Volume 2 - Appendix B7

Transcription

Appendix B7
Cultural Heritage Assessment Report
(Archaeological Service Inc.)
Cultural Heritage Assessment Report:
Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Existing Conditions – Impact Assessment
Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor Expansion
Class Environmental Assessment
Town of Markham and City of Toronto, Ontario
Cultural Heritage Assessment Report:
Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stouffville Corridor Rail Service Expansion
Class Environmental Assessment
Archaeological Services Inc (ASI) was contracted by R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited on behalf of
GO Transit to conduct a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) as part of the Metrolinx
Stouffville Rail Corridor Expansion, Environmental Assessment (EA) and Preliminary Design. The
purpose of the project is to improve operational reliability, improve performance and allow for
double tracking of the corridor between the Scarborough Junction and Unionville GO Station in
Markham and improve train service to meet the growth demands. The study area includes
approximately 15.5 km of the Canadian National (CN) Rail Line from the CN Rail Line (south of
Danforth Road) to Highway 407 (just west of Kennedy Road).
Prepared for:
The results of background historic research and a review of secondary source material revealed a
study area with a rural land use history dating back to the early nineteenth century. The field review
confirmed that this area retains a number of nineteenth and twentieth-century cultural heritage
resources. A total of 16 built heritage resources and 10 cultural heritage landscapes were identified
in the Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor study area.
Existing Conditions – Impact Assessment
R.J. Burnside & Associates Ltd (Guelph)
292 Speedvale Avenue West, Unit 20
Guelph, ON, N1H 1C4
Tel: 519-823-4995
Fax: 519-836-5477
Jennifer.vandermeer@rjburnside.com
www.rjburnside.com
ASI File 12EA-205
January 2014 (Revised May 2014)
Based on the results of background data collection and field review of the Metrolinx Stouffville Rail
Corridor Class EA study area, the following recommendations have been developed:
1.
Staging and construction activities should be suitably planned and undertaken to avoid
impacts to identified cultural heritage resources;
2.
BHR 10, BHR 13, CHL 1, CHL 3, CHL 4, and CHL 5 are expected to be impacted through
disruption and/or alteration by the removal of built heritage elements (e.g. culvert,
pedestrian underpass) and historical landscape features (e.g., vegetation, historic lot
lines, historic right-of-way, etc.). A resource-specific cultural heritage evaluation report
(CHER) and, if required, a heritage impact assessment (HIA) should be carried out in
advance, or at the earliest possible stages of the detailed design phase to identify the
heritage value of these resources and potential impacts of the proposed work. The
results of this study should be used to develop appropriate mitigation measures, which
may include: documentation, post-construction landscaping plans, potential treehoarding activities during construction, and finalization of grading limits;
Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor, Class EA
3.
BHR 9 will be potentially impacted by the proposed work. Where bridges are older than
40 years of age and are expected to be directly or indirectly impacted, resource-specific
heritage assessments should be completed in advance, or at the earliest possible stages
of the detailed design phase. Accordingly, a resource specific CHER and, if required, a HIA
should be carried out to identify the potential impacts of the proposed work on this
resource;
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC.
BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Corporate Responsibility:
4.
5.
Post-construction landscaping and rehabilitation plans should be undertaken in a
manner that is sympathetic to the overall setting. Wherever possible, landscaping with
appropriate/sympathetic historic plant materials is recommended, and fence rows
should be preserved where extant; and,
Should future work require an expansion of the study area, then a qualified heritage
consultant should be contacted in order to confirm the impacts of the proposed work on
potential heritage resources.
Page iii
Robert Pihl, MA, CAHP
Partner and Senior Archaeologist
Manager, Environmental Assessment Division
Project Manager:
Heidy Schopf, MES
Cultural Heritage Specialist
Cultural Heritage Specialists:
Seth Price, BA
Cultural Heritage Assistant
Heidy Schopf
Project Coordinator:
Sarah Jagelewski, Hon. BA
Staff Archaeologist
Project Administrator:
Carol Bella, Hon. BA
Research Archaeologist
Report Preparation:
Seth Price
Heidy Schopf
Graphics Preparation:
Seth Price
Heidy Schopf
Shady Abbas, BSc
Geomatics Specialist
Report Reviewer:
David Robertson, MA
Senior Archaeologist and Manager
Special Projects, Planning Division
Page 1
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. ii
PROJECT PERSONNEL................................................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0
BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT CONTEXT ................. 1
2.1
Approach and Methodology .......................................................................................................... 1
2.2
Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process .............................................................. 6
2.3
Data Collection............................................................................................................................. 8
3.0
BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT.............................. 10
3.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.2
Township Survey and Settlement ................................................................................................. 11
3.2.1
The Township of Scarborough .............................................................................................. 11
3.2.2
The Township of Markham ................................................................................................... 11
3.2.3
Hagermans Corners ............................................................................................................ 12
3.2.4
Milliken ..............................................................................................................................13
3.2.5
Agincourt ............................................................................................................................13
3.2.6
Ellesmere ............................................................................................................................13
3.2.7
Scarboro Junction ................................................................................................................13
3.2.8
Railways ............................................................................................................................ 14
3.3
Review of Historic Mapping ........................................................................................................ 14
3.3.1
Nineteenth Century Mapping ............................................................................................... 17
3.3.2
Twentieth-Century Mapping ................................................................................................ 18
3.4
Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 22
3.4.1
Enterprise Boulevard to Steeles Avenue East ....................................................................... 22
3.4.2
Steeles Avenue East to Finch Avenue East............................................................................ 24
3.4.3
Finch Avenue East to Sheppard Avenue East ........................................................................ 24
3.4.4
Sheppard Avenue East to Lawrence Avenue East .................................................................. 26
3.4.5
Lawrence Avenue East to St. Claire Avenue East ................................................................... 27
3.5
Screening for Potential Impacts .................................................................................................. 28
3.5.1
Potential Impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources ................................................................. 29
4.0
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................31
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 32
6.0
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 34
7.0
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY .................................................................................... 38
8.0
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE LOCATION MAPPING....................................................................... 48
Table 1: Nineteenth-century property owner(s) and historical feature(s) ........................................................15
Table 2: Potential Impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Stouffville Rail Corridor .............................. 29
Table 3: Inventory of Built Heritage Resources (BHR) and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL) ....................... 38
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the study area ............................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Approximate location of the study area on the 1860 map of York County ........................................ 19
Figure 3: Location of the study area on the 1878 maps of the Townships of Markham and Scarboro............... 19
Figure 4: The study area overlaid on the 1917/1918 historic topographic maps of Markham and Toronto........ 20
Figure 5: The study area overlaid on the 1921/1922 historic topographic maps of Markham and Toronto ....... 20
Figure 6: The study area overlaid on the 1948/1949 historic topographic maps of Markham and Toronto ...... 20
Figure 7: The study area overlaid on the 1954 aerial photograph of Trafalgar Township ................................. 21
Figure 8: Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor (Key Map) ................................................................................. 48
Figure 9: Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor – Location Mapping of Cultural Heritage Resources (Sheet 1) ...... 49
Figure 10: Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor – Location Mapping of Cultural Heritage Resources (Sheet 2) .... 50
Figure 11: Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor – Location Mapping of Cultural Heritage Resources (Sheet 3)......51
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1: Looking north along the rail line from Unionville GO Station ............................................................ 23
Plate 2: Looking west towards the study area. ............................................................................................. 23
Plate 3: North-northeast view across 14th Avenue and the Stouffville Rail Corridor. Note recent industrial
development on the northeast side of the road. .......................................................................................... 23
Plate 4: Looking south-southeast along Milliken Meadows Drive. This recent residential street is typical of
other residential subdivisions between Steeles Avenue East and 14th Avenue............................................... 23
Plate 5: East-northeast view along Steeles Avenue East. Note recent commercial development. .................... 23
Plate 6: South view of industrial land use along the rail line in the vicinity of the historic settlement of Milliken.
................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Plate 7: South-southeast view along the rail line from Steeles Avenue East. Note the recent commercial
development adjacent to the rail line. ......................................................................................................... 24
Plate 8: South view across Passmore Avenue towards recent industrial development. .................................. 24
Plate 9: Northeast view across remnant/historic agricultural fields towards recent commercial development.24
Plate 10: East-northeast view along the Finch Hydro Corridor. No cultural heritage resources were identified in
this corridor............................................................................................................................................... 24
Plate 11: South view across Finch Avenue East along the rail line. Note residential subdivision in the far right.
................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Plate 12: East view along Petworth Crescent. This recent residential street is typical of the housing stock
between Finch Avenue East and Sheppard Avenue East. .............................................................................. 25
Plate 13: East-northeast view along Havendale Road across the at-grade rail crossing. Note the surrounding
residential development. ........................................................................................................................... 25
Plate 14: East-northeast view of the pedestrian at-grade rail crossing located at the foot of Marilyn Avenue. . 25
Plate 15: South-southeast view along the Stouffville Rail Corridor towards the Agincourt GO Station. The
proposed Agincourt HCD is located on the left............................................................................................. 26
Plate 16: Northwest view along Agincourt Drive. This street is adjacent to the rail line and is part of the
proposed Agincourt HCD. ........................................................................................................................... 26
Plate 17: South-southwest view towards the light industrial complex located on the east side of the rail
corridor, south of St. Timothy’s Church. ...................................................................................................... 26
Plate 18: North view of Collingwood Park and Highland Creek. ..................................................................... 26
Plate 19: West view of rail bridge and culvert over Highland Creek. .............................................................. 27
Plate 20: South-southwest view of the at-grade rail crossing at Progress Avenue. Note the industrial buildings
on the south side of the road. ..................................................................................................................... 27
Plate 21: South-southwest view along Midwest Road. Typical industrial buildings in along the rail line. ........ 27
Plate 22: East view of the Lawrence Avenue East Bridge over the rail line. This bridge was built in the early
1980s. ....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Plate 23: East-northeast view of recent residential subdivision south of Lawrence Avenue. ........................... 28
Plate 24: West-southwest view along Moorgate Avenue. This neighbourhood dates to the mid-twentieth
century. ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
Plate 25: West-southwest view along Merrian Road. This neighbourhood features post-war bungalows with
uniform features. ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Plate 26: West-northwest view of nineteenth-century brick house located along Danforth Road near the
Scarboro Junction. ..................................................................................................................................... 28
1.0
Page 1
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Archaeological Services Inc (ASI) was contracted by R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited on behalf of
GO Transit to conduct a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) as part of the Metrolinx
Stouffville Corridor Rail Service Expansion, Environmental Assessment (EA) and Preliminary Design.
The purpose of the project is to improve operational reliability, improve performance and allow for
double tracking of the corridor between the Scarborough Junction and Unionville Station in Markham and
improve train service to meet the growth demands. The study area includes approximately 15.5 km of the
Canadian National (CN) Rail Line from the CN Rail Line (south of Danforth Road) to Highway 407 (just
west of Kennedy Road) (Figure 1).
The purpose of this report is to present a built heritage and cultural landscape inventory of cultural
heritage resources, and identify existing conditions in the Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor study area.
This research was conducted under the project management of Heidy Schopf, Cultural Heritage Specialist
at the Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Division of ASI.
This report describes the cultural heritage resource assessment that was conducted for this project and is
organized as follows: Section 1.0 describes the project context and outlines project personnel; Section 2.0
provides the assessment methodology and discusses provincial and municipal policies; Section 3.0
includes the results of the cultural heritage resource assessment, including background research, data
collection, existing conditions, and potential impacts; Section 4.0 provides conclusions of the assessment;
Section 5.0 provides recommendations and next steps; Section 6.0 includes references cited; and Sections
7.0 and 8.0 include the inventory of cultural heritage resources and location mapping.
2.0
2.1
BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT CONTEXT
Approach and Methodology
This cultural heritage assessment considers cultural heritage resources in the context of improvements to
specified areas, pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act. This assessment addresses above ground
cultural heritage resources over 40 years old. Use of a 40 year old threshold is a guiding principle when
conducting a preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources (Ministry of Transportation 2006;
Ministry of Transportation 2007; Ontario Realty Corporation 2007). While identification of a resource
that is 40 years old or older does not confer outright heritage significance, this threshold provides a means
to collect information about resources that may retain heritage value. Similarly, if a resource is slightly
younger than 40 years old, this does not preclude the resource from retaining heritage value.
For the purposes of this assessment, the term cultural heritage resources was used to describe both
cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage features. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection
of individual built heritage resources and other related features that together form farm complexes,
roadscapes and nucleated settlements. Built heritage features are typically individual buildings or
structures that may be associated with a variety of human activities, such as historical settlement and
patterns of architectural development.
Figure 1: Location of the study area
Base Map: NTS Sheet 30 M/11 (Toronto)
and 30M/14 (Markham)
Page 3
object in or on the land or underwater, such as buildings of various types, street
furniture, engineering works, plantings and landscaping, archaeological sites, or a
collection of such objects seen as a group because of close physical or social
relationships.
The analysis throughout the study process addresses cultural heritage resources under various pieces of
legislation and their supporting guidelines. Under the Environmental Assessment Act (1990) environment
is defined in Subsection 1(c) to include:
•
•
cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community, and;
any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by man.
The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport is charged under Section 2 of the Ontario Heritage Act with
the responsibility to determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and
preservation of the heritage of Ontario and has published two guidelines to assist in assessing cultural
heritage resources as part of an environmental assessment: Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage
Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1992), and Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage
Component of Environmental Assessments (1981). Accordingly, both guidelines have been utilized in
this assessment process.
The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (Section 1.0) states
the following:
When speaking of man-made heritage we are concerned with the works of man and the
effects of his activities in the environment rather than with movable human artifacts or
those environments that are natural and completely undisturbed by man.
In addition, environment may be interpreted to include the combination and interrelationships of human
artifacts with all other aspects of the physical environment, as well as with the social, economic and
cultural conditions that influence the life of the people and communities in Ontario. The Guidelines on
the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments distinguish between two basic ways
of visually experiencing this heritage in the environment, namely as cultural heritage landscapes and as
cultural features.
Within this document, cultural heritage landscapes are defined as the following (Section 1.0):
The use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now is a result of man’s
activities over time in modifying pristine landscapes for his own purposes. A cultural
landscape is perceived as a collection of individual man-made features into a whole.
Urban cultural landscapes are sometimes given special names such as townscapes or
streetscapes that describe various scales of perception from the general scene to the
particular view. Cultural landscapes in the countryside are viewed in or adjacent to
natural undisturbed landscapes, or waterscapes, and include such land uses as agriculture,
mining, forestry, recreation, and transportation. Like urban cultural landscapes, they too
may be perceived at various scales: as a large area of homogeneous character; or as an
intermediate sized area of homogeneous character or a collection of settings such as a
group of farms; or as a discrete example of specific landscape character such as a single
farm, or an individual village or hamlet.
A cultural feature is defined as the following (Section 1.0):
…an individual part of a cultural landscape that may be focused upon as part of a
broader scene, or viewed independently. The term refers to any man-made or modified
Page 4
The Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Sport has also published Standards and Guidelines for
Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (April 2010; Standards and Guidelines hereafter). These
Standards and Guidelines apply to properties the Government of Ontario owns or controls that have
cultural heritage value or interest. They are mandatory for ministries and prescribed public bodies and
have the authority of a Management Board or Cabinet directive. Prescribed public bodies include:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario
Hydro One Inc.
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
McMichael Canadian Art Collection
Metrolinx
The Niagara Parks Commission.
Ontario Heritage Trust
Ontario Infrastructure Projects Corporation
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
Ontario Power Generation Inc.
Ontario Realty Corporation
Royal Botanical Gardens
Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority
St. Lawrence Parks Commission
The Standards and Guidelines provide a series of definitions considered during the course of the
assessment:
A provincial heritage property is defined as the following (14):
Provincial heritage property means real property, including buildings and structures on
the property, that has cultural heritage value or interest and that is owned by the Crown
in right of Ontario or by a prescribed public body; or that is occupied by a ministry or a
prescribed public body if the terms of the occupancy agreement are such that the ministry
or public body is entitled to make the alterations to the property that may be required
under these heritage standards and guidelines.
A provincial heritage property of provincial significance is defined as the following (14):
Provincial heritage property that has been evaluated using the criteria found in Ontario
Heritage Act O.Reg. 10/06 and has been found to have cultural heritage value or interest
of provincial significance.
A built heritage resource is defined as the following (13):
…one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or
forming part of a building), structures, earthworks, monuments, installations, or remains
associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history and
Page 5
identified as being important to a community. For the purposes of these Standards and
Guidelines, “structures” does not include roadways in the provincial highway network
and in-use electrical or telecommunications transmission towers.
A cultural heritage landscape is defined as the following (13):
… a defined geographical area that human activity has modified and that has cultural
heritage value. Such an area involves one or more groupings of individual heritage
features, such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites, and natural elements, which
together form a significant type of heritage form distinct from that of its constituent
elements or parts. Heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage
Act, villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries,
trails, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value are some examples.
Additionally, the Planning Act (1990) and related Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) make a number of
provisions relating to heritage conservation. One of the general purposes of the Planning Act is to
integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions. In order to inform
all those involved in planning activities of the scope of these matters of provincial interest, Section 2 of
the Planning Act provides an extensive listing. These matters of provincial interest shall be regarded
when certain authorities, including the council of a municipality, carry out their responsibilities under the
Act. One of these provincial interests is directly concerned with:
Page 6
Built heritage resources mean one or more buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains
associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history, and identified as
being important to a community.
Cultural heritage landscapes mean a defined geographical area of heritage significance that has been
modified by human activities. Such an area is valued by a community, and is of significance to the
understanding of the history of a people or place. Examples include farmscapes, historic settlements,
parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, and industrial
complexes of cultural heritage value (PPS 2005).
In addition, significance is also more generally defined. It is assigned a specific meaning according to the
subject matter or policy context, such as wetlands or ecologically important areas. With regard to cultural
heritage and archaeology resources, resources of significance are those that are valued for the important
contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people (PPS 2005).
Criteria for determining significance for the resources are recommended by the Province, but municipal
approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used. While some significant resources
may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be
determined after evaluation (PPS 2005).
Accordingly, the foregoing guidelines and relevant policy statement were used to guide the scope and
methodology of the cultural heritage assessment.
2.0
…protecting cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic,
environmental, and social benefits.
2.2
Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process
Part 4.5 of the PPS states that:
Comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is best achieved through municipal
official plans. Municipal official plans shall identify provincial interests and set out
appropriate land use designations and policies. Municipal official plans should also
coordinate cross-boundary matters to complement the actions of other planning
authorities and promote mutually beneficial solutions.
Municipal official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect
provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas.
In order to protect provincial interests, planning authorities shall keep their official plans
up-to-date with this Provincial Policy Statement. The policies of this Provincial Policy
Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of a municipal official plan.
Those policies of particular relevance for the conservation of heritage features are contained in Section 2Wise Use and Management of Resources, wherein Subsection 2.6 - Cultural Heritage and Archaeological
Resources, makes the following provisions:
2.6.1
Significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.
A number of definitions that have specific meanings for use in a policy context accompany the policy
statement. These definitions include built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.
Metrolinx undertakings have the potential to impact significant cultural heritage properties by virtue of
interventions with historic railway corridors and train stations, some of which have the potential to be of
provincial significance. Metrolinx undertakings, particularly projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton
Area (GTHA) and associated with the Big Move Plan also have the potential to impact locally-significant
cultural heritage resources where property acquisitions and/or substantial land clearance activities are
required. In response to this, Metrolinx developed an internal heritage protocol methodology to address
potential impacts to cultural heritage resources. The Metrolinx Heritage Protocol is summarized below:
Metrolinx undertakings have the potential to impact significant cultural heritage properties by virtue of
interventions with historic railway corridors and train stations, some of which have the potential to be of
provincial significance. Metrolinx undertakings, particularly projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton
Area (GTHA) and associated with the Big Move Plan, also have the potential to impact locally-significant
cultural heritage resources where property acquisitions and/or substantial land clearance activities are
required. In response to this, Metrolinx developed an internal heritage methodology to address potential
impacts to cultural heritage resources. The Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process
(2013) is summarized below:
The Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process involves four steps:
x
x
x
x
Page 7
Step 1: Screening
o Involves pre-screening all properties that Metrolinx owns, controls, or plans to acquire to
identify properties that are 40 or more years old. All known and potential cultural
heritage resources will be identified during this stage. A Cultural Heritage Screening
Report will be prepared and a screening checklist will be used to identify known and
potential cultural heritage resources.
All properties that are 40 or more years old and are owned by Metrolinx will be
given the status of “Potential Provincial Heritage Property”.
All properties that are 40 or more years old and are not owned by Metrolinx will
be given the status of “Conditional Heritage Property”.
Step 2: Heritage Evaluation
o Involves the evaluation of identified heritage properties by a qualified person(s). A
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) will be prepared to identify the heritage
value of the subject property. A CHER involves conducting research, gathering
documentary evidence, and consultation with appropriate groups/agencies to identify the
heritage value of the property. The subject property will then be evaluated against
Ontario Regulation 9/06 and 10/06 to determine whether the property has local and/or
provincial significance under the Ontario Heritage Act. If found to have cultural heritage
value, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value will be prepared to set out a description of
the property, a statement of its heritage value, and a list of heritage attributes.
Step 3: Interim Heritage Management
o Involves the development of a Conservation Plan based on the Statement Cultural
Heritage Value prepared for all properties found to have cultural heritage value during
the Heritage Evaluation Stage. In cases where the undertaking is not contemplated in the
Conservation Plan or where one does not yet exist, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
will be prepared by a qualified person(s). A HIA identifies the potential impacts to the
heritage value of a property resulting from the undertaking and proposes mitigation
measures to mitigate negative impacts.
Step 4: Review and Approval for Metrolinx Properties of Provincial Significance
o All Conservation Plans prepared for Metrolinx Properties of Provincial Significance will
be reviewed by the President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Metrolinx. Following
this review, the Conservation Plan will be forwarded to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture
and Sport (MTCS) for review and approval. Once a Conservation Plan has been approved
by the MTCS, no further MTCS approval is required for modifications to Metrolinx
Heritage Properties of Provincial Significance provided that the proposed modifications
follow the approved plan. In addition, all proposals for the demolition or removal of
heritage properties will be forwarded to the CEO of Metrolinx, and in turn, the MTCS for
review and approval.
Page 8
In addition to the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process, Metrolinx has also
established a heritage committee to administer this process and ensure that decisions affecting Cultural
Heritage are made in an open, accountable, and responsible way.
2.3
Data Collection
In the course of the cultural heritage assessment, all potentially affected cultural heritage resources are
subject to inventory. Short form names are usually applied to each resource type, (e.g. barn, residence).
Generally, when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources, three stages of
research and data collection are undertaken to appropriately establish the potential for and existence of
cultural heritage resources in a particular geographic area.
Background historic research, which includes consultation of primary and secondary source research and
historic mapping, is undertaken to identify early settlement patterns and broad agents or themes of change
in a study area. This stage in the data collection process enables the researcher to determine the presence
of sensitive heritage areas that correspond to nineteenth and twentieth-century settlement and
development patterns. To augment data collected during this stage of the research process, federal,
provincial, and municipal databases and/or agencies are consulted to obtain information about specific
properties that have been previously identified and/or designated as retaining cultural heritage value.
Typically, resources identified during these stages of the research process are reflective of particular
architectural styles, associated with an important person, place, or event, and contribute to the contextual
facets of a particular place, neighbourhood, or intersection.
A field review is then undertaken to confirm the location and condition of previously identified cultural
heritage resources. The field review is also utilised to identify cultural heritage resources that have not
been previously identified on federal, provincial, or municipal databases.
Several investigative criteria are utilised during the field review to appropriately identify new cultural
heritage resources. These investigative criteria are derived from provincial guidelines (including Ontario
Regulations 9/06 and 10/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act), definitions, and past experience. During the
course of the environmental assessment, a built structure or landscape is identified as a cultural heritage
resource if it is considered to be 40 years or older, and if the resource satisfies at least one of the
following criteria:
Design/Physical Value:
x It is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or
construction method.
x It displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit.
x It demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
x The site and/or structure retains original stylistic features and has not been irreversibly altered so
as to destroy its integrity.
x It demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a
provincial level in a given period.
Page 9
Historical/Associative Value:
x It has a direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution
that is significant to: the City of Toronto and the City of Markham; the Province of Ontario; or
Canada.
x It yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of the
history of the: the City of Toronto and the City of Markham; the Province of Ontario, or Canada.
x It demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist builder, designer, or theorist
who is significant to: the City of Toronto and the City of Markham; the Province of Ontario; or
Canada.
x It represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history.
x It demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage.
x It has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in
more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons
or because of traditional use.
x It has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of
importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province.
Contextual Value:
x It is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area.
x It is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings.
x It is a landmark.
x It illustrates a significant phase in the development of the community or a major change or
turning point in the community’s history.
x The landscape contains a structure other than a building (fencing, culvert, public art, statue, etc.)
that is associated with the history or daily life of that area or region.
x There is evidence of previous historic and/or existing agricultural practices (e.g. terracing,
deforestation, complex water canalization, apple orchards, vineyards, etc.)
x It is of aesthetic, visual or contextual important to the province.
If a resource meets one of these criteria it will be identified as a cultural heritage resource and is subject to
further research where appropriate and when feasible. Typically, detailed archival research, permission to
enter lands containing heritage resources, and consultation is required to determine the specific heritage
significance of the identified cultural heritage resource.
When identifying cultural heritage landscapes, the following categories are typically utilized for the
purposes of the classification during the field review:
Farm complexes:
comprise two or more buildings, one of which must be a farmhouse or
barn, and may include a tree-lined drive, tree windbreaks, fences,
domestic gardens and small orchards.
Roadscapes:
generally two-lanes in width with absence of shoulders or narrow
shoulders only, ditches, tree lines, bridges, culverts and other associated
features.
Waterscapes:
waterway features that contribute to the overall character of the cultural
heritage landscape, usually in relation to their influence on historic
development and settlement patterns.
Page 10
Railscapes:
active or inactive railway lines or railway rights of way and associated
features.
Historical settlements:
groupings of two or more structures with a commonly applied name.
Streetscapes:
generally consists of a paved road found in a more urban setting, and may
include a series of houses that would have been built in the same time
period.
Historical agricultural
landscapes:
Cemeteries:
generally comprises a historically rooted settlement and farming pattern
that reflects a recognizable arrangement of fields within a lot and may
have associated agricultural outbuildings, structures, and vegetative
elements such as tree rows;
land used for the burial of human remains.
Results of the desktop data collection and field review are contained in Sections 3.0, while Sections 4.0
and 5.0 contain conclusions and recommendations for future work to be conducted.
3.0
3.1
BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
This section provides a brief summary of historic research and a description of identified above ground
cultural heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed road improvements. A review of
available primary and secondary source material was undertaken to produce a contextual overview of the
study area, including a general description of Euro-Canadian settlement and land use. Historically, the
study area is located in the road allowance between the following lots and concessions:
The Township of Scarborough
x Concession C, Lots 27-28
x Concession D, Lots 27-28
x Concession I, Lots 27-28
x Concession II, Lots 27-28
x Concession III, Lots 27-28
x Concession IV, Lots 27-28
x Concession V, Lots 27-28
The Township of Markham
x Concession 5, Lots 1-7
3.2
3.2.1
Page 11
Township Survey and Settlement
The Township of Scarborough
Scarborough Township was surveyed by Augustus Jones beginning in 1791, when the baseline was laid
out, and it was then known as Glasgow Township. The early survey of the township was found to be
faulty and carelessly done, resulting in numerous law suits between property owners. To remedy this
situation, a new survey of the township was undertaken under F.F. Passmore in 1864 to correct and
confirm the township concession lines. In August 1793, Elizabeth Simcoe noted in her diary that she and
her party “came within sight of what is named in the Map the high lands of Toronto--- the shore is
extremely bold and has the appearance of Chalk Cliffs… they appeared so well that we talked of building
a Summer Residence there and calling it Scarborough” (Bonis 1965:38). The first land grants were
patented in Scarborough in 1796, and were issued to Loyalists, high ranking Upper Canadian government
officials, and some absentee Loyalist grantees. Among the first land owners are the names of Captain
William Mayne (1796), David Thomson (1801), Captain John McGill (1797), Captain William Demont
(1798), John McDougall (1802), Sheriff Alexander McDonell (1806) and Donald McLean, clerk of the
House of Assembly (1805).
The three earliest settlers to the Township of Scarborough, Scottish brothers David, Andrew and
Archibald Thomson, arrived in 1796 (Toronto Plaques 2012). The Thomson brothers, who were stone
masons, worked on the first Parliament Buildings in York (ibid.). The brothers were also responsible for
constructing three sawmills, and donating land to the construction of the Township’s first Presbyterian
Church, in 1819. David Thomson’s land became the hub of a prospering settlement known as Thomson
Settlement. David Thomson died in 1834, aged 71, leaving behind 11 children and 53 grandchildren, and
was buried in, what is now known as St. Andrews (St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 2013).
Settlement in the Township of Scarborough remained slow, and in 1802, there were just 89 inhabitants. In
1803, the Township contained just one assessable house and no grist or sawmills. The livestock was
limited to five horses, eight oxen, 27 milch cows, seven “horned cattle” and 15 swine. In 1805, it was
predicted that Scarborough would become a very valuable township due to its proximity to York, and was
noteworthy for its highlands which were “remarkable and are visible many leagues from the shore”
(Boulton 1805:88). In 1809, the population had increased to 140 men, women and children. The
settlement and improvement of the township was aided when the Danforth Road was constructed across
the township, but was checked in 1812 by the outbreak of the War. By 1819, new settlement was
augmented by settlers from Britain, Scotland and Ireland, but the population remained low at just 349
inhabitants (Bonis 1965:52). In 1846, Scarborough was described as “well settled, and contains many
good farms: a large portion of which are let to the occupants” at an average rent of $2 per acre. It was
further noted that the land nearest the lakeshore was poor quality, forested with pine, but richer land was
found in the rear of the township and was covered with hardwood (Smith 1846:167).
The Town of Scarborough was officially incorporated on January 1st 1850. Later Scarborough would be
incorporated as a borough, in 1967, and as a city, in 1983. As of January 1st 1998 Scarborough became a
part of the City of Toronto (Scarborough Direct 2013).
3.2.2
The Township of Markham
Page 12
The land within Township of Markham was first settled by German families from New York State, who
arrived around 1790, before the township had been surveyed. At this time, York was just a hamlet and
Yonge Street did not exist, although its line had been established. As more settlers began to arrive,
Governor Simcoe encouraged United Empire Loyalists to take up land alongside English immigrants who
also came in increasing numbers. The Township of Markham was then partially surveyed in 1794, being
the third in the county to be marked, Yonge Street became the base of the township and each concession,
of which there were ten, contained 35 lots, making the Township an almost perfect square (City of
Markham 2001).
Markham’s many rivers and tributaries soon supported water-powered mills, and a number of historic
communities were established around these sites. Such hamlets include German Mills, Almira,
Buttonville, Cedar Grove and Unionville. In 1851 Smith’s Canadian Gazeteer described Markham as “a
considerable village, containing between eight and nine hundred inhabitants, pleasantly situated on the
River Rouge. It contains two grist mills with three run of stones each, a woollen factory, oatmeal mill,
barley mill and distillery, foundry, two tanneries, brewery, etc., a temperance hall, and four churches –
Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Wesleyan Methodist” (Robinson 1885: 199). By 1857, the
lumber industry had managed to clear most of the township of trees and the land was then under
cultivation. Improved transportation routes such as Yonge Street and increased populations led to the
expansion of such villages as Markham, Thornhill and Unionville, and the establishment of more
specialized industries, such as tanneries, wagon works, and furniture factories (City of Markham 2001).
The arrival of the Toronto and Nipissing Railway in 1871, with stations in Unionville and Markham,
brought additional growth and prosperity to the township. The Village of Markham itself, which was
incorporated in 1873, had a population of 1,100 in 1891 (City of Markham 2001). Increased contact with
Toronto brought about by the rail line and other transportation and communication improvements
however, diminished the industrial role of the villages within the Township of Markham by the turn of the
century. The township returned to its agricultural roots and relied on such industries way until after
World War II (City of Markham 2001).
In 1971, rapid population growth and an influx of immigrants saw the establishment of the Municipality
of York by the Province of Ontario, and the incorporation of the Town of Markham (Anon. 2001). As of
July 1, 2012 the Town of Markham has been re-designated as the City of Markham (CBC News 2012).
3.2.3
Hagermans Corners
Hagerman’s Corners was named after Nicholas Hagerman who settled on Lot 6, Concession V, in 1803
(Champion 1979: 243). Hagerman’s Corners is situated at the intersection of Kennedy Road and 14th
Avenue (then John Street). By the 1950s the settlement had a hotel on its northeast corner, a cabinet
maker on the southeast corner, a store, and a tailor (John Moore) (ibid.: 243-4). The hotel was originally
the site of the Geister Tavern, before being replaced by Webbers’ Hotel, and later the Beehive Hotel
(ibid.: 244).
In 1849, a Wesleyan Methodist Church was erected on Hagerman’s land, which was later replaced with a
brick church in 1874. The church was pulled down in 1920, though the related cemetery was left intact
(Champion 1979: 244).
3.2.4
Page 13
Milliken
Milliken was named after the local Milliken family, headed by Norm Milliken, in 1807, Concession V,
Lot 1 (Scarborough Historical Society 2013a). Milliken is situated within both the former Townships of
Markham and Scarborough, bridging the two regions. Markham’s post office, established in 1859, served
both townships. Milliken’s church, known as Ebenezer, was first constructed on the on the Scarborough
side of Steeles Avenue, before being rebuilt on the Markham side in 1878, where it is still extant (ibid.).
3.2.5
Agincourt grew slowly until 1871 when Agincourt’s first railway station was constructed, connecting the
town to the Toronto Nipissing (CNR) Railway line. At this time the community centre of Agincourt
shifted westward along Sheppard Avenue (then Main Street) to Midland Avenue (then Church Street)
(Scarborough Historical Society 2013b). Agincourt continued to flourish, and was later connected the
Ontario and Quebec Railway in 1884 (Mika 1977: 26).
Agincourt’s first church, Knox Presbyterian, was constructed in 1848 as a small wooden frame structure,
and later rebuilt in 1872 in brick. The church still stands today (Scarborough Historical Society 2013b).
The first bank in the Township of Scarborough opened in Agincourt in 1906. In 1912 the town was
incorporated as the police village of Agincourt (ibid.).
Ellesmere
Ellesmere was located at the intersection of Kennedy Road and Ellesmere Road (then 2nd Concession
Road). Named after the English town of the same name in Shropshire, Ellesmere was formally established
with a post office in 1853 (Scarborough Historical Society 2013c). The founding families of Ellesmere,
the Forfars, Gendinnings, and the Loveless, all settled in the area in the 1820s, on what was known to be
rich and fertile land (ibid.). A Free Methodist Church was established with the help of the Loveless family
in 1877, on the northwest corner of Ellesmere (ibid.). Ellesmere had a brick built school, built in 1848,
which was replaced by a large frame structure in 1871. The latter school building lasted until 1946 when
it burned down. Ellesmere also boasted a sterling sports club and arena, where events were held until
1913, when the structure was dismantled and moved to Agincourt (ibid.). Ellesmere went into decline
after 1884 with the construction of the Ontario and Quebec Railway through Agincourt.
Scarboro Junction began to grow in the early 1870s, with the appearance of hotels at the intersections of
Kennedy Road and Danforth Road, and Midland Avenue and Kingston Road. Scarboro Junction’s focus
became the railways built in 1856 (the Grand Trunk Railway) and 1873 (the Toronto and Nipissing
Railway) (Scarborough Historical Society 2013d). With its growth, Scarboro Junction incorporated the
earlier settlements of Strangleford and Mortlake, in around 1872 (ibid.).
In the same year that the Toronto Nipissing Railway arrived, the Scarborough Junction post office was
opened on the southwest corner of Kennedy Road and St. Clair Avenue. Scarboro Junction had a school
as early as 1847. From 1870 the school was housed within a brick building, which was later replaced in
1900 with a two-room, two-storied building on Kennedy Road. By 1906 the school building was the
largest in the Township of Scarborough (Scarborough Historical Society 2013d.).
The Bethel Methodist Church is one of the earliest churches in Scarboro Junction, built on the southeast
corner of Kennedy Road and Eglinton Avenue (Scarborough Historical Society 2013d).f
Scarboro Junction was one of the first communities to develop proper residential communities, with side
streets and residences multiplying in the early 1900s. The community grew rapidly after the Second
World War, a growth aided by its setting as a transport hub (Scarborough Historical Society 2013d).
3.2.8 Railways
The first railway to be established in the Township of Scarborough was the Grand Trunk Railway. The
Grand Trunk Railway was first announced in 1852, when the Canadian government introduced a plan to
build a railway linking Montreal and Toronto. The railway was incorporated the same year (Collections
Canada 2005). The Grand Trunk Railway Company owned the Grand Trunk Railway until 1923 when the
Federal Government took charge from the then bankrupt company, amalgamating the railway with the
Canadian National Railways (ibid.).
The second railway through the Township of Scarborough, the Toronto Nipissing Railway, was first
opened in 1871. The railway was created to connect Toronto with the Canadian Pacific Railway near
Lake Nipissing (Narrow Gauge 2012). However, due to funding issues, and the loss of the main
contractor in 1871, the line only ever made it as far as Coboconk, in 1872 (Harvey Historical Society
2013). The Toronto Nipissing Railway was primarily a public passenger train, and the first in Canada to
use narrow gauge tracks (Narrow Gauge 2012). In 1881 the line was amalgamated within the Midland
Railway System, and in 1883 within the Grand Trunk Railway (Narrow Gauge 2012, Harvey Historical
Society 2013).
The Ontario and Quebec Railway was first incorporated in 1871 in response to a charter from the
Canadian Pacific Railway (Kennedy 2013a). Ten years later Ontario and Quebec Railway was
reincorporated (May 1881), running from Perth through to Toronto Junction, via Tweed, Havelock,
Peterborough, Agincourt, Leaside and North Toronto. In 1884 the first twice-daily passenger services
began between Toronto and Peterborough (ibid.).
3.3
3.2.7
Page 14
Agincourt
Agincourt was named in 1858, when John Hill obtained a post office outlet for his general store.
Purportedly, Hill was aided in acquiring post office status by a politician friend from Canada East, on the
condition that the settlement take on a French name – Agincourt appeased both the friend, and the British
neighbours (Scarborough Historical Society 2013b). Agincourt was the site of a crushing French defeat
by the English King Henry V in 1415, which left France at the mercy of England, until the rise of Jean
D’arc several years later.
3.2.6
Scarboro Junction
Review of Historic Mapping
Page 15
The 1860 Tremaine's Map of the County of York and the 1878 Historical Atlas of the County of York
were reviewed to determine the potential for the presence of historical resources in the study area during
the nineteenth century (Figures 2 and 3).
Con. #
Historically, the study area is located in the former Township of Scarborough (Lots 26 to 28, between
Concessions B and D and I through V) and in the south of the former Township of Markham (Lots 1 to 8,
Concessions V), County of York. Details of historic property owners are provided in Table 1. It should be
noted, however, that not all features of interest were mapped systematically in the Ontario series of
historical atlases, given that they were financed by subscription, and subscribers were given preference
with regard to the level of detail provided on the maps. Moreover, not every feature of interest would
have been within the scope of the atlases.
Township of Scarborough
Table 1: Nineteenth-century property owner(s) and historical feature(s)
Property Owners
Historical Feature(s)
Lot # Property Owner(s)
Con. #
(1860)
(1878)
(1860)
V
IV
(1878)
Township of Markham
V
8
Thomas Revis
Alex Brasburn
John T. Carr
Henry Lunau
Farmsteads (2)
Farmsteads (2)
Orchard
7
John Fierheller
Henry Hansoger
Christopher
Chapman
Nicholas Hagerman
John Hagerman
Sinclair Hagerman
Henry Hagerman
Joseph Fierheller
Joseph Lunau
Sinclair Hagerman
Farmstead
Farmsteads (3)
Orchard
Sinclair Hagerman
Nicholas Hagerman
John Hagerman
Hagermans Corners
Store
Farmsteads (5)
Waterway
Hagermans Corners
Post Office
Wesley Methodist
Church
Farmsteads (3)
Orchards (2)
William Young
Maj. Benjamin
Milliken
William Young
Joseph Armstrong
William Young
William Milliken
Hagermans Corners
School House
Hagermans Corners
School House
William Young
William Milliken
Adam Hood
Armstrong
-
Farmsteads (2)
Orchards (2)
Andrew M. Graham
James Pallon
Adam Hood
John Gibson
Farmstead
2
Alexander
McPherson
Alexander
McPherson
Farmstead
Presbyterian Church
Farmsteads (4)
Orchards (2)
1
Norman Milliken
Carey
Fulton Calison
Smith
Goodenough
John & Joseph
Milliken
William Wood
Thomas Gibson
Goodenough
Milliken
Milliken
Farmsteads (3)
6
5
4
3
Farmsteads (2)
Orchards (2)
III
II
I
D
Lot #
Property Owner(s)
(1860)
“McY”
“C.H”
Page 16
Property Owners
(1878)
(1860)
(1878)
28
Simon Kennedy
?. Kennedy
Oliver Harding
-
Farmstead
27
Christopher
Lamoreaux
Simon Miller
H. Miller
William Clark (F..q)
William Mason
William H.
Lamoreaux
Simon Miller
Hugh Clark
Elias Wood
Farmstead
Farmstead
Farmstead
Farmsteads (3)
Orchards (3)
Woodlot
27
Simon Miller
S.B. Kennedy
William Mason
W, Martin
John Chapman
Simon Miller
James Macklin
Elias Wood
James Chapman
(Estate)
-
Farmsteads (2)
Woodlot
28
Andrew Paterson
J. Paterson
William Paterson
Andrew Paterson
Thomas Patterson
James Patterson
Farmsteads (3)
Waterway
Farmsteads (4)
Orchards (3)
Waterway
27
David Yeomans
William Paterson
David Yeomans
John L. Patterson
Waterway
Agincourt
Farmsteads (7)
Orchards (2)
Waterway
28
John Whiteside
Archibald Forfar
John Whiteside
Archibald Forfar
Ellesmere
Farmsteads (2)
Waterways (2)
Ellesmere
Grist Mill
Farmsteads (2)
Orchards (2)
Waterways (2)
27
John Walton
John. D. Thomson
John Walton
John D. Thomson
Farmstead
Waterways (2)
Agincourt
Farmsteads (2)
Orchards (2)
Waterways (2)
28
Archibald
Glendinning
Archibald
Glendinning
Ellesmere
Post Office
Store
Ellesmere
Post Office
Farmstead
Orchard
27
Amos Thomson
Day R. Thomson
Christopher
Thomson
Seneca Thomson
John Horkridge
James Ionson
Amos Thomson
David Thomson
Christopher
Thomson
Seneca Thomson
Anthony Ionson
Simon Beaty
Farmsteads (2)
Farmsteads (3)
Orchards (3)
British Hotel
Farmsteads (2)
Orchards (2)
28
28
Property Owners
(1878)
(1860)
(1878)
list of all the historic roads in the study area includes: John Street (14th Avenue), Steeles Avenue,
McNicoll Avenue, Finch Avenue, Sheppard Avenue, Ellesmere Road, Lawrence Avenue, Eglinton
Avenue, St. Clair Avenue, Danforth Road, Danforth Avenue, Kennedy Road, and Midland Avenue.
David McMichael
John Fitzgibbon
A. Walton (occupant)
David McMichael
John Fitzgibbon
Waterway
Farmsteads (2)
Orchards (2)
Woodlot
Waterway
3.3.2
28
W. Walton
Joseph Sweil
James Jones
Robert Martin
William W. Walton
James Jones
Church
Scarboro Junction
Primitive Methodist
Church
Farmsteads (4)
Orchards (2)
27
W. Walton
John Torrance
Robert Martin
Robert Young
-
Farmsteads (2)
26
George Taylor
George B. Taylor
Farmstead
27
William Hale
Thompson (?)
Wiliam Heal
George Keith
-
Farmsteads (3)
Orchard
Primitive Methodist
Church
Farmsteads (3)
Orchards (2)
26
J. McCluer (?)
Isaac Ashbridge
Joseph McCluer
Isaac Ashbridge
-
Lot #
27
B
3.3.1
Page 18
Property Owner(s)
(1860)
John Torrance
Con. #
C
Page 17
Farmsteads (2)
Orchard
Half Way House
Nineteenth Century Mapping
The nineteenth century maps demonstrate several notable transformations taking place within the
Townships of Markham and Scarborough. The most notable development is the construction of the
Toronto and Nipissing railroad. The construction of the railroad can be seen to alter the historic
landscape, in the layout of settlements, and their relative decline or growth. For example, the Town of
Agincourt (Concessions II and III, Lot 17, in the study area), which in 1860 was situated one lot east of
the study area, had shifted west towards the railroad by 1878 and a new cemetery and a new brick church
building had been constructed (see Scarborough Historical Society 2013b), whereas the Town of Milliken
appears to shrink, losing a number of properties to the railroad in Concession V, Lot 1.
Historic mapping also demonstrates that there were numerous historic features in the study area. These
include the historic settlements of Hagerman’s Corners, Milliken, Agincourt, and Ellesmere. The
Scarboro Junction is depicted at the southern end of the study area. It should also be noted that the
Toronto Nipissing Railway (now the CNR) is a historic transportation route.
Several historic roads are shown running through the study area, from Danforth Avenue in the former
Township of Scarborough to John Street (14th Avenue) in the former Township of Markham, between the
historic thoroughfares of Kennedy Road and Midland Avenue. Many of the thoroughfares within the
study area have been greatly altered, particularly within the former Township of Markham, where the
alignments of the historic thoroughfares of Kennedy Road and John Street have been greatly changed. A
Twentieth-Century Mapping
A series of three twentieth-century maps, from 1917/1918, 1921/1922, and 1948/1949 and a 1954 aerial
photograph illustrate the development of the study area over the course of the twentieth century (Figures
4-7). There was a rapid trend of urbanisation within the Township of Scarborough in the first half of the
twentieth century, which accelerated between the 1920s and 1950s. Between the 1917-18 and 1921-22
maps (Figures 4 and 5), there is very little change in the study area, though several more buildings appear
to have been added to the Town of Agincourt in this time, including two brick structures. Many
developments were taking place at this time, with gridded town plans being laid and settled in several
locations, particularly within the south of the study area around Scarboro Junction (Concessions B and C,
Lots 16, 17, and 18).
Much development took place between 1921/1922 and 1948/1949. One change is the augmentation of
many of the roads; multiple roads are paved and several became proper two-lane thoroughfares (e.g.
Kennedy Road and Midland Avenue). Some change occurs to the settlements in the study area as well
since it appears that most towns (in particular Scarboro Junction and Agincourt) were expanding and
settlement was becoming more pervasive while the settlement of Ellesmere was in decline. Another
development, one paralleling the urbanisation of Scarborough and Markham, is the increased land
clearance and landscape alteration. Land clearance is apparent from the shrinking size, if not the complete
disappearance, of the mapped woodlands in this area. Landscape alteration is harder to determine, though
it is clear that several waterways changed course – for example the Highland Creek and Taylor Creek
were both diverted (Concession C and D, Lots 26-28) to reclaim land for development.
The last significant change to be seen from the map review is the decommissioning of the Canadian
Northern Railway, which appears as “Abandoned” on the 1948-9 mapping. This is unsurprising
considering that the Canadian Northern Railway was decommissioned in 1923, having been acquired by
the Federal Government and deemed unnecessary in light of three additional mainlines already in service
(Kennedy 2013b).
Figure 2: Approximate location of the study area on the 1860 map of
York County
Base Map: Tremaine’s Map of York County(Tremaine 1860)
Page 19
Figure 3: Location of the study area on the 1878 maps of the Townships of
Markham and Scarboro
Base Map: Illustrated historical atlas of the County of York
(Miles & Co. 1878)
Figure 4: The study area overlaid on the 1917/1918 historic topographic
maps of Markham and Toronto
Base Map: NTS Sheet 30 M/14 (Markham) and 30 M/11 (Toronto)
Page 20
Figure 5: The study area overlaid on the 1921/1922 historic topographic
maps of Markham and Toronto
Base Map: NTS Sheet 30 M/14 (Markham 1922) and 30 M/11 (Toronto 1921)
Figure 6: The study area overlaid on the 1948/1949 historic topographic maps of
Markham and Toronto
Base Map: NTS Sheet 30 M/14 (Markham) and 30 M/11 (Toronto)
Page 21
Figure 7: The study area overlaid on the 1954 aerial photograph of Trafalgar Township
Base Map: Hunting Survey Corporation Limited, Photos 436.792 and 437.792 (1954)
3.4
Page 22
Existing Conditions
In order to make a preliminary identification of existing cultural heritage resources within the study area,
the following sources were consulted: the City of Markham’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage
Value (2013), the City of Toronto’s Inventory of Heritage Properties (2013a) and the City of Toronto’s
list of Heritage Conservation Districts (2013b), the Government of Ontario Ministry of Culture’s Ontario
Heritage Properties Database (2008); and the Federal Government’s Canada’s Historic Places website.
Both Ontario’s Heritage Properties Database, and Canada’s Historic Places, provide a record of the
heritage properties identified to be of significance at a provincial level, which are designated under the
Ontario Heritage Act – Part IV. In addition, the Heritage Section of the City of Markham was contacted
directly to gather any information on cultural heritage resources within the study area (email
communication May 21 and June 11). The Heritage Preservation Services Division of the City of Toronto
was also contacted directly but no response was received (email and phone communication May and June
2013). Based on the review of available data, there are ten previously identified resources of cultural
heritage interest within 150m of the Metrolinx Stouffville study area. However, the field review
determined that the property limits of three of these resources, (786 Danforth Road, 23 Laurel Avenue,
and 5 Ross Avenue) are not within or adjacent to the Metrolinx Stouffville study area. Accordingly, these
three resources were not identified as a cultural heritage resource in this report since they will not be
impacted by the proposed work.
Page 23
Kennedy Road, just north of Steeles Avenue East (BHR 3, BHR 4, BHR 5, and BHR 6). These residences
were likely associated with the historic settlement of Milliken, which was concentrated at the intersection
of Steeles Avenue East and Old Kennedy Road during the mid-late nineteenth century.
Plate 1: Looking north along the rail line from
Unionville GO Station
Plate 2: Looking west towards the study area.
Plate 3: North-northeast view across 14th Avenue and
the Stouffville Rail Corridor. Note recent industrial
development on the northeast side of the road.
Plate 4: Looking south-southeast along Milliken
Meadows Drive. This recent residential street is
typical of other residential subdivisions between
Steeles Avenue East and 14th Avenue.
Plate 5: East-northeast view along Steeles Avenue
East. Note recent commercial development.
Plate 6: South view of industrial land use along the
rail line in the vicinity of the historic settlement of
Milliken.
A field review was undertaken by Heidy Schopf, Cultural Heritage Specialist, ASI, on September 20th and
23rd and on November 15th to document the existing conditions of the study area. The field review was
preceded by a review of available, current and historic, aerial photographs and maps (including online
sources such as Bing and Google maps). These large-scale maps are reviewed for any potential cultural
heritage resources which may be extant in the study area. The Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor study
area was examined to identify any built heritage resources (BHR) or cultural heritage landscapes (CHL)
within or adjacent to the study area. The existing conditions of the study area are described below. An
inventory of heritage properties identified in the Metrolinx Stouffville study area is presented in Section
7.0 and mapping of these features is provided in Section 8.0 of this report.
For ease of description, the existing conditions of the study area are discussed from north to south and are
divided into sections to land between major streets.
3.4.1
Enterprise Boulevard to Steeles Avenue East
The northern portion of the study area terminates at the Unionville GO station. The GO station and
surrounding landscape have been recently developed and feature new commercial developments and open
space that is currently under development. With the exception of the rail line, there were no noted cultural
heritage resources north of Highway 407 and south of Enterprise Boulevard (Plate 1). Similarly, no
cultural heritage resources were noted south of Highway 407 and north of Duffield Drive since these
lands consist of a hydro corridor, a relatively recent rail line, and recent commercial and industrial
development (Plate 2). The historic map review demonstrated that the historic settlement, Hagerman’s
Corners, once existed in the vicinity of the intersection of the Stouffville Rail Line and 14th Avenue. Two
cultural heritage resources were identified near this intersection of the study area (BHR 1 and BHR 2).
With the exception of these two resources, the rest of the study area in the vicinity of 14th Avenue consists
of recent commercial and industrial development (Plate 3). The lands north and south of Denison Street
and north of Steeles Avenue East consist of a mix of recent residential subdivisions, parks, commercial,
and industrial development (Plates 4-6). Four cultural heritage resources were identified along Old
3.4.2
Page 24
Steeles Avenue East to Finch Avenue East
The lands adjacent to the Stouffville Rail Corridor between Steeles Avenue East and Finch Avenue East
consist primarily of recent industrial and commercial development (Plates 7 and 8). One exception is that
there is a remnant historic agricultural field located north of McNicoll Ave, between Kennedy Road and
Midland Avenue. These fields retain cultural heritage value and are identified in this report as CHL 2.
The fields are a remnant of the historic agricultural land-use that once defined the area. The fields are now
surrounded by recent commercial development (Plate 9). This section of the study area also features the
Finch Hydro Corridor, which crosses the rail corridor in an east-west direction (Plate 10). The current
land-use between the Finch Hydro Corridor and Finch Avenue East consists of recent industrial
development.
Plate 7: South-southeast view along the rail line from
Steeles Avenue East. Note the recent commercial
development adjacent to the rail line.
Plate 9: Northeast view across remnant/historic
agricultural fields towards recent commercial
development.
3.4.3
Page 25
surrounding residential development. This section of the study area features at-grade rail crossings along
residential streets, including: Huntingwood Drive, Havendale Road, and Marilyn Avenue (Plates 13 and
14). The proposed Agincourt Heritage Conservation District (HCD) is located north of Sheppard and east
of the rail corridor (Plates 15 and 16). The proposed HCD features numerous built heritage and cultural
heritage landscape features that are related to the historic centre of Agincourt, which was centred around
the intersection of Sheppard Avenue East and Midland Avenue during the mid-late nineteenth century.
Plate 11: South view across Finch Avenue East along
the rail line. Note residential subdivision in the far
right.
Plate 12: East view along Petworth Crescent. This
recent residential street is typical of the housing
stock between Finch Avenue East and Sheppard
Avenue East.
Plate 13: East-northeast view along Havendale Road
across the at-grade rail crossing. Note the
surrounding residential development.
Plate 14: East-northeast view of the pedestrian atgrade rail crossing located at the foot of Marilyn
Avenue.
Plate 8: South view across Passmore Avenue towards
recent industrial development.
Plate 10: East-northeast view along the Finch Hydro
Corridor. No cultural heritage resources were
identified in this corridor.
Finch Avenue East to Sheppard Avenue East
The land-use adjacent to the Stouffville Rail Corridor between Finch Avenue East and Sheppard Avenue
East consists mainly of residential development with some commercial development located along major
streets (Plates 11 and 12). The area also features schools and parks, which are contemporary with the
Plate 15: South-southeast view along the Stouffville
Rail Corridor towards the Agincourt GO Station. The
proposed Agincourt HCD is located on the left.
3.4.4
Page 26
Plate 16: Northwest view along Agincourt Drive. This
street is adjacent to the rail line and is part of the
proposed Agincourt HCD.
Page 27
Plate 19: West view of rail bridge and culvert over
Highland Creek.
Plate 20: South-southwest view of the at-grade rail
crossing at Progress Avenue. Note the industrial
buildings on the south side of the road.
Plate 21: South-southwest view along Midwest Road.
Typical industrial buildings in along the rail line.
Plate 22: East view of the Lawrence Avenue East
Bridge over the rail line. This bridge was built in the
early 1980s.
Sheppard Avenue East to Lawrence Avenue East
The section of the study area between Sheppard Avenue East and Lawrence Avenue East is primarily
composed of recent industrial and commercial development with the exception of a small residential
pocket immediately south of Sheppard Avenue East. The residential area south of Sheppard features St.
Timothy’s Church (identified as BHR 8), mid-twentieth century houses, and a light industrial complex
(Plate 17). This section of the study area also features two cultural heritage landscapes, Highland Creek
(CHL4) and Collingwood Park (CHL5) and two built heritage resources (BHR 9 and BHR 10) (Plates 18
and 19). The lands south of the rail line are primarily defined by industrial and commercial development
that continues south to Lawrence Avenue East (Plates 20 and 21). A number of bridges are present in this
section of the study area, including the Highway 401 Bridge over the rail line (BHR 11), Ellesmere Road
Bridge, Lawrence Avenue East Bridge, and the Eglinton Avenue East Bridge (Plate 22). The date of
construction could not be confirmed for the Highway 401 Bridge, but research determined that the three
remaining bridges all date to 1980/1981.
3.4.5
Plate 17: South-southwest view towards the light
industrial complex located on the east side of the rail
corridor, south of St. Timothy’s Church.
Plate 18: North view of Collingwood Park and
Highland Creek.
Lawrence Avenue East to St. Claire Avenue East
The lands adjacent to the Stouffville Rail Corridor south of Lawrence Avenue East are comprised of a
mix of new residential development, mid-twentieth century subdivisions, parkland, and commercial
development along major streets. The housing stock adjacent to Lawrence Avenue is relatively recent
(Plate 23), while the housing south of the Gatineau Hydro Corridor dates to the mid-twentieth century
(Plate 24). This section of the study area contains two cultural heritage resources, the Moorgate
Avenue/Tara Avenue Pedestrian Bridge (BHR 12) and the Lord Roberts Woods (CHL 6). The residential
neighbourhoods between Eglinton Avenue East and St. Claire Avenue East were established during the
1950s and 1960s and contain many post-war bungalows (Plate 25). The southernmost portion of the study
area, near St. Claire Avenue East, features some historic properties that date to the nineteenth century
(Plate 26). These residences are associated with the Scarboro Junction, which was a historic settlement
located at the rail junction located to the northwest of St. Claire Avenue East and Midland Avenue.
Page 28
x
x
Page 29
A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing
new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces (III.6).
Soil disturbance such as a change in grade, or an alteration of the drainage pattern or excavation
(III.7)
A number of additional factors are also considered when evaluating potential impacts on identified
cultural heritage resources. These are outlined in a document set out by the Ministry of Culture and
Communications (now Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) and the Ministry of the Environment
entitled Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental
Assessments (October 1992) and include:
Plate 23: East-northeast view of recent residential
subdivision south of Lawrence Avenue.
Plate 24: West-southwest view along Moorgate
Avenue. This neighbourhood dates to the midtwentieth century.
x
x
x
x
x
x
Magnitude: the amount of physical alteration or destruction which can be expected;
Severity: the irreversibility or reversibility of an impact;
Duration: the length of time an adverse impact persists;
Frequency: the number of times an impact can be expected;
Range: the spatial distribution, widespread or site specific, of an adverse impact; and
Diversity: the number of different kinds of activities to affect a heritage resource.
Where any above ground cultural heritage resources are identified, which may be affected by direct or
indirect impacts, appropriate mitigation measures should be developed. This may include completing a
heritage impact assessment or documentation report, or employing suitable measures such as landscaping,
buffering or other forms of mitigation, where appropriate. In this regard, provincial guidelines should be
consulted for advice and further heritage assessment work should be undertaken as necessary.
3.5.1
Plate 25: West-southwest view along Merrian Road.
This neighbourhood features post-war bungalows
with uniform features.
3.5
Plate 26: West-northwest view of nineteenth-century
brick house located along Danforth Road near the
Scarboro Junction.
Screening for Potential Impacts
To assess the potential impacts of the undertaking, identified cultural heritage resources are considered
against a range of possible impacts as outlined in the document entitled Screening for Impacts to Built
Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (MTC September 2010) which include:
x
x
x
x
x
Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attribute or feature (III.1).
Alteration which means a change in any manner and includes restoration, renovation, repair or
disturbance (III.2).
Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the visibility of a
natural feature of plantings, such as a garden (III.3).
Isolation of a heritage attribute from it surrounding environment, context, or a significant
relationship (III.4).
Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built and natural
feature (III.5).
Potential Impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources
Following the preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources in the Metrolinx Stouffville study
area, track drawings were developed that show the proposed rail widening. The proposed widening is
shown in Section 8.0 of this report. Table 2 lists potential impacts of the proposed work on identified
cultural heritage resources located within or adjacent to the Stouffville Rail Corridor.
Table 2: Potential Impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Stouffville Rail Corridor
Resource
Potential Impact(s)
Proposed Mitigation Measure(s)
BHR 1
No anticipated impacts.
None.
BHR 2
None.
BHR 3
None.
BHR 4
None.
BHR 5
None.
BHR 6
None.
BHR 7
None.
BHR 8
None.
Resource
BHR 9
Page 30
Potential Impact(s)
Potential construction and/or vibration
related impacts to the bridge carrying the
CP Belleville Rail Line over the Stouffville
Rail Corridor and Highland Creek.
Complete further studies such as a CHER and
HIA prior to construction to evaluate the impacts
to BHR 9 and develop appropriate mitigation
measures.
Potential disruption and/or displacement
due to proposed bridge or culvert
modification.
measures.
BHR 11
None.
BHR 12
None.
BHR 13
Potential disruption and/or displacement
due to construction of proposed track and
realigned track.
measures.
BHR 14
None.
BHR 15
None.
BHR 16
None.
CHL 1
Alteration (Ill. 2) due to the construction of
double tracking, retaining walls, noise
walls, and station improvements.
to CHL 1 and develop appropriate mitigation
measures.
BHR 10
CHL 2
None.
CHL 3
Alteration (Ill. 2) of the proposed Agincourt
HCD due to acquisition of land from the rear
of two properties (26 and 30 Agincourt
Drive) within the HCD boundaries and
construction of elevators/tunnel.
measures.
Potential alteration (Ill. 2) due to
construction of retaining walls and
modification of the culvert at the junction of
the CP Belleville Rail Line, West Highland
Creek, and the Stouffville Rail Line.
measures.
CHL 4
Potential alteration (Ill. 2) due to the
proposed bridge or culvert modifications
located between Progress Avenue and
Highway 401.
CHL 5
Potential removal/alteration (Ill.1 or Ill. 2) of
landscape features due to construction
related activities.
measures.
Page 31
Resource
Potential Impact(s)
CHL 6
None.
CHL 7
None.
CHL 8
None.
CHL 9
None.
CHL 10
None.
All cultural heritage resources identified were evaluated against the criteria set out in Section 3.5 of this
report.
4.0
CONCLUSIONS
The results of background historic research and a review of secondary source material, including historic
mapping, revealed a study area with a rural land use history dating back to the early nineteenth century.
The field review confirmed that this area retains a number of nineteenth and twentieth-century cultural
heritage resources. The following provides a summary of the assessment results:
Key Findings
x
A total of 26 cultural heritage resources were identified within or adjacent to the Metrolinx
Stouffville Rail Corridor;
x
Sixteen (16) built heritage resources and ten (10) cultural heritage landscapes were identified in
the Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor study area: one is designated under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act (BHR 1); one is being considered for designation under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act (CHL 3); four properties are listed as heritage resources by the Town of Markham
(BHR 2, BHR 3, BHR 4, BHR 5); and twenty resources were identified during the field review
(BHR 6-16 and CHL 1-10);
x
Of the 26 identified cultural heritage resources: nine are residences (BHR 2-7 and BHR 14-16),
one is a church (BHR 8), one is a school (BHR 1), three are bridges (BHR 9, BHR 11-13), one is
a culvert (BHR 10), two are rail lines (CHL 1 and CHL 10), one is a remnant agricultural field
(CHL 2), one is a heritage conservation district (CHL 3), one is a watercourse (CHL 4), two are
parks (CHL 5 and CHL 6), one is a school complex (CHL 8), and one is a post-war nighbourhood
(CHL 9);
x
Identified cultural heritage resources are historically, architecturally, and contextually associated
with nineteenth century and twentieth century land use patterns in the Town of Markham and City
of Toronto; and,
x
The results of the impact assessment determined that several identified cultural heritage resources
are expected to be impacted by the proposed work, including:
o Potential construction and/or vibration-related impacts to BHR 9 due to nearby
construction activities;
o
o
o
o
o
o
5.0
Page 32
Potential disruption and/or displacement of BHR 10 due to proposed bridge or
culvert modification;
Potential disruption to BHR 13 due to the construction of proposed track and
realigned track;
Alteration to CHL 1 due to the construction of double tracking, retaining walls, noise
walls, and station improvements;
Alteration to CHL 3 due to acquisition of land from two properties within the
proposed HCD boundary (26 and 30 Agincourt Drive) and construction of
elevators/tunnel;
Potential alteration to CHL 4 due to construction of retaining walls and modification
of the culvert at the junction of the CP Belleville Rail Line, West Highland Creek,
and the Stouffville Rail Line, and due to proposed modifications to bridges/culverts
located between Progress Avenue and Highway 401;
Potential removal/alteration of landscape features in CHL 5 due to construction
related activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed undertaking has the potential to affect cultural heritage resources in a variety of ways.
Potential impacts can include: direct impacts that result in the loss of resources through demolition, or the
displacement of resources through relocation; and indirect impacts that result in the disruption of
resources by introducing physical, visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with
the resources and/or their setting.
Based on the results of background data collection and field review of the Metrolinx Stouffville Rail
Corridor Expansion Class EA study area, the following recommendations have been developed:
1.
Staging and construction activities should be suitably planned and undertaken to avoid
impacts to identified cultural heritage resources;
2.
BHR 10, BHR 13, CHL 1, CHL 3, CHL 4, and CHL 5 are expected to be impacted through
disruption and/or alteration by the removal of built heritage elements (e.g. culvert, pedestrian
underpass) and historical landscape features (e.g., vegetation, historic lot lines, historic rightof-way, etc.). A resource-specific cultural heritage evaluation report (CHER) and, if required,
a heritage impact assessment (HIA) should be carried out in advance, or at the earliest possible
stages of the detailed design phase to identify the heritage value of these resources and
potential impacts of the proposed work. The results of this study should be used to develop
appropriate mitigation measures, which may include: documentation, post-construction
landscaping plans, potential tree-hoarding activities during construction, and finalization of
grading limits;
3.
BHR 9 will be potentially impacted by the proposed work. Where bridges are older than 40
years of age and are expected to be directly or indirectly impacted, resource-specific heritage
assessments should be completed in advance, or at the earliest possible stages of the detailed
design phase. Accordingly, a resource specific CHER and, if required, a HIA should be
carried out to identify the potential impacts of the proposed work on this resource;
Page 33
4.
Post-construction landscaping and rehabilitation plans should be undertaken in a manner that
is sympathetic to the overall setting. Wherever possible, landscaping with
appropriate/sympathetic historic plant materials is recommended, and fence rows should be
preserved where extant; and,
5.
Should future work require an expansion of the study area, then a qualified heritage consultant
should be contacted in order to confirm the impacts of the proposed work on potential heritage
resources.
6.0
Page 34
REFERENCES
Bonis, R.
1968
Markham to Change from Town to City. no author. [online]. Available at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/05/30/toronto-markham-city.html
[Accessed 27 May 2013]
Champion, I . (ed.)
1979 Markham 1793-1900. Markham Historical Society, Markham.
City of Markham
2001 A History of the Town of Markham. [online]. Available at:
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/heritage/parta.htm [Accessed 27 May 2013]
2013
Page 35
2013b 64 Old Kennedy Road 43o49’36.75” N 79o18’04.71”W Elevation 664 ft. Available at
https://maps.google.com/?ll=43.82692,-79.30092&z=18&t=h [Accessed 20 November
2013].
A History of Scarborough. Scarborough: Scarborough Public Library.
Boulton, D’Arcy
1805 Sketch of His Majesty’s Province of Upper Canada. C. Rickaby, London. Later: Baxter
Publishing Company, Toronto, 1961)
CBC News
2012
Markham Register of Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. [online]. Available
at:
http://www.markham.ca/wps/portal/Markham/BusinessDevelopment/PlanningBuilding/H
eritageServices/HeritagePropertyRegister/ [Accessed 15 May 2013].
City of Toronto
2005 Agincourt Heritage Conservation District Study Area (Ward 41 – Scarborough Rouge
River). [online]. Available at: http://www.toronto.ca/heritagepreservation/pdf/hcd_agincourt_study_bylaw.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2013].
2013a Heritage Properties Inventory, Heritage Preservation. [online]. Available at:
http://app.toronto.ca/HeritagePreservation/setup.do?action=init [Accessed 15 May 2013].
2013b Heritage Conservation Districts, Heritage Preservation. [online]. Available at:
http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/heritage_districts.htm [Accessed 16 May
2013].
Collections Canada
2005 The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. Library and Archives of Canada.
[online]. Available at: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/confederation/0230013010.25-e.html [Accessed 27 May 2013]
Google Earth
2013a 58 Old Kennedy Road 43o49’35.62” N 79o18’02.45”W Elevation 653 ft. Available at
2013].
2013c 64 Old Kennedy Road 43o49’36.78” N 79o18’03.98”W Elevation 649 ft. Available at
2013].
2013d Corvette Park 43o43’38.12”N 79o15’34.95”W Elevation 572 ft. Available at
2013].
2013e Midland Collegiate 43o43’41.65”N 79o15’23.78”W Elevation 572 ft. Available at
2013].
Harvey Historical Society
2013 Toronto & Nipissing Railway Company. [online]. Available at:
http://blog.harveyhistoricalsociety.ca/toronto-nipissing-railway-company/ [accessed May
27 2013]
Kennedy, R.L.
2013a Ontario and Quebec. Old Time Trains. [online]. Available at:
http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/OandQ/history.htm [accessed May 27 2013]
2013b Canadian Northern. Old Time Trains. [online]. Available at:
http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/CNR/cnor/gallery.htm [accessed 27 May 2013]
Mika, N., Mika, H.
1977 Places in Ontario: Their Name Origins and History. Part 1, A-E. Mika Publishing
Company, Bellville.
Ministry of Consumer Services
1990 Cemeteries Act
2002 Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act
Ministry of Culture, Ontario
1981 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments
1992 Guidelines for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental
Assessments
2005 Ontario Heritage Act
Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Ontario
2005 Ontario Heritage Act.
2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit
2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
2010 Check Sheet for Environmental Assessments: Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage
Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Page 36
Ministry of Environment, Ontario
2006 Environmental Assessment Act
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario
Ontario Planning Act
2005 Provincial Policy Statement
Ministry of Transportation
Environmental Reference for Highway Design
2006 Cultural Heritage – Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Technical
Requirements for Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Protection/Mitigation.
2007 Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
1972 '401' The Macdonald–Cartier Freeway.
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
2005 Ontario Heritage Act.
2011
Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Cultural Programs Branch,
Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.
Narrow Gauge
2012 The Toronto & Nipissing Railway. Narrow Gauge Through The Bush. [online]. Available
at: http://www.narrowgaugethroughthebush.com/railways/nipissing.html [accessed May
27 2013]
Robinson, C.B.
1885 History of Toronto and County of York, Ontario. C.B. Robinson, Toronto.
Scarborough Direct
2013 About Scarborough. [online]. Available at
http://www.scarboroughdirect.ca/about_scarborough/ [accessed 27 May 2013]
Scarborough Historical Society
2013a Milliken. [online]. Available at: http://scarboroughhistorical.ca/?page_id=208 [accessed
27 May 2013].
2013b Agincourt. [online]. Available at: http://scarboroughhistorical.ca/?page_id=189 [accessed
27 May 2013].
2013c Ellesmere. [online]. Available at: http://scarboroughhistorical.ca/?page_id=197 [accessed
27 May 2013].
2013d Scarborough Junction. [online]. Available at:
http://scarboroughhistorical.ca/?page_id=213 [accessed 27 May 213].
2013d
Page 37
1927: Renamed 65 Streets in Scarborough. excerpt from the Toronto Star, September 2,
1927. [online]. Available at: http://scarboroughhistorical.ca/?ai1ec_event=1927renamed-65-streets-in-scarborough&instance_id= [accessed 27 May 2013].
Smith, William H.
1846
Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer. H. & W. Rowsell, Toronto.
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
2013 Cemetery. [online]. Available at: http://www.standrewsscarborough.ca/Cemetery.htm
[accessed 27 May 2013]
Toronto Plaques
2012 The Thomson Settlement. [online]. Available at:
http://www.torontoplaques.com/Pages_STU/Thomson_Settlement.html [accessed 27
May 2013]
7.0
Page 38
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY
Table 3: Inventory of Built Heritage Resources (BHR) and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL)
Municipality Address/Location Recognition
Description
Resource
4121 14th Avenue
The Hagerman Schoolhouse was built in 1888 to replace the public school that opened
BHR 1
Town of
Designated
Markham
under Part IV in 1858 and was destroyed by fire on April 11, 1888. The building is believed to have
of the
been designed by Toronto Architect E.J. Lennox, who also designed Casa Loma and
Ontario
Old City Hall. The Hagerman Schoolhouse served as a school until 1966, at which point
Hertage Act
is was converted into a restaurant. The schoolhouse shows a mix of Italianate and
Queen Anne Revival styles and is one of the last remnants of the historic community of
Hagerman’s corners (Town of Markham 2013).
BHR 2
Town of
Markham
4272 14th Avenue
Listed in the
City of
Markham’s
Inventory of
Heritage
Buildings
BHR 3
Town of
Markham
30 Old Kennedy
Road
Listed in the
City of
Markham’s
Inventory of
Heritage
Buildings
Photos
Front (north) elevation of the Hagerman
Schoolouse.
North and east elevations of the original
section of the Hagerman Schoolhouse.
Front (south) elevation of the John Hagerman
House.
Close-up of the original structure of the John
Hagerman House. Note the stone chimney.
Front (east) elevation of 30 Old Kennedy Road.
View of east and north elevations of 30 Old
Kennedy Road.
The John Hagerman House was built circa 1860 and is confirmed on the 1861 census.
John Hagerman was a long time resident of the area and lived to be 102 years old. The
house is built in the Georgian Tradition and is one of the last remnants of the historic
community of Hagerman’s corners (Town of Markham 2013).
Milliken Village L Shaped Cottage was built in 1935 in the Edwardian Classical style
(Town of Markham 2013). The house is a one storey brick structure with a hipped roof,
rectangular plan, and rear wing. The structure features one internal chimney at the
rear of the house on the north elevation and windows with arched brick voussoirs. The
foundation is coarse concrete. All windows appear to be recent.
The house appears on 1936 historic topographic map of Markham and on the 1954
aerial image of the area.
The property is currently in use as car dealership.
Resource
BHR 4
Municipality
Town of
Markham
Address/Location
58 Old Kennedy
Road
Page 39
Recognition
Listed in the
City of
Markham’s
Inventory of
Heritage
Buildings
Description
This house dates to the first half of the twentieth centruy and was built in Edwardian
style. The house is a two storey, brick structure that features a saltbox roof, central
dormer on the front elevation and recent additions on the south and north elevations.
The structure features curved brick voussoirs and plain lug sills. All windows appear to
be recent.
Photos
The house first appears on the 1936 historic topographic map of Markham and on the
1954 aerial image of the area.
The property is currently in use as a commercial enterprise:“The Deck Depot Ltd”.
South elevation of 76 Old Kennedy Road.
Referece: Google Earth (2013a)
BHR 5
Town of
Markham
64 Old Kennedy
Road
Listed in the
City of
Markham’s
Inventory of
Heritage
Buildings
This brick building was constructed in 1935 in the Edwardian Classical and Vernacular
styles (Town of Markham 2013). This one-storey brick structure features a rectangular
plan and gable roof. The house appears to have been extensively altered and includes
a garage door on the front elevation. All windows and doors appear to be recent.
The house first appears on the 1936 historic topographic map of Markham and on the
1954 aerial image of the area.
The property is currently in use as a car dealership.
View of the south and east elevations of 64 Old
Kennedy Road.
Referece: Google Earth (2013b)
Referece: Google Earth (2013c)
BHR 6
Town of
Markham
76 Old Kennedy
Road
Identified
during the
field review
This house was built in the first half of the twentieth century in Edwardian style. This
two-storey brick house features a rectangular plan and gable roof with a central
dormer and bay on the south elevation. The house features returned eaves and curved
brick voussoirs over window and door openings. The house also has a porch on the
front elevation with brick piers. All windows and doors appear to be recent.
The house first appears on the 1936 historic topographic map of Markham and
appears on the 1954 aerial photo of the area.
The property appears to be in use as a residence.
Front (east) elevaion of 76 Old Kennedy Road.
View of the south elevation of 76 Old Kennedy
Road.
Resource
BHR 7
Municipality
Town of
Markham
Address/Location
210 Victory
Avenue
Page 40
Recognition
Identified
during the
field review
Description
This two storey house was built in Georgian style and features a rectangular plan with
a rear wing. The house has a gable roof, projecting verges, and plain soffit and fascia.
The exterior of the house appears to be clad in a mix of vinyl siding and insulbrick. The
house has one internal chimney that is side-to-side and offset on the right. The front
elevation of the house is arranged symetrically with a central front door and two
windows on the first floor and three evenly spaced windows on the second storey. The
first-storey windows and front door have plain pediments. Most windows and doors
appear to be recent with the exception of the three second-storey windows on the
front elevation, which have sash three-over-one panes.
Landscape features include possible tree lines on the south and front sides of the
house. It should be noted that Victory Avenue was not opened as a road until the midtwentieth century so the original driveway to the house would have stemmed from Old
Kennedy Road.
Photos
Front (east) elevation of 210 Victory Avenue.
North elevation of 210 Victory Avenue.
Front (north) elevation of St. Timothy’s Chruch.
Front elevation showing the 1954 brick addition
(on left) and original 1919 brick structure (on
right).
210 Victory Avenue first appears on the 1860 Tremaine’s map of York County.
Alexander McPherson is depicted as the property owner.
The house appears to be abandoned but the rest of the property is in use as a car
mechanic enterprise.
BHR 8
City of
Toronto
4125 Sheppard
Avenue East
Identified
during the
field review
Saint Timothy’s Church originally dates to 1919 and features a large brick addition that
dates to 1954. Other, more recent additions, are featured on the east, south, and west
elevations.
The original section of the church was constructed in 1919. The exterior is clad in red
brick and features a three storey bell tower on the west side of the building. The
original section of the church features a gable roof with plain eaves. The front
entrance of the church is located at the base of the bell tower and features a pointed,
brick voussoir with a shaped transom that has sash twelve pane, sixteen pane, and
twelve pane lights. The bell tower also features a pointed brick voussoir in the same
style as the front entrance. The north elevation features eight gothic-style windows on
the first storey that have pointed brick voussoirs, stained glass windows, and plain
lugsills. The lower storey of the building has eight windows with curved, brick
voussoirs with recent/replaced windows. The original structure has a date stone that
reads “1919”.
The 1954 section of the church was added as a wing on the east side of the north
elevation of the original structure. The 1954 addition has a gable roof with flush verges
and plain fascia. The apex is decorated with a stone anglican cross. The windows on
the 1954 section are in the same style as the original structure, featuring gothic style,
pointed brick voussoirs with stained glass panes. The lower storey windows have
curved, brick voissoirs and recent/replaced windows.
Both the 1919 and 1954 sections of the structure feature red brick butressing.
The remainder of the structure features relatively recent additions that are clad in
white stucco and/or red brick.
Saint Timothy’s Church is in use as an active anglican parish.
Resource
BHR 9
Municipality
City of
Toronto
Address/Location
CP Belleville rail
bridge over the
West Highland
Creek
Page 41
Recognition
Identified
during field
review
Description
The Canadian Pacific (CP) Belleville Rail Line Bridge crosses the Stouffville Canadian
Nation Rail (CNR) Corridor in an east-west direction. The bridge is a deck-throughgirder with solid metal siding and stone/concrete abutments. The abutments appear
to have been widened since the north portion of the abutment is made of rusticated
stone while the southern portion appears to be recent board-formed concrete. The
expansion of the abutments likely occurred when the rail line was expanded in the
twentieth century.
Photos
The CP Rail Bridge was likely constructed during the early twentieth century. Available
mapping demonstrates that the rail line is not depicted on the 1878 Map of the
Township of Scarboro but is shown in place on the 1917 historic topographic map of
Markham.
BHR 10
City of
Toronto
Stouffville rail
bridge/culvert
over the West
Highland Creek
Identified
during field
review
East view of the CP Rail Bridge.
Detail of the stone/concrete abutment on the
east side of the bridge.
View of the bridge/culvert over the Highland
Creek.
Looking north along the rail corridor showing
the profile of the culvert.
Looking south towards the Highway 401 bridge
over the Stouffville Rail Corridor.
Detail of the Highway 401 Bridge.
The Stouffville Rail Corridor intersects with Highland Creek and the CP Belleville Rail
approximately 350m south of Sheppard Avenue East. This intersection features two
concrete culverts where Highland Creek passes under the Stouffville Rail Corridor. The
concrete appears to be board formed and shows some signs of wear from the
elements. The culverts also act as a platform/bridge for the rail line to pass over the
watercourse.
No dates are available for the construction of the culvert.
BHR 11
City of
Toronto
Highway 401
Overpass
Identified
during field
review
Highway 401 passes over the CN Stouffville Rail Corridor in an east-west direction. The
bridge was not assessible from the public ROW so detailed observations of the bridge
were not possible. The bridge appears to be a rigid frame slab bridge made of
reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The bridge has 15 traffic lanes and is approximately
60 m in length. The bridge features metal railings along the north and south sides of
the bridge.
No dates are available for the construction of the bridge.
Resource
BHR 12
Municipality
City of
Toronto
Address/Location
Moorgate
Avenue/Tara
Avenue
Pedestrian
Overpass
Page 42
Recognition
Identified
during field
review
Description
The Moorgate Avenue/Tara Avenue pedestrian bridge crosses the Stouffville CN Rail
Corridor in an east-west direction. The bridge is steel frame structure with a concrete
platform. The bridge features metal railings, metal sheeting, and is completely
covered by wire fencing. The approaches on the east and west sides of the bridge
appear to be recent/replaced. The bridge provides connections to neighboorhoods on
both the east and west sides of the rail lines.
Photos
The pedestrian bridge is depicted on the 1975 NTS map of Toronto. However, it is likely
that the bridge was constructed at an earlier date when the neighbourhoods adjacent
to the rail line were established during the 1950s and 1960s.
BHR 13
City of
Toronto
Saugeen
Crescent/
Benjamin
Boulevard
Pedestrian
Underpass
Identified
during field
review
Southeast view towards the pedestrian bridge
over the Stouffvile Rail Corridor.
View across the deck of the pedestrian bridge.
Looking west through the Saugeen
Crescent/Benjamin Boulevard underpass.
Detail of the pedestrian underpass. Note
concrete and remnant light fixture.
Front (east) and south elevations of 112 Granger
Avenue.
Detail of driveway and established vegetation.
The Saugeen Cresent/Benjamin Boulevard pedestrian underpass crosses under the
Stouffville CN Rail Corridor in an east-west direction. The underpass is made of castin-place concrete and features robust design/construction. The underpass features
older light fixtures, which are no longer functional. The underpass serves to connect
the neighbourhood on the east and west sides of the rail line.
The underpass appears on the 1975 NTS map of Toronto. However, it is likely that the
underpass was constructed at an earlier date when the neighbourhoods adjacent to
the rail line were established during the 1950s and 1960s.
BHR 14
City of
Toronto
112 Granger
Avenue
Identified
during field
review
112 Granger is a two-and-a-half storey structure built in Victorian style. The house has
a rectangular plan and features a wing/addition on the east elevation. The house
features a gable roof with projecting eaves, plain fascia, and plain soffit. The house
appears to recently updated and features vinyl siding, new windows, and new doors.
Landscape features on the property include old/eastablished trees and circulation
routes.
The house was built during the first half of the twentieth century and appears on the
1949 historic topographic map of Toronto.
Resource
BHR 15
Municipality
City of
Toronto
Address/Location
87 Granger
Avenue
Page 43
Recognition
Identified
during field
review
Description
This house is two-storeys and built in Victorian style. The house has an L-shaped plan
with a rear wing. The house has a gable roof with one offset gable on the front façade
of the south section of the structre. The exterior of the house appears to have
clapboard-style siding. The roof has projecting eaves, plain fascia, plain soffit, and
one side-to-side, single stack, red brick chimney that is offset to the left. The window
surrounds are plain and flat with plain lug sills. All windows appear to be
recent/replaced. The main entrance is off-centre and is located on the southern
section of the front façade. The door trim is plain and is covered by an open porch with
plain piers.
Photos
The house appears on the 1918 historic topographic map of Toronto.
BHR 16
City of
Toronto
1 Granger Avenue
Identified
during field
review
Front (west) elevation of 87 Granger Avenue.
Detail of front door and open porch. Note the
possible clapboard exterior.
Front (west) elevation of 1 Granger Avenue.
Detail shot of front door and window surrounds
on the first storey.
Looking south along the Stouffville Rail
Corridor. The
Photo of the pedestrain at grade rail crossing
located at the foot of Marilyn Avenue.
This one-and-a-half storey red brick strucure is built in Edwardian style. It features a a
saltbox roof with an extension on the north elevation and covered porch on the south
elevation. The house has projecting eaves, plain fascia, and moulded soffit. The
structure features a bay on the front façade that is clad in green, clapboard-style
siding. The window surrounds have curved, brick voussoirs, with plain lugsills. The
majority of the windows appear to have been replaced. The exception to this is the
window on the north side of the original structure, which appears to have sash twoover-two panes. The basement window also appears to have original panes. The front
door appears to be recent but the door surround features a curved brick voussoir that
matches the window surrounds on the rest of the structure. The foundation of the
original section of the house appears to be concrete.
The house appears on the 1949 historic topographic map of Toronto.
CHL 1
City of
Toronto and
Town of
Markham
Stouffville Rail
Corridor
Identified
during field
review
The Stouffville Rail Corridor is a historic transportation route that first appears on the
1878 historic map (see Figure 3). The rail line is a single track arrangement laid on a
bed of gravel ballast. The rail right-of-way features established vegetation and is
flanked on both sides by a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial development.
Character defining features of the Stouffville Rail Corridor include:
 Width of the rail right-of-way
 Arrangement of the tracks
 Deninson Street at grade rail crossing
 Kennedy Road at grade rail crossing
 Steeles Avenue at grade rail crossing
 Passmore Avenue at grade rail crossing
 McNicoll Avenue at grade rail crossing
 Finch Avenue at grade rail crossing
 Huntngwood Drive at grade rail crossing
 Havendale Road at grade rail crossing
 Marilyn Avenue at grade rail crossing
 Progress Avenue at grade rail crossing
 Corvette Avenue at grade rail crossing
 Danforth Road at grade rail crossing
Resource
CHL 2
CHL 3
Municipality
City of
Toronto
City of
Toronto
Address/Location
Remnant historic
agricultural
landscape
Agincourt
Heritage
Conservation
District (HCD)
(under study)
Page 44
Recognition
Identified
during field
review
Potential
designation
under Part V
of the
Ontario
Heritage Act
Description
This cultural heritage landscape consists of remant historic agricltural fields that are
extant on both sides of the rail corridor. Located north of McNicoll Avenue between
Kennedy Road and Silver Starr Boulevard, these fields retain a recognizable
arrangement of fields, historic treelines/field boundaries, and part of a historic
woodlot. This property is depicted as a farmstead on the 1860 and 1878 historic maps.
The Agincourt neighbourhood is a proposed Heritage Conservation District (HCD). It is
currently being studied for potential designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage
Act. Agincourt is bounded by Sheppard Avenue East on the south, the Canadian
National Railway on the west, Lockie Avenue on the north, and Midland Avenue on the
east. Agincourt began as a small village centred around the Knox Presbyterian Church
on the northwest corner of Sheppard Avenue and Midland Avenue. Constructed in
1846, and rebuilt in 1872, the brick church still stands today. The Agincourt Post Office
was opened in 1858 and two rail stations opened in the late 1800s. The arrival of the
railway stations led to the construction of the first Agincourt subdivision in 1913 (City
of Toronto 2005). The most significant development in Agincourt took place between
1945 and 1965, when the majority of the neighbourhood was developed. Agincourt is,
architecturally and historically, a good example of an original rural hamlet that was
later incorporated into post-World War II suburban development (City of Toronto
2005).
It should be noted that the Agincourt HCD is under study and has not yet been
designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.
CHL 4
City of
Toronto
Highland Creek
Identfied
during field
review
Photos
Northwest view across the Stouffville Rail
Corridor towards the remnant agricultural field.
North-northwest view across the remnant
agricultural field. Note the field boundaries in
the distance.
Typical streetscape in the Agincourt HCD.
Looking south along Agincourt Drive towards
St. Timothy’s Church.
Photo of 26 Agincourt Drive. This property is
one of the earlier houses in the proposed
Agincourt HCD and likely dates to the late
nineteenth century.
South-southeast view along the Bendale
Branch of Highland Creek.
Photo of a bridge over the Bendale Branch of
Highland Creek.
Parts of the Bendale Branch of the Highland Creek intersect with the Stouffville Rail
Corridor. Highland Creek originates south of Steeles Avenue and flows through
Scarborough via numerous branches to eventually empty into Lake Ontario. Highland
Creek features remnant forests, wetlands, and meadows along its length. It also
influenced the historic settlement of the area and acted as a resource to early settlers
in the area. Highland Creek is channelized and buried in places but it still retains its
general alignment.
The Bendale Branch of the Highland Creek intersects with the study area south of
Sheppard Avenue, in Collingwood Park and near the intersection of William Kitchen
Road and Progress Avenue.
Resource
CHL 5
Municipality
City of
Toronto
Address/Location
Collingwood Park
Page 45
Recognition
Identified
during field
review
Description
Collingwood Park is located south of Sheppard Avenue between Kennedy Road and
Midland Avenue. The park features manicured lawns, established willow trees and
other vegetation, circulation routes, a bridge, and part of the Bendale Branch of
Highland Creek.
Photos
Collingwood Park is shown as open green space in the 1954 aerial photo of Toronto.
CHL 6
City of
Toronto
Lord Roberts
Woods
Identified
during field
review
South view of Collingwood Park.
North view of Collingwood Park. Note the
bridge over Highland Creek.
Northwest view though the Lord Roberts
Woods.
Photo of circulation routes leading to the Lord
Roberts Woods from the surrounding
neighbourhood.
Looking west from the intersection of Merrian
Road and Saugeen Crescent.
Kennedy Park as depicted on the 1975 NTS map
of Toronto.
The Lord Roberts Woods are located on the east side of the rail line between Lawrence
Avenue and Eglinton Avenue. The woods provide a natural, wooded landscape to the
surrounding neighbourhoods and feature established trees, winding dirt paths, and a
playground.
The woodlot is depicted in the early twentieth century mapping and likely dates to the
nineteenth century. The woodlot is shown on the 1917 historic topographic map of
Toronto and the current configuration of the wooded area is shown on the 1954 aerial
image of Toronto.
CHL 7
City of
Toronto
Post-War
Neighbourhood
(Kennedy Park)
Identified
during field
review
Kennedy Park is a post-war neighbourhood that was established during the midnineteenth century. The neighbourhood is generally bounded by Birchmount Road,
Brimley Road, Eglinton Avenue, and St. Claire Avenue. Kennedy Park was one of the
first areas of Scarborough to be turned into modern suburb. This section of Kennedy
Park is remarkably intact and the housing stock is still predominantly comprised of
post-war bungalows. This stands in contrast with other parts of Kennedy Park where
many of the bungalows have been replaced with larger homes.
Kennedy Park is shown on the 1975 NTS map of Markham, but was estabished during
the 1950s and 1960s as a post-war neighbourhood.
Resource
CHL 8
Municipality
City of
Toronto
Address/Location
Corvette Park
Page 46
Recognition
Identified
during field
review
Description
Corvette Park is located north of Corvette Avenue between Kennedy Road and Midland
Avenue. The park features manicured lawns, established trees, baseball diamonds,
and a playground. The Stouffville Rail Corridor runs along the eastern limits of the
park, dividing it from the Midland Avenue Collegate Institute. While some elements of
the park appear recent, Corvette Park was established during the mid-twentieth
century when the Kennedy Park neighbourhood was established. The park continues
to serve as a recreational space for the surrounding community and schools.
Photos
Corvette Park is shown on the 1975 NTS map of Toronto but was likely laid out during
the 1950s and 1960s when the Kennedy Park neighbourhood was established.
West-northwest view across Corvette Park.
Corvette Park as shown on the 1975 NTS map of
Toronto.
Reference: Google Earth (2013d)
CHL 9
City of
Toronto
720 Midland
Avenue
Identified
during field
review
The Midland Avenue Collegiate Institute, originally the Midland Avenue Secondary
School, opened in 1962 and was the first highschool in the Kennedy Park
neighbourhood. The building was built in 1959 but did not open until 1962. The
building features many modernist design features, most notably the circular cafeteria.
Landscape features on the site include a running track, ciculation routes, parking lots,
and established trees and vegetation.
Midland Avenue Collegiate Institute is shown on the 1975 NTS map of Toronto.
View of Midland Avenue Collegiate. Note the
circular library.
Reference: Google Earth (2013e)
Midland Avenue Collegiate Institute as shown
on the 1975 NTS map of Toronto.
Resource
CHL 10
Municipality
City of
Toronto
Address/Location
Kingston Sub. Rail
Line
Page 47
Recognition
Identified
during field
review
Description
The CN Rail line intersects with the Stouffville Rail Corridor at the southern end of the
study area. The rail line is a historic transportation route and is depicted in the 1860
Tremaine Map of the County of York. The rail line features two tracks laid on a bed of
gravel ballast. This rail line is associated with the Scarboro Junction, which was a
historic settlement located at the intersection of St.Claire Avenue Ease and Midland
Avenue during the mid-late nineteenth century.
Photos
Southwest view along the CN Rail Line.
North view across the CN Rail Line.
8.0
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE LOCATION MAPPING
Figure 8: Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor (Key Map)
Page 48
Figure 9: Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor – Location Mapping of Cultural Heritage Resources (Sheet 1)
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53

Volume 2 - Appendix B7

Transcription

Similar documents

Xero House

enREDo International Design Network

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

Welcome to 10 Tormina Court

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Work on

From: Lee Sexsmith [mailto:hecubuspg@telus

family matters summer 2016 - Heritage Family Credit Union

Postcard - Where Entrepreneurship and Business Opportunties

Flyer

Leon`s Roundhouse