DOCSLIB.ORG

UP Express Electrification EA Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UP Express Electrification EA Cultural Heritage Assessment Report UP Express Electrification EA Cultural Heritage Assessment Report FINAL Presented to: Metrolinx Project No. 1124019.00 March, 2014 Executive Summary Report Structure The purpose of this report is to: 1) establish baseline cultural heritage conditions and 2) to assess potential cultural heritage impacts of the proposed Union Pearson Express Electrification project, including proposed mitigation measures and net effects. This Cultural Heritage Assessment Report contains Parts A and B. Part A includes the Cultural Heritage Baseline Conditions Report, and Part B includes the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Report. Key Findings Studies conducted as part of the previous Environmental Assessment studies for the Georgetown South Service Expansion were reviewed to identify potential and known cultural heritage resources. Municipal heritage inventories from the City of Toronto and City of Mississauga were also reviewed to confirm accuracy of data presented in studies conducted as part of previous studies with regard to properties which have been listed on municipal registers and/or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Section 1 – UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station A total of five cultural heritage resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed work within Section 1. These include the Bathurst Street Bridge, the King Street Subway, the Dundas Street Bridge, the UP Express Rail Corridor, and the Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District; The Bathurst Street Bridge and the King Street Subway are listed by the City of Toronto as heritage properties. The Bathurst Street Bridge is also listed on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List; The Dundas Street Bridge and the UP Express Rail Corridor were identified as cultural heritage resources during the field review carried out for the Baseline Conditions phase of this project; o The Dundas Street Bridge was not found to meet cultural heritage criteria. Accordingly, no further work is recommended for this resource; and, o No negative impacts are anticipated to the UP Express Electrification Rail Corridor since the proposed undertaking will not affect any heritage attributes of this resource. Therefore, no further work is recommended for this resource. The Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is a national historic site and heritage conservation district. Section 2 – UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station A total of four cultural heritage resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed work within Section 2. These include the Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, the Rogers Road Bridge, the Jane Street Bridge, and 3500 Eglinton Avenue West (Kodak Lands); The Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge is listed as a heritage property by the City of Toronto; The Rogers Road Bridge and Jane Street Bridge were identified as cultural heritage resources through background research; 3500 Eglinton Avenue West (Kodak Lands) is an industrial complex that has been evaluated and found to be a Provincial Heritage Property of Local Significance (pending conformation from Metrolinx). o Potential impacts and mitigation measures were previously captured in the Final Eglinton Crosstown LRT EPR Addendum. Therefore there are no new net adverse effects associated with locating the Paralleling Station on the Kodak site. Section 3 – UP Express Weston Station to Highway 427 One cultural heritage resources, the Humber River Bridge, is expected to be impacted by the proposed work within Section 3. The Humber River Bridge has been evaluated and found to be a Provincial Heritage Property of Local and Provincial Significance. Section 4 – Highway 417 to UP Express Pearson Station No impacts are anticipated to cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to Section 4 Footprint Impacts From a footprint impacts perspective, cultural heritage net effects are anticipated following the implementation of mitigation measures: Section 1 – UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station Bathurst Street Bridge and King Street Bridge: A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) should be carried out to identify the heritage attributes of these bridges. If found to retain cultural heritage value, then a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) should be carried out to identify impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services; Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District: Disruption to identified views would be mitigated through a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), and disturbance of potential archaeological resources would be mitigated through Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 archaeological assessment. In addition, plans for the proposed Paralleling Station should be submitted to Heritage Preservation Services at the City of Toronto and the Friends of Fort York for review and comment prior to construction. Section 2 – UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, Rogers Road Bridge, and Jane Street Bridge: A CHER should be carried out to identify the heritage attributes of these bridges. If found to retain cultural heritage value, then a HIA should be carried out to identify impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services. Section 3 – UP Express Weston Station to Highway 427 Humber River Bridge: Foot print impacts to the Humber River Bridge would be mitigated through the development/implementation of a Conservation Plan. If the Conservation Plan does not account for impacts resulting from the current undertaking, or if a Conservation Plan does not yet exist, then a HIA should be carried out to identify impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures. The HIA would be carried out during detail design and would be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services. Section 4 – Highway 417 to UP Express Pearson Station No footprint impacts are anticipated to cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to Section 4 Operations and Maintenance Impacts No negative impacts are anticipated to any cultural heritage resources in the study area resulting from the operation and maintenance of the UP Express Electrification system. Construction Impacts From a construction perspective, cultural heritage net effects are anticipated following the implementation of mitigation measures: Section 1 – UP Express Union Station to UP Express Bloor Station Bathurst Street Bridge and King Street Bridge: Short-term disruption minimized through selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies, post-construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes; Fort York and Garrison Common National Historic Site and Heritage Conservation District: Short- term disruption minimized through the selection of non-invasive staging areas, post-construction landscape treatments, and if possible, avoidance of heritage attributes. Section 2 – UP Express Bloor Station to UP Express Weston Station Wallace Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, Rogers Road Bridge, and Jane Street Bridge: Short-term disruption minimized through selection of non-invasive staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies, post-construction landscape treatments, and avoidance of heritage attributes; Section 3 – UP Express Weston Station to Highway 427 Humber River Bridge: Short-term impacts mitigated through the careful selection of staging areas, pre-construction vibration studies (if needed), and post-construction landscape treatment). Section 4 – Highway 417 to UP Express Pearson Station No construction impacts are anticipated to cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to Section 4 Part A – Baseline Conditions Report UP Express Electrification EA Baseline Conditions Report – Cultural Heritage TABLE OF CONTENTS – PART A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Traction Power Distribution System ....................................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Maintenance Facility ............................................................................................................................ 12 1.3 STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Economic Development and Culture
    OPERATING ANAL OPERATING ANALYST NOTES Contents I: Overview 1 II: Recommendations 4 III: 2014 Service Overview and Plan 5 IV: 2014 Recommended Total Operating Budget 15 V: Issues for Discussion 30 Appendices: 1) 2013 Service Performance 32 Economic Development and Culture 2) Recommended Budget by Expense Category 34 2014 OPERATING BUDGET OVERVIEW 3) Summary of 2014 Service Changes 37 What We Do 4) Summary of 2014 New Economic Development and Culture's (EDC) mission is to & Enhanced Service advance the City's prosperity, opportunity and liveability by Changes 38 creating a thriving environment for businesses and culture, as well as contribute to the City's economic growth and engage 5) Inflows/Outflows to / from Reserves & Reserve Funds 39 cultural expressions and experiences. 6) 2014 User Fee Rate 2014 Budget Highlights Changes 42 The total cost to deliver this Program to Toronto residents in 2014 is $69.127 million, offset by revenue of $20.634 million for a net cost of $48.493 million as shown below. Approved Recommended Change Contacts (In $000s) 2013 Budget 2014 Budget $% Gross Expenditures 63,430.7 69,126.6 5,695.8 9.0% Judy Skinner Gross Revenue 18,028.9 20,633.7 2,604.8 14.4% Manager, Financial Planning Net Expenditures 45,401.9 48,492.9 3,091.0 6.8% Tel: (416) 397‐4219 Moving into this year's budget EDC's 2014 Operating Budget Email: [email protected] provides funds for several new and enhanced initiatives, which are aligned with the City's purpose of delivering the Andrei Vassallo Pan Am 2015 games, as well as initiatives that are part of the Senior Financial Planning Culture Phase ‐In Plan to bring the City's spending in culture to Analyst $25 per capita.
    [Show full text]
  • “Toronto Has No History!”: Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, and Historical Memory in Canada’S Largest City
    Document généré le 2 oct. 2021 00:00 Urban History Review Revue d'histoire urbaine “Toronto Has No History!” Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, and Historical Memory in Canada’s Largest City Victoria Freeman Encounters, Contests, and Communities: New Histories of Race and Résumé de l'article Ethnicity in the Canadian City En 1884, au cours d’une semaine complète d’événements commémorant le 50e Volume 38, numéro 2, printemps 2010 anniversaire de l’incorporation de Toronto en 1834, des dizaines de milliers de gens fêtent l’histoire de Toronto et sa relation avec le colonialisme et URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/039672ar l’impérialisme britannique. Une analyse des fresques historiques du défilé de DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/039672ar la première journée des célébrations et de discours prononcés par Daniel Wilson, président de l’University College, et par le chef de Samson Green des Mohawks de Tyendinaga dévoile de divergentes approches relatives à la Aller au sommaire du numéro commémoration comme « politique par d’autres moyens » : d’une part, le camouflage du passé indigène de la région et la célébration de son avenir européen, de l’autre, une vision idéalisée du partenariat passé entre peuples Éditeur(s) autochtones et colons qui ignore la rôle de ces derniers dans la dépossession des Indiens de Mississauga. La commémoration de 1884 marque la transition Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine entre la fondation du village en 1793 et l’incorporation de la ville en 1834 comme « moment fondateur » et symbole de la supposée « autochtonie » des ISSN colons immigrants. Le titre de propriété acquis des Mississaugas lors de l’achat 0703-0428 (imprimé) de Toronto en 1787 est jugé sans importance, tandis que la Loi d’incorporation 1918-5138 (numérique) de 1834 devient l’acte symbolique de la modernité de Toronto.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.09 Metrolinx—Regional Transportation Planning
    Chapter 3 Section 3.09 Metrolinx—Regional Transportation Planning relates only to upgrading and expanding the regional Background transportation network but does not include the esti- mated maintenance that is expected to be required to keep the additional transportation infrastructure Metrolinx, an agency of the government of Ontario, in a state of good repair over its useful life. was created by the Greater Toronto Transportation In the first 15 years, Metrolinx plans to imple- Authority Act, 2006, now the Metrolinx Act, 2006 ment the priority transit projects listed in Figure 1. (Act). According to the Act, one of Metrolinx’s Metrolinx’s estimate of the cost of these projects is key objectives is to provide leadership in the co- approximately $33 billion, of which approximately ordination, planning, financing and development of $3 billion had been spent by the province as of an integrated, multi-modal transportation network March 31, 2012. For about half of these projects, in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). the majority of the funding comes from a 2007 The GTHA consists of two single-tier municipalities Chapter 3 • VFM Section 3.09 provincial commitment of $11.5 billion, along with (Toronto and Hamilton), four regional munici- previously announced project funding. The remain- palities (Durham, Halton, Peel and York) and 24 ing priority projects that are funded—such as the local municipalities. Air Rail Link between Union Station and Pearson In November 2008, Metrolinx formally adopted International Airport and projects to revitalize a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)—also known Union Station—are being funded from the prov- as “The Big Move”—that sets out the priorities, ince’s capital budget for GO Transit (the commuter policies and programs for implementing a trans- rail and bus system serving the GTHA, a division of portation system within the GTHA.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Property Research and Evaluation Report
    ATTACHMENT NO. 10 HERITAGE PROPERTY RESEARCH AND EVALUATION REPORT WILLIAM ROBINSON BUILDING 832 YONGE STREET, TORONTO Prepared by: Heritage Preservation Services City Planning Division City of Toronto December 2015 1. DESCRIPTION Above: view of the west side of Yonge Street, north of Cumberland Street and showing the property at 832 Yonge near the south end of the block; cover: east elevation of the William Robinson Building (Heritage Preservation Services, 2014) 832 Yonge Street: William Robinson Building ADDRESS 832 Yonge Street (west side between Cumberland Street and Yorkville Avenue) WARD Ward 27 (Toronto Centre-Rosedale) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Concession C, Lot 21 NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNITY Yorkville HISTORICAL NAME William Robinson Building1 CONSTRUCTION DATE 1875 (completed) ORIGINAL OWNER Sleigh Estate ORIGINAL USE Commercial CURRENT USE* Commercial * This does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined by the Zoning By-law ARCHITECT/BUILDER/DESIGNER None identified2 DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION Brick cladding with brick, stone and wood detailing ARCHITECTURAL STYLE See Section 2.iii ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS See Section 2. iii CRITERIA Design/Physical, Historical/Associative & Contextual HERITAGE STATUS Listed on City of Toronto's Heritage Register RECORDER Heritage Preservation Services: Kathryn Anderson REPORT DATE December 2015 1 The building is named for the original and long-term tenant. Archival records indicate that the property, along with the adjoining site to the south was developed by the trustees of John Sleigh's estate 2 No architect or building is identified at the time of the writing of this report. Building permits do not survive for this period and no reference to the property was found in the Globe's tender calls 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Trailside Esterbrooke Kingslake Harringay
    MILLIKEN COMMUNITY TRAIL CONTINUES TRAIL CONTINUES CENTRE INTO VAUGHAN INTO MARKHAM Roxanne Enchanted Hills Codlin Anthia Scoville P Codlin Minglehaze THACKERAY PARK Cabana English Song Meadoway Glencoyne Frank Rivers Captains Way Goldhawk Wilderness MILLIKEN PARK - CEDARBRAE Murray Ross Festival Tanjoe Ashcott Cascaden Cathy Jean Flax Gardenway Gossamer Grove Kelvin Covewood Flatwoods Holmbush Redlea Duxbury Nipigon Holmbush Provence Nipigon Forest New GOLF & COUNTRY Anthia Huntsmill New Forest Shockley Carnival Greenwin Village Ivyway Inniscross Raynes Enchanted Hills CONCESSION Goodmark Alabast Beulah Alness Inniscross Hullmar Townsend Goldenwood Saddletree Franca Rockland Janus Hollyberry Manilow Port Royal Green Bush Aspenwood Chapel Park Founders Magnetic Sandyhook Irondale Klondike Roxanne Harrington Edgar Woods Fisherville Abitibi Goldwood Mintwood Hollyberry Canongate CLUB Cabernet Turbine 400 Crispin MILLIKENMILLIKEN Breanna Eagleview Pennmarric BLACK CREEK Carpenter Grove River BLACK CREEK West North Albany Tarbert Select Lillian Signal Hill Hill Signal Highbridge Arran Markbrook Barmac Wheelwright Cherrystone Birchway Yellow Strawberry Hills Strawberry Select Steinway Rossdean Bestview Freshmeadow Belinda Eagledance BordeauxBrunello Primula Garyray G. ROSS Fontainbleau Cherrystone Ockwell Manor Chianti Cabernet Laureleaf Shenstone Torresdale Athabaska Limestone Regis Robinter Lambeth Wintermute WOODLANDS PIONEER Russfax Creekside Michigan . Husband EAST Reesor Plowshare Ian MacDonald Nevada Grenbeck ROWNTREE MILLS PARK Blacksmith
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule 4 Description of Views
    SCHEDULE 4 DESCRIPTION OF VIEWS This schedule describes the views identified on maps 7a and 7b of the Official Plan. Views described are subject to the policies set out in section 3.1.1. Described views marked with [H] are views of heritage properties and are specifically subject to the view protection policies of section 3.1.5 of the Official Plan. A. PROMINENT AND HERITAGE BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES & LANDSCAPES A1. Queens Park Legislature [H] This view has been described in a comprehensive study and is the subject of a site and area specific policy of the Official Plan. It is not described in this schedule. A2. Old City Hall [H] The view of Old City hall includes the main entrance, tower and cenotaph as viewed from the southwest and southeast corners at Temperance Street and includes the silhouette of the roofline and clock tower. This view will also be the subject of a comprehensive study. A3. Toronto City Hall [H] The view of City Hall includes the east and west towers, the council chamber and podium of City Hall and the silhouette of those features as viewed from the north side of Queen Street West along the edge of the eastern half of Nathan Phillips Square. This view will be the subject of a comprehensive study. A4. Knox College Spire [H] The view of the Knox College Spire, as it extends above the roofline of the third floor, can be viewed from the north along Spadina Avenue at the southeast corner of Bloor Street West and at Sussex Avenue. A5.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Class Environmental Assessment On
    Attachment 4 IE19.11 Part 2 Gerrard Street to Edward Street Gerrard Street to Walton Street — Recommended Design Concept from One-Way Driving Access Northbound Elm Street to Gould Street Walton Street to Elm Street — Pedestrian Priority Elm Street to Edward Street — Elm Street One-Way Driving Access Southbound Gerrard Street West Gerrard Street East Future Future Development Development Walton Street O’Keefe Lane O’Keefe Gould Street Ryerson Student Centre Typical cross section between Gerrard Elm Street Street and Edward Street P Gould Street Ryerson Pedestrian Zone Future Development Edward Street P N Legend: Street furniture/Greenery Pedestrian / Cycle only Curbside Activity Direction of travel Loading bay No right turn P Parking garage No left turn P Parking garage (private) No straight through Pedestrian zone Traffc signals Gate Cycle Track Pedestrian only No Entry Sharrow 19 Gerrard Street to Edward Street Gerrard Street to Walton Street One-Way Driving Access — Northbound local access has been added to the recommendation for this block during the day to provide more support for deliveries and ride hailing on Walton Street and Yonge Street. The volume and speed of vehicles using this block would be very low to support a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The character of this section would be similar to the pedestrian priority zones. The southbound lane won’t have any Mariahilfer Strasse, Vienna cars or trucks during the day and can be used for cycling. Wide sidewalks and furnishing zones to support cafés, planting, and seating remain. Artist rendering of Yonge Street between Walton Street and Elm Street looking north.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 5 Has Been Updated to Reflect the Specific Additions/Revisions Outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, Dated November, 2017
    DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This Revised Final Environmental Project Report – Volume 5 has been updated to reflect the specific additions/revisions outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, dated November, 2017. As such, it supersedes the previous Final version dated October, 2017. The report dated October, 2017 (“Report”), which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices) has been prepared by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC (“Gannett Fleming”) and Morrison Hershfield Limited (“Morrison Hershfield”) (“Consultants”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. Consultants disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines, costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information, opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, Consultants also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions. In preparing the Report, the Consultants have relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies, individuals and companies as noted in the Report. The Consultants have assumed that this information is factual and accurate and has not independently verified such information except as required by the standard of care. The Consultants accept no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiencies in such information. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are valid as of the date of the Report and are based on the data and information collected by the Consultants during their investigations as set out in the Report. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are based on the conditions encountered by the Consultants at the site(s) at the time of their investigations, supplemented by historical information and data obtained as described in the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Suitainable Adaptations for the Future
    Victorian House Sustainable adaptations for the future Rui Miguel Romão Raposo Thesis to obtain the Master's Degree in Architecture Supervisors Prof. Patrícia Isabel Mendes Lourenço Architect Michelle Xuereb Examination Committee Chairperson: Prof. Ana Paula Filipe Tomé Supervisor: Prof. Patrícia Isabel Mendes Lourenço Member of the Committee: Prof. Manuel de Arriaga Brito Correia Guedes May of 2018 I declare that this document is an original work of my own authorship and that it fulfills all the requirements of the Code of Conduct and Good Practices of the Universidade de Lisboa. This dissertation was written in English, which is one of the official languages of Canada. Because of its many variations, the English used was the Canadian English, which differs from British or American English, for instance. The units used follow the Metric system, official system used in Canada, with possible references to Imperial system, normally used to define construction materials. The relation between existing buildings and energy efficiency has become a priority when pursuing strategies to reduce the environmental footprint of construction. While cities around the world are density constructed, these existing buildings now have the opportunity to be improved by introducing new technologies and construction methods in response to the changing climate realities. The alternative is demolition to make room for more energy efficient buildings. Toronto is one such city that has experienced changes in density thanks to a hot real estate market. Pursuing the intent of maintaining the historical roots of the city, this document aims to define strategies on renovating existing buildings to make them more energy efficient, through the use of passive systems, and therefore preserving their original style and cultural sustainability for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • The Credit Valley Railway (CVR) BACKGROUND in 1849, the Province of Canada Passed Loan Interest Legislation That Triggered Canada’S Railway Building Boom
    34 The Credit Valley Railway (CVR) BACKGROUND In 1849, the Province of Canada passed loan interest legislation that triggered Canada’s railway building boom. Unfortunately, in 1851 the Province of Canada enacted further, inter alia, to create a Board of Railway Commis- sioners, one of whose duties was to administer the 1849 loan interest guarantee. The Board required that to obtain the loan interest guarantee benefit, any railway had to build to the 5ft 6in gauge, which came to be known as the "Provincial" or "Broad" Gauge. During this “broad gauge” era of railway development in Upper Canada from 1850 to 1870, one George Laidlaw rose to prominence as an advocate of the economies of the narrow gauge. An emigrant from Scotland, he obtained a position with the Toronto distillery firm of Gooderham & Worts, and persuaded his employers to invest in the nar- row gauge concept in sponsoring feeder lines for their business. Accordingly on March 4, 1868, the Toronto Grey & Bruce (TG&B) and the Toronto & Nipissing (T&N) Railways were chartered to build to the northwest and the north- east of Toronto. By 1865, Laidlaw had become a grain merchant in his own right, and his passion for transportation issues (the benefits of the narrow gauge system in particular) and his involvement with railway projects had come to dominate his career. After inception of the TG&B and the T&N, Laidlaw also became a moving force in the Credit Valley and the Victoria Railways. While the disadvantages of the narrow gauge system had not yet become appar- ent, in the meantime, the 5’6” “Provincial Gauge” was falling economically and politically out of favour.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Has No History!’
    ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY By Victoria Jane Freeman A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto ©Copyright by Victoria Jane Freeman 2010 ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY Doctor of Philosophy 2010 Victoria Jane Freeman Graduate Department of History University of Toronto The Indigenous past is largely absent from settler representations of the history of the city of Toronto, Canada. Nineteenth and twentieth century historical chroniclers often downplayed the historic presence of the Mississaugas and their Indigenous predecessors by drawing on doctrines of terra nullius , ignoring the significance of the Toronto Purchase, and changing the city’s foundational story from the establishment of York in 1793 to the incorporation of the City of Toronto in 1834. These chroniclers usually assumed that “real Indians” and urban life were inimical. Often their representations implied that local Indigenous peoples had no significant history and thus the region had little or no history before the arrival of Europeans. Alternatively, narratives of ethical settler indigenization positioned the Indigenous past as the uncivilized starting point in a monological European theory of historical development. i i iii In many civic discourses, the city stood in for the nation as a symbol of its future, and national history stood in for the region’s local history. The national replaced ‘the Indigenous’ in an ideological process that peaked between the 1880s and the 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Tax Claim Upset Sale ASHLAND BOROUGH As of 08/27
    2021 Tax Claim Upset Sale Municipality/Township ASHLAND BOROUGH 2021 Tax Claim Upset Sale Schuylkill County Tax Claim Bureau (570) 628-1405 ASHLAND BOROUGH as of 08/27/21 11:01:54AM Tax Number Property Address Owners Total Due 38-2-75 1033 Market Street Fishburn III David A, Fishburn Justin 3,056 38-2-75(1) 1037-1039 Market St Fishburn Kaitlin, Fishburn Derek 3,783 38-2-78 1115 Market Street Manhart Leroy, Manhart June A 2,337 38-2-86(1) 106 N Twelfth St Williams Karen 2,464 38-2-91 1319 Market St Williams Karen 3,461 38-2-98 1423 Market Street Williams Karen 8,144 38-2-128 1735 Market Street Williams Karen 2,219 38-2-162 1606 Market Street Johnson William K 3,585 38-2-188 1410 Market Street Hess David L, Hess Teresa L 3,040 38-2-204 1304 N Market Street Market Street Land Trust 1304 3,016 38-2-278 1423 Centre St Schmid Eric N 6,176 38-2-289 1511 Centre St Johnson William K 3,142 38-2-315 1721 Centre St Waskow Kurt J 2,460 38-2-393(1) 1210 Centre St Center Street Land Trust 4,920 38-3-22 928 Race Street Vernosky John 4,831 38-3-108 Market Street Citizens Natl Bank Ashland 2,663 38-3-137 739 Centre St Citizens Natl Bank Ashland 781 38-3-137(1) 0 Centre St Citizens Natl Bank Ashland 457 38-3-138 733 Centre St Aastha Homes Llc 32,133 38-3-182(1) 230 Chestnut Street Hubler Coleen C 2,326 38-3-202 17 Centre St Williams Karen 1,734 38-3-217 7 E Centre St Hamlett Debra 3,518 38-3-218 5 E Centre St Hamlett Debra L 3,189 38-3-270 400 Centre St Wentzel Jr Burd F, Wentzel Sandra L 4,719 38-3-270(1) 402 Centre St Wentzel Burd, Wentzel Sandra 1,585
    [Show full text]