Cultural Heritage Landscape Of

Cultural Heritage Landscape of Leaside Cultural Heritage Landscape of Leaside What is Leaside’s cultural heritage landscape and how did it evolve? Leaside is a thriving midtown suburb of Toronto, Ontario, Canada situated just to the west and north of the Don River. Leaside’s distinctive cultural heritage landscape evolved from the overlaying of the following: the natural and pre-settlement landscape, the agricultural settlement landscape, the model town designed in 1912 by Frederick Todd, the ensuing residential development of the late 1920s to the 1950s, and its contemporary development Pre-settlement Landscape The Leaside area was affected by a series of ancient Ice Ages, which covered cover: Aerial orthographic photo of Leaside, 1942 above: Courtyard, Garden Court Apartments the land with a succession of glaciers and large lakes. The last of the melting glaciers created a very large “Lake Ontario” called Lake Iroquois. The north- Acknowledgements ern shore of Lake Iroquois ran along a line just north of present day Eglinton The support of the North York Community Preservation Panel and the Toronto Preservation Avenue. Later the lake receded and the plateau-like Leaside lands emerged Board, and the financial assistance of the City of Toronto Special Heritage Community Event Fund in producing the booklet, are gratefully acknowledged. high and dry. Thanks also to The Cultural Landscape Foundation for the opportunity to share the cultural heritage landscape of Leaside. The Agricultural Settlement Landscape The first survey of the Colonial settlement grid placed a series of large rectangular lots running east–west bounded by concession roads running north–south. The land lots of the future Leaside were owned and cultivated by a few farm families, interrupted only by small vernacular laneways con- necting to Yonge Street. Three “stranded” farmhouses of early settlers (John Lea Jr., James Lea, and Thomas Elgie), which were originally located in relation to their farms, and to the lanes, today present as being misplaced on their current lots (which are based on Todd’s town plan).

Text Credits: Photo Credits: Paddy Duncan Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd Architects Geoff Kettel Paddy Duncan Connor Turnbull Christopher Graham Agnes Vermes Geoff Kettel Connor Turnbull Map credits: Kim Auchinachie Design and Printing Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd Architects Alvin Ng, Dragon Snap Design John Naulls Bruce Thornton, GM Thornton and Son References and Sources Jane Pitfield, Leaside, Dundurn Press, 1999 Paul Dilse, “An Illustrated History of Milestones in the Development of Leaside,” manuscript produced for the Leaside Property Owners’ Association, November 2014 Leaside 100 Committee, “The Layers of Leaside” Exhibit, April 2013 Settlement Map c.1912 Leaside Property Owners’ Association, Leaside Heritage Conservation District Nomination, November 2013 (John Naulls) Todd’s Designed Landscape Todd’s Designed Landscape Eight years after the launch of the world’s first garden city at Letchworth, American-born Todd (1876-1948), who had apprenticed as a landscape England, the Montreal landscape architect Frederick Gage Todd laid out the architect in the firm of Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot in Brookline, Massachu- Town of Leaside – one of three model new towns laid out on garden city setts before setting up practice in Montreal in 1900, set aside a large block principles for the Canadian Northern Railway (the railway company’s other of land in the town’s southeast quadrant for the railway terminal and two model towns were Port Mann on the Fraser River near Vancouver and industry. He laid out the greater part of the town with curvilinear streets, in the Town of Mount Royal on the north side of Montreal’s famous mountain). contrast to the pre-existing York Township grid surveyed between 1791 and In 1912, the York Land Company, a land holding company for the Canadian 1798. Most residential streets were 66 feet wide, intended for local traffic. Northern Railway, assembled 1,025 acres of farmland at Leaside Junction. Four thoroughfares for collecting and moving through traffic – one as wide Sale of house and industrial lots in the model new town was meant to pay as 110 feet – were at the top of the street hierarchy. Three long mid-block for construction of a new Canadian Northern Railway terminal at Leaside through lanes and two other quite short mid-block lanes were accommo- Junction. dated in the plan, and curvilinear lanes accessed and bounded a few small public gardens distributed through the plan. The plan with its curving streets created a variety of house lots. Todd and his client were influenced by many of the principles of the garden city movement: the acquisition of a large agricultural estate served by rail for development of a new town; the restriction of the size of the town to an area that would permit it to function as a self-contained community; the re- tention of the ownership of the land by a company or trust so as to maintain the principles on which the town was established; and the planning of the land and the development of roads, streets, sanitary services and recreation spaces so as to provide good conditions for both industrial and residential occupation. Todd’s 1912 plan for Leaside was not perfectly realized, but many of the features he gave it survived the 15-year delay in the town’s residential development and are still present. The gently arcing streets and the diagonal course of McRae Drive and Millwood Road still distinguish the community. Todd’s small parks were eliminated – Heather Gardens exists in name only – but the Town Council compensated by buying up lots for three public parks. Trace Manes in South Leaside serves as the green centre of the community.

Town of Leaside Municipal Plan, 1913 – later parks (John Naulls) Trace Manes Park (Christopher Graham photo) Leaside Matters Leaside Matters Leaside Matters (1922) (1922) re re (1922) re lk lk rrem and rrem and Apartments Apartments Wa Wa lk rrem and ards ards Apartments en Court Apartments en Court en Court Apartments en Court Wa rmer Pe rmer Pe rmer Leaside rmer Leaside cket Park I Park cket Park II cket cket Park I Park cket Park II cket lk Fo lbot Apartments lbot Fo lk lbot Apartments lbot ards en Court Apartments en Court rmer Pe Ta Ta rmer Leaside Extended ew Crestvi 11. Lea House (c.1909) 12. Fo 13. Municipal Building (1949) Knight General Sto Wa I Types Housing 1. Po 2. Po 9. 3. Public civic space 3. Leaside origins 4. 8. Ga rd 10. 5. Housing Types II Types Housing 5. Co re Green 6. Boul ev 7. Extended ew Crestvi 11. Lea House (c.1909) 12. Fo 13. Municipal Building (1949) Knight General Sto ur Route Wa I Types Housing 1. Po 2. Po 9. 3. Public civic space 3. Leaside origins 4. 8. Ga rd 10. 5. Housing Types II Types Housing 5. Co re Green 6. Boul ev 7. cket Park I Park cket Park II cket ur Route lk Fo lbot Apartments lbot ttel ©2015. ttel ©2015. To To Ta Ke Ke ew Crestvi 11. Lea House (c.1909) 12. Fo 13. Municipal Building (1949) Knight General Sto Extended Wa I Types Housing 1. Po 2. Po 9. 3. Public civic space 3. Leaside origins 4. 8. Ga rd 10. 5. Housing Types II Types Housing 5. Co re Green 6. Boul ev 7. ur Route ttel ©2015. lking To lking

LAIRD DR LAIRD LAIRD DR LAIRD Wa Wa

lking LAIRD DR LAIRD Wa . . . . 13 13

. R

D D

. D

EGLINTON AVE E AVE EGLINTON A N

EGLINTON AVE E AVE EGLINTON A

5. L

5. R

H E

13 T

12 T S U

D and Geoff Turnbull Connor N

A and Geoff Turnbull Connor

EGLINTON AVE E AVE EGLINTON L

5. R

4. E

4. H

R U D R S D N 6.

O N and Geoff Turnbull Connor 6. R O R

R 4. A R A H R S D H

S .

School D

N D .

School 6. D

R Auchinachi e,

Y R

FIELD AVE I

11 E

R Y I

FIELD AVE R

ry 11

A E

H R A

N A

D R

H S M

N D

N A

D R R

S I M U

I A

School U R

R R

R Auchinachi e,

D E Y

FIELD AVE I

R D E

R S LEACREST RD LEACREST

A N D N A

D D R

BESSBOROUGH DR BESSBOROUGH

M RD LEACREST

D R

O DR BESSBOROUGH 3. I

. O

3. O A

S 7. R

E O

S 7.

2. R

E L

D W C

R L 2. L eated by Kim

C L N eated by Kim

M LEACREST RD LEACREST

N D O

BESSBOROUGH DR M BESSBOROUGH

R O O 3.

. AVE MOORE

E R O

S 7.

MOORE AVE MOORE

MCRAE DR MCRAE

E E M

2. R DR MCRAE

A L M

C L

eated by Kim

A I

N 9.

O 9. R

MOORE AVE MOORE E

MCRAE DR MCRAE

BAYVIEW AVE BAYVIEW 8.

C BAYVIEW AVE BAYVIEW 8. . 9. Church Cemeta Church . Cultural Heritage Landscape of Leaside Walking Tour Cultural Heritage Landscape of Leaside Walking Church Cemeta Church Cultural Heritage Landscape of Leaside Walking Tour Cultural Heritage Landscape of Leaside Walking Credits: Map cr Credits: 1. Credits: Map cr Credits: 10

10 BAYVIEW AVE BAYVIEW 8. . Church Cemeta Church Cultural Heritage Landscape of Leaside Walking Tour Cultural Heritage Landscape of Leaside Walking Credits: Map cr Credits: 10 Two-storey semi-detached Agnes Macphail residence on Millwood Road In addition to single-detached and semi-detached houses, three “garden” apartment complexes – two on Bayview Avenue within the town proper, and another along Leacrest Road just to the south of the town limits were developed; The Garden Court Apartments (1477 Bayview Avenue); the Kelvin Grove, Strathavon, and Glen-Leven, the three blocks forming the Aerial from c.1928 of Laird and McRae showing first homes and Canada Wire and Cable buildings Talbot Apartments (1325-1365 Bayview Avenue), and Crestview Apartments The Developed Residential Landscape (Leacrest/Mallory area). Despite the clarity of the plan, the major part of Leaside’s residential development was initially delayed. Within the first five years the Canada Wire and Cable Company built factories in the industrial section to the east and built homes for their workers nearby. These homes, along with the settler farmhouses and barns, a grocery store and the train station were the earliest elements of the town. Other industry followed, but residential building was sporadic during the interwar years. When conditions for residential development became favourable, Leaside’s Crestview Apartments developed landscape grew rapidly, and was even sustained through the Great Appropriately suited to the town’s garden-city origins, the collection of gar- Depression. Almost all the houses and apartments in Leaside were erected den apartment buildings were designed and sited around garden courtyards between 1928 and 1953. Leaside’s comprehensive plan, its 25-year build-up or forecourts. The garden apartments of the Leaside residential community and building restrictions imposed by the York Land Company created a represent the largest concentration of the housing type in Toronto. harmonious collection of housing types.

Consistently styled detached houses Tudor style The housing types included single, semi, double-semi (quadraplex), of one and two storeys and multi-family house forms of two and three storeys. Its architecture varied but utilized various Modern Classicism styles including Tudor and Georgian Revival and Art Moderne. Garden Court Apartments Kelvin Grove/Talbot Apartments (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd Architects) Furthermore, the town’s main shopping street on Bayview Avenue, developed in the late 1920s onward, is uniformly built with rows of unassuming, two-storey, brick commercial buildings built to the sidewalk. The architectural consistency on the east side of Bayview Avenue in Leaside is not found on the street’s west side in the old City of Toronto. The Contemporary Landscape The trend in the contemporary period is the constant pressure for residential intensification, or rather “massification,” as the desired amount of floor area increases, but without necessarily any change in number of occupants. Upper-floor additions began appearing on one-storey bungalows by the late Courtyard, Garden Court Apartments 1970s, but purchasers of Leaside properties are increasingly acquiring both bungalows and two-storey houses – built of double brick – to demolish Of these, the Garden Court Apartments, designed and constructed by them and build frame replacement houses that are too tall, have different Page and Steele in 1939-41 with landscape design by Dunington-Grubb and profiles, and are clad with an assortment of veneers, which do not adhere Stensson, are especially distinctive for their scale and design excellence. The to the Leaside character guidelines. Garden Court Apartments not only sit within the larger cultural heritage landscape of Leaside, but also are a significant planned cultural landscape in In 2003, the City of Toronto in consultation with the Leaside Character Pres- their own right. ervation Advisory Committee published the Residential Character Preserva- tion Guidelines for House Renovations, Additions and In-Fill Development in the Community of Leaside. These guidelines “provide design principles that are meant to assist members of the community – architects, designers and contractors, as well as city officials and staff, in gaining an understanding of what makes Leaside’s natural and architectural attributes valuable and how to extend these attributes to new development.” Unfortunately the guidelines are just that; guidelines, which do not have legal authority.

Courtyard, Garden Court Apartments Leaside’s public buildings fitted well into the townscape of modest houses and apartments. Hanks & Irwin designed the town hall with adjoining fire station to be small in scale and plain in appearance, adorned with only a little late Art Deco decoration. Even the town’s churches were modest. The church with the choicest location in town – Leaside United – is domestic in scale, rising modestly in its naturalistic setting.

Leaside United Church (Christopher Graham photo) St Cuthbert’s Anglican Church What are the threats to Leaside’s Cultural Heritage Landscape? Leaside is a highly desirable neighbourhood with easy access to downtown Toronto, good local shopping, a range of community facilities and places of worship, and a large stock of well-built single-detached houses, semi-detached homes and small-scale apartment buildings. However, these attributes, plus the lack of effective planning controls, are resulting in the erosion of the cultural heritage landscape of Leaside through reckless demolition and insensitive alteration.

A proposed Leaside Heritage Conservation District, allowing for the control of demolitions and infill development, would appear to hold the most promise for the cultural heritage landscape of Leaside to evolve in a planned and consistent manner, rather than be destroyed by incremental and random changes. Once at the forefront of town planning in Canada, Leaside remains the liveable community envisioned by Todd. The curvilinear streets, consistent residential facades, neighbourhood parks, and picturesque street tree canopy represent a cultural landscape that is balanced, spacious yet human scale – ideal for walking, biking, and for living.