First Parliament Site Concept Plan - MUCP School of Cities 2021 by faizaanalikhan99

multidisciplinary urban capstone project

FIRST PARLIAMENT SITE CONCEPT PROPOSAL

April 9, 2021

FINAL REPORT

Prepared For:

C reateTO

Prepared By:

A li yah K ar im, Faizaan K han, A ri s hah Ma zhar, M ichelle Zhang 1

CONTENTS TEAM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DESIGN PRIORITIES

PROJECT BACKGROUND

RESEARCH OVERVIEW

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

DESIGN PROCESS

• A L T E R N A T I V E S

• D E C I S I O N M A T R I X

FINAL PROPOSAL

• O P P O R T U N I T Y Z O N E

• C O M M U N I T Y Z O N E

• P A R K Z O N E

• H E R I T A G E S P I N E

• H O U S I N G S T R A T E G Y

• O P E N S P A C E S T R A T E G Y

• C O S T A N A L Y S I S

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

THE TEAM Aliyah Karim is a fourth-year student in the Department of Sociology, and double majors in Criminology & Sociolegal Studies. Aliyah believes sociology can provide compelling contributions by providing an interdisciplinary analysis of social, economic, political and cultural institutions and how they work symbiotically to affect social environments. Aliyah brings strong sociological analysis skills to the First Parliament Site project. Currently, Aliyah is the Director of Internal Communications at the Undergraduate Sociology Students’ Union (USSU).

Faizaan Khan is a student at the Daniels Faculty of Architecture, specializing in the Technology of Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism. Faizaan is passionate about urban design, placemaking and youth engagement. As a Project Coordinator on the Future City Builders Program at Evergreen Canada, coupled with experience as an architectural history Research Assistant, and his design background, Faizaan brings a diverse skillset to engage the multiple intersecting narratives embodied in the First Parliament Site project.

Arishah Mazhar is a fourth-year student majoring in Urban Studies at Innis College, with a Minor in GIS. Arishah is passionate about human-centric planning and is well versed in community-based planning, with first-hand experience through community-engaged learning opportunities and as Student Representative in the Urban Studies Student Union (URSSU). Arishah currently works at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.

Michelle Zhang is a fourth-year student specializing in Urban Studies, majoring in Peace, Conflict and Justice, and minoring in Human Geography. Michelle brings a wealth of urban research experience, having conducted a comparative study for the Munk School of Global Affairs on smart city representations in Toronto and Singapore, and as a 2021 Student Fellow at the School of Cities. She is also co-founder of a civic technology start-up in the burgeoning field of e-democracy. Michelle has held a number of student leadership positions and is a recipient of the 2021 University of Toronto Student Leadership Award from Innis College.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Concept Proposal presents a redevelopment design for Toronto’s historic First Parliament Site for use by CreateTO. It is the culmination of an eight month project completed by the First Parliament Student Team between September 2020 and April 2021 with support from the University of Toronto School of Cities. Located on the south-west corner of Front St. E and Parliament St. with Berkeley St. to the east, the First Parliament Site carries historic significance as the site of longstanding Indigenous activity, Upper Canada’s first purpose-built parliamentary buildings, the Home District Gaol, and the Consumers’ Gas Company industrial buildings. The four lots that make up the Site are currently owned by the City of Toronto through CreateTO and the Province of Ontario through the Ontario Heritage Trust. The Site now houses two parking lots operated by the Toronto Parking Authority, a car dealership, a car rental, and a car wash. There are numerous new opportunities to redevelop this underutilized space in the heart of Toronto’s heritage district. A redevelopment could unlock the area’s rich but forgotten heritage, economic and cultural potential, and community growth. With many ongoing or recently completed revitalizations in the West Don Lands, along the waterfront, and just south at David Crombie Park, it is essential to approach any redevelopment in dialogue with surrounding projects and stakeholders to ensure regional cohesion. Three themes form the basis of this proposal and are derived from a series of interviews with key stakeholders: community, heritage interpretation, and economic vitality. The Concept Proposal is framed through these three parameters, known collectively as Development without Displacement. The Site is divided into four zones using this principle: an Opportunity Zone to the north-west, a Community Zone to the north-east, a Park Zone to the south, and a Heritage Spine down the middle, linking the four zones.

The Opportunity Zone contains an entrance to the proposed Ontario Line Corktown Station, a Market Hall, and a 25-storey Residential Tower with affordable rental units. This Zone catalyzes economic growth in the area by leveraging cultural tourism, supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs, and creating jobs. The greatest concentration of the First Parliament Site’s revenue generation is situated in this zone. The Community Zone contains the St. Lawrence District Library, a Community Centre, a second 25-storey Residential Tower with affordable rental units, and potential underground paid parking. This Zone acts as a connective node for the surrounding neighbourhoods with space for social services, a community greenhouse and cafe, and access to digital educational resources to foster a sense of belonging in a rapidly intensifying area. The Park Zone connects the adjacent public realm. It incorporates a water feature to remind visitors of Toronto’s original shoreline, a stage for outdoor performances, and mural walls to give residents space to create public art that speaks to their diverse perspectives. The Park Zone provides much needed public space and lends a sense of cohesion to the wider region. The Heritage Spine connects all of the Zones in the Site. This Zone is a covered outdoor space for allseason activities that celebrates the Site’s history from Indigenous occupation to the present day. It features busking stations, access to the Market Hall, and a Heritage Walk that takes users on a multi-sensory stroll through the Site’s history using interactive QR codes, plaques, and interpretive seating. Detailed implementation plans, cost analysis, and supporting concept plans are included in this proposal.

DESIGN PRIORITIES DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT DISPLACEMENT THE TEAM IS COMMITTED TO PROTECTING THE INTEGRIT Y OF THE FIRST PA RLIA ME NT SITE A ND ITS STORIES THROUGH THREE CORE PRIORITIES:

PROTECT H E R I TA G E PROMOTE COMMUNITY

PRESERVE C A P I TA L

PROJECT BACKGROUND

C U R R E N T S TAT E The First Parliament Site is located between St. Lawrence and Corktown within the larger Waterfront Communities -The Island neighbourhood, and is governed by Ward 13 - Toronto Centre. Bounded by Front St. E. to the north and Parliament and Berkeley to the east and west, the Site is currently home to two parking lots run by the Toronto Parking Authority, a car wash, car rental, and a car dealership. Surrounding it is an abundance of theatres and performance arts spaces in the neighbouring Distillery District and St. Lawrence Market area, as well as adjacent David Crombie and Parliament Square parks. The area has seen significant intensification and population growth between 2011-2016, with the Ward growing by 10.5% and the neighbourhood growing by 52% (City of Toronto, 2018). Approximately 2580 new residential units are planned or proposed within a 500m radius of the Site, and drives new resident growth in the coming years (Urban Toronto, 2020).

H E R I TA G E First Parliament Site owes its historical significance to an extensive lineage of shifting ownership and uses. These uses include but are not limited to: being the site of the first purpose-built parliament buildings of

Upper Canada, the site of the Home District Gaol, the site of Consumers’ Gas Company industrial buildings, as well an enduring history of Indigenous occupation and use in the area. Both the City of Toronto and Ontario Heritage Trust have released Statements of Significance noting its historical, associative, contextual, and archaeological value. Please refer to the Heritage Interpretation Strategy (HIS) for more detail on the historical context of the Site.

POLICY CONTEXT To date, the City of Toronto has completed the HIS conducted by its planning and archeology consultants. The HIS identifies key themes represented by the Site and how they may potentially be interpreted. It serves as the key guiding document throughout the development process. Other illustrative guiding documents and plans consulted for the First Parliament Site redevelopment include: • • • •

King-Parliament Secondary Plan Parkland Strategy Final Report (Nov. 2019) Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan 2019-38 HousingTO 2020-2030 Action Plan

Relevant planning documents express the City of Toronto’s shifting funding and development priorities over the medium to long term. The First Parliament

Site redevelopment must grow from within these parameters and compliment larger City goals. The Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan is a 20year plan to build and renew facilities in order to meet recreation needs in a changing Toronto. The Active Places section within the plan helps in identifying key priorities that take precedence when deciding uses for the Park and Community Zones in particular. In their plan for 2036, they have included seventeen new community recreation centers, eleven community centers listed for potential renovation, twenty splash pads and five new outdoor ice rink pads (Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2017). They also aim to prioritize an evidence based approach to new facility planning by addressing gaps and growth related needs. The HIS assesses the community profile of the Site, highlighting Toronto’s rapidly changing demographic composition. A key gap found through analysis of the area’s demographic is the lack of age related and cultural interest services (HIS, 2020). The existing outdated facilities must be updated to respond to contemporary needs and be accessible to all ages and abilities. The Active Places Plan also suggests prioritizing different partnerships in order to explore new opportunities.

the old By-Law No. 438-86 (City of Toronto, 2013). Major zoning amendments must be completed to implement this Concept Proposal with regards to both land use and height allowances.

ZONING

All of these opportunities compliment the future development trajectories and goals outlined in this proposal and other relevant regional plans. Heritage interpretation will be integrated throughout the Concept Proposal.

The First Parliament Site is currently zoned for multiple uses including residential and mixed-use based on the King Parliament Secondary Plan. The Site is classified as a regeneration area targeted for significant growth, having a mix of compatible land uses including commercial, industrial, institutional, residential, live/work and entertainment uses within new buildings and existing ones (King Parliament Secondary Plan, 2017). Large scale entertainment and retail uses may also be permitted through a zoning by law amendment so long as the scale and form of the building is compatible with the character of the streetscape and surrounding area, and heritage resources are conserved (King Parliament Secondary Plan, 2017). Under Zoning By-law 569-2013, the area currently falls under three zones: 265 Front St. E. is currently zoned for commercial, residential, and employment uses. 44 Parliament is zoned for residential uses only. 271 Front and 25 Berkeley are still governed by

OPPORTUNITIES Based on existing policies governing the Site, interviews with key stakeholders, and the Team’s secondary research, there are several core opportunities beyond heritage interpretation that can be identified: • Recovery and Revitalization in a post COVID-19 world • Rebuilding small businesses and the local economy • Supporting a growing and diversifying community • Incoming Ontario Line will support transitoriented communities • A new District Library has been approved for the area • Leveraging a growing public realm in the adjacent areas

CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS The First Parliament Site redevelopment has been in discussion for a number of years. The greatest threat to it today is an ongoing expropriation process over the lands, initiated by Metrolinx. Currently, the City owns 271 Front, 25 Berkeley, and 44 Parliament while the Province owns 265 Front. In early 2021, Metrolinx initiated expropriation proceedings to procure lands that will be used to facilitate construction of the new Ontario Line Corktown subway station. This station will be situated opposite the Site upon completion. This will delay the timeframe of the First Parliament project and potentially alter future development and heritage protection options for the Site.

Regardless of its impact on the Site’s long term ownership, the proposed transit line positions the First Parliament Site as a highly desirable realestate, furthering the region’s intensification. This is an opportunity for collaboration between the City, Metrolinx, and the Province that could bring greater value to the lives of future residents and visitors. Metrolinx’s intentions to tunnel underneath the Site may also open doors for conversations around soil remediation and protection of the limited archeological remains underground. The historic Consumers’ Gas occupation of the Site has left its mark on the property through soil contamination. The level of environmental degradation is such that underground construction without proper soil remediation is not possible. Since the proposed design concept incorporates an optional subterranean element, the Team encourages an open discussion between Metrolinx and the City about possible collaborations on a mutually beneficial environmental remediation.

RESEARCH OVERVIEW M E T H O D S A N D L I M I TAT I O N S During the design process, the Team conducted a series of nine semi-structured interviews between December 2020 and March 2021 with key stakeholders from the local community, municipal and provincial government agencies. The goal of these interviews was to understand the diverse needs and priorities of various interested stakeholder groups. The interviews were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set out by the University of Toronto Research and Ethics Board. All of the data collected is maintained in confidentiality in a password-protected folder and participants were provided with full transparency with regards to the uses and purposes of data collected during these interviews. Interview protocols were designed with reference to the framework and recommendations set out in the HIS, as well as independent background research. Interview notes were then coded for significant and recurring themes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all research was conducted remotely. The virtual nature of the research process limited the depth of the conversation flow and rapport generated between the Team and stakeholders. Revisiting the conversations when the situation permits for safe in-person interviews will supplement existing research and allow for deeper insights into the stakeholders thoughts and opinions. Time was another key constraint. The timeline for this project was limited to one academic year or eight months. Given more time, further research should be done with a wider range of community and government stakeholders. In addition, the scope of the Team’s research was also limited in that members of the public without prior association with the client could not be surveyed or interviewed due to issues concerning ethical approval. Given comprehensive ethics approval, future research should also include

broader community consultation using town halls or surveys distributed to the general public to get a sense of what the community desires for the Site. Despite these limitations, research conducted for this report confirms the themes highlighted in the HIS and adds to this literature as the status of the Site has changed since initial research was conducted, and is continually changing.

FINDINGS Although very different in scope, many of the stakeholders had common ideas and objectives for the Site. These themes can be organized under a few broad categories: • • • •

Affordability Collaboration Public Access Heritage

Affordability A theme that remained constant throughout many of the interviews was “affordability.” The phrase “affordable housing” was used over six times in a single interview, along with the words “affordable” and “affordability.” Affordability was emphasized by the community and governmental organizations alike. Within the context of an intensely urbanizing city where unaffordable housing, homelessness and increasing gentrification have become endemic, ensuring that the housing designed for the Site is affordable has become one the primary goals for this project. Affordability does not just provide benefits for residents but also those who are involved in the planning and development of the units.

Collaboration The words community, collaboration and inclusivity were used throughout many of these interviews. The community is the cornerstone for the development of this Site. In cultivating the vision of Development without Displacement, the importance of creating a community that is inclusive and collaborative is prioritized. However, collaboration also highlights the importance of creating sustainable ties between and within governmental organizations and the community in which the Site is located and will serve. Public Access Many stakeholders have identified the importance of ensuring the Site contains adequate public space which the area is currently lacking. Hinging on the theme of inclusivity, more high quality public space will allow for community members to claim a stake on the Site. In addition to public space and public realm that serves residents, all areas of the Site must be accessible and inviting to visitors. Governmental organizations have stressed that the Site incorporates commercial spaces accessible to the larger city to ensure revenue that is necessary for the upkeep of the Site. Heritage Another recurring theme was heritage and heritage interpretation. Due to the unique history of the Site and informed by the HIS, heritage preservation and interpretation were identified as key priorities prior to the interview stage. Stakeholders desire that heritage is presented through both physical design and social programming in a way that is innovative. The use of technology by way of digitization was suggested for a modern take on heritage interpretation. Interviewees also provided key insight into planning tools, best practices, and individual needs that the Team has woven into the final design for First Parliament Site.

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Through analysis of existing governing policies and master plans, and interviews with stakeholders, the following key requirements for the First Parliament Site’s development emerged:

I N T E R P R E T H E R I TA G E WITHOUT PHYSICAL REMAINS

INCREASE ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACE

The Site has played a vital role in the development of Upper Canada and Toronto, and the public needs to be reconnected to its forgotten stories and narratives. Unlike many historic Sites however, First Parliament Site cannot rely on physical artifacts or remains of buildings to relay its stories. The HIS has made it clear that what few artifacts were found on the Site are in fragile condition and cannot be removed for interpretation purposes. The southern portion of the Site also contains highly contaminated soil, meaning excavation will not be possible without extensive soil remediation that would disrupt any archeological evidence. Thus, the design solution requires innovative and nuanced methods of heritage interpretation.

Though there are currently plans to revitalize David Crombie Park and better connect the surrounding green spaces, the concurrent King-Parliament Secondary Plan will put pressure on that project to equitably serve a community in what will become an increasingly mixed-use neighbourhood. These two plans are currently working in their independent silos - the David Crombie Park Revitalization is overseen by Parks, Recreation and Forestry while the King-Parliament Secondary Plan is led by City Planning. With the new condos being built in the area, quality public space that allows communities to remain in place will become ever more crucial moving forward.

PRESERVE AND UNLOCK ECONOMIC POTENTIAL The Site currently generates revenue through surface parking, a car wash, car rental, and car dealership. At minimum, the proposed plan will have to replace the revenue that is currently generated by the Site. However, given the Site’s environmental contamination and lack of funds for open park space, the proposal must include enough new revenue generating structures to support some of its social uses and maintain longterm vitality.

M I T I G AT E G E N T R I F I C AT I O N The First Parliament Site is located between the tourist-heavy St Lawrence Market and Distillery District, and will itself ideally also attract many visitors. Coupled with the rapid intensification of the neighbourhood and proposed densification of the Site, it is vital that the current local residents are able to maintain a sense of belonging and community without feeling displaced or at odds with visitors and tourists.

To address these issues the Team has generated a solution framework that focuses on Development without Displacement. A framework that promotes community, protects heritage, and preserves capital.

DESIGN PROCESS The Team used an iterative design process to create the final First Parliament Site concept. Using literature review and Site analysis, the Team developed three function-specific design alternatives which were then refined in consultation with key stakeholders. Each alternative prioritized one of the key design priorities derived from the initial research, with heritage interpretation centered throughout all three. Taking this divergent approach allowed for deeper engagement with each design priority and its best practices while centreing the historic significance of the Site. The following are brief overviews of each design alternative, the Connective Node, the Cultural Tourism Hub, and the Community Hub. See Appendix B for a detailed description of the case studies that informed these models.

ALTERNATIVES CONNECTIVE NODE This alternative focused on addressing the need for increased access to public space by utilizing the Site as a connective node in the neighbourhood. By allowing the adjacent uses of parks, theatres, and community services to bleed into the Site, it helped stitch together the local region. This alternative emphasized spatial configuration over creating an abundance of programming to encourage casual access by visitors without turning it into a spectacle or destination like the Distillery District. Making the Site a passive, unmediated connective node would allow for spontaneous and dynamic encounters with the Site’s heritage and histories through physical markers, art installations, digital media and more. Programmatic elements would remain sparse, and any active programming on the Site would be directly supporting and supplementing existing neighbouring uses.

C U LT U R A L T O U R I S M H U B This alternative focused on addressing the need for preserving the Site’s economic potential. This model was based on two interrelated pillars: cultural tourism and economic growth. Tourism provides endless opportunities to learn about the way other people live, about their society and their traditions. Cultural tourism is specifically linked with experiential learning (Richards, 2008), which includes heritage and arts education, events and festivals, and ethno-religious tourism. Tourists and local visitors drawn to the area by attractions and events contribute to the economy of the area through spending. As a global city, Toronto needs to maintain the interest of local residents and the working class. Toronto’s diverse and globally connected talent pool of skilled, highly-educated and culturally savvy individuals is

the driving force behind its economic prosperity and innovation (City of Toronto, 2020).This creative class is attracted to the city’s cultural depth, and continues to drive the city’s productive output and global inference. Using the First Parliament Site to enhance the city’s heritage and creative richness would improve the economic vitality of the city and help Toronto shine as an attractive place to live, work, and play.

COMMUNITY HUB This alternative focused on addressing the need for mitigating gentrification. This design sought to empower community members and transform the First Parliament Site into one focused on community development and long-term social cohesion. Through participatory processes and co-design, local residents would be engaged every step of the way to build a space that is dynamic, inclusive, and healthy both socially and physically (Calvo & De Rosa, 2018). First Parliament Site would become a space where community members can create new meanings and renegotiate old ones, connect people back to one another and ultimately, back to the land they live, work and play on (Friedmann, 2010). Since there are no meaningful archeological remains on the Site, creating strong and enduring communities through shared institutions is fundamental to (re)defining the heritage significance of the Site. A library and the addition of green space would have served as the focal points of this development.

DECISION MATRIX By assessing the costs and benefits of the divergent alternatives, the limitations of each function-specific model became apparent. While the connective node lent itself to improving the quality of public life and cohesion of the neighbourhood with little potential for displacement, it did not generate any revenue to maintain itself. Similarly, the Community Hub Model actively mitigated displacement and may have had access to small scale grants for community led programming, but its long-term feasibility and startup costs were tenuous. Conversely, the Cultural Tourism Model addressed concerns of revenue generation through private-public partnerships and

Requirement

commercial rentals, however, posed greater risk of displacement to current residents. To negotiate the limiting factors present in each model, the Team proposed a 4th and final model: The Innovative Mixed-Use Model. This model proposes a multi-layered and intersecting approach. The alternatives are all valid in their own right, but require support from each other in order to create a cohesive and feasible overall picture of what development on the First Parliament Site should look like.

Weight

Design Alternative Connective Node

Cultural Tourism Hub

Community Hub

Heritage Interpretation

2.00

Increase Public Space

1.25

Economic Potential

1.25

Mitigate Gentrification

1.50

Final Weight

32.75

34.5

44.5

Each model is evaluated on a sliding scale from 1-10 in terms of their satisfaction of each requirement. This decision matrix was completed using interviews with stakeholders, and secondary research.

FINAL PROPOSAL The selected final concept is a mixed-use development with Heritage Interpretation at its core, clearly demonstrating the overlapping layers of history present in The First Parliament Site. The Site is divided into four Zones, each derived from an earlier design alternative: the Opportunity Zone, Community Zone, Park Zone, and Heritage Spine. Each Zone focuses on a unique function, while connecting to and supporting its neighbouring Zones.

OPPORTUNITY ZONE

PA RK ZONE

COMMUNITY ZONE

H E R I TA G E S P I N E

OPPORTUNITY ZONE The Opportunity Zone is located in the north-west corner of the First Parliament Site at 265 Front St. E and is approximately 3300m2. This portion of the Site is currently owned by the Province of Ontario and is occupied by a car rental and car dealership. The Zone is divided into three components: a 2-storey Market Hall, 25-storey Residential Tower, and a proposed Ontario Line Station. The bulk of the Site’s annual revenue is generated on these premises.

DESIGN The mixed-use complex consists of a 25-storey tower with a shared 3-storey podium. The 2-storey, 5128m2 Market Hall occupies the bulk of the podium with entrances on Front St. E and the Heritage Spine. The podium also houses the 296m2 ground floor footprint of Ontario Line Station street entrance on Front St. E, one residential floor, and the Residential Tower lobby with an entrance on Berkeley St. The Residential Tower sits on the north end of the Zone and overlooks the podium rooftop garden.

Market Hall

The podium features exterior wood finishes, and a heavy emphasis on transparency and glazing for winter-proofing the Market Hall without disconnecting it from the public realm. The station entrance to the north of the Zone is directly accessible from the residential lobby and Market Hall. Market Hall The 2-storey Market Hall is located in the podium of the mixed-use building and has space for 25 food and beverage retailers, each in an individual ghost kitchen. The concept was inspired by the Markethal in Rotterdam, Hawker Centres in Singapore, Portland Mercado in Portland, and Scadding Court Community Centre’s Market 707 in Toronto [See Appendix C]. The ghost kitchen model allows restaurant owners to rent a kitchen and stall from the Market Hall facility. These kitchens are a lower cost alternative to fixed location restaurants with punishingly high start-up costs, thus lowering the barrier for many would-be restaurateurs (Obando, 2020). While the ghost kitchens themselves do not have seating and are tailored to take-out or delivery only, there is ample common indoor and outdoor seating provided in the Market Hall and adjoining Heritage Spine. The flexible and collective format of the Market Hall will allow it to house food festivals and events that celebrate diverse foodways throughout all four seasons of the year, both indoor and out.

Residential Tower 1

The Market Hall also offers a large commercial kitchen that is bookable for community groups, Station Entrance

small businesses, and internal restaurant staff. This kitchen is large enough to handle catering and event orders, group cooking classes, and large scale food preparation. There is great potential for this kitchen to support programming in the Community Garden and Community Centre within the neighbouring Community Zone. The commercial kitchen will also support an incubator program for food and beverage startups based out of the Market Hall once operational. Located in the heart of a growing and highly sought after community in Toronto, the incubator will create jobs over the long-term by providing the resources and teaching the skills small businesses need to become financially sustainable. The incubator program will have access to a sustainable urban agricultural garden on the roof of the podium. Residential Tower 1 The first of two residential towers, this 25-storey structure occupies the third storey of the podium and sits on the north end of the mixed-use complex. It has a separate ground floor lobby and entrance to Berkeley St. The tower contains approximately 250 rental units, 40% of which are at 80% Average Market Rent (AMR) and a further 10% of which are at 40% AMR. Ideally, this is facilitated through the Housing Now initiative. See the Housing section for further detail on housing type and amenities. Ontario Line Station Metrolinx is planning to build a new Ontario Line station by the Site. This Concept Proposal places that subway entrance at the north-west corner of the Site. While the placement of this station has created complications in terms of land ownership and project timeline, the proximity of this station to the proposed developments creates numerous benefits upon completion. As a transit hub and key node in the network, the station will increase accessibility to the Site for both residents and visitors. This not only increases foot-traffic through the Market Hall but also reduces the need for parking space. While one level of parking is built into the Community Zone concept as a potential source of revenue and residential amenity, this feature is optional due to

underground tunneling and soil remediation issues. It is important to re-evaluate the parking situation as the Metrolinx situation unfolds and as Toronto moves away from automobile reliance and towards quality active and public transit. The location of the station in proximity to the Opportunity Zone development may also create channels for dialogue with the Province for expedited development, as per the Provincial Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Plan, part of the New Subway Transit Plan for the GTA.

R AT I O N A L E The Opportunity Zone is designed to attract economic activity and vitality to the Site and surrounding neighbourhood. The front entrance for both the Ontario Line station and the new Market Hall are on Front St. E., with an additional entrance for the latter opening onto the Heritage Spine. This satisfies the planning principles for intensification and strong address along Front St. E at the north end of the Site [See Appendix A]. The Opportunity Zone is derived from the Cultural Tourism Hub model put forward as an early stage design alternative. The Cultural Tourism Hub was explicitly focused on using Toronto’s position as a global city to attract and capture tourism revenue through cultural events and learning opportunities. The Team ultimately ruled this alternative out in favour of more balanced programming that prioritizes local residents. As part of this mission, the Opportunity Zone not only attracts visitor capital, but also creates jobs and supports Toronto’s small business ecosystem. The decision to place the Opportunity Zone in the north-west corner of the Site is a result of key stakeholder feedback. The Ontario Heritage Trust is the current landowner of 265 Front St. E., where the car dealership and parking lot CP268 provide them a steady stream of rent and parking revenue. Stakeholders expressed a need to preserve their revenue in the new development to help support the Ontario Heritage Trust’s non-profit mission. The Team calculates the Opportunity Zone provides the greatest revenue of the four Zones due to the rent received from both commercial and residential leases within the mixed-use complex. This more

than replaces existing revenue streams from the land. In line with Ontario-wide COVID-19 recovery priorities outlined in the 2021 Ontario Budget, the Team anticipates that economic priorities over the next ten years will be focused on rebuilding sectors hardest hit over the past two years: small businesses, tourism, and employment. Similar priorities were echoed in conversations with City and neighbourhood stakeholders. As the heart of historical Toronto, the Site can expect to attract a depth and breadth of visitors on a daily basis with active and passive heritage programming. The food and business retailers and transient foodway programming compliment heritage programming by providing service and additional amenities: simply put, another reason to visit and stay longer.

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N The City can use an RFP process to find developers for the mixed-use complex. Housing Now is an ideal program through which to facilitate the development with its mandate to work within mixed-income, mixed-use, and transit-oriented communities. See the Housing section for more detail on the operational model. The Opportunity Zone can leverage third party nonprofit expertise to operate food retailing for social good. Precedents exist in the Portland Mercado [See Appendix C]. As the operator, the third party will be responsible for programming in the main market, the commercial kitchen, and the incubator space. Programming can extend to include partnerships with the community garden in the neighbouring Community Zone, or outdoor activities along the Heritage Spine. The Market Hall can work in conjunction with the St. Lawrence BIA to host these cultural events and festivals. Market Place spaces can be leased out to individual businesses if necessary. This reduces the social benefit but maintains revenue streams. All lands remain publicly owned, as development and operating partners enter into a long-term lease with the City and Province.

COMMUNITY ZONE The Community Zone is located in the north-east corner of the Site at 271 Front St. E. and is approximately 3577m2. This portion of the Site is currently owned by the City of Toronto and houses a car wash and a parking lot operated by the Toronto Parking Authority. The Zone is divided into four sections: a 2-storey Library and Community Centre, a 25-storey Residential Tower, and a single level of underground parking.

DESIGN This mixed-use complex consists of a 2 storey podium, a 25 storey tower, and a single level of underground parking. The podium is shared by the 2323 m2 St Lawrence District Library at the north end facing out onto Front St. E., and a 2000 m2 Community Centre space on the south end facing opening onto Parliament St. and the Park Zone. Between the district library and the Community Centre, there is a transition space that houses joint services. The second storey of the Community Centre is occupied largely by a community garden. Below the podium, the underground parking garage contains approximately 76 spaces and is accessible from Parliament St. and the Residential Tower. The Tower is situated towards the north of the Zone above the library, and overlooks the podium rooftop garden. The lobby of the residential tower is in the north-east corner of the Zone, opening onto Front St. E. The podium design features brick as the main material used throughout to create cohesion with the surrounding urban realm and pay homage to the Consumer’s Gas industrial buildings previously located here.

District Library

Community Centre

District Library The current Toronto Public Library - St Lawrence Branch currently sits at 171 Front St E. Though it has served the St. Lawrence community for decades, this small branch can no longer adequately cater to the needs of this neighbourhood’s diverse and growing population. As such, a replacement district library that better serves these needs has already been approved for the Site.

Parking

The library revolutionizes the Toronto Public Library’s (TPL) relationship with digital media. Better utilizing digital media is vital for the TPL after the COVID-19 pandemic disruption to its operations, and the increasing importance of connecting online. As a flexible hub space, the library is an open concept design with lounge and step form seating and reading pods that provide users with private work space. To increase digital Residential Tower 2

literacy and access, this library contains a Digital Hub equipped with whiteboards, computers and tablets for common use. The Hub provides all users with free access to Wi-Fi and outlets for electronic devices. The library retains typical features such as physical stacks, access to workstations, reading areas and meeting rooms. In recognition of the Site’s history, a section of the library is devoted to heritage interpretation through a Heritage Interpretation Centre. This allows community members and visitors alike to learn about the history of the Site without physical artifacts. It features headphone story pods where users are invited to hear stories about the Site’s history. Sitting between the Library and Community Centre is an open-air storytelling garden with a variety of local flora, encircled with glass and visible from both sides. When not in use for the TPL’s storytelling programs, this garden serves as a quiet meditative space. Community Centre The Zone features a Community Centre to promote the development of a strong, healthy community. This community-oriented space provides social services catered to the growing St. Lawrence population through a neighbourhood resource centre. Services include: immigrant services, employment services, medical services, and childcare. On the second floor, a flexible community space with public access to Wi-Fi and outlets are implemented. This space is meant to be a ‘not quiet’ area for community members to gather, work, or relax in the company of neighbours and friends. The second floor Community Garden serves as an educational space where community members can learn about the ecological heritage of the Site in interactive ways, and learn about traditional and innovative urban agriculture methods such as Indigenous cultivation and harvesting techniques. The utility of the community garden is wellestablished in Toronto (Wakefield et al, 2007). Community gardens increase physical activity which is integral to the maintenance of physical

health and has positive impacts for mental health outcomes. In addition, it is a space for residents of the surrounding areas to collaborate, build a sense of community, and belonging [See Appendix D]. This is an important avenue for community-building after the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the community cafe utilizes the produce grown in the community garden, producing a stream of revenue and creating job and volunteer opportunities for community members. Parking While public transit is accessible on this Site, there may be some residents and visitors who require space to safely park a personal vehicle. This optional parking lot bolsters the theme of Development without Displacement by facilitating the creation of community through multi-modal accessibility. Residential Tower 2 The second of the two residential towers, this 25-storey structure has a separate ground floor lobby and entrance to Front St. E. The tower contains approximately 250 rental units, 40% of which are at 80% AMR and a further 10% of which are at 40% AMR. Ideally, this is facilitated through the Housing Now initiative. See the Housing section for further detail on housing type and amenities.

R AT I O N A L E The Community Zone was adapted from the earlier Community Hub design alternative, with careful consideration of the HIS and community feedback. Like the Community Hub, the Community Zone is premised on the theme of Development without Displacement. Since this Zone is ultimately for the community, its design and programming has been curated to avoid the displacement of current and future residents. This design helps to redefine the car-centred current Site by transforming it into a dynamic and interactive social space. This design prioritizes the needs of residents, and ensures that those who utilize it the most, have a safe and healthy space not only to build meaningful social ties with neighbours and friends but to build connections to the land and its history. Since there are no viable

physical remains on the Site, creating strong and sustainable communities is vital to (re)defining the significance of the Site and creating new narratives.

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N Currently, the new TPL District Library is the only use already approved for the Site. The storytelling garden within it can be co-designed with local Indigenous communities, emulating programs such as the AGO’s Night of Indigenous Storytelling Program (Art Gallery of Ontario, 2018). TPL also needs a partner to fund the initiatives of the Digital Hub to provide computers, tablets, and other learning and flexible workspace tools. The City can use an RFP process to find developers for the remainder of the mixed-use complex. The Community Zone can leverage third party non-profit expertise to operate the Community Hub based on precedents such as Daniels Spectrum and Artscape Wychwood Barns. Potential operators may include non-profit community-based organizations such as the Boys and Girls Club, or Tropicana Community Services. The underground parking lot can be operated by the Toronto Parking Authority. All lands remain publicly owned, as development and operating partners enter into a long-term lease with the City.

PARK ZONE The Park is located on the south side of the First Parliament Site at 44 Parliament St. and the south section of 25 Berkeley St. It is approximately 5000m2. This portion of the Site is currently owned by the City of Toronto and is being used as a parking lot by the Toronto Parking Authority.

DESIGN Situating the Park Zone at the south of the Site creates easy pathways to David Crombie Park, First Parliament Square and Distillery District. On the south-west corner of the Site, a water feature commemorates the original shoreline in Toronto. The water feature is designed for all-seasons, transitioning between a wading pool in the summer and an ice rink in the winter. A stage is built into the water feature for outdoor performances. On the south-east side of the Site as well as north of the water feature, minimalist play structures in the form of tires and logs are integrated with green space to create a flexible space oriented towards people of all ages. Lastly, various mural walls placed around the water feature and playspace promote community, giving residents a space to create and commission public art that speaks to their lived experiences. The materials used in this Zone correspond with its minimalist design. Playspaces and structures are built out of wood, mulch, and grass. The mural structures placed around the Site are concrete panels as they are durable and easily replaced.

Mural Walls

Ice Rink/Splash Pad

Mural Walls Flat, vertical structures placed around the water feature create space for local artists and community members to engage in mural making. By opting for multiple small disconnected walls rather than a single large wall, public art is democratized by creating a safe space for multiple stories and perspectives to be displayed. Viewers and users in the water feature maintain a clear sightline of the Park from between each mural wall. Artists from the community are invited to interpret the Site’s rich history, creating new narratives through murals on these walls and allowing residents to feel that they have been able to physically leave a mark on the Site. Creative placemaking allows residents to participate in beautifying and (re)defining their neighbourhood through creative expressions (Schupbach & Ball, 2016). Since there are no meaningful archeological remains on the Site, creating strong and enduring communities through shared institutions is fundamental to (re)defining the heritage significance of the Site.

Stage

Playspaces

Water Feature The Zone contains a family-oriented water feature designed for all-season use that doubles as a splash pad in warmer seasons and an ice rink in the winter. Water is of particular importance to the heritage of the Site as the original shoreline of Lake Ontario ran through the First Parliament Site. The design incorporates a symbolic connection to the water in recognition of this history and the history of the larger Toronto lakeshore. Along with protecting heritage, this feature helps promote community by localizing community access to water and skating amenities. Stage To complement the versatile water feature, a builtin stage is incorporated to provide entertainment during the warmer months. The stage promotes local artists and artistry from the community and beyond by hosting accessible and inclusive events for all. Numerous stakeholders and research suggest there is a growing demand for performance spaces within the city. Finding venues to hold performances in the downtown core can be cost prohibitive for developing artists and community groups (Toronto Music Strategy, 2016). These spaces need to be available throughout the city to support the local communities of artists. This stage aims to be an easily accessible, low cost space for residents to host music festivals and standalone performances while also encouraging community engagement. It also creates possibilities for future collaborations with neighbouring theatres to host open air performances.

and spontaneous social interaction, fostering social bonds through physical infrastructure that ultimately builds community.

R AT I O N A L E The Park Zone satisfies the need for public green space while acting as a connective node by stitching together the surrounding network of parks, theatres, and entertainment sites in the larger neighbourhood. In doing so, the Park Zone creates throughways between landmarks and open spaces that naturally guide visitors to David Crombie Park and Distillery District. The Park Zone emphasizes spatial configuration over active programming, in an attempt to encourage casual access by visitors and residents. Incorporating a passive, unmediated connective node allows for spontaneous and dynamic encounters with the Site’s heritage and histories through physical markers, art installations, and digital media (Faye & Le Fur, 2012). The Park Zone derives aspects from both the Connective Node and Community Hub models established during earlier design alternatives. Through community-oriented design, this Zone aims to innovate while keeping current and future residents, opportunities, and communities in place. As established through the design process “place” is more than just a physical space: it is produced by complex social and psychological processes. Through a participatory process, local residents work alongside planners to build a personalized space that is dynamic, inclusive, and healthy both socially and physically. By including residents in the design process, spaces are created that cater directly to neighborhood needs.

Playspaces and Green Space

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Minimalist play structures and greenspaces create spaces meant for work, play, and leisure. Naturalistic play structures for children are incorporated within the greenspace. This casual space incorporates flexibility within the area, allowing residents to use the space as they please. The minimalist design is accessible for all individuals without restricting its use. Individuals can connect in this strategically designed space for both organized

This area of the Site will ideally be owned and managed by the Parks, Forestry and Recreation division of the City. While there is a current backlog in the pipeline for new park developments, the David Crombie Park Revitalization presents an opportunity for integrated redevelopment. Partnerships with third parties can also be made in the future to manage stage programming and outdoor events.

HERITAGE SPINE The Heritage Spine runs through the centre of the First Parliament Site connecting all the other Zones. It is located on 271 Front St. E. and 25 Berkeley St., and is approximately 1300m2. This portion of the Site is currently used as a car wash and parking lot. The Heritage Spine is a covered outdoor space for all-season activities that celebrate the Site’s history from Indigenous occupation to the present day.

DESIGN The Heritage Spine is a 15x80m rectilinear corridor running north-south along the First Parliament Site. It is a largely open space with minimal built structures to maintain clear sightlines and pedestrian access. The Heritage Spine is centrally located on the Site, both as a means of connection between the Zones, but also because a majority of the Site’s historic uses are at least partially located within this central space. Key elements include: a timber canopy, busking stations, access to the Market Hall, and a Heritage Walk that takes users on a multi-sensory stroll through the Site’s history using interactive QR codes, plaques, and interpretive seating. The use of timber for the canopy covering the Heritage Spine connects the Site to the region’s local materials. Along the western edge, where the Heritage Spine connects to the Market Hall, there is a row of ghost kitchens that open into the Heritage Spine. The Heritage Spine feeds directly into Front St. E., which maximizes the Opportunity Zone’s connection to the public realm and the ability of the outward facing ghost kitchens to engage delivery services. Opposite the Market Hall, along the eastern edge of the Heritage Spine and connected to the Community Zone, are three small busking platforms which can be used freely by performers with permits. Distributed along the centre of the Heritage Spine is the Heritage Walk. A collection of interpretive tools, the Heritage Walk consists of block seating that outlines the footprints of the Site’s previous buildings. These seats are coupled with small plaques and QR codes that indicate to visitors what once existed where they are seated.

Timber Canopy

Busking Station

Embedded QR Code

Heritage Walk The Heritage Walk is the main feature of the Heritage Spine. As part of the Site’s passive and intangible heritage interpretation strategy, the Heritage Walk consists of interpretive benches with associated QR codes and plaques embedded into the ground which can be used on walking tours Interpretive Benches

as tools for interpretation. The benches outline the estimated footprints of the previous historic buildings on the Site, so visitors are passively engaged even if they are not actively seeking a tour of the Site’s history. The QR codes are a prime opportunity to engage local artists for virtual reality and digital media that narrate the stories that once took place throughout the Site. Each plaque heading in a north to south direction references a progressively older use of the Site, such that visitors enter the Site from Front St. E. and walk back through the Site’s history. Busking Stations The three busking stations along the eastern edge of the Heritage Spine mirror the use of the large stage in the Park Zone. These small platforms distribute and democratize the use of the First Parliament Site as a space of music and culture. They ensure that the Site remains active and engages visitors through sound even when the stage in the Park Zone is not being used for large, organized performances. Buskers are incentivized to use the space as the Heritage Spine sees a majority of the Site’s footfall, since it connects to the Market Hall and feeds directly into Front St. E. Market Stalls The eastern edge of the Market Hall in the Opportunity Zone contains kitchens that open outwards into the Heritage Spine. This blurs the boundary between the Opportunity Zone, the Heritage Spine, and the Community Zone on the other side. Similarly, this allows a portion of the Opportunity Zone to connect with the pedestrian heavy public realm and gain easy access to the footfall that the other Zones on the Site attract. Canopy The Timber Canopy provides the Heritage Spine with protection from rain and snow to facilitate an all-season outdoor space on the Site. This is in response to the need for winterproof outdoor spaces that has become apparent throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and ensures that the Site and its programming remain resilient and adaptive for the future.

R AT I O N A L E Due to the Site’s historic and archaeological significance as recognized by the Province of Ontario and City of Toronto (Heritage Interpretation Strategy, 2020), it is vital that there is space on the Site dedicated towards heritage interpretation. The Heritage Spine is designed as a space of connection and gathering, linking all of the Site’s different Zones and uses together. This ensures that while the Site generates revenue and fosters community, heritage interpretation is always central to its role. Much of the Site’s history has been forgotten by the public, and the Heritage Spine ensures that these stories can be remembered and passed down through future generations of Torontonians. The Heritage Spine allows the Site’s features, uses, and programs to bolster and support one another. This is accomplished not only through the Heritage Spine’s central placement, but by actively mirroring the uses present throughout the Zones. In essence, the Heritage Spine is intended to blur the line between the Zones both spatially and programmatically. The Heritage Spine supports the other Zones on the Site by lending them a sense of cohesion. The other Zones support the Heritage Spine in turn. Unable to rely on an adaptive reuse model for heritage interpretation due to the lack of physical remains, the Heritage Spine features passive and intangible programming (Janssen et al., 2017). By connecting the Heritage Spine to the other Zones, all of the Site’s uses are tied back to a heritage programming strategy that is otherwise difficult to make visible and attractive. Thus, the Heritage Spine is key to the First Parliament Site’s success as a mixed-use development, ensuring that the various uses are interconnected and mutually beneficial rather than disparate and in competition. While the Opportunity Zone, Community Zone, and Park Zone each reference one of the FPS Team’s earlier design alternatives, the Cultural Tourism Hub, Community Hub, and Connective Node respectively, the Heritage Spine is a direct result of combining the previous design alternatives.

Each of the previous design alternatives was generated within the framework of Development without Displacement and the Heritage Spine fully embodies this principle, focusing on keeping the Site’s heritage and stories intact.

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N The Heritage Spine will ideally be owned and operated by the City of Toronto through the Parks, Forestry, and Recreation Division in conjunction with the Park Zone. Maintaining public ownership of the Heritage Spine lands is important as the Site’s history is tied to narratives of democracy and public governance. If it is not feasible for the Parks, Forestry, and Recreation Division to operate and maintain this space, the Heritage Spine can be absorbed into the Opportunity Zone, and be retained as a portion of the Ontario Heritage Trust’s portfolio.

HOUSING STRATEGY The First Parliament Housing Strategy includes plans for two 25-storey residential towers. Tower 1 is approximately 23,157m2, located in the Opportunity Zone with a ground floor lobby that opens onto Berkeley St. Tower 2 is approximately 20,534m2, located in the Community Zone with a ground floor lobby that opens onto Front St. Each tower contains approximately 250 units to a total of 500 units across the First Parliament Site. The Housing Strategy will ideally be implemented through the Housing Now initiative at CreateTO. The program prioritizes redeveloping underused, publicly owned lands into “affordable housing within mixed-income, mixed-use, transit-oriented communities” (City of Toronto, 2021). Over the first two phases of the initiative, seventeen sites have already been Council approved for redevelopment in the coming years. Housing Now leverages crosssector partnerships to provide affordable housing by entering into a 99-year lease and contract with a partner(s) to develop and operate the building. Developers do not need to pay the cost of the land entitlement upfront, meaning the value of the land can be used to build affordable units. Housing Now also expedites the zoning amendment process, effectively de-risking the process for the developer. The Housing Now model stipulates that at least: • 40% of units must be at 80% AMR • 10% of units must be at 40% AMR • The remaining units are offered at market rent Using these figures, the units can be broken down by affordability as follows: • 200/500 units at 80% AMR • 50/500 units at 40% AMR • 250/500 units at market rent

City Council has put aside a $1 million to support non-profits and co-operatives engage with the Housing Now initiative through the Non-profit Housing Capacity Fund (City of Toronto, 2021). The first iteration of the Team’s Housing Strategy was a plan for either supportive housing operated by a mission driven non-profit - specifically around Indigenous or senior housing - or a co-operative model that stressed co-ownership and rent geared to income. A modified version of these plans could feasibly be realized through the Housing Now model. An RFP will be sent out to find a development partner, non-profit or otherwise. Another document which governs the Housing Plan is the Affordable Housing Design Guidelines published by the City of Toronto Affordable Housing Office in 2015. Using the unit mix guidelines published, the units are divided as follows: • • • •

40% of units should contain 1 bedroom 40% of units should contain 2 bedroom 15% of units should contain 3 bedrooms 5% of units should contain 4 bedrooms

Based on the assumption that 50% (250) of units are affordable, the units can be divided as follows: • • • •

100/250 units with 1 bedroom 100/250 units with 2 bedrooms 38/250 units with 3 bedrooms 12/250 units with 4 bedrooms

OPEN & GREEN SPACE STRATEGY To balance the need for increased open and green space in the First Parliament Site’s rapidly intensifying local region, and the current lack of public funds and backlogged pipeline for new park developments, a tiered open space strategy is proposed. Open spaces are distributed throughout the site and range from private and semi-private to semi-public and public. Each section of open or green space is also designed specifically to fill at least one of the four key design requirements of Heritage Interpretation, Increase Access to Public Space, Preserve and Unlock Economic Potential, and Mitigate Gentrification.

SEMI-PUBLIC Storytelling Garden

P R I VAT E

Owned and maintained by the TPL, the storytelling garden is used for the library’s outdoor storytelling programming, or simply a quiet meditative space to read. This space should be co-designed with indigenous groups to understand and learn from indigenous oral traditions.

Rooftop Garden + Patios

PUBLIC

Both of the residential towers feature private balconies, and a rooftop garden or patio space for use by residents.

Heritage Spine

Market Hall The Market Hall is able to house a small space for experimental indoor agriculture to promote fresh, local, and innovative produce. This space is only accessible to the Market Hall operators, ghost kitchen tenants, and incubated businesses.

S E M I - P R I VAT E Community Garden The second floor of the Community Centre hosts a community garden to be privately owned and operated by a non-profit partner. It serves as an educational space where community members can learn about the ecological heritage of the Site in interactive ways, and learn about traditional and innovative urban agriculture methods such as

Indigenous cultivation and harvesting techniques. This space allows the local community to foster a sense of belonging to the Site amidst an otherwise tourist heavy region.

The Heritage Spine is ideally a fully public space, however it may also be semi-public if absorbed into the Province of Ontario’s north-western subplot and operated through a non-profit partnership. This space focuses on heritage interpretation and increases access to open space for the intensifying neighbourhood. Park Zone The Park Zone, which is operated by the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division of the City of Toronto, is a fully public space. It bolsters the region’s need for increased public space, provides heritage interpretation through the water feature referencing Toronto’s original shoreline, and promotes partnerships with the surrounding arts and theatre companies through the stage for open air performances. The mural walls in this Zone also allow the local community to make their voices heard through a democratization of public art.

Park Zone

Community Garden

Market Hall

Storytelling Garden

Heritage Spine

Rooftop Garden + Patios

Parliament Square Park

COST ANALYSIS The Team has prepared a rough estimate of the cost to develop the Site using a developer pro forma template. Explanatory notes and assumptions listed below. Some costs are not included or calculated due to variability of market or lack of information.

PRO FORMA DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES Opportunity Zone Total

125,533,283

Land Acquisition (Note 1)

Development charges: Residential (Note 2)

5,500,625

Development charges: Non-Residential (Note 2)

1,213,487

Fee: Community Planning Applications (Note 3)

161,030

Construction: Residential (Note 4)

68,546,465

Construction: Market Hall (Note 5)

50,000,000

Building Permits and other Soft Costs (Note 6)

111,676

Community Zone Total

81,199,468

Land Acquisition

Development charges: Residential

5,500,625

Development charges: Non-Residential

1,085,005

Fee: Community Planning Applications

158,429

Construction: Residential

60,782,187

Construction: Library (Note 7)

21, 250,000

Construction: Community Hub (Note 4)

9,041,684

Construction: Underground Parking (Note 4)

4,481,339

Building Permits and other Soft Costs

150,199

Park Zone Total

5,625,199

Land Acquisition

Fee: Community Planning Applications

Construction (Note 8)

5,625,000

Building Permits and other Soft Costs

199

Heritage Spine Total

1,462,699

Land Acquisition

Construction (Note 8)

1,462,500

Outdoor Furnishing (Note 10)

N/A

Building Permits and other Soft Costs

199

Demolition (Note 9)

2,192

Soil Remediation (Note 10)

N/A

Site Wide

T O TA L E X P E N S E S

213 , 8 2 0, 2 51 39

PRO FORMA NOTES NOTE 1

All lands are publically owned by the City of Toronto or Ontario Heritage Trust. No land title transactions.

NOTE 2

Residential: Development Charges and building permit fees waived for affordable Housing Now units as per City Council authorization. Figures are thus based solely on the 50% market units. 40% single bed apartment; 60% 2+ bed apartment Non-Residential: Charged based of GFA on Ground Floor Data taken from BY-LAW 515-2018 and associated rates

NOTE 3

Assuming Zoning Amendment is waived. Site Control calculated using Schedule 4.3 of the 2021 Development Approval Forms

NOTE 4

Figure estimated from the Altus Group 2020 Canadian Cost Guide Upper range of figures was used

NOTE 5

Market Hall cost based on cost per m2 of St. Lawrence Market North development, minus parking

NOTE 6

Permit fees calculated according to information published on the City of Toronto Building Permit Fees webpage

NOTE 7

Figure taken from consultation with TPL stakeholders

NOTE 8

Calculations for the Park and Heritage Spine based off cost per m2 of the Berczy Park revitalization, which cost $7.2 M total (Hume, 2017) for 6400m2 (Claude Cormier + Associates)

NOTE 9

Calculated at a rate of $0.16/m2, taken from information published on the City of Toronto Building Permit Fees webpage

N O T E 10

Costs for furniture procurement and soil remediation are context dependent.

SITE EXPENSE DISTRIBUTION H E R I TA G E S P I N E 0 .7 %

PA RK ZONE 2.6%

COMMUNITY ZONE 38.0%

OPPORTUNITY ZONE 5 8 .7 %

*Note: this chart is an estimate based on currently available data, and is subject to change

ANNUAL CASH FLOW RECURRENT EXPENSES Opportunity Zone

1,315,085

Operation: Property Management and Maintenance (Note 1)

420,669

Lease (Note 2)

894,416

Community Zone

420,669

Operation: Property Management and Maintenance

420,669

Lease

N/A

T O TA L E X P E N S E S

1,7 3 5 ,7 5 4

RECURRENT REVENUES Opportunity Zone Residential 1: Rent (Note 3)

4,206,686

Market Hall: Retail Space Rent (Note 4)

N/A

Community Zone

4,206,686

4,721,260

Residential 2: Rent

4,206,686

Underground Parking (Note 5)

514,573

T O TA L R E V E N U E S

8 , 9 2 7, 9 4 6

DIFFERENCE

7,1 9 2 ,1 9 2

CASH FLOW NOTES NOTE 1 Assuming 10% of monthly rent, based on market research

NOTE 2 Lease rents should be adjusted according to annual market rate Figures calculated with average commercial/retail market rates for Toronto Central published in the Toronto Real Estate Board Commercial Realty Watch

NOTE 3 Annual rent = 12 x Monthly rent Income calculated by assuming: • 40% units at 80% AMR (100/250) • 10% units at 40% AMR (25/250) • 50% at Market Rent (125/250) Assuming even distribution across: • 40% 1 bed apartment • 40% 2 bed apartment • 15% 3 bed apartment • 5% 4 bed apartment Monthly rent figures taken from Current City of Toronto Average Market Rents & Utility Allowances Unit numbers and composition taken from Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Indivisible goods (apartment no.) rounded to the nearest whole

NOTE 4 Limited data on industry rental rates. Highly variable based on expected visitor traffic, location, etc

NOTE 5 Current combined annual (assumed) revenue of $1.388 M from CP68 and CP233 (First Parliament Heritage Interpretation Strategy and Master Plan (DRAFT)) Current total of 205 parking spaces according to the Green P website, totalling an average revenue of $6,770.7/space Calculations done assuming 76 available parking spaces (Underground Parking garage will accommodate 65-87 parking spaces)

SPECIAL THANKS TO:

Project Client: SoMei Quan, Senior Development Planner, CreateTO Project Supervisor: Matti Siemiatycki, Associate Professor, Geography & Planning and Interim Director, School of Cities All the generous community and staff members who provided their valuable time and insight to help us complete this capstone project.

• • • • • • • • • •

City of Toronto, Economic Development and Culture Citizens for the Old Town CreateTO Housing Now Metrolinx Ontario Heritage Trust St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Toronto Public Library Waterfront Toronto West Don Lands Committee

And the School of Cities, Multidisciplinary Urban Capstone Project staff and faculty team.

References “The Distillery Historic District: About.” The Distillery District, The Distillery Historic District, 5 Aug. 2020, www.thedistillerydistrict.com/about/. Altus Group. (2020, November 18). 2020 Canadian Cost Guide - Our Commercial Real Estate Services: Altus Group. Retrieved from https://www.altusgroup.com/services/reports/2020canadian-cost-guide/ Art Gallery of Ontario. (2018, June 25). A night of Indigenous storytelling. Retrieved from https://ago.ca/agoinsider/night-indigenous-storytelling Bianchini, R. (2019, November 16). Tianjin Binhai Library by MVRDV. Iexthibit. Is this the library of the future?. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://www.inexhibit.com/casestudies/tianjin-binhai-library-by-mvrdv-is-this-the-library- of-the-future/ Carpark 233 – Green P Parking. (2021). Retrieved from https://parking.greenp.com/carpark/233_44-parliament-street/ Carpark 268 – Green P Parking. (2021). Retrieved from https://parking.greenp.com/carpark/268_271-front-street-east/ City of Toronto. (2015, January) Affordable Rental Housing Design Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/8fea-AFFORDABLE-HOUSING-DESIGNGUIDELINES.FINAL_.07.06.2017.pdf City of Toronto. (2015, June 1). Redevelopment of St. Lawrence Market North – Status Update. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-80888.pdf City of Toronto. (2017, October). Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan 2019-2038. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-107775.pdf

City of Toronto. (2017) Development Parameters for St. Lawrence Market North. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/871cnslm_development_parameters.pdf City of Toronto. (2018, April 17). By-law No. 515-2018, To amend City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 415, Development of Land, by re-enacting Article I, Development Charges. City of Toronto. (2018, January 29). Parks, Forestry & Recreation. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer- service/cityadministration/staff-directory-divisions-and-customer-service/parks-forestry- recreation/ City of Toronto. (2018, March 29). City Planning. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer-service/cityadministration/staff-directory-divisions-and-customer-service/city-planning/ City of Toronto. (2018, November 01). Development Charges Overview. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/budget-finances/city-finance/developmentcharges/development-charges-overview/ City of Toronto. (2018). 2016 Neighbourhood Profile - Waterfront Communities-The Island. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/ext/sdfa/Neighbourhood Profiles/pdf/2016/pdf1/cpa77.pdf City of Toronto. (2018). City of Toronto Ward Profiles - 2016 Census. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/8f4bCity_Planning_2016_Census_Profile_2018_25Wards_Ward13.pdf

City of Toronto. (2019, April 5). Redevelopment of St. Lawrence Market North – construction contract award and amendment to project capital budget. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/gl/bgrd/backgroundfile-131730.pdf City of Toronto. (2019, December 17). David Crombie Park Revitalization Design. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning- development/constructionnew-facilities/improvements-expansion-redevelopment/david- crombie-park-revitalizationdesign/ City of Toronto. (2019, December 31). Building Permit Fees. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/building-construction/apply-for-a-buildingpermit/building-permit-fees/ City of Toronto. (2019, July 17). Transportation Services. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer-service/cityadministration/staff-directory-divisions-and-customer-service/transportation-services/ City of Toronto. (2019, September). David Crombie Park Revitalization Design Workshop #3. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/8ff8-david-crombie-parkrevit-workshop-3-presentation.pdf City of Toronto. (2019). King Parliament Secondary Plan Review: Built Form (Rep.). Retrieved https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/7f9c-cityplanning-kingparliamentBackgrounder_BuiltForm_HR.pdf City of Toronto. (2020, June 22). Overview: King-Parliament Secondary Plan Review. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planningdevelopment/planning-studies-initiatives/king-parliament-secondary-plan- review/overview/

City of Toronto. (2020, June 29). Agenda Item History. Retrieved from http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.PH14.3 City of Toronto. (2020, November 1) Residential Development Charges Rates $ Per Dwelling Unit or Dwelling Room. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/8e15development-charges-rates-november-2020.pdf City of Toronto. (2020, October 14). HousingTO 2020-2030 Action Plan. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/community-partners/affordable-housingpartners/housingto-2020-2030-action-plan/ City of Toronto. (2020, October 15). Development Charges By-laws & Rates. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/budget-finances/city-finance/developmentcharges/development-charges-bylaws-rates/ City of Toronto. (2021, April 01). Zoning By-law 569-2013. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/zoning-by-law-preliminaryzoning-reviews/zoning-by-law-569-2013-2/ City of Toronto. (2021, February 17). Current City of Toronto Average Market Rents & Utility Allowances. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/communitypartners/social-housing-providers/affordable-housing-operators/current-city-of-torontoaverage-market-rents-and-utility-allowances/ City of Toronto. (2021, January 04). Fee Schedules for Community Planning Applications. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/application-formsfees/forms/fee-schedules-for-community-planning-applications/

City of Toronto. (2021, January 04). Fees. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/citygovernment/planning-development/application-forms-fees/fees/ Claude Cormier + Associés. (n.d.). Berczy Park. Retrieved from https://www.claudecormier.com/en/projet/berczy-park/ DESIS Network. (2019, May 30). Kirkbride Road Reserve: Co-design for the shared use of common land. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https://www.desisnetwork.org/2019/05/30/kirkbrideroad-reserve-co-design-for-the- shared-use-of-common-land/ Faye, B., & Le Fur, É. (2012). Square, Plaza, Piazza, Place: What Do We Know about these Targets of Urban Regeneration Programmes? Urban Studies, 49(14), 3081–3099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012442416 First Parliament Heritage Interpretation Strategy and Master Plan - Heritage Interpretation Strategy (pp. 1-162, Rep.). (2020). Toronto, Ontario: DTAH Project Lead, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design; EVOQ Architecture; Lord Cultural Services; MASS LBP; Gladki Planning Associates; ASI; A.W. Hooker Associates. Friedmann, J. (2010). Place and Place-Making in Cities: A Global Perspective. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649351003759573 Hume, C. (2017, May 23). Berczy Park redesign displays St. Lawrence neighbourhood's creative thinking: Hume. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/05/23/berczy-parkredesign-displays-st-lawrence-neighbourhoods-creative-thinking-hume.html Janssen, J., Luiten, E., Renes, H., & Stegmeijer, E. (2017). Heritage as sector, factor and vector: Conceptualizing the shifting relationship between heritage management and spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 25(9), 1654-1672. doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1329410

Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. MakeWay. (n.d.). Community Design Initiative. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https://thestorefront.org/project/community-design-initiative/ Marketek. (2012, May 17). Market Analysis for a Portland Mercado. Retrieved from https://portlandmercado.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/mercado-market-study-05-17-12.pdf Markthal. (2021). Markthal. Retrieved from https://www.markthal.nl/en/ Markthal. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/115/markthal Metrolinx. (2020). Get Engaged. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.metrolinxengage.com/en/content/ontario-line-get-engaged MVRD. (n.d.). Tianjin Binhai Library. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/246/tianjin-binhai-library Obando, S. (2020). Can ghost kitchens replace bankrupt mall tenants? National Real Estate Investor, Retrieved from http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Ftradejournals%2Fcan-ghost-kitchens-replace-bankrupt-malltenants%2Fdocview%2F2362195864%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D14771 Ontario Ministry of Finance. (2021, March 24). 2021 Ontario Budget. Retrieved April 9, 2021, from https://budget.ontario.ca/2021/index.html Ontario Ministry of Transportation. (2020, July 6). Transit-Oriented Communities. Retrieved April 8, 2021, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/transit-oriented-communities Petre, H. (2020). Who regulates ghost kitchens? Restaurant Hospitality, Retrieved from http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Ftrade-

journals%2Fwho-regulates-ghost-kitchens%2Fdocview%2F2352283594%2Fse2%3Faccountid%3D14771 Romeo-Beehler, B. (2018). Auditor General’s Report. Enhance Focus on Lease Administration of Cityowned Properties. Retrieved from: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/au/bgrd/backgroundfile-117931.pdf Scadding Court Community Centre. (2020, August 05). Market 707. Retrieved from https://scaddingcourt.org/market707/?gclid=CjwKCAjw07qDBhBxEiwA6pPbHkfgA4Yp1dlIDzV1Te5PoodlAMppz_5nVA8nof4HdBR_JJrYhFkuhoCCqoQAvD_BwE#1524076340696-cc5790d3-8e98 Schupbach, J., & Ball, D. (2016). How to do creative placemaking: An action-oriented guide to arts in community development. Washington: National endowment for the arts. Retrieved fromhttps://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/How-to-do-Creative-Placemaking_Jan2017.pdf The Ontario Heritage Trust. (2020, April 27). Our Vision. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/about-us/our-vision Toronto Music Advisory Council. (2016, February). Toronto Music Strategy Supporting and Growing the City’s Music Sector. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/961d-backgroundfile-90615.pdf Toronto Public Library. (2020). St. Lawrence. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/stlawrence/ Toronto Public Library. (2020). Vision, Mission & Values. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/about-the-library/mission-vision-values/

Toronto Real Estate Board. (2021). Commercial Realty Watch. Retrieved from https://trreb.ca/files/market-stats/commercial-reports/cw20Q4.pdf Urban Toronto. (2020). Map - Urban Toronto [Map]. In Map - Urban Toronto. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://urbantoronto.ca/map/ Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International, 22(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dam001 坊城设计 FCHA. (n.d.). Retrieved November 01, 2020, from http://fcharchi.com/?portfolio=4735

APPENDIX A PLANNING GUIDELINES

The following guidelines were taken from the First Parliament Heritage Interpretation Strategy and Master Plan (DRAFT), a presentation given on March 4, 2020 by SoMei Quan, Senior Development Planner at CreateTO to a staff committee. Overarching guidance for the development of the First Parliament Site, derived from 12 Planning Strategies. Source: Slide 9 of Presentation

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Understand heritage conservation as the primary purpose of the Site. Reveal the Site’s history through every planning move. Plan the Site for the long term Recognize the Site as a valuable public asset. Leverage the value of the Site to fund remediation. Develop a design character that is sympathetic to the Site’s heritage and context, but contemporary and of its time.

7. Collaborate municipal and provincial stakeholders, and with Indigenous Nations and the general public. 12 Planning Strategies. Source: Appendix B of Presentation

1. Reveal all Layers of History 2. Celebrate the area of archaeological potential 3. Respect the Historic Orthogonal Geometry 4. Express the Historic Shoreline 5. Optimize Connectivity 6. Create a Strong Address on Front Street 7. Develop a Berkeley Place 8. Extend the boulevard on Parliament Street 9. Connect to David Crombie Park 10. Extend the pedestrian Esplanade 11. Locate intensive development to the North 12. Locate density at the northeast quadrant

APPENDIX B D E S I G N A LT E R N AT I V E C A S E S T U D Y A N A LY S E S

CONNECTIVE NODE CASE STUDIES

C U LT U R A L T O U R I S M H U B C A S E S T U D I E S

COMMUNITY HUB CASE STUDIES

APPENDIX C MARKET HALL CASE STUDIES

SCADDING COURT COMMUNITY CENTRE’S MARKET 707 IN TORONTO

Source: Scadding Court Community Centre website Details: • An 18 retailer street food market made out of recycled shipping containers • Opened in 2010 in the Dundas Street West neighbourhood • Sidewalk patio • Open 5 days a week, year-round • Hosts a Summer Events Series with extended hours, performances, and family events Goal: • Turn an underutilized urban space into an vibrant and animated community and economic hub, create jobs and support entrepreneurship

PORTLAND MERCADO IN PORTLAND

Sources: Portland Mercado website; Portland Mercado Market Study, 2012 Details: • Latin American food and culture hub • Run by Portland non-profit, Hacienda CDC. Supported by federal, local, foundation, and private dollars • Community of 16 permanent businesses and an incubator kitchen for entrepreneurs • 9 food cards and 6 indoor businesses • 580 visitors on avg per day • Provides affordable retail spaces for business to launch and grow (food, grocery, retail, service) • Offers a Business Foundations Boot Camp in Spring and Fall, after which accepted businesses can access program services. Businesses that are not accepted are offered Business Advising for a fee. • Accessible 24/7, non-profit Commercial Kitchen for rent Goals: • Economic development and uplift from poverty for Latinx community • Created 114 new jobs in first year of business

Data from the Mercado Market Study, 05.17.2012: • Primary market (84%): Latino households within an 8-min drive time (2.5-3 miles) • Secondary market (16%): Latino and non-Latino households throughout the region

ROTTERDAM MARKTHAL

Sources: MVRDV, Markthal Project Page; Markthal website Details: Mixed-uses building: food, leisure, housing, parking • Designed by MVRDV for Provast, a Dutch property developer (office and housing) focused on innovation, mixed-use, sustainability, and customization for the city • Location: Laurenskwartier (historic centre of Rotterdam) – 2014 – 100 000m2 • Purpose: built in response to strict fresh food market laws. Carries forth the tradition of 19th century Dutch open food markets. Architecturally, it carries forward the legacy and form of historic open trade fairs (Ratajczyk-Piątkowska, 2016 10.5593/sgemsocial2016hb42) Features: • 228 privately developed apartments: 102 rental, 126 freehold (24 penthouses) with 2-5 beds • Public space in central arch: market hall during the day, restaurants by night • Room for 96 fresh food stalls and shop units • 20 retail units on the sides of the ground and first floor (external) à they have different operating hours • Supermarket and food education centre underground • 1200 below-ground parking spaces • Other amenities: public toilets, baby care room, vending machines with personal care essentials (non-medical masks and disinfectant) • Largest public art piece in the Netherlands • Mural on the walls and ceiling of arch (printed and perforated into aluminum panels) which are soundproofed • Indoor (arch/shell) meets outdoors (centre) • The design renders it weather-proof Development Cost: 175 million euros (CAD225 million)

APPENDIX D COMMUNITY GARDEN CASE STUDY

G R O W I N G U R B A N H E A LT H : C O M M U N I T Y G A R D E N I N G I N S O U T H E A S T T O R O N T O - WA K E F I E L D E T A L ., 20 07 Community gardens engage residents of all ages including children, adults and the elderly. Green spaces such as community gardens offer “spaces of retreat” in the densely populated neighbourhoods like that of Toronto (Wakefield et al., 2007, p. 97). They create a sense of pride and empowerment for residents by offering them a hands-on way to participate in placemaking. By sharing food and experiences with others from varying cultures, community gardens are a place for widespread community engagement. Though language barriers may exist in diverse communities, food serves as a universal language for collaboration and respect. This study focused on the self-reported health benefits of community gardens for resident gardeners in communities across south-east Toronto. Notably, the authors highlight the benefits of community gardening in Regent Park where up to 70% of census tracts exhibited high rates of poverty and up to 79% of the population identified as a visible minority as compared to 43% in the whole city of Toronto in 2007. The study finds that community gardening has salutogenic impacts on the mental and physical health of local residents. Various health benefits were identified by the authors including improved access to food, improved nutrition, increased physical activity and improved mental health. In addition, community gardening promotes the development of community health and well-being through diversity, social cohesion and increased social ties which insulate against isolation. While many benefits are associated with community gardens, the literature also highlights some important consequences for community gardens and gardeners. This includes issues such as insecure land tenure and access and social contamination, issues relevant to the FPS. Since these gardens are not owned by the resident gardeners, there were concerns about access as the Regent Park is frequently under constant re-development. Additionally, the need for ongoing financial and social resources to support gardens was emphasized by resident gardeners. Gardeners emphasized the lack of funding for garden infrastructure and resources. They also cited a lack of support from politicians and decision-makers. In the wake of COVID-19, it is expected that many of these issues will be exacerbated as access to community gardens are prohibited and these gardens are unmaintained.

First Parliament Site Concept Plan - MUCP School of Cities 2021

Articles inside

COMMUNITY ZONE

OPPORTUNITY ZONE