Toronto Area: The Interplay of Provincial and Municipal Interests, Working Paper No. 12 (Downsview, Ont.: Urban Studies Program, York University, 1990), 42-77. On recent regional planning initiatives by senior levels of government, see Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, The GTA: Concepts for the Future (Toronto, 1990), 4; "GT A Milestones," Perspectives: A Publication of the Office for the Greater Toronto Area, 1, 1,(1992): 2; RCFTW, Watershed: Interim Report, August 1990 (Toronto, 1990), 22.

272However obvious this point might be, it is brilliantly expressed for the waterfront and the region as a whole in Gordon H. Jarrett's comparative photographs. See Donald Boyce Kirkup, Boomtown Metropolitan Toronto: A Photographic Record of Two Decades of Growth (Toronto: Lockwood Surveys, 1969). 120 its utility. Developed in this way, urban growth would be promoted at Metro's margin (through the extension of water supply and sewerage facilities, for example) and accommodated along the shoreline (such as by Bousfield's housing proposals).

The exact relationship between Metro's waterfront planning initiatives and the various redevelopment schemes of the 1960s and '70s is difficult to gauge, due to the impetus for change provided by other social, economic, and technological factors. This is exemplified well by the fortunes of the Port of Toronto. As the St. Lawrence Seaway finally moved toward completion in the 1950s, the THC began building facilities for ocean-going ships. Construction focused on the East Bayfront and the Port Industrial District, given the inadequate dockwall profile west of Yonge Street. Three new marine terminals and the Queen Elizabeth Docks were finished by 1960. By that date, the fledgling Outer Harbour project was pegged at $60 million; four years later, it was touted as a "large, well situated industrial site for future commercial enterprise. "273 Metro gave policy support to these ventures in its 1959 and 1967 plans. Yet as early as 1966, the THC's Seaway-related work was being viewed with scepticism. Containerization, rail and truck competition, federal transport policies, and the behaviour of various shipping conferences inspired a downward spiral for the port. Toronto's total and coastwise general cargo tonnages peaked in 1969; overseas tonnages reached their zenith in 1972. 274 In the latter year, the THC itself acknowledged that recreational and residential uses lay ahead for much of Toronto Harbour. 275

273 "Port of Toronto Launches New Development Program," Port of Toronto News, 7, 3 (1960): n.p.; "Projection," Port of Toronto News, 11, 1 ( 1964): n. p. On the use of demolition and excavation fill at the Eastern Headland, one newspaper had this to say: "Metro Toronto's building boom is not only spreading joy over the economy, it is also helping to create a brand new harbour for the City." See Toronto Star, 14 January 1964. On the TH C's Seaway-related work program, see "Fifty Years of Progress," Port of Toronto News, 8, 2 (1961): n.p.; "Port Planning: Container Handling Warehouse," ibid., 16, 1 (1969): 2-3; "CDC Torport Opens," ibid., 17, 3 (1970): 1-4.

274For analyses of the port after the Seaway opened, see Joan C. Goldi, A Study of the Port of Toronto (unpublished B.A. thesis, Department of Geography, University of Toronto, 1966); Roderick D. Rarnlalsingh, A Study of the Decline of Trade at the Port of Toronto, Discussion Paper No. 12 (Downsview, Ont.: Department of Geography, York University, 1975); Donald B. Freeman et al., The Decline of General Cargo Trade at the Port of Toronto: Patterns and Impacts of Change in Transport Technology and Industrial Economics, Research Report No. 78 (Toronto: Joint Program in Transportation, University of Toronto/York University, 1981; Glen B. Norcliffe, "Industrial Change in Old Port Areas: The Case of the Port of Toronto," Cahiers de geographie du Quebec, 25 (1981): 237-54; Gemmil, Toronto's Outer Harbour Eastern Headland. On the larger Canadian context of port change, see Brian Slack, Harbour Redevelopment in Canada (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1975); Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, The Urban Waterfront: Growth and Change in Canadian Port Cities (Ottawa, 1978).

275The key projects were Aquatic (now Tommy Thompson) Park, Harbour Square, and Harbourfront. See "Giant Dredges to Pump Sand into Aquatic Park Location," Port of Toronto News, 19, 6 (1972): 2-3; "Harbour Square to House 10,000: The City Moves to Downtown Waterfront," ibid., 19, 6 (1972): 4-5; "Tri-Level Government Venture: Lakefront Park to Replace Old Dock Area," ibid., 19, 11 (1972): 10-11. Efforts by the THC to maintain the Outer Harbour Eastern Headland as a transportation facility - in the form of a airport - had come to nought by that time. After inspecting the Harbour City proposal in 1968, the federal 121 What is more readily traced is the emergence of an objective lobbied for by groups like CPAC and entrenched in the 1967 plan where waterfront development was to take place in an orderly, coordinated, and imaginative manner, and where significant benefits were to be conferred on the public realm. In explicitly promoting opportunities for redevelopment and revitalization, the 1967 plan encouraged a more general rediscovery of the regional waterfront. The success of this meant greater activity not only on the part of private developers, but of public agencies and community and professional groups as well. The City of Toronto began a protracted planning process for the central waterfront in 276 1970 ; soon after came new public bodies (Harbourfront Corporation), and well­ established institutions taking on new roles (MTRCA) or reviving old interests in waterfront planning (OAA).

Achieving a sense of large-scale coherence amid a myriad of small-scale and often uncoordinated developments has proved challenging. The public sector is by no means blameless in this, and Metro is a case in point. Its departmental priorities in the 1950s drew on major works proposed as early as 1935. By 1959, when Metro's draft Official Plan was issued, many waterfront projects had long been approved or were completed; by 1961, the MTPB was already grappling with the issue of public access across new Metro facilities. A welter of public and private projects subsequently fragmented the regional vision of the 1967 plan. A sense of the whole was compromised by lucrative redevelopment opportunities amid the decline of traditional port functions, deindustrialization, and other functional changes; a political desire to address area-specific problems; and a pragmatic breaking-down of the waterfront into manageable development units.

The pursuit of a regional perspective on the waterfront continues nonetheless. This is evident in the work of the MTRCA, the federal-provincial Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront (RCFTW), the Province's Office for the Greater Toronto Area (OGTA), and the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department. 277 Recently, all of

Department of Transport had noted possible interference with holding patterns at Malton Airport; pressure from residents in the Eastern Beaches quashed the Outer Harbour idea. On this proposal, see "Airborne in 7 Minutes: Waterfront Location Under Study," ibid., 16, 2 (1969): 1-3.

276For preliminary statements by the TCPB on the central waterfront, see TCPB, Objectives for the Development of the Central Waterfront: Progress Report (Toronto, 1970); TCPB, The Central Waterfront: Alternatives and Conclusions (Toronto, 1970); TCPB, The Central Waterfront: Proposal for Planning (Toronto, 1972); TCPB, The Central Waterfront: Programme for Planning, Report on Phase I Work (Toronto, 1974). An Official Plan bylaw for this area was not adopted by City Council until 1988.

277See MTR CA, Watershed Plan (Downsview, Ont., 1980; MTRCA, Plan for Greenspace for the Greater Toronto Region (Downsview, Ont., 1988); RCFTW, Regeneration: Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City, Final Report (Toronto, 1992); Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, Shaping Growth in the GTA: A Commentary Report ... for the Greater Toronto Coordinating Committee (Toronto: OGTA, 1992); Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, Planning Directions for the Metropolitan Waterfront: An Overview (Toronto, 1991); Metropolitan Toronto Council, The Liveable Metropolis: Draft Official Plan (Toronto, 1992). 122 these bodies have displayed a strong environmental thrust. While the idea of preserving large sections of the regional lakefront, ravines, and river valleys dates back to the early 20th-century, a more scientific approach to conservation did not emerge until the four Toronto-area conservation authorities (and ultimately the MTRCA) were created in the 1940s and '50s. Despite rising public interest in environmental affairs in the 1960s and discussion of natural heritage in the MTPB's 1961 report, the protection and enhancement of ecological integrity was not a leading objective of the 1967 plan. For Bousfield, a distinctive waterfront identity would derive more from architectural treatment rather than from the region's natural features - an approach which soon provoked criticism, and a reassessment of what form public open space should take along the lake. The environment become a planning priority only in the 1980s with the regional identification of environmentally significant areas, the initiation of water-oriented remedial action plans, and the preparation of many other environmental assessments of and reports on the waterfront. The idea of managing the latter on a watershed basis, and according to "green" principles, was given great public visibility by the RCFTW. Writ large, the RCFTW's bioregional perspective added to the tradition of watershed planning in the Toronto area. 278

Further to the watershed context, the most important actor on the Metropolitan waterfront for the past two decades has in fact been the MTRCA. In 1967, Bousfield suggested that this body might well act as the implementing agency because the Waterfront Plan was "strongly oriented" toward conservation (the "conversion of various fill materials into something useful and desirable [being] a type of conservation") and because of the MTRCA's regional organization.279 In 1970, the Province appointed the MTRCA to implement the 1967 plan outside the central Toronto waterfront and within the MTRCA's own boundaries. Since 1972, the MTRCA has produced numerous master plans, program statements, and project outlines aimed at creating regional open space and controlling

278 Also see Ron Kanter, Space for All: Options for a Greater Toronto Area Greenlands Strategy (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1990); Toronto Task Force to Bring Back the Don, Bringing Back the Don (Toronto, 1991); Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, Strategies for Restoring Our Waters (Toronto, [1991]); Jonathan Kauffman Planning Consultant Ltd. et al., Metro Wateifront Environmental Study (Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, 1992).

279Bousfield, 63. The MTR CA also praised the 1967 plan, noting that it was "pleased to make a contribution to the implementation of this vital community project." At that time, "implementation" largely meant opening the Lower Rouge Conservation Area, though related lakefront work was under way at Petticoat Creek, Frenchman's Bay, and Duffin's Creek. The MTRCA also claimed that the Lower Rouge project had been "developed in conjunction" with the Waterfront Plan. See MTRCA, Conservation 1967-68, n.p.; MTRCA, Tour of Authority Projects by Member Municipal Councils, n.p. In its official response to the plan, the MTRCA declared that Metro's objectives were "in accordance with sound conservation principles." On implementation, the MTRCA was rather cryptic, suggesting that "the initiative and sense of responsibility for the development of the Waterfront to be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Region. " The MTR CA requested that it be consulted on the final design of Metropolitan projects, especially at the river mouths and wherever else the Authority was active; in tum, the MTRCA's own projects were to take Metro's waterfront objectives and proposals into account. See MTRCA Minutes 1968, A-179-88. 123 shoreline erosion. 280 The physical realization of these schemes has helped impart a Metropolitan identity to the waterfront. Yet as a reflection of increased public involvement in waterfront issues, the MTRCA's work has also attracted its share of debate. Friends of the Spit, the Toronto Field Naturalists, and local earth scientists have, for example, challenged the MTRCA's master plans for Tommy Thompson Park and East Point Park. Confrontation, then, does not simply turn on the public regulation of private activity, for the visions articulated (and projects undertaken) by public bodies have been hotly contested by citizens' groups.281

For broad-based involvement in the planning process, a crucial precedent was set in the 1950s and '60s by CPAC, which laid out why a regional waterfront plan was needed, what principles it should be based on, and how involved the community should be in its preparation. The inclusion of a range of other special-interest groups in drafting the 1967 plan forms a consultative benchmark for Metro. Few groups have subsequently approached CPAC's broad view, though note should be taken of such events as a charette sponsored by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, the OAA, and the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects which sketched out a "clean, green, and accessible" vision for the Metropolitan waterfront. 282

On the theme of participation, continuity can be seen in a rather different set of actors and their eminently practical ideas. The virtues of the metropolitan idea and regional planning were long pursued by political appointees like J.P. Maher and Gardiner, and consultants like Norman D. Wilson and Gore & Storrie. As a result, a strong sense existed well before Metro was created of which hard services a regional authority should administer and how they should be arranged on the landscape. In short, the utilitarian possibilities of

2S0William A. McLean, "Toronto's Waterfront Plan," Watersheds, 5, 3/4 (1971): 17-24. No implementing agency was named for the area between Dufferin Street and Coxwell Avenue. Outside this area, the MTPB commissioned waterfront master plans prior to the MTR CA' s assumption of responsibility. See Johnson Sustronk Weinstein & Associates, Master Plan, Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront: Phase I, Etobicoke Sector (Toronto, 1970); Parkin Architects Engineers Planners and H.G. Acres Ltd., Consulting Engineers, Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board Scarborough Lakefront Development Study, Phase 1 (Toronto, 1970). After being designated implementing agency, the MTRCA's first lakeshore projects were guided largely by its own Metropolitan Toronto and Region Waterfront Plan, 1972-76 (Downsview, Ont., 1971), and included filling for new regional parks in Etobicoke, Toronto, and Scarborough (Humber Bay, Ashbridge's Bay, and Bluffers, all beginning in 1971), and tree planting at two existing regional parks along the Bluffs (Cudia and Sylvan). For work summaries spanning two decades, see MTRCA, Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project, 1992-1996 (Downsview, Ont., 1991); MTRCA, Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project, 1992-1994 (Downsview, Ont., 1991).

281 For a recent discussion of the debate over the future of East Point, see Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat, "Protecting the Bluffs," University of Toronto Magazine, 18, 3 (1991): 11-14. Of no small note are the jurisdictional frictions between public bodies. Perhaps the best example of this in Metro is the ongoing clash between the City of Toronto and the THC over land ownership and redevelopment in the Port Industrial District.

2820PPI, OAA, and OALA, Toronto Waterfront Charette: Blueprint for the Future (Toronto, 1989). 124 the waterfront were long and well understood, whether for water supply, sewerage, or the rapid movement of motor vehicles. Even the proposed green belts had an instrumental value, breaking up suburban tracts and giving recreational relief to the metropolitan masses - not to mention acting as high-speed corridors.

The facilities built on the waterfront during 1953-68 testify to Metro's basic objective of the period, which was to facilitate rapid regional development. The success of this expansionist credo was measured in delivering large-scale services to an ever-increasing number of users. Thus, to meet the needs of the entire regional population, no less than all of Toronto Island was required for park purposes. Metro's fixation on waterfront infrastructure arguably reached its peak in the 1967 plan. Not just the built form of the plan was monumental; nearly all of the plan's features were contingent on an enormous lakefilling operation.

While many of the ideas in the 1967 plan were not new, their scale and functional emphases were. The THC's 1912 plan set precedents in using lakefill to create a large area of public land, and in comprehensively addressing land use and physical structure along the Toronto's entire waterfront. These practices were continued by Metro, in regional proportions and in greatly altered circumstances. Metro largely reversed the order of land use priorities of 1912 by emphasizing recreational, residential, commercial, port and industrial functions in 1967. The Waterfront Plan's sense of balance lay in equitably distributing new recreational goods (hence the enlarged scale of lakefilling to meet Metropolitan needs) and opportunities for high-density residential redevelopment (creating new communities and revitalizing declining ones, while protecting stable neighbourhoods). Displacing "lesser" functions was deemed necessary. With Metro's focus on recreation and housing, port and industrial uses were to be almost entirely forced off the central Toronto waterfront. The creation of Harbourfront in 1972 and its development thereafter made this vision a reality.

With Harbourfront in mind, one cannot ignore the dubious fate of some waterfront projects which have been implemented since Metro's inception. The solutions of one day have often become the problems of the next, prompting a new round of vision-making and corrective action. Calls have come forth to dismantle or bury the Gardiner Expressway; the size and technology of the Main sewage treatment plant have been attacked; efforts are being made to establish fish and wildlife habitat at the MTRCA's lakefill parks. As well, concern has been expressed over the role, mandate, and accountability of various public agencies, particularly in regard to their planning and development activities. The THC and Harbourfront Corporation have come under especially close scrutiny. Major changes to their organization have been recommended, some transformations have occurred, and others are in the offing. 283 A certain irony emerges from this process. The THC and Harbourfront

283See RCFTW, Interim Report, Summer 1989 (Toronto, 1989), 49-120. For historical studies of the THC in this light, see James O'Mara, Shaping Urban Wateifronts: The Role of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, 1911-1960, Discussion Paper No. 13 (Downsview, Ont.: Department of Geography, York University, 1976); 125 were originally charged with reforming Toronto Harbour and revitalizing Toronto's central waterfront; now they have generated new institutions like the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and Harbourfront Centre to carry the banner of reform. The wider implications of these philosophical and institutional changes for the Metropolitan waterfront remain to be determined.

James O'Mara, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners' Financial Arrangements and City Waterfront Development, 1910 to 1950, Discussion Paper No. 30 (Downsview, Ont.: Department of Geography, York University, 1984); Michael Goldrick and H. Roy Merrens, "Waterfront Changes and Institutional Stasis: The Role of the Toronto Harbour Commission, 1911-1989," in B.S. Hoyle, ed., Port Cities in Context: The Impact of Waterfront Regeneration (Southampton: Institute of British Geographers, 1990), 119-53. On Harbourfront, see Gary Hack, Rechaning a Course for Harbourfront: An Assessment of Harbourfront Planning and Design (Cambridge, Mass.: Carr Lynch Associates, 1987); George Wheeler, "Harbourfront: Creation and Evolution of a Public Land Development Company" (unpublished M.A. thesis, School of Public Administration, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont., 1992). 126

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Most of the primary sources cited below are available in the Metro Urban Affairs Library or the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library, or both. Where this is not the case, other locations are noted.

"Airborne in 7 Minutes: Waterfront Location Under Study." Port of Toronto News, 16, 2 (1969): 1-3.

Alley, H.R. Fort York, Toronto: An Historical Sketch. Rev. ed. Toronto: Toronto Civic Historical Committee, 1954.

Anderson, Letty. "Water-Supply." In Norman R. Ball, ed., Building Canada: A History of Public Works, 192-220. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988.

Armstrong, Alan H. "Thomas Adams and the Commission of Conservation." Plan Canada, 1, 1 (1959): 14-32.

Armstrong, F.H. Toronto: The Place of Meeting. N.p.: Windsor Publications, 1983.

Artibise, Alan F.J. and Gilbert A. Stelter. "Conservation Planning and Urban Planning: The Canadian Commission of Conservation in Historical Perspective." In Roger Kain, ed., Planning for Conservation, 17-36. London: Mansell, 1981.

Atkins, Hatch & Associates Ltd., Consulting Engineers. Toronto Islands Tunnel: Feasibility Study. Toronto, 1965.

Bacher, John. "A Living Memorial: A History of Coronation Park." Urban History Review, 19 (1991): 210-17.

Bailey, Brian D. A History of the Toronto Wateifront. [Downsview, Ont.]: Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 1973.

Baldwin, Douglas. "Sewerage." In Norman R. Ball, ed., Building Canada: A History of Public Works, 221-44. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988.

Bebout, Richard, ed. The Open Gate: Toronto Union Station. Toronto: Peter Martin Associates, 1972.

Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg Ltd. Shaping Growth in the GTA: A Commentary Report ... for the Greater Toronto Coordinating Committee. Toronto: Office for the Greater Toronto Area, 1992. 127

Blumenfeld, Hans. Life Begins at 65: The Not Entirely Candid Autobiography of a Drifter. Montreal: Harvest House, 1987.

Bo Isby, P .J. In the Matter of the Corporation of the Village of Long Branch, and in the Matter of the Use ofLands Affected by the Hurricane Disaster. Long Branch, Ont., 1954.

Bonis, Robert R. A History of Scarborough. Rev. ed. Scarborough, Ont.: Scarborough Public Library, 1968.

Bousfield. See Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon.

Brignoli, Dan, ed. The Founding of Toronto and the Francophone Presence from 1720 to Date. Toronto: La Societe d'histoire de Toronto, 1991.

Burt, Harold F., compiler. Report on Scarborough's Lakeshore Erosion. Scarborough, Ont.: Planning and Conservation Branch, Township Engineering Department, 1952.

Canadian Archaeological Divers Society. The Wreck of the S.S. Alexandria. N. p., 1967. [Cedarbrae District Public Library, Scarborough]

Canadian National Exhibition Planning Task Force and Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Exhibition Park Conceptual Plan. Toronto, 1969.

Careless, J.M.S. Toronto to 1918: An Illustrated History. Toronto: James Lorimer/National Museum of Man, 1984.

Caro, Robert A. The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. New York: Knopf, 1974.

11 CDC Torport Opens." Port of Toronto News, 17, 3 (1970): 1-4.

Civic Advisory Council of Toronto. Committee on Metropolitan Problems. First Report, Section One. Toronto, 1949.

Civic Advisory Council of Toronto. Committee on Metropolitan Problems. First Report, Section Two. Toronto, 1950.

Civic Advisory Council of Toronto. Committee on Metropolitan Problems. Final Report. Toronto, 1951.

Colton, Timothy J. Big Daddy: Frederick G. Gardiner and the Building of Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980. 128

Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. Draft Report. Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1992.

Community Development Consultants. Metro Centre Development Plan and Program: A Study for the Development of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways Lands in Central Toronto. Toronto, 1968.

Community Planning Association of Canada. Greater Toronto Branch. Planning for the Lakefront and River Valleys. Toronto, 1954.

Community Planning Association of Canada. Greater Toronto Branch. The Waterfront of Metropolitan Toronto: A Brief ... to the Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto, 1959.

Community Planning Association of Canada. Toronto Region Branch. The Importance of the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront. Toronto, 1961.

Community Planning Association of Canada. Toronto Region Branch. Our Waterfront: Waterfront Conspectus Conference Report. Toronto, 1962.

Community Planning Association of Canada. Toronto Region Branch. Waterfront Plan: Possible Implementing Structures. Toronto, 1970.

Craig, Zeidler & Strong, Architects. Harbour City: A Preliminary Working Report for the Planning of a New Community. Toronto: Special Projects and Planning Branch, Ontario Department of Trade and Development, 1970.

Crockford, Oliver E. A Submission on Proposals for Unification of the Toronto Area. Scarborough, Ont.: Scarborough Township, 1950. [CTA]

Currell, Harvey. Where the Alders Grow. Brampton, Ont.: Etobicoke-Mimico Conservation Authority, c. 1955.

Dakin, A.J. "The Evaluation of Plans: A Study of Metropolitan Planning in Toronto." Town Planning Review, 44 (1973): 3-30.

Dakin, A.J. Toronto Planning: A Planning Review of the Legal and Jurisdictional Contexts from 1912 to 1970. Papers on Planning and Design No. 3. Toronto: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Toronto, 1974.

De Leuw, Cather & Co. of Canada Ltd. Scarborough Expressway: Functional Planning Report. Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Roads Department, 1966. 129

Deacon, P. Alan, E.G. Faludi, and John Layng. County of York Planning Survey: Report. Toronto, 1948.

Desfor, Gene, Michael Goldrick, and H. Roy Merrens. "Redevelopment on the North American Water-frontier: The Case of Toronto." In B.S. Hoyle, D.A. Pinder, and M.S. Husain, eds., Revitalising the Wateifront: International Dimensions of Dockland Development, 92-113. London: Belhaven Press, 1988.

Desfor, Gene, Michael Goldrick, and H. Roy Merrens. "A Political Economy of the Water­ frontier: Planning and Development in Toronto." Geoforum, 20 (1989): 487-501.

"Developments East and West. fl Canadian Business, 42, 4 (1969): 80-81.

Dominion Consultant Associates Ltd. A Study of Exhibition Park: Its Present and Future Environment, Uses and Development. Ottawa, 1966.

Don Valley Conservation Authority. Don Valley Conservation Trail. Toronto, 1954.

Earl Berger & Associates and Donovan F. Pinker Associates Ltd., Management and Urban Planning Consultants. Lakeshore Appraisal, Borough ofEtobicoke. Etobicoke, Ont., 1967.

Edinborough, Arnold. "Ontario Place: One Stunning Feature But Mostly Disappointing. fl Financial Post, 65 (28 June 1971): 17.

Etobicoke Historical Board. Villages of Etobicoke. Weston, Ont.: Argyle Printing, [ 1985].

Etobicoke Township Planning Board. Humber Valley Park. Etobicoke, Ont., 1955.

Faludi, E.G. "Master Plan for Toronto Would Modernize City. 11 Saturday Night, 59, 20 (1944): 9.

Faludi, E.G., Town Planning Consultants Ltd. A Master Plan for the Development of the Township of Etobicoke: A Thirty Year Program for Development, 1946-76. Etobicoke, Ont., 1947.

Faludi, E.G., Town Planning Consultants Ltd. A Plan for Etobicoke. Etobicoke, Ont.: Etobicoke Township Planning Board, [1947].

Ferguson, Ferguson Architects. Guiding the Gardiner: A Planfor the Expressway's Place in the City. Toronto: Toronto Task Force on the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor, 1986.

"Fifty Years of Progress. 11 Port of Toronto News, 8, 2 (1961): n.p. 130

Filey, Mike. I Remember Sunnyside: The Rise and Fall of a Magical Era. Toronto: Brownstone Press, 1981.

Fisher, John. The Metropolitan County of Toronto. Toronto, 1929.

"Fort York Wins a Modem Battle." Ontario History, 51 (1959): 22-24.

Foundation of Canada Engineering Corp. and Frederick R. Harris of Canada Ltd. Functional Report on Proposed Don Valley Parkway. Toronto, 1955.

Frederick R. Harris of Canada Ltd. Transportation for Toronto: A Study of Needed Rapid Transit, Integrated with Express Highways and Street Arteries for Private Vehicles, for the Toronto Metropolitan Area. Toronto, c. 1953.

Freeman, Donald B., Paul Gray, Sandra Maniak, and Gary Menger. The Decline of General Cargo Trade at the Port of Toronto: Patterns and Impacts of Change in Transport Technology and Industrial Economics. Research Report No. 78. Toronto: Joint Program in Transportation, University of Toronto/York University, 1981.

Friedmann, John and Clyde Weaver. Territory and Function: The Evolution of Regional Planning. London: Edward Arnold, 1979.

Frisken, Frances. Planning and Servicing the Greater Toronto Area: The Interplay of Provincial and Municipal Interests. Working Paper No. 12. Downsview, Ont.: Urban Studies Program, York University, 1990.

Fuller-Sadao/Geometrics, Architects, Engineers & Planners. Project Toronto: A Study and Proposals for the Future Development of the City and Region of Toronto. Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

"Gardiner Expressway New Link to and from the Port." Port of Toronto News, 11, 4 (1964): 2-3.

Gardiner, Frederick G. "Regional Planning." In Ontario Department of Planning and Development, Conservation in South Central Ontario, 96-107. Toronto: Baptist Johnston, 1948.

Gemmil, Arlene. Toronto's Outer Harbour Eastern Headland: The Changing Role of a Transportation Facility. Research Report No. 55. Toronto: Joint Program in Transportation, University of Toronto/York University, 1978.

Gemmil, Arlene. Ontario Place: The Origins and Planning of an Urban Waterfront Park. Discussion Paper No. 25. Downsview, Ont. : Department of Geography, York University, 1981. 131 Gibson, Sally. More Than an Island: A History of the Toronto Island. Toronto: Irwin, 1984.

"Glamorous New Development for the Toronto Waterfront." Architecture Canada, 47, 6 (1970): 1, 4-5.

Goldenberg, H. Carl. Report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1965.

Goldi, Joan C. A Study of the Port of Toronto. Unpublished B.A. thesis, Department of Geography, University of Toronto, 1966.

Goldrick, Michael and H. Roy Merrens. "Waterfront Changes and Institutional Stasis: The Role of the Toronto Harbour Commission, 1911-1989." In B.S. Hoyle, ed., Port Cities in Context: The Impact of Wateifront Regeneration, 119-53. Southampton: Institute of British Geographers, 1990.

Gore & Storrie. Report on Water Supply and Sewage Disposal for the City of Toronto and Related Areas. Toronto, 1949.

Gore & Storrie. Report on Water Supply and Sewage Disposal for the Metropolitan Area. Toronto, 1954.

"Giant Dredges to Pump Sand into Aquatic Park Location." Port of Toronto News, 19, 6 (1972): 2-3.

"GTA Milestones." Perspectives: A Publication of the Office for the Greater Toronto Area, 1 (1992): 2.

Hack, Gary. Recharting a Course for Harbouifront: An Assessment of Harbouifront Planning and Design. Cambridge, Mass.: Carr Lynch Associates, 1987.

"Harbour City, Toronto." The Canadian Architect, 15, 7 (1970): 24-31.

"Harbour Square to House 10,000: The City Moves to Downtown Waterfront." Port of Toronto News, 19, 6 (1972): 4-5.

Harris, R.C. Report re Suggested Annexation of Townships of York and East York to City of Toronto. Toronto, 1931.

Remson Consulting Ltd. and Baird/Sampson Architects. Lakeshore Neighbourhood Planning and Design Report: Revised Concept Plan and Analysis of Area Wide Issues. Toronto, 1992. 132

Heyes, Esther. Etobicoke: From Furrow to Borough. Etobicoke, Ont.: Borough of Etobicoke, 1974.

"History of CPAC." Community Planning Review, 14, 2 (1964): 1-49.

Hodge, Gerald. Planning Canadian Communities: An Introduction to the Principles, Practice and Participants. Toronto: Methuen, 1986.

Hough, Michael. "Toronto's New Turn for the Lake." Landscape Architecture, 62, 1 (1971): 47-48.

Hulchanski, John D. "The Origins of Urban Land Use Planning in Ontario, 1900-1946." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1981.

Humber Valley Conservation Authority. A Scheme for the Development of Multiple-Purpose Conservation Areas in the Humber Watershed. Bolton, Ont., 1956.

IBI Group. Toronto Central Wateifront Transportation Corridor Study. Report 15. Toronto: Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, 1991.

Inter-Island Council. Brief ... Concerning the Future of the Island. 2 vols. Toronto, 1948.

"Island Ferries Find New Home." Port of Toronto News, 19, 2 (1972): 9.

James F. MacLaren Ltd., Consulting Engineers. Preliminary Erosion Inventory Report for Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Toronto, 1968.

Johnson Sustronk Weinstein & Associates Ltd. Master Plan, Metropolitan Toronto Wateifront: Phase I, Etobicoke Sector. Toronto, 1970.

Johnson Sustronk Weinstein & Associates Ltd. Small Craft Harbours Study, Metropolitan Toronto and Region Wateifront. Toronto, 1975.

Jonathan Kauffman Planning Consultant Ltd., Paul Rennick & Associates, and Henry Regier, John Holmes & Gordon Wichert. Metro Wateifront Environmental Study. Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, 1992.

Jones, J.H. A Bold Concept: A Conceptual Plan for the Development of the City of Toronto Wateifront. Toronto: Toronto Harbour Commissioners, 1968.

Kanter, Ron. Space for All: Options for a Greater Toronto Area Green/ands Strategy. Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1990. 133

Kaplan, Harold. Urban Political Systems: A Functional Analysis of Metro Toronto. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967.

Kennedy, Betty. Hurricane Hazel. Toronto: Macmillan, 1979.

Kirkup, Donald Boyce. Boomtown Metropolitan Toronto: A Photographic Record of Two Decades of Growth. Toronto: Lockwood Surveys Corp., 1969.

Knowles, Morris. "Metropolitan Districts for Planning and Administration." Canadian Engineer, 33 (1917): 156 and 168.

Langford, G.B. Report on Lakeshore Erosion: Lake Ontario from Niagara to Cobourg. Toronto: Ontario Department of Planning and Development, 1949.

Leman, A. "Report on OAA Convention." The Canadian Architect, 14, 4 (1969): 8-9.

Lemon, James. Toronto Since 1918: An Illustrated History. Toronto: James Lorimer/National Museum of Man, 1984.

Lemon, James. "Plans for Early 20th-Century Toronto: Lost in Management." Urban History Review, 18 (1989): 11-31.

Long Branch Village Council. Proposed Official Plan. Long Branch, Ont., 1956.

Lorimer, James. The Ex: A Picture History of the Canadian National Exhibition. Toronto: James Lewis & Samuel, 1973.

Margison Babcock & Associates with De Leuw, Cather & Co. and Norman D. Wilson. Proposed Lakeshore Expressway for Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto: Functional Report. Toronto, 1954.

Margison Babcock & Associates. Proposed Lakeshore Expressway for Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Comparison ofAlternatives, Humber River to SpadinaAvenue: Functional Report. Toronto, 1954.

McHarg, Ian L. Design with Nature. Philadelphia: Natural History Press, 1969.

McLean, William A. "Toronto's Waterfront Plan." Watersheds, 5, 3/4 (1971): 17-24.

Merrens, H. Roy. "Port Authorities as Urban Land Developers: The Case of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and their Outer Harbour Project, 1912-68. 11 Urban History Review, 17 (1988): 92-105. 134

Merrens, H. Roy. The Redevelopment of Toronto's Port and Wateifront: A Selected Bibliography. Working Paper No. 11. Toronto: Canadian Waterfront Resource Centre, 1992.

Metro Centre Developments Ltd. Metro Centre: Further Study and Plan for the Central Harbour. Toronto, 1971.

"Metropolitan County of Toronto." Canadian Engineer, 46 (1924): 181.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Minutes 1957-68. Woodbridge and Downsview, Ont., 1958-69.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 195 7. Woodbridge, Ont., 1957.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Biennial Report 1957-58. Woodbridge, Ont., 1959.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Plan for Flood Control and Water Conservation. Woodbridge, Ont., 1959.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Report ... concerning Erosion Control and Preliminary Engineering for the Scarborough Bluffs. Woodbridge, Ont., 1959.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Pollution Control and Recreation in the Metropolitan Toronto Region. Woodbridge, Ont., 1963.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Report on Land Acquisition Programmes and Policies of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Woodbridge, Ont., 1964.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. A Compendium of Information. Woodbridge, Ont., 1965.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Conservation 1957-1967. Woodbridge, Ont., 1967.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Conservation 1967-68. Downsview, Ont., 1969.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Tour of Authority Projects by Member Municipal Councils. Downsview, Ont., 1969. 135 Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Wateifront Plan, 1972-76. Downsview, Ont., 1971.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Watershed Plan. Downsview, Ont., 1980.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Plan for Greenspace for the Greater Toronto Region. Downsview, Ont., 1988.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Lake Ontario Wateifront Regeneration Project, 1992-1994. Downsview, Ont., 1991.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project, 1992-1996. Downsview, Ont., 1991.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Transportation Study. Growth and Travel, Past and Present: A Study ofthe Basic Components of Growth in the Toronto-Centred Region. Report No. 1. Toronto: Province of Ontario, 1966.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Transportation Study. Choices for a Growing Region: A Study of the Emerging Development Pattern and its Comparison with Alternative Concepts. Report No. 2. Toronto: Province of Ontario, 1967.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Transportation Study. Transportation for the Regional City: Statement of Principles and Recommendations. Report No. 3. Toronto: Province of Ontario, 1967.

Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade. A Commentary on "The Core of the Central Wateifront." Toronto, 1963.

Metropolitan Toronto Council. Minutes 1953-68. Toronto, 1954-69.

Metropolitan Toronto Council. Metropolitan Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. Toronto, 1966.

Metropolitan Toronto Council. Official Plan for the Urban Structure. Toronto, 1980.

Metropolitan Toronto Council. The Liveable Metropolis: Draft Official Plan. Toronto, 1992.

Metropolitan Toronto Parks Department. Grass and Trees ... and Sometimes Flowers: An Illustrated Report. Toronto, 1961. 136

Metropolitan Toronto Parks Department. Toronto Island Park: A Re-evaluation of the Site and a Development Plan. Toronto, 1963.

Metropolitan Toronto Parks Department and Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Proposals for the Rehabilitation of Ex.hibition Park. Toronto, 1971.

[Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board.] Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto, 1953-68.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Lakeshore Expressway Extension, Leslie Street to Highway 2A. Toronto, 1957.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. The [Draft] Official Plan of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. Toronto: Carswell, 1959.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Wateifront Planning in Metro Toronto: Miscellaneous Papers. Toronto, 1959-63.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Development Policies in Pickering Township. Toronto, 1959-65.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Proposed Zoning Plan for the Town of Mimico. Toronto, 1960.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Towards a Wateifront Plan: Report on the Need for a Long Range Wateifront Plan from Clarkson to Carruthers Creek. Toronto, 1961.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Metropolitan Toronto, 1953-63: A Decade of Progress. Toronto, 1963.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Report on Transportation to the Toronto Islands. Toronto, 1965.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Comments on Metropolitan Wateifront Plan. Toronto, 1968.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Supplementary Staff Report and Summary of Additional Comments on Metropolitan Wateifront Plan. Toronto, 1968.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Implementation of the Wateifront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. Toronto, 1969.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Miscellaneous Papers on the Toronto-Centred Region. Toronto, 1970. 137 Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. Metro Centre: A Review of the Proposed Development on the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway Lands in Downtown Toronto. Toronto, 1970.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department. The GTA: Concepts for the Future. Toronto, 1990.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department. Planning Directions for the Metropolitan Waterfront: An Overview. Toronto, 1991.

Metropolitan Toronto Roads Department. Triennial Report 1954-55-56. Toronto, 1956.

Metropolitan Toronto Roads Department. Biennial Report 1957-1958, 1959-60, 1961-62, 1963-64, 1965-66. Toronto, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1967.

Metropolitan Toronto Roads and Traffic Department. Triennial Report 1967-68-69. Toronto, 1970.

Metropolitan Toronto Works Department. The Humber Treatment Plant, The Queensway. Toronto, n.d.

Metropolitan Toronto Works Department. Westerly Filtration Plant. Information Bulletin 70-2. Toronto, n.d.

Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. Strategies for Restoring Our Waters. Toronto, [1991].

Mimico Research Committee. Metropolitan Area of Toronto and Suburbs. Mimico, Ont., 1949.

Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. The Urban Waterfront: Growth and Change in Canadian Port Cities. Ottawa, 1978.

New Toronto Town Council. Official Plan of the New Toronto Planning Area. New Toronto, Ont., 1966.

Norcliffe, Glen B. "Industrial Change in Old Port Areas: The Case of the Port of Toronto." Cahiers de geographie du Quebec, 25 (1981): 237-54.

Ohlendorf-Moffat, Pat. "Protecting the Bluffs." University of Toronto Magazine, 18, 3 (1991): 11-14. 138

O'Mara, James. Shaping Urban Wateifronts: The Role of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, 1911-1960. Discussion Paper No. 13. Downsview, Ont.: Department of Geography, York University, 1976.

O'Mara, James. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners' Financial Arrangements and City Wateifront Development, 1910 to 1950. Discussion Paper No. 30. Downsview, Ont.: Department of Geography, York University, 1984.

11 Ontario Association of Architects. "A Charette in the City : The Gardiner Expressway. Toronto, 1987.

Ontario Department of Planning and Development. The Etobicoke Valley Conservation Report. Toronto, 1947.

Ontario Department of Planning and Development. The Humber Valley Conservation Report. Toronto, 1948.

Ontario Department of Planning and Development. The Don Valley Conservation Report. Toronto, 1950.

Ontario Department of Planning and Development. Draft of Proposed Scheme for a Humber Valley and Don Valley Greenbelt. Toronto, 1953.

Ontario Department of Planning and Development. The Rouge Duffin Highland Petticoat Conservation Report. Toronto, 1956.

Ontario Department of Trade and Development. A New Illustrated Concept for the Harbour City Development. Toronto, 1970.

Ontario Department of Treasury and Economics. Design for Development: Statement by the Prime Minister ofthe Province of Ontario on Regional Development Policy. Toronto, 1966.

Ontario Department of Treasury and Economics. Design for Development, Phase Two: Statement by the Hon. John Robarts, Prime Minister of Ontario [and] Statement by the Hon. W. Darcy McKeough, Minister of Municipal Affairs. Toronto, 1968. [Robarts Library, University of Toronto (RLUT)]

Ontario Department of Treasury and Economics. Design for Development: The Toronto­ Centred Region. Toronto, 1970.

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and Community Planning Association of Canada. The Wateifront is for Living and Learning. Toronto, 1969. 139 Ontario Legislative Assembly. Report of the Select Committee . . . on Lake Levels of the Great Lakes. Toronto, 1953. [RLUT]

Ontario Municipal Board. Decisions and Recommendations of the Board [re the Applications of Toronto and Mimico], 20 January 1953. Toronto, 1953.

"Ontario Place: A $23 Million Catalyst for Toronto's Waterfront Development." Architecture Canada, 48, 6 (1971): 2-3.

Ontario Professional Planners Institute, Ontario Association of Architects, and Ontario Association of Landscape Architects. Toronto Waterfront Charette: Blueprint for the Future. Toronto, 1989.

Ontario Water Resources Commission. Report on a Lakefront Survey of Water Quality, Waste Outfalls and Drainage Inlets of Lake Ontario within the Area Town of Burlington to Scarborough Township Inclusive. Toronto, 1962.

Ontario Water Resources Commission. Water Quality and Pollution Control in Metropolitan Toronto along Lake Ontario: Report on a Study, 1964-65. Toronto, 1965.

Parkdale Research Committee. Parkdale: A Centennial History. Toronto, 1978.

Parkin Architects Engineers Planners and H.G. Acres Ltd., Consulting Engineers. Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board Scarborough Lakefront Development Study, Phase 1. Toronto, 1970.

Plumptre, A.F.W. Report on the Government of the Metropolitan Area of Toronto, to Hon. David Croll, Minister of Municipal Affairs. Toronto, 1935.

"Port of Toronto Launches New Development Program." Port of Toronto News, 7, 3 (1960): n.p.

"Port Planning: Container Handling Warehouse." Port of Toronto News, 16, l (1969): 2-3.

Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield & Bacon, Consulting Engineers & Town Planners. The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. Toronto, 1967.

Project Planning Associates Ltd. CNE Master Plan Study 1: Inventory and Preliminary Analysis. Toronto, 1968.

Project Planning Associates Ltd. CNE Master Plan Study 2: Market Potential for Trade Show Facilities. Toronto, 1969. 140

Project Planning Associates Ltd. CNE Master Plan Study 3: Preliminary Concepts and Evaluations. Toronto, 1969.

11 Project Toronto: Comments." Architecture Canada, 45, 7 (1968): 45-46.

"Projection." Port of Toronto News, 11, 1 (1964): n.p.

Ramlalsingh, Roderick D. A Study of the Decline of Trade at the Port of Toronto. Discussion Paper No. 12. Downsview, Ont.: Department of Geography, York U Diversity, 197 5.

Reeves, Wayne C. Visions for the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront, I: Toward Comprehensive Planning, 1852-1935. Major Report No. 27. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, 1992.

Reeves, Wayne C. Regional Heritage Features on the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront. Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, 1992.

Richardson, Arthur Herbert. Conservation by the People: The History of the Conservation Movement in Ontario to 1970. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Conservation Authorities of Ontario, 1974.

Richmond, John. A Teaiful Tour of Toronto's Riviera of Yesteryear. Toronto: Macmillan, 1961.

Rose, Albert. Governing Metropolitan Toronto: A Social and Political Analysis, 1953-1971. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.

Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Interim Report, Summer 1989. Toronto, 1989.

Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Watershed: Interim Report, August 1990. Toronto, 1990.

Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration: Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City, Final Report. Toronto, 1992.

Saunders, R.M. Toronto Field Naturalists' Club: Its History and Constitution. Toronto, 1965.

Sauriol, Charles. "Beginnings of the Don Valley Conservation Association." The Cardinal, 13 ( 1954): 6-7. 141 Scarborough City Planning Department. The Scarborough Transportation Corridor Study. Scarborough, Ont., 1984.

Scarborough Township Council. Official Plan. Scarborough, Ont., 1957.

Scarborough Township Council. Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: The New Industrial Pulse of Toronto. Scarborough, Ont., [1960]. [RLUT]

Scott, Mel. American City Planning Since 1890. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.

Slack, Brian. Harbour Redevelopment in Canada. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1975.

Stamp, Robert M. QEW: Canada's First Superhighway. Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1987.

Steedman, Robert. "Water Supply and Sanitation in Toronto." Toronto Field Naturalists, 383 (1986): 18-28.

Stinson, Jeffery. The Heritage of the Port Industrial District: A Report for the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. Vol. 1. Toronto, 1990.

Stinson, Jeffery and Michael Moir. Built Heritage of the East Bayfront. Environmental Audit of the East Bayfront/Port Industrial Area, Phase II, Technical Paper No. 7. Toronto: Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, 1991.

Taylor, Griffith. "Topographic Control in the Toronto Region." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 2 (1936): 493-511.

Taylor, Laura, ed. Toronto Waterfront Charette: Background Report. Toronto: Ontario Professional Planners Institute/Ontario Association of Architects/Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, 1989.

"The Port and its Cosmopolitan City." Port of Toronto News, 12, 1 (1965): 2-3.

Thoman, Richard S. Design for Development in Ontario: The Initiation of a Regional Planning Program. Toronto, 1971.

Thompson, T.W. Walking Tour of Lower Humber Valley. Toronto, n.d.

Toronto Advisory City Planning Commission. Report ... with Recommendations for the Improvement of the Central Business Section of the City of Toronto. Toronto, 1929. 142

Toronto Advisory City Planning Committee. Report ... on Street Extensions, Widenings and Improvements in the City of Toronto. Toronto, 1930.

Toronto and Suburban Planning Board. Report. Toronto, 1947.

Toronto and York Planning Board. Report. Toronto, 1949.

Toronto and York Planning Board. Second Report. Toronto, 1951.

Toronto Central Waterfront Planning Committee. Past Plans: Bayfront Area. Toronto, [1975].

Toronto City Council. Minutes 1912, 1913, 1914, 1922, 1924, 1925. Toronto, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1923, 1925, 1926.

Toronto City Planning Board. The Master Plan for the City of Toronto and Environs. Toronto, 1943.

Toronto City Planning Board. Second Annual Report. Toronto, 1943.

Toronto City Planning Board. Third Report and Official Plan. Toronto, 1949.

Toronto City Planning Board. History ofPlanning Organization in Toronto. Toronto, 1959.

Toronto City Planning Board. The Changing City: A Forecast of Planning Issues for the City of Toronto, 1956-1980. Toronto, 1959.

Toronto City Planning Board. Proposed !Ake Fill in Front of the Canadian National Exhibition. Toronto, 1960.

Toronto City Planning Board. The Core of the Central Waterfront: A Proposal. Toronto, 1962.

Toronto City Planning Board. Plan for Downtown Toronto. Toronto, 1963.

Toronto City Planning Board. Proposals for a New Plan for Toronto. Toronto, 1965.

Toronto City Planning Board. Objectives for the Development of the Central Wate1front: Progress Report. 1970.

Toronto City Planning Board. The Central Waterfront: Alternatives and Conclusions. Toronto, 1970. 143 Toronto City Planning Board. The Central Wateifront: Proposal for Planning. Toronto, 1972.

Toronto City Planning Board. The Central Wateifront: Programme for Planning, Report on Phase I Work. Toronto, 1974.

Toronto Civic Historical Committee. Official Opening of Old Fort York. Toronto, 1953.

Toronto Harbour Commissioners. Annual Report 1920. Toronto, 1921.

Toronto Harbour Commissioners. Toronto Lakeshore Expressway "Northerly Route": Explanation. Toronto, 1954.

Toronto Island Public School. A History of the Toronto Islands. Toronto: Coach House Press, 1972.

Toronto Planning and Development Department. Railway Lands Part II: Development Concept. Toronto, 1983.

Toronto Task Force to Bring Back the Don. Bringing Back the Don. Toronto, 1991.

"Tri-Level Government Venture: Lakefront Park to Replace Old Dock Area. 11 Port of Toronto News, 19, 11 (1972): 10-11.

Tyrrell, Joyce M. 11 CPAC Covers the Waterfront." Community Planning Review, 19, 4 (1969): 28-30.

Walker, Hugh. The Spencer Clark Collection of Historic Architecture. Scarborough, Ont.: The Guild, 1982.

"Waterfront Exhibition, 1967 RAIC Convention." Architecture Canada, 44, 5 (1967): 29- 40.

Weaver, John C. "Order and Efficiency: Samuel Morley Wickett and the Urban Progressive Movement in Toronto, 1900-1915. 11 Ontario History, 69 (1977): 218-34.

Wheeler, George. "Harbourfront: Creation and Evolution of a Public Land Development Company." Unpublished M.A. thesis, School of Public Administration, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont., 1992.

Wichern, Philip. "Metropolitan Reform and the Restructuring of Local Governments in the North American City." In Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J. Artibise, eds., Power and Place: Canadian Urban Development in the North American Context, 292-322. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986. 144

Wickett, S. Morley. Conference re Metropolitan Area, Held at Toronto, October 22nd, 1913. Toronto, 1913. [CTA]

Wickett, S. Morley. Memorandum re Metropolitan Area. Toronto, 1913.

Wilson, George. Report of Commissioner of Finance upon the Proposed Annexation of York and East York Townships. Toronto, 1930. [CTA]

Wilson, Norman D. Memorandum on a City Planning Authority for Toronto and District. Toronto, 1922. [CTA]

Wilson, Norman D. A Transportation Plan for Metropolitan Toronto and the Suburban Area Adjacent. Toronto, 1948.

Wilson, Norman D. Toronto Island and the Preservation of its Utility. Toronto, 1952.

Wilson, Norman D. Toronto Lakeshore Expressway. Toronto, 1954.

Wilson, Norman D. Summary of Estimates for Various Alignments of the Proposed Lakeshore Expressway from its Westerly Terminus Eastward to Spadina Avenue, with Explanatory Notes. Toronto, 1954.

Wilson, Norman D. Proposed Humber Valley Sewage Treatment Plant. Toronto, 1955.

Wood, F.N. Notes Concerning Watelfront Plans in the Toronto Region and Lake Ontario. N.p., 1970.

Wyllie, Ufnal, Weinberg & Scheckenberger, Town Planners. Lakeshore Study, Borough of Etobicoke. Rexdale, Ont., 1968.

York County Council. Interim Report of the Metropolitan Area Committee. N.p., 1934. Recent Publications

Research Paper 182 COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND CHANGE IN TORONTO •Jim Simmons September 1991, 51 pp. $5.00

Research Paper 183 HUMAN SETTLEMENTS IN THE U.S.: SUSTAINING UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT •Willem van Vliet- September 1991, 80 pp. $6.00

Research Paper 184 THE INFORMATIONAL CITY: A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL CHANGE, The City in the 1990s Series (Lecture 3) • Manuel Castells September 1991, 23 pp. $4.00

Research Paper 185 INCREASING LIVABILITY IN URBAN ARCHITECTURE: ADVANCES FROM SWEDISH EXPERIENCE The City in the 1990s Series (Lecture 4) • Birgit Krantz November 1991, 41 pp. $5.50

Research Paper 186 THE REORGANIZATION OF URBAN SYSTEMS: THE ROLE AND IMPACTS OF EXTERNAL EVENTS •Jim Simmons September 1992, 28 pp. $5.25

Bibliography 16 POPULAR PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT: A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA • Hugh Dow and Jonathan Barker September 1992, 145 pp. $13.00

Major Report 26 URBAN RESEARCH IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD: TOWARDS AN AGENDA FOR THE 1990S • Richard Stren and Patricia McCamey October 1992, 72 pp. $7.00

Major Report 27 VISIONS FOR THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT, I: TOWARD COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, 1852-1935 • Wayne C. Reeves 1992, 109 pp. $10.00

Major Report 29 EMPOWERING PEOPLE: BUILDING COMMUNITY, CIVIL ASSOCIATIONS, AND LEGALITY IN AFRICA • Richard Sandbrook and Mohamed Halfani 1993, 209 pp. $16.00

Prepared for ODA by the Centre for Urban and Community Studies AN URBAN PROBLEMATIQUE: THE CHALLENGE OF URBANIZATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE • Richard Stren et al 1992, xxxv, 215 pp. $16.00 Disponsible egalement en fran\ais: UNE PROBLEMATIQUE URBAINE: LE DEFIDE L'URBANISATION POUR L'AIDE EN DEVELOPPEMENT 1992, xxxix, 251 pp. $16.00

SEND REQUESTS TO: CENTRE FOR URBAN AND COMMUNITY STUDIES 455 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5S 2G8, CANADA Attention: Publications telephone: (416) 978-2072 fax: (416) 978-7162