Humber River State of the Watershed Report - Cultural Heritage · Humber_Cultural_Heritage_FINAL_121006F.doc 2 ... City of Vaughan and Town of Aurora have recently provided on-line

Humber River

State of the Watershed Report –

Cultural Heritage

2008

Humber River State of the Watershed Repor t – Cul tural Her i tage

Humber_Cultural_Heritage_FINAL_121006F.doc 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The significant increase in number of known cultural heritage features (+44.3% of 2003 total) continues a positive trend in the process of their identification, a first step for their protection and preservation.

• The amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act will assist in the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of heritage resources in the future.

• TRCA continues to lead in improving heritage awareness and preserving heritage resources, through archaeological surveys and comprehensive updates to heritage inventories and databases.

• The City of Toronto, City of Vaughan and Town of Aurora have recently provided on-line searchable databases and interactive maps of heritage properties, to varying degrees of detail.

• Only 21 built heritage features have been Designated since 2000, bringing the total number in the Humber watershed up to 86. This increase, however, amounts to less than the 2003 target of five new designations per Humber watershed municipality.

• Municipalities vary in their approach to identifying heritage resources, funding heritage programs, promoting awareness of heritage resources, and managing heritage resources. Future assessments of progress towards achieving the heritage-related objectives of the Humber watershed strategy should be done, and ratings be assigned, for each Humber watershed municipality, rather than for the whole watershed.

• Thirty five (35) built heritage features were demolished since 2000.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Working Definitions......................................................................................................... 5

2.0 UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL ECOLOGY.................................................................. 5

3.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE IN RURAL AND URBAN LANDSCAPES ................................ 6

4.0 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED................................. 7

4.1 20th and 21st Century Culture.......................................................................................... 7

5.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS IN THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED.............................. 9

5.1 Archaeological Resources.............................................................................................. 9

5.2 Architectural Resources................................................................................................ 11

6.0 HUMBER WATERSHED REPORT CARD RATING UPDATE ..................................... 17

6.1 Report Card Indicators, Measures, Targets and Overall Ratings................................ 17

6.2 Key Findings ................................................................................................................. 18

7.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................... 19

7.1 Management Issues ..................................................................................................... 19

7.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................ 19

8.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 21

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Humber River Watershed Cultural Heritage Resource Definitions ...................... 22 Appendix B: Definitions of Architectural Styles......................................................................... 24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Humber River Watershed Cultural Heritage Highlight Areas................................... 10 Figure 2: Sample Entry in the Humber River Watershed Heritage Study Database. ............. 12 Figure 3: Built Heritage Features in the Humber River Watershed......................................... 15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Humber River Watershed Archaeological Sites by Cultural Affiliation. ..................... 9 Table 2: Humber River Watershed Archaeological Sites by Settlement Type. ..................... 11 Table 3: Heritage Designations of Built Heritage Features in the Humber River .................. 13 Table 4: Original Uses of Humber River Watershed Built Heritage Features........................ 13 Table 5: Architectural Styles of Humber River Watershed Built Heritage Features. ............. 16



1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared in support of the Humber River Watershed Planning Study, which has been initiated to update the Humber River watershed strategy, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber (MTRCA, 1997) based on new and improved information and to satisfy the watershed planning requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2002. Legacy was adopted by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in 1997, containing thirty objectives for achieving a healthier and more prosperous Humber River watershed, including the following four objectives regarding management of cultural heritage resources: Objective 14: Identify and document cultural heritage resources. Objective 15: Protect and conserve heritage resources. Objective 16: Celebrate the diverse culture and heritage resources of the Humber watershed. Objective 17: Identify and promote the economic value of cultural and heritage resources. In 1999, the Humber River watershed was designated as a Canadian Heritage River recognizing the importance of the Humber River in the history of First Nations peoples and the early Euro-Canadian explorers and settlers of Upper Canada. This report updates and summarizes available information pertaining to the known cultural heritage resources that are located in the Humber River watershed. The objectives of the cultural heritage study are:

• To provide an updated inventory of the cultural heritage resources which are known to exist within the Humber River watershed,

• To identify and map the locations and boundaries, where possible, of identified cultural heritage resources, and

• To document the identified cultural heritage resources in a georeferenced database to better enable integration with information about other components of the watershed. This database will be open ended to allow for continual updating.

As part of the Humber River Watershed Planning Study, this updated information will be correlated with information about other components of the watershed system and with plans for future urban growth in the watershed. A Humber River integrated watershed management plan will be produced at the end of the study that includes recommendations to address current and future issues regarding the identification, protection and appreciation of cultural heritage resources in the Humber watershed. Information summarized in this report will also be used to evaluate progress made since 2000 towards achieving the objectives of the Legacy strategy, and to assign report card ratings for the 2007 Humber Watershed Report Card (TRCA, 2007).

1.1 Study Area

The Humber River watershed boundary defines the area within which information on cultural heritage resources is being compiled (Figures 1 and 3). Available information has been summarized based on the boundaries of the primary subwatersheds of the Humber River:

• Main Humber,

• East Humber,

• West Humber,



• Lower Humber, and

• Black Creek. In some instances, information has also been summarized by municipality. The Humber River watershed includes portions of the following 10 Greater Toronto Area municipalities:

• City of Toronto,

• City of Vaughan,

• City of Brampton,

• City of Mississauga1,

• Town of Caledon,

• King Township,

• Town of Aurora,

• Town Richmond Hill,

• Town of Adjala-Tosorontio, and

• Mono Township.

1.2 Working Definitions

Working definitions of basic terms used in this report can be found in Appendix A (heritage definitions) and Appendix B (architectural styles).

2.0 UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL ECOLOGY

Cultural ecology involves interpreting available archaeological evidence and architectural resources to gain a better understanding about the ties between humans and the natural environments (or watersheds) in which they live. Just as archaeology provides us with physical evidence of the human use of the watershed’s natural resources during Ontario’s prehistory, cultural ecology studies help us to understand the symbiotic relationship that people had with the land and water resources that supported them. In the past, locations of human settlements were dictated by the presence of resources and these resources in turn were impacted through their use by the earliest inhabitants of the watershed. Cultural ecology can be thought of as the study and recognition of prehistoric sustainability. Ontario’s earliest advocates of sustainability recognized the necessity of living within the means of their local environment. Without this understanding they could not have survived. Identification and documentation of archaeological and architectural resources is a critical first step towards developing an understanding and appreciation of the cultural ecology of an area. Archaeological evidence can provide insight into how natural resources were utilized in the past, and how environmental factors influenced where human settlements were established.

1 The portion of the City of Mississauga within the Humber watershed is quite small. No cultural heritage resources are known to exist within the City of Mississauga portion of the Humber watershed.



These factors include proximity to water (for consumption and transportation), soil characteristics (for agriculture), slope conditions (for settlement), local biotic communities (for sources of food, shelter, clothing), and landscapes (spirituality). Architectural resources, such as existing buildings, structures, or remains built by people, reveal some of the broad architectural, cultural, social, political, economic and military patterns of Ontario's Euro-Canadian history, or are associated with specific events or people that have shaped Euro-Canadian history (Appendix A). The archaeological evidence and architectural resources that remain in the landscape are fragile and non-renewable resources. Through study and interpretation of these resources, we gain a deeper understanding of the past, present, and future relationship between humans and the natural environment.

3.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE IN RURAL AND URBAN LANDSCAPES

The dynamics of identification, protection, and management of cultural resources change depending on whether the resource is an archaeological site or a built structure, and its location. A distinction can be made between how cultural heritage resources are identified, protected, and managed in urban landscapes and in rural landscapes. There is a high potential for identifying cultural resources within urban and “urbanizing” landscapes due to legislation that requires archaeological investigations prior to development. Unfortunately, prior to establishing this requirement, as our urban settlements grew, many archaeological sites were destroyed and some or all information about them was lost. Similarly, prior to establishing mechanisms for identifying and protecting architectural resources, a number of historic buildings were altered beyond recognition or destroyed. In some cases, the urban environment contains clusters of historic features that can lend themselves geographically and historically to a highly visible, larger cultural feature (e.g., the Village of Kleinburg, King City core area, and downtown Woodbridge), that makes it easier to record, analyze, manage and protect, as well as increase cultural awareness among the general public due to its higher profile. Rural areas, which until recent years remained relatively undisturbed (with the exception of low impact plowing of farm fields), may lend themselves better to the protection of archaeological sites. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act 2001 and Greenbelt Act 2005 may help to further protect cultural heritage resources in rural areas. However, few comprehensive assessments of archaeological sites have been done in rural areas to date. Archaeological assessment projects, such as those conducted on Oak Ridges Moraine lands in the Rouge River watershed (2002) and in the Little Rouge Corridor lands (2003 and 2004) on former Ontario Realty Corporation lands, conducted by the TRCA’s Archaeology Unit in partnership with Rouge Park, are essential for improving archaeological records and closing the gap in our understanding of the history of human settlements in these areas. Another such assessment is scheduled to be conducted in the Region of Peel in 2005. A similar project has been recommended for King Township, as there is minimal archaeological information available pertaining to these rural areas.



Unlike urban areas, rural roads are dotted with historic farm houses, churches, cemeteries, and other remnants of the past. Some are set back from the roads or obstructed by natural or man-made barriers, making windshield surveys ineffective as well as time consuming due to the distances that need to be covered and difficulties in obtaining data.

4.0 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED

An extensive historical review of human settlement and cultural heritage in the Humber River watershed can be found in the Legacy strategy and its supporting background documents (MTRCA, 1997).

4.1 20th and 21st Century Culture

While the ethnic diversity of the watershed is unique in some regards, it is representative of the historical and social development of the north shore of Lake Ontario and Upper Canada. From the numerous and culturally distinct Aboriginal groups who initially inhabited the watershed, to the most recent immigrants, the watershed has been a home for hundreds of thousands of people who have lived and worked in cooperation with the river and its environmental resources. The first European settlers – the French – recognized the strategic and economic importance of the Humber and passed on this knowledge to the British. While the 19th century settlement of the watershed was largely due to the influx of Anglo and Germanic speakers, hundreds of people from all corners of the globe were attracted to the Humber region. Still, the ethnic identity of the watershed was dominated by peoples of British descent, as is celebrated annually during the agricultural-themed Binder Twine Festival in Kleinburg and the Bolton Fall Fair. Only within the past 20-25 years has the watershed become truly multi-cultural. Each new group or individual to join the Humber community has changed the identity of the watershed, serving to attract even more new Canadians. The role and impact of immigration continues to be seen in the changing cultural fabric of the watershed’s residents. As of the 2001 Canadian census, the prevalent ethnic origins in the Humber watershed were Italian (20%), followed by Canadian (11%), English (9%), and East Indian (7%). Of the recent immigrants (i.e. those who immigrated to Canada between 1996 and 2001), the predominant countries of origin were: India (17%), Jamaica (6%), Pakistan (6%), and Guyana (5%). The remaining new immigrants come from over 35 different countries (TRCA, 2006). Many new Canadians celebrate their cultural heritage and continue to practice their traditions. They are also often keen to learn about their adopted Canadian heritage. They are common users of local tourist destinations and natural spaces, and are often eager volunteers in events, such as tree planting, where they can begin to develop a sense of community. This means that there is an ever evolving living culture in the watershed that should be appreciated and documented. In addition, there is a need to understand the changing needs and appreciation of nature. There are opportunities to offer educational programs which will welcome newcomers and encourage the exchange of cultural heritage and stewardship of the natural environment.



Contemporary Cultural Resources

The Humber River watershed contains hundreds of contemporary cultural resources – the continuously evolving properties, features, and landscapes which link the inhabitants of today’s watershed to their surrounding cultural and natural environments. As culture helps to define our interests and needs, the cultural resources found in many different communities across the watershed may be both similar and unique. Some contemporary cultural resources are properties, such as pools, arenas, hospitals, government buildings, golf courses, and parks, all of which provide services for individual and community needs and interests. Many other types of features play a role in contemporary cultural heritage, such as architectural landmarks, art galleries, botanical gardens, cinemas, community centers, cultural and religious venues, fairgrounds, libraries, museums, public art and theatres, dance studios, heritage-themed signage on walking trails, walking tour brochures, and murals on public buildings. Cultural features help educate and entertain people from both inside and outside the watershed. For example, the watershed contains more than 40 libraries, half of which are located in North York, and about a third are located on York University's main campus. Museums and art galleries are also common and important cultural assets. Within the watershed, there are about seven museums and 13 art galleries. These venues display visual forms of culture, often featuring the artifacts and works produced by the local population, providing area residents with a better picture of the cultural characteristics of their neighbourhood. These resources additionally serve as attractions for non-residents, who benefit by the exposure to unique historical and artistic productions. Both museums and art galleries often provide informative details which supplement the school curriculum, such as those provided at the McMichael Canadian Art Collection in Kleinburg. Another unique example, the Franklin Carmichael Art Centre in Etobicoke, displays art, but also provides public programming for adults and children based on instruction of various artistic forms, such as theatre productions and artistic workshops. Contemporary cultural features such as these are part of the fabric which strengthens and binds communities together throughout the watershed. There are many ways in which we express our past and present relationships with the environment. Photography, drawing, painting, and performance arts are just a few of the activities that help foster an awareness and appreciation for living things and instill in us a sense of stewardship. These forms of media can also represent some of the most compelling means of communication about the need for protection and conservation of natural and cultural heritage. By looking at the past work of artists, we can learn of their perspectives on their environment. By watching or participating in ethnic dance or live music, we can experience cultural traditions blending with the geographic and cultural climate developing in the watershed. Gardening represents another form of cultural expression, in the choice of foods, plants and design. By working with the soil and relying on the garden as a source of food, we also learn to respect the natural environment. The City of Toronto has launched a Community Gardens Program with the High Park Children’s Garden as an example of one currently open in the watershed.



These “living cultural” forms of expression should be promoted and celebrated as a means of engaging new and existing members of the community in an entertaining celebration of the watershed’s natural and cultural heritage.

5.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS IN THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED

While archaeological and architectural heritage features can be found throughout the watershed, some areas warrant highlighting, either because they are the locations of particularly noteworthy individual features, or because they group together many features which together provide a unique “experience” of cultural heritage (Figure 1). A variety of cultural heritage experiences can be found across the Humber River watershed, from the rural north to the urban south.

5.1 Archaeological Resources

The archaeological sites database of the Heritage Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Culture (MCL) was the principal source of data on archaeological resources within the study area. The database contains summaries of site-level archaeological investigations that have been conducted in and around the study area during the past century. Both newly found sites and resources rediscovered due to archival research (primarily by Konrad, 1973) are documented in MCL records. Four hundred and forty (440) archaeological sites have been located within the Humber River watershed. These sites represent a use of the watershed for thousands of years by both Aboriginal peoples and Euro-Canadians. These sites represent a range of cultural affiliations, although the affiliation of almost 50% of the sites is unknown (Table 1). While most of the sites represent isolated finds (44%), campsites (33%) and homesteads (11%) are common types of settlement finds (Table 2). Table 1: Humber River Watershed Archaeological Sites by Cultural Affiliation.

Cultural affiliation Frequency of occurrence % of total

Paeleo Indian 14 3.2

Archaic 82 18.6

Woodland 59 13.4

Historic 73 16.6

Multi-component 7 1.6

Undetermined 205 46.6

Total 440 100

Figure 1:

Humber River Watershed Cultural Heritage Highlight Areas



It is well established that human activity has always centered on a region’s rivers and lakes, in order to fulfill the need for a stable water supply, utilize associated resources, take advantage of transportation potential, and, in the case of Euro-Canadian settlement, for industrial purposes. The main channels, all orders of streams, and the headwaters of the Humber River provided ample opportunity for utilization of aquatic resources. Mills were fundamental to the development of communities in Upper Canada, and while in most instances these mills are represented now as archaeological sites, they must be included in any inventory of an historic landscape. The exact location of archaeological sites is sensitive information. All spatial information is kept on file with the TRCA’s Archaeology Unit and the Ontario Ministry of Culture. This information is not available for circulation or publication. Table 2: Humber River Watershed Archaeological Sites by Settlement Type.

Settlement type Frequency of

occurrence

% of total

Isolated finds 195 44.3

Campsites 146 33.1

Burial 7 1.6

Village 18 4

Midden 2 0.5

Homestead 46 10.5

Farmstead 2 0.5

Cabin 3 0.7

Inn 2 0.5

Blacksmith Shop 2 0.5

Privvy 1 0.2

Manufacturing 1 0.2

Undetermined 15 3.4

Total 440 100

5.2 Architectural Resources

Contents of individual municipal built heritage feature inventories that were used to prepare this report varied considerably in terms of information defined for each feature. Consequently, it was difficult to compile a common set of parameters for each architectural resource. The information that was commonly available was entered into the Humber River Watershed Heritage Study database. The structure of the database was based on the Heritage Record Form for Environmental Assessments, provided by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in its Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments, 1992. Figure 2 shows the fields of information collected in the Humber River Watershed Heritage Study database. The database, all base maps, and GIS databases are on file in the TRCA's Archaeological Resource Management Unit's map library.



Examination of the municipal inventories identified 1,401 individual architectural resources or built heritage structures in the watershed (Table 3). While the original use of many of the structures is unknown, the majority of them were used for residential purposes (605) or were cemeteries (101) (Table 4). Of the identified features:

• 86 properties are Designated (see Appendix A for definition). If a structure of potential heritage value was identified through field surveys, but is not classified by a municipality as either Designated or Listed, it was classified as “TRCA Listed” in the database. Properties that were de-listed by municipalities remain in the TRCA database as De-listed properties.

• 74 properties have been demolished. Demolished properties remain in the database, as they represent potential archaeological sites.

Figure 2: Sample Entry in the Humber River Watershed Heritage Study Database.

Field Description Data NAME Name Doctor’s House ADDRESS Address 18 Doctor’s Lane ORIGNLUSE Original Use Residential DATECONSTR Date of Construction 1857 REFERENCE Reference Twp King LACAC DESIGNATED Designation (Designated/Listed/ Designated

TRCA Listed) EXTENT Number of Structures (single, Single

or multiple) OBM OBM (map number) 86 NORTHING OBM North Coordinate 4864765 EASTING OBM East Coordinate 618215 SUBWTRSHED Subwatershed number 2 MUNICIPALI Municipality King OBMID OBM Sheet Site Identifier pink-21 ARCHSTL Architectural Style Vernacular Note: the numerical records in the SUBWTRSHED field correspond to the primary Humber subwatersheds as follows: 1 - Main Humber 2 - East Humber 3 - West Humber 4 - Black Creek 5 - Lower Humber



Table 3: Heritage Designations of Built Heritage Features in the Humber River

Watershed by Municipality. Municipality Total Heritage

designation Toronto Vaughan1, 3 Brampton Richmond

Hill

Caledon King3 Mono Adjala-

Tosorontio

Designated 16 281 3 31 7 1 86

Listed 227 5121 42 48 6 229 3 10 1077

De-listed 1 1

Demolished 20 20 3 11 15 2 3 74

Mills 2 29 2 3 342

Cemetery 24 23 8 1 32 17 2 1 108

Plaque 7 2 1 10

TRCA Listed

11 11

Total 2942 585 56 60 99 280 10 17 1,4012 1 Kleinburg-Nashville Heritage Conservation District includes numerous modern structures. These modern private homes are listed on the City of Vaughan’s database although many of these structures have no cultural heritage significance of their own. This listing procedure should be re-evaluated, and perhaps these structures should receive a separate listing category. 2 Does not include Old Mill, Fishers Mill and Kaiser Mill in the City of Toronto. The accurate locations of the Old Mill, Fishers Mill and Kaiser Mill sites need to be verified in the field and the built heritage features database needs to be updated accordingly. 3 King Township and the City of Vaughan have recently made great strides to increase their inventories of built heritage features.

Table 4: Original Uses of Humber River Watershed Built Heritage Features.

Original use Total

Residential 605

Religious 49

Education 1

Institutional 28

Commercial 45

Bridge 1

Cemetery 110

Industrial 40

Other 12

Outbuilding 16

Community 3

Plaque 10

Residential/farm 39

Subtotal 959

No information 442

Total 1,401



Each heritage site is considered a positive landscape feature. In order to integrate information about known heritage resources with information about other features or components of the watershed, the geographic location of each heritage site is needed. Geographic coordinates for each of the 1,401 architectural resources in the Humber watershed were determined in the original 1995 study (MTRCA, 1995). Geographic coordinates of locations of heritage resources were interpreted using 1:10,000 scale topographic maps (Ontario Base Maps). Since 2004, geographic coordinates of newly found heritage resources have been collected using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Figure 3 shows the distribution of built heritage features across the Humber River watershed.

Figure 3:

Built Heritage Features in the Humber River Watershed



Architectural Style

The sophistication and complexity of the Euro-Canadian settlement of the Humber River watershed is demonstrated in the vast array of architectural styles found in the heritage structures defined in this project. Over 30 different architectural styles (Table 5) lend a unique identity to the late 18th to early 20th century Humber River landscape which sets it apart from other areas in the Toronto area. However, the architectural style of many of the features has yet to be documented. Appendix B provides a description of these architectural styles. Table 5: Architectural Styles of Humber River Watershed Built Heritage Features.

Architectural style Frequency of occurrence Percent of total

Vernacular 156 10.9

Ontario House 150 10.7

Cemetery 110 7.9

Modern 89 6.4

Gothic Revival 72 5.1

Georgian 65 4.6

Edwardin/foursquare 47 3.4

Picturesque 19 1.4

Log House 10 0.7

Neoclassical 10 0.7

Victorian 9 0.6

Georgian Revival 7 0.5

Art and Craft 6 0.4

Italianate 6 0.4

Queen Anne Revival 6 0.4

Classical Revival 4 0.3

Worker’s Cottage 4 0.3

Romanesque Revival 3 0.2

Tudor Revival 3 0.2

Boomtown 3 0.2

Second Empire 1 0.1

Chatauesque 2 0.1

Shed/Barn 2 0.1

Wartime Bungalow 1 0.1

Scottish Baronial 2 0.1

Art Deco 1 0.1

Canada Farmer 2 0.1

3 Round Stone 1 0.1

Regency Cottage 1 0.1

Bannon House 1 0.1

Undefined 611 43.6

Total 1401 100



6.0 HUMBER WATERSHED REPORT CARD RATING

6.1 Report Card Indicators, Measures, Targets and Overall Ratings

Progress towards achieving the cultural heritage related objectives of the original Humber River watershed strategy, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, is assessed periodically through preparation of report cards on the health of the Humber River watershed (e.g., TRCA, 2000) and progress reports (e.g., TRCA, 2003). The current indicators and measures used to assess progress towards achieving the cultural heritage-related objectives of the Humber River watershed strategy are as follows:

Overall Rating Objective: Identify and document cultural heritage

resources A

Indicator Measures Targets

Heritage resources Number of known built heritage features Number of known archaeological sites

2005:

- All mill sites have been identified;

- Municipalities maintain inventories of historical plaques located in the watershed; and

- Ministry of Culture makes all reports from archaeological consultants available to public agencies.

Since the 2003 progress report was completed, a considerable number of additional heritage resources have been identified and added to the archaeological and built heritage databases. Since 2003, 442 additional built heritage features (+46.2% of 2003 total) and 123 additional archaeological sites (+38.8% of 2003 total) have been identified. This represents a significant increase in the number of known heritage features, indicating that excellent progress is being made towards achieving the objective to “identify and document cultural heritage resources”. Therefore, an overall rating of “A” for this objective has been assigned.



Overall Rating Objective: Protect and conserve heritage resources

C

Indicator Measures Targets

Heritage resources Number of Listed and Designated built heritage features

2005:

- At least five (5) built heritage features per municipality proceed each year from Listed to Designated status under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Only 21 built heritage features have been Designated since the 2000 watershed report card. This increase falls short of the 2000 report card target of 5 additional built heritage features becoming Designated per Humber municipality per year. Additionally, a total of 35 features have been demolished or destroyed by fire since the 2003 progress report. These findings suggest that limited progress has been made towards achieving the objective to “protect and conserve heritage resources”, so an overall rating of C has been assigned for this objective. Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act passed in October 2005, with regulations introduced in early 2006, should contribute to the identification, protection, preservation and restoration of archaeological sites and built heritage features.

6.2 Key Findings

• The significant increase in the number of known cultural heritage features (+44.3% of 2003 total) continues a positive trend in the process of their identification, a first step for their protection and preservation.

• The amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act will assist in the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of heritage resources in the future.

• TRCA continues to take a lead role in improving heritage awareness and preserving heritage resources, through archaeological surveys and comprehensive updates to heritage inventories and databases.

• The City of Toronto, City of Vaughan and Town of Aurora have recently provided on-line searchable databases and interactive maps of heritage properties, of varying degrees of detail (City of Toronto, 2005; City of Vaughan, 2005, Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora, 2005).

• Only 21 built heritage features have been Designated since 2000, bringing the total number in the Humber watershed up to 86. This increase falls short of the 2003 target of five new designations per Humber watershed municipality per year.

• Municipalities vary in their approach to identifying heritage resources, funding heritage programs, promoting awareness of heritage, and managing heritage resources. Future assessments of progress towards achieving the heritage-related objectives of the Humber watershed strategy should be completed and ratings assigned for each Humber watershed municipality, rather than for the whole watershed.

• Thirty-five (35) built heritage features have been demolished since 2000.



7.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Management Issues

Through the process of compiling municipal records and limited field data collection in order to update the Humber River Watershed Heritage Study database, a number of issues pertaining to the identification and documentation of heritage resources have been identified. The first issue pertains to the type of information that is available for each feature/resource in the Humber River Watershed Heritage Study database. With respect to existing heritage features and landscapes, without field checking each site it was not possible, in many cases, to determine or confirm specific characteristics of individual properties. As mentioned previously, heritage inventories vary considerably in terms of the types of information collected. Future heritage studies of this nature should incorporate field investigations to fill information gaps that remain in the heritage database. Without conducting extensive field investigations and examining primary documentation, it is impossible to provide a consistent assessment of some types of information (e.g., architectural style) across the watershed. The second issue is the reliability of spatial data (i.e., geographic coordinates of each heritage feature). The reliability of this information varies depending upon how it was derived (e.g., interpreted from topographic maps vs. measured using a GPS). For example, locations of historic mills are often only generally depicted on historic maps, so the geographic coordinates contained in the heritage database have been approximated (most of the mills in the watershed are presently “unconfirmed”, so they have not been identified on Figure 1). As mentioned previously, future heritage studies of this nature should incorporate field investigations and locations of features should be recorded using GPS units or larger scale maps (1:2,000). All municipal heritage staff should be encouraged to standardize the types of information they collect in their heritage inventories. The third issue relates to the large number of heritage features and sites that were added to the database since 2003. Most of these features, particularly built heritage features, need to be visited in the field in order to collect geographic coordinates and to verify heritage inventory information. This dramatic increase in identified heritage features did not allow for field investigations and information verification to be done because of limited resources available for the study. As a result, the proposed verification of mill sites could not be completed, no update of the heritage plaques database was completed, and only a preliminary analysis of new features was completed resulting in a high percentage of “undefined components” in the database. Future cultural heritage studies in support of watershed planning and report card updates should include field investigations to confirm database information and fill remaining information gaps.

7.2 Recommendations

Acknowledging the unique nature of this watershed approach to identifying and understanding the heritage values of the Humber River watershed, it is recommended that:



• Opportunities should be pursued to preserve and interpret selected important heritage features for public education. These might be integrated into existing trail systems where they exist or are planned and/or interpreted through a self-guided walking tour or a simple plaque. Further study should be undertaken during the second phase of the Humber Watershed Planning Study to correlate information on future urban growth, and municipal open space/trail plans with Humber River Watershed Heritage Study database information to identify prime opportunities to integrate known heritage features into future municipal open space trail systems, develop new self-guided walking tours, or erect new heritage plaques.

• The data collected for this report (excluding geographic coordinates of archaeological sites) should be made available to researchers and members of the public to raise awareness and appreciation of the long and colourful history of humankind in the watershed.

• A map/poster of the watershed should be produced that focuses on areas of historical interest and existing educational/recreational opportunities as a sequel to ‘A Guide to the Humber River: A Canadian Heritage River’.

• The Province should be encouraged to standardize the information basis of all municipal heritage inventories. This would provide accurate location data for each heritage feature and cultural landscape site so that the data regarding this heritage resource can be organized and manipulated in ways useful to each site's proper management, protection, and interpretation.

• Municipal heritage committees and planners should be encouraged to continue to update and add to their existing inventories, and share their updates with their partners on a regular basis. Data sharing can occur through a searchable internet website, such as those initiated by the City of Vaughan and the City of Toronto.

• Funds should be allocated specifically for a heritage study to verify historic mill site locations, including historical research and field investigations to retrieve physical evidence and spatial information.

• Not all municipalities across the watershed define listed properties in the same manner, and they vary in terms of their capabilities to maintain and update a Listed properties inventory. The definitions of heritage resources should be standardized and efforts increased to identify Listed properties in order to increase the recognition and protection of these important but vulnerable heritage resources.

• In the future, all periodic updates of TRCA heritage databases should be carried out at the same time, over the entire TRCA jurisdiction, and should be overseen by the same research team. This approach would be more cost-effective, eliminate duplication and inconsistencies, and promote standardization of the database contents.

• The TRCA archaeological resource management unit could act as coordinators between different watershed heritage groups, municipalities, municipal heritage committees, the Ontario Ministry of Culture, and other interest groups in order to increase the appreciation for, and protection of the region’s heritage resources.



8.0 REFERENCES

City of Toronto. 2005. City of Toronto on-line inventory of heritage properties:

http://app.toronto.ca/heritage/main.do City of Vaughan. 2005. City of Vaughan searchable map (GIS):

http://www.vaughangis.info/website/all_layers/viewer.htm Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora. 2005. Town of Aurora on-line heritage building

inventory: http://www.town.aurora.on.ca/heritage/HeritageBuildings/BuildingInventory/BuildingInventoryIndex.htm

Konrad, Victor. 1973. The Archaeological Resources of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area:

Inventory and Prospect. York University Discussion Paper Series, No. 10. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1995. Humber River Watershed Atlas. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1997. Legacy: A Strategy for a

Healthy Humber. Prepared for the Humber Watershed Task Force. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2000. A Report Card on the Health of the Humber

River. Humber Watershed Alliance. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2003. Humber River Watershed Progress Report.

Humber Watershed Alliance. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2006, unpublished data, population estimates for TRCA watersheds based on Statistics Canada 2001 census tract data. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2007. Listen to Your River – A Report Card on the

Health of the Humber River Watershed. Prepared for the Humber Watershed Alliance.



APPENDIX A: HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE

DEFINITIONS

Archaeological Resources Archaeological Resources are defined as: The remains of any building, structure, event, activity, place or cultural feature or object which because of the passage of time is on or below the surface of the land or the water and which is associated with Aboriginal history (pre AD 1608) or the historic period (post AD 1608) in Ontario. Architectural Resources Architectural Resources are defined as: Buildings, structures, or remains built by people which reveal some of the broad architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military patterns of Ontario's Euro-Canadian history or are associated with specific events or people that have shaped Euro-Canadian history. These would include resources such as: individual buildings; groups of buildings; historic settlements; foundations; cemeteries; barns and other outbuildings; fences; bridges etc. Architectural Resources of outstanding historical or architectural character can be protected under the Ontario Heritage Act by being Designated. This procedure requires the passing of a By-Law by the local municipal government. Architectural Resources considered as potential or candidates for this protective measure are defined as Listed. In this report, architectural resources classified as TRCA Listed represents buildings, structures or remains that have been identified by TRCA staff through visual inspection that seem to be of heritage value, but are not currently Listed nor Designated. Cultural/Heritage Landscapes Cultural/Heritage landscapes are defined as: Any discrete aggregation of features made by people where the arrangement of the features that exist in conjunction with one another is representative of distinct cultural processes in the present, and historical development and use of the land within the watershed. Cultural landscapes include any scenic/heritage or contemporary area perceived as an ensemble of culturally derived landscape features such as a neighbourhood, a townscape, landscape or waterscape that illustrates noteworthy relationships between people and their surrounding environment. For practical purposes Historic Landscapes may be considered as part of, or a subset of, the cultural landscape but are differentiated by their historical merit. They can be remnant or existing landscapes but have a specific association to historical events, people, heritage building(s)/structures or archaeological sites. They can be clearly identified as providing an important contextual and spatial relationship necessary to preserve, interpret or reinforce the understanding of important historical resources, settings and past patterns of land use.



Heritage Conservation Districts/Heritage Area Heritage Conservation Districts are defined as: Any aggregate of buildings, structures and open spaces that as a group is a collective asset to the community and which may have architectural, historical, archaeological or scenic value. Districts may be found in urban and rural environments and may comprise residential, commercial or industrial areas landscapes or entire villages. Heritage Conservation Districts are designated by municipal by-law, under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.



APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLES

Style Description

Arts and Crafts Arts and Crafts style houses were commonly built between 1900 and 1945. They generally have broad, gently pitched roofs with overhanging eaves, and many have shed dormers. Characteristic features include sunrooms, windows grouped in twos or threes, and exposed structural framing (rafters, braces, and posts). Most Arts and Crafts houses were constructed of brick, stone, or stucco.

Barn A large, usually wooden structure designed to house animals, their feed, or farm equipment.

Boomtown Boomtown structures are generally commercial in nature. They are characterized by a tall, squared false front on the front facade (usually two stories) concealing a smaller building to the rear. Rather than having a flat roof, as the front facade would suggest, these structures often have gabled or shed type roofs. They were built throughout the latter half of the 19th century.

Bridge A structure linking two sections of road or pathway over an obstacle such as a river.

Burial Place A cemetery, family burial ground, or other location where deceased individuals have been interred.

Chateauesque These structures are generally very large and imposing, with steeply pitched gables, an irregular roof line, multiple tall chimneys, and oriel windows. Their design was based on French Medieval castles, using rough stone for the primary building material in most cases. Structures of this style were built around 1880 to 1940 for wealthy clients.

Classical Revival Also called Neo-Classical, this style is characterized by its balanced composition (often symmetrical), low pitch gabled roofs (often with returned eaves) or square hipped roofs, and the use of columns, pediments, and elliptical transoms with sidelights around the doors.

Dutch Colonial Revival

Dutch Colonial Revival houses have gambrel roofs, often interrupted by dormers. They are frequently of wood construction. Usually built on a rectangular plan, they are generally somewhat symmetrical.

Edwardian/ Foursquare

Edwardian houses are built on a square or rectangular plan. They generally have medium to high pitch hipped roofs, usually with one or more dormers, and are two to three stories high. The front entrance often has a porch or stoop, and windows are rectangular. Foursquare houses are essentially Edwardian houses built on a square plan. Most Edwardian or Foursquare houses were built between 1900 and 1925.

Ethnic Tradition This designation applies to structures which follow a definite Ethnic or non Euro-Canadian design in their construction; for example, onion domes on Eastern Orthodox churches.

Fieldstone Cairn A structure made of fieldstones cemented together, usually with a plaque embedded, marking a place of significance.

Georgian A house of this style is built on a rectangular plan and will generally have a medium pitch gable roof with returned eaves, a symmetrical facade with



Style Description

the door at the centre, and paired chimneys on each side. Other common elements include a frieze under the eaves, a transom and sidelights around the door, and in larger structures, a second floor hall light in the centre of the front facade. Larger Georgian houses often have a Palladian window on the front facade over the entrance. Most surviving Georgian houses in Ontario were built between 1830 and 1850.

Georgian Revival These houses are almost identical in design to Georgian houses. The primary difference is the date of construction, which is generally after 1850 but before the turn of the century.

Gothic Revival These houses are irregular in plan and have multiple-gabled, steeply pitched roofs, often over ‘Gothic’ (pointed) windows. Other elements of traditional Gothic architecture that sometimes occur (especially on Churches) include buttresses and high pointed steeples or belfries. Some Gothic Revival houses have decorative bargeboard in the gables and may resemble Picturesque houses. They were commonly built between 1860 and 1880.

Italianate Italianate houses in Ontario vary greatly in plan, but are recognized by their elongated, arched windows, often with elaborate moulded hoods or surrounds. Some houses had towers incorporated into the construction, or lantern openings on the roof. Other common features include hipped roofs, overhanging bracketed eaves, arched porches, and balustraded balconies.

Mennonite Houses of this type are generally very simple Vernacular or Georgian structures with clapboard siding. They cannot be elaborate because of Mennonite religious convictions. There are two distinctive varieties of Mennonite houses; the Double house, and the Doddy house. The Double house is two living spaces in one structure; one being the mirror image of the other. These were generally used to house siblings with families living on the same farm. The Doddy house is a small house, usually built in front of or attached to the main structure, used to house elderly relatives (usually parents).

Mill Mills and mill ruins include any structure where hydraulic power was used to power machinery within the structure. Examples of mills include sawmills and grist mills. These structures were commonly used from the time of settlement until well into the late 19th century and the advent of the widespread introduction of electrical power.

Ontario House These commonly occurring houses are built to a rectangular or ‘T’ plan, and are symmetrical in design. They usually have medium to high pitched gable roofs with a centre or cross gable over a decorative window on the front facade. These gable windows are often Gothic or Arched. In older structures there may be a ‘suicide door’ in place of the gable window, and the end gables may feature returned eaves. Many Ontario Houses have been embellished with decorative wood trim under the eaves and in the gables. These houses were generally built between 1875 to 1900, though earlier examples exist. Some Ontario houses may be modified Georgian or Georgian Revival houses.



Style Description

Picturesque This style of house is generally built on an ‘L’ plan, with a medium or high pitch gabled roof, and an entrance and verandah in the enclave. The projecting section of the front facade contains a single or double storey bay window. Other windows usually have segmental heads. Elaborate bargeboards, pendils, and other decorative elements are common on gables, under the eaves, and around the verandah roof, if any. These houses were built between 1880 and 1900, with some earlier examples.

Queen Anne Revival These houses are generally two or more storeys and are built on an irregular plan. Often constructed in brick, they have combination hipped, conical, and multiple gabled roofs, frequently pedimented on some or all gables. These houses often have round towers incorporated into their construction, as well as balconies, porches, and verandahs. Ornamentation can include fish-scale shingles, decorative vergeboard, and elaborate fretwork on balconies, verandahs and porches when present. They were constructed around 1880 to 1910.

Regency Regency structures are similar to Georgian houses; they are symmetrical with the entrance in the centre of the front facade, though are generally wider, with more windows to either side of the door. Windows tend to be longer than in Georgian houses. These houses generally have full-width verandahs with bellcast roofs, and low to medium pitched hipped or gabled roofs over the main structure. These houses were built between 1830 and 1860.

Romanesque Revival These structures are generally rectangular in plan, with a projecting portico and an elaborate entrance. Doors are often surrounded by a transom and sidelights. Windows are generally long and often round headed. The use of columns and other monumental ornamentation characterizes this style. Townhouses and public buildings built in this style often have carved stone ornamentation. This style was most popular between 1880 and 1910.

Second Empire Second Empire structures are characterized primarily by their Mansard roofs, often with arched dormers. Windows frequently have moulded surrounds. Most Second Empire houses are built on a square plan. Many have centre towers or end pavilions, and bay windows. Decorative elements include bracketed eaves and iron cresting. These houses were generally built between 1860 and 1900.

Documents

Humber River State of the Watershed Report - Cultural Heritage · Humber_Cultural_Heritage_FINAL_121006F.doc 2 ... City of Vaughan and Town of Aurora have recently provided on-line