More 1327 - 1339 Queen St E Heritage Discoveries

By Laura Marks
ETCC Steering Committee

A few weeks ago I visited the Land Titles Office to find out more about the history of the proposed development site at 1327-1339 Queen Street East. Once Belinda supplied the legal descriptions it was easy to find the documents relating to the lots at the LTO. The information gleaned from them provided new directions for research of the buildings.

From the map of Plan 214:

In 1857 John and George Ernest were owners of lot 10, Broken Front, first concession from the Bay, Ashbridge Bay to Concession Road (Queen Street), Leslie Street to Lake Street (Knox Ave).

From the Land Title Documents pertaining to Lots 22, 23 and 24, Plan 214:

The first listing in the list of Land Titles is for Lot 24 (1327 and 1329 Queen East), when John Greenwood (of Greenwood Avenue and of The Puritan Tavern, formerly at the northwest corner of Queen and Greenwood) bought Lot 24 from the estate of Henry William Savage in 1858.

In 1864 William Vine bought lots 22 (1337-1339 Queen East) and 23 (1333 and 1337 Queen East) from the Estate of Henry William Savage. William Vine bought Lot 24 from John Greenwood's Estate: ITs date 1867, date of registry 1880. From the Land Titles records it appears that the three lots may have been won in a wager.

Butcher's Arms Tavern - from Landmarks of Toronto, John Ross Robertson

William Vine was a butcher who owned and operated a popular tavern called the Butcher's Arms, situated on the east side of Mill Lane, now Broadview Avenue between Hogarth and Sparkhall Avenues. The pub was the best known sporting house in the city. Regular cock fighting matches were held there. The Butcher's Arms was frequented by horse racing men from the track located on the south side of Queen Street at Broadview and by the infamous Brooks Bush Gang, who terrorized East End citizenry and who were responsible for the murder of John Sheridan Hogan: printer, newspaperman, lawyer and politician in 1859. His body was found floating in the river in 1861, eighteen months after a botched robbery by the Brooks Bush Gang at the Don Bridge. William Vine died age 62 in 1879, but his wife, Frances lived on to a ripe old age into the 20th century.

Mrs Vine - from Landmarks of Toronto, John Ross Robertson

In 1886 Robert Manson, another butcher, purchased all three lots from Frances Vine, but he defaulted on the taxes in 1891 due to his insolvency. In desperation he committed suicide by slashing his throat with a razor early one morning in May, 1903. His wife Annie, who was one of the founders and patrons of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Leslieville, paid the tax arrears in 1906 and 1907. She sold lot 24 and the west part of Lot 23 to to William B.P. Graham, bookkeeper at Graham Ice and Coal and brother of John C. Graham, President of Graham Ice and Coal. She sold Lot 22 and the east part of lot 23 to William Booth, who built the Yorkville Fire Hall (1876) as well as many other buildings in Toronto.

The Graham House at 1327 and 1329 Queen Street East was built for John C. Graham in 1906 by William J. Hewitt, a local builder who lived on Coxwell Avenue and who also owned lots 38-50 of plan 214, in other words, all of Connaught Avenue. The Graham House is widely admired and features lovely stained glass windows at the street view and in the side bays.

1327-1329 Building Permit : 1327-1329 Queen Street East - photograph from the Toronto Archive - from the author's collection

The building at 1337-1339 Queen Street East, the most easterly four-plex, was built and fully tenanted by 1912. The four-plex to the west, 1333-1335 was completed and all but one of the flats occupied by 1913. The Toronto Directory entries refer to the previous year. These two four-plex buildings are "one of a kind" in Toronto with their spacious porches and balconies, generous roofs and slim, square columns. The historically designated four-plexes of the Price Brother's development of the mid to late 1920s in the Beach mimic many of the qualities of these originals.

1327-1339 Queen East, Might's Toronto Directory 1912   1327-1339 Queen East, Might's Toronto Directory 1913

1327-1339 Queen East, Might's Toronto Directory 1914

At Toronto Archives I found a permit granted in 1913 for a structure to be affixed to the side of the Woodbine Apartments on Queen Street East near Laing. This could refer to our four-plexes, or it could refer to the building directly on the corner. No specific address was named and I can find no trace of a mention of the Woodbine Apartments anywhere else. The name of the applicant on the building permit is William Bell, who was a specification writer for the celebrated architectural firm, Darling and Pearson. If the Woodbine Apartments are our four-plexes then the architects very well could have been Darling and Pearson. Another prominent Toronto architect who did work for William Booth was David Brash Dick (1846 - 1925) one of the founders of the Arts and Letters Club, who designed a house for William Booth on Avenue Road just south of Davenport in 1878.

William Bell, Might's Toronto Directory 1912William Bell, Toronto Might's Directory 1913

To date I haven't found a building permit for either four-plex building. There may or may not be one because the Toronto Architect's Office was severely understaffed and housing development in Toronto was very intense at the time the four-plexes were built.

Around the first decade of the 20th century the form of multi-unit residences in Toronto was in its infancy. There was widespread opposition to the construction of apartment buildings on the grounds that neighbourhoods were being devalued by the inclusion of "tenements" for single people or people who couldn't afford an entire house. In May 1912 by-law 6061 was passed declaring it necessary to have 500 feet of yard space around each dwelling for each suite on the ground floor, and that tenements or apartments could only be built on commercial streets. A way of circumventing the by-laws was to build two semi-detached four-family dwellings as opposed to one large building.

There was a scarcity of trained examiners in the Toronto Architect's department of the time because of poor pay. There were 50 new permits per day and a month long wait for approval. By June 1912 the old by-laws were unobtainable and in the neighbourhood of 100 new laws had been amended but not yet passed. By August 1912 the City Architect had suffered a nervous breakdown from overwork and was at home under a doctor's care. There were 250 permits awaiting attention. Many buildings were being erected without permits. However, it's unlikely that buildings in such a prominent position as Queen Street would have been built without a permit. Local residents were up-in-arms about apartment buildings being built in their neighbourhoods and builders were being reported to the authorities for building without a permit. I've come across several building permits applied for by the Booths during the relevant time, but none so far have been for the four-plexes.

From the archives of the Toronto Daily Star, Friday, August 16, 1912:

Congestion in Architect's Bureau
Toronto Daily Star, Friday, August 16, 1912

Four-plexes of the general vintage of ours seem to be quite rare. I know of only two other groupings in Toronto.

Edward McNamara Building,  857-879 King Street West, Google Maps

The Edward McNamara Building, a Classical Revival building located at 857-879 King Street West near Strachan Avenue, built 1903, included in the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties June, 2006, was designed by prominent Toronto architect Henry Simpson who articled with E. J. Lennox and partnered with Charles J. Gibson, James Ellis and Robert M. Young. Among many other notable Toronto buildings, Henry Simpson designed the historically designated house at 100 Greenwood Avenue in 1897 for John Raphael Price, brick manufacturer, whose wife was Ella Maud, John C. Graham's daughter, and whose mother was Annie Simpson Price.

John Price House, 100 Greenwood Avenue, architect Henry Simpson
- from the author's collection

The other early group of four-plexes that has come to light is at the south end of Ashdale Avenue. These four-plexes were built some time between 1914 and 1917 and bear some resemblance to Henry Simpson's four-plexes at King Street West. Further research is needed to find the exact year of construction and the architect, possibly leading to information about our Queen Street four-plexes, which pre-date these and may be the template for all of the four-plexes in the east end.

6a - 8b Ashdale Ave 22a - 24b Ashdale Ave

A selection of the several four-plexes on Ashdale Ave - from the author's collection

My sincere hope is that the City's Heritage Preservation Department will soon begin their study, carrying on from the findings of my research. Using their expertise and their greater access to information I'm hopeful they can confirm the provenance of our four-plexes beyond any doubt to firmly establish their preeminence as among the very first relatively small multi-unit purpose-built Toronto dwellings, preserving 1333-1339 Queen Street East by means of a heritage designation.

Stay tuned for further discoveries.


Laura Marks
ETCC Steering Committee



primary sources:
From the Land Titles Office:
Land Titles map of Plan 214
Land Titles for Lots 22, 23 and 24, Plan 214.
Landmarks of Toronto, J.Ross Robertson
Toronto Archives: Building permits for Queen Street East: 1911, 1912 and 1913
Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950
From Summer Cottage Colony to Metropolitan Suburb: Toronto's Beach District, 1889-1929 by
Nik Luca
Toronto's First apartment House Boom: an Historical Geography, 1900-1920 by Richard Dennis, Department of Geography, University College, London, England.
Globe and Mail Archives: May 3, 1912 p.9, August 12, 1912 p.8, December 17, 1926 p.12
Toronto Daily Star Archives: Tuesday, May 21, 1912, p. 3, Thursday, June 13, 1912, front page, Thursday, August 15, 1912 front page, Friday, August 16, 1912 p. 17.
Might's Toronto Directories: 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1917.
Goad's Maps plate #103 1913.




mh

The Last Working Group Meeting - Report on WG Meeting #4

The last Working Group meeting regarding the proposed development at 1327-1339 Queen East took place on Wednesday November 5 at the S.H Armstrong Community Centre. We were advised by City Planning that an Area study to determine appropriate building development guidelines will be starting and introduced to Kelly Jones. She’ll be leading the study and has been asked to look at whether the Beaches guidelines or the Leslieville guidelines would apply for this area. (The answer will more than likely be no and then the real study will begin).

The group questioned the fact that, once again, - we were not seeing any changes to the development design, that we were being placed into smaller table groups when the Working Group was already quite small and manageable, and that our concerns regarding depth, density and height were still not being addressed by the city.


The format for the meeting was changed and rather than being read a series of reports and asked to comment, we were asked for our thoughts on the development. There were four questions: that were posed by planning

1. Ground floor design and use: How could a building on this site contribute to the vibrancy of the street.Could certain uses of this site contribute to the vibrancy of Queen St. East? What design elements would fit the character of this part of Queen St. East
2. The Streetscape – Could the streetscape be improved in this location? What elements are needed here – wider sidewalks, lighting, street furniture, others?
3. General Built Form – You have been provided the comments by the City’s Urban Designer to the applicant. What do you think about the sidewalk width, the base building height, the overall height, the stepbacks, the relationship to Memory Lane…?
4. Memory Lane – The proposal identifies low-rise buildings and vehicular access on Memory Lane. How could the existing and/or proposed conditions for Memory Lane be improved?

Before we list the input from the working group, it should be mentioned that anyone can copy these questions and send their suggestions to the Planning department. The dialogue is continuing.

1. Ground floor design and use:

First reactions were: set the building back so that there is more space for the community to use i.e. patios, protective weather canopy. Create setbacks and angles to make people engage with the street. Also make sure that the trees are allowed to have enough room and light to grow. Let people be able to walk side-by-side and not single file.

It was suggested that the building not present a flat façade to the street but engage the passerby and perhaps draw them in to the building. Smaller retail spaces were suggested and maybe a mix of retail and office; fruit and vegetable markets, things that can service the local neighbourhood. The worry was expressed that there are many vacant locations now that aren’t renting and that this increased retail won’t help matters.

Mention was made that the retail connections on Queen are broken up so that pedestrians only walk so far and then they turn around because of dead zones. Mention was made that the retail environment is a work in progress because Leslieville doesn’t have the density to support it yet.

Mention was made that the Queen St frontage could be animated via a north-south greenway promenade through the property that would also help animate Memory Lane - and that a more-than-the-Green-Standard-required number of at-grade bicycle parking spots, plus a well lit, natural light, at-grade bicycle maintenance space could be an element to help that animation - while at the same time encouraging the adoption of active modes of transportation that densification and sedentary urban lifestyles demand.

2. The Streetscape:

Mention was made that a two level commercial office space might be considered with a “grander” anchor tenant.

Mention was made that the retail spaces at Woodbine and Queen and Carlaw and Dundas are also retail spaces that don’t work. Retail at grade only animates the street and adds value to the area if in fact it’s finely “grained” enough, both in terms of its aesthetic and its function otherwise it’s a very dead end and it can actually hinder animation on the street. King East example sited where it hits the Don Valley.We are replete with examples of retail areas that don’t work.

Mention was made that Roncesvalles streetscape works.

Mention was made that the acoustic environment on Queen needs to be broken up using different façade materials.

3. Built Form discussion:

Suggested that the development be reorganized on site to put the town house units into a T shape at the back so that their “fronts” would face east and west- providing setbacks to the yards on either side - with planting/green areas in front of each.

- on the south side as a result there would be much reduced over-look onto neighbouring back yards…
these rear units would mostly look west and east - the balconies would be solid facing east and west - only the balcony face to the south would be glass to provide neighbours with more privacy… these units aren’t on the lane. The building would mesh better with the neighbourhood at the back and be less invasive. There would be no windows overlooking memory Lane. The back should be heterogeneous with what is already there.

The service area could be moved to in the centre of the complex and the building would wrap around this area reducing visual pollution. The parking ramp could be covered by a green roof which would afford the neighbours with a better visual environment.

Suggestion that the number of three bedroom units should be increased and the number of two bedroom to attract more families. Developer says it will depend on the demand.

Mention that the area is losing affordable housing.

4. Memory Lane

Mention was made of the need to make allowances for the pedestrian traffic, need “safe areas” for people to stand in while traffic is passing. Mention was made that other developments are in the works that will also stress the capacity of Memory Lane and Sears.

Summing Up

It was a very animated evening. As a result of the last Working Group meeting the ETCC sent the following email to Planning:

After the last Working Group meeting there were a few items that remain up in the air for us. If we could get any feedback on the following it would be appreciated:

1. In order for the developer to understand what changes to his overall design need to be made as of right, he needs to receive the comments from the Planning department. Can you advise when you’d be providing the next round to the developer?

2. We have heard many times that the development will be serviced from Queen and that this is why the laneway construction is being allowed. There is some confusion on our part as to how emergency services will be accessing the rear construction off of Queen as there is no vehicular access from Queen.

3. At the last meeting on Wednesday evening, a question was raised as to whether the Co-op at 1327 Queen East was subject to a residential or commercial taxation rate. We would like clarity on that matter as it possibly could impact rental replacement unit count.

4. After the Working Group meeting on September 22 we submitted a number of concerns that also need to be answered:

a) The building remains incompatible with the city’s own guidelines, how is this going to be addressed.

b) The height at 25.8 metres is still over the maximum allowed of 14m for this area and is also well over the 20 metres for both the Beach area and the Leslieville and Mid-Rise guidelines (which do not apply for this area). Does the city intend to enforce its height restrictions with regard to this precedent setting development.

c) What is the city’s stance on the requested density for this project which is more than twice that allowed.

We would also like to iterate the feeling that an additional public meeting for the community is essential so that they can have the opportunity to see the revised drawings of the development well before the obligatory TEYCC meeting.

They have acknowledged this email and have said that they will be getting back to us on these matters.

This process feels long and frustrating but none-the-less it is a process and it will eventually help make a difference with this development and ultimately for this community. We will post any replies received as soon as available and any other information that we glean.


Victoria Dinnick -
for the ETCC Steering Committee



mh

Agenda for Working Group Meeting #4 - Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Working group meeting #4 is on tomorrow night - Wednesday, November 5, 2014 - at S.H. Armstrong Community Centre, 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm.

Senior Planner, Leontine Major sent out this agenda today via email:

1327 to 1339 Queen Street East Working Group

Agenda
Meeting #4:
Date: November 5, 2014
Time: 6:30 – 8:30 pm
Location: SH Armstrong Community Centre, 56 Woodfield Road


Agenda:
1. Review of Meeting Notes from September 22, 2014 meeting .......... 6:30
2. Update on Area Study ....................................................... 6:35
3. Update on Heritage .......................................................... 6:40
4. Break-out Table Discussion ................................................. 6:45
5. Group Discussion ............................................................. 7:45
6. Next Steps .................................................................... 8:20
7. Wrap up of tonight's meeting .............................................. 8:25

See Related:

City of Toronto Planning Division | Urban Design Section | 1327-1339 Queen Street East Development Application Review | Urban Design Comments, Planner, Shawna Bowan - August 8 2014:

East Toronto Community Coalition | 1327-1339 Queen St E Development Application Review - Urban Design Comments, August 8 2014 | http://easttorontocommunity.blogspot.ca/2014/11/1327-1339-queen-st-e-development.html



mh

1327-1339 Queen St E Development Application Review - Urban Design Comments, August 8 2014

These are screen shots of the .PDF from City Planning dated August 8, 2014 - published without prejudice to the final outcome of the ongoing process.

They speak to many of the concerns brought forward by the community and the working group.

City of Toronto Planning Division | Urban Design Section | 1327-1339 Queen Street East Development Application Review | Urban Design Comments by Planner, Shawna Bowan - August 8 2014

Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3

Full Size Images (open in new window/tab):

Page 1: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Z2K_Ad4e9B9tg93Lcao58y-TtZmPPZ-hFDgh2Dsf810CUnLvqwVyDPYq1xR6DEWBV6wCy0cVmZKlmMb_h3NVcrcPrs5TSIinn01cX1JlKI3uwyUnS1MkG5z4xmLfcHyjyH16aTYUJZk/s1600/1327-1339+Queen+St+E+Urban+Design+Comments+Planner+Shawna+Bowman+August+8+2014+p1.jpg

Page 2: href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxy_VXLCC5_-6lskGNpVu7s7aD4nEYjf29KWJwlcUAjH_mPBXH3FUoEpq4F-9NXlM8Zarornekg1XVXzJrMHJf6OmY2r7kNP8ki1ZADQumBbK5nC9u-RojBWgMbiO3jDZLCEAVMDPPxHg/s1600/1327-1339+Queen+St+E+Urban+Design+Comments+Planner+Shawna+Bowman+August+8+2014+p2of3.jpg

Page 3: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf3Ju-rCDa83kwTdVcsfBd0zln94xHOK9h11x494QeYrRchinPk8UxtcLhJq-P22aBhAfNVs7r5HndDc3iQhyphenhyphen_aPOfAKsdO5GryhaxOAN8qAUr0d7EDwagJvcXUF1PwLvXWyypXuH5QeM/s1600/1327-1339+Queen+St+E+Urban+Design+Comments+Planner+Shawna+Bowman+August+8+2014+p3of3.jpg




mh

Report on Working Group Meeting #3

On September 22, 2014 the third working group meeting was held at S.H. Armstrong This meeting had been highly anticipated as it was the meeting where the Built Form was discussed and the group had the opportunity to see changes to the model submitted initially to the city.

The agenda included a policy context review which the Working Group had requested and which was provided to us on Friday and which is now posted here on the ETCC Blog (also in the green Tab labeled “Document II”  - top, under the banner). Of interest in the Policy Summary Statements are those referencing the Official Plan (O.P.) which allows for a density of up to two times the lot area. It certainly is a necessary read for anyone interested in this development application.

Developer Changes Presented

The architect presented his changes to the group. The height was reduced from 30.15m to 25.8 metres which is still 5.8 metres above the maximum allowed height including the mechanical component. The number of units has not been reduced. It is still 110 units. The total retail spaces is 685 sq. metres. Peter Mullin stated that it was still a massive development. A copy of the architect’s presentation was requested by the working group and will be posted on the ETCC site once received.

Developer Slide Presentation Images (click on images for larger size)


(Images by Victoria Dinnick)

Opinionated Overview

Although the changes made to the Queen Street elevation drawings appear to improve the project, sadly these changes are only superficial and don’t address the core issues.

The changes are to the facade only. To add some “dimensional texture” to the front, the upper storeys of the building have been pushed back, the profile of lower units varied in an apparently irregular way and other colours of brick introduced. This is in an attempt to mimic the way the street is made up of little buildings of varying heights and setbacks. The plan hasn’t really changed, the building section hasn’t really changed. The number of units remains the same.

A floor of units (at the 8th floor level) now wraps the base of the mechanical penthouse. But this means that the proposal still has two storeys above what is allowed by the Midrise Guidelines, the Beaches and the Leslieville Guidelines. The maximum height for everything but the mechanical equipment spaces is 20m.

It appears that the upper units have been pushed southward as a block and now overhang an already narrow and dark courtyard. The effect on the courtyard is to allow even less light into this “green space”. Shadows cast by the stacked townhouses on the south side of the courtyard will likely mean that NO direct sunlight will land on vegetation planted there.

The overbearing mass of the stacked townhouses on Memory Lane and problems of overlook have not been addressed.

The drawings continue to omit a line indicating the 20 metre upper limit, or show what lies outside of the setbacks and angled planes.

~ ETCC Steering Committee

Also at the Meeting...

Tine Major provided updated the group on the various requests for information made by the ETCC/Working Group. The area planning study has not started but they hope to have it begin before the end of 2014. The Heritage Study requested by a Council motion at the June 17, 2014 meeting is apparently "on their list". It has not, at this time, been assigned to anyone. Apparently, they have a backlog of assessments and are dealing with those considered to be priorities. Laura Marks on the steering committee has been doing a huge amount of research in this area. We are hoping that by providing Planning with the research that Laura has undertaken we will be able to jump start the process.

The rental replacement policy was addressed and Tine stated that the city’s survey had revealed that there were only 5 rental units in total in the development site and therefore it did not require a decision by city council.

Michael Holloway requested that the archeology reports for stage 1 and 2 be provided to the group as soon as possible. Another working group member requested that the minutes from the previous meeting be amended to add his comments that he had emailed to the city regarding the state of traffic and speeding on Laing St..

A presentation was made to the group regarding soil assessment which was done via five bore holes covering a 250 metre radius of the site of which 3 were converted to monitoring sites. The Phase 2 site assessment revealed that groundwater meets the criteria and that the soil has minimal amounts of lead contamination. A caisson will be constructed that will create a bathtub effect providing for a stable building site but which will allow the water table to be unchanged.

Garth Norbraten addressed the Working Group on behalf of the committee members. He stated the Working Group was there to ensure that the city respected its own guidelines and that part of the application process was to actually listen to the feedback being given by the WG. He also stated that no design comments were provided by Planning to the WG and that they should be provided “as-of-right”.

The WG was then addressed by Shawna Bowen who provided the Urban Design comments. She spoke about the fit of the building: that the retail was not in keeping with the context of the street. She mentioned that the city had requested an increased setback to 4.8 metres to allow for more sidewalk.

The rear of the development on Memory Lane has changed the design to show the town houses now backing on to Memory Lane. They will not have front door access to Memory Lane and only their second floor balconies will overlook the laneway. She mentioned that the city wants to keep Memory lane as a “vehicular street”.

The shadow of the building was discussed and rated by the WG as too much. The north side of the street would be severely shadowed in the winter months. Michael Holloway requested that the Urban Design departments comments be provided to the WG and Shawna agreed.


The next WG meeting is scheduled for November 5, 2014. The application will not go before council until 2015. It will be early in the year but not at the first meeting.



ETCC Steering Committee
September 29, 2014



mh

ETCC Steering Committee - summary statement on the developer's Proposed Changes

The following is a summary for the record of the ETCC’s concerns with the built form as proposed in the revised drawings for the development application 1327-1339 Queen St. East.

Just to preface, the actual building appearance/facade has improved from the previous iteration BUT

1. The building remains incompatible with the city’s own guidelines.
2. The height at 25.8 metres is still over the maximum allowed 20 metres for both the Beach area and the Leslieville and Mid-Rise guidelines.
3. The 110 units have not been reduced, just reallocated at more than twice the allowed density.
4. In addition to the proposed development ,Memory Lane has other redevelopment pressure acting upon it. and will be seriously compromised. The traffic patterns of Knox, Laing, Hiltz, Agnes Lane and the Queen St. East Co-op will be exacerbated and no solutions have been suggested.

It all comes down to the fact that there is too much building proposed on too small a site.


ETCC Steering Committee
September 22, 2014



mh

We've raised SO many Issues. How is City Planning responding?

If you read the Report on Working Group Meeting #2 article, you're aware that at this stage in the process there are dozens of outstanding issues that the community has raised going right back to the public consultation meeting on June 24, 2014.

This has lead to frustration about the process from many on the Working Group.

Planners have told us that the process is continuing inside City of Toronto Planning - that various Divisions and Agencies of the city have already looked at the developer's proposal and have submitted feedback to Planning with regard to their various area of responsibility.

In answer to the Working Group and ETCC’s request to Planning, we have received a copy of the comments that the Planning department has received from other city services involved in the Developer Application approval process for 1327 –1339 Queen St. East. It gives us a better idea of how the overall process works. It’s an interesting read and a glimpse into how an application actually moves through the system.


"Comments from Departments and Agencies" is a 27 page .pdf that the Working Group received on Friday, September 19, 2014. It is a collection of scanned images of internal documents received by Planning from various City of Toronto Divisions and Agencies - comments after review by those entities, of the documents submitted to City Planning by Rock Port (Queen and Laing) Inc.'s as part of their development application for the proposed development at 1327-1339 Queen Street East.

In order to make the images accessible to the community, the ETCC has turned the scanned images .pdf into a series of 27 ".jpg" images and published them individually, as well as a set of 7 posts with 4 page images on each post.

Those pages and the individual images links are posted on an Comments from Departments and Agencies Index page:

"Comments from Departments and Agencies" - link list | http://easttorontocommunity.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page_58.html  (also linked in the green "Documents" Tab - top/left of this website).


ETCC Steering Committee



mh

The Design Charrette - a tool towards Great Design

In light of the changes that this stretch or Queen St is going through this is a very timely piece. It actually gives one hope for positive change.

Part one of this two part podcast talks about the Charrette in a wide view (25:00); Part 2 is a walking interview with a charrette participant at a Scarborough Community Centre that was designed through a charrette process (3:11).

From CBC | The Current - with Anna Marie Tremonti | September 17, 2014

PART 1

"How community charettes revolutionize design and solve 'real world' problems"

(Link will play Part 1, and then click on Part 2)
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2521186387,%202521349275

Featuring:

• Bill Lennertz is co-author of The Charrette Handbook and executive director of the National Charrette Institute... a non-profit organization that trains people how to run charrettes and advance community planning and public involvement.
• Zahra Ebrahimis principal and partner of archiTEXT, a design think tank and consultancy. She has worked with dozens of clients and led many charrettes.

"The Charette: How the ideas of a community can build a powerful community of ideas. (istock)"

PART 2

"How a charette broke down jail cells in a police station to make a community centre that has transformed a neighbourhood in East Toronto"

Today, designer Zahra Ebrahim talked about a charrette she ran in east Toronto, to create the community centre called the East Scarborough Storefront. Our producer Kristin Nelson met with one of the participants [Antenehe Alemu] at the centre to find out more.

Segment produced by The Current's Kristin Nelson

At the CBC Player: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+Current/ID/2521349275/

Story Page at CBC - The Current |  http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/09/17/designers-say-community-charrettes-can-revolutionize-design/

National Charrette Institute | http://www.charretteinstitute.org/

Image: CBC (istock) | http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/09/17/designers-say-community-charrettes-can-revolutionize-design/

Story idea: Victoria Dinnick.



mh

Report on Working Group Meeting #2

1327 Queen Street East Development Application.

Working Group Meeting #2 - Report.

Servicing Report

Servicing Report from the developer's consultants Counterpoint Engineering was quite vague - they reported they'd just received back the bore hole results and had some information - like that they had a groundwater movement result (underground water flow is West - so from the garage into the hole). They also reported no contaminates in their water sampling.

We learned 55% of the storm water that lands on the site would go into the (mixed!) sewers. This is way too high Toronto & East York is averaging I believe, 43% after a storm water diversion efforts over the last 10 years - new developments have to reduce that average not increase it.

(PLUS - storm water is mixed with sewage in our sewer system?! - and then has to be treated at Ashbridges?! Is the Leslie Street reconstruction installing the backbone for separate systems?!)

I asked about the River under the site - which no one claimed any knowledge of (turns out it's under Alton Ave (Agnes Lane), about 70 metres to the west of the proposed hole).

Map Image Zoom of U of T Don River Valley Historical Mapping Project | Plan of the City of Toronto, Villiers Sankey, City Surveyor, 1902¹.

I asked more more detail on the flows at different strata; and more information on contaminants. The Garage lot to the east is undoubtedly seeping carcinogens west towards the old river valley at Agnes Ln (as is by the way, the abandoned cleaners site - just to the West (Super Contaminants flowing East through strata in the underground valley)). Yet soil ground water testing indicates all safe. I wonder if when the hole is dug of the resulting low pressure it creates with it's drainage tile around it with result in the release of all these presumably stable contaminants?

The Loading Dock / Garbage Port

Several people talked about Garbage and Residential and Retail that will use a unified Loading Bay  - some said a garbage truck would take lots of maneuvering to get into it - and back and forth and such, to make the corner into the Bay as it is designed - and what about in winter when traffic lanes generally become narrower? Our point is, the right-to-the-property-line design won't work - and plus the several guidelines say there should be a set-back off the ally (and off the front too).

Transportation Report

Transportation Impacts Report from Rock Port consultants, BA Group - presented by BA Group Principal Alun Lloyd (P. Eng) - was one of those post-modern affairs I think, where the speaker tries to make it as boring as possible, so the sheep go to sleep.

One member of the group struggled out of the haze to bring up the hellish congestion that the whole neighbourhood is struggling with - and that got me off my elbows and I sprinkled the rest of the talk with some real talking points (I hope) - I bought up Traffic Queueing Counts that were included in the report - didn't they reflect area roadways at capacity? I bought up the 17 to 20 cars that would be added to peak hour flows from this one building - and then add to that the other 4 projects with-in a few blocks - and then extrapolate that from the Don Valley to Victoria Park - doesn't that create really scary peak numbers on already congested streets?

City of Toronto Transportation signed off on the whole higher density thing - even though we are at peak hour (6-7 hours a day) capacity as it is.

(Note local area mode share for Cars is about 30%; Transit: 45%; Walking/Cycling: 25% - none of these ideas were discussed. - See Road to Health²)

The speaker mentioned the fact that they did know the Contraflow on Knox was there - but the fact the \at the count was flawed - that there was missing data didn't seem to hurt the validity of the study at all as the City Transportation accepted all elements of the developer Transportation Impacts Study (as this is just a dance we do - nothing actually real is pinned down and accounted for in these things?).

Fire Servicing

Several people talked about recent fires in the area off of Memory Lane - how would fire trucks manage on the narrow lane ways?. Fire Truck access to the area is an issue apparently (as it is with all developments that use the alleyway behind to take turning time pressure off the Major Arterial). Fire says as a matter of policy alleys are not considered access points for Fire Trucks ... So how do Fire Crews get at this complex after it's built? (and in a separate development proposal - the townhouse project that is happening just to the south of it, now we hear).

Heritage Discussion

Missed in the Working Group process was the possible Heritage designation of these very old buildings. This was raised at the initial Public Meeting in the Gym - but got left off the Working Group's list as we made our way through the dozens and dozens of issues raised. Councillor Fletcher raised it at the meeting, and I and another spoke to it as well. This should be on the agenda in the next meeting on September 22nd. (The Toronto & East York Community Council - at a meeting in August(?) - voted to ask Heritage Toronto to look into the properties towards a possible Heritage Designation.)

The Take Away

There's a lot of unfinished business piling up in our rear - and no feedback - or organization(?) it appears, from Planning, on what will be brought back to the table, and when.
Time is too short for all the unresolved items that are left lying around behind us - even just at this half way point through the proposed Working Group process, citizen's unanswered questions lay everywhere.

One Working Group participant summed up Meeting #2 this way:

"I left the meeting feeling like my time had been wasted. 2 hours of community time for what could have been summarized in 20 minutes - or simply distributed in printed form. I didn’t learn much and I don’t believe anything the neighbourhood said was really "heard"."

Looks like we need more that 4 meeting to get at all this stuff.

We are breaking new ground with this mid-rise stuff - and everyone seems to be playing it business as usual.

We haven't even started on the Built Form, the Existing Character ...

.. And the biggest issue: It's several stories too high and much too wide from any angle.





Michael Holloway
ETCC member

References

¹ Map Image: Zoom of U of T Don River Valley Historical Mapping Project | Plan of the City of Toronto, Villiers Sankey, City Surveyor, 1902 | http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/dvhmp/maps.html

² A Healthy Toronto By Design - Road to Health - Improving Walking and Cycling in Toronto | Toronto Public Health, April 2012 | http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/roadtohealth.pdf


mh

Were Queen Street East four-plexes built by Booth Bros?

"A community is shaped by its understanding of the past and the physical surroundings of everyday life. Built evidence of the past, in the form of buildings, structures and areas of architectural, historical and archaeological interest, provides significant insight into community history and identity. The evidence of evolving patterns of architectural design and the quality of workmanship of older buildings provides a rich visual texture that contributes to the quality of life."

- from "Inventory of Heritage Properties" Toronto Historical Board, The City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties published by the Toronto Historical Board January 24, 1996.

Pictured below are two of ten four-plexes on Wineva Avenue: numbers 18 to 36, built in 1929 by Price Brothers that were among the first listed buildings in the Beach, designated in June, 1973.

Four-plexes on Wineva Avenue - from the author's collection, August, 2014.

Below is an image of two four-plexes on Queen Street, likely built  in 1913 by Toronto builders William and Albert Booth on land owned by William Booth. The Queen Street East four-plexes are an easy 16 years older than the houses on Wineva Avenue. Price Brothers, whose headquarters were on Main Street would certainly have seen these buildings on Queen Street on their journey to and from the city centre and likely used them as a template for their housing development in the Beach.

Four-plexes at 1333 - 1339 Queen St E - from the author's collection, August, 2014

"Booth and Pears, trading under the head of the Yorkville and Carlton Brick Manufacturing Company, brick makers, Avenue Road, came into the possession of their business in 1880, it having been established thirty years before. They employ sixty men, and make four and a half million bricks a year. They also have a brick-yard at Carlton, where they make two million bricks a year and employ twenty-five men."

- from "The History of the County of York" published 1885.

William Booth (1835 - 1928) was a Yorkville builder, brick manufacturer, shareholder, director and vice-president of the Davenport Street Railway and an ice dealer, originally from Yorkshire, who also served on the Yorkville Council in the 1870s. Booth and Pears Brickyard was on the west side of Avenue Road north of Davenport Road where Ramsden Park is today. They had another brick yard at Carlton West (Toronto Junction). In 1891 William Booth was also vice-president of Ontario Ind. Loan and Investment Co. at 138 Avenue Road. He built the landmark Yorkville Firehall in 1876. The architects were S. H. Townsend (1876) and Mancel Willmot (1889).

Yorkville Firehall
black and white images - from "Yorkville In Pictures 1853 - 1883"
colour photo - from "Occasional Toronto" website

In 1891 William Booth was a widower with five children living at home in Yorkville: George, a confectioner and biscuit maker with his wife Annie, Charles, an architect, Albert, 12, William, 9, and Frederick, 3.

William Booth junior started out his working life at his father's brickyard, and eventually became a prolific Toronto builder. In the 1911 census William and family and Albert and family listed their professions as masons and contractors and lived on a shared lot in Scarborough County.

Samuel Booth was a very successful builder. George Booth and Son inherited Samuel's business and also lived in Yorkville.

   View from Northeast corner of Adelaide and Victoria, Toronto 1856 - Archives of Ontario

Reverend William B. Booth was minister of the Queen Street East Methodist Church in 1911, about half a block east of the four-plexes on the other side of Queen Street. The church is now buried inside the 1920s era factory building at the corner of Queen Street and Vancouver Avenue. It looks like the Booths had a multi-faceted family business in place.

The Queen Street East Methodist Church, built 1859 - from the "History of Methodist Churches In Toronto"

Annie Manson - Globe and Mail archives

Annie Manson was a French woman from the United States who married prominent East-End butcher Robert Manson. They lived in a house on Heward Street near Robert Manson's butcher shop at Queen and Pape. Robert Manson speculated in real estate and bought a lot of property. In 1890 he bought lots one, two and three of plan 214, which is the number of the plan where the four-plexes were built. In 1903 he ran into financial difficulties due to plummeting land values. He arose one morning, went downstairs to light the stove, slit his throat with a razor and died in his back yard where his wife Annie found him. Annie Manson was an early supporter of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, Leslieville.

In the 1911 Assessment Rolls William Booth owned the east part of lot 23 at the western end of the two lots in question next to the Graham house at 1327 and 1329 Queen Street East. Annie Manson owned the eastern part of lot 23 and all of lot 22 as well as 1341 and 1343 Queen Street. All the lots were vacant. By 1912 William Booth owned all three vacant lots. In 1913 William Booth owned one vacant part lot of lot 23 and two unfinished houses on lot 22. In the 1914 Assessment Rolls William Booth still owned all the lots and the finished four-plexes on them. The flats at numbers 1335 and 1335 1/2 were finished but vacant. The flats in the four-plex at 1337 to 1339 were all tenanted. Finally, in the 1915 records there were tenants in all the four-plexes. William Booth owned the lot, which is a driveway at 1331 as well as the building at 1333 - 1335 1/2 while his brother, Albert owned the building at 1337 - 1339 Queen East.

Goad's Map 1913 - Toronto Public Library

The assessment notices apply to the year before the record was made. The dates here are as they are in the Assessment Rolls but probably apply to the immediately preceding years.

In 1912, when the four-plexes were being built there was a great deal of construction going on that overwhelmed the understaffed and underpaid Office of the City Architect. The impossibility of getting timely building permits became a scandal which was reported in the Toronto newspapers over several months because builders were building without permits and the few "adult" inspectors couldn't keep up. There may be no building permit for the four-plexes as a result and we may never know for certain who the architect or the builders actually were.


It seems likely that Booth Brothers, as prolific Toronto builders not only owned the land but built the four-plexes. Their brother, Charles was an architect who worked at one time for the firm of Pearson and Darling and who also worked in the City Architect's Office as assistant city engineer.

In 2014 there still apparently aren't any guidelines at all for Heritage Preservation or for development of the section of Queen Street between Leslie and Coxwell. My personal opinion is that before developers demolish historic buildings willy-nilly, some guidelines should be in place and that the buildings at 1327 - 1339 Queen Street East in particular should be protected and restored. They're representative of a significant era in our neighbourhood and in our city and once demolished they can never be replaced.

_______

Sources:

The Evening Star, Saturday January 27, 1894
The Toronto Daily Star, Tuesday May 21 1912, Thursday June 13, 1912, Thursday August 15, 1912, Friday August 16, 1912.
City of Toronto Assessment Rolls Ward 1 Division 1: 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915
Canada Census 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1911
Toronto City Directories 1875 - 1913
Globe and Mail archives Nov. 14, 1895, Jan. 10, 1895, June 27, 1933, July 26, 1890, May 30, 1903, June 2, 1903
Canadian Electrical News, April 1892
History of Toronto and County of York, Ontario by Charles Pelham Mulvany, Graeme Mercer Adam
Points of Interest Along Lost Streams, Yorkville Brick Yards from Lost Rivers of Toronto
Yorkville Brickyards, Toronto Historical Association
Yorkville In Pictures 1853 to 1883 Toronto Public Library Board History Handbooks Number 2 by Stephanie Hutcheson
Historical Walking Tour Of Kew Beach by Mary Campbell and Barbara Myrvold toronto Public Library Board
East Annex Heritage Conservation District Study, City of Toronto Planning and Development Department Cityplan 9'91 Proposals Report June 1991
The Danforth In Pictures, Toronto Public Library History Hand Books No. Three
The History of The Methodist Churches of Toronto: A History of the Methodist Denomination, compiled edited and arranged by Thomas Edward Champion, 1899
Inventory of Heritage Properties" Toronto Historical Board, The City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties published by the Toronto Historical Board January 24, 1996.
Special thanks to: Toronto Reference Library and City of Toronto Archives


Laura Marks
Member ETCC Steering Committee



lm

Transportation Impacts Context is incomplete - data sets suspect

Transportation Impacts of the proposed development at 1327 - 1339 Queen St E

This is Part Two of a series, a review of the document:

1327 - 1339 Queen Street East Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Urban Transportation Considerations
A Transportation Impact Study
by BA Consulting Group Ltd., March 2014

(A Transportation Impact Study produced by BA Group Consultants for Rockport (Queen and Leslie) Inc., submitted to City of Toronto Planning, Development Applications, on March 10, 2014 with regard to a proposed development at 1327 - 1339 Queen St East Toronto, Ontario, Canada¹.)

(Part One: Create vibrant People Places around retail at 1327-1339 Queen St E - http://easttorontocommunity.blogspot.ca/2014/09/creating-vibrant-people-place-around.html)


This series of reviews of BA Group's Urban Transportation Considerations document attempts to put the development proposal into the context of a near-future neighbourhood characterized by higher population densities - and the necessary ancillary transportation infrastructure required to support the intensification.

This required character - known as Complete Streets, or Sustainable Development or Livable City Building - is City of Toronto policy². The policy envisions a multitude of ways to increase the number of trips accomplished on a finite street grid already at it's maximum capacity in the area of this proposed development throughout the year, over long stretches of the day.

3.0 TRANSPORTATION CONTEXT

The brief description of the area road network in this section leaves out key infrastructure that is essential if the area road network is to support the increased population densities, which the proposed development (and other similarly sized developments that will likely follow it) will significantly add to.

The description of Knox Ave is incomplete:

"Knox Avenue is a north-south local street situated to the east of the site that runs one-way southbound from Queen Street East to Eastern Avenue (where it turns eastward and becomes Woodfield Road). Knox Avenue has a single lane cross section, with parking permitted on its west side."

The description leaves out the Know Ave Contraflow Lane that connects Memory Lane (the sites only vehicular access route) to the the street grid.


The description of Eastern Avenue is wrong - and incomplete:

"Eastern Avenue is an east-west minor arterial roadway extending across the city of Toronto from Parliament Street in the west, to beyond Coxwell Avenue in the east. In the vicinity of the site, Eastern Avenue has a four lane cross section, and no parking is permitted."

One block south and one block west of the subject site are the Eastern Avenue Bike Lanes - an important transportation infrastructure which has the capacity to move more trips than the four existing lanes of Eastern Avenue combined. An important piece of the puzzle to relieve traffic congestion that marks this neighbourhood for 6-7 hours each weekday.

Also of note in this summary is that it provides incorrect information when it states that 'no parking is permitted' on Eastern. Off-peak side - and both sides during off-peak hours parking is permitted between Leslie St and Queen St at Kingston Rd. Another indication of this seemingly uninspired, workaday Transportation Impact Study.

3.3 BICYCLING ROUTES

This section includes the Knox Contraflow - but gets it's direction wrong.

"A southbound contraflow bicycle lane on Knox Avenue connects to the Lower Don Recreational trail, ...".

The lane actually runs northbound - against the one-way southbound signed Knox Avenue.

APPENDIX E:
Traffic Counts and Signal Timing

The Data Sets that accompany and support, the studies' findings, created by Spectrum Traffic Data Incorporated for BA Group - are flawed. They do not reflect the existing road network. In particular the Turning Movement Data set titled Knox Ave & Eastern Ave (December 5, 2013) does not reflect the actual infrastructure or signage of the intersection. There is no data column for Knox Avenue Northbound 'Thru' - a column that would record bicycle traffic data on the Knox Avenue Contraflow Lane.

To make up for this omission I did a bicycle turning count at the intersection on Friday September 5, 2014.

I used a piece of paper and a pen and drew a graphic representation of the intersection and recorded bbicyle traffic on all four roads and what they did at the intersection (similar to Figure 6 in the BA Group Urban Transportation Considerations document):

Existing Traffic Volumes BA Group 1327 Queen East 7599-01 March 2014 Figure 6 Traffic Turning Graphic.jpg

Note the lack of northbound Thru, eastbound Left Turn and westbound Right Turn arrows at the Eastern/Knox Intersection.


Below is a bit map version my paper and pen count which I conducted on Friday, September 5, 2014, from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm:

1327 Queen E - Bicycle Turning Count, September 5, 2014, 16-00 to 18-00, Eastern Ave & Knox Ave, Toronto ON CA

The data indicates a pm peak commute bias - from the west to the east, and from the south to the north - as one would expect at an intersection that has been enabled with bicycle infrastructure, and one that connects other bicycle infrastructure nearby.

It is notable that this count differs markedly from from the Spectrum Traffic Data Incorporated data in that it reflects a commuter signature. That the Spectrum count was done in early December should not have effected this mode user signature. Instead the Spectrum Traffic Data Incorporated data reflects nothing - like some bicycle mode-share was just added to the numbers at known or assumed percentages.

I know from talking with many cyclists about winter maintenance along this route last winter that there are more than "22" winter cyclists that the Spectrum data records, using this route.

UPDATE: Monday September 8, 2014, 11:27am

Did the AM Peak Bicycle Turning Count for Eastern at Knox this morning:

1327 Queen E - Bicycle Turning Count September 8, 2014 - 07:00 to 09:00 - Eastern Ave & Knox Ave Toronto ON CA

Conclusions

In it's entirety, this document demonstrates a worrisome inattention to the complexity of the problem of higher traffic numbers added to a street grid already at capacity in the study area.

The study doesn't seem to consider the potential of a full spectrum mode choice offered by the existing road network.

Taking into account the omission of the north of Eastern Ave northbound cyclist trips in the Spectrum data sets - and having had some experience looking at the nature of cycle count data in the neighbourhood from various times of year in the neighbourhood - in this cycling advocates opinion - the bicycle count data has the signature of data that has been fabricated.

Notes:

¹
City of Toronto Development Applications, 1327 Queen St E Ward 32 - Tor & E.York District, [► Supporting Documents] "Transportation Impact Study ... Oct 16, 2015" - http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/associatedApplicationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=3515067

²

a) City of Toronto TMMIS - Agenda Item History - 2013.PW22.10 "Complete Streets" - May 7, 2013
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.PW22.10

i) Background file 67628 - March 11, 2014 - "Approach to Developing Complete Streets Guidelines"
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-67628.pdf

b) National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) - May 13, 2014
NACTO Welcomes Toronto as First International Member City
http://nacto.org/2014/05/13/nacto-welcomes-toronto-as-first-international-member-city/
by Corinne Kisner

The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) announced today that the City of Toronto has joined as NACTO’s first International Member. In joining NACTO, Toronto further demonstrates the city’s commitment to sustainable transportation policies and livable city street design standards.

“I’m extremely pleased that the City of Toronto is the first international member to join this group of leading city transportation officials,” said Stephen Buckley, General Manager of Transportation Services for the City of Toronto. “NACTO has a proven track record in developing better urban transportation design, and I’m excited to see Toronto benefit from, and contribute to, the great innovations that NACTO is advancing.”
...

By Michael Holloway
ETCC member,
Sustainable Development Advocate

Create vibrant People Places around retail at 1327-1339 Queen St E

Transportation Impacts of the proposed development at 1327 - 1339 Queen St E

This is Part One of a series, a review of the document:

1327 - 1339 Queen Street East Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Urban Transportation Considerations
A Transportation Impact Study
by BA Consulting Group Ltd. - March 2014

(A Transportation Impact Study produced by BA Group Consultants for Rockport (Queen and Leslie) Inc., submitted to City of Toronto Planning, Development Applications, on March 10, 2014 with regard to a proposed development at 1327 - 1339 Queen St East Toronto, Ontario, Canada¹.)

This series of reviews of the document attempts to put the development proposal into the context of a near-future neighbourhood characterized by higher population densities and the necessary ancillary transportation infrastructure required to support this intensification.

This required character - known as Complete Streets, or Sustainable Development or Livable City Building - is City of Toronto policy². It envisions a multitude of ways in which to increase the number of trips accomplished on a finite street grid - already at it's maximum capacity over long stretches of the day throughout the year in the area of this proposed development.

2.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

I note that retail portion of the proposed development is considered Ancillary and, at less than 2,000 m³, no parking is required and none is provided, for either for cars or for bicycles. Foot traffic is envisioned as the sole mode share method for accessing these retail establishments.

On the one hand this lack of any kind of parking for the retail in this proposal seems to reflect an enlightened understanding of the Avenue-based retail business market. Several recent studies have shown that the vast majority of customers get to local retailers by means other than a car³.

On the other hand - this local-market catchment-area understanding also brings to the fore an idea contained within the Livable City Building doctrine - that of creating People Places along our Avenues - and this opportunity is missed in this development proposal.

People Places can be accomplished by building deeper sidewalks accompanied by green space set-backs from the property line. This provides more room for people - a space where people feel comfortable to linger and sit and talk - spaces that encourage a vibrant local culture and encourage local trip destinations suited to active transportation choices - like walking and, along with ample bicycle parking amenities, cycling.

That this development envisions no bicycle parking for the retail, no set-back for green space (that would replace the 5-7 metres of green space the development will remove from the existing built form), is regrettable and not in the spirit of a modern city building best practices.

BACKGROUND: What is a Liveable City?

The following video talks about how NY City is beginning to build a Liveable City - the elements of the video that speak to my point above does not include the bike lanes that were installed in this example - but rather the softening of the street edge to accommodate people. In the future in Toronto we may come to the realization that business will do better if we remove a parking lane (and a peak hour through lane) on Queen Street in order to install Bicycle Lanes; but that is outside the scope of this development application. But we can begin to create the future by adding people friendly places when we build new developments.

STREETFILMS - Complete Streets: It's About More Than Just Bike Lanes

How do Complete Streets effect small business demand?

The Danforth Study - Toronto Centre for Active Transportation - August 2014:

"Most existing studies and reports on the subject of parking, transportation and business focus on the relationship between transportation mode of visitors/pedestrians to an area, the importance of parking to commercial areas, and the perceptions of merchants surrounding travel choices. Many reports are reinforced by common findings, which are relevant to our study on Danforth Avenue. Notably, it has been found that cyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders are competitive customers who tend to spend more money on average than those who drive. Pedestrians who use transit, walk or ride a bike reportedly visit more often, and spend more money than those who drive (Arancibia, 2013; Clean Air Partnership, 2009, 2010; New York Department of Transportation, 2013; OTREC, 2013). This point is illustrated well by D Arancibia in a report titled Cyclists, Bike Lanes and On-Street Parking: Economic Impacts. In this report, the author states that cyclists “are skilled, selective, loyal, and spend more money where they shop than their driving counterparts. Cycling infrastructure is important to them, and therefore important for businesses who want to attract them (both as customers and as employees). Bicycle lanes and bicycle parking can increase the capacity of roads and the ability of people to shop simultaneously, all while improving various social and environmental aspects of a neighbourhood”(Arancibia, 2013)."

Notes:

¹

City of Toronto Development Applications, 1327 Queen St E Ward 32 - Tor & E.York District, [► Supporting Documents] "Transportation Impact Study" - http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/associatedApplicationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=3515067

²

i) City of Toronto TMMIS - Agenda Item History - 2013.PW22.10 "Complete Streets" - May 7, 2013
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.PW22.10

a) Background file 67628 - March 11, 2014 - "Approach to Developing Complete Streets Guidelines"
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-67628.pdf

ii) National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) - May 13, 2014
NACTO Welcomes Toronto as First International Member City
http://nacto.org/2014/05/13/nacto-welcomes-toronto-as-first-international-member-city/
by Corinne Kisner

The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) announced today that the City of Toronto has joined as NACTO’s first International Member. In joining NACTO, Toronto further demonstrates the city’s commitment to sustainable transportation policies and livable city street design standards.

“I’m extremely pleased that the City of Toronto is the first international member to join this group of leading city transportation officials,” said Stephen Buckley, General Manager of Transportation Services for the City of Toronto. “NACTO has a proven track record in developing better urban transportation design, and I’m excited to see Toronto benefit from, and contribute to, the great innovations that NACTO is advancing.”

...

³

• The Danforth Study - Toronto Centre for Active Transportation - August 7, 2014 - Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business: A Study of Danforth Avenue in Toronto Danforth Neighbourhood - http://tcat.ca/node/2383
• Guardian UK - Tuesday, February 4, 2014 - by Michael Andersen
  Four reasons US business leaders want to import Danish-style cycling
  At long last, cycling is being supported by American business – not out of environmentalism but because it's delivering profit
  http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/reasons-business-leaders-danish-style-cycling

Sources:

"STREETFILMS - Complete Streets: It's About More Than Just Bike Lanes" found via,
I BIKE TO - May 18, 2011 - by Herb
Cycle tracks are about complete streets: help calm traffic and create streets that include everyone
http://www.ibiketo.ca/blog/cycle-tracks-are-about-complete-streets-help-calm-traffic-and-create-streets-include-everyone



By Michael Holloway
ETCC member,
Sustainable Development Advocate