Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE and URBAN DESIGN

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN DESIGN

Street-related Parks

Wells Hill Park Wells Hill Park is a .75 ha (1.9 ac) public park bounded on three sides by streets - Hilton Avenue, St. Clair Avenue West and Wells Hill Avenue. The open and positive relationship to these streets projects a welcoming and comfortable image. First developed sometime after 1924, the park now includes a large open lawn area, children’s’ playground, wading pool benches and other amenities. Paved walkways criss-cross the park, providing access to the park to amenities as well as convenient shortcuts to local destinations. The park is well-planted with mature deciduous trees along the street frontages and through the southern half of the site. The park is well-used and clearly an important resource for many people.

Figure 87: Hillcrest School - Hilton Avenue Frontage

Figure 88: Wells Hill Park - View from Wells Hill Avenue

81 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE AND URBAN DESIGN

Wells Hill Lawn Bowling Club Established in 1929, the Wells Hill Bowling Club has been a fixture since the early development of the neighbourhood. Fronting onto two streets - Wells Hill Avenue and Melgund Road, the site enjoys good visibility and projects a positive image to the public realm. The Club is actively promoting membership among a broader demographic.

Figure 89: Wells Hill Lawn Bowling Club Casa Loma Parkette Casa Loma Parkette was developed as a public park sometime after 1950. It is an open lawn with a two shade trees and a couple of benches. Of particular interest is the parks’ visual relationship with the Casa Loma Stables, which define the north and west limits of the space. The park enjoys a positive relationship to Walmer Road, which is defined by the remnant piers from the former fence. The park’s presentation is not helped by the trash receptacle, which is unfortunately located front and centre.

Figure 90: Casa Loma Parkette Spadina Road Parkette Spadina Road Parkette is an open lawn with shade trees and one bench. The space is well-defined on two sides with vegetation prominent. A utilitarian guard rail defines the north side of the park along Russel Hill Drive. The park is seldom used, perhaps because of its relationship to a very busy street, or its relative lack of amenities.

Figure 91: Spadina Road Parkette

82 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE AND URBAN DESIGN

Austin Terrace Boulevard Austin Terrace Boulevard is a small green space that was created when the intersection with Walmer Road was severed. The space features a few shade trees and shrubs, a small lawn and connecting sidewalks. There are no user amenities, and the space shows little use apart from pedestrian transit.

Figure 92: Austin Terrace Boulevard Baldwin Steps Steps up the Davenport Escarpment along the Spadina Road alignment have been in place since the late 19th Century. The current concrete and steel steps were built in 1987 by the City of Toronto. The steps include decorative plantings and a series of landings, and offer great views down the Spadina Avenue corridor to the lake. The landscape connecting the steps to Spadina Road to the north is a linear park with lawns, shade trees, furnishings and a central walkway. Both the steps and the parkette are heavily used.

Figure 93: Baldwin Steps

Figure 94: Baldwin Steps Parkette

83 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE AND URBAN DESIGN

Ravine/Escarpment Parks

Spadina Park Spadina Park is the southern portion of the Spadina Museum property, and extends from south of the mansion to Davenport Road. Spadina Park is only accessible through the museum. As such, it is fenced and closed after hours. The northern half of the park is a manicured, picturesque landscape with open lawns and large, mature trees, both deciduous and coniferous. The organization of the northern landscape is informal with vegetation masses defining a series of connected spaces. A lookout is located at the south end of the landscape. The southern portion of Spadina Park is made up of the Davenport Escarpment landscape. It is extremely steep and heavily vegetated. Views from the lookout above are generally screened by this vegetation.

Figure 95: Spadina Park

84 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE AND URBAN DESIGN

Boulton Parkette Boulton Parkette includes both escarpment and street- related park. The site consists of the escarpment along the east side of Glen Edith Drive and a narrow stretch of lawn parallel to Boulton Drive. The escarpment is steep and well- vegetated. The lawn area has some shade trees and a few benches. At the south end, a walkway with steps connects Boulton Parkette to the Glen Edith Drive Parkette at the intersection of Glen Edith Drive and Cottingham Road.

Figure 96: Boulton Parkette Roycroft Park Lands The Roycroft Park Lands is a small portion of a larger ravine system that extends northwest to St. Clair Avenue West and beyond. The Park Lands are part of a ravine park system that is visually quite separate from the surrounding neighbourhoods. Measures are being taken to further re-naturalize the vegetation. A gravel pathway carries pedestrians and cyclists through the site. The entire south side of the site is defined by a continuous steep and vegetated escarpment. Houses along Glen Edith Drive above back onto the escarpment, but are not visible from below. The entrance to Roycroft Park Lands at Boulton Drive is quite open and welcoming. Mown lawns with shade trees extend some distance into the site. Figure 97: Roycroft Park Lands at Boulton Drive Further to the west, the naturalized vegetation encloses the path on both sides. The experience here is very much one of passing through a dense forest. Because it is part of larger system, the Roycroft Park Lands are heavily used for cycling, strolling and dog-walking.

Figure 98: Roycroft Park Lands

85 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE AND URBAN DESIGN

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Figure 99: 17 Wells Hill Avenue

The Casa Loma neighbourhood is a distinct city precinct Estates and Institutions with a unique and identifiable character. The physical • The three main signature institutions - Sisters Servant extent of the neighbourhood is clearly defined by the of Mary Immaculate (SSMI), Casa Loma (and Stables) escarpments, and by Bathurst Street and St. Clair Avenue West. Casa Loma neighbourhood is widely known across and Spadina Museum - are former estates that serve the City due to its established and prestigious character, as key landmarks and speak directly to the historical and by virtue of the presence of Casa Loma from which it development of the area. draws its name. • The typical development pattern consists of historical buildings set in expansive grounds that feature open The neighbourhood’s role in Toronto’s history is evidenced lawns, mature shade trees and decorative plantings. by the presence of the heritage estates and institutions, • The frontage landscapes of Casa Loma have been given by the nature and layout of the street network, and by the character of the houses, many of which date from the early over almost entirely to parking and circulation. 20th Century. • The relationship to the public domain varies: Casa Loma is open to the street, and invites entry; SSMI and The following is a summary of the neighbourhood’s key Spadina Museum are closed off and offer only glimpses landscape features. from the street. That sense of exclusivity augments their dignified, privileged character. Street Character Parks and Open Spaces • Streets are very well-treed; predominance of hardwoods with many oaks. • Private open spaces - front yards and estate • Street character is informal and diverse. grounds - are expansive and very important to the • Large, mature trees in private back yards contribute to neighbourhood character. the street experience. • The vegetated escarpments are important features: • Large lots, large buildings with varied setbacks that they define the neighbourhood as a discrete physical create sometimes deep and typically varied front area, and contribute an air of undisciplined nature that lawns. sets off the calm and cultured private properties. • Front yard parking is prominent throughout the • The public parks - Casa Loma Parkette and Spadina neighbourhood, but is only visually absorbed into the Road Parkette - are fairly attractive public amenities, but largest front lawns. they are more recent, and not significant elements in the neighbourhood’s heritage character.

86 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

5. CHARACTER ANALYSIS

87 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 100: A Map of the character areas within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

N B S B L A R R R T

S R S R R R P B B A

A R

S A R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

R ft P k Austin Ter L D T

R B Austin Ter

D Austin Ter B

P D R

P D R E

A A G

Cottingham Rd

D Hilton Avenue area Walmer Road area Casa Loma area

Wells Hill Avenue area Sadina Road area Lyndhurst Court area

Lyndhurst Avenue area Glen Edyth area Austin Crescent area

88 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Character Analysis BUILT FORM The Casa Loma neighbourhood developed later when The character analysis of the HCD study area was compared to its surrounding neighbourhoods with conducted in two stages. The first stage consisted of Township Lots 23, 24, and 25 being gradually subdivided by the visual documentation of the buildings, streets and their owners and sold off. The area was largely developed landscapes. The data recorded on the building inventory between 1910 and 1940. Each section in this chapter sheets database was mapped and analyzed. This data will describe the Casa Loma HCD study area as a whole included the heritage status, date of construction, before providing further detail on the different character building height, land use, stylistic influences, and building areas (Figure 100). The delineation of these smaller material components. Further analysis of the built form character areas was gradually defined through an iterative resulted in the identification and mapping of several process throughout the character analysis and community building typologies. The mapping was completed in engagement process, and is largely defined by the north- several iterations in which initial findings were presented south streets. An analysis of each character area can be to City staff, the public, and the Community Advisory found at the end of the chapter. These areas were refined Group members. Gaining more insight throughout the through a review of the buildings’ date of construction, process, the maps were continuously updated with new stylistic influences, massing, and materials. information, further analysis, and input from all parties involved. Nine areas were identified by the consultant team: 1. Hilton Avenue (including properties on Melgund Road, Nina Street, Austin Terrace, and Bathurst Street), hereafter referred to as theHilton Avenue area; 2. Wells Hill Avenue (including properties on Nina Street and Austin Terrace), hereafter referred to as the Wells Hill Avenue area; 3. Lyndhurst Avenue (including properties on Wells Hills Avenue, Connable Drive, Nina Street, and Austin Terrace) hereafter referred to as theLyndhurst Avenue area; 4. Walmer Road (including properties on Russell Hill Drive), hereafter referred to as theWalmer Road area; 5. Spadina Road (including properties on the west side of Spadina Road), hereafter referred to as theSpadina Road area; 6. Ardwold Gate and Glen Edyth Drive and Place (including one property on Spadina Road), hereafter referred to as the Glen Edyth area; 7. Casa Loma and its surrounding buildings (including properties on Castle View Avenue, Austin Terrace, and Spadina and Walmer Roads) hereafter referred to as the Casa Loma area; 8. Lyndhurst Court, hereafter referred to as the Lyndhurst Court area; and 9. Austin Crescent (including properties on Hilton Avenue,

Bathurst Street, and Austin Terrace) hereafter referred Figure 101: Casa Loma, 1957, Toronto Archives to as the Austin Crescent area.

89 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 102: A Map of the Current Heritage Status within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

N B S B L A R R R T

S R S R R R P B B A

A R

S A R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

R ft P k Austin Ter L D T

R B Austin Ter

D Austin Ter B

P D R

P D R E

A A G

Cottingham Rd

Part IV Designation Listed Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary

90 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

EXISTING PROTECTIONS The study area contains four properties listed on the City of Toronto’s Heritage Register and seven properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Half of these identified heritage properties are located around Casa Loma. The remaining heritage properties can be found on Ardwold Gate, and Hilton, Wells Hill, and Lyndhurst Avenues.

Part IV Designations: • Casa Loma (1 Austin Terrace) • Maclean House (7 Austin Terrace) • Spadina House (285 Spadina Road) • Pellatt Lodge (328 Walmer Road)(Figure 103) • Casa Loma Stable (330 Walmer Road) • J. Dinwoody House (51 Wells Hill Avenue) Figure 103: Pellatt Lodge (328 Walmer Road) • Frank Denison House (72 Wells Hill Avenue) (Figure 104) Listed on the City of Toronto’s Heritage Register • Lenwil (5 Austin Terrace) • Hillcrest Community School/Hillcrest Junior Public School (44 Hilton Avenue) • Lyndhurst Lodge (153 Lyndhurst Avenue) • House for Richard G.W. Mauran (95 Ardwold Gate) (Figure 105)

Figure 104: Frank Denison House (72 Wells Hill Avenue)

Figure 105: House for Richard G.W. Mauran (95 Ardwold Gate)

91 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 106: A Map of the Dates of Construction within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

B S B N L A R R R

P B T

R S R R R

A B A A C D R

S R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

A R ft P G k Austin Ter L D T C A G Austin Ter E R B D A ti C D Austin Ter C

L B

P D R

A A

Cottingham Rd

- 18 100 - 10 110 - 11 120 - 12 10 - 1

140 - 14 150 - 15 10 - 1 170 - 17 180 - 18

10 - 1 2000+ Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary

92 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

DATES OF CONSTRUCTION The dates of construction of the existing building stock within the study area ranges between 1889 to present day. Peaks of Development | study area Spadina House at 285 PeaksSpadina of Development Road | isSpadina the Road only area remaining 30.0 building 70built prior to 1900 in the study area. At the 25.0 beginning60 of the 20th century (up to 1909), development constructed

constructed

within the 50 study area began slowly as the larger estate lots 20.0 were

were

were beginning to be subdivided into smaller property lots. Peaks of Development | study area 40 Peaks of Development | Spadina Road area 15.0 30.0 study area The most70 intensive period of development was between

buildings Spadina Road area

buildings 30 1910 and 1929 where 62% of the area’s existing building 10.0 25.0 60 existing stock was20 constructed. In the 1930s, development began existing

constructed

5.0 50 when 20.0 to slow, and by 1939, 71% of the neighbourhood was built.

when 10 were

were of %

Throughout 40 the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st 0.0 % 15.0 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ study area

buildings century, infill‐1889 ‐1909and‐1919 redevelopment‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 remained‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009relatively 2010+ Spadinaslow Road area

buildings 30 Figure 107: Peaks of DevelopmentPeaks of Development within the Casa | study Loma areastudy area Peaks of Development | Spadina Road area 10.0 and constant with small peaks of development in the 1960s 30.0 70 existing

20 existing Peaks of Development | Hilton Avenue area and in last twenty years. (Figure 107) 5.0 Peaks of Development | Glen Edyth area

when 60 7025.0

when 10

of 70

of constructed %

constructed %

50 600.0 20.0 600 were

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+

were ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+

constructed

50 constructed 15.0 50 study area were

buildings Spadina Road area

were

buildings 30 40 Peaks of Development | Hilton Avenue area 10.0 40 Peaks of Development | Glen Edyth area 70 existing Hilton Avenue area 20

buildings 70

Glen Edyth area 30 existing

buildings 30 5.0 when

when 6010

existing 20

Betweenof 1910 and 1919, the Hilton Avenue area had its existing % 20

constructed

500.0 constructed

when 500 10 most intensive period of development, which continued ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ when

were of 10

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were of

% 40

into the% 1920s. By the end of the 20s, 96% of Hilton Avenue 0 40 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ Hilton Avenue area area was built up and no infill and redevelopment would buildings 30 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ Glen Edyth area Peaks of Development | Hilton Avenue area buildings 30 Peaks of Development | Glen Edyth area 70 occur until the 1950s and 60s, and again in more recent 70

existing 20

existing 20 Peaks of Development | Wells Hill Avenue area years. (Figure 108) 60 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Court area when 10 60

70 when

of 1070

of constructed

constructed

50 % 600 50 0

were 60 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were 40 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ constructed 40

50 constructed Figure 108: Peaks of Development within the Hilton Avenue area 50 Hilton Avenue area were buildings

30 Glen Edyth area were buildings

40 Peaks of Development | Wells Hill Avenue area 30 40 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Court area 70 existing 20

Wells Hill Avenue area

buildings 70 existing 20 Lyndhurst Court area 30 buildings 30 when 1060 when

60 of 10

existing 20

% existing 20

constructed %

50 constructed

when 500 10 when

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were of 10

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were of

% 40 0 % 40 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ Wells Hill Avenue area buildings 30 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ Lyndhurst Court area Peaks of Development | Wells Hill Avenue area buildings 30 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Court area 70 70

existing 20

60 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Avenue, when 10 60 when

of Walmer Road, Austin Crescent areas 10 The Wells Hill Avenue area had a similar peak of of constructed

constructed

7050 % 0 50 development0 as Hilton Avenue area, where it was were ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were 6040 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ significantly40 built up between 1910 and 1929. Development constructed

Wells Hill Avenue area

buildings 50 continued at a slower rate until the end of the 1940s, at 30 Lyndhurst Court area buildings 30 were Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Avenue, which point 98% of Wells Hill Avenue area was built. The 40 Lyndhurst Avenue area

existing 20 Walmer Road, Austin Crescent areas existing 20 Walmer Road area street wouldn’t see significant infill or redevelopment until 3070 buildings when

10 Austin Crescent area when

of more recently.10 (Figure 109)

% 2060 % existing

0 0 constructed

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ 1050 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ when

were of

Figure 109: Peaks of Development within the Wells Hill Avenue area

% 400 Lyndhurst Avenue area ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐20092010+ Walmer Road area 30 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Avenue, buildings Walmer Road, Austin Crescent areas Austin Crescent area 7020 existing

6010 when

constructed

% 0 50 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐20092010+ were

40 Lyndhurst Avenue area Walmer Road area 30 buildings 93 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018Austin Crescent area EVOQ ARCHITECTURE 20 existing

10 when

% 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐20092010+ Peaks of Development | study area Peaks of Development | Spadina Road area 30.0 70

25.0 60 constructed

constructed

50 20.0 were

were 40 15.0 study area

buildings Spadina Road area

buildings 30

10.0 existing

20 existing

5.0 when

when 10

of %

0.0 % 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+

Peaks of Development | Hilton Avenue area Peaks of Development | Glen Edyth area 70 70

60 60 constructed

50 constructed 50 were

were 40 40 Hilton Avenue area buildings 30 Glen Edyth area buildings 30

existing 20

when 10 when

of 10

% 0 % 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+

Peaks of Development | Wells Hill Avenue area Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Court area 70 70

60 60 constructed

50 constructed 50 were

were 40 40 Wells Hill Avenue area buildings 30 Lyndhurst Court area buildings CHARACTER ANALYSIS 30

existing 20

when 10 when

of 10

Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Avenue, Similarly, the Lyndhurst Avenue, Walmer Road, and Walmer Road, Austin Crescent areas 70 Austin Crescent areas were developed between 1910 and 1929; however infill and redevelopment of these streets 60 would remain constant throughout the 20th century. constructed 50 The Lyndhurst Avenue area experienced slight peaks of were

40 Lyndhurst Avenue area redevelopment in the 1970s, 80s, and 2000s, as would Walmer Road area 30 the Walmer Road area in the 1980s and 2010s. No new buildings Austin Crescent area 20 construction occurred in the Austin Crescent area in existing the 1940s and 50s, but the street did see a spike in infill 10 when and redevelopment in the 60s. Beyond this date, little of

% 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐20092010+ development occurred within the area. (Figure 110) Figure 110: Peaks of Development within Lyndhurst Avenue, Walmer Road and Austin Crescent areas

Peaks of Development | study area Peaks of Development | Spadina Road area The significant periods of development on the west side 30.0 70 of the Spadina Road area was in the 1920s and again

25.0 60 in the 1990s. By 1929, 50% of the street was built up, constructed and wouldn’t see any new infill or small redevelopment constructed

50 20.0 were until the 1960s. New construction largely stopped until a were 40 15.0 significant peak in the 1990s, where 30% of the current study area

buildings Spadina Road area

Peaks of Development | study area buildings 30 Peaks of Development | Spadina Road area buildings were constructed. (Figure 111) 30.010.0 70 existing

20 existing

5.0 60 when 25.0

when 10 of constructed of

constructed

0.0 % 50 20.0 0 were ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ 40 15.0 Figure 111: Peaks of Development within the Spadina Road study area

buildings Spadina Road area area buildings 30 Peaks of Development | Hilton Avenue area 10.0 Peaks of Development | Glen Edyth area

existing 70 7020 existing

5.0 when

when 10 of 60

of % constructed % 0.0 50 constructed 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ 50 were ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+

were 40 40 Hilton Avenue area buildings 30 Glen Edyth area

Peaks of Development | Hilton Avenue area buildings 30 Peaks of Development | Glen Edyth area The subdivision of the Glen Edyth area didn’t occur 70 70

existing 20

existing 20 until the 1920s, and subsequently, development did not

60 when 60 10 peak in the area until the 1950s. Construction continued when

of 10

of constructed

50 constructed

% throughout the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st 0 50

were 0

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were 40 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ century, with infill and redevelopment doubling each 40 Hilton Avenue area decade since the 1980s. (Figure 112) buildings 30 Glen Edyth area buildings Peaks of Development | Wells Hill Avenue area 30 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Court area

existing 2070

existing 2070 when 1060 when

of 1060

% % constructed

500 constructed 500 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were 40 Figure 112: 40 Peaks of Development within the Glen Edyth area Wells Hill Avenue area buildings 30 Lyndhurst Court area

Peaks of Development | Wells Hill Avenue area buildings 30 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Court area 70 70

existing 20

when 60 10 when

of 10

of constructed

50 constructed

0 % 50

were 0

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were 40 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ 40 Wells Hill Avenue area buildings 30 Lyndhurst Court area buildings 30 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Avenue,

existing 20 94 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE

Walmer Road, Austin Crescent areas existing 20

70 when 10 when

of 10

% 60 0 % 0 constructed

‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ 50 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ were

40 Lyndhurst Avenue area Walmer Road area 30 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Avenue, buildings Walmer Road, Austin Crescent areas Austin Crescent area 7020 existing

6010 when of constructed

% 500 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐20092010+ were

40 Lyndhurst Avenue area Walmer Road area 30 buildings Austin Crescent area 20 existing

10 when of

% 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐20092010+ Peaks of Development | Hilton Avenue area Peaks of Development | Glen Edyth area 70 70

60 60

constructed 50 constructed 50 were

were 40 40 Hilton Avenue area buildings 30 Glen Edyth area buildings 30 existing

20 existing

20 when

10 when of 10 of

% % 0 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+

Peaks of Development | Wells Hill Avenue area Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Court area 70 70

60 60

constructed 50 constructed 50 were

were 40 40 Wells Hill Avenue area buildings 30 Lyndhurst Court area buildings 30 Peaks of Development | study area Peaks of Development | Spadina Road area existing

20 CHARACTER ANALYSIS existing 30.0 2070 when

when

10 of 1060 of

25.0 % % constructed 0 constructed

500 20.0‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐20092010+

were ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+

were 40 15.0 study area

buildings Spadina Road area

buildings 30 Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Avenue, Peaks of Development | Casa Loma area 10.0 The Casa Loma area contains the grandest and oldest Walmer Road, Austin Crescent areas 70 existing

existing structures within the study area. Its development is 70 5.0 when 60 defined by the historic estate buildings in the area: Casa when 10 of

60 of %

% Loma, its stables and lodge, Spadina House, and Lenwil. In 0.0 constructed 50 constructed 50 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ the 1930s, multi-unit residential buildings on Castle View were were 40 40 Lyndhurst Avenue area Avenue and the north side of Austin Terrace between Casa Loma area

30 Walmer Road area buildings Peaks of Development | Hilton Avenue area 30 Spadina and Walmer Roads were constructed. There was buildings Peaks of Development | Glen Edyth area

70 Austin Crescent area 20 70 no infill or redevelopment within the area until the 21st existing

20 existing 60 century, when two of the multi-unit residential buildings 10 60 when

when 10

of constructed

were demolished for the construction of townhouses.

constructed of 50 %

0 50 %

were (Figure 113) 0 were 40 40 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ Hilton Avenue area Figure 113: Peaks of Development within Casa Loma area buildings 30 Glen Edyth area buildings 30

existing 20

existing 20 when 10 when

of 10

Peaks of Development | Wells Hill Avenue area Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Court area The last street to be developed in the study area was 70 70 the Lyndhurst Court area, which was subdivided c.1956 60 60 and was built out by the end of the 1960s. Small infill or constructed

50 constructed redevelopment occurred in the 1980s and the 2000s, 50 were

were and has accelerated in the 2010s with about 20% of the 40 40 properties being redeveloped.(Figure 114) Wells Hill Avenue area buildings 30 Lyndhurst Court area buildings 30

existing 20 The analysis of the dates of construction shows that the

existing 20

when Hilton Avenue and Wells Hill Avenue areas were primarily 10 when

of 10

% developed during the 1900 to 1929 and retain most of their 0 % 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ original buildings. The Lyndhurst Avenue, Walmer Road, ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐2009 2010+ Figure 114: Peaks of Development within Lyndhurst Court area Spadina Road, Austin Crescent and the Casa Loma areas were substantially developed by the end of the 1930s and Peaks of Development | Lyndhurst Avenue, Walmer Road, Austin Crescent areas retain a number of buildings from their initial period of 70 development. Lyndhurst Court and Glen Edyth areas were

60 primarily developed in the 1950s and 60s, and have seen a

constructed significant amount of infill and redevelopment within the 50

were 21st century.

40 Lyndhurst Avenue area Walmer Road area 30

buildings Throughout the rest of the 20th century, development Austin Crescent area 20 within the study area remained constant with each decade existing filling in empty lots and redeveloping existing ones at a 10 when relatively consistent rate with slight slowdown in the 1980s of

% 0 ‐1889 ‐1909 ‐1919 ‐1929 ‐1939 ‐1949 ‐1959 ‐1969 ‐1979 ‐1989 ‐1999 ‐20092010+ and 1990s. The 2000s and 2010s saw an increase in the redevelopment rate impacting almost 10% of the buildings within the study area.

95 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 115: A Map of the Building Heights within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

B S B N L A R R R

P B T

R S R R R

A B A A C D R

S R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

A R ft P G k Austin Ter L D T C A G Austin Ter E R B D A ti C D Austin Ter L B C

P D R

A A

Cottingham Rd

1 Storey 2 Storey Storey 4+ Storey Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary

96 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Building Heights Architectural Styles HEIGHTS Arts and Crafts/ English 1% Building heights in the study area range from 1 to 4+ Cottage 4% Edwardian storeys, however the area is primarily dominated by 5% 10% 13% 2-2.5 storey structures. These low-rise buildings were 5% Edwardian 2 Bay constructed throughout the 20th and into the 21st century 4% Period Revival and include 90% of the buildings surveyed. 1 4% 2 Bungalow/ 1 storey 22% 3 The majority of 1-1.5 storey buildings are located in the 7% Colonial Revival Lyndhurst Court area encompassing half of the area’s 4+ NT ‐ Colonial Revival houses (Figure 117), and in the Glen Edyth area where 1% 5% they make up about 20% of the area’s buildings. The Wells NT ‐ Tudor Revival Hill Avenue area is the only other street within the study 90% 2% 27% New Traditional area that contains buildings of this height, which only make up about 3% of its buildings and are not character defining. Contemporary/Modern Figure 116: Building heights within the study area 3 storey structures can be found in all of the identified sub-areas of the HCD study area. These structures have no >1% Land Use Building Cladding specific groupings or clusters and can be found scattered 1% 1% 2% throughout the HCD study area. 1% 5% 11% There are only four 4(+)-storey buildings within the study 5% Apartment area: Casa Loma at 1 Austin Terrace, the Casa Loma Predominantly Brick Multi‐Unit Residential Stables at 330 Walmer Road, the Toronto Grace Health 12% Predominantly Stone Townhouse Centre at 47 Austin Terrace, and the apartment building Predominantly Stucco at 497 St. Clair Avenue West (Figure 119). Although some Semi‐Detached Residential Other of these buildings are landmarks within the Casa Loma Detached Residential neighbourhood, 4(+)-storey buildings do not define the Institutional overall character of the study area. Commercial 75% 87% The analysis of building heights shows that 2-2.5 storey structures define the majority of the study area. While buildings of 3 or more storeys can be found throughout, they do not contribute to the area’s character. 1-1.5 storey buildings contribute to the character of Lyndhurst Court and Glen Edyth areas, but not the study area overall. Figure 117: 4 Lyndhurst Court

Figure 118: 1 Lyndhurst Court Figure 119: 497 St. Clair Avenue West

97 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 120: A Map of the Building Cladding within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

B S B N L A R R R

P B T

R S R R R

A B A A C D R

S R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

A R ft P G k Austin Ter L D T C A G Austin Ter E R B D A ti C D Austin Ter L C B

P D R

A A

Cottingham Rd

Predominantly Bri Predominantly Stone Predominantly Stuo Other

Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary

98 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE Building Heights Architectural Styles Arts and Crafts/ English 1% Cottage 4% Edwardian 5% 10% 13% 5% Edwardian 2 Bay

4% Period Revival 1 4% 2 Bungalow/ 1 storey 22% 3 7% Colonial Revival 4+ NT ‐ Colonial Revival 1% 5% NT ‐ Tudor Revival

90% CHARACTER ANALYSIS2% 27% New Traditional Contemporary/Modern

BUILDING CLADDING>1% Land Use Building Cladding

The predominant1% building1% material used in the study 2% area is brick with other 1%decorative cladding materials 5% 11% such as shingles, stucco,5% and wood (half-timbering), or a combination. Other prominent materialsApartment used in the study Predominantly Brick area are stone (with other decorative claddingMulti‐Unit Residentialelements) 12% Predominantly Stone and stucco. The use of concrete and metalTownhouse panels as Predominantly Stucco cladding is present on newer builds in theSemi study‐Detached area, Residential but Other they do not contribute to the overall characterDetached ofResidential the area and have been labelled as “other” on theInstitutional map illustrating building cladding. Commercial 75% 87% All but 5 structures within the Hilton Avenue area are clad in brick. It has the highest concentration of brick (and brick/ shingle) clad buildings comprising over 30% of the street’s Figure 121: Building cladding within the study area houses. This is one of the only streets that contain no stone (or stone veneer) clad buildings. Similarly, the Wells Hill Avenue area has a high concentration of brick buildings including brick/stucco and brick/wood (half-timbering) clad structures, as well as a small number of stone buildings north of Nina Street. The Lyndhurst Avenue area contains the largest number of stone clad buildings, with a high concentration at the south of Lyndhurst Avenue where it meets Austin Terrace, and on the east side of the street. The Glen Edyth area has a significant number of stone clad buildings, and contains a wide range of all the identified materials in the HCD study area including brick, stucco, wood (half-timbering), shingle, concrete, and metal panel clad buildings. It is the only area that has buildings with exposed concrete finishes. Figure 122: Detail of 14 Wells Hill Avenue, 1915, Toronto Archives

The analysis of building materials shows that the Hilton Avenue area has no stone structures and a high concentration of brick and shingle clad buildings; the Wells Hill Avenue area is predominantly brick with some stone structures; the Lyndhurst Avenue area has the highest concentration of stone clad structures; Glen Edyth area buildings have the widest range of cladding materials; and the remaining areas contain an even mix and distribution of brick, stone, and stucco finishes.

Figure 123: 117 Lyndhurst Avenue

99 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 124: A Map of the Current Building Use within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

B S B N L A R R R

P B T

R S R R R

A B A A C D R

S R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

A R ft P G k Austin Ter L D T C A G Austin Ter E R B D A ti C D Austin Ter L B C

P D R

A A

Cottingham Rd

Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary Detached Residential Semi-Detached Residential

Townhouse Multi-unit Residential Aartment Commercial Institutional

100 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE Building Heights Architectural Styles Arts and Crafts/ English 1% Cottage 4% Edwardian 5% 10% 13% 5% Edwardian 2 Bay

4% Period Revival 1 4% 2 Bungalow/ 1 storey 22% 3 7% Colonial Revival 4+ NT ‐ Colonial Revival 1% 5% CHARACTER ANALYSIS NT ‐ Tudor Revival 90% 2% 27% New Traditional Contemporary/Modern

LAND USE The study area is a residential neighbourhood bound by >1% Land Use Building Cladding two major arterial roads (Bathurst Street and St. Clair 1% 1% 2% Avenue West), the Davenport Escarpment and Nordheimer 1% 5% 11% Ravine. Almost all the properties are used for residential 5% purpose (approximately 99%); 87% of the buildings are Apartment Predominantly Brick detached houses, 6% are attached or semi-detached Multi‐Unit Residential 12% Predominantly Stone houses, and 6% are multi-unit residential buildings. Townhouse Predominantly Stucco Semi‐Detached Residential Other The Hilton Avenue area contains 75% of the semi-detached Detached Residential residential buildings within the study area. It contains the Institutional only commercial-use building within the study area located Commercial 75% at 1357 Bathurst Street (Figure 126), which is a converted 87% detached residential building. Hillcrest Community School is one of the few institutional buildings in the study area and has gone through several renovations over the years Figure 125: Current Building Use within the study area and now includes a community centre. The Wells Hill Avenue and Lyndhurst Court areas are predominantly detached residential with the exception of 68-70 Wells Hill Avenue (Figure 127), and 1B-C Lyndhurst Court. Similarly, the Lyndhurst Avenue area is predominantly detached residential buildings; however, it also contains a large number of townhouses including the cluster between 6 Connable Drive to 169 Lyndhurst Avenue. The Walmer and Spadina Road areas are predominantly detached residential with a few semi-detached and multi- unit residential buildings. The Glen Edyth area includes the only streets in the study area with exclusively detached residential buildings. The Casa Loma area has one detached residential building - the Pellatt Lodge - located at 328 Walmer Road. This area is defined by its high concentration of institutional buildings Figure 126: 1357 Bathurst Street and multi-unit residential buildings. The Austin Crescent area has a high concentration of detached residential buildings, but also includes townhouses at 7 Austin Terrace (the former Maclean house which was converted in 2009), and an institutional building at 47 Austin Terrace, the Toronto Grace Health Centre.

Figure 127: 68-70 Wells Hill Avenue

101 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 128: A Map of the Architectural Styles within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

B S B N L A R R R

P B T

R S R R R

A B A A C D R

S R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

A R ft P G k Austin Ter L D T C A G Austin Ter E R B D A ti C C D Austin Ter L B

P D R

A A

Cottingham Rd

Arts and Crafts/English Cottage Bungalow / 1-1.5 Storeys New Traditional Edwardian Colonial Revival Contemporary/Modern Edwardian Two Bay New Traditional (Colonial Revival) No Style Other Period Revivals New Traditional (Tudor Revival)

102 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

ARCHITECTURALBuilding STYLES Heights Architectural Styles The HCD study area contains a range of architectural styles Arts and Crafts/ English 1% representative of its period of development between the Cottage 4% Edwardian 1900s and the 1940s.5% The majority of houses are better 10% 13% understood as having been influenced and inspired by 5% Edwardian 2 Bay various architectural styles rather than representing a pure 4% Period Revival 1 expression of any particular style. The stylistic influences 4% 2 Bungalow/ 1 storey are predominantly Edwardian and Edwardian Two-Bay. 22% 3 These two Edwardian styles make up almost half of the 7% Colonial Revival 4+ buildings in the study area. Other prominent stylistic NT ‐ Colonial Revival influences include English Cottage, Arts and Crafts, and 1% 5% NT ‐ Tudor Revival New Traditional with various revival influences. Given 90% 2% that this is primarily a residential neighbourhood, a large 27% New Traditional number of houses have been classified as Vernacular; that Contemporary/Modern is, homes with either no primary stylistic influence or with a Figure 129: Architectural Styles within the study area range of embellishment from a range of styles.

>1% Land Use Building Cladding

1% 1% 2% 1% 5% 11% Edwardian (1900 – 1930)5% Apartment Predominantly Brick The Edwardian style uses classical motifs;Multi however,‐Unit Residential it diverges from the academic demands of rigidity to 12% Predominantly Stone Townhouse classical rules and results in a freer use of ornament and Predominantly Stucco Semi‐Detached Residential arrangement. For residential construction, the style is Other noted for its simplified and restrained classicalDetached Residential detailing including its regular window rhythm, pediments,Institutional columned 75% entrances or porticos, simple rooflines,Commercial bay windows, 87% dormers and brick cladding. This is the most prominent style within the study area and has its largest presence on Walmer Road, and Hilton, Wells Hill, and Lyndhurst Avenues. Examples of this style include 66 Lyndhurst Avenue and 9 Austin Crescent (Figure 130).

Figure 130: 9 Austin Crescent

A sub-set of the Edwardian style is the Edwardian Two- Bay, a popular expression for urban residential houses. This style is defined by its double storey bay window, gabled projecting porch and front or side gable roof and central dormer. This sub-set can be found within the Hilton, Wells Hill, and Lyndhurst Avenues, Walmer Road, and Austin Crescent areas; however, almost 70% of the houses of this style are located in the Hilton Avenue area. Some examples of this sub-set include 63 Hilton Avenue (Figure 131) and 70 Hilton Avenue (Figure 132).

Figure 131: 63 Hilton Avenue Figure 132: 70 Hilton Avenue

103 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Arts and Crafts (1900 – 1934) English Cottage (1900 – 1934) This unpretentious early 20th century movement marked Under the broader term of period revivals, the English a departure from the classical architectural tradition and Cottage style was one of the most popular in Ontario in industrialization, and takes inspiration from a variety of the early 20th century. This style drew from rural English influences such as rural English cottages. Elements of this Tudor cottages and often incorporated stone and brick- style can be found in the design of early 20th century clad walls, projecting upper floors with half-timbering, and cottages and residences on Well Hill and Lyndhurst a variety of steeply pitched gables and cross gables that Avenues. Its common features include asymmetrical may be clipped to form a hip-on-gable roof. Typical details facades, steeply-pitched roofs, stucco cladding, multi- include half-timbering, stone window surrounds, stone paned windows, roofs with expressed knee brackets and lintels with carved stone drip moulds, arched windows, rafter ends, porches with larger stone or brick piers and and elaborate chimneys. The majority of English Cottage wooden columns and dormers with decorative brackets. style houses are located on Wells Hill and Lyndhurst Some examples include 140 Lyndhurst Avenue (Figure 133) Avenues. Some examples include 71 Wells Hill Avenue and 15 Wells Hill Avenue (Figure 134). (Figure 130) and 35 Austin Terrace (Figure 136). Central to the Arts and Crafts style/movement was the idea of siting a building to fit in with its natural landscape, incorporating natural materials and organizing interior spaces to be more usable and maximize natural daylight.

Figure 133: 140 Lyndhurst Avenue Figure 135: 71 Wells Hills Avenue

Figure 134: 15 Wells Hill Avenue Figure 136: 35 Austin Terrace

104 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Colonial Revival (1900 – 1934) New Traditional (1935 – present day) The Colonial Revival style can be defined as a hybrid of The New Traditional style describes homes built after 1935 historic classical styles that had been developed during that were heavily influenced by traditional architectural the 18th and early 19th centuries in Canada and the styles in their massing, proportions, materials and United States. The Colonial Revival style combines various details. These traditional elements are incorporated and forms of the Georgian and Edwardian styles with other often modified to accommodate modern construction classical elements. In Canada, examples of this style may techniques. incorporate elements from the Loyalist and French homes of Upper and Lower Canada. The Colonial Revival style can often be identified by a central entrance that may New Traditional with Colonial Revival Influences be accentuated with a pediment sitting on pilasters or New Traditional with Colonial Revival Influences is a extruded to sit on thin columns, and commonly surrounded contemporary interpretation of Colonial Revival homes by a fanlight and/or sidelights. Massing and windows are that borrows heavily from elements of Georgian and often symmetrical, with double-hung multi-pane windows Edwardian architecture in the cladding materials, massing, at times in pairs. Examples of this style include 7 Austin and dominant front gables. A majority of these houses can Terrace (Figure 137) and 344 Walmer Road (Figure 138). be found in the Lyndhurst Avenue and Glen Edyth areas, as well as along Castle View Avenue. Some examples include 54 Ardwold Gate (Figure 139) and 75 Lyndhurst Avenue (Figure 140).

Figure 137: 7 Austin Terrace Figure 139: 54 Ardwold Gate

Figure 138: 344 Walmer Road Figure 140: 75 Lyndhurst Avenue

105 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

New Traditional with Tudor Revival Influences Minimal Traditional (1935 – 1960s) New Traditional with Tudor Revival Influences is a Minimal Traditional is a modest style within the HCD study contemporary interpretation of English Cottage style homes area that is only found in the Lyndhurst Court area. The that borrows heavily from elements of rural English Tudor style is defined by its 1 – 1.5 storey height, small massing, cottages with stone and brick-clad walls, the use of half- low pitched roof (which is often gabled, but can be hipped timbering, steeply pitched gable roofs and stone detailing. with either a small overhang or none at all, and rarely A majority of these houses can be found within the Casa has a dormer), and has very little architectural detailing. Loma area, specifically along Castle View Avenue and the The style was prominent in the post WWII era and the north side of Austin Terrace between Spadina and Walmer 1950s-60s,which is consistent with the development Roads. Some examples include 6-8 Castle View Avenue period of the Lyndhurst Court area. Examples of Minimal (Figure 141) and 6 to 22 Austin Terrace (Figure 142) Traditional buildings include 1 to 4 Lyndhurst Court (Figure 143) and (Figure 144).

Figure 141: 6-8 Castle View Avenue Figure 143: 1 Lyndhurst Court

Figure 142: 18-20 Austin Terrace Figure 144: 4 Lyndhurst Court

106 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Bungalow (1900 – 1945) No Style The Bungalow style became quite popular in the first half of Houses built without concern for strict stylistic the 20th century. Houses in the Bungalow style are defined requirements or that incorporate elements from various by their 1 – 1.5 storey height, low pitched roof, extended stylistic influences of its time, and highly modified roof covering a front porch, stone or bricked chimneys, homes that can no longer be identified by their original grouped windows, and little to no ornamentation. There architectural style have been classified asno style. are 9 Bungalows in the HCD study area, most of which are located in the Hilton Avenue and Wells Hill Avenue areas. Examples of this style include 51 Hilton Avenue (Figure 145) and 2 Wells Hill Avenue (Figure 146).

The analysis of architectural styles show that the Hilton Avenue area is predominantly Edwardian Two-Bay with a smaller number of Edwardian houses; the Wells Hill Avenue area has an equal distribution of Arts and Crafts, English Cottage, Edwardian, and Edwardian Two Bay ; Lyndhurst Avenue and Spadina Road areas are primarily Edwardian, but have a high concentration of Vernacular properties; Walmer Road area is predominantly Edwardian and Edwardian Two Bay, but also contains quite a few Arts and Crafts, English Cottage, and Vernacular properties; Glen Edyth area has the highest concentration of Contemporary/ Modern buildings, as well as a large number of New Traditional and New Traditional with Colonial Revival Influence; the Casa Loma area has the highest concentration of Period Revival buildings with New Traditional buildings around Castleview Avenue; Lyndhurst

Figure 145: 51 Hilton Avenue Court area has the highest concentration of Bungalow/1 Storey buildings; and Austin Crescent area is mostly Arts and Craft and English Cottage, Edwardian, and Edwardian Two Bay, but with a significant number of Vernacular buildings.

Figure 146: 2 Wells Hill Avenue

107 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 147: A Map of the Overall Typologies within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

S C A

S B S

N L A R R S R R R R

A A

P B

R B A A C D

S A A R D C A A A C N S P

A L A B D

A R P G L

R R D C A G E B D A C D L B C

R R R

A A A

A A

P D R

S S

Edwardian 2-Bay -Bay Wide Predominant Cross-Front Gable

Flat Roof Contemorary Histori Landmar Buildings Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary

108 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

TYPOLOGIES Building typologies are a means of understanding and analyzing the shape and form of the building including its massing, roof type, height, and number of bays to identify patterns of built form in the study area. Although the analysis considers architectural styles, it is not the primary determining factor, since details from different styles are often applied as ornament to the same basic house form. This analysis determined that the built form throughout the Casa Loma area is diverse, and that each area has different predominant typologies that characterize it.

Building Typologies

Residential Built throughout the 20th century and moving into the 21st century, residential buildings define the HCD study area. In order to understand the different types of residential buildings, they have been grouped into different typologies which are defined by the building massing, number of storeys, window placements, number of bays, and type of roof.

Building Typologies

Edwardian 2 Bay

20% 3 Bay Wide 32% 1% Dominant Front Cross‐ 4% Gable Flat Roof Contemporary

17% Historic Landmarks 26% Non‐Prevailing

Figure 148: Overall typologies within the study area

109 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 149: A Map of the Residential type 1 within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

B S B N L A R R R

P B T

R S R R R

A B A A C D R

S R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

A R ft P G k Austin Ter L D T C A G Austin Ter E R B D A ti C D

Austin Ter

L C B

P D R

A A

Cottingham Rd

Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary Tye 1 -A Tye 1 -B Tye 1 -C Tye 1 -D

Tye 1 -E Tye 1 -F Tye 1 -G Tye 1 -H

Tye 1 -I Tye 1 -J

110 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Residential Type 1 – Edwardian Two Bays Edwardian 2‐Bay Predominant Cross‐Front Gable

Residential Type 1 is a 2.5 storey hipped, front or side 3% gabled roof structure with 2 to 3 bays, asymmetrical 28% Hilton Avenue area composition, off centre entrance next to a 1 or 2 storey Hilton Avenue area 2% Wells Hill Avenue area bay window, exterior chimney on eaves (or gable wall), 14% 19% Wells Hill Avenue area Lyndhurst Avenue area 1% can have a central dormer, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. 1% Lyndhurst Avenue area 7% Walmer Road area The majority of Residential Type 1 buildings are found 1% Walmer Road area Spadina Road area 54% Spadina Road area in the Hilton Avenue area, encompassing almost 80% of 7% Glen Edyth area 11% the buildings along the street. This typology defines the Glen Edyth area Casa Loma area Casa Loma area character of Hilton Avenue. The remaining Residential Type 12% Lyndhurst Court area 1 buildings can be found sparsely throughout the study 24% Lyndhurst Court area Austin Crescent area area except in the Casa Loma, Spadina Road, and Glen Austin Crescent area 16% Edyth areas. Figure 150: Location of Residential Type 1 within the study area

3‐Bay Wide Flat Roof Contemporary

2% 2% 16% Hilton Avenue area 8% 10% Wells Hill Avenue area 10% Lyndhurst Avenue area Lyndhurst Avenue area 16% 15% Walmer Road area Walmer Road area Spadina Road area Spadina Road area 5% 27% Glen Edyth area Glen Edyth area 13% Casa Loma area 60% Lyndhurst Court area

6% 11% Lyndhurst Court area Austin Crescent area

Figure 151: Graphics of Sub-Types for Residential Type 1

111 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 1 – A Sub-type A is 2.5 storey, side gabled roof structure with 2 bays, asymmetrical composition, off centre entrance next to a 2 storey bay window, exterior chimney on gable wall, can have a central dormer, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the side gable roof and the full 2-storey bay window. (Figure 153) and (Figure 154) Figure 152: Type 1 – A

Figure 153: 27 Wells Hill Avenue

Figure 154: 80 Hilton Avenue

112 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 1 – B Sub-type B is 2.5 storey, side gabled roof structure with 2 bays, asymmetrical composition, off centre entrance next to a bay or picture window, exterior chimney on gable wall, can have a central dormer, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the side gable roof and first or second storey bay window. (Figure 156) Figure 155: Type 1 – B

Figure 156: 110 Hilton Avenue

Type 1 – C Sub-type C is 2.5 storey, side gabled roof structure with 3 bays, asymmetrical composition, off centre entrance next to a picture window or two smaller windows, exterior chimney on gable wall, can have a central dormer, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the side gable roof and the symmetrical second storey with a central bay window. (Figure 158)

Figure 157: Type 1 – C

Figure 158: 101 Hilton Avenue

113 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 1 – D Sub-type D is 2.5 storey, hipped roof structure with 2 bays, asymmetrical composition, off centre entrance next to a bay or picture window, exterior chimney on eaves, can have a central dormer, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the hipped roof and first or second storey bay window. (Figure 160)

Figure 159: Type 1 - D

Figure 160: 126 Lyndhurst Avenue

Type 1 - E Sub-type E is 2.5 storey, hipped roof structure with 2 bays, asymmetrical composition, off centre entrance next to a 2 storey bay window, exterior chimney on eaves, can have a central dormer, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the hipped roof and the full 2 storey bay window. (Figure 162)

Figure 161: Type 1 - E

Figure 162: 374 Walmer Road

114 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 1 – F Sub-type F is 2.5 storey, side gabled roof, semi-detached structure with 4 bays (2 per building), asymmetrical composition or symmetrical composition is that they mirror each other, off centre entrance next to a bay or picture window, exterior chimney on gable wall or interior gable ridge, can have a dormers, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the side Figure 163: Type 1 - F (variation 1) gable roof, first or second storey bay window, and that it is a semi-detached structure. (Figure 165) and (Figure 166)

Figure 164: Type 1 - F (variation 2)

Figure 165: 89-91 Hilton Avenue

Figure 166: 58-60 Austin Terrace

115 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 1 - G Sub-type G is 2.5 storey, hipped roof structure with 2 bays on its principal façade and often three on the secondary facade, symmetrical composition, entrance located on the secondary (side) façade, often with a projecting sun room on the first storey of the principal façade, exterior chimney on eaves, can have a central dormer, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from Figure 167: Type 1 - G the others is the hipped roof and the location of the main entrance. (Figure 168)

Figure 168: 15 Melgund Road Type 1 - H Sub-type H is 2.5 storey, hipped roof structure with 2 bays, asymmetrical composition, off centre entrance next to a bay or picture window or has an enclosed front porch, exterior chimney on eaves, can have a central dormer, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub- type from the others is the hipped roof, the bay or picture window on the first floor, and the second storey window Figure 169: Type 1 - H above the door which is smaller than the one beside it. (Figure 170)

Figure 170: 91 Lyndhurst Avenue

116 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 1 - I Sub-type I is 2.5 storey, front gabled roof structure with 2 bays, asymmetrical composition, off centre entrance next to a 2 storey bay window, exterior chimney on eaves, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub- type from the others is the front gabled roof and the full 2 storey bay window. (Figure 172)

Figure 171: Type 1 - I

Figure 172: 123-125 Hilton Avenue

Type 1 - J Sub-type I is 2.5 storey, front gabled roof structure with 3 bays, asymmetrical composition, off centre recessed entrance often with an enclosed sun room above, a 2 storey bay window on one of the end bays which can have a smaller front gable dormer, exterior chimney on eaves, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the front gabled roof, the full 2 storey bay window, the recessed entrance under a balcony or sun room, and that the principal façade has 3 bays. Figure 173: Type 1 - J (Figure 174)

Figure 174: 52-54 Nina Street

117 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 175: A Map of the Residential type 2 within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

B S B N L A R R R

P B T

R S R R R

A B A A C D R

S R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

A R ft P G k Austin Ter L D T C A G Austin Ter E R B D A ti C D

Austin Ter

L C B

P D R

A A

Cottingham Rd

Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary Tye 2 -A Tye 2 -B Tye 2 -C Tye 2 -D

118 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE Edwardian 2‐Bay Predominant Cross‐Front Gable

3% 28% Hilton Avenue area Hilton Avenue area 2% Wells Hill Avenue area 14% 19% Wells Hill Avenue area Lyndhurst Avenue area 1% 1% Lyndhurst Avenue area 7% Walmer Road area 1% Walmer Road area Spadina Road area 54% Spadina Road area 7% Glen Edyth area 11% Glen Edyth area Casa Loma area Casa Loma area 12% Lyndhurst Court area 24% Lyndhurst Court area CHARACTER ANALYSIS Austin Crescent area Austin Crescent area 16%

3‐Bay Wide Flat Roof Contemporary

2% Residential Type 2 – 3 Bay Wide 2% 16% Hilton Avenue area Residential Type 2 is a 2.5 storey hipped, side or crossed 8% 10% 10% gabled roof structure with 3 to 5 bays, often symmetrical Wells Hill Avenue area Lyndhurst Avenue area Lyndhurst Avenue area but can have an asymmetrical composition, central 16% 15% entrance (usually), and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. Walmer Road area Walmer Road area Spadina Road area Spadina Road area Residential Type 2 can be found throughout the entirety of 5% 27% Glen Edyth area Glen Edyth area 13% the study area with the exception of Hilton Avenue where 60% there are only two north of Melgund Road. Casa Loma area Lyndhurst Court area 6% 11% Lyndhurst Court area Austin Crescent area

Figure 176: Location of Residential Type 2 within the study area

Figure 177: Graphics of Sub-Types for Residential Type 2

119 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 2 – A Sub-type A is 2.5 storey hipped, side or cross gabled roof structure with 3 bays, symmetrical composition, central entrance with a small window above, exterior chimney on gable wall or eaves, and projecting bays on both sides of the central entrance. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the projecting bays on both sides of the central entrance, and its 3 bay wide principal façade with a Figure 178: Type 2 - A (variation 1) symmetrical composition.(Figure 180)

Figure 179: Type 2 - A (variation 2)

Figure 180: 21-23 Castle View Avenue

Type 2 – B Sub-type B is 2.5 storey, hipped or side gabled roof structure with 3 bays, asymmetrical composition, off centre entrance, exterior chimney on gable wall or eaves, can have a central dormer or paired dormers, and often different sized windows or shapes of the window surrounds (round, segmental, flat arched). What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the planar, 3 bay wide principal façade Figure 181: Type 2 - B with an asymmetrical composition and off centre entrance. (Figure 182)

Figure 182: 5 Wells Hill Avenue

120 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 2 – C Sub-type C is 2.5 storey, hipped or side gabled roof structure with 3 bays, symmetrical composition, central entrance with a small window above, exterior chimney on gable wall or eaves, can have a central dormer, and the third bay can include an integrated garage. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the planar, 3 bay wide principal façade with a symmetrical composition. Figure 183: Type 2 - C (Figure 184)

Figure 184: 63 Lyndhurst Avenue

Type 2 – D Sub-type D is 2.5 storey, often hipped or side gabled roof structure with 5 or more bays, symmetrical composition (or asymmetrical composition if it has an integrated garage), central entrance often with a small window above, and an exterior chimney on gable wall or eaves. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the 5 or more bay wide principal façade and potential integrated garage Figure 185: Type 2 - D at the last bay. (Figure 186)

Figure 186: 344 Walmer Road

121 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 187: A Map of the Residential type 3 within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

B S B N L A R R R

P B T

R S R R R

A B A A C D R

S R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

A R ft P G k Austin Ter L D T C A G Austin Ter E R B D A ti C D

Austin Ter

L C B

P D R

A A

Cottingham Rd

Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary Tye -A Tye -B Tye -C Tye -D

Tye -E Tye -F Tye -G

122 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Residential Type 3 Edwardian– Dominant 2‐ BayCross Front Gable Predominant Cross‐Front Gable

Residential Type 3 is a 1.5 to 2.5 storey hipped with 3% intersecting front gable(s) or cross gabled roof structure 28% Hilton Avenue area with 2 to 5 bays; is usually asymmetrical but can have a Hilton Avenue area 2% Wells Hill Avenue area symmetrical composition;14% central or off centre entrance 19% Wells Hill Avenue area Lyndhurst Avenue area 1% next to a (or a series of) bay or picture window(s); exterior 1% Lyndhurst Avenue area 7% Walmer Road area chimney on eaves or gable wall, or interior chimney on 1% Walmer Road area Spadina Road area 54% Spadina Road area ridge or slope;7% and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. Residential Glen Edyth area 11% Type 3 is predominantly found east of Hilton Avenue Glen Edyth area Casa Loma area Casa Loma area and west of Spadina Road with the exceptions of Austin 12% Lyndhurst Court area Crescent and Terrace (western portion). Ardwold Gate, 24% Lyndhurst Court area Austin Crescent area Castle View Avenue, and Lyndhurst Court each only have Austin Crescent area one of this16% typology on their streets. There are no buildings of this type on either Glen Edyth Drive or Place. Figure 188: Location of Residential Type 3 within the study area

3‐Bay Wide Flat Roof Contemporary

6% 11% Lyndhurst Court area Austin Crescent area

Figure 189: Graphics of Sub-Types for Residential Type 3

123 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 3 – A Sub-type a is 2.5 storey, low hipped roof structure with an off centre projecting front gable bay (either second storey or 2 full storey projection), 2 bays in width, asymmetrical composition, off centre entrance next to a bay or picture window, exterior chimney on gable wall, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is that the intersecting front gable bay has a lower Figure 190: Type 3 - A ridge than the main hipped roof, and extends slightly past the eaves; it is 2 bays wide; and the gabled bay is projecting from the principal façade. (Figure 191)

Figure 191: 29 Wells Hill Avenue

Type 3 – B Sub-type B is 1.5 to 2.5 storey, hipped roof structure with an off centre intersecting front gable that spans over multiple bays and down multiple storeys; 3 – 5 bays in width with a central or off centre entrance next to a (or a series of) bay or picture window(s); exterior chimney on eaves or gable wall, or interior chimney on ridge or slope; has an asymmetrical composition and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is that the intersecting front gable has uneven slope legs with Figure 192: Type 3 - B the slope directed inwards extending to meet the eave, and the slope directed outwards extending down to the first storey. (Figure 193)

Figure 193: 98 Wells Hill Avenue

124 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 3 – C Sub-type C is 1.5 to 2.5 storey, hipped roof structure with two symmetrical off centre intersecting front gables that span over multiple bays and down multiple storeys; 3 – 5 bays in width with a central entrance and relatively symmetrical façade (sometimes with an integrated garage); exterior chimney on eaves or gable wall, or interior chimney on ridge or slope; has a symmetrical composition Figure 194: Type 3 - C (other than the integrated garage); and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the other is that there are two front gables that intersect the hipped roof and have uneven legs with their inner slopes meeting the hip roof eaves and their outer ones extending down to the first storey. (Figure 195)

Figure 195: 42 Austin Terrace

Type 3 – D Sub-Type D is 2.5 storey, cross gabled roof structure with a projecting central front gable bay on the second storey, 3 bays in width, recessed central entrance beside an enclosed front porch, symmetrical composition, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the second storey projecting front gable bay, enclosed front porch, and symmetrical compositional with Figure 196: Type 3 - D a central entrance. (Figure 197)

Figure 197: 290 Spadina Road

125 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 3 – E Sub-type E is 2-2.5 storey, cross gabled roof structure with a predominant off center protruding front gable bay, often 3 bays in width, central entrance (or secondary elevation entrance) in between two bay or picture windows, an exterior chimney on eaves or gable wall, has an asymmetrical composition, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is Figure 198: Type 3 - E the intersecting front gable bay has the same ridge height as the side gable roof and either meets or slightly extends past the eaves; it is often 3 bays in width; and the gabled bay is projecting from the principal façade.(Figure 199)

Figure 199: 70 Lyndhurst Avenue

Type 3 – F Sub-type F is 2 to 2.5 storey, low hip and valley roofed structure with one projecting front gable bay and often one recessed front gable bay, 3 – 5 bays in width, recessed bays with an integrated garage, central or off centre entrance, an asymmetrical composition, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What differentiates this sub-type from the others is the prominence of integrated garages and the recessing bays

Figure 200: Type 3 - F from the projecting from gable bay. (Figure 201)

Figure 201: 74 Lyndhurst Avenue

126 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 3 – G Sub-type G is 1.5 to 2.5 storey cross gabled roof structure with a predominant off centre front gable bay, 2 to 3 bays in width, off centre or central entrance next to a bay or picture window, can have an exterior chimney on gable wall, can have an enclosed front entrance, an asymmetrical composition, and a solid to void ratio of 3:1. What

Figure 202: Type 3 - G differentiates this sub-type from the others is that the side gable roof eaves extends past the planar surface of the principal façade (at times enclosing the front entrance); and the front gable bay has the same ridge height as the main side gable roof but a higher eaves. (Figure 203)

Figure 203: 39 Nina Street

127 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 204: A Map of the Typology 4 within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

B S B N L A R R R

P B T

R S R R R

A B A A C D R

S R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

A R ft P G k Austin Ter L D T C A G Austin Ter E R B D A ti C D

Austin Ter L C B

P D R

A A

Cottingham Rd

Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary Flat Roof Contemorary

128 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Type 4 – Flat Roof Contemporary UNIQUE STRUCTURE EXAMPLES The study area contains a number of unique buildings that The flat roof contemporary type buildings can range from contribute to the character of the area but do not belong 1 to 3 storeys, have many bays, have a symmetrical or to any of the identified building typologies: asymmetrical composition, and have flat roofs. These are structures built as early as the 1950s up to the present • Casa Loma (1 Austin Terrace) (Figure 207) date and incorporate a more contemporary expression of • Lenwil, former residence of E.J. Lennox (5 Austin materials and detailing. The majority of this type can be Terrace) found on Ardwold Gate and Glen Edyth Drive and Place which contain more than half of these buildings. They can • 1295 Bathurst Street also be found throughout parts of the study area where • 61 Glen Edyth Drive infill or redevelopment has occurred. • The Hillcrest Community School (44 Hilton Avenue) • Spadina House (285 Spadina Road) (Figure 208) • 497 St. Clair Avenue West • 328 Walmer Road • The Casa Loma Stables (330 Walmer Road) • 336 Walmer Road • 15 Wells Hill Avenue • 17 Wells Hill Avenue

Edwardian 2‐Bay Predominant Cross‐Front Gable

Figure 205: 15 Ardwold Gate Figure 207: Casa Loma (1 Austin Terrace) 3‐Bay Wide Flat Roof Contemporary

6% 11% Lyndhurst Court area Austin Crescent area

Figure 206: Location of Residential Type 4 within the study area

Figure 208: Spadina House (285 Spadina Road)

129 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Figure 209: A Map of the Gateways within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study Area

Munc Bound To Yk

S C A

N B S B L A R R R T

S R S R R R P B B A

A R

S A R D C A A A C

A N S P k T B D

L A L

R ft P k Austin Ter L D T

R B Austin Ter

D Austin Ter B

P D R

P D R E

A A G

Cottingham Rd

Identiﬁed Gateways Casa Loma HCD Study Boundary

130 Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District Study | Report | July, 2018 EVOQ ARCHITECTURE