MURBS + PEOPLE Reconnecting the Tenants of Toronto's Multi-Unit

MURBS + PEOPLE Reconnecting the Tenants of Toronto’s Multi-unit Residential Developments

by Silviu Andrei Anton, B. Arch., Ryerson University, 2010

A design thesis presented to Ryerson University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture In the Program of Architecture

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2012 © Silviu Anton 2013

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy Author’s Declaration of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners.

I authorize Ryerson University to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.

I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this thesis by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.

I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public.

ii Abstract MURBs + PEOPLE Reconnecting the Tenants of Toronto’s Multi-unit Residential Developments Silviu Andrei Anton Master of Architecture, 2013, Architecture, Ryerson University

This thesis focuses on Multi-unit Residential Buildings (MURBs) in Toronto. It aims to enhance the sense of community in MURBs by reconnecting tenants through urban agriculture (UA) and design. UA is integrated for the purposes of social improvement. It does not only focus on the cultivation aspect, but also on the social potential of the additional activities and interactions that occur through that process.

The social and spatial relationships of the users to one another and to the urban fabric led towards the issues of walkability in these developments.

By combining community and walkability explorations of Toronto’s MURBs this thesis creates a precedent that promotes the revitalization of these developments.

iii Through research and design, this thesis explores the following questions Thesis Statement from an architectural perspective:

1. How can existing MURB developments enhance the sense of community, at the site and neighbourhood level?

2. How can MURB ground planes mitigate abrupt scale variations and incorporate walkable environments, in which people can interact with one another and the street?

iv Acknowledgements Special thanks to my supervisor, Leila Farah, for all her patience and support throughout the process. The inputs of June Komisar and Arthur Wrigglesworth have also helped me push my boundaries with this thesis.

Also important are the residents of the Warrender Apartment Complex that participated in community and stakeholder consultations and with whom I enjoyed many coffees discussing the project.

Best of luck to Brenda Spencer and Don Mills, the members of the Rate Payers Association (RPA) who gave me access to documents used in the litigation process which aided in constructing the history of the site.

v Author’s Declaration ii Table of Contents Abstract iii Thesis Statement iv Acknowledgements v Table of Contents vi List of Figures ix

1.0.0.0 Introduction 002 1.1.0.0 Preface 003 1.2.0.0 Toronto: A City of Towers 005 1.3.0.0 Background 006 1.3.1.0 The History and Evolution of MURBs in Toronto 006 1.3.2.0 Origins of the Tower in a Park 009 1.3.3.0 The Current Condition of Toronto’s MURBs 011 1.4.0.0 Research Methodologies 014 1.4.1.0 Data Gathering 014 1.4.2.0 Challenges Encountered and Lessons Learned 015 1.5.0.0 Problem Statement 016

vi 2.0.0.0 Community 018 2.1.0.0 Gardening and Socializing 019 2.1.1.0 Community Gardens in the Greater Toronto Area 020 2.1.2.0 Allotment Gardens in the Greater Toronto Area 021 2.2.0.0 People Are Forgetting About Food 024 2.3.0.0 Relearning About Food 026 2.3.1.0 What Can We Grow Locally? 027 2.3.2.0 Just Because It Isn’t Practiced, Doesn’t Mean It Can’t Be Done 028 2.4.0.0 The Role of Design in the Context of Community Building and Urban Agriculture 031 2.4.1.0 Housing and Urban Agriculture 032 2.4.2.0 Urban Agriculture Is More Than Food Production 034 2.4.3.0 Edible Architecture 036 2.5.0.0 Takeaways 038

3.0.0.0 Walkability 040 3.1.0.0 Public Spaces Between Buildings 041 3.1.1.0 Activities 042 3.1.2.0 Successful Public Spaces Between Buildings 043 3.1.3.0 The Need for Contact 043 3.1.4.0 Contacts and Their Potentials 044 3.2.0.0 Architectural Implications 045 3.2.1.0 Children’s Play Habits 046 3.2.2.0 The Use of Public Seating 046 3.2.3.0 Pedestrian Attractions 047 3.2.0.0 Takeaways 048

vii 4.0.0.0 Site Analysis 050 4.1.0.0 Central Etobicoke Scale 051 4.1.1.0 Networks 052 4.1.2.0 Buildings 057 4.2.0.0 Site Scale 061 4.2.1.0 Site Location 062 4.2.2.0 A History of the Warrender Apartment Complex: From Proposed Developments to the Site Today 063 4.2.3.0 Understanding Scales 071 4.2.4.0 Vegetation 094 4.2.5.0 Social Interactions on the Site 095 4.2.6.0 Urban Agriculture Integration 097

5.0.0.0 Structure and Process of the Design Proposal 108 5.1.0.0 The Site 109 5.1.1.0 Current Conditions 109 5.1.2.0 Future Conditions 113 5.2.0.0 Theme Development 113 5.2.1.0 Production 113 5.2.2.0 Community 125 5.2.3.0 Access 129 5.3.0.0 Process Conclusions and Final Design Proposal 133 5.4.0.0 A Day In the Life Of 159 5.5.0.0 Concluding Statement 172

List of References 175 Glossary 179 Index 180

viii List of Figures All figures that do not contain a source were entirely generated by the author for the purposes of this thesis.

Figure 1-1-1 A panoramic view taken from an apartment on the eighth floor on the north- east corner of 25 Warrender Avenue. It is a rental building that is part of a MURB complex in Etobicoke (photograph taken during a coffee break, July 6, 2012). PAGE 3

Figure 1-1-2 A photograph illustrating a crab-apple tree that was cut down and never replaced near the entrance of 25 Warrender Avenue (photograph taken during a site visit, July 7, 2012). PAGE 3

Figure 1-1-3 A photograph illustrating the lobby of 25 Warrender Avenue bring closed off and used for storage (photograph taken during a site visit, July 7, 2012). PAGE 3

Figure 1-2-1 An aerial view of downtown Toronto taken from an airplane flying over Lake Ontario (image courtesy of ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). PAGE 5

Figure 1-3-1 An aerial view of the City Park Apartments. Located at 484 Church Street in Toronto. They are the first example of MURBs in Toronto (retrieved on July 6, 2012 from: http:// toronto.ibegin.com/pictures/4987.jpg). PAGE6

Figure 1-3-2 An aerial photograph of Vällingby, a district in Västerort in north-west Stockholm, Sweden (retrieved on July 6, 2012 from http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/casestudies/ Case_Studies_Asia/urbvill/14.jpg). PAGE 7

Figure 1-3-3 A street level photograph of Roehampton, a district in south-west London (retrieved on July 06, 2012 from: http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/1/e1/1e1d7599a9b7f21da133d13d4c 3718e2-orig). PAGE 7

ix Figure 1-3-4 to 1-3-6 A photograph of the master plan model for Flemingdon Park. A photograph of the master plan model for Thorncliffe Park. An aerial view overlooking Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park (all images courtesy of ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). PAGE 7

Figure 1-3-7 A line graph illustrating construction statistics for different housing types for the GTA from 1950 to 2005 (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). PAGE 7

Figure 1-3-8 A map of Toronto (shown in grey) illustrating the distribution of MURBs (shown in black) relative to the downtown core (highlighted in red) and major public transit lines (shown in red) (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). PAGE 8

Figure 1-3-9 An axonometric of the Freehold Maisonettes concept showing how each unit has its own separate garden. This was a typical condition created in the Immeubles Villas concept in 1922 (Le Corbusier, 1986). PAGE 9

Figure 1-3-10 A master plan of the Ville Contemporaine proposed in 1922 (retrieved on July 06, 2012, from: ttp://test.classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/202/flashcards/426202/png/screen_ shot_2011-04-01_at_10.47.00_pm.png). PAGE 9

Figure 1-3-11 A physical model of the Plan Voisin from 1925 (retrieved on July 06, 2012, from: http://golancourses.net/2012spring/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/207a.jpg). PAGE 9

Figure 1-3-12 A vista illustrating how Le Corbusier envisioned technology, nature and man coexisting in harmony in the Ville Radieuse in 1933 (Colquhoun, 2002). PAGE 10

Figure 1-3-13 A photograph of a MURB development near Don Mills Road and Highway 401 illustrating large unprogrammed, underutilized and unfriendly landscaping (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). PAGE 11

Figure 1-3-14 A diagram illustrating typical built-to-open space ratios in Toronto’s MURB developments. It also illustrates an overall increase in lot size during the MURB Era correlated with a decrease in density (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). PAGE 12

Figure 1-3-15 A picture of a hole residents cut in a fence to shorten their walking distance to the bus stop. The site is located at 175 Shaughnessy Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario (City of Toronto, 2010). PAGE 13

Figure 1-3-16 A photograph of a typical MURB highlighting low-cost telecommunications upgrades and design flaws (photograph taken during a site visit on August 4, 2011). PAGE 13

Figure 1-3-17 A photograph of envelope upgrades in progress. They miss the weakest points in the envelope: openings, exposed slabs and roofs (photograph taken during a site visit on August 4, 2011). PAGE 13

Figure 1-3-18 A photograph of XPS particles collecting on the ground after the sanding process (photograph taken during a site visit on August 4, 2011). PAGE 13

Figure 2-1-1 A map of the community gardens in the GTA registered with the Toronto Community Garden Network (TCGN). Although not exhaustive, the site lists a total of 76 locations (retrieved on September 07, 2012, from: http://www.tcgn.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=TorontoGardens. FrontPage). PAGE 20

Figure 2-1-2 to 2-1-4 Photographs taken from several community gardens in MURB settings in south-east Toronto (Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007). PAGE 21

Figure 2-1-5 to 2-1-7 Consultation results illustrating the top three reasons participants gave for gardening. PAGE 23

Figure 2-1-8 A photograph of a handful of yellow tomatoes I was given by an elderly lady tender her garden during the visit (photograph taken during a site visit on August 4, 2011). PAGE 23

Figure 2-1-9 to 2-1-10 Photographs of makeshift seating arrangements made by gardeners at the West Deane Allotment Gardens (photograph taken during a site visit on August 4, 2011). PAGE 23

Figure 2-2-1 A map of a portion of London England indicating areas with names derived from

x the distribution of meat, fish and grains (Steel, 2009). PAGE 25

Figure 2-3-1 A graph illustrating observed and projected numbers of visible minorities in Canada (Bilal, 2011). PAGE 28

Figure 2-3-2 A graph illustrating the research results from the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre conducted in 2010 for the Chinese Red Hot Pepper and Indian Kaddu at the Copetown and Simcoe locations (Bilal, 2011). PAGE 29

Figure 2-3-3 A graph illustrating the research results from the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre conducted in 2010 for the Okra; Fuzzy Melon; Eggplant; Yard Long Bean; and Callaloo (Bilal, 2011). PAGE 30

Figure 2-4-1 A photograph of the Via Verde looking south encompassing the overall project and its immediate context (Sundberg, 2012). PAGE 32

Figure 2-4-2 A photograph taken from the public gardens at the south end of the site, looking north and showing the gardens and how the building steps up to the 20 storey tower (Sundberg, 2012). PAGE 33

Figure 2-4-3 A photograph looking south showing the public open spaces (Sundberg, 2012). PAGE 33

Figure 2-4-4 A photograph of the public plaza, taken during normal use; when the farmers’ market is not taking place (Sundberg, 2012). PAGE 33Figure 2-4-5 A plan of the Green Roof and Garden on top of the Carrot Common (Natvik & Carrot Green Roof Team, 2010). PAGE 34

Figure 2-4-6 to 2-4-8 A series of photographs of the ground level of the Carrot Common (photographs taken during a site visit on October 2, 2011) PAGE 34

Figure 2-4-9 to 2-4-12 A series of photographs illustrating the main features of the Green Roof and Garden, still under construction at the time of the pictures (photographs taken during a site visit on October 2, 2011). PAGE 35

Figure 2-4-13 A photograph of the completed Edible Campus project in the Burnside Plaza at McGill University in Montreal (retrieved on September 16, 2012 from http://www.mcgill.ca/ mchg/projects/ediblecampus/) PAGE 36

Figure 2-4-14 Renderings of solar studies conducted by the design team for the Edible Campus (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009). PAGE 36

Figure 2-4-15 to 2-4-17 Photographs of the assembly and maintenance of the Edible Campus (retrieved on September 16, 2012 from http://www.mcgill.ca/mchg/projects/ediblecampus/) PAGE 36

Figure 3-1-1 A photograph illustrating a public space between buildings that allows for social interaction during every day activities (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 41

Figure 3-1-2 A photograph illustrating what Gehl categorises as necessary activities (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 42

Figure 3-1-3 A photograph illustrating what Gehl categorises as optional activities (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 42

Figure 3-1-4 A photograph illustrating what Gehl categorises as social activities (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 42

Figure 3-1-5 to 3-1-10 A series of photographs illustrating the range of intensity of contacts that can occur in an outdoor environment (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 44

Figure 3-2-1 A photograph illustrating a public space that functions because there are people present (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 45

Figure 3-2-2 to 3-2-5 A series of photographs illustrating that people are attracted to other people (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 45

Figure 3-2-6 to 3-2-8 A series of photographs illustrating that people are attracted to other

xi people (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 46

Figure 3-2-9 to 3-2-11 A series of photographs illustrating seating being used backwards because it is facing away from activities (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 46

Figure 3-2-12 A map of the study area, Strøget, Copenhagen (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 47

Figure 3-2-13 A photograph of something pedestrians did not stop to look at often: a bank (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 47

Figure 3-2-14 A photograph of something pedestrians did stop to look at often: other people (Gehl, 1987). PAGE 47

Figure 4-1-1 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating its car oriented nature by combining all the infrastructure information (scale 1:25,000). PAGE 52

Figure 4-1-2 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the bodies of water (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 52

Figure 4-1-3 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating publicly accessible unprogrammed green spaces (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 54

Figure 4-1-4 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating publicly accessible green spaces. Although it includes school playgrounds, it omits private green spaces such as golf courses (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 54

Figure 4-1-5 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the transportation infrastructure (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 54

Figure 4-1-6 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating public transportation infrastructure provided by the TTC (scale 1:45,000).PAGE 54

Figure 4-1-7 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the current and future development (scale 1:25,000). PAGE 55

Figure 4-1-8 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating Eglinton Avenue West through the eyes of a pedestrian traveling along its south side via a series of photographs (scale 1:25,000). PAGE 56

Figure 4-1-9 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the buildings and their use (scale 1:25,000). PAGE 57

Figure 4-1-10 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the positive and negative space. Separation between different land uses can be seen through the massing alone (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 58

Figure 4-1-11 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating buildings classified as MURBs in red. They are predominantly found along major roads. The majority are concentrated along Eglinton Avenue West (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 59

Figure 4-1-12 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the public schools in blue; they are evenly distributed throughout the residential portions (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 59

Figure 4-1-13 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the potential community gathering spaces in orange; the majority are churches (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 59

Figure 4-1-14 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the commercial buildings in purple, to which the majority of residential areas dominated by single-detached houses do not have immediate access to on foot (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 59

Figure 4-1-15 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the only public library, Richview Public Library yellow. It is located on the north-west corner of Islington Avenue and Summitcrest Drive (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 60

Figure 4-1-16 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the elderly and end-of-life care facilities in black; they are concentrated along the east side of the Humber River near the Eglinton Flats (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 60

Figure 4-1-17 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the industrial buildings in brown. They are

xii clustered together in two main areas separate from residential buildings (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 60

Figure 4-1-18 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the only buildings with actual community gathering potential. The previously identified buildings are mostly churches for people ofa specific ethnic background. Upon their removal from the map, the only remaining place is the George Hull Centre for Children and Families (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 60

Figure 4-2-1 A plan of the area around the Warrender Apartment Complex which locates the site in Central Etobicoke. PAGE 62

Figure 4-2-2 A plan of the immediate context around the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 62

Figure 4-2-3 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the first proposal presented in July, 1992 (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 64

Figure 4-2-4 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the current division of the site into two lots (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 64

Figure 4-2-5 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the proposed division of the site into four lots (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 64

Figure 4-2-6 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the second proposal presented on May 3, 1994 (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 65

Figure 4-2-7 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the areas where above ground construction is not allowed by the OMB bylaw (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 66

Figure 4-2-8 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the areas where below ground construction is not allowed by the OMB bylaw (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 66

Figure 4-2-9 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the trees that cannot be cut down, as per the OMB bylaw (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 66

Figure 4-2-10 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating building footprint limitations for new construction set forth by the OMB bylaw (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 66

Figure 4-2-11 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex indicating Warrender Park, which needs to have improvements in order to compensate for the loss of green space, as per the OMB bylaw (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 66

Figure 4-2-12 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the third proposal presented in 1995 (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 67

Figure 4-2-13 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the fourth proposal presented on November 20, 1996 (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 68

Figure 4-2-14 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the partial fifth proposal presented December 2011(scale 1:4,500). PAGE 69

Figure 4-2-15 A diagram illustrating the estimated number of residents at the Warrender Apartment Complex and their distribution in the four buildings (image retrieved on July 06, 2012, from: http://www.bing.com/maps). PAGE 70

Figure 4-2-16 A diagram illustrating the three major social groups in the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 70

Figure 4-2-17 A plan illustrating the location of the sections studied in order to understand scale relationships (scale 1:10,000). PAGE 73

Figure 4-2-18 A detail of Section H-h (scale 1:1,000). PAGE 73

Figure 4-2-19 A detail of Section N-n (scale 1:1,000). PAGE 73

Figure 4-2-20 A diagram containing the legend for the sectional studies. PAGE 73

xiii Figure 4-2-21 to 4-2-36 Sectional studies A-a to O-o (scale 1:5,000). PAGE 73

Figure 4-2-37 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex labeled with building numbers (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 75

Figure 4-2-38 41 Warrender Avenue, South Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 75

Figure 4-2-39 35 Warrender Avenue, South Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 75

Figure 4-2-40 35 Warrender Avenue, North Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 75

Figure 4-2-41 41 Warrender Avenue, North Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 75

Figure 4-2-42 25 Warrender Avenue, East Elevation (scale 1:2,000); 35 Warrender Avenue, East Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 76

Figure 4-2-43 25 Warrender Avenue, West Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 76

Figure 4-2-44 53 Warrender Avenue, East Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 76

Figure 4-2-45 41 Warrender Avenue, West Elevation (scale 1:2,000); 53 Warrender Avenue, West Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 76

Figure 4-2-46 41 Warrender Avenue, East Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 76

Figure 4-2-47 35 Warrender Avenue, West Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 77

Figure 4-2-48 25 Warrender Avenue, North Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 77

Figure 4-2-49 53 Warrender Avenue, North Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 77

Figure 4-2-50 53 Warrender Avenue, South Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 77

Figure 4-2-51 25 Warrender Avenue, South Elevation (scale 1:2,000). PAGE 77

Figure 4-2-52 Recreational Centre, North Elevation (scale 1:300). PAGE 78

Figure 4-2-53 Recreational Centre, South Elevation (scale 1:300). PAGE 78

Figure 4-2-54 Recreational Centre, East Elevation (scale 1:300). PAGE 78

Figure 4-2-55 Recreational Centre, West Elevation (scale 1:300). PAGE 78

Figure 4-2-56 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the locations of the photographs of the outdoor spaces (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 79

Figure 4-2-57 to 4-2-67 A series of panoramic photographs from the heart of the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 79

Figure 4-2-68 A plan illustrating the paths that will be analysed from a pedestrian point of view (scale 1:9,000) PAGE 80

Figure 4-2-69 A plan illustrating the route taken along Warrender Avenue and the locations and directions of key photographs (scale 1:9,000) PAGE 82

Figure 4-2-70 to 4-2-80 A series of photographs depicting the experience of a pedestrian walking north along the West sidewalk on Warrender Avenue. PAGE 82

Figure 4-2-81 to 4-2-94 A series of photographs depicting how a pedestrian reaches the edge of the site and the experience of walking westward on Warrender Avenue. PAGE 84

Figure 4-2-95 A plan illustrating the route taken along Lloyd Manor Road and the locations and directions of key photographs (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 86

Figure 4-2-96 to 4-2-107 A series of photographs depicting the pedestrian experience along the east side of Lloyd Manor Road up to Lloyd Manor Plaza. PAGE 86

xiv Figure 4-2-108 to 4-2-118 A series of photographs depicting the pedestrian experience along the east side of Lloyd Manor Road between Lloyd Manor Plaza and Eglinton Avenue West. PAGE 88

Figure 4-2-119 A plan illustrating the route taken along Eglinton Avenue West and the locations and directions of key photographs (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 90

Figure 4-2-120 to 4-2-133 A series of photographs illustrating the change in scale which creates a focus on signs intended to be viewed from far away while traveling at a high rate of speed. They also show the relationship between Lloyd Manor Plaza and the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 90

Figure 4-2-134 to 4-2-153 A series of photographs illustrating how the large scales and lack of variation in the landscape create a no-man’s land along Eglinton Avenue West. PAGE 92

Figure 4-2-154 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the preliminary tree locations and dimensions (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 94

Figure 4-2-155 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the tree locations and dimensions based on surveys (scale 1:9,000). PAGE 94

Figure 4-2-156 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the areas where construction cannot occur in order to protect existing trees (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 94

Figure 4-2-157 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the primary and secondary children’s play areas (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 65

Figure 4-2-158 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating areas of socialization. All areas were found to contain features used as seating (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 95

Figure 4-2-159 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the areas that are currently intended for socialization(scale 1:4,500). PAGE 96

Figure 4-2-160 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the potential areas for community space expansion (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 96

Figure 4-2-161 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the areas where it could connect with Eglinton Avenue West (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 96

Figure 4-2-162 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the potential ground and rooftop level garden areas (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 97

Figure 4-2-163 A diagram illustrating the number of hours of direct sunlight per day required by different vegetable types for optimal yield. PAGE 98

Figure 4-2-164 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating that areas where vegetable gardens can be placed. It combines all solar, vegetation and vegetable growth information. PAGE 99

Figure 4-2-165 and 4-2-166 Diagrams illustrating the analysis of the solar studies that determined the daily hours of direct sunlight for May 1 and October 1. PAGE 100

Figure 4-2-167 and 4-2-168 Diagrams illustrating the analysis of the solar studies for May 1 and October 1 further simplified into two areas.PAGE 100

Figure 4-2-169 A diagram illustrating the solar studies conducted for the Warrender Apartment Complex for June 21, the approximate date of the summer solstice and the longest day of the year. PAGE 101

Figure 4-2-170 A diagram illustrating the solar studies conducted for the Warrender Apartment Complex for December 21, the approximate date of the winter solstice and the shortest day of the year. PAGE 101

Figure 4-2-171 A diagram illustrating the solar studies conducted for the Warrender Apartment Complex for May 1, the first day of the growing season for gardens in Toronto. PAGE 102

Figure 4-2-172 A diagram illustrating the solar studies conducted for the Warrender Apartment

xv Complex for October 1, the last day of the growing season for gardens in Toronto. PAGE 102

Figure 4-2-173 A diagram illustrating the prior knowledge of the West Deane Allotment Gardens; a question in the consultations held at the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 104

Figure 4-2-174 A diagram illustrating the interest in urban agriculture; a question in the consultations held at the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 104

Figure 4-2-175 A diagram illustrating the interest in urban agriculture if it were to be provided closer to home; a question in the consultations held at the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 104

Figure 4-2-176 A diagram illustrating the most common reason for gardening, access to healthy food. This was a question in the consultations held at the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 104

Figure 4-2-177 A diagram illustrating the second most common reason for gardening: recreational benefits. This was a question in the consultations held at the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 104

Figure 4-2-178 A diagram illustrating the third most common reason for gardening: social interaction. This was a question in the consultations held at the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 104

Figure 4-2-179 A diagram illustrating the least common reason for gardening: economic benefits. This was a question in the consultations held at the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 104

Figure 4-2-180 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating a 700 square metre square, the minimum surface area required to provide food security for one person (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 106

Figure 4-2-181 A plan of Central Etobicoke illustrating a 819,000 square metre square, the minimum surface area required to provide food security for estimated population of the Warrender Apartment Complex (scale 1:45,000). PAGE 106

Figure 5-1-1 A plan of the current site and its immediate surroundings (scale 1:5,000). PAGE 109

Figure 5-1-2 A diagrammatic breakdown of the current features of the site and its immediate context. PAGE 109

Figure 5-1-3 A plan of the assumed future site and its immediate surroundings, which will be used for the design (scale 1:5,000). PAGE 111

Figure 5-1-4 A section running through Eglinton Avenue West illustrating a potential design for the Eglinton LRT (scale 1:200). PAGE 111

Figure 5-1-5 A diagrammatic breakdown of the assumed future development that will occur around the site. PAGE 111

Figure 5-2-1 A diagrammatic breakdown illustrating the different parts of the Production theme. PAGE 113

Figure 5-2-2 A section illustrating the typical condition of an allotment garden (scale 1:50). PAGE 115

Figure 5-2-3 A perspective rendering from Warrender Avenue, looking north at allotment gardens at the south edge of the site. PAGE 115

Figure 5-2-4 A perspective rendering from the front of 25 Warrender Avenue, looking north-west at the allotment gardens in front of the building. PAGE 115

Figure 5-2-5 An aerial rendering illustrating landscaping explorations using allotment gardens at Warrender Park. PAGE 116

Figure 5-2-6 A perspective rendering illustrating landscaping explorations using allotment gardens at Warrender Park. PAGE 116

xvi Figure 5-2-7 OPPOSITE PAGE: Sections and plans illustrating balcony enclosure explorations on the south facades of 35 and 41 Warrender Avenue. PAGE 118

Figure 5-2-8 A list illustrating the dimensions of typical low-budged planters that are available at most home improvement stores. PAGE 118

Figure 5-2-9 to 5-2-14 A diagram illustrating the proportioning process of the triangular grid used on a balcony enclosure exploration through a plan view. PAGE 119

Figure 5-2-15 to 5-2-18 Diagrams illustrating a balcony enclosure proposal through renderings and the customisability potential. PAGE 120

Figure 5-2-19 A section detail illustrating the typical use of a Unitized Curtain Wall system. PAGE 19

Figure 5-2-20 A section detail illustrating the proposed use of a Unitized Curtain wall system for the balcony enclosures. PAGE 20

Figure 5-2-21 A section illustrating a proposal for the second-storey greenhouse on top of the existing Recreational Centre (scale 1:500). PAGE 122

Figure 5-2-22 A detail section illustrating the simple construction of an expansion proposal (scale 1:250). PAGE 122

Figure 5-2-23 to 5-2-25 A series of illustrations of a TPO roofing product from Carlisle SynTec (retrieved on July 6, 2012 from http://www.carlislesyntec.com/). PAGE 123

Figure 5-2-26 to 5-2-29 A series of illustrations containing photographs of the Solexx 5 millimetre corrugated plastic sheets (retrieved on July 6, 2012 from http://www.solexx.com/). PAGE 123

Figure 5-2-30 to 5-2-35 A series of diagrams illustrating the planter system designed by Alternatives (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009). PAGE 124

Figure 5-2-36 to 5-2-41 A series of diagrams illustrating the Biotop planter system (images retrieved on JUly 6, 2012 from http://biotopcanada.com/?lang=en). PAGE 124

Figure 5-2-42 A diagrammatic breakdown illustrating the various parts of the Community theme. PAGE 125

Figure 5-2-43 A plan of the ground floor of a community centre exploration (scale 1:500).PAGE 127

Figure 5-2-44 Detail Section A-a which runs through the kitchen an inside dinning area (scale 1:100). PAGE 127

Figure 5-2-45 Detail Section B-b which runs through the outside dinning area (scale 1:100). PAGE 127

Figure 5-2-46 A diagrammatic breakdown illustrating the various paths of the Access theme. PAGE 129

Figure 5-2-47 A site plan of a proposal for Warrender Park, illustrating the various programs (scale 1:1000). PAGE 131

Figure 5-2-48 A perspective rendering illustrating the accessible path explorations in Warrender Park. PAGE 131

Figure 5-2-49 5-2-54 A series of diagrams illustrating the design and proportioning process of connection explorations. PAGE 132

Figure 5-2-55 A perspective rendering illustrating the entrance into the Warrender Apartment Complex from the south side of Eglinton Avenue West. PAGE 132

Figure 5-2-56 An aerial rendering of a proposed Recreational Centre expansion. PAGE 132

Figure 5-2-57 A plan view rendering of a proposal for the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 132

xvii Figure 5-3-1 A diagrammatic breakdown of the final design proposal illustrating the three themes (Production, Community and Access). PAGE 133

Figure 5-3-2 Site plan of the proposal including the Warrender Apartment Complex and its immediate surroundings (scale 1:5,000). PAGE 135

Figure 5-3-3 to 5-3-5 A series of plans of the Community Centre. PAGE 135

Figure 5-3-6 to 5-3-10 A series of diagrams illustrating the north and south elevations of Community Centre before and after the proposal. PAGE 139

Figure 5-3-11 to 5-3-15 A series of diagrams illustrating the east and west elevations of Community Centre before and after the proposal. PAGE 141

Figure 5-3-16 to 5-3-20 A series of diagrams illustrating the south elevations of 41 and 35 Warrender Avenue before and after the proposal. PAGE 143

Figure 5-3-21 A diagram illustrating the process that generated the shape and structure of the greenhouse through folding a modular envelope system over the existing building. PAGE 145

Figure 5-3-22 A diagram illustrating the balcony enclosures through the use of a section (scale 1:20). PAGE 146

Figure 5-3-23 to 5-3-26 A series of diagrams illustrating a north-south section through Eglinton Avenue West, Lloyd Manor Plaza and the townhouse development. PAGE 147

Figure 5-3-27 to 5-3-30 A series of diagrams illustrating a north-south section through Warrender Park. PAGE 149

Figure 5-3-31 to 5-3-34 A series of diagrams illustrating a north-south section through the Warrender Apartment Complex. PAGE 152

Figure 5-3-35 to 5-3-39 A series of diagrams illustrating an east-west section through Warrender Park and the Warrender Apartment Complex, with details of Warrender Park. PAGE 153

Figure 5-3-40 to 5-3-44 A series of diagrams illustrating an east-west section through Warrender Park and The Warrender Apartment Complex with details of the Community Centre. PAGE 156

Figure 5-3-45 Site plan of the proposal including the indicating the location of the storage and composting facilities in Warrender Park (scale 1:5,000). PAGE 157

Figure 5-3-46 A floor plan of the storage and composting facilities at Warrender Park illustrating the location of two sections (scale 1:500). PAGE 157

Figure 5-3-47 A section running east-west through the storage facilities at Warrender Park (scale 1:175). PAGE 158

Figure 5-3-48 A section running east-west through the composting facilities at Warrender Park (scale 1:175). PAGE 158

Figure 5-4-1 to 5-4-3 A series of diagrams illustrating the profiles of three fictional characters that will be observed for a day. PAGE 159

Figure 5-4-4 to 5-4-35 A series of diagrams illustrating a day in the lives of three fictional characters (Julia, Aaron and Matthew) after the implementation of the project. PAGE 159

Figure 5-4-36 to 5-4-37 LEFT: A series of photographs of the Aerobin composter (retrieved on August 8, 2012 from https://www.aerobin400.com/aerobin400-CANADA/forms/aerobin_ brochure.pdf). PAGE 170

Figure 5-4-38 to 5-4-48 A series of figures illustrating the tools available in the tool sheds. PAGE 170

Figure 5-4-50 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex and its immediate surroundings illustrating where Julia, Aaron and Matthew were during the day and identifying areas of interaction (scale 1:4,500). PAGE 171

xviii

1.0.0.0 Introduction This portion introduces the thesis and discusses its statement and position on the sociocultural conditions of Toronto’s Multi-unit Residential Buildings (MURBs). Further, it situates this position in the realm of scholarly writing and precedent designs, creating a foundation for discussions about community and walkability. 1.1.0.0. Preface

Figure 1-1-1 A panoramic view taken from an On an unremarkable summer day, I was sipping coffee on my balcony apartment on the eighth floor on the north- east corner of 25 Warrender Avenue. It is a as I usually do when taking a break. The balcony is located on the eighth rental building that is part of a MURB complex floor on the north-east corner of a rental apartment building in Etobicoke. in Etobicoke (photograph taken during a work break, July 6, 2012). It overlooks a sea of single-detached houses in an older neighbourhood with many mature trees. High rise towers, much as the one I was in, could be seen poking out of the vastness.

Figure 1-1-2 A photograph illustrating a crab- apple tree that was cut down and never replaced near the entrance of 25 Warrender Avenue (photograph taken during a site visit, July 7, 2012).

Figure 1-1-3 A photograph illustrating the lobby of 25 Warrender Avenue bring closed off and used for storage (photograph taken during a site visit, July 7, 2012). I began thinking about the building complex in which I had lived since the fall of 1999; how everything was the same, yet different. I noticed more disagreeable behaviours in both the residents and employees alike. I wondered why a tree near the entrance of the building had been cut down after being damaged in a storm, but never replaced; why the building entrance was littered with garbage and cigarette butts, even though you can find both a garbage can and an ashtray by the door; why the lobbies were now closed off and used for storage; why the number pad in the elevator was covered in fresh spit, again; and why I didn’t know

3 the name of the neighbours across the hall from me even though they had moved in years before.

My cellphone rang interrupting my thoughts; a friend who used to live a few floors below me called. I had met him shortly after moving in. He now lived with several friends in Milton, some 35 kilometres away. We started talking about the “good old days” which was ironic since I was only 23 at the time. I shared my dislike of the current state of the complex and asked him if he missed anything about living there. He said the only thing he missed was a local allotment garden he frequented, hidden in a park about a kilometre away from the buildings. I had never heard about allotment gardens until then. He spoke of the different kinds of roses he used to grow and how great it was hanging out there in the evenings.

Our conversation ended and I started wondering how I had met him in the first place. The only answer I could think of was the usual one: kicking the soccer ball around on the grass. I wondered why he didn’t care about the buildings anymore. I soon recognized that I did not care as much as I used to either, which is why I started noticing all the flaws. It all began making sense. It was not about the buildings themselves, it was about the people in them. All the people I used to care about in the complex had moved out. I had met all of those people while playing in front of the buildings. Since that social element was no longer a part of my life, I had not made any new friends with residents. I now needed a car just to sit with a friend for a talk.

I realized why people, including myself, didn’t care anymore: we didn’t socialize anymore. Our social activities now revolved around cafés, bars and clubs instead of our homes and the people that live in the same neighbourhoods. The large fields of grass served as a good playground when I was young, but that activity is not applicable to all ages. No one cared because, despite our physical proximity, we were strangers. The social aspect was gone. People didn’t live in the buildings anymore, they just came there to shower and sleep.

I remembered the gardens my friend mentioned so I jumped on my bicycle to go see them for myself. The entrance was almost unnoticeable, cutting through trees behind a set of tennis courts near the north end of West Deane Park. Following the road and going past the trees, I reached a clearing. Informally organized but neatly tended gardens filled the space. The crunching of gravel under my wheels attracted the attention of people having coffee at a picnic table in the shade: an elderly gentleman and a middle-aged couple with a teenage daughter.

4 1.2.0.0. Toronto: A City of Towers

Figure 1-2-1 An aerial view of downtown Toronto taken from an airplane flying over Lake Ontario (image courtesy of ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008).

According to the Tower Renewal Project “Toronto is a city of Towers” (see Figure 1-2-1) (City of Toronto, 2010). The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) contains the second highest concentration of high rise buildings in North America, surpassed only by New York City (City of Toronto, 2010). The Tower Renewal estimates that approximately 1,189 were residential towers privately constructed between 1945 and 1984 (City of Toronto, 2010). These buildings have eight or more storeys and are classified as Multi-unit Residential Buildings (MURBs). “About 800 of these buildings are privately owned rental properties” (City of Toronto, 2010) and make a major contribution to Toronto’s housing stock, comprising almost one third of it. In addition, they are an invaluable resource to the city’s newcomers, who often choose to rent an apartment prior to purchasing a home (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008).

5 1.3.0.0 Background

Figure 1-3-1 An aerial view of the City Park Apartments. Located at 484 Church Street in Toronto. They are the first example of MURBs in the city (retrieved on July 6, 2012 from: http://toronto. ibegin.com/pictures/4987.jpg).

1.3.1.0 The History and Evolution of MURBs in Toronto As stated by the Tower Renewal Project, implementation of this building typology in Toronto began in the downtown core. The first examples are the City Park Apartments located near the Maple Leaf Gardens (see Figure 1-3-1) (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). They were built along with the subway in 1954. The majority of the MURBs – approximately 1,000 – were constructed between 1960 and 1980. This typology was the most popular housing type and provided substantial support for Toronto’s growth following the Second World War. Today, they are spread throughout the GTA and are found in the suburbs as well as the downtown core (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008).

6 Figure 1-3-2 LEFT: An aerial photograph of Vällingby, a district in Västerort in north-west Stockholm, Sweden (retrieved on July 6, 2012 from http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/ casestudies/Case_Studies_Asia/urbvill/14.jpg).

Figure 1-3-3 RIGHT: A street level photograph of Roehampton, a district in south-west London (retrieved on July 06, 2012 from: http://cache. wists.com/thumbnails/1/e1/1e1d7599a9b7f21da 133d13d4c3718e2-orig).

Figure 1-3-4 to 1-3-6 LEFT: A photograph of the master plan model for Flemingdon Park. MIDDLE: A photograph of the master plan model for Thorncliffe Park. RIGHT: An aerial view overlooking Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park (all images courtesy of ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008).

MURBs gained their popularity in the mid-1950s. Around the same time, typical urban sprawl subdivisions were being regarded as a potential problem. Planned communities using the MURB typology were proposed as a departure from this housing type. These community developments were inspired by similar post-war expansions occurring simultaneously in Europe. Specifically, the Tower Renewal Project identified two influential examples: Vallingby, which is located on the outskirts of Stockholm; and Roehampton, which is located on London’s fringe (see Figure 1-3-2 and 1-3-3) (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008).

Figure 1-3-7 A line graph illustrating construction 29,195 statistics for different housing types for the GTA Single Detached 15,908 from 1950 to 2005 (ERA Architects, & University of Semi-Detached Toronto, 2008). MURB Units Row 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

These developments were intended as complete communities. Through the use of modern design, they contained and promoted everything deemed necessary and good for people at the time: “industry, shopping, mixed-housing types and ample natural open spaces” (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). The intent of planned communities was for them to be self-sufficient and eliminate the commute between the developments and the downtown core. The Tower Renewal identified the first examples of such communities in Toronto: Don Mills (1953); Thorncliffe Park (1955); and Flemingdon Park (1958) (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008) (see Figures 1-3-4 to 1-3-6).

7 The majority of the MURBs were built during an explosion of residential construction fueled by the economic and population boom of the 1960s and 1970s. Similar to the current wave of condominium construction, the apartments were intended for an emerging younger market. Developments were erected almost twice as fast as condominiums are today (see Figure 1-3-7) (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). Marketed as sophisticated modern living, they symbolized confidence in an era that had not yet forgotten the war. According to ERA Architects and the University of Toronto, “by the end of the period of rapid post- war growth,” the construction rate of MURB units was two times that of single detached homes (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). The residential construction boom reached its peak in 1966 with MURBs accounting for almost 40% of Toronto’s housing stock and an astonishing 77% of all new residential construction (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). Nearly 30,000 MURB high-rise units were built in 1968 alone (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2005).

Developers became blinded by the potential profits and distilled the design and planning principles of the initial planned communities. Eventually, they were boiled down to two items: meeting “minimum park space requirements of 1.25 acres per 1,000 residents” (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008) and locating the MURBs near either new or existing low-rise construction. They provided rental stock while ownership stock was commonly provided by single family detached houses. This resulted in over 80% of the rental stock being placed in dense high-rise clusters that visually resembled towers in a park and juxtaposed with the low density housing due to a lack of integration (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). Furthermore, they were often located as far as 20 kilometres from the downtown core with poor access to major public transit lines (see Figure 1-3-8) (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008).

8 1.3.2.0 Origins of the Tower in a Park The origins of what is now known as the tower in a park concept can be traced back to the Swiss-born French architect Charles-Édouard Jeanneret (Le Corbusier). Paris’ problems with slums attracted his attention, to which he proposed a housing solution in 1922: the Immeubles Villas (see Figure 1-3-9) (Le Corbusier, 1986). Although unbuilt, it illustrated his belief that the quality of life of the lower classes could be raised using modern architecture and technology. Le Corbusier wanted to achieve this by bringing nature into the city and integrating garden terraces into every apartment of his proposed residential blocks (Le Corbusier, 1986). Although modest in scale when compared to his later work, the apartment blocks were still substantial in size (Colquhoun, 2002).

Figure 1-3-10 LEFT: A master plan of the Ville Contemporaine proposed in 1922 (retrieved on July 06, 2012, from: ttp://test.classconnection. s3.amazonaws.com/202/flashcards/426202/png/ screen_shot_2011-04-01_at_10.47.00_pm.png).

Figure 1-3-11 RIGHT: A physical model of the Plan Voisin from 1925 (retrieved on July 06, 2012, from: http://golancourses.net/2012spring/wpcontent/ uploads/2012/02/207a.jpg).

As he started working on city sized urban projects, the size and scale of his designs increased. At the 1922 Salon d’Automne, Le Corbusier exhibited a site-less schematic design intended to support 3,000,000 inhabitants: the Ville Contemporaine (Contemporary City) (see Figure 1-3-10) (Colquhoun, 2002). The design centered on a large transportation hub which connected private and public modes of conveyance (Le Corbusier, 1986). Surrounding the hub were what would become the well-known cruciform towers. Intended as office skyscrapers, each stood 60 storeys tall (approximately 200 metres) in a park-like setting (Le Corbusier, 1986).

9 Le Corbusier realized the city was becoming ever more congested and dirty, leading people to move out into the suburbs in order to get closer to nature (Colquhoun, 2002). His intentions remained the same as in the Immeubles Villas: keeping people in the city by bringing nature into its centre (Colquhoun, 2002). The Ville Contemporaine however, inversed the relationship between nature and the built environment originally proposed in the Freehold Maisonettes of the Ville Contemporaine. Instead of placing fragments of nature into the building, he placed the entire building in nature. This was achieved by reducing the built area and filling the open space with parks (Colquhoun, 2002). He believed it would make the city more enjoyable by opening and cleaning it up. Interestingly, Le Corbusier saw the automobile as the ultimate form of transportation and his concepts relied heavily on it, but he kept pedestrians separate from the streets which he characterized as a “foul confusion” (Le Corbusier, 1986).

In 1925, Le Corbusier put forth the Plan Voisin: an application of the concepts explored in the Ville Contemporaine onto an actual site in Paris (see Figure 1-3-11). Vaguely detailed, the design required a large portion of downtown Paris to be cleared and replaced with cruciform towers. Similar to his earlier concept, they were 60 storeys tall, placed in a park-like setting and provided with ample setbacks from an orthogonal street grid dominated by cars. According to Colquhoun, the proposal was unsuccessful and met with abundant criticism, but catalyzed discussions regarding inner city congestion management (Colquhoun, 2002).

Figure 1-3-12 A vista illustrating how Le Corbusier envisioned technology, nature and man coexisting in harmony in the Ville Radieuse in 1933 (Colquhoun, 2002).

Unyielding, Le Corbusier continued his work and created the Ville Radieuse in 1933. He liberated pedestrian movement at the ground level by raising the residential blocks on pilotis (Colquhoun, 2002). To sell his idea, he created picturesque vistas showing people sipping coffee in the foreground, while the extremes of technologically advanced towers and nature coexisted peacefully in the background (see Figure 1-3- 12) (Colquhoun, 2002). In Le Corbusier’s world “work and domestic life take place in high-rise structures” while “cultivation of the spirit and the body takes place in parkland” (Colquhoun, 2002). Unfortunately as “a

10 result of this disjunction, the element of chance is eliminated from urban experience” (Colquhoun, 2002). “The social problems connected with this separation of living from spontaneous and random aspects of life have become increasingly obvious in the intervening years” (Colquhoun, 2002).

1.3.3.0 The Current Condition of Toronto’s MURBs The Tower Renewal identified multiple positive features in Toronto’s MURBs, such as affordable living conditions for new residents and generous open spaces. It also recognized several shortcomings from a sociocultural standpoint; MURB developments do not provide the necessary infrastructure for community generation and maintenance.

The majority of the residential towers were constructed in an era that idealized the tower in a park concept; a time dominated by ever increasing building heights and open space requirements (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). The Tower Renewal found some of the complexes have over 90% open space. These spaces were envisioned as parkland and are mainly comprised of grass and trees (see Figure 1-3- 13). Having no real programmatic function, they are often underutilized, with the exception of regular visits from landscaping crews. Furthermore, the developments often do not have party rooms or organized events to support socialization and community building. Sometimes, even the lobbies are closed off.

11 their destination(ERAArchitects, &UniversityofToronto,2008). landscapes onlytothenhavewaitforirregularbusservice toreach public transportationservices.Thisforcespeopletotraverse unfriendly Due totheirdistancefromthedowntowncore,theyoften havelacking their destinations (food supply, services, amenities, jobs and public transit). 15,000 excess in times square metres – create long, uneventful distances between residents and at – 1-3-14) Figure (see sizes Lot scales. inhuman Mortgage andHousingCorporation,thesecomplexes were builtat requirements imposed by the city and incentives offered by the Canadian MURB developmentsarenotwalkable Further compounding the problem, ground planes generated by MURB Era (ModernTower in the Park) . Duetothebuilt-to-openspace Lot Size: Units: Density: Open Space: 1960-1979 Slab Apartment Lot Size: Units: Density: Open Space: 1960-1979 Mid-Rise Lot Size: Units: Density: Open Space: 1950-1960 St. George Lot Size: Units: Density: Open Space: 1970-1979 Mercedes Tower Lot Size: Units: Density: Open Space: 1960-1979 Point Tower 12 8,622 m 170 x 3.3 85% 1 S 7,375 m 80 x 1.7 60% 1 M 3,764 m 70 x 2.5 70% 1 17,571 m 350 x 2.6 91% 1 M 13,116 m 220 x 1.8 93% 1 P S 2 2 2 2 2 University ofToronto,2008). with adecreaseindensity(ERA Architects, & increase inlotsizeduringtheMURBEracorrelated anoverall developments. Italsoillustrates built-to-open spaceratiosinToronto’sMURB Figure 1-3-14 Adiagramillustratingtypical Figure 1-3-15 A picture of a hole residents cut in a fence to shorten their walking distance to the bus stop. The site is located at 175 Shaughnessy Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario (City of Toronto, 2010).

Figure 1-3-16 A photograph of a typical MURB highlighting low-cost telecommunications upgrades and design fl aws (photograph taken during a site visit on August 4, 2011).

Figure 1-3-17 A photograph of envelope upgrades in progress. They miss the weakest points in the envelope: openings, exposed slabs and roofs (photograph taken during a site visit on August 4, 2011).

Figure 1-3-18 A photograph of XPS particles Telecommunications collecting on the ground after the sanding Exposed concrete process (photograph taken during a site visit on Single-pane windows August 4, 2011).

If the overall mood felt in MURB complexes was summarized in one word, it would be apathy. Evidence also manifests itself through the management of the buildings. At times, residents have been forced to make their own improvements (see Figure 1-3-15). Upgrades are generally avoided unless absolutely necessary. Telecommunication updates are often made on the exterior of the buildings to save costs (see Figure 1-3-16). Some outdated complexes still don’t have Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) internet service support.

Although structurally sound, the buildings offer poor thermal performance due to obsolete technologies and designs; single pane windows and exposed slabs are commonly found (see Figure 1-3-16). Although most apartments have only one wall exposed to the outside environment, the average unit has a 20% higher energy use than a typical single family detached house (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008). ERA Architects and the University of Toronto conducted preliminary research into the application of best practices to existing MURBs. It estimated a reduction in energy consumption of at least 50% (ERA Architects, & University of Toronto, 2008).

In light of this information, owners have begun envelope upgrades. Typically, this involves adding a layer of extruded polystyrene (XPS) to the outermost vertical portions of the exterior walls. The XPS is then sanded, plastered and painted to match the original façade (see Figure 1-3-17). The approach is largely ineffective, because it overlooks the weakest points of the building envelope. Moreover, the sanding process creates a snowstorm of XPS particles, which are not biodegradable and can be found collecting on the ground (see Figure 1-3-18).

13 1.4.1.0 Data Gathering 1.4.0.0. Research The overall method focuses on understanding the relationships between Methodologies the individual and their context – both social and physical – and identifying their needs and desires.

The process began with larger scale secondary research on integrating UA into an architectural proposal for the potential enhancement of communities. The first examples were found from books such as Carrot City: Creating Places for Urban Agriculture and articles pertaining to UA. The research continued with large scale mapping exercises used to understand a portion of Toronto in terms of networks and land use. This data was gathered from digital sources: property data maps, aerial photographs, and numerous searches using Google Maps. The mapping process then focused down to a specific street and led to a particular MURB complex.

The site was first analyzed through mapping and modeling in order to understand its relationship to the immediate environment. Exercises such as sectional studies primarily focused on the scales of the area. Gathering detailed information about the site initiated professional practice methods in the form of stakeholder and community consultations.

Meetings with the Rate Payers Association (RPA), a local group that deals with community related issues, are an example of these consultations. Litigation documents were obtained during the meetings and digitized to generate a chronological history of the site and its multiple redevelopment attempts.

14 Progressing towards understanding the site at the lowest levels kept the process focused on professional practice methods. Taking a closer look at the potential stakeholders of this thesis involved analysis of how residents utilised the site and how a pedestrian experiences the ground plane. This required an abundance of walking around the site and its surrounding neighbourhood while taking photographs and notes, which made walkability issues quite evident.

Additionally, consultations were also held at the site and nearby allotment gardens; they focused on the links between UA and people. Some residents became interested in the thesis and I had discussions with them about its intent and design. During these consultations, people expressed a desire for additional communal spaces and organized activities. Moreover, they also conveyed concern regarding the uncertain future of the site; the litigation process between the RPA and the owners was still underway.

1.4.2.0 Challenges Encountered and Lessons Learned Over the course of obtaining detailed plans of the site, the owners – who were trying to redevelop the site – were contacted. They unfortunately refused to help, misunderstanding the intent of this thesis as being in opposition to their developmental desires. Discussions with residents also had several instances when its intentions were misinterpreted. This happened because people working in the field of architecture – myself included – often end up inside a parallel architectural realm. They use specific terms, symbols and representational methods that do not translate across all disciplines. At the end of the day, the majority of users are not architects. These occurrences emphasized how important and often difficult it is to translate architecture to everyone, not just architects.

Incorporating UA into architectural project also proved to have its difficulties. It is challenging to generate design through gardening that doesn’t simply end up as demarcated areas on the ground where people can garden. Additionally, fruit and vegetable cultivation is generally placed outside the scope of architecture and not commonly taught in school.

The uncertain future of the site and its surroundings did not make it any easier. Even at the completion of this thesis, what exactly will happen on and around the site remains unclear. It is however guaranteed that densification and development will occur along with a public transit expansion. Integrating the site into its potential future surroundings is necessary for its success.

15 The defining elements of Toronto’s MURBs (vast, unprogrammed ground 1.5.0.0 Problem planes; inadequate communal spaces; dilapidated envelopes; and Statement poor access to public transportation) are inadequate for the needs of their residents. These developments do not provide the necessary structure generate and sustain communities, and create impersonal living conditions that make inhabitants neglect their surroundings. Moreover, the scale and layouts of their sites and immediate context limit the social interaction potential on the ground plane.

Through research and design driven by the integration of UA into architecture, this thesis proposes a potential solution by exploring the following questions:

1. How can existing MURB developments enhance the sense of community, at the site and neighbourhood level?

2. How can MURB ground planes mitigate abrupt scale variations and incorporate walkable environments, in which people can interact with one another and the street?

2.0.0.0 Community This portion of the thesis discusses how existing MURB developments can enhance the sense of community, at the site and neighbourhood level. It looks at the relationship between people, UA and space through analysis of written and design work; and identifies the principles used in the design explorations into community generation and maintenance. 2.1.0.0 Gardening Existing research regarding the sociocultural aspect of community and and Socializing allotment gardens boasts multiple benefits to both the individual and the community. They were found to aid community development through job skills training (Fusco, 2001) (Holland, 2004) (Schmelzkopf, 2002) and improve social ties by increasing appreciation and acceptance of people with various social and ethnic backgrounds (Doyle & Krasny, 2003) (Hancock, 2001).

19 2.1.1.0 Community Gardens in the Greater Toronto Area Toronto has a large number of community gardens spread across the city and the GTA. They are especially concentrated around MURB developments due to the large amount of available open space. Unfortunately, there is no exact number “since the last survey of community gardening was done over a decade ago” (David, 2011). Based on a list provided by the Toronto Community Garden Network (TCGN) it can be determined that there are at least 76 community gardens in the GTA (see Figure 2-1-1) (Community Gardens in Toronto and the GTA, 2012). There are also additional gardens not registered with the TCGN. Furthermore, the number will continue to rise as community gardens are becoming an increasingly common part of the urban fabric.

An article titled “Growing Urban Health: Community Gardening in South- East Toronto” investigated several community gardens in MURB settings in south-east Toronto (see Figure 2-1-2 to 2-1-4). Although primarily focused on the health benefits derived from gardening, the article noted additional evidence of community improvements associated with the social aspect of people working together.

Figure 2-1-1 A map of the community gardens in the GTA registered with the Toronto Community Garden Network (TCGN). Although not exhaustive, the site lists a total of 76 locations (retrieved on September 07, 2012, from: http:// www.tcgn.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=TorontoGardens. FrontPage).

20 The article stated that “gardening encouraged love for the area, and love for the city” (Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007). Further adding to community growth, the authors found that it was an activity that crossed social and ethnical boundaries. They discovered that people shared more than “vegetables and tools, but also ideas, across cultures and other social differences” (Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007). In addition, they observed that gardeners got together with neighbours and talked about harvesting and cooking fruit and vegetables, which led to discussions regarding wider communal issues. In the article, one gardener was quoted as saying that the social interaction in the community garden “helps [them] organize other programmes that will be able to help [them] encourage each other” (Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007).

Figure 2-1-2 to 2-1-4 Photographs taken from several community gardens in MURB settings in south-east Toronto (Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007).

Although appearing informal in nature, discussions occurring during regular gardening work acted as gateways into community-wide issues. For example, the article found that commonly discussed issues in the gardens of the Regent Park area focused on the uncertainty of future gardening endeavours. People felt decisions makers lacked awareness of the gardens and did not appreciate the needs of the residents. One participant went so far as to say: “City Council doesn’t see us as something important, you know, health wise, community wise” (Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007).

2.1.2.0 Allotment Gardens in the Greater Toronto Area Inspired by the “Growing Urban Health: Community Gardening in South-East Toronto” article, I conducted community and stakeholder consultations at a set of allotment gardens. It was noted in the article that the majority of the gardeners did not wish to contribute to the research. The study looked at 534 individual allotment plots and 12 communal plots, yet only 68 people participated (Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007). This was likely due to the large scale and formality of the data gathering methods, which consisted of group meetings, of up to

21 nine participants, that were recorded on tape. For the purposes of this research, I decided that individual discussions, that did not require personal information or an audiovisual record, would yield a higher participation rate. The questions I asked were developed based on principles identified in the articles and focused on the social and health aspects of gardening.

For this study I chose the West Deane Allotment Gardens located at the north end of West Deane Park in Etobicoke, with an entrance off Martingrove Road. They were selected due to their proximity to rental MURBs; approximately 16 are located within a one kilometre radius, mostly concentrated along Eglinton Avenue West. Even though this neighbourhood does not suffer from the high percentage of low income families or poor food access found in south-east Toronto, it still displays similar social cohesion problems. The scope of the consultation was to ascertain whether UA attracted participants with higher income levels, across multiple age groups.

2.1.2.1 Data Gathering Methods Information gathered during the meetings focused on understanding the relationship between people and the gardens. Questions divided into three categories: reasons for gardening; what they grew; and additional comments. The questions regarding why the gardened had numeric answers on a scale of 0 to 4; with 0 signifying no importance and 4 representing the highest importance. A fourth question was added due to recurring comments about gardening being conducted primarily for recreational purposes. What they gardened was recorded using checkboxes with four options: fruit; vegetables; herbs; and others. The additional comments were filled in based on discussions, listing anything that did not fall into the other categories.

2.1.2.2 Consultation Results A total of four households were involved: two elderly couples ages 65 and over; a middle aged couple with a teenage daughter; and one young man estimated to be in his mid-twenties. All participants agreed that the recreational benefit was the most important and gave it a maximum rating of 4 (see Figure 2-1-5). Upon being asked why, the common response was that going outside and gardening was considerably better than what they otherwise did at home; this usually consisted of sitting down and watching television for a couple of hours prior to going to sleep.

22 Consultations also found that the second most important reason participants gave for gardening was the social aspect (see Figure 2-1- 6). People had often made friends at the gardens. Their friendly nature was confirmed when I was offered a handful of ripe yellow tomatoes by an elderly lady while she was answering my questions and tending to her garden (see Figure 2-1-8). In addition, they had constructed makeshift gathering areas using old patio furniture (see Figure 2-1-9 to 2-1-10). One gentleman was fixing a discarded picnic table in order to provide additional seating.

Figure 2-1-5 to 2-1-7 Consultation results Recreational Social Healthy Food illustrating the top three reasons participants gave for gardening. 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 0 3 1 3 1

2 0 2 0 2 1

1 0 1 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Third on the list was the access to healthy food. All participants agreed that the gardens were advantageous to healthy food access, but that this was unimportant (see Figure 2-1-7). The least important reason for gardening, which received an overall rating of 0, was economy. Participants stated that the food access benefits were nullified by the costs of gardening in terms of: gas; materials; and time. All households concluded that it was either equally or more expensive than purchasing organic produce at a local grocery store.

Figure 2-1-8 A photograph of a handful of yellow tomatoes I was given by an elderly lady tender her garden during the visit (photograph taken during a site visit on August 4, 2011). Figure 2-1-9 to 2-1-10 Photographs of makeshift seating arrangements made by gardeners at the West Deane Allotment Gardens (photograph taken during a site visit on August 4, 2011).

The process found participants across all age groups, except for young children. There was a general agreement across all ages regarding the social benefits of UA activities; these were outweighed only bythe recreational benefits. The findings support the community development potential of UA by illustrating that it helps people develop social ties. Moreover, UA appears to be an activity applicable to multiple age groups and is independent of income level.

23 In order to better understand the relationship between people and food, 2.2.0.0 People Are it is also important to look at the bigger picture. Carolyn Steel’s work does Forgetting About that by focusing on the connection between the city and its food. In her book, Hungry City: How Food Shapes Our Lives, the city is presented as Food something artificial and separate from its food source: agricultural land. She explains how cities evolved into this condition where people walk into grocery stores and restaurants expecting to find food, oblivious of the processes that bring it there. Through these explorations, Steel identified food as the central guiding principle for most of mankind’s development; starting with the advent of agriculture and ending with the implications of our current dietary and food production needs (Steel, 2009).

24 Figure 2-2-1 A map of a portion of London England indicating areas with names derived from the distribution of meat, fi sh and grains (Steel, 2009). Smithfield

Newgate Leadenhall Cheapside Poultry Cornhill

Friday Street

Bread Street Legend: Fish Street Meat Fish Billingsgate Grains Queenhithe

Steel defi nes our past relationship to food as being a close one. Food trade used to be a social and public activity. Using London, England as an example, she illustrates how this became engrained in the urban fabric of pre-industrial cities. Signs of a prior era when food markets dominated the city’s social realm remain visible. Obvious examples include street names such as Bread Street and Poultry; remnants of a time when food was still public, visible and organic (see Figure 2-2-1) (Steel, 2009).

Steel argues that our relationship to food has recently changed; few think about what it takes to provide a meal nowadays. Customers interacting with producers used to be a central activity in cities. Now it has been moved to the peripheries, placed in big box stores and converted into an anonymous transaction. With the perpetuation of manufactured and packaged food, people no longer know what they are buying; they read labels. People do not cook in the traditional sense anymore; they “just add water” (Steel, 2009).

The increasing lack of fi rst-hand experience also raises the occurrence of what Steel refers to as “squeamishness” (Steel, 2009) towards raw foods. Since people no longer kill, grow or even chop their own food anymore, food processing is often seen as barbaric and dirty. Although some of these common beliefs may be true, through our growing lack of involvement with food we have lost our value and respect for it.

25 In his article “Local Food Is not Always the Most Sustainable,” Rankin 2.3.0.0 Relearning argues that local food production can never become anything more than About Food a niche market. He claims that the current distribution of food production is not going to change and that if people were to depend only on locally grown food, the majority would not be able to meet their basic dietary requirements. Further illustrating his point, Rankin gives two examples: Floridians would have to give up bread because there are no locally grown grains; and inhabitants of the Mountain West would have to give up vegetables, since they are not locally grown either (Rankin, 2009).

This section discusses the counter argument to Rankin’s point of view. We may not be able to grow everything ubiquitously, but we can do it to a much higher degree than we are presently. Furthermore, examples in this section illustrate the additional social, economic and environmental benefits of localized food production that make it considerably more valuable than a niche market.

26 2.3.1.0 What Can We Grow Locally? At the growTO Urban Agriculture Speaker Series in 2011, Margaret Zondo gave a presentation titled “What Can We Grow? New Crops and Marketing for a Multicultural City.” Her presentation focused on the business she created, Southern Horizons. It functions under McVean Incubator Farms in Brampton, which provides an environment for farm start-ups with a focus on increasing the diversity of locally grown crops. The farm is leased to local nongovernmental organization (NGO) FarmStart by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Southern Horizons was initiated through this program and focuses on locally grown African vegetables (Zondo, 2011).

Zondo considers the social and educational benefits of her venture to be its most important aspects. She supports her ideals by making Southern Horizons a tool for sharing, learning and engaging. Zondo explained that the producers build relationships between themselves and customers by making the clients feel included in the process and building confidence in the food they consume (Zondo, 2011). The farm also holds canning and cooking workshops, which are a social way for people to relearn how to cook from scratch instead of using manufactured foods. Through these workshops, Zondo realized there is a cultural barrier limiting people from trying new vegetables and that sometimes different cultures have differing names for the same vegetable. To increase knowledge and acceptance, Southern Horizons is developing additional resources such as handbooks and factsheets about the vegetables they are growing, which will contain multiple foreign names for each vegetable (Zondo, 2011).

In her presentation, Zondo spoke about how she was originally attracted to the idea by the increasing popularity of imported specialty vegetables. She found out that some of these vegetables, such as the increasingly popular Okra, can be grown locally in Ontario. The cultivation methods practiced by Southern Horizons, along with other FarmStart initiatives, are 100% organic. All their packaging is earth friendly and reusable, mostly consisting of weaved baskets (Zondo, 2011). Producing and selling these foods locally, that would otherwise have come from across the ocean, reduces pollution related to transportation from production to market. Furthermore, shortened travel distances mean the vegetables do not have to withstand long storage periods, so they do not contain the same chemical preservatives that imported vegetables do (Zondo, 2011).

Zondo also realizes the local economic implications of her work. Increasing the variety of locally grown and sold food allows access into the otherwise untapped market of ethno-cultural vegetables. These vegetables are

27 aimed at a smaller market and, unlike traditional crops, are not produced for export in industrialized farms. All the money generated by these crops goes to local businesses and Ontario residents, feeding the local economy.

According to Zondo, Southern Horizons seeks to make eating healthy socially acceptable again through sustainable production and public education methods (Zondo, 2011). It illustrates how food can create conditions suitable for social interaction and learning, with potential applications outside the farming business.

2.3.2.0 Just Because It Isn’t Practiced, Doesn’t Mean It Can’t Be Done Ahmed Bilal gave a presentation titled “Crop Diversification for Ontario’s Vegetable Industry” at the same growTO conference in 2011. His presentation focused on demonstrating that there is a demand from the multicultural population of Ontario for crops that are not locally grown. Furthermore, he documented that a wide variety of crops (normally not grown in the province or country) can thrive and meet demands otherwise covered by imported food.

Figure 2-3-1 A graph illustrating observed and projected numbers of visible minorities in Canada (Bilal, 2011).

Horticulture is a major economic force in Ontario, generating an estimated $2.1 billion in farm gate value each year and a significant amount of employment (Bilal, 2011). Similar to Zondo, Bilal realized that, although a big economic driver for the province, it leaves a potential market untapped: the ethno-cultural vegetables market. He estimated that in 2010 Canadian immigrants spent approximately $800 million on imported fruits and vegetables. Since the number of visible minorities is only projected to rise, this demand is likely to grow along with it (see Figure 2-3-1) (Bilal, 2011).

28 The Vineland Research and Innovation Centre (a research team of which Bilal is an associate) proposed to the provincial government that studies should be conducted on growing foreign crops in Ontario (Bilal, 2011). The primary goal of the explorations was to fill a market demand for certain ethnically valued crops that could potentially be locally grown instead of imported. Essentially, Vineland wanted to adapt ethno-cultural vegetable crops for production in Ontario and develop technologies that would allow sustainable continued production (Bilal, 2011). Bilal explained that the research team concluded that in order to have the best impact and long term results, growing initiatives for these crops need to be present at multiple scales: both through local farming as well as UA methods (Bilal, 2011).

According to Bilal, implementing such crops would create new economic opportunities for farmers by allowing them to diversity their crop production with minimal financial risks. Using the guidelines created and tested by Vineland, farmers would avoid potential pest and disease problems (Bilal, 2011). Additionally, he argued that these crops carry social and cultural values, which would create links between consumers and farmers. This transfer of knowledge could provide the initiative for them to grow their own food, further diminishing the demand for imported crops (Bilal, 2011).

Vineland initiated their trials in 2010 with the evaluation of two crops: the Indian Kaddu and the Chinese Red Hot Pepper. Located in Simcoe, Binbrook and Copetown, the three field locations generated positive results (Bilal, 2011). Bilal reported that total harvest numbers averaged 18,000 pounds per acre for the Chinese Red Hot Pepper and 15,000 pounds per acre for the Indian Kaddu (see Figure 2-3-2).

29 Simultaneously, they also tested three variations of five additional crops: Okra; Fuzzy Melon; Eggplant; Yard Long Bean; and Callaloo (Bilal, 2011) (see Figure 2-3-3). Vegetable selection was governed by: “market demand; current production in Ontario; agronomic requirements; post- harvest requirements; and value chain consultation” (Bilal, 2011). The test was replicated at two locations: the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre; and the Simcoe Research Station (Bilal, 2011).

Bilal explained that based on the conclusions of the experimental farming conducted in 2010 and in correlation to their previously set principles, three crop varieties were selected for adaptation to on-farm production in Ontario in 2011. The three crops were: A.B. Peri Okra, Long Noodle Yard Long Bean; and Farmer’s Long Oriental Eggplant (Bilal, 2011). He also described further research conducted on soil amendment techniques, primarily through the use of microbial inoculants, to provide sustainable pest-free production methods. Furthermore, Bilal added that they are conducting additional varietal trials on six crops, with three varieties of each: Round Eggplant; Maca; Tomatillo; Bottle Gourd; Daikon Radish; and Indian Red Carrot. The research does not show signs of stopping. The study results are being published and serve as guidelines and precedence for local farmers (Bilal, 2011).

Bilal’s presentation proves that it can be both economically viable and environmentally friendly to diversify local food production in Ontario. Although his research focuses on the financial feasibility of growing non- native crops in Ontario using only natural production methods, it also identifies that there is a demand for these crops that is not being met (Bilal, 2011). Furthermore, Bilal identified UA as one of the key methods for promoting this locally grown produce.

30 2.4.0.0 The Role of In “Local Food is not Always the Most Sustainable,” Rankin agrees that Design in the Context current social and cultural conditions surrounding food production and distribution are unhealthy and unsustainable in the long term. He does not of Community see it as a resultant of current production and distribution methods. Instead, Building and Urban Rankin places the blame on the shortcomings of modern city planning Agriculture and architecture. Claiming that localism should be redefined, he criticizes design, especially focusing on the shortcomings of New Urbanism and Transit-Oriented Development. New Urbanism is considered inadequate since big box stores often show up in close vicinity to developments and Transit-Oriented Development is seen as having too narrow a view on what they should be transporting by rail (Rankin, 2009).

In light of this argument, it is important to understand how architecture can influence the current circumstances. The following looks at design examples that positively influence the social and cultural conditions around cultivation and distribution. They were analyzed for the integration of UA in architecture in the design portion of this thesis.

31 Figure 2-4-1 A photograph of the Via Verde looking south encompassing the overall project and its immediate context (Sundberg, 2012).

32 2.4.1.0 Housing and Urban Agriculture The Via Verde housing complex designed by Grimshaw Architects and Dattner Architects is situated on a 1.5 acre lot in Melrose, South Bronx, New York (see Figure 2-4-1). Previously home to a rail yard and a gas station, the site remained city owned and vacant since the late 1970s (Via Verde Homes LLC, 2010). It has immediate access to public transit and is in a neighbourhood undergoing redevelopment since the 1990s. The project combines ownership, rental units and coop rental units. Construction was completed in 2012 and some units were available in the winter of 2011.

This project was selected because the building form is “an integration of nature and city” (Via Verde Homes LLC, 2010). Gardens and green roofs are the organizing architectural element of this project, linking it to the community as the building steps up (see Figure 2-4-2). From the courtyard, which is accessible to all residents, the building ascends to three storey townhouses and ends in a 20 storey tower, all linked with a series of green roofs and south facing roof gardens with solar panels. Via Verde has approximately 40,000 square feet (3,700 square metres) of open space (Via Verde Homes LLC, 2010) (see Figure 2-4-3). The public plaza located on the north end of the site will support the health initiatives of the project through a bi-weekly farmers’ market (see Figure 2-4-4) (Via Verde Homes LLC, 2010).

Figure 2-4-2 A photograph taken from the public gardens at the south end of the site, looking north and showing the gardens and how the building steps up to the 20 storey tower (Sundberg, 2012).

Figure 2-4-3 A photograph looking south showing the public open spaces (Sundberg, 2012).

Figure 2-4-4 A photograph of the public plaza, taken during normal use; when the farmers’ market is not taking place (Sundberg, 2012).

Designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification from the United States Green Building Council, (USGBC) it is estimated to boast 30% reduction in energy consumption over traditional buildings (Via Verde Homes LLC, 2010). During its construction, over 20% of the building materials used were recycled, with an additional 20% being locally manufactured (Via Verde Homes LLC, 2010). Furthermore, it also claims that over 80% of the demolition and construction waste was recycled. Rainwater runoff is reduced by the rooftop gardens and water reclamation systems (Via Verde Homes LLC, 2010). Inside the units, low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) finishes and cleaning products are used (Via Verde Homes LLC, 2010).

33 2.4.2.0 Urban Agriculture Is More Than Food Production The Green Roof and Garden on the rooftop of the Carrot Common is an example of UA in Toronto being used for more than food production (see Figure 2-4-5). Located at 348 Danforth Avenue in Greektown, Toronto, the Carrot Common is a mixed use development consisting of 17 retail and dining establishments (see Figure 2-4-6 to 2-4-8).

Figure 2-4-5 A plan of the Green Roof and Garden on top of the Carrot Common (Natvik & Carrot Green Roof Team, 2010).

Figure 2-4-6 to 2-4-8 A series of photographs of the ground level of the Carrot Common (photographs taken during a site visit on October 2, 2011)

One major feature of the site is the Big Carrot Food Store, a health food store premised on selling organic and additive free products. Furthermore, the store claims to focus on selling locally and sustainably grown products, with the aim of expanding the network of local food suppliers (Natvik & Carrot

34 Green Roof Team, 2010). The Big Carrot is organized as a cooperative and gives each worker the chance to become a member. Membership in turn allows them to have a vote at regularly held meetings (Natvik & Carrot Green Roof Team, 2010). The effects of employee empowerment were evident during the site visit; they were eager to help and quickly answered questions regarding the rooftop garden.

The garden has a long history. Previously a rooftop patio – from 1989 to 1996 – it became a rooftop garden resulting from a design charette conducted in 1996 (Natvik & Carrot Green Roof Team, 2010). Multiple severe leaks occurred in 2008 and another design charette was held; this time with Landscape Architecture students from the University of Guelph (Natvik & Carrot Green Roof Team, 2010). In addition, a firm specializing in green roof construction was also contracted to realize the final project (Natvik & Carrot Green Roof Team, 2010).

Approximately 80% of the 10,000 square feet (930 square metres) of available roof space is being used in the latest proposal. The program includes: an extensive green roof, a large deck for community use, an intensive planter system, a composting system linked to the Big Carrot food store below, a solar thermal power system, container gardens, vertical gardens, and various other biodiversity enhancements (see Figure 2-4-9 to 2-4-12) (Natvik & Carrot Green Roof Team, 2010).

The intent of the Carrot Green Roof and Garden project, much like the Big Carrot health food store, is greater than its basic functions. It is meant to be a learning hub; a place where knowledge can be shared, with an accent on community based groups. The garden is open to the public and meant to serve as a hands-on model for environmental sustainability (Natvik & Carrot Green Roof Team, 2010).

35 2.4.3.0 Edible Architecture The Edible Campus Project at McGill University was chosen because it sought to “turn underutilized urban spaces into productive spaces” and “involved citizens in the creation of green community spaces” (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009). The project provides an example of a workaround to high land prices in urban locations.

Figure 2-4-14 Renderings of solar studies conducted by the design team for the Edible Campus (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009).

Figure 2-4-15 to 2-4-17 Photographs of the assembly and maintenance of the Edible Campus (retrieved on September 16, 2012 from http:// www.mcgill.ca/mchg/projects/ediblecampus/)

The Burnside Hall Plaza at McGill University in Montreal provided the design team with approximately 200 square metres (2,150 square feet) of potential growing space. It was identified as a central urban location in which “narrowly-defined short-term needs” were chosen over “aesthetics, social and ecological considerations” (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009).

36 An important aspect to the design was to provide the plants with the minimum number of hours of direct sunlight needed to become fully grown. Via solar studies, the usable area was limited to around 110 square metres that met growing requirements (see Figure 2-4-14).

Another important consideration for the site selection was the possibility of vandalism. Instead of taking the traditional approach of closing off the site from unwanted people, they chose a site that was public and heavily trafficked (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009). Maintaining the public nature of the site performed as a deterrent for acts of vandalism.

The design was greatly influenced by the maintenance requirements of the vegetables. It was mostly conducted by volunteers without prior gardening knowledge (see Figures 2-4-15 to 2-4-17). As a result, the design team concluded the system needed to be “simple, scalable, and easily reproducible” (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009). Four key requirements were identified; the system had to be: “modular; mobile; seasonal; and scalable as a ‘do-it-yourself’ project” (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009). Additionally, the design “sought to show designers that edible plants can be used as architectural materials” (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009).

The two key takeaways from this project are modularity and community involvement. Both are interdependent and influence one another. The modularity of the system was attended to by one of the NGO partners, Alternatives. The NGO designed and developed the container system which primarily comprised of salvaged containers and recycled plastic. Besides adding functionality to the site, the modular growing system provided a reuse of materials in the construction of the project. When complete, the Edible Campus was comprised of 123 growing containers of seven types; with 63% made from reused buckets or barrels, 35% made of recycled plastic and 2% made from new materials (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009).

The second important takeaway – community involvement – was facilitated by the modular design. The lightweight containers allowed anyone to maintain them. Although Alternatives took responsibility for maintenance, their involvement remained supervisory in nature (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009). They created a mailing list through which volunteers were “informed of the garden’s activities, upcoming events, and information about how they can get involved” (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009). Through this open system, people were not limited to a fixed schedule and could participate in their free time (Bhatt, Farah, Luka, & Wolfe, 2009).

37 As recognized by Steel, food is no longer visible in cities. That does not 2.5.0.0 Takeaways mean that we should be renaming streets and neighbourhoods according to locally available food products, but it identifies possible ground plane activities with social enhancement potential that are currently being overlooked. This has been supported by professional practice and research regarding community and allotment gardening. In Toronto especially, they are largely hidden from the street and relegated to underutilized areas. However, they still function. People don’t garden for the increased access to food or for economic reasons; they do it for the social aspect of gardening. Overall, gardening brings people together.

The general lack of awareness regarding UA is fading. In Toronto, there are conferences such as growTO and the Urban Agriculture Summit. Similar to what this thesis argues, these conferences explore the potential benefits of UA in addition to providing food access. This is the main takeaway regarding the community benefits of UA; it is not about the gardening itself as much as it is about everything surrounding it.

Zondo validated that argument when she identified that the most important aspect of her business was the learning and socialization which occurred during the course of cooking and processing vegetables. This is in turn supported by Bilal’s findings regarding the value of ethno-cultural crops. As such, the design portion of this thesis attempts to provide places for the potential offshoot activities.

Analogous to this, the Edible Campus provided an infrastructure for socialization through the organization structure of the garden maintenance. It created an adaptable structure where people could choose when and how they would interact with and work on the garden. This flexibility is the second takeaway that the design portion of this thesis builds on.

3.0.0.0 Walkability This portion of the thesis focuses on answering the question of how MURB ground planes can mitigate abrupt scale variations and develop walkable environments, in which people can interact with one another and the street.

Walkability is both a prerequisite and counterpart for community. Analysis of written and design work is used to understand the issue of walkability in and around Toronto’s MURB developments, and generate the principles that are used in the design explorations shown in the latter part of this thesis. 3.1.0.0 Public Spaces Between Buildings

Figure 3-1-1 A photograph illustrating a public space between buildings that allows for social interaction during every day activities (Gehl, 1987).

In Life Between Buildings, Jan Gehl focuses his attention on the public spaces between buildings. Through analysis of how people use these spaces, he explains the importance of people being able to interact with each other during their daily activities. The variety and combination of activities that can occur in these outdoor environments is affected by a number of factors, one of which is the constructed physical environment. This analysis of Gehl’s writing is focused on the physical environment in relation to pedestrians and its application to the design portion of this thesis.

41 3.1.1.0 Activities Gehl summarizes the types of activities that occur in these public spaces into three categories: “necessary activities, optional activities and social activities” (see Figure 3-1-2 to 3-1-4) (Gehl, 1987).

Figure 3-1-2 A photograph illustrating what Gehl categorises as necessary activities (Gehl, 1987).

Figure 3-1-3 A photograph illustrating what Gehl categorises as optional activities (Gehl, 1987).

Figure 3-1-4 A photograph illustrating what Gehl categorises as social activities (Gehl, 1987).

According to Gehl, Necessary activities are required and hence receive little influence from the physical environment. The participants usually have little choice in the matter and will conduct the activity regardless of external factors such as weather conditions and the physical environment. Activities in this category relate greatly to walking through outdoor spaces towards a required destination (Gehl, 1987).

Optional activities are heavily dependent on the desires of the individual. If the environment is more condoning of those activities, it is more likely that

42 people will follow their desires. The potential for these optional activities to occur is more influenced by the environment, because a person is more likely to follow their desire to do something if the space makes it easier for them to do so (Gehl, 1987).

Social activities are considered a resultant of necessary and optional activities. In outdoor spaces, social activities are usually unplanned for and occur through interactions with other people in the process of completing one of the first two types of activities. Unlike necessary and optional activities, social activities require other people to be simultaneously present in the space and the right physical conditions to take place (Gehl, 1987).

3.1.2.0 Successful Public Spaces Between Buildings The definition of social activity can be very loose. Generally, merely being in proximity to someone else is enough to count as a social activity (Gehl, 1987). Social activities are the types of interaction on which this portion of the thesis focuses. They are important because they serve as a potential starting point for the future development of relationships.

Social activities can never occur alone and are generally not the only type of activity taking place, usually happening in combination with necessary and optional activities. Hence, successful public spaces between buildings have to cater to a wide gamut of activities. If done properly, unplanned social activities occur in the process of completing other tasks, making them more meaningful by fulfilling the participants’ need for what Gehl calls “contact.”

3.1.3.0 The Need for Contact Gehl explains social activities through contact. It is based on the assumption that people have an innate need for contact with one another. Contact is when one is to some degree partaking in the activity. Even if you are not directly engaging in the activity, it is seen as somewhat being a part of it if you are physically there (Gehl, 1987).

Furthermore, just because you are not participating in the activity, does not mean that you cannot. If for example you are listening to two people carrying on a conversation, although you may not add your point of view to the discussion, you could if you chose to. This differs from

43 reading something or watching television, because even if you wanted to participate in the piece you could not do so. The big emphasis is on potential. When life between buildings functions well, it provides the potential for social activities in the form of contact. Contacts in turn have the potential for further development of relationships (Gehl, 1987).

3.1.4.0 Contacts and Their Potentials Contacts vary in intensity. They range from low intensity contacts, which are mostly passive in nature and only require seeing and hearing other people, to high intensity contacts involving interactions between close friends (see Figure 3-1-5 to -3-1-10).

Figure 3-1-5 to 3-1-10 A series of photographs illustrating the range of intensity of contacts that can occur in an outdoor environment (Gehl, 1987).

Low intensity contacts are the most important type of contacts because they can be the starting point for higher intensity contacts and hence relationships. The ability to have low intensity contacts, in other words to see and hear other people, carries with it several potential outcomes including:

• “Contact at a modest level; • “A possible starting point for contact at other levels; • “A possibility for maintaining already established contacts; • “A source of information about the social world outside; • “A source of inspiration, an offer of stimulating experience.” (Gehl, 1987)

Architecture’s role is not to try and control or persuade people into doing something through design; that decision remains up to the individual. It is however important that architecture makes it easy for one to engage in any such potential activities; to eliminate as many of the deterrent factors as possible, therefore increasing the potential for social activities to occur.

44 3.2.0.0 Architectural Implications

Figure 3-2-1 A photograph illustrating a public space that functions because there are people present (Gehl, 1987).

The overarching point that Gehl makes is that people attract other people, not architecture (see Figures 3-2-1 to 3-2-5). The goal then becomes to design public places that offer “an opportunity to be with others in a relaxed and undemanding way” (Gehl, 1987).

Figure 3-2-2 to 3-2-5 A series of photographs illustrating that people are attracted to other people (Gehl, 1987).

When designing public spaces, one must keep in mind how people will behave. If there is an activity taking place involving people, others who are passing by will be attracted to the already formed crowd. If one is given the choice between walking down a deserted street or a street busy with people, one will always choose the busy street (Gehl, 1987). Gehl illustrates this behavioural relationship between people and the environment through several examples.

45 Figure 3-2-6 to 3-2-8 A series of photographs illustrating that people are attracted to other people (Gehl, 1987).

3.2.1.0 Children’s Play Habits Gehl points out that “investigations of children’s play habits in residential areas show that children stay and play primarily where the most activity is occurring or in places where there is the greatest chance of something happening” (Gehl, 1987) (see Figures 3-2-6 to 3-2-8). In these studies it was found that in residential areas in Denmark more children play in front of the buildings and on public access roads than in the designated playground areas, which are often isolated behind buildings.

3.2.2.0 The Use of Public Seating Research conducted on the Tivoli Garden in Copenhagen by architect John Lyle found that the most used benches are located “along the garden’s main path, where there is a good view of the particularly active areas, while the least used benches are found in the quiet areas of the park” (Gehl, 1987). In instances where the benches are arranged back to back, the study found “it always the benches facing the path that are used” (Gehl, 1987).

Figure 3-2-9 to 3-2-11 A series of photographs illustrating seating being used backwards because it is facing away from activities (Gehl, 1987).

Similar results were quoted by Gehl regarding three investigations of squares in central Copenhagen. “Benches with a view of the most trafficked pedestrian routes are used most, while benches oriented towards the planted areas of the squares are used less frequently” (Gehl, 1987). He also found examples of seating being used backwards when it was facing away from activities (see Figures 3-2-9 to 3-2-11).

Sidewalk cafés, according to Gehl, exist because of sidewalks. Their purpose is to allow people to sit and enjoy their coffee while looking out onto the people walking by, seeing and being seen.

46 3.2.3.0 Pedestrian Attractions To further confirm the theory of people attracting other people, Gehl used an “attraction analysis carried out on Strøget, a car free area in central Copenhagen, by a study group from the School of Architecture at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts” (Gehl, 1987). The study investigated where pedestrians stopped to look and what they were looking at (see Figure 3-2-12 to 3-2-14).

Figure 3-2-12 A map of the study area, Strøget, Copenhagen (Gehl, 1987).

Figure 3-2-13 A photograph of something pedestrians did not stop to look at often: a bank (Gehl, 1987).

Figure 3-2-14 A photograph of something pedestrians did stop to look at often: other people (Gehl, 1987). The fewest number of stops were found “in front of banks, offices, showroom, and dull exhibits of, for example cash registers, office furniture, porcelain, or hair curlers” (Gehl, 1987) (see Figure 3-2-13). These are things that generally are not directly affecting people’s day to day life. A greater number of stops was registered “in front of shops and exhibits that had a direct relationship to other people and the surrounding social environment” (Gehl, 1987). These included “newspaper kiosks, photography exhibits, film stills outside movie theatres, clothing stores and toy stores” (Gehl, 1987).

The greatest number of stops was recorded around areas with human activities (see Figure 3-2-14). This applied to both ordinary regular events – children playing and people walking by – as well as non-ordinary events – live artists, painters, musicians and construction (only when the workers were present) (Gehl, 1987). Overall, the study found that people are attracted to other people and things which have an immediate relationship to them and their immediate social environment.

47 3.3.1.1 Seating 3.3.0.0 Takeaways Seating should be placed within the visual range of other seating areas. It should also be placed in areas with the greatest amount of pedestrian traffic and activities and be facing them. Finally, seating should never be isolated.

3.3.1.2 Large Public Streets The overall focus is on creating environments where low intensity contacts can occur with ease. People here will generally not know each other and hence will likely not engage in high intensity activities. Shops and other programs must relate to people and their immediate social environment. These should be things that the average person can relate to and converse with a stranger about. Such programmatic examples include: cafés, patios, newspaper kiosks, food, clothing stores, and toy stores.

3.3.1.3 Small Residential Streets This environment should also allow for low intensity contacts to occur, but not focus on it. People here will generally know each other better, even if it is only by sight, so programming for higher intensity contacts should be used. Children’s playground facilities should: be provided, not be hidden from view of the main pedestrian paths, and relate to the street.

eglinton avenue

4.0.0.0 Site Analysis eglinton avenue This section focuses on the analysis of the site at various scales. It ranges from mapping Central Etobicoke, to examining the Warrender Apartment Complex (WAC) from a pedestrian eglinton perspective. avenue

eglinton avenue

eglinton avenue sections north - south 1:1 000

kipling avenue

sections east - west 1:1 000

k j i h g f e d c a b

eglinton avenue

kipling avenue

K J I H G F E D C B A

plan of sections 1:1 000 4.1.0.0 Central Central Etobicoke was selected because it contains a high concentration Etobicoke Scale of MURBs along Eglinton Avenue West. This area was first analysed through a series of mapping exercises that used networks and building use to identify its key features and suitability.

51 4.1.1.0 Networks 4.1.1.1 Findings Evidenced by its car-oriented infrastructure, Central Etobicoke has limited access to public transportation, which is provided only through bus service from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). The area contains an abundance of interconnecting programmed and unprogrammed public green spaces. Central Etobicoke also contains two main watercourses running north-south: Mimico Creek on the west end and the Humber River Figure 4-1-1 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating its car oriented nature by combining on the east side (see Figure 4-1-1) all the infrastructure information (scale 1:25,000).

HW 401 The Westway Weston Rd.

Eglinton Ave. W.

HW 427

Legend: TTC Bus Routes Transportation Infrastructure Publicly Accessible Green Spaces Publicly Accessible Unprogrammed Green Spaces Martingrove Rd. Kipling Ave. Islington Ave. Royal York Rd. Scarlett Rd. Open Space Bodies of Water Rathburn Rd.

52 4.1.1.2 Mapping the Networks in Central Etobicoke A series of maps were created with the different kinds of networks that connect Central Etobicoke (see Figure 4-1-2 to 4-1-6). These ranged from bodies of water to the public transportation system. The information was gathered from digital sources: property data maps, aerial photographs, and Google Maps.

Figure 4-1-2 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the bodies of water (scale 1:45,000).

53 Figure 4-1-3 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating publicly accessible unprogrammed green spaces (scale 1:45,000).

Figure 4-1-4 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating publicly accessible green spaces. Although it includes school playgrounds, it omits private green spaces such as golf courses (scale 1:45,000).

Figure 4-1-5 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the transportation infrastructure (scale 1:45,000).

Figure 4-1-6 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating public transportation infrastructure provided by the TTC (scale 1:45,000).

54 4.1.1.3 Development in Central Etobicoke It was found that this area will be changing in the near future. A Light Rail Transit (LRT) expansion from the TTC along Eglinton Avenue West will use streetcars. The line will be below grade for most of its length and above ground where conditions allow the road to be widened. The LRT line, along Figure 4-1-7 A map of Central Etobicoke with multiple developments along the north side of the street, will change illustrating the current and future development (scale 1:25,000). the character of Eglinton Avenue West (see Figure 4-1-7).

Legend: Redeveloped (high rise rental) Under Construction (townhouses) Sold (zoned for high rise residential) For sale (zoned for high rise) Future LRT expansion (TTC)

55 4.1.1.4 Eglinton Avenue West Because of the proposed LRT expansion along Eglinton Avenue West and the large lots along the north edge of the street which will be developed for residential use, the study was further narrowed down on the street itself. To get a better understanding of the character of the street, Eglinton Avenue west was observed through a pedestrian’s point of view (see Figure 4-1-8).

The streetscape contains large scales and a lack of interaction between Figure 4-1-8 A map of Central Etobicoke the buildings and the street. The spaces between destinations lack illustrating Eglinton Avenue West through the eyes of a pedestrian traveling along its south side via a programming, making them unfriendly to pedestrians. series of photographs (scale 1:25,000).

56 4.1.2.0 Buildings 4.1.2.1 Findings The second part of the analysis of Central Etobicoke focuses on the buildings and their functions (see Figure 4-1-9). The majority of the constructions are residential, with large portions containing primarily single-detached houses lacking immediate access to commercial amenities. The residents are however provided with multiple schools evenly distributed throughout the area. The region only contains one example with community gathering Figure 4-1-9 A map of Central Etobicoke potential, because most public buildings are in actuality churches oriented illustrating the buildings and their use (scale 1:25,000). towards people of a specifi c ethnic background.

Legend: MURB School Potential Community Space Commercial Library Elderly Care Industrial

57 4.1.2.2 Mapping the Buildings of Central Etobicoke Akin to the infrastructure analysis, conclusions were drawn through a series of mapping exercises, with information gathered from digital sources (see Figure 4-1-10 to 4-1-18).

Figure 4-1-10 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the positive and negative space. Separation between different land uses can be seen through the massing alone (scale 1:45,000).

58 Figure 4-1-11 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating buildings classifi ed as MURBs in red. They are predominantly found along major roads. The majority are concentrated along Eglinton Avenue West (scale 1:45,000).

Figure 4-1-12 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the public schools in blue; they are evenly distributed throughout the residential portions (scale 1:45,000).

Figure 4-1-13 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the potential community gathering spaces in orange; the majority are churches (scale 1:45,000).

59 Figure 4-1-15 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the only public library, Richview Public Library yellow. It is located on the north-west corner of Islington Avenue and Summitcrest Drive (scale 1:45,000).

Figure 4-1-17 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the industrial buildings in brown. They are clustered together in two main areas separate from residential buildings (scale 1:45,000).

Figure 4-1-18 A map of Central Etobicoke illustrating the only buildings with actual community gathering potential. The previously identifi ed buildings are mostly churches for people of a specifi c ethnic background. Upon their removal from the map, the only remaining place is the George Hull Centre for Children and Families (scale 1:45,000).

60 4.2.0.0 Site Scale The second portion of the site analysis focused on a specific site, the Warrender Apartment Complex (WAC). It focuses on understanding the site and its relationship to the social and physical context.

61 4.2.1.0 Site Location The selected site is the Warrender Apartment Complex (WAC) located on the south-west corner of Kipling Avenue and Eglinton Avenue West in Etobicoke (see Figure 4-2-1). It was chosen because it is located in a changing area, and exemplifi es MURB conditions (see Figure 4-2-2). The four buildings were constructed between 1967 and 1973.

Figure 4-2-1 A plan of the area around the Warrender Apartment Complex which locates the site in Central Etobicoke.

Eglinton Avenue West

Warrender Avenue

Longfi eld Road

Martingrove Road Kipling Avenue

Figure 4-2-2 A plan of the immediate context around the Warrender Apartment Complex.

Kipling Avenue Eglinton Avenue West

Warrender Park Warrender Avenue

62 4.2.2.0 A History of the Warrender Apartment Complex: From Proposed Developments to the Site Today Through consultations with the residents of the WAC, it was discovered that the site had a long history of proposed developments that never took place. The owners of the site, the Princess Gardens Management (PGM), have been dealing with local groups that opposed their views on how the site should be developed.

These discussions eventually led me to Brenda Spencer and Don Mills. They own a house just south of the WAC and are members of the Rate Payers Association (RPA). The group primarily deals with issues that have a community wide impact. Through their influence in the RPA they affected neighbourhood wide decisions, such as the provision of power for the area between the WAC and Longfield Road. Making the argument for health and safety, they convinced the local government to place the power lines below grade. Normally, power lines would run above ground on wooden poles.

4.2.2.1 Cross Traffic on Warrender Avenue (1990) Spencer and Mills have been disagreeing with the owners for quite some time. In 1990, they raised the issue of cross traffic through Warrender Avenue, which used to connect to Kipling Avenue along the south edge of the WAC. They won the argument by proving that drivers were cutting through the neighbourhood via Warrender Avenue in order to avoid the major intersection of Kipling Avenue and Eglinton Avenue West. The cross-traffic was shown to generate unnecessary noise, disrupt people’s day to day lives and divide the neighbourhood. The connection between Warrender Avenue and Kipling Avenue has since been closed off.

63 4.2.2.2 Warrender Apartment Complex Development Proposal 1 (July, 1992) The fi rst proposal put forth by the PGM kept Warrender Avenue blocked off from Kipling Avenue (see Figure 4-2-3). It divided the site from the original two lots (see Figure 4-2-4) into four lots (see Figure 4-2-5). Two 18 storey rental towers were proposed on the newly created lots, one on each (see Figure 4-2-3). The design was denied because it was destroying a large portion of the buffer spaces along the north and south edges of the site. Furthermore, the new buildings were taller than the existing structures and would block off the views and light of residents. A revised proposal was presented in the winter of 1992, lowering the building heights from 18 to 16 storeys but maintain everything else. It was quickly retracted.

Figure 4-2-3 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the fi rst proposal presented in July, 1992 (scale 1:4,500).

Figure 4-2-4 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the current division of the site into two lots (scale 1:9,000).

Figure 4-2-5 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the proposed division of the site into four lots (scale 1:9,000).

64 4.2.2.3 Warrender Apartment Complex Development Proposal 2 (May 3, 1994) The second proposal also contained two additional high-rise rental buildings and a division of the site into four lots. It planned a 13 storey tower in the west lot, and a structure with a 3 storey base and two towers on the east lot (a 13 storey tower at the north end and an 8 storey one on the south). The number of above ground parking spots was lowered through the enlargement of the underground parking facilities (see Figure 4-2-6).

Figure 4-2-6 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the second proposal presented on May 3, 1994 (scale 1:4,500).

65 4.2.2.4 Ontario Municipal Board Involvement (1994) The disputes between the PGM and the RPA eventually reached the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). It decided in favour of the RPA and set forth site specifi c by-law requirements for the WAC site. The by-law sets: limitations on above ground construction (see Figure 4-2-7); limitations on below ground construction (see Figure 4-2-8); designated trees to be protected in order to maintain buffer zones (see Figure 4-2-9); detailed building footprint limitations for new construction (see Figure 4-2-10); and requirements for the improvement of Warrender Park to compensate for the loss of green space (see Figure 4-2-11).

Figure 4-2-7 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the areas where above ground construction is not allowed by the OMB bylaw (scale 1:9,000).

Figure 4-2-8 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the areas where below ground construction is not allowed by the OMB bylaw (scale 1:9,000).

Figure 4-2-9 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the trees that cannot be cut down, as per the OMB bylaw (scale 1:9,000).

Figure 4-2-10 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating building footprint limitations for new construction set forth by the OMB bylaw (scale 1:9,000).

66 4.2.2.5 Warrender Apartment Complex Development Proposal 3 (1995) The third proposal included two 14 storey towers and improvements to Warrender Park, along with meeting most of the requirements of the OMB bylaw from 1994 (see Figure 4-2-12). There was a tremendous increase in attention to the outdoor spaces on the site. Extensive studies of the existing trees were conducted and the proposal contained detailed landscaping plans. It was rejected because the proposal connected the site east- west, which caused an indirect connection between Warrender Avenue and Kipling Avenue, in addition to separating the recreational building from the rest of the site.

Figure 4-2-12 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the third proposal presented in 1995 (scale 1:4,500).

67 4.2.2.6 Warrender Apartment Complex Development Proposal 4 (November 20, 1996) The fourth proposal maintains landscaping and building forms similar to the third proposal and contains two additional 14 storey towers (see Figure 4-2-13). The two towers are now comprised of condominium units instead of rental apartments and there are no improvements being made to Warrender Park. The proposal was rejected because of the change from rental to ownership and the disregard for the bylaw in addition to same problems the third proposal had.

Figure 4-2-13 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the fourth proposal presented on November 20, 1996 (scale 1:4,500).

68 4.2.2.7 Warrender Apartment Complex Development Proposal 5 (December, 2011) After a 15 year pause, a partial fi fth proposal was presented to the RPA for feedback. Unlike previous designs, it only contained an incomplete site plan of the north end of the lot located on the west side of the WAC (see Figure 4-2-14). Minimal information was provided, omitting things such as building heights and landscaping plans. It is under dispute, primarily because of the lack of information and because of the new link to Eglinton Avenue West, which is going to cause problems similar to the ones that led to the original closure of Warrender Avenue back in 1990.

Figure 4-2-14 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the partial fi fth proposal presented December 2011(scale 1:4,500).

69 4.2.2.8 The Number of Residents Living at the Warrender Apartment Complex Today According to Statistics Canada, the average household in Toronto currently consists of 2.5 persons (Statistics Canada, 2007). By calculating the total number of apartments in the WAC, it was estimated that there are approximately 1,170 residents living in the development (see Figure 4-2-15).

35/41 Warrender 25/53 Warrender Warrender Avenue Avenue Apartment Complex 7 storeys 13 storeys Approximately 1,170 108 apartments 126 apartments residents 270 residents 315 residents

4.2.2.9 Social Groups in the Warrender Apartment Complex Site observations and consultations with the four superintendents of the buildings helped determine that there are three major social groups at the WAC (see Figure 4-2-16). The first and largest social group consists of middle aged immigrant families with teenage children. The second largest social group consists of elderly people (ages 65 and over) because the WAC was limited to people ages 55 and over until the mid-1990s. The third and smallest social group consists of young immigrant families with young children.

Figure 4-2-16 A diagram illustrating the three major social groups in the Warrender Apartment Complex.

Largest group Middle group Smallest group Middle aged families Elderly families Young families

70 4.2.3.0 Understanding Scales As part of the analysis it was important to understand how the site related to the neighbourhood in terms of scale and how that affected the pedestrian experience.

71 4.2.3.1 Sectional Studies Sectional studies were conducted in order to understand how the scales change in the neighbourhood (see Figure 4-2-17 to 4-2-36). The sections illustrate the abrupt changes in scale from the single family houses, to the MURBs and the major streets. The large dimensions of the open spaces and buildings make it difficult for an individual to relate to while on foot. It also makes it difficult to traverse the neighbourhood because there are long and often uneventful distances between destinations.

The boundaries of the WAC site are identified in the sections. They also illustrate the importance of the site as a buffer and transitional space between the quiet residential area immediately to the south of the site and the busy street to the north (Eglinton Avenue West).

72 eglinton avenue

eglinton avenue

eglinton avenue sections north - south 1:1 000

kipling avenue

kipling avenue sections east - west 1:1 000

kipling avenue

sections east - west 1:1 000

i i a d f b e c h g k j 73

Kipling Avenue

i i a d f b e c h g k j

Kipling Avenue

Eglinton Avenue West l Eglinton Avenue West ml n m o n o

ML N M ON

G C A B I E D H F K J

plan of sections 1:1 000

G C A B I E D H F K J

plan of sections 1:1 000 eglinton avenue

eglinton avenue

eglintoneglinton avenueavenue

eglinton avenue

eglintoneglinton avenueavenue

eglinton avenue

eglinton avenue eglinton eglinton avenue eglinton avenueavenue

eglinton sections north - south 1:1 000 avenue

eglinton avenue

eglinton avenue sections north - south 1:1 000

kipling avenue

kipling avenue sections east - west 1:1 000

eglinton

i i a d f b e c h g k j avenue Figure 4-2-17 A plan illustrating the location of Kipling Avenue the sections studied in order to understand scale relationships (scale 1:10,000).

Figure 4-2-18 A detail of Section H-h (scale 1:1,000). Eglinton Avenue West l Figure 4-2-19 A detail of Section N-n (scale m 1:1,000). n Figure 4-2-20 A diagram containing the legend o for the sectional studies.

Figure 4-2-21 to 4-2-36 OPPOSITE PAGE: Sectional studies A-a to O-o (scale 1:5,000).

M N

O Legend: Pedestrian

Pedestrian Infrastructure (sidewalks)

G C A B I E D H F K J eglinton Car Infrastructure (roads & parking) kipling plan of sections 1:1 000 avenue avenue

25 35 Warrender Warrender

Eglinton Avenue West kipling avenue

53 25 Warrender Warrender

Rec. Centre eglinton avenue

eglinton kipling avenue avenue sections east - west 1:1 000

eglinton

avenue

i i a d f b e c h g k

sections north j - south 1:1 000

Kipling Avenue

kipling avenue Eglinton Avenue West l

kipling avenue m n o

kipling avenue sections east - west 1:1 000

i i a d f b e c h g k j

M Kipling Avenue N

Eglinton Avenue West

G C A B I E D H F K J l plan of sections 1:1 000 m n o

M N

G C A B I E D H F K J

plan of sections 1:1 000 4.2.3.2 Elevations of Existing Buildings Elevations of the existing buildings were constructed from plans and photographs. Five buildings were drawn: the four apartment buildings (see Figures 4-2-38 to 4-2-51) and the Recreational Centre (see Figures 4-2-52 to 4-2-55).

Figure 4-2-37 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex labeled with building numbers (scale 1:4,500).

35 Warrender

25 Warrender 41 Warrender

53 Warrender Rec. Centre

Figure 4-2-38 41 Warrender Avenue, South Figure 4-2-39 35 Warrender Avenue, South Elevation (scale 1:2,000). Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

Figure 4-2-40 35 Warrender Avenue, North Figure 4-2-41 41 Warrender Avenue, North Elevation (scale 1:2,000). Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

75 Figure 4-2-42 25 Warrender Avenue, East Elevation (scale 1:2,000); 35 Warrender Avenue, East Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

Figure 4-2-43 25 Warrender Avenue, West Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

Figure 4-2-44 53 Warrender Avenue, East Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

Figure 4-2-45 41 Warrender Avenue, West Elevation (scale 1:2,000); 53 Warrender Avenue, West Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

Figure 4-2-46 41 Warrender Avenue, East Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

76 Figure 4-2-47 35 Warrender Avenue, West Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

Figure 4-2-48 25 Warrender Avenue, North Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

Figure 4-2-49 53 Warrender Avenue, North Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

Figure 4-2-50 53 Warrender Avenue, South Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

Figure 4-2-51 25 Warrender Avenue, South Elevation (scale 1:2,000).

77 Figure 4-2-52 Recreational Centre, North Elevation (scale 1:300).

Figure 4-2-53 Recreational Centre, South Elevation (scale 1:300).

Figure 4-2-54 Recreational Centre, East Elevation (scale 1:300).

Figure 4-2-55 Recreational Centre, West Elevation (scale 1:300).

78 4.2.3.3 Outdoor Spaces at the Warrender Apartment Complex Photographs taken from site visits are mapped in Figure 4-2-56. The exterior pedestrian oriented spaces on the site are paved in concrete and lack seating amenities. They only provide a clear path of travel through the site (see Figure 4-2-57 to 4-2-59). The landscaping is sterile, consisting of trees and grass lawns, typical of MURB developments (see Figure 4-2-60 to 4-2- 63). The Recreational Centre serves as the only programmed communal space for the four buildings in the WAC (see Figure 4-2-64 to 4-2-67).

Figure 4-2-56 A plan of the Warrender Apartment Complex illustrating the locations of the photographs of the outdoor spaces (scale 1:4,500).

10 11 6 5 1 4 9 7 8

Figure 4-2-57 to 4-2-67 A series of panoramic photographs from the heart of the Warrender Apartment Complex.

4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11

79 4.2.3.4 From a Pedestrian Perspective This study looks at the ground level relationship between the WAC and the surrounding neighbourhood. The analysis is conducted from the point of view of a pedestrian walking along the sidewalks (see Figure 4-2-68).

Figure 4-2-68 A plan illustrating the paths that will be analysed from a pedestrian point of view (scale 1:9,000)

Kipling Avenue

Eglinton Avenue West

Lloyd

Manor

Road Warrender Avenue

80 01