The Liberties of Liberty Village

The Liberties of Liberty Village Aki Erenberg

1

Table of Contents Preface

3

What does Liberty Village offer residents?

Images

5 8 10 11

References

13

Has Liberty Village boxed itself in?

Conclusion

2

Preface For the last decade, Toronto has been making a valiant effort in rebranding its image to one full of youthfulness and progression. All over the downtown core, condominium towers are rising and infrastructural improvements are being implemented constantly (to the dismay of the commuter). One neighbourhood which has exemplified this urban renewal is Liberty Village; a historical industrially-driven area which slowly gentrified into the trendy downtown hub that it presents itself as today. However, does this gentrification and heightened level of urban development stimulate interest in the neighbourhood and better its quality of life, and/or does it exacerbate population density and hinder both social and economic growth (ultimately limiting the freedom of the neighbourhood)? A brief summary of Liberty Village’s past and its historical significance can help answer this convoluted question.

Liberty Village, formally recognized by the city as the land region south of King Street between Dufferin Street and Strachan Avenue, was once a site utilized for both military and industrial purposes. Its conception originated back in 1750 where the French established the land as “Fort Toronto”, but would later be “purchased” by the British along with the rest of the Garrison Common (Wieditz, 2007). In the center of this Common was Fort York (see Fig. 1), which became home to several institutions such as the Provincial Lunatic Asylum, Trinity College, the Central Prison for Men, and the Andrew Mercer Reformatory (which is currently the site of Lamport Stadium). While further development was originally planned for the rest of the Garrison Common, railways were laid down across Garrison Common in the 1850’s, cutting off this region from the rest of the growing city (Wieditz, 2007). By the late 1800’s, Garrison Common attracted two major enterprises; Inglis (1884) and Massey-Harris (1891) brought

3

operations to the region, and it was not long before other industrial ventures followed suit and migrated as well. By 1958, Strachan Avenue had become an extremely dense industrial corridor, and was viewed as “the central spine of an intensely developed industrial community” (City of Toronto, Du Toit Allsopp Hillier, BA, & Delcan, 2008). However, following the Second World War, many of the factories located at Garrison Common moved to the suburbs, and those which remained were either shut down or demolished by the late 1990’s (Wieditz, 2007).

The abandonment of Liberty Village around the 90’s sparked the transformation of the region from an industrial wasteland to a creative community, as the remaining factories/warehouses were repurposed as inexpensive studio spaces by savvy developers. Local artist organizations (such as the Parkdale Village Arts Collective) recognized the value of the space that Liberty Village provided, and soon the attention that the area was receiving extended beyond the borders of the Village and caught the eyes of developers hoping to “rediscover” the area. Municipal government (led at the time by Barbara Hall) intervened in the developmental process of the Liberty Village renewal through the deregulation of zoning bylaws (increasing pressure to redevelop industrial lands) and the elimination of the monopoly of local telecommunications services in 1999, incentivizing new businesses through faster internet service provided by local servers (Wieditz, 2007). It was not until that same year that the name “Liberty Village” was first adopted, after local businesses intended to rebrand the area with a new moniker to help them market the neighbourhood to the rising creative class. This has become the new image of what today’s Liberty Village is, where local artists and other creative class workers have absorbed the old infrastructure of Old Garrison Common and converted it into what Wieditz summarizes as a “hotspot for Toronto’s new media industry and IT industry” (Wideditz, 2007). However, this does not conclude narrative of the Liberty Village.

4

What does liberty village offer its residents?

An underwhelming number of the historical elements of what previously existed in Liberty Village remains. As reported in the Environmental Assessment Study completed for the West Railway Extension, three built structures and six infrastructural elements have been identified and preserved as “Cultural Heritage Landscapes and Built Heritage Resources” around the neighbourhood, most of which are rail bridges and retrofitted industrial buildings (Fig. 2+3) (City of Toronto, 2016). This is astounding for a neighbourhood with such a rich history, but evidently the neglect faced by manufacturers that left Liberty Village in the 90’s panicked local government to stimulate interest in the area by replacing the “old” with the “new” (zoning deregulation, conversion of warehouses into studios, etc.). A visit to Liberty Village today presents an abundance of high-rise condominiums and a number of independently-run coffee shops (there are several places to caffeinate in the area, few of which are chain establishments), and one can even find an article on how to spend an entire day within the neighbourhood (Brown, 2014). But what has been most significant as a result of the renewal of Liberty Village is two things: the transportation corridors intersecting through the neighbourhoods and the limited options in living accommodations.

It is nearly impossible to miss the Gardiner Expressway which acts as the southern boundary of Liberty Village, and throughout the neighbourhood lies two rail corridors; the CN Lakeshore Corridor and the GO Georgetown South Corridor. The latter of these two rail corridors is no small project, costing roughly $1.2 billion (2010 CAD dollar value) to “meet

5

existing ridership demands”, “accommodate future growth”, and “support the new UP Express shuttle to the airport” (Metrolinx, 2014). Though the corridor was operational before the completion of this project, the Strachan Avenue Overpass has allowed for a greater level of train service and allocated a rail path for the UP Express. As outlined in the Grade Separation Study for Strachan Avenue, the only viable approach to implementing this expanded railway corridor was to lower the tracks below street level (approximately 7.4m down), and raise Strachan Avenue approximately 2m at the underpass (City of Toronto, Du Toit Allsopp Hillier, BA, & Delcan, 2008). The study also provided alternative design approaches for this project, but emphasized that the cheapest option would be to create an overpass. Yet, the study stresses that “there are serious problems associated with the overpass approach that are direct consequences of the [overpass] and their impact on existing and future developments within the Strachan corridor”, the most harmful consequence being the compromise of local circulation through the closure of cross streets (Canniff, Douro/Wellington and East Liberty) (City of Toronto, Du Toit Allsopp Hillier, BA, & Delcan, 2008). A current site plan of the Strachan Avenue Overpass (Fig. 5) illustrates the splitting of the north and south ends of the project, limiting access to either side through King and Strachan. Not only does this make commuting through the area extremely time consuming, but it inevitably creates a problematic experience when residents on either side of the division want to get across the overpass. Liberty Village residents are fortunate to have access to a system of parks and open spaces embedded throughout the area (Trinity Bellwoods, Stanley, Fort York, Coronation, Garrison Creek), but the obstacle of the overpass prevents those within the neighbourhood from having a unified community experience. And while the issue of access affects both the drivers and pedestrians within Liberty Village, even those who do not live in the

6

area are constrained by the project’s layout. This issue, along with the limited rental options offered by developments, begins to depict the slight lack of liberties offered by Liberty Village.

Liberty Village has been the topic of conversation for almost a decade. When the Village’s development proposals first began popping on the radar of numerous media outlets, critics were both enthused (Hanes) and skeptical (Hume) of the potential that the urban renewal had to offer Toronto. Some of these article, like the one titled “New Vibe in the Village” (Hanes, 2007), act almost as an advertisement for these newly proposed condominiums and list selling points and lavish features to help promote the lifestyle associated with living in one of these spaces. Other articles, like the one titled “Liberty Village highlights poor planning” (which was written just under a year following the aforementioned title) (Hume, 2008), illustrate what developers and urban planners had hoped to achieve but failed to accomplish: an ideal community. What Hume argued as being detrimental to the prosperity of Liberty Village eight years ago is currently almost nonexistent (strip malls and large parking lots), but has instead been replaced by a lack of accommodation for families within the neighbourhood. This is becoming a growing issue in a majority of dense urban cities, as the provision of space for more than two residents per unit is not as profitable as single-bedroom dwellings. In 2015, there were only 45 postings offering three-bedroom units on realtor.ca, amounting for just an increment of the rental housing market in Toronto (Bascaramurty, 2015). However, a quick browse on kijiji.ca offers a much larger amount of posting for single-bedroom units in Liberty Village for anywhere between $1,500 and $2,200 (2016 dollar value) (Fig. 6). If this trend continues, families will not only be forced to find housing outside of the core, but single residents currently residing in Liberty Village will also be left with no choice but to migrate elsewhere if they choose to start families.

7

Has liberty village boxed itself in?

Viewing the area around the Georgetown South corridor, one is greeted by two things; a wire fence with a sign which screams “DANGER DUE TO OVERHEAD WIRES”, and a glimpse at the top of the Strachan Avenue Corridor (a piece of infrastructure which is neither functional nor aesthetically pleasing) (Fig. 7+8). Ironically, for a neighbourhood named “Liberty Village”, it is becoming more and more evident that the freedoms of circulation and residency provided to its residents are being restricted with each new project that is being proposed.

Liberty Village has accomplished a feat that is both incredible and worrying; it has recreated its urban profile as one of the top up and coming neighbourhoods in the GTA to visit, yet has stuck itself into a figurative box through its serious lack of consideration for the public (more specifically, families and pedestrians). Why should any of the research conducted on this neighbourhood be deemed important, and why should residents of Toronto be concerned?

Simply put; the effects of the gentrification of Liberty Village and its hopes of catering to one specific demographic will have spillover effects into the rest of the Toronto core.

The affordability of single-bedroom units in a desirable area, as well as the construction of a brand new transportation corridor are not typically perceived as “urban issues”. However, an article written by a Toronto Star journalist gives insight on what the future of Liberty Village entails if changes are not made to the existing urban fabric. The article tells the story of Emily Runions, one of the few mothers residing in the Village, and illustrates her surprise to see the

8

trend of families moving into the local area increasing (Battersby, 2016). However the article goes on to briefly state the issue which those in and around Liberty Village should be aware of; the choice of infrastructure being implemented in the area does not welcome growth. Liberty Village is constructed with a younger generation in mind, a demographic of professionals who have no need for a daycare center and lack a true interest in public resources. The local infrastructure in the neighbourhood reflects this design mentality as there are no schools, libraries, or other forms of public amenities in the general area. What makes this matter more stressful for residents is that there has been nearly no mention from the municipal government to fund any public infrastructure of this sort (making the $1.2 billion spent on the Georgetown South Project rather upsetting when compared to the simplicity of a library cost-wise). It is possible that Liberty Village’s success in attracting its target demographic is masking the lack of public infrastructure. Even the bike path/streetcar corridor which lines Lake Shore Boulevard is an incremental improvement when put into the context of the communal necessities that Liberty Village is lacking. Thus, residents looking for these amenities have no choice but to commute to centers and schools, causing parents to incur an additional living cost while potentially overwhelming neighbouring services. Coupled with the urban density that the influx of new condominium developments will bring to the neighbourhood over the next few decades, Liberty Village’s short-sighted design choices will only cause more problems for its residents in the future, as well as make the neighbourhood extremely difficult to travel through because of the division that the Georgetown South Corridor imposes on street connectivity.

9

Conclusion The original question posed at the beginning of the paper was as follows; “does the gentrification of Liberty Village better its quality of life, or does hinder both social and economic growth”? The research presented in this essay is intended to answer this question, and through both a historical and urban analysis it can be concluded that the restriction of public liberties in Liberty Village will ultimately lead to its failure. Even if the community could thrive without public infrastructure and three-bedroom-requiring tenants, the fact remains that there is a certain quality of life which is not being met through the developments within the region. While Liberty Village more than certainly incorporates Richard Florida’s three T’s to attracting the creative class (and has succeeded in attracting this demographic) (Roberts, 2016), its role as a community in a larger city gives it a greater responsibility than just providing what is popular to a specific group of people. This responsibility includes offering the proper living environment for its residents, and as the neighbourhood currently stands there are attributes being compromised for the sake of catering to the creative class. Therefore, Liberty Village has succeeded in what it initially had hoped to achieve; it has rebranded itself as a hub of youthful activity. But as Battersby writes, “these [infrastructural projects] aren’t things that need to be planned for in 15 or 20 years. These are things that are going to be needed in five” (Battersby, 2016). Now, it is due time for urban designers and city planners to start treating Liberty Village as a key element in the context of the greater urban scale rather than a passion project for young professionals.

10

Images

Figure 2: 805 Wellington Street as it stands today

Figure 1: Map of Fort York (1842)

Figure 3: 99 Sudbury Street, another gentrified piece of history

Figure 4: Georgetown South Corridor (Strachan Avenue Overpass)‌ Wise investment or expensive eyesore?

Figure 5: Strachan Avenue Overpass (boxed) and the King/Strachan intersection (circled). Freedom in one form of transportation congests another form.

11

images

Figure 6: kijiji.ca shows the abundance of one/two-bedroom units, and the utter lack of three-bedroom units

Figure 7+8: The luxurious views of the $1.2 billion transit project spanning Liberty Village. No library currently exists.

12

References   



      

"Georgetown South Project." Georgetown South Fact Sheet - Metrolinx. Metrolinx. Web. 27 Feb. 2016. <www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/firstwave/Fact_Sheet_GTS_EN.pdf>.

"King Liberty Village Urban Design Guidelines." King Liberty Village Urban Design Guidelines: City of Toronto. IBI Group. Web. 27 Feb. 2016. <https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/community_planning/files/pdf/KingLiberty.pdf.>.

"STRACHAN AVENUE AND GEORGETOWN/MILTON RAIL CORRIDOR Grade Separation Study."

Strachan Avenue Grade Separation Design Concepts Study. City of Toronto, Du Toit Allsopp Hillier, BA, & Delcan, Oct. 2008. Web. 27 Feb. 2016. <http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/urban_design/files/pdf/strachan_grade_study_nov0 8.pdf>.

"6.0 Existing Study Area Conditions." West Toronto Railpath Extension Environmental Assessment. City of Toronto, Jan. 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2016. <http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/Policy, Planning, Finance & Administration/Public Consultation Unit/Studies/Transportation/West Toronto Rail Path/EBR Report/6- Exisiting Study Area Conditions.pdf>.

Wieditz, Thorben. "CUCS - Research Bulletin 32." CUCS - Research Bulletin 32. Univeristy of Toronto, Jan. 2007. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.

Brown, Alex. "How to Spend a Day in Liberty Village." BlogTO. 11 Oct. 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.

Hanes, Tracy. "New Vibe in the Village | Toronto Star." Thestar.com. 14 Apr. 2007. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.

Hume, Christopher. "Liberty Village Highlights Poor Planning | Toronto Star." Thestar.com. 8 Mar. 2008.

Web. 09 Mar. 2016.

Bascaramurty, D. (2015, January 23). Toronto's shrinking condos: Built for families, perfect for roommates or couples without kids. Retrieved November 7, 2015.

Battersby, Sarah-Joyce. "In Liberty Village, Here Comes the Neighbourhood | Toronto Star." Thestar.com.

2 Jan. 2016. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.

Roberts, David J., Dr. "Globalization & Cities: World Cities." Innis Town Hall, Toronto. 10 Feb. 2016.

Lecture.

Images Fig. 1: http://www.fortyork.ca/images/Photos-Articles/resources/biscoemap.gif (accessed Feb. 29, 2016) Fig. 2: https://a1.muscache.com/im/pictures/95315503/44e88e3d_original.jpg?aki_policy=large (accessed March 3, 2016) Fig. 3: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/VcXvRWVevik/Uct6dqJaBlI/AAAAAAAAQis/cxJLyYmS5mE/s1600/1d.JPG (accessed March 3, 2016) Fig. 4: http://www.gotransit.com/gts/en/gallery/strachan/strachan_rendering_east-800x600.jpg (accessed March 3, 2016) Fig. 5: http://mikelayton.to/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Strachanoverpass.jpg (accessed March 3, 2016) Fig. 6: http://www.kijiji.ca/b-apartments-condos/gta-greater-toronto-area/liberty-village/k0c37l1700272 (accessed Mar. 9, 2016) Fig. 7+8: taken by Aki Erenberg, Feb. 25th 2016, viewing Douro Street looking west/east

13