York University Background Study
Land Use, Urban Design and Heritage
May 16, 2008
Prepared by:
City of Toronto City Planning Division
York University Development Corporation
The Planning Partnership
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Background
2
2.1 Evolution of Development in the Area
2.2 1963 Master Plan
2.3 1988 Master Plan
2.3.1 1988 Master Plan: Guiding Objectives
2.3.2 1988 Master Plan: Urban Design Principles
3.1 Land Use
3.2 University Context
3.3 Housing
3.4 Cultural Heritage Features/Resources
3.5 Views
3.6 Public Art
3.7 Sustainability, Green Building, Energy Efficiency
15
4.1 Places to Grow Growth Plan
4.2 Provincial Policy Statement
4.3 Ontario Heritage Act
4.4 City of Toronto Act, 2006
4.5 City of Toronto Official Plan
4.5.1 Urban Design
4.5.2 Heritage Resources
4.5.4 Housing
4.5.5 Building New Neighbourhoods
4.5.6 Land Use Designations
4.6 Zoning
4.7 Green Development Standards
5.1 Area-wide Planning Initiatives
5.2 Area Development Applications
5.3 University Development
37
6. Issues & Direction for the Update
44
Appendix: Precedents
47
Overview
4. Policy Framework
4.5.3 Urban Structure
5. Current Planning Initiatives
2.4 1991 Secondary Plan
3. Area Context 26
This report provides an overview of land use and urban design
issues at York University. It includes an analysis of the 1988 York
University Master Plan, the 1991 City of Toronto Secondary Plan,
current campus conditions and planning initiatives in the surrounding
neighbourhoods. The report also describes the key issues to be
addressed in the Secondary Plan Update.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
FINCH AVENUE
D GO
LINE
ADFOR
CNR / B
R
JANE STR
EET
KEELE S
TREET
STEELES AVENUE
Secondary Plan Area
Context Area
1. Introduction
The purpose of this background report is to summarize the land use
It is an institutional precinct with lands that also house community
and urban design direction that has shaped York University over the
facilities, such as the Toronto Track and Field Centre and the Rexall
last two decades. For a complete background of the University, this
Centre. Within Canada, it has the largest single concentration of
document should be read in conjunction with the following reports:
students on one single campus.
‹
Socio-Economic Conditions and Community Services
The economic impact of York University was estimated in 2002/2003.
‹
Transportation and Transit
As an economic force within the Greater Toronto Area, the York
‹
Servicing
University community contributed an estimated $3.4 billion to the
‹
Natural Features and Open Space
Greater Toronto Area economy. The University’s operating expenditures were in the order of $141 million, of which $97 million was
The boundaries of the existing Secondary Plan area are illustrated on
spent in the GTA. Its capital expenditures were in the order of $148
the map on the facing page. The planning context area is generally
million, of which $140 million was spent in the GTA. The total direct
bounded by Jane Street, the railway north of Steeles Avenue, the rail
economic impact of the University was in the order of $815 million.
line east of Keele Street and Finch Avenue.
Its current municipal tax bill is in the order of $2.3 million.
York University is located on 185 hectares (457 acres) south of Steeles
The University already functions as a significant and still growing
Avenue and west of Keele Street. One of its most significant assets
institutional district within the urban structure of the City. The Keele
is the land it holds in stewardship. Universities exist for hundreds of
Campus has almost 50,000 graduate and undergraduate students,
years, which means planning and development decisions made today
about 6,000 faculty and staff, 1,600 buses and 34,000 cars travelling to
must not compromise opportunities to accommodate future academic
the campus on a daily basis. Approximately 3,500 students reside on
growth. The ability of York University to carry out its role within the
campus.
City as a major institution is guided by its own Master Plan and the
York University Secondary Plan.
York University is the third largest university in Canada offering full
and part-time undergraduate and post-graduate studies in 10 faculties.
2. Background
2.1 Evolution of Development in the Area
In 1962, the Province of Ontario gave York University 475 acres of
Black Creek, south of Steeles Avenue and west of Keele Street defined
land at the southwest corner of Keele Street and Steeles Avenue.
by a ring road with connections to the arterial roads. The Concession
This land had been farmland and was the location of four farming
Block Plan included the existing woodlots, a mix of land uses to the
homesteads. At the time of the land grant, this area was considered
south and west of the campus, including housing, institutional uses,
the edge of Metropolitan Toronto but it was recognized that it was
schools and commercial development. Higher density housing was
near the potential centre of a “vast suburban region”. Initial planning
located along the west side of Black Creek, medium density housing
for the university on the site acknowledged the context of future
along the arterials and lower density housing towards the interior
highway and arterial road access and the development of future
of the concession block. The Concession Block Plan included a
industrial and residential uses nearby.
recommendation for the arterial roads surrounding the block to be
improved with landscaped medians to mark the approach to the
In 1962, the North York-York University Liaison Committee studied
University.
the University Concession Block bounded by Finch Avenue, Jane
Street, Steeles Avenue and Keele Street. The committee developed a
plan for the concession block for a campus core on table land east of
York University Campus and area in 1960
York University Campus and area in 1965
York University Campus and area in 1970
2.2 1963 Master Plan
parking on the periphery. The plan also set out design principles
The planning framework in the 1963 Master Plan for the York
including recommending that all low buildings be predominantly
University Campus (Master Plan) anticipated for future growth and
brick and high buildings should be precast or poured in place
expansion of the campus to 15,000 students organized on a college
concrete. Another design principle was that buildings should be
system. The original Master Plan was intended to create a university
connected by covered walks and arcades to create sheltered walks
clearly visible and identifiable from its boundaries with pedestrian
along the main pedestrian routes. The development of the colonnade
only areas in the core, surrounded by a ring road. Parking facilities,
along the Common and buildings along Campus Walk after the 1988
athletic fields and ancillary uses were outside of the ring road.
Plan helped realize this objective more fully.
The 1963 Master Plan envisioned future development to “continue
The 1963 Master plan also acknowledged important views on campus,
rapidly over the coming years; the existing fields will disappear as the
namely the view to the southwest from Central Square and the
spreading city surrounds the campus... The possibility of a suburban
ceremonial approach from Keele Street. One of the plan principles
and pastoral campus was considered, but the most appropriate
was for the central square to look out to the southwest and the city
qualities are urban; the concentrated and dense development of the
beyond, linking the university to the unique setting of the valley.
city.”
The approach roads into the campus were intended to lead to the
University core and not the parking. The parking would be entered
This urban character would be achieved by closely spaced buildings,
from the access roads but well screened in order for the views from
weather protection and grade separation of pedestrians and vehicular
the approach roads to be of the University.
traffic. The Master Plan recognized that weather conditions make
scattered buildings joined by long unprotected walks undesirable and
The urban qualities required to enhance pedestrian amenity that were
that protection from the weather as well as from vehicular traffic is
set out for the campus core were not reflected at the periphery of
necessary if the amenities of a pedestrian zone are to be fully realized.
campus. The campus was isolated from the surrounding community
that developed around it. The walk into the campus from the parking
One of the key principles of the Master Plan was campus unity.
areas did not provide weather protection and felt unsafe. The
Buildings formed quadrangles that were connected by pedestrian
implementation of the “modern” principles of the 1963 Plan such as
paths. The quadrangles created common outdoor areas for students
the ring road surrounded by surface parking, created a campus with a
and brought different disciplines together. The network of quadrangles
more suburban, than urban, character.
was enclosed by a ring road that defined the university’s core with
1963 Master Plan
Concession Block Study
1988 Master Plan
2.3 1988 Master Plan
In 1963, there were 1,159 students. At that time, 15,000 students were
the Campus was developed at an average density of 1.4 times gross
anticipated, with 15 percent living on campus. The Master Plan was
average. Actual building sites were developed at a range of 1.0-3.0
updated in 1988 due to unprecedented growth. In 1970, the student
times coverage for an average of 2.0-2.5 times net coverage.
population was 16,860, by 1980, it was 24,293, and by 1988, it was
almost 37,000.
Road Network
A ring road clearly distinguished the campus from the surrounding
The Master Plan was updated in 1988 to accommodate about 5.2
lands with its distinct roundabouts and defined gateways. Keele Street
million square feet of space for a projected population of 60,000
and Steeles Avenue were the primary corridors providing access to the
students. It formed the basis of the 1991 York University Secondary
campus.
Plan. The 1988 Master Plan was based on the following conditions:
Open Space
Buildings
Black Creek, woodlots, walkways and open grass meadows
In 1988, the academic core was composed of approximately four
distinguished the open space. The original college complexes had
million square feet of space contained by a ring road and surrounded
courtyards. The commons was a feature proposed in the 1988 plan.
by woodlots and open space. According to the 1988 Master Plan,
1988 Existing Buildings
1988 Existing Roads
1988 Existing Open space
2.3.1 1988 Master Plan: Guiding Objectives
The 1988 Master Plan set forth a new vision for the University. The vi-
‹
improving interconnections to the surrounding population in
social terms.
sion shifted away from the picturesque character of the campus to one
that superimposed a grid system of roads to release lands for accesso-
Land Use Flexibility
ry and complementary development. This direction would eliminate
Maintain flexibility to respond to changes in academic objectives and
many of the significant form-giving elements that were integral to the
respond to varying patterns of growth.
intent of the original Master Plan and which became the basis of the
early stages of campus development. The 1988 Master Plan was based
Parking Facilities
on objectives for:
Build parking garages to free land for development and campus open
space.
Increased Density
Create additional academic and residential space towards the initial
1961 Master Plan target of 1,200,000 square feet.
Improved Campus Identity
Complete networks of pedestrian movement, open spaces and built
form to enhance the environment and aesthetics of the Campus.
Campus Outreach
Overcome the sense of isolation by expanding and extending University activity through:
‹
attracting accessory and complementary uses to the academic
functions;
‹ increasing the University population resident on Campus;
‹
improving site conveniences;
‹
creating greater connections to the region in economic terms;
and,
1988 Proposed Integration of University
1988 Proposed Primary Pedestrian Linkages
1988 Proposed Parking Structures
1988 Proposed Connections
1988 Proposed Development Quadrants
1988 Proposed Development Areas
2.3.2 1988 Master Plan: Urban Design Principles
mercial development in the surrounding community and should be
The 1988 Master Plan introduced the following urban design prin-
recognized at edges where the campus and surrounding community
ciples for the Campus:
integrate.
Growth in Compact Form
Environmental Considerations
Undeveloped spaces between existing buildings should be used for
new buildings to enhance the environment, for convenience and security of circulation and efficiency in transportation and infrastructure
(intensification).
Growth in Complete Phases
Expansion of the academic core to the east and south should occur in
phases adjacent to existing development and be of a scale whereby all
Physical development should improve the natural environment, the
human environment (wind, snow buildup and sun access) and the aesthetic qualities of the campus, its open spaces and physical structures.
Movement Patterns - Pedestrian Linkages
Weather-protected pedestrian system should be provided at grade by
connecting walkways adjacent to, through and between buildings, to
connect academic, residential and other campus uses. The enclosed
parts of phase can be completed.
system will complement a system of open-air circulation through
Integration of University
intensification of development.
Economic, social and physical connections should be established with
major spaces. This system will achieve enhanced security through the
the surrounding community and region.
Movement Patterns - Parking
Major Open Spaces as Foci
secondary sites, adjacent to academic functions. As intensification
Natural areas, woodlots and open space should be integrated within
occurs, remote parking lots should be relocated to these sites in order
the Campus, complementing intensification of building development
to release the perimeter land for development and reduce the length
and forming the focus and structure for the pattern of growth, while
of walk. Parking structures should be provided to accommodate this
maintaining the theme of a “green” campus.
increased parking on designated sites.
University Identity
Movement Patterns - Local Streets
Special academic and research functions of the University and the
A network of local streets on a grid pattern aligned with the existing
“green” character of the campus complement residential and com-
building is to replace the curvilinear ring road and cul-de-sacs within
Surface parking at the centre of the University should be moved to
the ring road, as development proceeds in phases. This pattern will
provide a more intelligible and accessible system of circulation, more
Land Uses
regular building parcels and a pattern consistent with the surrounding
All of the land within the academic core is to be preserved for ultimate
community.
use for University, academic, residential and related functions. In the
Collector Streets
A grid system of roads around the perimeter of the existing core will
replace the curvilinear ring road and facilitate the establishment of
major collector streets paralleling Keele Street in the east and Steeles
Avenue in the north, to enhance traffic capacity, provide for additional
10
short term, academic growth will be accommodated by intensifying
and infilling undeveloped sites within existing academic core. Interim
uses that are university-related can be considered to enhance activity
and create future university building space in areas to the northwest,
north, northeast, and in long term, southeast.
university and related development, as well as to facilitate the integra-
Phasing
tion with the pattern of the surrounding community. The perimeter
The first phase involves infilling on development sites within the
grid of major streets is to be completed on the north, east and south,
existing academic core and adjacent to existing buildings. Subsequent
with a local road only on the southwest, appropriate to the natural
phases involve the expansion of the academic core and the develop-
open space along Black Creek.
ment of precincts in outlying areas near Steeles Avenue and Keele
Regional Transportation Linkages
Connections to the major road system encourage development towards the north, east and south of the existing academic core.
Transit
Transit access to the campus will become increasingly important as
development intensifies.
Infrastructure
Overland storm drainage should be provided as the road pattern is
rebuilt, with the grid of streets replacing the curvilinear existing roads.
Street.
2.4 1991 Secondary Plan
The 1991 Secondary Plan was developed through a process that
transition between the University Core and the residential
parallelled the development of the 1988 Master Plan. A framework
neighbourhoods to the south.
was created to allow non-university uses organized around a core
campus precinct. The 1991 Secondary Plan was carried forward when
Parks and Open Space
the new Official Plan was adopted by City Council in 2002 and was
Parks and open space uses are permitted in all Precincts. Within the
subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The
University Core, open space elements were intended to be connected
Secondary Plan has not been approved by the OMB.
to form a pedestrian network linking buildings. The main open space
elements identified consisted of the University Common, the Boyer
University Core Precinct
Woodlot, the North Keele Street woodlot, the South Keele woodlot,
The University Core Precinct was intended to be developed primarily
the Arboretum/nature preserve and the Osgoode/Atkinson woodlot,
with University Uses, including student housing,
as well as other lands designated Parks and Open Space Areas
adjacent to Murray Ross Parkway.
North Precinct
The North Precinct could be developed with both institutional and
Housing
commercial uses. Commercial uses were permitted in this precinct to
The Secondary Plan defines student housing as housing developed
take advantage of the visibility, accessibility and traffic characteristics
and operated on a non-profit basis by or on behalf of students, for the
of the Steeles Avenue frontage.
purpose of occupancy primarily by students of York University and
affiliated educational institutions. Student housing is permitted within
Southwest Precinct
the University Core, Southeast and Southwest Precincts.
The Southwest Precinct was intended to be developed for residential
purposes to take advantage of recreational opportunities and the
Residential development in the Southeast and Southwest Precincts is
linkage to existing residential neighbourhoods.
required to be integrated with the University Core Precinct and that
is suitable for a wide range and mix of household types, tenures and
Southeast Precinct
The Southeast Precinct can be developed with a mix of commercial,
office and residential uses to create a land use and built form
incomes.
11
12
1991 Secondary Plan Roads
1991 Secondary Plan Land Use Areas
The Plan assumes that the development of housing in the Secondary
‹
safety of users;
Plan area will release housing, particularly affordable housing, located
‹
public spaces to be accessible;
in the surrounding communities.
‹
distinct character to be maintained;
‹
moderate effects of sun, shade, wind and snow to improve
The Plan also includes an objective for increasing the affordable
pedestrian comfort;
housing stock within the Secondary Plan area primarily through
‹
accessible;
ensuring that a minimum of 25 percent of the residential units are
‹
distinctive design of outdoor features and site furniture;
affordable. This policy was a reflection of the Provincial Land Use
‹
variation in building heights: higher buildings along Steeles
Planning for Housing Policy Statement.
Avenue and Keele Street;
‹
vistas to valley;
Roads
‹
creation of street end views and vistas;
A network of public collector roads was identified to provide access to
‹
development setback from valley;
the North, Southeast and Southwest Precincts. Non-university uses
‹
network of pedestrian walkways;
should have access from public roads. The background study dealing
‹
buildings located and organized to define public open spaces and
with transportation and transit addresses the road pattern in more
detail.
Urban Design
The 1991 Plan included the following urban design principles:
‹
high standard of urban design, site planning and other physical
aspects of uses and buildings to enhance the aesthetic aspects of
the campus and public areas;
‹
new development should be appropriately integrated;
‹
creation of a streetscape with active building faces, entrances and
pedestrian routes;
‹
surface parking should not dominate the streetscape;
‹
creation of structured parking;
streets; and
‹
reinforce coherence of the core campus.
13
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
York University Study
Existing Land Use
Residential - Singles
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
Residential - Townhouses
York University
Study
Residential - Apartments
STEELES AVENUE
Existing Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Industrial - Singles
Institutional
Residential
- Townhouses
STEELES AVENUE
RD GO
LINE
CNR / B
RADFO
KEELE ST
REET
JANE ST
REET
Open spaces
Commercial
Natural Areas
Vacant
Industrial
Other
Institutional
Fire Station
Utility Corridor + Transportation
FINCH AVENUE
RADFO
RD GO
LINE
CNR / B
KEELE S
TREET
Secondary Plan Boundary
TREET
14
Utility Corridor + Transportation
Residential - Apartments
OpenContext
spaces
Area
Natural Areas
Vacant
Other
Fire Station
Secondary Plan Area
Context Area
City Planning - Graphics & Visualization
Existing land uses
FINCH AVENUE
3. Area Context
3.1 Land Use
The context area for the review of the Secondary Plan is a largely built
run publications, three broadcast programs, two art galleries and 33
up area. The University campus is located within a 230-hectare block
on-campus eateries and a retail mall. (York University web site, Quick Facts)
bounded by the ravine and valley lands of Black Creek to the west,
Steeles Avenue to the north, Keele Street to the east and Murray Ross
The University is comprised of six functional precincts:
Parkway to the south.
‹
Professional Precinct;
‹
Humanities/ Social Sciences/ International Precinct;
The Keele Employment Area is located on the east side of the
‹
Pure and Applied Sciences Precinct;
University along Keele Street to the CN/Bradford Line. Low-density
‹
Athletic Precinct;
residential and higher density housing in apartments is located to
‹
Physical Plant; and
the south and west. The area north of Steeles Avenue in the City
‹
South Lands.
of Vaughan is currently undeveloped or employment uses. It was
recently subject of an Official Plan Amendment which resulted from
The Precincts are linked with open space and environmental features.
the Steeles Avenue Corridor study (see Area Planning Initiatives).
Two significant woodlots are located to the north and south of York
Boulevard on the west side of Keele Street. The Black Creek Valley is
3.2 University Context
the most significant natural landscape features on and adjacent to the
The University has over 7 million square feet of occupied space on
Campus. For a more detailed discussion of the natural heritage and
the Campus, with close to 50,000 students and approximately 7,000
open space features of the campus see the Natural Features and Open
faculty and staff. In 2004-2005, about 3,000 international students
Space Background Study.
from over 130 countries were enrolled at York University. The largest
groups came from China, South Korea, India, the United States
and Pakistan. For additional socio-economic information see the
Community Services and Facilities Phase 1 report.
More than 5,000 courses are offered through York’s 10 faculties. The
intellectual, cultural and social life at York is one of the richest in
Canada with about 225 student clubs and organizations, two student-
15
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.2
$.
$.
2!-0$/7.
$.
$.
50
50
16
M
2005 Precincts
Professional Precinct
Physical Plant
Humanities/Social Sciences/ International
Precinct
Athletic Precinct
Pure and Applied Sciences Precinct
South Lands
3.3
Housing
have been issued for 143 single-detached, 214 semi-detached and
144 townhouse units. This has the potential to generate a population
Profile of Existing Housing Stock
increase of approximately 1,632 people.
The profile of the existing housing stock was conducted using an
expanded study area bounded by Steeles Avenue, the CNR railway
Existing Student Housing
lines in the east, Sheppard Avenue and Black Creek. This area contains
There are currently seven undergraduate residences and fourteen
a mix of dwelling unit types totalling 9,200 units. Single-detached
graduate apartment buildings that accommodate about 3,500
dwelling units comprise 15 per cent of total housing stock compared
students. In addition there is one co-operative housing building on
to 32 per cent for the City. Apartment units in buildings of five or
campus with 240 units.
more storeys total 55.4 per cent of all dwelling units compared to 37.6
per cent for the City. This concentration of apartment buildings with
3.4 Cultural Heritage Features/Resources
five or more storeys is even more pronounced in three censustract
sub-areas. Fountainhead contains 100 per cent apartment units,
Pre-university
followed by 82.1 per cent for Four Winds and 71.4 per cent for N. E.
The area that made up the original York Campus was cleared and
Jane/Finch.
settled by four families on farm lots that ran from Keele Street to Jane
Street, Lot 25, bordering on Steeles Avenue belonged to Daniel and
Sixity three per cent of the total occupied private dwelling units are
Elizabeth Stong, Lot 24 to Peter Erlin Kaiser II, and lot 23 to Christian
rental units compared to 49.3 per cent for the City. In Fountainhead
Hoover: all three families were settlers from Pennsylvania. Lot 22 was
100 per cent of units are rental and 72.2 per cent of units are rental in
settled in 1855 by John Boynton from England.
N.E. Jane/Finch. At Four Winds only 31 per cent of units are rental.
The housing stock is somewhat younger than for the City, in that 55.6
Daniel and Elizabeth Stong were Loyalists who took ownership
percent of the occupied private dwelling units were constructed prior
of their farm lot in 1816. They were associated with an early farm
to 1970 compared to 63.8 percent for the City.
community located at Jane Street and Steeles Avenue unofficially
called “Kaiserville” which eventually became Black Creek Pioneer
One area in particular has experienced significant residential growth
Village. The original log farm buildings constructed by Daniel and
since the 2001 census was conducted and can be attributed to the
Elizabeth Stong are still in their original location and form the nucleus
Tribute communities development. Since 2001, building permits
of Black Creek Pioneer Village. Their son Jacob built the Stong House
17
in 1855 at the southwest corner of Keele Street and Steeles Avenue.
properties for which City Council has adopted a recommendation that
This example of a Georgian style farmhouse, still remains on the York
they be included on the inventory. The recommendations are based
University campus along with a large gambrel roof barn from the
on criteria that relate to architecture, history, and neighbourhood
same period.
context. Their inclusion on the Inventory is a clear statement that
the City would like to see the heritage attributes of these properties
Christian Hoover developed Lot 23 in the late 1820’s. The Hoover
preserved.
House which still remains on campus, was built by Christian and
his son Abraham in 1848 and is a rare survivor of board and batten
The four listed buildings are:
farmhouse construction in the area. The house was built with its
‹
Jacob Stong House and Barn (1854);
front door facing south and had a long farm lane in front of the house
‹
Abraham Hoover House (1848 with later additions); and
which ran from Jane Street to Keele Street. The house has been altered
‹
Jacob Snider House (1830, relocated to site).
and the main entrance is now on the east façade. Remnant farm
18
plantings, such as quince trees, a well and remnants of the farm lane
City staff are reviewing these listed buildings for possible designation
still remain in the vicinity of the house.
under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Jacob Snider House (now called the Hart House) is a circa 1830
The York University campus contains 14 buildings that have been
log cabin. It was moved to the Osgoode woodlot on the campus from
recorded on an inventory of North York’s Modernist Architecture,
a nearby farmstead.
prepared in 1997 by the former City of North York Planning
Department. Covering projects completed between 1945 and 1981,
Today listed heritage buildings, along with remnants of old growth
the Modernist inventory identified about 160 buildings, 20 of which
forest, pioneer plantings, fields, hedgerows and woodlots still remain
were added to North York’s heritage inventory. The York University
on campus. The campus also has areas of archaeological potential,
buildings have not yet been incorporated into the city-wide City of
associated with pre-contact and historic settlement.
Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties, but three are currently
under consideration for formal listing. Elements of the surviving
Built Heritage
modernist landscape will also be reviewed as part of the Secondary
Four buildings within the Secondary Plan area are listed on the City of
Plan Update.
Toronto’s Inventory of Heritage Properties. “Listed” is a term used for
19
Existing Heritage Properties and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
natural elements, which together form a siginifcant type of heritage
20
The modern buildings on the North York Modern Inventory are:
form distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts”
‹
Atkinson College (1966);
(Provincial Policy Statement, 2005). For a detailed inventory of the
‹
Behavioural Sciences Building (1966);
cultural heritage landscapes within the Secondary Plan area, see the
‹
Farquarson Life Sciences Building (1970);
report The Cultural Landscape of York University’s Keele Campus
‹
Founders College (1965);
prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates.
‹
Lecture Hall One (1966) -(note confirm whether this is Stedman
or Curtis);
There are several features that may have cultural heritage landscape
‹
McLaughlin College (1969);
significance at York University. The ring road and gateway entrances,
‹
Osgoode Hall Law School (1968);
and allees of trees on Steeles Avenue and Keele Street reflect the
‹
Petrie Sciences (1968);
1960’s landscape plan. Views from Keele Street to the Ross Building
‹
Ross Building (1970);
are likely part of the original design intent. The Campus Walk area
‹
Scott Library (1970);
and Colleges area also show good design and combinations of built
‹
Staecie Science Library (1966);
and open spaces.
‹
Tait McKenzie Physical Education (1966);
‹
Vanier College (1967); and From the nineteenth century, there are still remnant hedgerows and
‹
Winter’s College (1967).
woodlots, including the Homestead Woods, and areas immediately
adjacent to the Stong and Hoover farm buildings.
The City’s Heritage Preservation Services staff are currently reviewing
a number of post modern buildings for architectural significance such
A number of buildings within the adjacent Black Creek Pioneer
as the Schulich School of Business and the Welcome Centre.
Village are listed on the City’s Inventory of Heritage Properties. The
village includes Daniel Stong’s Grain Barn (1825); Townline Church
Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Cemetery (1845); Flynn’s Boots & Shoes Shop (circa 1858); Stong’s
A cultural heritage landscape is a “defined geographical area of
Second House (1832); Daniel Stong’s Piggery; Daniel Flynn House
heritage significance which has been modified by human activities
(1858); First Settler’s House (1816); Hisey Farm Building; and Saddlery
and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual
& Harness Maker’s Shop (1832).
heritage features, such as structures, spaces, archeological sites and
Archeological Resources
In July, 2005 City Council adopted a protocol for the screening of
The City of Toronto’s Archaeological Master Plan Project (2002-
lands which hold archaeological potential. Archaeological resources
2007) will identify archaeological sites and areas with archaeological
include the physical remains and contextual setting of any structure,
potential in Toronto and establish procedures to protect them. A
event, place, feature, or object which, because of the passage of time,
mapping model has been developed to identify areas of archaelogical
is on or below the surface of the land or water, and is important
potential for pre-contact and historic archeological resources. As
to understanding the history of a people or place. Archaeological
part of the process, areas are assessed for archaeological integrity.
resources include both historic archaeological resources and pre-
Areas that have potential integrity will require further study prior to
contact archaeological resources.
development. Portions of the York University Campus and Secondary
Plan Area have been identified as areas with potential archaeological
Archaeological sites identified within very close proximity to the
integrity associated with both pre-contact and historic settlement.
Secondary Plan area are:
STEELES AVENUE
BOYER
WOOD LOT
LEGEND:
CHIMNEYSTACK ROAD
OTTAWA ROAD
The E.A. Parson Site – Iroquoian Village Site
‹
The Boynton Site – Historic Euro-Canadian 19th Century site
‹
The Bramalea Site – Pre-contact Site
‹
Kaiser Site – A multi-component, Historic Euro-Canadian and
STUDY AREA
BOUNDARIES
DANBY
WOODS
Unknown Pre-contact Site.
AREA REQUIRING
STAGE 2 SURVEY
STEELES AVENUE
STADIUM
YORK BLVD.
An Archaeological Assessment is required on lands that hold
AREA ASSESSED IN
PREVIOUS ASI SURVEYS
KEELE STR
EET
OTTAWA ROAD
NELSON ROAD
OSGOODE
WOOD LOT
BOYER
WOOD LOT
archaeological potential to ascertain the presence or absence
DISTURBED LAND:
NO POTENTIAL
BOYNTON
WOODS
OSGOODE
WOOD LOT
of archaeological resources. If these resources are present, the
LEGEND:
CHIMNEYSTACK ROAD
THE POND ROAD
DANBY
WOODS
PASSY CRESCENT
STUDY AREA
BOUNDARIES
AREA REQUIRING
STAGE 2 SURVEY
STADIUM
KEELE STRE
ET
YORK BLVD.
OSGOODE
WOOD LOT
NELSON ROAD
‹
BOYNTON
WOODS
OSGOODE
WOOD LOT
Areas of archeological potential
PASSY CRESCENT
THE POND ROAD
AREA ASSESSED IN
PREVIOUS ASI SURVEYS
DISTURBED LAND:
NO POTENTIAL
Archaeological Assessment will evaluate the significance of these
resources and outline measures to mitigate the impact of development
on these resources.
Lands identified as having archeological potential are subject to
Stage 1 and 2 archaeological resource assessment prior to any land
development or soil disturbance activities. The Stage 1 assessment
21
consists of background research, and is the pre-survey phase of the
assessment. This assessment has been prepared by Archaeological
Services Inc. Stage 2 is the actual field examination and may require
either a surface or pedestrian survey or test pit surveys of the subject
9
area.
10
1
5
14
7
Archaeological resource assessments should be conducted early in the
8
6
planning process to plan effectively for the retention of any significant
2
archaeological resources that may be encountered. If archeological
5
14
1 preserved “in situ”. The earlier the archaeological resource
are
7
assessment is completed
and reviewed, 15
the less impact there will be
8
6
11
13
2
3.5 3
12
Public Art
Public Art is part of the culture of a place, as well as its built form
and open space. In the early 1970’s York University acquired, through
purchases and donations, a number of large-scale works of art by
prominent sculptors such as Alexander Calder, Anthony Caro, Hugh
LeRoy, Mark di Suvero and George Rickey. These works have been
permanently installed on the campus grounds. The University is also
enabling artists to create new works through the sponsorship of sitesensitive installations at locations across the campus. More recently,
the University has commissioned works by Jocelyne Alloucherie, Enzo
Cucchi, Rodney Graham, Brian Groombridge, Susan Schelle and Liz
Magor.
13
3
may be required to ensure10that significant archaeological resources
on development4 plans.
11
4
resources are identified at a9site, modification of development plans
22
15
Public art installations at York University
1. Reynolds, John
2. Leroy, Hugh
3. Di Suvero, Mark
4. Rickey, George
5. Schelle, Susan
6. Magor, Liz
7. Caro, Anthony
8. Alloucherie, Jocelyne
9. Yarwood, Walter
10. Vaillancourt, Armand
11. Cucchi, Enzo
12. Calder, Alexander
13. Groombridge, Brian
14. Kosso, Eloul
15. Graham, Rodney
12
The Art Gallery of York University (AGYU) is also an important
centre for contemporary art. The AGYU is committed to enriching
‹
Views of the Black Creek valley (includes provision of view planes
and/or view corridors).
the cultural and intellectual environment of York University and the
surrounding communities.
Another potentially significant view not noted in these documents is
the view of the campus from The Pond Road from the southwest of
3.6 the campus.
Views
Some important campus views are identified in the 1963 Master Plan
and the 1991 Secondary Plan. These are:
3.7 Sustainability, Green Building, Energy Efficiency
‹
View from Keele Street entrance (this view was originally the
In 1999, a Presidential Task Force on Sustainability was established
ceremonial entrance with the ramp leading to the top of Central
by the University. In June 2001, the Task Force submitted their
Square – the focal point now is the Common, Vari Hall and the
assessment of the University’s performance with respect to key
Ross Building)
sustainability issues and provided recommendations on how to
‹
View from Central Square to the southwest
improve the University’s performance. The President of York
‹
Views to campus from the approach roads
addressed the recommendations from the Task Force in her Executive
Central Square
View from Keele Street entrance
Campus view from the southwest
23
Response to the report, identifying action items that had already been
undertaken.
on Campus. The following initiatives reflect the University’s
commitment to sustainability:
‹
fundamental sustainability principles in building maintenance,
York University acted on one of the Task Force’s major
retrofits, pest management, solid waste management and other
recommendations by signing the Talloires Declaration in 2002,
which is “a ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and
environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach
at colleges and universities. It has been signed by over 275 university
presidents and chancellors in over 40 countries.”
In 2005, the President outlined the University’s environmental
sustainability goals in the Planning, Budget & Accountability Report
24
2004-2005. The University’s goals are:
‹
Sustainable development by design;
‹
Solid waste diversion;
‹
Reduction of grass cutting and the use of fertilizers;
‹
Use of low care shrubs, native plant materials and porous paving
materials;
‹
Effective storm water management; and,
‹
Reduction of pesticides.
The report also introduced environmental performance indicators to
assess the University’s success.
Since the Task Force on Sustainability was established, significant
progress has been made to adopt more sustainable approaches
The Facilities Department is committed to the integration of
daily campus operations;
‹
A Landscape Master Plan is under way;
‹ A University Committee on Environmental Sustainability will be
created; and,
‹ A major energy conservation partnership is being launched with
an energy service company.
Energy Consumption Indicators
Energy Consumption
Energy consumed per m²
of built space
York University
Achievements
Atmospheric Emissions
Direct emission of carbon
dioxide based on oil and
gas burned, including the
cogeneration plant
The emissions from
cogeneration are considerably less than the emissions resulting from an
equal volume of electricity
by a mix of coal, oil &
natural gas
Water Consumption
Actual meter readings of
all campus buildings
Increase in 2004 due to
new buildings, increased
residential population &
water pipe breaks
Water Production &
Recycling
All non-recyclable waste
Nearly 70% waste diversion between 1987-2000,
waste production and
recyclables per capita have
remained at a fairly steady
state since that time
Biodiversity
Total plant material
Number of native species
increases annually and the
total amount of fertilizers,
herbicides and pesticides
decreases
Transportation
Commuter modal split
40% single occupant, 60%
other
Reference: Planning, Budget & Accountability Report 2004-2005, York University, pp. 15-20.
25
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Places to Grow Growth Plan
modal transportation systems, as well as ensuring that pedestrian and
On June 16, 2006, the Government of Ontario released the Growth
bicycle networks are integrated. An appropriate range of community
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Growth Plan guides deci-
infrastructure also needs to be planned for to meet future needs and
sions on a wide range of issues including transportation, infrastruc-
to foster complete communities.
ture, urban form, housing, natural heritage and resource protection.
It also clarifies and strengthens the application of the Provincial Policy
Another area of the Growth Plan that applies to the review of the
Statement (discussed below). Key policies of the Plan dealing with
Secondary Plan are policies relating to environmental protection and
where and how urban areas should grow that apply to the review of
sustainability. The identification of natural heritage features and asso-
this Secondary Plan include:
ciated areas is encouraged. Strategies and official plan policies should
also be adopted which support the conservation of energy and water,
‹
Reducing automobile dependency through the development of
protect air quality and reduce emissions.
mixed-use, transit supportive, pedestrian friendly urban environ-
26
ments;
4.2 Provincial Policy Statement
‹
Providing convenient access to intra- and inter-city transit;
Issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act, the Pro-
‹
Intensifying existing urban areas to accommodate growth.
vincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters
Intensification is encouraged to occur around major transit sta-
of provincial interest related to land use planning and development
tions. Intensification areas need to provide for a range and mix
in Ontario. The PPS provides for appropriate development while pro-
of housing, including affordable housing, providing a diverse and
tecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety and
compatible mix of land uses, and ensuring there are high quality
the quality of the natural environment. It supports improved land use
public open spaces; and
planning and management, contributing to a more effective and effi-
Conserving cultural heritage and archeological resources as in-
cient land use planning system. Policies that are relevant to the review
tensification occurs.
of the Secondary Plan include:
‹
The Growth Plan also has policies that address the provision of public
‹
Land use patterns that are based on densities and a mix of land
infrastructure such as transportation and community infrastructure.
uses which efficiently use land and resources. Land use patterns
For instance, the plan requires the identification and protection of
also need to be appropriate for and efficiently use infrastructure
transportation corridors. It also requires focusing on providing multi-
and public service facilities, as well as minimize negative impacts
to air quality and climate change.
‹
Opportunities for intensification should be identified and promoted in appropriate locations, taking into account the existing
conserved in the context of development and site alteration; and
‹
Development of lands adjacent to designated heritage property
must conserve heritage attributes of the protected property.
building stock and the availability of suitable infrastructure and
public service facilities;
4.3 Ontario Heritage Act, 2002 and 2005 Revisions
An appropriate range of housing types and densities must be
The Ontario Heritage Act 2002 and the revisions to the Act made in
provided for;
2005 protects heritage properties for their “cultural heritage value”.
‹
Minimum targets for affordable housing are required;
This can include built, archaeological and natural heritage features.
‹
A full range of publicly accessible built and natural settings for
The revisions to the Act also strengthen protection for archaeological
recreation should be promoted;
resources and designated properties.
‹
‹
‹
‹
Public streets, spaces and facilities should be planned to be safe,
meet the needs of pedestrians and facilitate both pedestrian and
4.4 City of Toronto Act, 2006
non-motorized movement;
On June 12, 2006, the Stronger City of Toronto for a Stronger Ontario
Corridors and rights-of-ways for transportation, transit and infra-
Act, 2005 received royal assent and enacted the new City of Toronto
structure facilities should be planned for and protected;
Act, 2006. The City was granted enhanced powers with respect to site
Energy efficiency and improved air quality should be supported
plan control under this Act, enabling the City to consider the exterior
by planning for compact urban form, promoting public transit
design of buildings, including character, scale, appearance and design
and promoting design and orientation which maximizes the use
features of buildings. The Act also gives the City the ability to review
of alternative/renewable energy.
the sustainable design of buildings, including green roofs, solar panels
and water-conserving landscaping, as part of site plan control.
The PPS also has policies which protect archaeological resources,
cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources and includes
The City of Toronto received an additional power under site plan
new definitions for these resources. The policies provide new context
control to include adjacent, off-site public boulevard enhancements
for cultural heritage resource conservation, including:
or improvements, such as landscaping, paving, street-furniture, curb
ramps, waste and recycling containers and bicycle parking facilities in
‹
Listed heritage resources, including built heritage, cultural heri-
a site plan agreement. This power will greatly enhance the City’s abil-
tage landscapes and areas of archaeological potential must be
ity to implement streetscape improvements within the City’s boulevard as development occurs.
27
4.5 City of Toronto Official Plan
‹
Locating new parks and public open spaces to front onto streets.
The Official Plan is the vision for how the City will grow over the
long-term.
Developments must be conceived not only in terms of the individual
building site and program, but also with respect to how a building and
4.5.1 Urban Design
site fits within the context of the larger area and the City. To accom-
A key tenet of the City’s Official Plan is to ensure high-quality urban
plish this the Official Plan has Built Form policies which speak to:
design in the public and private realm. The Plan speaks to investing
in high quality design, better detailing, better landscaping, and better
‹
finishes all designed to work together and fit in with their surroundings. Within the public realm this involves:
‹
28
Preserving and improving physical and visual access to City’s
text;
‹
Framing streets and open spaces at good proportion;
‹
Locating buildings parallel to streets;
‹
Ensuring entrances are clearly visible and accessible directly from
natural features such as valleys and ravines;
‹
streets;
Designing streets as significant public open spaces, complete with
‹
Preserving existing mature trees;
trees, landscaping, amenities and public gathering spaces. New
‹
Minimizing the impact of vehicular parking, access, service areas
streets should be public streets. Where it has been determined
that private streets are appropriate, these should integrate with
and utilities;
‹
public streets;
‹
Providing safe, attractive, interesting and comfortable sidewalks
Improving the safety and attractiveness of streets and open
spaces;
‹
and boulevards for pedestrians;
‹
Fitting new development into the existing and/or planned con-
Limiting surface parking between the front of a building and a
street;
Locating public buildings and associated open spaces in a promi-
‹
Sharing service areas;
nent, visible, and accessible manner;
‹
Integrating services and utility functions within buildings;
‹
Ensuring universal accessibility;
‹
Limiting impacts on surrounding neighbourhoods;
‹
Designing and locating walkways to complement and extend into
‹
Creating appropriate transitions, massing, adequate light and
the public realm, and not replace a street’s pedestrian gathering
‹
privacy, as well as limiting shadowing and wind impacts;
role;
‹
Defining edges of streets and parks; and,
Promoting street-oriented development and allow for phasing;
‹
Providing outdoor amenity space.
and,
Tall buildings present a unique challenge and come with larger civic
‹
responsibility. They are desirable in the right places, but they do not
belong everywhere. They should reinforce the overall City structure.
to supplement the City’s parks;
‹
Where tall buildings are proposed, they need to be designed to have
three parts: base building, middle (shaft) and top. They also need to
Promoting and using private open space and recreation facilities
Designing for safety, user comfort, accessibility and seasonal use;
and,
‹
Creating an experience of place;
fit within the existing/planned context. This would involve taking into
consideration topography and proximity to other tall buildings. Tall
To assist in the implementation of the City’s urban design objectives
buildings should also be accompanied by high quality, publicly acces-
as envisioned by the Official Plan, the City has developed several
sible open space.
guidelines and strategies. These include: the Percent for Public Art
Program, Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals,
Public Art contributes to the identity and character of an area, as well
City of Toronto Accessibility Guidelines and Toronto Urban Design
as helps beautify a specific space to which the public has access. The
Guidelines such as the Infill Townhouse Guidelines and Urban Design
Official Plan encourages public art on both private and public proper-
Guidelines for Sites with Drive-Through Facilities. These guidelines
ties. The arts and cultural community will be encouraged to partici-
and strategies will be applied where appropriate.
pate in local design and beautification efforts.
4.5.2 Heritage Resources
Parks and Open Spaces are a necessary component of city building.
Heritage buildings, districts and landscapes create a unique sense of
Key policies to ensure a system of accessible, connected and high
place and a rooted sense of local identity and continuity. To ensure
quality parks and open spaces are provided include:
these resources are protected over the long-term:
‹
‹
Adding new parks and amenities and maintaining, improving and
expanding existing parks;
‹
Designing high quality parks;
‹
Protecting access to existing publicly accessible open spaces, as
well as expanding the system of open spaces;
‹
Heritage Impact Statements may be requested for development
proposals on a listed heritage property;
‹
Adjacent development will respect the scale, character and form
of listed heritage buildings and landscapes; and
‹
Impacts from public works projects that may be in the vicinity of
Promoting and using private open space and recreation facilities
heritage resources, including archaeological sites, will be assessed
to supplement City’s parks, facilities and amenities;
and appropriate mitigation measures to minimize the impact will
be used.
29
30
In addition to the policies respecting heritage buildings and cultural
supportive housing, emergency and transitional housing for the
landscapes, the City of Toronto’s Official Plan states that until an
homeless and at-risk groups, housing that meets the needs of people
Archaeological Master Plan is adopted, a development application
with physical challenges and housing that makes more efficient use of
on or adjacent to sites with known or potential archaeological value
the existing housing stock. New housing supply will be encouraged
will require an archaeological assessment evaluating the impact of the
through intensification and infill development. Investment in new
development on archaeological resources.
rental housing will also be encouraged.
4.5.3 Urban Structure
Of particular relevance to York University is policy 3.2.1.9 which
Growth will be accommodated in areas where good transit access can
requires, in residential development on sites of greater than five ha in
be provided and within the Downtown, including the Central Water-
size, a minimum of 30 per cent of new housing units to be in forms
front, the Centres and the Avenues. Avenues are important corridors
other than single- or semi-detached units, and at least 20 per cent
along major streets where reurbanization is anticipated and encour-
of the new units (above any existing permissions) are to be afford-
aged to create new housing and job opportunities while improving
able. The affordable units are secured in situations where increases
the pedestrian environment. The Avenues have been identified to help
in height and/or density are granted by the City by way of zoning
assess urban design, transit and service delivery issues. The growth
amendments through Section 37 of the Planning Act. Affordable units
and redevelopment of an Avenue should be supported by high quality
can be rental or ownership housing, as defined in the Plan.
transit services, combined with urban design and traffic engineering
practices that promote streets that are safe, comfortable and attractive
The majority of the Housing policies of section 3.2.1 of the Official
for pedestrians and cyclists.
Plan have been generally approved, except as they apply to specific
sites such as York University where appeals remain outstanding.
4.5.4
Housing
Adequate and affordable housing is a basic requirement for everyone.
4.5.5 Building New Neighbourhoods
The Housing policies of the Official Plan call for a full range of hous-
New neighbourhoods need to be developed as viable communities.
ing, in terms of form, tenure and affordability, to be provided across
This includes ensuring that there is:
the City and within neighbourhoods. A full range includes ownership
‹
a community focal point within walking distance;
and rental housing, affordable and mid-range rental and ownership
‹
a fine grain of interconnected streets and pedestrian routes;
housing, social housing, shared and/or congregate-living housing,
‹
a mix of uses and a range of building types;
‹
high quality parks, community recreation centres, open space and
public buildings; and
‹
services and facilities that meet the needs of residents, workers
and visitors.
New neighbourhoods need to be carefully integrated into the surrounding community fabric.
4.5.6 Land Use Designations
A key implementation tool of the Official Plan is the land use designations. These designations establish general permitted uses and criteria
for development in each designation. There are currently four des-
Land Use Designations
Neighbourhoods:
• Physically stable areas;
• Lower scale residential uses are permitted;
• Development will respect and
reinforce the physical patterns and
character of neighbourhoods; and,
• Small scale institutional, home occupations, cultural and recreational
facilities, small-scale retail, service and
office uses are permitted.
Apartment Neighbourhoods:
• Greater scale of buildings;
• Opportunities for townhouses and
apartment buildings on underutilized
sites; and,
• Small scale institutional, cultural and
recreational facilities, small-scale
retail, service and office uses are permitted.
Mixed Use Areas:
• Permits a broad range of commercial,
residential and institutional uses, as
well as parks and open space.
Institutional Areas:
• Recognizes the importance of universities and their relationship to the
larger community;
• Reinforces the need to provide transit
services;
• Encourages universities to develop
campus plans; and,
• Identifies that surplus lands can be
used for development.
ignations that apply in the existing Secondary Plan area: Apartment
Neighbourhoods, Institutional Areas, Mixed Use Areas and Parks and
Open Space Areas. Secondary Plans can provide more detailed policy
direction for each of the designations.
Parks and Open Space Areas:
• Development is generally prohibited;
• Natural Areas will be maintained in a
primarily natural state, but also allow
for compatible recreational, cultural,
educational uses, conservation projects and public transit; and,
• Parks are used to provide public parks
and recreational opportunities.
Employment Areas:
• Places of business and economic
activity;.
Utility Corridors:
• Consist of rail and hydro rights-ofway; and,
• Should be protected for future public
transit routes and linear parks and
trails.
31
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
York University Study
Official Plan Designations
Neighbourhoods
STEELES AVENUE
Apartment Neighbourhoods
Mixed Use Areas
Parks and Open Space Areas
Natural Areas
32
Parks
CNR / B
RADFO
RD GO
LINE
JANE ST
REET
KEELE ST
REET
Neighbourhoods
Other Open Space Areas
(Including Golf Courses,
Cemeteries, Public Utilities)
Apartment
Neighbourhoods
Institutional Areas
Mixed Use Areas
Employment Areas
Parks and Open Space Areas
Utility Corridors
Natural Areas
Secondary Plan Boundary
Parks
Context Area
Other Open Space Areas
(Including Golf Courses,
Cemeteries, Public Utilities)
Institutional Areas
Employment Areas
Utility Corridors
FINCH AVENUE
Secondary Plan Area
Context Area
City Planning - Graphics & Visualization
Official Plan Designations
4.6 Zoning
There are four mixed use zones and an open space zone that apply to
STEELES AVENUE
York University S
the existing Secondary Plan area. The York Downsview Mixed Use
Zoning Designations
1 (YDMU-1) Zone permits university uses, recreational uses, parks
and open spaces, as well as uses accessory to these uses. The remain-
Secondary Plan Bound
Zoning Boundary
ing three mixed use zones within the Secondary Plan area permit the
same uses as the YDMU-1 zone, but also permits student housing.
All YDMU zones permit a height of 34 metres or 9 storeys and a gross
KEELE S
TREET
floor area of 250 percent for individual sites. Each respective zone has
different provisions for maximum aggregate gross floor area for all of
the uses in the particular zone. Setbacks also vary for each respective
zone.
33
The Open Space Zone (01) permits a wide variety of recreational uses,
including public parks, public playgrounds, playlots and golf courses.
Refreshment pavilions/booths owned or operated by a public authority are also permitted.
Schedule D to the North York Zoning By-law – the Airport Hazard
Map – imposes additional height restrictions to the Secondary Plan
area.
Zoning
City Planning - Graphics & Visualization
34
Schedule D - Airpost Hazard Map
4.7 Green Development Standard
The Toronto Green Development Standard is a set of features of site
and building design that promote better environmental sustainability
for new development. The Standard is a “made-in-Toronto” approach
that integrates existing City guidelines and targets with standards
from private rating systems such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Green Globes. The Toronto Standard is
intended not to compete with rating systems like LEED, but to ensure
that when there is a desire to “build green” in Toronto, local environmental objectives are met. The Standard addresses:
‹
Better air quality;
‹
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions and urban heat island effects;
‹
Greater energy efficiency;
‹
Improved water quality and water efficiency;
‹
Less solid waste;
‹
Protection of the urban forest and wildlife habitat; and
‹
Reduced light pollution.
35
1
6
2
36
3
4
1. Vaughan Corporate Centre Design Plan
2. Tribute Communities
3. Parc Downsview Park
5
Area-wide initiatives
4. Keele Street Revitalization Study
5. Wilson Avenue Avenue Study
6. Steeles Corridor Study, City of Vaughan
5. Current Planning Initiatives
In updating the Secondary Plan, development initiatives in the area
Vaughan Corporate Centre Design Plan
will provide important context.
The Vaughan Corporate Centre is an approximately 1,500 acre property located north of Highway 407 and intersected by Highway 7. The
5.1 Area-Wide Planning Initiatives
Centre is already approved or developed with mature industrial uses,
new industrial/business park uses and a variety of retail uses includ-
Busway and Subway Environmental Assessments
ing big boxes and community and neighbourhood facilities. Design
An Environmental Assessment (EA) study was approved which
guidelines for the Centre have been established:
determined the preferred alignment and station locations for a future
‹
Highway 7 should be transformed into “Avenue 7” that reflects its
subway extension from Downsview Station to York University, Steeles
new role as a multi-purpose urban street, which is both a “corri-
Avenue and Vaughan. Anticipated completion of the Subway is ex-
dor” and a “place” (i.e., a nodal concept);
pected for 2015.
‹
The entrances to the node should be identified by landmark gateways;
As a precursor to the Subway extension from Downsview Station,
‹
The street network should form a grid system of closely spaced
the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and the City of Toronto
streets to allow for multiple choices of routes for pedestrians and
undertook a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for an
motorists;
improved surface transit connection between Downsview Subway
‹
A system of arterial and collector roads should provide alternative
Station and the Keele Campus of York University. The Busway project
routes to allow through traffic to bypass Avenue 7 through the
will allow for more immediate improvements to the bus services
Node;
between Downsview Subway Station and York University/Steeles
‹
The node should be bounded by a ring road;
Avenue and will consist of bus-only lanes on Keele Street and bus-
‹
Local streets should provide high levels of pedestrian amenity,
only roads in the Finch Hydro Corridor and on the York University
Campus. Construction of the Busway is scheduled to commence in
while adequately accommodating cars and service vehicles;
‹
Regional and inter-regional transit routes should converge at the
Spring 2008. Upon completion of the Subway extension, the portion
centre of the node and transit stops/stations should be located at
of the Busway east of Keele Street will be used to feed buses to and
key intersections or focal places; and,
from Finch West Station.
‹
Linked sequences of streets and associated public open spaces
should be integrated.
37
38
Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension Preferred Alignment
Recommended Bus-Only Lane Design Concept
Steeles Corridor - Jane to Keele - Secondary Plan, City of Vaughan
The Plan provides support for high-order transit, establishes an
A land use review was conducted for the north side of Steeles Avenue
increased range of high density land uses, establishes a grid pattern of
between Jane and Keele Streets, extending to the CN rail corridor.
roads and blocks, promotes a pedestrian friendly urban environment
The factors that prompted the City of Vaughan to conduct the study
and encourages land uses that can intensify over time. The area is
were to:
expected to accomodate 5,000 to 5,500 residential units and approxi-
‹
improve transit infrastructure;
mately 100,000 to 120,000 m2 of office/commercial uses. Permitted
‹
respond to development pressure on the north edge of York Uni-
densities range from 1.5 Floor Space Index (F.S.I) along the outer de-
versity;
velopment blocks or Corridors to 4.0 F.S.I within 250 m of the subway
‹
improve the negative image of this corridor;
station or Transit Core.
‹
take advantage of the proximity to Highway 407; and
‹
update land use policies.
Keele Street Study
The Keele Street Study was completed in 2001. It was undertaken to
The City of Vaughan approved the Steeles Corridor - Jane to Keele
respond to the transformation of the Downsview military base to a
Secondary Plan - OPA 620 - on June 23, 2006. The Secondary Plan has
national park. In addition, the study was undertaken in anticipation of
been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.
the new Official Plan and proposed designation of Keele Street as an
Avenue. The study focused on the lands fronting Keele Street between
Highway 401 and Finch Avenue.
Four guiding principles were identified in the study to assist in the
revitalization of Keele Street. They are:
1. prevent Keele Street from expanding its width;
2. encourage transit-led accessibility;
3. make residential uses a priority; and
4. recognize Downsview Park as a crucial opportunity to enhance
development.
OPA 620 - Secondary Block Structure
39
Three fundamental concepts guided the development strategy:
‹
‹
5.2 Area Development Applications
Community Building: Balancing stable neighbourhoods with new
investment; encourage mixed use; provide community facilities in
Fountainhead Road and Sentinel Avenue
step with growth;
An application for Zoning By-law Amendment has been submitted to
Public Realm: Programmed, flexible open space design to improve
the City for an infill housing development. The proposal is for eight
the street environment and leverage investment; discourage car-
new residential condominium buildings. The buildings would range
oriented retail; develop new parking strategies that enhance the
from six to 12 storeys in height and would contain 1,116 new residen-
pedestrian environment; Downsview Park frontage as a unifying
tial units and a separate 1,782 m2 private recreation facility.
element; and,
‹
40
Built Form: Build from the corners; encourage a finer grained
45-47 Fourwinds Drive
street pattern; built form to create a sense of place; address sun,
An application for Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendments was
shadow and microclimate issues; lot divisions and the need for
submitted in 2001 to add 188 residential units to an existing retail
assembly; massing and scale; Downsview Area Secondary Plan as
plaza and parking lot. The proposal sought to:
a first step.
‹
add four blocks of stacked townhouses comprising 112 units to
the east end of the site;
Wilson Avenue Avenue Study
‹
add a 4 storey, 46 unit apartment building;
The Wilson Avenue study focused on an area located between Keele
‹
increase the existing two storey office building in the retail plaza
and Bathurst Streets and extending from Highway 401 to the south-
to three storeys and convert the structure into 9 residential units;
ern edge of Downsview Park. The streetscape design guidelines are
and,
summarized below:
‹
reduce the commercial gross floor area of the one storey com-
‹
Screen the view of off-street parking areas from Wilson Avenue;
mercial building to 1,670 m2 and add 26 stacked townhouse units
‹
Identify opportunities to add new crosswalks on Wilson Avenue
to the south side of the commercial building.
and other arterial/major collectors;
‹
Enhance the sidewalks through underpasses; and,
The first phase of the 112 unit stacked townhouse project has been
‹
Wilson Avenue, Bathurst Street and Keele Street should be identi-
built.
fied by landmark gateways that clearly demarcate the new district.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
York University Study
Recent Development
Applications
Recent Applications
STEELES AVENUE
1. 3999 Keele Street
2. 45-75 Four Winds Drive
3. 470 Sentinel Road and
1, 35 & 40 Fountainhead Road
Secondary Plan Boundary
41
D GO
LINE
Context Area
CNR / B
RADFO
R
JANE ST
REET
KEELE ST
REET
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
1
York University Study
Recent Development
Applications
Area Development Applications
STEELES AVENUE
1. 3999 Keele Street
2. 45-75 Four Winds Drive
3. 470 Sentinel Road and
1, 35 & 40 Fountainhead Road
2
3
Secondary Plan Area
FINCH AVENUE
Context Area
City Planning - Graphics & Visualization
RD GO
LINE
REET
Area development applications
3999 Keele Street
New Campus Buildings
A Site Plan Control application was submitted to the City of Toronto
Development on campus from the late 1980s through the mid 1990s
in 2000 for four industrial buildings located at the rear of the property.
implemented elements of the 1988 Master Plan and 1991 Secondary
Subsequent Site Plan Control applications were submitted to the City
Plan. Significant changes include:
to develop the front portion of the property with a commercial plaza
‹
bringing a finer grain of roads to the campus core;
development, a Tim Horton’s restaurant with drive through facility
‹
creating a new focal point and increased pedestrian amenity at
and a retail building fronting Keele Street.
the campus front door through the creation of the Common and
Vari Hall;
5.3 University Development
‹
the introduction of the colonnade to provide weather protection
for pedestrians along the Commons;
Tribute Communities
‹
The Village at York is located at the southern edge of York University.
42
filling out the core, creation of “Campus Walk” – enhanced pedestrian amenity;
The first phase will provide 501 single and semi-detached dwellings
‹
introduction of structured parking;
and townhouse units. The first phase has been constructed. Tribute
‹
increased campus legibility, safety, pedestrian amenity; and
Communities exercised its option to acquire additional development
‹
“green” building features.
lands from the University. An agreement to purchase a further 14
hectares (35 acres) was approved by York in late 2004. The second
The 1988 Master Plan planned for 483, 080 square metres of building
phase will add approximately 350 single and semi-detached dwell-
space. The University currently has 650,300 square metres of building
ings. Municipal planning approvals of Phase two has been issued and
space. Since 1999, the following new buildings have been constructed
construction is currently underway.
on campus:
The York University Development Corporation engaged a control
1. Accolade Project – East (a) and West (b);
architect to oversee the design process for the new community The
2. Additions to Tait Mackenzie Building;
development features architectural variation among homes; a grid
3. Pond Road Residence;
network of streets lined with trees; front yard porches and gardens;
4. Student Services Centre and Parking Structure;
lanes and garages accessed behind the residences; and, flexible floor
5. Seymour Schulich School of Business Building and Executive
plans for different family types or rental opportunities.
Learning Centre;
6. Technology Enhanced Learning Centre;
7. William Small Centre and Arboretum Parking Garage;
9
8. Computer Science and Engineering Building;
9. Stadium Fieldhouse;
2
10. Rexall Centre (Tennis Canada); and
11. Archives of Ontario.
8
10
11
7
1b
1a
There is about 28 hectares of land available for new academic
building/facilities in the Academic Core.
4
5
3
6
43
University Iniatives and available land
for new academic buildings/facilities.
6. Issues & Direction for the Update
The York University Secondary Plan was created to provide
Additional information about existing densities within the campus is
development guidance to York University. This 1991 document was
also required.
based on the 1988 Master Plan and assumptions and conditions have
changed since these documents were created.
Urban Structure
It needs to be determined if Map 2 - Urban Structure of the Official
Boundaries of the Secondary Plan Area
Plan should be revised to include Avenue designations on the Steeles
The 1991 Secondary Plan excluded lands that, at the time, were
Avenue and the Keele Street frontages. The Secondary Plan update
sold to Bramalea Limited for residential development. The updated
and any implementing By-law would achieve the goal of an Avenue
Secondary Plan area should include the previously excluded portion in
Study which would be triggered by an Avenue designation.
the Plan area.
Mixed Use Corridors
44
Precinct Boundaries
It needs to be determined if and how the land use designations,
The boundary of the University Core Precinct may need to be
permitted uses and density provisions in the non-university core
revisited to take into account the University’s program requirements
areas along the Steeles Avenue and Keele Street frontages need to
and changes to the area since 1991, (e.g., Tennis Canada). Appropriate
be revisited in light of the current initiatives to extend the Spadina
precinct boundaries need to be determined.
Subway and interim busway, as well as the initiatives underway on
the north side of Steeles Avenue in the City of Vaughan. The Steeles
Development Framework
Avenue frontage currently permits primarily institutional and some
The extension of the Spadina Subway warrants revisiting the
commercial uses. Current policies for the Keele Street frontage, south
development framework for York University to determine appropriate
of The Pond Road permit small scale retail and service commercial,
development levels. The existing development framework established
office and residential uses that serve the local area.
a development Floor Space Index of 1.0 with 25 percent of students
and faculty residents on campus and 70 percent of all trips made to
Heritage Resources
the campus by automobile.
The location of new roads and suggested land use blocks, as proposed
by the 1991 Secondary Plan, could have negative impacts on heritage
University Core
The vision for the University Core needs to be clarified in terms
of what development is anticipated and what form it would take.
resources.
The Hoover Farmstead area southwest of the Stong Pond is bisected
by two different land use designations.
The City is investigating listing some of the modern buildings on
university core;
‹
The scale of the university cores; and,
‹
Other universities have public roads that traverse the university
cores.
the campus, such as the Ross Building, Scott Library and Founders
College, and designating the Stong House as a heritage property.
Emerging Policy Questions/Issues
Recent policies and guidelines adopted by the City and the Province,
There are numerous cultural landscape features in the Secondary Plan
specifically the Green Development Standard, the Percent for
area. These features should be identified in the updated Secondary
Public Art Program and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 represent key
Plan and more detailed policies and requirements should be
opportunities to enhance the environmental sustainability and the
developed to protect these features in the respective precinct plans.
urban design policies of the Secondary Plan.
Identification of Public Views
Resolution of Affordable Housing Appeals
The identification and protection of significant views must be taken
The Housing policies of the Official Plan have been approved by the
into consideration for the development of options and precinct
OMB, except as they apply to specific sites such as York University
policies. Potential public views and view corridors are shown on
where appeals remain outstanding. Specifically with respect to
Figure 1: Land Use, Urban Design and Heritage Issues.
Housing policies, York University has general concerns about the
applicability of the housing policies, and is also concerned that
Archeological Resources
the Plan should make special consideration for student housing.
A determination must be made as to the level of information required
York University feels that student housing is a valuable asset to the
to assess and protect archeological resources at the Master Plan level.
University community and contributes to the City’s objectives for the
reduction of automobile dependency and for the creation of affordable
Precedent Research
and special needs housing. Accordingly, York University feels that the
The precedent research highlights the following issues that should be
affordable housing policies should not apply.
further explored in the development of options:
‹
The relationship between the core pedestrian areas within
a university’s campus and what has been designated as the
45
Section 37
Section 37 of the Planning Act will be used to secure those services
and facilities (community benefits) determined by the Official Plan
and by the Secondary Plan update as being necessary or desirable
within the Secondary Plan area. This tool will likely be used to
secure 20 percent of the units resulting from any residential density
increase as affordable housing and can be used for the conservation
of heritage resources. The updated Secondary Plan may need to
include additional policies for securing community benefits. Issues
to be resolved include whether to exempt the university core and the
approach for applying Section 37 in the remainder of the Secondary
Plan area.
46