CONSERVATION REVIEW BOARD
RE: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO, ONTARIO; INTENTION
TO DESIGNATE THE LANDS AND PREMISES KNOWN MUNICIPALLY AND DESCRIBED AS 183 DOVERCOURT ROAD IN THE CITY OF TORONTO, CONTAINING THE FORMER IDEAL BREAD COMPANY BUILDING.
Thomas McIlwraith, ChairJanuary 31, 2003
Andrew Mathers, Member
Peter Zakarow, Member
This hearing was convened under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, for the purpose of reporting to the Council of the City of Toronto whether, in the opinion of this Board, on the basis of the evidence it heard, the property described as 183 Dovercourt Road (the former Ideal Bread Company building), should be designated by by-law under the Act.
Notice of this hearing was given under the Act and published in The Toronto Sunon Friday, January 17, 2003, by the Board. An affidavit by a member of the Board’s staff with respect to this notice was tabled as Exhibit #1.
The Board, in accordance with its customary practice, had the opportunity to inspect the site and view the surrounding area prior to the Hearing.
The Board met in Committee Room 2, City Hall, City of Toronto, on Friday, January 31, 2003.
Participants:Rob Billingsley, Solicitor, City of Toronto
Kathryn Anderson, Heritage Officer, City of Toronto
Donald Desrochers, Toronto, Ontario, Contractor
Jason Pearson, Toronto, Ontario, Objector
In this report the structure in question is identified as the “former Ideal Bread Company factory.” It fills a site of approximately 10,000 square feet (See Exhibit #7).
The hearing commenced at 9:35a.m.
Procedural Matter
The Board inquired if there were any procedural matters that should be addressed prior to the start of the hearing.
Mr. Pearson presented a motion to adjourn the Conservation Review Board (“the Board”) hearing indefinitely (Exhibit #3a). It was accompanied by a list of eleven reasons, a statement titled “Attention” regarding “the battle against the developer’s plans ...”, and some 50 petitions from neighbours. Mr. Pearson claimed that proper procedures were violated by the City of Toronto, that the Board did not act with proper diligence in assuring that the objectors would have access to all relevant materials, and that City Council was insufficiently informed before voting to recommend designation.
Mr. Billingsley stated his opposition to the motion, noting that indefinite adjournment served no one. He tabled documents relevant to the decision of City of Toronto Council to recommend designation of 183 Dovercourt Road (Exhibit #4). This recommendation was adopted by City Council at its meeting of May 21-23, 2002. Mr. Billingsley stated that Council was fully aware of its actions, and was under no obligation to accept staff recommendations, nor to accept recommendations of the Board.
The Board recessed to discuss its response. The Board then denied the motion, stating that it concerned matters of procedure within the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto and beyond the authority of the Board.
The substantive part of the hearing began at 10:40a.m.
Case for the City of Toronto
Mr. Billingsley introduced the case by entering as an exhibit the property title deed and entry in the assessment roll (Exhibit #5).
Mr. Billingsley stated that the Council of the City of Toronto is proposing that the building at 183 Dovercourt Road be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act for architectural reasons. He described it as a five-storey structure standing in a residential district of detached and semi-detached houses; a church stands across the street to the west, and a school and another church are visible to the southeast.
Mr. Billingsley stated that the City’s formal interest in the building at 183 Dovercourt Road commenced in February, 2002, when the Planning Department alerted the City heritage officer that the building was for sale and of interest to a developer. The Planning Department recommended that the building be entered on Toronto’s official list, the Inventory of Heritage Properties. This list has existed since 1973, and includes some 5,000 properties, of which about 500 have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. Billingsley explained that the City of Toronto requires that each listed property be accompanied by a short statement regarding
the reason(s) for listing. Ms. Kathryn Anderson prepared the summary statement regarding 183 Dovercourt Road and passed this information to the Toronto Preservation Board (the LACAC) for its use at its discretion. The Toronto Preservation Board recommended to City Council that 183 Dovercourt Road be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. At its meeting of May 21-23, 2002, City Council voted in favour of this recommendation.
Witness Kathryn H. Anderson, Preservation Officer, City of Toronto
Mr. Billingsley introduced Ms. Anderson, and presented her resume (Exhibit #6). She has written the background reports for about 200 designations. The Board qualified her as an expert witness in the area of heritage policy and planning. Her testimony was under affirmation.
Ms. Anderson gave a power-point presentation of the 183 Dovercourt Road site and circulated a detailed statement of the reasons for designation (Exhibits #7 and #8). She described the floor-by-floor sequence of space use at the time when bread was being manufactured here (1919 to 1957): a large meeting hall on the top (fifth) floor, preparation of the dough on the fourth floor, baking on the third floor, packaging on the second floor, and loading the baked goods into wagons on the main floor. An elevator carried the flour and other materials up to the top to start the process.
Ms. Anderson drew attention to the west and south faces, highly decorated and with distinct architectural variations from floor to floor. It is in recognition of these two fine exposures that the designation is proposed for architectural reasons. She stated that no interior features are included in the designation.
In response to questioning by Mr. Pearson, Ms. Anderson stated that the procedure for handling this designation proposal (described by Mr. Billingsley) followed normal City practice. Ms. Anderson agreed that the north and east walls are relatively plain. She explained that all parts of all four faces of the building would be subject to the designation, although the noteworthy architectural features are on the south and west walls. Neither the architect (Comber) nor the contractor (Kirby) are being recognized in this designation, which is for architectural reasons only. Ms. Anderson did not know whether there were other Edwardian Classic buildings in the vicinity.
Mr. Desrochers had no questions for Ms. Anderson. He agrees with her description of the building as a fine work of architecture.
The Board questioned Ms. Anderson. Regarding what had been on the site before this building went up in 1919, she stated that there had been several houses, and that they were similar to many in the neighbourhood today. The house at the corner of Argyle and Dovercourt was where the bakery business had started, and grown. Ms. Anderson stated that the Roman Catholic (formerly Baptist) church at the northwest corner of Argyle and Dovercourt was not designated, nor was it listed on the Inventory of Heritage Properties.
Witness Donald Desrochers, citizen, Toronto
Mr. Desrochers spoke, unrepresented. He described himself as an in-fill builder who liked rejuvenating old and tired buildings. His testimony was sworn.
Mr. Desrochers explained that the current owner (Lescar Holdings Corp. Ltd.; see Exhibit #5) was in the process of selling the building, and therefore had no interest in the proceedings of this hearing. Mr. Michael Vaughan, solicitor for the prospective owner (1367235 Ontario Limited, Mr. Desrochers’ company) was not present. Mr. Desrochers explained that the transfer of ownership was scheduled to take effect February 28, 2003, at which time he would become officially involved in planning the future of the building.
Mr. Desrochers stated that he was in support of designation of 183 Dovercourt Road. He noted that one tenant lives on the ground floor, at the southwest corner of the building, and has made an office for himself there.
Mr. Billingsley declined to question Mr. Desrochers.
On questioning by Mr. Pearson, Mr. Desrochers stated that the prospective owner has no intention of demolishing the building. Mr. Desrochers said that he agreed with the City process that brought about the recommendation for designation.
On questioning by the Board, Mr. Desrochers stated that there is no machinery, line-shafting or other items of industrial archeological interest inside the building. Mr. Desrochers agreed that the proposed renovation of the building could proceed with or without designation.
Case for the objectors
Mr. Pearson introduced the case for the objectors. He was not represented by legal counsel. His testimony was sworn.
Mr. Pearson stated that he represented the interests of the Committee of Concerned Citizens, an advocacy group of more than 500 persons formed to address local concerns regarding the proposed designation of 183 Dovercourt Road. The objection to the designation was formally registered on June 6, 2002. Mr. Pearson drew attention to some fifty or more signed petitions regarding the proposed designation (Exhibit #3b).
Mr. Pearson explained that the building has architectural significance, and is an integral part of the neighbourhood. He believed that it was not under threat: “no one in their right mind” would demolish the building, because of the valuable opportunities that would be lost under building code restrictions were a replacement building to be erected.
Mr. Pearson stated that he favours preservation of the building at 183 Dovercourt Road, and that it merits being listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. He stated that 183 Dovercourt Road should not be designated.
Mr. Pearson tabled a Board report, dated May 14, 1991, regarding the intention of the City of Toronto to designate a property known as 4 Old George Place (Exhibit #9). The house in question was designed by architect Ron Thom and built in 1966. The Board recommended listing only, and not designation, and that listed properties be prioritized for consideration for designation. Mr. Pearson considered this decision to set a precedent, and that the current Board should adhere to such precedent.
On questioning by Mr. Billingsley, Mr. Pearson reiterated that the building should not be designated. Mr. Pearson agreed that the provision of parking space is at the root of his concern. Mr. Pearson stated that there was better protection for the building by listing it on the Inventory of Heritage Properties than by designating it.
On questioning by Mr. Desrochers, Mr. Pearson stated that the Ontario Municipal Board could not deal with parking on the site. Mr. Desrochers disagreed with this observation.
The Board questioned Mr. Pearson regarding the process of distributing the petitions. Mr. Pearson stated that he and other citizens delivered them by hand to the several hundred dwellings in an area bounded by Ossington Avenue, Queen Street, Gladstone Avenue, and Dundas Street. He expressed surprise that three types of forms were returned, and concluded that someone made up their own version for distribution to unspecified persons. Among those households receiving petitions, Mr. Pearson stated that he and his supporters made no effort to distinguish between households of Concerned Committee members and others.
Statements from the Public
No members of the public presented themselves to be heard.
Findings of the Board
The Board heard that there was overall agreement among those parties present that the former Ideal Bread Company Factory building is worthy of recognition as a structure of architectural significance.
The Board understands (Exhibit 3a, “Attention”) that the objectors are concerned that a condominium development would result in parking problems in the neighbourhood. The objectors believe that designation is an attempt to circumvent existing bylaws and allow for fewer parking spaces than the number of units a building of the dimensions of 183 Dovercourt Road normally would be required to provide on its own site and at its expense. The objectors are concerned, further, that two storeys might be built atop the five existing storeys, exacerbating the parking problem.
The Board is persuaded that the objectors perceive unfairness in the process by which sites are proposed for heritage designation in the City of Toronto. The Board recognizes that this is a legitimate concern, and must be assuaged, but reminds all parties that such matters are beyond its jurisdiction.
The Board applauds the effort of the objectors to bring local residents into an important civic debate. The Board is concerned, however, that the nuances of the Ontario Heritage Act, on which the petition was based, were quite possibly beyond the understanding of many of the recipients.
The Board felt compelled to remind the objectors, on several occasions, that the Board’s role is to sort through the facts regarding the heritage attributes of the site in question and to advise City Council on whether or not to designate. The Board repeated also that City Council would decide whether or not to act on the Board’s decision, and that citizens could also make comments at that time.
The Board was struck by the great size of the heritage program in the City of Toronto, and the issues experienced by a limited City staff in managing some 5,000 listed properties.
Recommendations of the Board
The Board recommends that 183 Dovercourt Road be designated by By-Law under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. It is a worthy building, and fully in the spirit of heritage conservation to give it recognition in this way.
The Board is particularly conscious of how the west and south facades of the building are stylistically coherent from floor to floor. Horizontal banding and vertical pilasters help tie the walls together visually; the five storeys function aesthetically as a whole, topped off by a striking cornice. The total volume (or “massing”) of the building - that is, its height, breadth, and depth contributes substantially to its architectural significance, and warrants respect.
The Board suggests that the designation statement prepared by the City of Toronto be revised and expanded to include, in addition to architectural reasons, reference to the history and context of the Ideal Bread Company factory. Generations of residents of the neighbourhood surely were employed at this labour-intensive industrial site; countless more must have been constantly reminded of its presence by the pleasant aromas wafting from the building. The house that stood on this site prior to 1918 was itself once a bakery - a noteworthy statement of small beginnings that lead onward to big business successes. There is history and context to be celebrated here.
The Board considered carefully the 1991 case brought forward by the objectors (Exhibit #9). The Board concludes that precedent can only be set in the area of its own jurisdiction; that is, establishing whether or not, in its opinion, proposed architectural or historic or contextual reasons are of significance. The Board believes that it cannot be seen as setting precedent when it chooses to offer informative comments (as it is entitled to do) in areas where it has no formal jurisdiction: for instance, in the provision of lists of buildings for possible future consideration for designation, the prioritization of those lists, or the subsequent alteration of a structure proposed for designation. In the Ideal Bread Company factory case, the Board respectfully suggests that the Municipality and the objector confer informally, and seek to come to an understanding of the proper forum in which to discuss their respective positions. The Board
believes that the concerns expressed by the objector in this case are worthy of attention, but that they cannot be addressed to the objector’s satisfaction by the Board.
The Board wishes to compliment all the participants for their commitment, articulation, research effort, expertise, mutual respect, and strong sense of civic responsibility for their local heritage.
(original signed by):
______
Thomas McIlwraith, Chair
(original signed by):
______
Peter A.P. Zakarow, Member
1