Lower Don River West Lower Don River West BIBLIOGRAPHY
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 153-185 Eastern Avenue, City of Toronto (Former Dominion Wheel and Foundries Company) B80086 No
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 153-185 Eastern Avenue, City of Toronto (Former Dominion Wheel and Foundries Company) B80086 No. 153 Eastern Avenue B81484 No. 169 Eastern Avenue B80102 No. 171 Eastern Avenue B80129 No. 185 Eastern Avenue Site Plan, 2021 (SBA) Prepared for Infrastructure Ontario (IO) FINAL June 24th 2021 Client: Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation 1 Dundas Street West, Suite 2000 Toronto ON M5G 1Z3 Authors: Jane Burgess, OAA, CAHP, MRAIC, APT Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd. 204-120 Carlton Street Toronto ON M5A 4K2 [email protected] 416-961-5690 Julia Rady, PhD Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd. 204-120 Carlton Street Toronto ON M5A 4K2 [email protected] 416-961-5690 Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 153-185 Eastern Avenue, Toronto Table of Contents Executive Summary Confirmation of Ministry or Prescribed Public Body Review and Acceptance of Recommendations 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value.................................................................................................11 3. Assessment of Existing Conditions...................................................................................................... 14 4. Description and Purpose of Proposed Activity ................................................................................... 18 5. Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................ -
3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment The purpose of Chapter 3 is to present an overview of the environment potentially affected by the SWP to create familiarity with issues to be addressed and the complexity of the environment likely to be affected by the Project. All aspects of the environment within the Project Study Area (see Figure 2- 1 in Chapter 2) relevant to the Project and its potential effects have been described in this chapter. The chapter is divided into three sections which capture different components of the environment: 1. Physical environment: describes the coastal and geotechnical processes acting on the Project Study Area; 2. Natural environment: describes terrestrial and aquatic habitat and species; and, 3. Socio-economic environment: describes existing and planned land use, land ownership, recreation, archaeology, cultural heritage, and Aboriginal interests. The description of the existing environment is based on the information from a number of studies, which have been referenced in the relevant sections. Additional field surveys were undertaken where appropriate. Where applicable, future environmental conditions are also discussed. For most components of the environment, existing conditions within the Project Area or Project Study Area are described. Where appropriate, conditions within the broader Regional Study Area are also described. 3.1 Physical Environment Structures and property within slopes, valleys and shorelines may be susceptible to damage from natural processes such as erosion, slope failures and dynamic beaches. These processes become natural hazards when people and property locate in areas where they normally occur (MNR, 2001). Therefore, understanding physical natural processes is vital to developing locally-appropriate Alternatives in order to meet Project Objectives. -
Constructing Connections: Urban Forestry and Toronto's West
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Érudit Article "Constructing connections: urban forestry and Toronto’s West Don Lands revitalization" Paul L. Nichols Environnement Urbain / Urban Environment, vol. 3, 2009, p. 83-93. Pour citer cet article, utiliser l'information suivante : URI: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/037602ar DOI: 10.7202/037602ar Note : les règles d'écriture des références bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les différents domaines du savoir. Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter à l'URI https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'Université de Montréal, l'Université Laval et l'Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. Érudit offre des services d'édition numérique de documents scientifiques depuis 1998. Pour communiquer avec les responsables d'Érudit : [email protected] Document téléchargé le 12 février 2017 04:38 Dossier thématique Urbanisme et développement durable Urban planning and sustainable development Special Issue CONSTRUCTING CONNECTIONS: URBAN FORESTRY AND TORONTO’S WEST DON LANDS REVITALIZATION Paul L. NICHOLS RÉSUMÉ Les West Don Lands ont joué un rôle de premier plan dans l’histoire de Toronto. Du milieu du dix-neuvième siècle jusqu’au milieu du vingtième siècle cette zone est connue comme centre industriel. Aujourd’hui, force est de constater que le quartier subit les conséquences négatives de la désindustrialisation. -
3131 Lower Don River West Lower Don River West 4.0 DESCRIPTION
Lower Don River West Environmental Study Report Remedial Flood Protection Project 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF LOWER DON 4.1 The Don River Watershed The Don River is one of more than sixty rivers and streams flowing south from the Oak Ridges Moraine. The River is approximately 38 km long and outlets into the Keating Channel, which then conveys the flows into Toronto Harbour and Lake Historic Watershed Ontario. The entire drainage basin of the Don urbanization of the river's headwaters in York River is 360 km2. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, on the Region began in the early 1980s and continues following pages, describe the existing and future today. land use conditions within the Don River Watershed. Hydrologic changes in the watershed began when settlers converted the forests to agricultural fields; For 200 years, the Don Watershed has been many streams were denuded even of bank side subject to intense pressures from human vegetation. Urban development then intensified settlement. These have fragmented the river the problems of warmer water temperatures, valley's natural branching pattern; degraded and erosion, and water pollution. Over the years often destroyed its once rich aquatic and during the three waves of urban expansion, the terrestrial wildlife habitat; and polluted its waters Don River mouth, originally an extensive delta with raw sewage, industrial/agricultural marsh, was filled in and the lower portion of the chemicals, metals and other assorted river was straightened. contaminants. Small Don River tributaries were piped and Land clearing, settlement, and urbanization have buried, wetlands were "reclaimed," and springs proceeded in three waves in the Don River were lost. -
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. -
2018 AR Summary 3.15 Waterfront Toronto
Waterfront Toronto 2018 Value-for-Money Audit Why We Did This Audit Why It Matters • Waterfront Toronto was created under provincial legislation— • Land in Toronto’s waterfront is owned by public and private the Toronto Revitalization Corporation Act, 2002—to oversee interests. Successful revitalization depends on a co-ordinated and lead the revitalization of Toronto’s waterfront. Our Office and well-planned approach. has not previously audited Waterfront Toronto. • Federal, provincial and municipal governments committed • There is strong public interest in the revitalization of Toronto’s $1.5 billion in 2002 for waterfront revitalization and waterfront. $1.25 billion in 2018 for Port Lands flood protection. • Planning for large real-estate development while balancing the • Waterfront Toronto’s Quayside project with Sidewalk Labs interests of three levels of government creates complexity and raises concerns in areas including digital governance (for risks in areas such as project selection, project management example, data security and privacy) that will significantly and the procurement of developers and partners. impact the public. What We Found Mandate • Waterfront Toronto was not given the authority to ensure that the revitalization of Toronto’s waterfront is done right. As a result, the development of waterfront lands has continued to be largely driven by historical practices, existing bylaws, and other regulations governing commercial and residential development. • Waterfront Toronto has directly developed only 5% (55 acres) of the publicly owned developable waterfront land and provided funding to other organizations for revitalization of another 14% (151 acres) since its inception in 2002. • Other waterfront development entities in other cities were given greater authority than what Waterfront Toronto had regarding restriction of building heights, creation of large public spaces and public access to the water’s edge, and the right to expropriate in cases where the intended use was not consistent with overall revitalization plans. -
Peer Review EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport BBTCA
Imagine the result Peer Review – EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA) Runway Expansion and Introduction of Jet Aircraft Final Report August 2015 BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Current Assignment 1-3 2.0 PEER REVIEW APPROACH 2-1 2.1 Methodology 2-1 3.0 FINDINGS OF PEER REVIEW OF AECOM’S DRAFT STUDY DESIGN REPORT 3-1 3.1 EA Process and Legislation 3-1 3.2 Public Consultation & Stakeholder Engagement 3-1 3.3 Air Quality 3-2 3.4 Public Health 3-5 3.5 Noise 3-6 3.6 Natural Environment 3-10 3.7 Socio-Economic Conditions 3-11 3.8 Land Use & Built Form 3-14 3.9 Marine Physical Conditions and Water Quality 3-15 3.10 Transportation 3-15 3.11 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage 3-18 4.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1 APPENDIX A Presentation Given to the Working Group (22 June 2015) B Presentation of Draft Phase I Peer Review Report Results (13 July 2015) i BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AERMOD Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System ARCADIS ARCADIS Canada Inc. BBTCA Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport CALPUFF Meteorological and Air Quality Monitoring System CCG Canadian Coast Guard CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CO Carbon Monoxide COPA Canadian Owners and Pilots Association dBA Decibel Values of Sounds EA Environmental Assessment EC Environment Canada GBE Government Business Enterprise GWC Greater Waterfront Coalition HEAT Habitat and Environmental Assessment Tool INM Integrated Noise Model Ldn Day-Night -
Growing up Getting Competitive
TORONTO EDITION FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2013 Vol. 17 • No. 15 Tall building design guidelines update Convention venue needed downtown GROWING UP GETTING By Jake Tobin Garrett COMPETITIVE Anyone watching the city’s skyline over the past 10 years By John Michael McGrath would have noticed it has gotten both increasingly crowded and taller. Th is bourgeoning tall building environment brings new design challenges and opportunities that the city hopes Toronto needs a new, large, convention space according to to address in an update to its tall building design guidelines, respected people in the industry—and it needs one downtown, which were adopted at planning and growth management not at Exhibition Place. committee yesterday. Toronto “absolutely” needs a newer, larger convention “It’s been an incredible laboratory for studying tall buildings space says Lyle Hall, managing director at HLT Advisory— because we’re building more tall buildings than most cities in “unequivocally.” Hall is one of the leading consultants in the the world,” city urban design director Robert Freedman told hotel and tourism industry, and his research informed city NRU. “Th ere’s been a huge amount of change and certainly a manager Joe Pennachetti’s recent report. Th e key issue, says huge number of towers added to the city as these guidelines Hall, is Toronto’s lack of “contiguous space,” meaning a single have evolved.” large exhibit space for the large events that have the greatest Since the guidelines were put in place in 2006, the city has economic impact. received 290 tall building applications, he said, adding that “It’s virtually impossible to rent the Metro Toronto many of those were for multiple towers, so the actual number Convention Centre to one customer to use both sides,” is larger. -
Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line
EX9.1 Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line As directed by City Council in April 2019, City and TTC staff have assessed the Province’s proposed Ontario Line. The details of this assessment are provided in this attachment. 1. Project Summary 1.1. Project Description The Ontario Line was included as part of the 2019 Ontario Budget1 as a transit project that will cover similar study areas as the Relief Line South and North, as well as a western extension. The proposed project is a 15.5-kilometre higher-order transit line with 15 stations, connecting from Exhibition GO station to Line 5 at Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East, near the Science Centre station, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Ontario Line Proposal (source: Metrolinx IBC) Since April 2019, technical working groups comprising staff from the City, TTC, Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Transportation met regularly to understand alignment and station location options being considered for the Ontario 1 http://budget.ontario.ca/2019/contents.html Attachment 4 - Assessment of Ontario Line Page 1 of 20 Line. Discussions also considered fleet requirements, infrastructure design criteria, and travel demand modelling. Metrolinx prepared an Initial Business Case (IBC) that was publicly posted on July 25, 2019.2 The IBC compared the Ontario Line and Relief Line South projects against a Business As Usual scenario. The general findings by Metrolinx were that "both Relief Line South and Ontario Line offer significant improvements compared to a Business As Usual scenario, generating $3.4 billion and $7.4 billion worth of economic benefits, respectively. -
Creating Dynamic and Diverse Communities
3 (1) PUBLIC REALM IN THE EAST BAYFRONT (2) PUBLIC REALM ALONG THE DON ROADWAY (3) 20 NIAGARA STREET, KING-SPADINA (4) NATIONAL TRADE CENTRE AT EXHIBITION PLACE (5) RESTORED QUEENS QUAY TERMINAL BUILDING (6) MIMICO PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 1 4 (7) VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE PARK 5 6 2 7 D) CREATING DYNAMIC AND DIVERSE NEW COMMUNITIES The fourth and final principle of the Plan is focused on the creation of dynamic and D21_A NEW BEGINNING FOR THE WEST DON LANDS diverse waterfront communities – unique places of beauty, quality and opportunity for With the construction of the flood protection berm and the naturalization The National Trade Centre will continue to function as a magnet to attract all citizens. New waterfront communities will be acclaimed for their high degree of social, of the mouth of the Don River, the West Don Lands will be redeveloped new businesses and support facilities. Synergies may also be created by economic, natural and environmental health and cultural vibrancy, which collectively will into diverse mixed-use communities. These communities will capitalize the presence of the new media businesses of Liberty Village. on their strategic downtown location, the synergy created by the simulta- contribute to the long-term sustainability of the area and the entire city. The following The remade Exhibition Place will feature a world-class public open neous development of the Port Lands and their historic roots as part of the “Big Moves” implement this principle: plaza capable of hosting large gatherings and festivals. original town of York, as well as the Don River’s new environmental health. -
The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species. -
Billy Bishop Airport Master Planning Process Takes Off with First Public Meeting Scheduled for February 7 from 5:00 P.M
Billy Bishop Airport Master Planning Process Takes Off with First Public Meeting Scheduled for February 7 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Meeting to include topic tables, formal presentation and Q&A Toronto (January 15, 2018) – Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (Billy Bishop Airport) will hold its first public meeting in association with updating its Master Plan on February 7, 2018. The planning process for the Billy Bishop Airport 2018 Master Plan will include a robust public consultation process that will include the public, neighbourhood community groups, airport stakeholders, government agencies, and first nations communities. The first public meeting is scheduled for: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 Metro Toronto Convention Centre – North Building Level 200 – East Meeting Rooms 205 & 206 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Format: 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. – Open House with topic tables set up for small group discussion and Q&A. Topics will include: master plan process, noise management, wildlife management, ground transportation, emergency services, security and public safety, infrastructure, and environmental sustainability. 6:45 to 7:15 p.m. – Formal Presentation of Master Plan process and objectives 7:15 to 8:30 p.m. – Group Q&A Background: The primary purpose of an airport Master Plan is to establish an orderly development concept for the airport that establishes priorities and options for the airport’s operation and development over an extended period of time, while at the same time allowing the airport to avail itself of new opportunities to serve the needs of the community and operators.