Heritage Impact Assessment

November 19th, 2009
Mary L. MacDonald
Acting Manager
Heritage Preservation Services
City Planning
Louis Tinker
Planner - Midtown Section
City Planning Division
Toronto and East York
City Hall, 18th Floor, East
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, ON, M5H 2N2
Dear Louis and Mary;
Please find enclosed the final version of the study entitled Heritage Impact Assessment: View
Control Study, Queen’s Park and Ontario Legislative Assembly Building, prepared by Archaeological
Services Inc. (ASI) in collaboration with Professor Herb Stovel of Carleton University.
It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. .
Best Regards,
Ronald F. Williamson, Ph.D., CAHP

Managing Partner and Chief Archaeologist
Archaeological Services Inc.
Heritage Impact Assessment:
View Control Study
Queen’s Park and Ontario Legislative Assembly Building

City of Toronto, Ontario
Prepared for:
City Planning Division
City of Toronto
100 Queen Street West
Suite A18
Toronto, ON
M5H 2N2
ASI File 09SP-55
November 2009
Heritage Impact Assessment:
View Control Study
Queen’s Park and Legislative Assembly of Ontario

City of Toronto
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report demonstrates that the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape is an extremely
significant cultural heritage resource within the Province of Ontario. For over a hundred years, this
place has served as the seat of provincial government in Ontario. Perched on a promontory
overlooking Toronto’s downtown core, it is a dynamic symbol of the political system that has
shaped this province and the lives of its residents. Located in a highly visible and accessible
location, its visual prominence, park-like setting, and the robust massing, and intricate architectural
detailing of the Legislative Assembly building express ideas, ideals, and messages about how we
interact with our government, engage in the political process, nurture development of a civil society,
and influence public policy. Preservation of these values and messages is a responsibility that must
be assumed for the benefit of future generations.
Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) in association with Professor Herb Stovel were retained by the City
of Toronto to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment of the significant views that contribute to the
cultural heritage values of this significant place. Specifically, this study was undertaken to develop
a methodology for identifying, assessing impacts to, and protecting the sites significant views.
Based on a review of best practices in other jurisdictions in the area of view protection, a specific
methodology was developed to apply to the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. This
methodology is designed to address specific objectives, combines quantitative and qualitative
methods, and recognizes that any view protection policy must be supplemented by a strong
implementation strategy and should be designed to balance the rights of private developers. The
proposed methodology was then applied to the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape.
The results of background research, a review of view plane protection studies undertaken in other
jurisdictions, multiple site visits, and analysis of existing and future visual conditions of the site
confirmed that the site retains a number of significant view planes from the north, south, east, and
west. A total of 42 view planes were identified based on an analysis of the site’s cultural heritage
values and in consideration of the value of the view to city residents, pedestrian, motorists, and
visitors.
A total of 30 north-looking view planes were carried forward for impact assessment analysis and
consideration of available protection mechanisms. These 30 view planes were mapped, establishing
two dimensional view envelopes indicating the foreground, background, lateral-foreground, and
lateral-background limits of the view plane. Levels of visual integrity were assigned to each view
plane to determine levels of desired visual integrity. Establishing a level of visual integrity identifies
a benchmark against which future impacts can be assessed and provides a basis for developing
specific protection mechanisms, such as height controls. Following, three representative key control
view points were then selected and modeled for the purposes of determining and demonstrating
broad and preliminary measures of visual protection.
Following a review of view protection studies undertaken in other jurisdictions and following
identification and impact assessment of significant north-looking views associated with the Queen’s
Park cultural heritage landscape, the following recommendations have been made:
1. Protect the highest level of visual integrity of significant views associated with the
Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape.
2. The Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape should be designated under the Ontario
Heritage Act in recognition of the site’s outstanding value within the Province of Ontario
and to ensure its long-term conservation and appropriate management. It is further
recommended that this designation be undertaken in collaboration between the City of
Toronto and the Province of Ontario to ensure that the building and its contributing
surrounding setting are fully protected under the Ontario Heritage Act.
3. In accordance with Section 3.1.1 (8) of the City of Toronto’s Official Plan and the
University of Toronto Secondary Plan, new development should be planned to preserve
and improve the highest level of visual integrity of significant public views of the
Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape.
4. Official plan or zoning by-law amendments should be adopted to support protection of

the highest level of visual integrity of identified significant view planes in the land use
planning process. The official plan or zoning by-law amendment should define the area
within which vertical heights of buildings should be controlled and be supported by an
implementation system for using a height contour template to define appropriate
buildings heights within the specified area.
5. Should an official plan or zoning by-law amendment be adopted in this regard, it must
be supported by a detailed implementation program. An effective implementation
program would include: improved technological capacity to model protected views and
to easily establish height limits within particular parcels within the area of view control;
instructions to developers preparing applications within the area of view control; and
provisions to protect building heights while protecting developments rights through
approval of appropriate densities.
6. The Province of Ontario should take every appropriate action to protect the highest level
of visual integrity of significant views of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As part of the process of completing the present report various organizations and individuals were
contacted to gather background studies and solicit information regarding protection of significant
views in relation to Queen’s Park. The study team wishes to thank Winston Wong (Ministry of
Culture), Sean Fraser (Ontario Heritage Trust), Ann Peixoto and Brian Brethour (Ontario Legislative
Assembly), Ellen Kowalchuk (Ontario Realty Corporation), William Gerrard (Ministry of Culture),
Tamara Anson Cartwright (Ministry of Culture), and Jane Burgess (Stevens Burgess Architects).
The study team would also like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Louis Tinker, Paul Bain,
Mary MacDonald, and James Parakh and the Graphics and Visualization and Urban Design staff of
the Planning Division at the City of Toronto for generating various three dimensional views of
Queen’s Park and cross sectional drawings which aided in our analysis and which have been used
for illustrative purposes in this report.
Heritage Impact Assessment: View Control Study
Queen’s Park and Ontario Legislative Assembly Building, Toronto, Ontario Page iii
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DIVISION
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Senior Project Manager: Herb Stovel

Heritage Conservation Programme
Carleton University
Cultural Heritage Specialists: Herb Stovel

Carleton University
Rebecca Sciarra
Heritage Planner
Ronald F. Williamson
Chief Archaeologist and Managing Partner
Report Preparation Rebecca Sciarra

Heritage Planner
Herb Stovel
Carleton University
Graphics Preparation: Rebecca Sciarra
Sarina Finlay
GIS/CAD Technician
Archaeological Services
Laszlo Bano
City of Toronto
Queen’s Park and Ontario Legislative Assembly Building, Toronto, Ontario Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ ii
PROJECT PERSONNEL.................................................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................................................iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................7
1.1 Site Context ...............................................................................................................................................7
1.2 Report Purpose ........................................................................................................................................11
2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING VIEWS ASSOCIATED WITH QUEEN’S PARK
......................................................................................................................................................................13
2.1 Site Planning History...............................................................................................................................13
2.1.1 1829 – 1849: Acquisition and Early Planning of the Queen’s Park Site ...........................................13
2.1.2 1853 – 1893: Securing and Shaping the Queen’s Park Site for the Erection of Parliament
Buildings ...........................................................................................................................................................16
2.2 Planning Approaches for Protecting Public Views in the City of Toronto ............................................18
2.2.1 On Building Downtown ........................................................................................................................19
2.2.2 1993 Official Plan Provisions...............................................................................................................20
2.2.3 University of Toronto Secondary Plan.................................................................................................21
2.2.4 2006 Official Plan Provisions ..............................................................................................................22
3.0 APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING AND PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ...................................................24
3.1 Introduction and Context ........................................................................................................................24
3.1.1 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................24
3.1.2 The Importance of Protecting Views ...................................................................................................24
3.1.3 The Importance of Setting in Best Conservation Practice .................................................................26
3.1.4 Setting in Canadian Practice ...............................................................................................................28
3.2 Assessing Impacts of High Buildings on Important Heritage Buildings.............................................30
3.2.1 City of Halifax. ......................................................................................................................................30
3.2.2 City of Ottawa .......................................................................................................................................31
3.2.3 City of Toronto ......................................................................................................................................31
3.2.4 City of Vancouver .................................................................................................................................32
3.2.5 City of London, United Kingdom .........................................................................................................32
3.2.6 English Heritage; United Kingdom......................................................................................................33
3.2.7 City of Edinburgh; United Kingdom ....................................................................................................33
3.2.8 Lessons from Experiences Reviewed ..................................................................................................34
3.3 Context for Establishing a High Buildings Policy ..................................................................................34
3.4 Methods for Assessing and Managing Impacts of Proposed Tall Structures in Historic Cities. ........36
3.4.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................................36
3.4.2 Identifying and Characterizing Significant Views..............................................................................37
3.4.3 Assessing the Impact of the Proposed Development on Identified Views.......................................38
3.4.4 Mitigating Impacts: Methods to Manage Views.................................................................................39
3.5 Proposed Methodology for Consideration of Impacts of Proposed Developments on Views
Associated with the Queen’s Parks Cultural Heritage Landscape. .....................................................41
3.5.1 Objectives for the Methodology..........................................................................................................41
3.5.2 Methodological Steps..........................................................................................................................42
4.0 IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ASSOCIATED WITH QUEEN’S PARK AND THE
ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY BUILDING.............................................................................................45
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................45
4.2 Review of Background Studies...............................................................................................................45
4.2.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................45
4.2.2 University of Toronto Secondary Plan.................................................................................................46
4.2.3 Queen’s Park Complex: Cultural Landscape Heritage Significance Study.......................................47
3.2.4 Cultural Heritage Significance Study: Queen’s Park Complex, Toronto...........................................47
4.2.5 Heritage Significance Study Whitney Block and Tower, Queen’s Park, Toronto..............................49
4.2.6 Restoration Master Plan for the Ontario Legislative Assembly and Grounds ..................................49
Queen’s Park and Ontario Legislative Assembly Building, Toronto, Ontario Page v
4.3 Stakeholder Consultation.......................................................................................................................50

4.4 Proposed Statement of Significance......................................................................................................51
4.5 Identification, Impact Assessment and Protection of Significant Views and View Planes Associated
with the Queen’s Park Cultural Heritage Landscape............................................................................55
4.5.1 Identification of Views and View Planes.............................................................................................55
4.5.2 Assessing Impacts to North-Looking View Planes.............................................................................66
4.5.3 Protecting North-Looking Views..........................................................................................................72
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................81
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................81
5.2 Scope of the Present Study ....................................................................................................................82
5.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................83
5.4 Recommendations...................................................................................................................................83
6.0 REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................................................................85
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................................................88
APPENDIX B.................................................................................................................................................................90
APPENDIX C:................................................................................................................................................................92
APPENDIX D.................................................................................................................................................................95
APPENDIX E ...............................................................................................................................................................100
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of study area in the City of Toronto, Ontario ................................................................................7

Figure 2: Aerial view of southern elevation of Queen’s Park with city in background; Unknown date. .................8
Figure 3: 60th Anniversary of Confederation, 1927 showing decorations.................................................................8
Figure 4: Orange Parade moving south down Avenue Road to Queen’s Park; Between 1930 and 1950. ...............9
Figure 5: Aerial of Queen’s Park, showing southern and eastern elevations and modern buildings in the
background; 1983. .....................................................................................................................................................10
Figure 6: 2009 public demonstration on the front lawns of Queen’s Park.............................................................10
Figure 7: Sketch of the original King’s College Site, showing present day University Avenue and College Street.
Drawing made by Mr. T.A. Reed, ca. 1946, at one time the University College archivist. .....................................14
Figure 8: University Avenue, looking north from Queen Street. Unknown date but it is likely taken at mid-
nineteenth century. ....................................................................................................................................................15
Figure 9: Proposed site layout, 1892. .......................................................................................................................17
Figure 10: Existing conditions site layout, 1894.......................................................................................................18
Figure 11: University of Toronto Secondary Plan Area..............................................................................................46
Figure 12: Preliminary area of view protection relating to the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. .........57
Figure 13: Graphic simulation of V2 and V17 from northeast corner of Queen Street-University .........................61
Figure 14: Photographic documentation of V3 and V18 from northbound driving lane at Queen Street-
University Avenue.......................................................................................................................................................61
Figure 15: Photographic documentation of V2 and V17 from northeast corner of Queen Street-University
Avenue. .......................................................................................................................................................................62
Figure 16: Graphic simulation of V18 and V23 from northbound driving lane at Gerrard Street-University
Avenue. .......................................................................................................................................................................62
Figure 17: Photographic documentation of V3, V8, V18, and V23 from northbound driving lane south of Gerrard
Street-University Avenue. ..........................................................................................................................................63
Figure 18: Photographic documentation of V8 and V23 from northwest corner of Gerrard Street-University
Avenue. .......................................................................................................................................................................63
Figure 19: Graphic simulation of V5 and V20 from northbound driving lane at Dundas Street-University Avenue.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................64
Figure 20: Photographic documentation of V5 and V20 from southeast corner Dundas Street-University
Avenue. .......................................................................................................................................................................64
Figure 21: Photographic documentation of V3, V5, V18, and V20 from Dundas Street-University Avenue..........65
Figure 22: Height threshold associated with a high level of visual integrity for V1 – V15 and Contextual Value 1.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................70
Figure 23: Height threshold associated with a high level of visual integrity for V16 – V30 and Contextual........70
Queen’s Park and Ontario Legislative Assembly Building, Toronto, Ontario Page vi
Figure 24: Aggregate Levels of Visual Integrity for the Building’s Silhouette and V1-V30....................................71
Figure 25: Amalgamated two dimensional view planes from V3, V11, and V8, showing background areas and
preliminary area within which vertical heights should be controlled. ...................................................................74
Figure 26: Plan showing view plane cross section projected from V3, at the height of the ridgeline of the east
block connector addition. The cross section is projected through the centre of the Ontario Legislative
Assembly Building and as far north as Yorkville Avenue. .......................................................................................75
Figure 27: View plane cross section from V3 modeled at the height of the ridgeline of the east block connector
addition and projected through the centre of the building and northerly to the Bloor Street-Yorkville Avenue
intersection.................................................................................................................................................................76
addition and projected through the centre of the building, northerly to Yorkville Avenue...................................78
addition and projected through the centre of the building and northerly to Yorkville Avenue. ...........................80
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Views in and out of the Queen’s Park Site, as Identified in the University of Toronto Secondary Plan..46
Table 2: Views in and out of the Queen’s Park Site, as Identified in Queen’s Park Complex: Cultural Landscape
Heritage Significance Study ......................................................................................................................................47
Table 3: Views in and out of the Queen’s Park site, as identified in the Cultural Heritage Significance Study:
Queen’s Park Complex Toronto .................................................................................................................................48
Table 4: Views in and out of the Queen’s Park site, as identified in the Heritage Significance Study Whitney
Block and Tower .........................................................................................................................................................49
Table 5: Views of the Queen’s Park site, as identified in the Restoration Master Plan .........................................50
Table 6: North-Looking View Planes Identified in Association with Contextual Value 1 .......................................59
Table 7: North-Looking View Planes Identified in Association with Contextual Value 2 .......................................60
Table 8: Visual Integrity Scale for Assessing Impacts of Tall Tower Development on Contextual Value 1 (V1 –
V15)..............................................................................................................................................................................66
Table 9: Visual Integrity Scale Assessing Impacts of Tall Tower Development on Contextual Value 2 (V16 – V30)
.....................................................................................................................................................................................67
Table 10: North-Looking Views Identified in Association with Contextual Value 1 and Desired Level of Visual
Integrity.......................................................................................................................................................................68
Table 11: North-Looking Views Identified in Association with Contextual Value 2 and Desired Level of Visual
Integrity.......................................................................................................................................................................69
Table 12: Key Control Viewing Points........................................................................................................................72
Queen’s Park and Ontario Legislative Assembly Building, Toronto, Ontario Page 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site Context
The Ontario Legislative Assembly building and its surrounding park-like setting together form a
significant cultural heritage landscape in the Province of Ontario (Figure 1). This unique landscape and
important place documents and represents Ontario’s nineteenth and twentieth century political
development and actively contributes to the form and character of the City of Toronto’s built
environment. However, it is also a deeply symbolic site. It serves as centre stage for the enactment of
laws and policies that shape the lives of Ontarians, functioning as a dynamic public platform. The
landscape that surrounds the site offers a setting for assembly and congregation, where citizens gather to
influence public policy and celebrate and honour the province’s achievements (See Figures 2 – 6).
Figure 1: Location of study area in the City of Toronto, Ontario

Source: City of Toronto Maps
Figure 2: Aerial view of

southern elevation of
Queen’s Park with city
in background;
Unknown date.
Source: Courtesy of
Ontario Legislative
Assembly
Figure 3: 60th Anniversary of Confederation, 1927 showing decorations.

Source: Courtesy of Ontario Legislative Assembly
Figure 4: Orange Parade moving south down Avenue Road to Queen’s Park;
Between 1930 and 1950.
Figure 5: Aerial of Queen’s Park, showing southern and eastern elevations and modern
buildings in the background; 1983.
Figure 6: 2009 public demonstration on the front lawns of Queen’s Park.

Source: Reproduced from the Toronto Star
This place, where Ontario’s provincial government gathers, is colloquially known as Queen’s Park.
Although the imposing pink sandstone building which stands on its southern elevation dates to 1893, the
site as a whole reflects more than 180 years of careful planning. Its boundaries may be defined to include
the area bounded by Queen’s Park Circle (See Figure 1). This place was purposefully carved out of the
natural landscape to function as a highly commemorative place, readily distinguishable and highly visible
within the City of Toronto.
The maintenance of the symbolic value of this site warrants effective long-term management and a
coordinated conservation approach. In 1991, the Properties and Precincts Branch of the Ontario
Legislative Assembly initiated a building restoration master plan and have since implemented a strategy
for conserving and restoring the building’s material elements. More recently, site stewards and
stakeholders, including the City of Toronto, the Ministry of Culture, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and the
Properties and Precincts Branch, have identified a need to develop a management framework for
preserving the site’s setting and significant views, both of which contribute to the site’s heritage
significance and symbolic importance within the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario
1.2 Report Purpose
Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was retained by the City of Toronto to prepare a Heritage Impact
Assessment of the significant views that contribute to the cultural heritage values of the Queen’s Park
cultural heritage landscape. The heritage significance of this site has been previously established. The
Ontario Legislative Assembly Building was listed on the City of Toronto’s Heritage Inventory in 1973.
Subsequently, several government-commissioned studies and planning-related reports examined the
cultural heritage significance of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape, illustrating its important
contributions to the commemoration of the Province of Ontario’s socio-political history, as well as the
contributions it has made to the City of Toronto’s architectural and contextual fabric.
The Ontario Legislative Assembly Building and Grounds Restoration Master Plan (Julian Smith et al
1991) provides a comprehensive treatment of the site’s cultural heritage significance and heritage
attributes. Although this study recognizes that important views and vistas contribute to the site’s cultural
heritage significance, it primarily addresses conservation and restoration of tangible building fabric and
materials. Related studies that have documented the site’s cultural heritage significance or examined and
identified important views in and out of the site include: Heritage Significance Study Whitney Block and
Tower, Queen’s Park, Toronto (William N. Greer et al. 1996); University of Toronto Area Background
Study and Official Plan Part II (City of Toronto 1997); Queen’s Park Complex: Cultural Landscape
Heritage Significance Study (Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster Ltd. et al. 2002); and Cultural
Heritage Significance Study: Queen’s Park Complex, Toronto. (Commonwealth Historic Resource
Management Limited 2005). Although previous studies have established the site’s cultural heritage
significance, specific identification and analysis of its important views has not yet been completed.
Additionally, a conservation strategy for preserving these attributes within the land use planning process
and within a context of tall tower development has not been established.
The purpose of this report is to address this gap in the site’s conservation framework. Specifically, this
report identifies particular views that contribute to the cultural heritage significance of the Queen’s Park
cultural heritage landscape and proposes mechanisms for protecting these heritage attributes. Chapter 2.0
demonstrates that the site’s setting and significant views were established during the nineteenth century
and that strong and deliberate efforts were made to protect these elements throughout the twentieth
century. This chapter also shows that protection of significant public views in the City of Toronto is
supported by a policy framework that was first developed during the 1970s. Section 2.1 briefly presents
how the Queen’s Park site developed during the nineteenth century, illustrating that its setting, including
its physical presence and visual dominance, was carefully engineered and intentionally shaped to function
as a highly visible, commemorative, and symbolic place in the City of Toronto. Section 2.2 then briefly
outlines the City of Toronto’s past and current planning approaches for safeguarding important views and
symbols.
Chapter 3.0 provides an explanation of the importance of protecting views in relation to important
heritage places and a review of view protection as an important part of long-standing commitments in the
conservation field to protect ‘setting’ as an integral component of any conservation management plan.
View protection is thus situated within the larger conservation context. A summary is then provided of
current heritage conservation practices and approaches employed in Canada and internationally to
conserve a site’s setting and significant views. The elements of this review are then integrated to help
shape a method for identifying and protecting significant views related to the Queen’s Park cultural
heritage landscape.
Chapter 4.0 is designed to identify the site’s significant views in relation to the site’s cultural heritage
value. This chapter reviews relevant background studies to chart how various cultural heritage resource
professionals have analyzed the site’s significant views over time, and also documents input provided by
site stakeholders. Following, a proposed statement of significance is presented which identifies the site’s
heritage values. This proposed statement of significance was developed to help interpret when, how, and
where views function as character-defining elements. These various components, the results of multiple
site visits, and analysis of graphic simulations of the site’s existing and future conditions are used to
identify the significant site views which should be protected, in order to sustain the site’s heritage values
for the people of Toronto and Ontario.
Chapter 5.0 addresses protection of significant views associated with the Queen’s Park cultural heritage
landscape. General principles for protecting these views are proposed. Recommendations for protecting
the site’s significant views presented in Chapter 5.0 are put forward within the particular planning context
of tall tower development.
2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING VIEWS ASSOCIATED WITH

QUEEN’S PARK
This chapter reviews the site’s planning history to characterize development of its setting and also
presents the historical and present policy context for protecting significant public views and view planes
in the City of Toronto. Section 2.1 illustrates how the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape was first
carved out of the natural landscape in the City of Toronto to serve as an extremely important site in the
City of Toronto and within the Province of Ontario. Previously conducted studies, secondary source
publications, and historic mapping were consulted to establish the site’s planning history. This review
clearly demonstrates that the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape is an excellent example of 150
years of integrated planning, design, and landscaping used to establish a ceremonial and monumental
setting for the seat of Ontario’s provincial government. Section 2.2 then demonstrates that in the 1970s,
the City of Toronto began to recognize that the site’s setting and significant views warranted protection
and provides a review of policy provisions that have been developed to protect significant views and view
planes in the City of Toronto.
2.1 Site Planning History
2.1.1 1829 – 1849: Acquisition and Early Planning of the Queen’s Park Site
In 1829, lands located south of present day Bloor Street and west of Yonge Street were sold by members
of the Family Compact to King’s College for the purposes of establishing an educational facility. As part
of this land purchase, two sixty-six foot wide strips of land were also sold to establish a roadway south to
Queen Street (present day University Avenue) and east to Yonge Street (present day College Street)
(Figure 7).
This land acquisition inspired development of an ambitious landscaping and architectural scheme for the
site. Circa 1830, Andre Parmentier produced the “first professional landscape plan for the site… the first
for any site in Toronto” (Smith et al 1991: 48). Thomas Young, the architect chosen to design the King’s
College buildings developed an architectural plan that capitalized on the site’s commanding position at
the head of University Avenue. Young “envisioned three huge classical stone buildings, to sit at the apex
of a long avenue of approach stretching up from Queen Street” (Hall 1993: 21). Following these land
purchases, University Avenue was immediately laid out as a 120’ wide boulevard from Queen Street to
College Street, with double rows of pink flowering chestnut trees on either side, and a broad carriageway
down the middle. The Avenue immediately became the most-favoured promenade in the city.” (Du Toit
et al. 1989:5) (Figure 8).
Figure 7: Sketch of the original King’s College Site, showing

present day University Avenue and College Street. Drawing made
by Mr. T.A. Reed, ca. 1946, at one time the University College
archivist.
Sources: Arthur 1979; Hall 1993
Figure 8: University Avenue, looking north from Queen Street. Unknown date but it is
likely taken at mid- nineteenth century.
Sources: Du Toit et al. 1989; Hall 1993
In 1842, the opening of King’s College was celebrated with the laying of the cornerstone on Thomas
Young’s Greek-revival inspired building. The building stood at the head of University Avenue and its
completion was marked by a “procession such as had never before been seen in these parts” (Arthur
1979:65) which slowly marched up University Avenue. In an account of the opening celebrations of the
day, Henry Scadding described the processional ceremony northward along University Avenue to College
Street as follows:
The countless array moved forward to the sound of military music. The sun shone out
with cloudless meridian splendour; one blaze of banners flushed upon the admiring eye.
The Governor’s rich Lord Lieutenant’s dress, the Bishop’s sacerdotal robes, the Judicial
ermine of the Chief Justice… the gorgeous uniforms of the suite, the accoutrements of
the number Firemen… the Red Crosses on the breasts of England’s congregated sons…
all formed one moving picture of civic pomp, one glorious spectacle which can never be
remembered but with satisfaction by those who had the good fortune to witness it” (as
quoted in Arthur 1979:65).
The building designed by Thomas Young and which stood at the head of University Avenue was never
used for teaching but rather served as university residences between 1842 and 1849 and later as a lunatic
asylum. By 1850, secularization of the college required establishment of larger teaching facilities and
within ten years, Young’s building had become obsolete. However, the unique setting of the land located
north of University Avenue and its axial position relative to the downtown core continued to be occupied
and be recognized as a unique place in the city. Its location, setting, and siting made it an ideal place to
establish important public institutions, celebrate civic events, and stage public assemblies.
2.1.2 1853 – 1893: Securing and Shaping the Queen’s Park Site for the Erection of Parliament
Buildings
In 1853, the Premier of the Province of Canada, Sir Francis Hincks, passed an act appropriating lands at
the head of University Avenue. The legislation described the appropriation as taking “such a portion of
the University park as might not be wanted for University purposes for the erection of Parliament
Buildings.” (as quoted in Hall 1993:22). Subsequently, a second landscaping plan was commissioned in
the mid-1850s and was undertaken by William Mundie and Edwin Taylor. By 1860, the site was “treed,
pastoral and attractive” and “Taddle Creek and its ravine lay toward the west [and] a long narrow pond
which was part of the creek lay immediately to the northwest” (Smith et al. 1991: 49). By the summer of
1860, a visit from the Prince of Wales further impressed the site with symbolic and commemorative
purpose as he designated the landscaped University Park as Queen’s Park.
By the summer of 1867, Toronto was named the capital of the province of Ontario and plans to establish a
permanent legislative assembly in the city were initiated. The provincial parliament continued to assemble
in the former legislative buildings on Front Street but their disrepair caused by fires in 1861 and 1862
necessitated consideration of a new building. As early as 1873, Kivas Tully, architect for the Department
of Public Works, argued that a new building was urgently needed (Hall 1993:24) and by this time, “it was
widely assumed that the site for any new structure would be Queen’s Park” (Hall 1993:24).
In February 1880, the Provincial Government assured its ability to construct a new legislative building at
Queen’s Park by entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, who by that time had leased the site
from the University of Toronto in perpetuity. This agreement stipulated that the City of Toronto give “its
consent to the occupation by the Government of as much of Queen’s Park as might be required…as a site
for the erection of new Legislature and Departmental Buildings” (as quoted in Arthur 1979:67). With the
site secured in February of 1880, a competition was announced in April of that same year to select a
design and architect to complete the new legislative building.
The tender for the building contract was awarded to Richard A. Waite of Buffalo, New York in 1885. His
proposed design included an imposing structure, designed in the Richardsonian Romanesque style and
constructed with Credit Valley sandstone and “stressed the site, the plan, and the superior lighting and
ventilation all of which had been weak points” in competitors’ submissions (Smith et al 1991: 28). With
respect to detailed specifications for the design of the grounds and treatment of the surrounding setting,
Smith et al. note that the “most important considerations were the siting of the building on axis with
University Avenue, and the creation of the large front lawn with semicircular drive. Together these gave
the building an important presence in an urban design sense, and an appropriate institutional character”
(1991:50). The building was completed in 1893 and officially opened by Premier Oliver Mowat on April
4th 1983. In his comments on opening day, Sir Oliver Mowat underlined the symbolic and monumental
importance of the site as the culmination of the city and province’s development and progress during the
nineteenth century:
I remember the province when there was in it not one university, not one college, and no
system of public schools. I remember when at every election there was but one polling
place for a whole country, no matter how extensive; when the election lasted for a week,
and when (except in towns) the only voters were freeholders. I remember when the
province had not a mile of railway, not I believe a mile of macadamized road. I
remember when the principal cities of the present were but villages – when this great
city of Toronto was “Little York”… The changes which have taken place in our
province in that half century have been very great. Its progress in population, in wealth,
in education, in intelligence, in political freedom, and in most other things which serve
to make a country attractive and great, has in fact been enormous. I am glad to have
retained my premiership long enough to see the erection and completion of the
magnificent building in which we are assembled, to take my place as premier of the
province at the first session of the Legislature held here (as quoted in “Centennial of the
Ontario Legislative Building”[n.a 1993]).
In the following year, the site was formally deeded to the Crown. Although only the extent of the building
envelope was officially deeded at this time, landscaping schemes were developed and implemented on the
lawns directly south of the building. A review of Waite’s design plans from 1892 (Figures 9 and 10),
confirms that that curvilinear pathway which exists today was intentionally designed, while the straight
front walk leading up to the entrance of the building from University Avenue did not appear until the mid-
1890s (Smith et al 1991: 51). During the twentieth century, no formal landscaping plan for the site was
initiated, however, several significant landscape elements have existed since 1912 (Smith et al 1991).
Figure 9: Proposed site layout, 1892.

Source: Smith et al. 1991
Figure 10: Existing conditions site layout, 1894.

Source: Smith et al. 1991.
Examination of this site planning history clearly demonstrates the setting of the Queen’s Park cultural
heritage landscape is the result of over 180 years of careful planning, design, and landscaping to establish
a ceremonial and monumental setting for the seat of Ontario’s provincial government integrated within an
urban environment. Among legislative precincts in Canada, the setting of the Ontario Legislative
Assembly Building is the most carefully planned. It is an excellent example of a legislative precinct that
fully capitalized on its siting within a picturesque setting and at the head of a major thoroughfare in an
urban city.
2.2 Planning Approaches for Protecting Public Views in the City of Toronto
In the early 1970s, the City of Toronto acknowledged that particular settings and views contributed to its
sense of place and character. During the early 1970s, design guidelines were developed to address
protection and management of specific public views. Today, the City of Toronto’s Official Plan
recognizes that the public realm provides tremendous opportunities to draw people together and “inspire
and astonish” residents and visitors alike. The current Plan recognizes that public views are an integral
part of the public realm and that maintenance of these features helps to foster dynamic public spaces.
The following provides a brief chronology of the City of Toronto’s historical and present policy context
for identifying and protecting significant public views. Attention is also paid to planning provisions and
specific guidelines that have identified significant views and view planes associated with the Queen’s
Park cultural heritage landscape. The following review illustrates that between the 1970s and 1990s, the
City of Toronto used a prescriptive approach for managing important public views by identifying and
mapping specific vantage points and view planes. Since amalgamation, the City of Toronto has employed
a less prescriptive approach and now relies on the provision of broad policy statements rather than the
identification of specific views.
2.2.1 On Building Downtown
In 1974, the report entitled On Building Downtown was completed by a study group of the consortium of
Abram, Nowski & McLaughlin, Architects; John Andrews International/Roger du Toit, Architects and
Planners; George Baird, Architect; and General Urban System Corporation/Stephen McLaughlin. The
study recommended design guidelines that would enable appropriate forms of change within the City’s
core area. The introduction to the Second Edition notes that its design recommendations would be used
as input when developing design criteria for particular planning areas in the City’s core area. The On
Building Downtown study is instructive as it addresses protection of views associated with Queen’s Park
and the Ontario Legislative Assembly Building and therefore serves as insightful documentation of initial
thinking around this issue.
On Building Downtown recommended design guidelines that would enable development projects that
provided public amenity and which were compatible with the surrounding City (Baird et al 1974:3). The
study recognized that private development projects should be designed in consideration of the following
elements: linkages, pedestrian amenity, scale, views, micro-climate, and open space. Specifically, the
study argued that development projects required guidelines so as to appropriately retain existing public
views in and out of the core area. The study recognized that public views, that is, views from within and
of public spaces, “facilitate orientation and overall comprehension of city form” (Baird et al 1974:75).
The study also acknowledged that public views are intimately linked to the protection of symbolic places
and the messages they represent and communicate: “they serve as perceptual cues in public
consciousness; they represent significant collective images” (Baird et al 1974:75).
On Building Downtown identified and mapped a range of then existing public views that were to be
retained. Although the study team’s methodology for selecting identified views was not fully described,
the study intimates that significant public views are commonly linked with significant cultural heritage
resources. The study notes that age, historical importance, degree of public status, and current visibility
on the skyline were determining factors in the selection of specific public views warranting preservation.
The following views were identified as important in the study:
• Views of Connaught Laboratories (University of Toronto)

• Views along Bloor Street East, Jarvis Street to Spadina Avenue
• Views of Russian Orthodox Holy Trinity Church (23 Henry Street)
• Views of University College
• Views of the Grange
• Views along Simcoe Street, Queen Street to the Lake;
• Views of the Provincial Legislature Building
• Views of Osgoode Hall
• Views along Queen Street, Spadina Avenue to Sherbourne Street
• Views of new City Hall
• Views of old City Hall Clock Tower
• Views of St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church (609 Adelaide Street West)
• Views along Yonge Street, Bloor Street to the Lake
• Views of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
• Views along Pembroke Street, Shuter Street to Gerrard Street
• Views of Homewood Avenue, Carleton Street to Wellesley Street

• Views of St. James Cathedral Spire
• Views of Toronto Elevators (417 Queens Quay West)
The study specifically examined views of the ‘Provincial Legislature Building’ that should be retained as
part of the development approval process. Identified significant views included: (1) axial view looking
north from Adelaide Street along University Avenue; (2) axial view looking south from Davenport along
Avenue Road; (3) silhouette view of the centre block of the building looking north from Queen Street
along University Avenue; and (4) silhouette view of the building looking north from just south of Elm
Street along University Avenue.
The recommendations contained within the study were never adopted as policy as a whole. However, the
contents of this study did lead to inclusion of a view protection policy statement in the 1976 Central Area
Plan (BL 34-76). The portion of the City included in the Central Area Plan is illustrated in Appendix A.
Although general and omitting much of the detail provided in On Building Downtown, the 1976 Central
Area Plan policy statement clearly affirms that significant views should be identified and protected as part
of the land use planning process:
1A.33 Since significant views in the Central Area are an important element in its visual
character, it is the policy of Council to define significant views by way of area
studies, to encourage their preservation where land is developed and or
redeveloped and to use its available powers to enact regulations and review
plans and drawings to secure the retention of such views.
2.2.2 1993 Official Plan Provisions
The City of Toronto’s 1993 Official Plan contained strengthened provisions for identifying and protecting
significant public views, in contrast to the 1976 Central Area Plan. Sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 of the
Plan recognized that ‘areas of special identity’, ‘prominent areas and sites’, and ‘significant views and
focal points’ require specific identification, designation, and protection. The Plan identified and mapped
fifteen prominent areas and sites, as well as nineteen significant views. The following policy statements
addressed identification and protection of these features:
3.5 It is the policy of Council to sustain and enhance well known and highly visible
areas, sites, buildings, structures or landscapes that give the City and its
neighbourhoods distinctiveness by designating the areas and sites indicated on
Map 4 as prominent areas and sites… Council will encourage any development
on prominent areas and sites to be responsive to the distinctive characteristics of
the areas and sites. Council may establish guidelines through an appropriate
public process to meet its objectives for the area or site.
3.6 Council shall encourage the enhancement, preservation, and where possible, the
creation of significant views and focal points by:
a) preserving and enhancing existing views to natural features, particularly the
Lake, down City street and across publicly accessible open spaces; and
b) designating the views on Map 4 as significant views.
3.7 Council shall establish measures for the preservation, enhancement or creation of
significant views which ensure that new buildings or other structures do not
obstruct, hinder or detract from designated views along streets and other view
corridors, and to encourage the removal of existing structures over public streets
or lanes that obstruct hinder or detract from views to important natural features
or public buildings.
The Plan identified “University Avenue and Queen’s Park Circle, including the intersections of major
streets with University Avenue” as a prominent area and site and “Queen’s Park from University Avenue”
as a significant view. The southerly limits of this view corridor along University Avenue appear to
terminate just north of Dundas Street. Appendix B provides an excerpt from the 1991 Plan which shows a
map of identified areas and view corridors.
Section 11 of the 1993 Plan further addressed development of a specific management framework for
protecting significant views associated with the Queen’s Park Government Areas. Section 11.8 describes
the significance of the area in relation to its symbolic value, significant views, and unique setting:
11.8 Council recognizes the role of the Queen’s Park Government Areas as both the
seat and ceremonial centre of democratic self-governance in Ontario. The
Provincial Legislature Building, a valuable heritage building in a park-like
setting, is a traditional place of assembly for our citizenry, and terminates the
view at the north end of University Avenue, Toronto’s most important
ceremonial street.
The 1993 Plan also encouraged maintenance of this area’s setting and protection of important views to the
Provincial Legislature Building:
11.11 Council shall encourage the Provincial Government to retain all parks, open
space areas, and significant treed areas in the Queen’s Park Government Area
and seek to ensure that new developments are of a scale that maintains
comfortable pedestrian conditions in these green areas. Council will encourage
the retention of generous landscaped setbacks for sites fronting along Queen’s
Park Crescent and College Street in the Queen’s Park Government Area, and
ensure that the scale and massing of new development is in keeping with, and
maintains views to, the heritage public buildings.
2.2.3 University of Toronto Secondary Plan
In 1996, a Secondary Plan was completed for the University of Toronto Area, which is approximately
bounded by Spadina Avenue on the west, Bloor Street on the north, College Street on the south, and
between Bay Street and Queen’s Park Circle on the east. The Plan was undertaken to:
• Recognize and protect the Area primarily as an Institutional District;
• Provide planning regulation that give the institutions flexibility to adjust to changing program,
technological, and funding constraints; and
• Preserve, protect and enhance unique built form, heritage and landscape character of the Area.
Sections of the plan that address identification and protection of significant views in and out of the
Queen’s Park site include the following: Sections 3.2.1, 3.3.2, 4.1, 5.2
3.2.1 The preservation and enhancement of the existing series of unique, important
and memorable views within, at the edges of, and into the University of Toronto
from the surrounding areas as indicated on Map 20-4, will be encouraged
through appropriate built form and landscape controls. The opening of new
measures such as setbacks and height limits as articulated in the Site
Development Guidelines for redevelopment sites, approved by Council as
required under Section 6.2 of this Secondary Plan.
3.3.2 The heritage buildings and properties which are designated under the Ontario
Heritage Act or listed on the City of Toronto’s Inventory of Heritage Properties
will be conserved.
4.1 The Institutional Area of Special Identity shown on Map 20-5 is a unique and
valuable environment characterized by distinctive nineteenth-century,
institutional development patterns and a traditional and spacious campus
character created by unique heritage buildings, monuments and open space,
which form the traditional core of the University of Toronto Areas. The value of
the Institutional Area of Special Identify includes the concentration of unique
heritage buildings, the relationships between the buildings and their settings, and
the quality of open spaces defined by the buildings.
5.2 In that portion of the Queen’s Park Government Area within the Institutional
Area of Special Identity as shown on Map 20-5, the size of ancillary commercial
uses may be limited so as to be compatible with the heritage buildings located in
such area.
The University of Toronto Secondary Plan and its policies were carried forward in the City’s 2006
Official Plan and provide a clear planning policy framework for conserving significant views of the
Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. However, the protective mechanisms enabled through the
Secondary Plan are limited in so far as they apply only to the Secondary Plan area, which has a southerly
limit at College Street and a northerly limit at Bloor Street. These area limits do not address conservation
of significant views that may be extant from locations south of College Street. Additionally, the
Secondary Plan is limited in terms of addressing impacts of tall tower development, north of Bloor Street,
on significant views of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape.
2.2.4 2006 Official Plan Provisions
The City of Toronto’s current Official Plan acknowledges that significant public views require protection
and management. However, the substantial policy content provided in the 1993 Plan and particular
policies addressing protection and maintenance of Queen’s Park’s setting and significant views do not
appear in the 2006 Plan. Discussions with City of Toronto Planning Staff indicated that removal of this
detail was in part reflective of the policy implications of amalgamation in the late 1990s. The former
boroughs of Metro Toronto, which were amalgamated with the City of Toronto had not conducted similar
types of view analyses or developed analogous policy statements. As such, it was determined by senior
Planning officials that the 2006 Official Plan for the new City of Toronto should incorporate strong
general policy statements which address preservation, creation, and enhancement of important public
views, which they believed would provide protection for such views across the City.
Section 3.1.1 of the 2006 Plan provides the following relevant policy statements:
8 Scenic routes with public views of important natural or human-made features should be
preserved and, where possible, improved by:
a) maintaining views and vistas as new development occurs;

b) creating new scenic routes or views when an opportunity arises; and
c) increasing pedestrian and cycling amenities along the route.
9 Public works and private development will maintain, frame and, where possible, create
public views to important natural and human-made features from other public places.
The 2006 Official Plan also provides policy statements relevant for conserving cultural heritage resources
in the City of Toronto. This policy section provides a basis for protecting and managing significant views
in relation to significant cultural heritage resources through its objective of “conserving Toronto’s
remaining irreplaceable heritage resources, including our heritage landscapes, historic cemeteries, and
buried archaeological sites”.
Section 3.1.5 provides the following relevant policy statements for protecting and managing views that
contribute to the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape:
2. Heritage resources on properties listed on the City’s Inventory of Heritage Properties will be
conserved. A Heritage Impact Statement may be requested for development proposals on a
property on the City’s Inventory of Heritage Properties, and will be required where the
development entails an amendment to the Official Plan and/or Zoning By-Law. Development
adjacent to properties on the City’s Inventory of Heritage Properties will respect the scale,
character, and form of the heritage buildings and landscapes.
10. Heritage landscapes and historic cemeteries will be conserved.

3.0 APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING AND PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS
3.1 Introduction and Context
3.1.1 Purpose and Scope
Chapter 3.0 provides an explanation of the importance of protecting views in relation to important
heritage places and a review of view protection as an important part of long-standing commitments in the
conservation field to protect ‘setting’ as an integral component of any conservation management plan.
View protection is thus situated within the larger conservation context. A summary is then provided of
current heritage conservation practices and approaches employed in Canada and internationally to
conserve a site’s setting and significant views. The elements of this review are then integrated to help
shape a method for identifying and protecting significant views related to the Queen’s Park cultural
heritage landscape.
Best practices in identifying, managing and protecting important views in historic cities are explored as a
basis for identifying a method appropriate for use in managing the viewscape of the Queen’s Park
precinct. It makes use of precedent in recent discussions of high rise projects within threatened World
Heritage sites, and draws copiously from best practice in the United Kingdom (the world leaders in
developing methods to identify, characterize and manage views), and in Canada, particularly in Ottawa,
where efforts to protect views to and from the Parliament Buildings have provoked great ingenuity in the
use of planning mechanisms for close to 40 years.
This chapter looks first at the larger context for consideration of views – understanding the importance of
protecting views in urban development, and equally their contribution to establishing setting, one of the
three key attributes supporting heritage significance of historic places, both internationally and in Canada.
This section also looks at the range of considerations important in establishing an overall high buildings
policy or strategy in a particular municipal context. Secondly, the chapter reviews methods used to assess
and manage impacts of proposed tall buildings on views associated with important heritage structures,
including: identification and characterization of such views; measuring impacts on identified views; and
mitigating and managing defined potential impacts associated with important heritage places. Thirdly, this
chapter proposes a method, based on the analysis of precedent elsewhere and using management and
planning mechanisms, to anticipate, measure and respond to potentially negative impacts of proposed
developments on views associated with the Queen’s Parks cultural heritage landscape.
3.1.2 The Importance of Protecting Views
Any analysis of the importance of protecting a particular view or set of views of a place of heritage value
needs to be rooted in appreciation and understanding of what benefits protecting that view provide to a
city and its population. Many arguments are advanced for retention of views and viewscapes in historic
cities. Maintaining a distinctive skyline silhouette recalls important moments, events and structures of
symbolic value in the developmental history of a city. Such skyscapes lend familiarity to the process of
movement through the city over time for residents and frequent visitors. They mark the city with a set of
distinctive and recognizable physical images which are as much a part of its urban character as its most
memorable buildings, streetscapes and urban patterns. In short, they help shape and define a strong
identity for the urban entity and its citizens. Developments which would obliterate or diminish the clarity
of long retained viewscapes have the potential equally to obliterate or diminish a city’s long held physical
and associational identity.
Critics of efforts to retain views often suggest that view protection is rooted in sentimental attachment to a
phase in the city’s history long ended and that today’s developers and civic officials would be well
advised to devote their time to restructuring the city’s skyline to reflect today’s developmental trends and
history. Those seeking to protect historic views are not trying to freeze development of a city in time;
rather, they are recognizing that the present identity of a city like Toronto is strongly fixed in the
concentration of 19th century and early 20th century efforts devoted to the building of a city’s civic
institutions, and that the traces of those public origins represent an irreplaceable part of the city’s past,
one to cherish and protect in the face of contemporary speculative private sector development pressures.
Certainly, no city with an interest to grow and to enhance its place in today’s modern world would seek to
freeze the physical testimony of past generations; rather, such cities would encourage high quality
contemporary development which recognizes the importance of respecting and complementing the
character defined by key landmarks and viewscapes related to those landmarks. This suggests in practical
terms that cities conscious of both the need to grow and to protect heritage will seek not to prohibit tall
structures but to establish design, height and location controls appropriate for protecting and physically
complementing existing important views.
An approach focused on protecting views does not prohibit the construction of tall buildings. It simply
recognizes the importance of planning for tall buildings of quality which will have acceptable impacts in
the environments in which they are inserted. The English Heritage/ CABE document Guidance on Tall
Buildings (July 2007) supports this approach (“to get the right developments in the right place”[Section
2.4]) in the context of urban planning in the UK, and suggests that it “will ensure that tall buildings are
properly planned as part of an exercise in place-making informed by a clear long-term vision, rather than
in an ad hoc, reactive, piecemeal manner” (Section 2.4).
Section 2.6 in Guidance on Tall Buildings (English Heritage/CABE 2007) describes this as a
‘development-led plan approach to tall buildings’, and notes that this proactive approach to location and
design of tall buildings:
• enables areas appropriate for tall buildings to be identified within the local development
framework in advance of specific proposals.
• enables the spatial, scale and quality requirements for new tall buildings to be established within
the local development framework.
• ensures an appropriate mix of uses is achieved.
• enables proper public consultation at the plan-making stage on the fundamental questions of
principle and design.
• reduces the scope for unnecessary, speculative applications in the wrong places.
• protects the historic environment and the qualities which make a city or area special.
• highlights opportunities for the removal of past mistakes and their replacement by development
of an appropriate quality.
Efforts to maintain important viewscapes – both by protecting specific views in designated areas or zones,
and by directing high rise development to designated development zones - should be seen as simply a part
of long-standing efforts in the conservation field to protect the heritage values of important historic places
by protecting their physical, cultural and functional setting. The next section (3.1.3) looks in more detail
at the concept of setting and the relationship of setting to views.
3.1.3 The Importance of Setting in Best Conservation Practice

Maintaining the integrity of views to and from the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape (including the
Legislative Assembly building and grounds) begins with recognizing the importance of maintaining the
setting of the Legislative Assembly and its precinct, and the role of views within management of setting.
Views are among the key attributes which contribute to the definition of the setting of this important
historic place.
Setting has long been recognized in the guiding doctrinal texts of the heritage conservation field as a key
element of the heritage significance of important heritage properties, and hence its conservation has been
understood as a key part of “best practice” in the heritage field. Equally these documents have focused on
the important contribution of views to definitions of setting.
These efforts can be recognized in the substance of United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) declarations going back to the 1960s and 1970s. For example, the criteria
established in 1977 for the inscription of nominated properties to the World Heritage List─ adapted from
1950s practice in the United States for National Register nominations ─ have always included an explicit
concern for setting. Properties recognized as possessing ‘outstanding universal value’ must also meet the
‘qualifying condition’ of authenticity; authenticity is established by verifying the degree to which
candidate nominations can be understood to reflect key aspects of authenticity, including that of ‘setting’.
The theme of setting was the focus of the International Council on Monuments and Sites’ (ICOMOS) 15th
General Assembly and Scientific Symposium in Xi’an, China, in October 2005. Based on participant
papers and discussion, the General Assembly adopted a Declaration of Principles which acknowledged
the contribution of setting to the significance of places of heritage value.
The Xi’an Declaration (Declaration hereafter) acknowledges the “setting of a heritage structure, site or
area is defined as the immediate and extended environment that is part of, or contributes to, its
significance and distinctive character” (ICOMOS 2005) and suggests that such places “derive their
significance and distinctive character from their meaningful relationships with their physical, visual,
spiritual and other cultural context and settings” (ICOMOS 2005). Setting is further defined to include
“interaction with the natural environment, past or present social or spiritual practices, customs, traditional
knowledge, use or activities and other forms of intangible cultural heritage aspects that created and form
the space as well as the current and dynamic cultural, social and economic context”(ICOMOS 2005).
More proactively, in attempting to guide modern development in historic places, the Declaration
emphasizes that “change to the setting of heritage structures, sites and areas should be managed to retain
cultural significance and distinctive character,” stressing that “managing change to the setting of heritage
structures, sites and areas need not necessarily prevent or obstruct change” (ICOMOS 2005). The
Declaration talks about how to manage change to retain significance, noting that “planning instruments
should include provisions to effectively control the impact of incremental or rapid change on settings”
and that “significant skylines, sight lines and adequate distance between any new public or private
development and heritage structures, sites and areas are key aspects to assess in the prevention of
inappropriate visual and spatial encroachments or land use in significant settings” (ICOMOS 2005). The
Declaration further notes that “qualitative and quantifiable indicators should be developed to assess the
contribution of the setting to the significance of a heritage structure, site or area” and that “indicators for
monitoring should cover physical aspects such as intrusion on views, skylines or open spaces, air
pollution, sound pollution, as well as economic, social and cultural dimensions” (ICOMOS 2005).
These concerns are shared widely among modern designers who work with historic environments, as well
as conservation specialists. The Vienna Memorandum, adopted in 2005 by 600 international
professionals, brought together by the International Union of Architects and UNESCO to look at
problems arising in efforts to insert modern buildings into historic settings, inspired a draft UNESCO
Recommendation intended to codify modern principles for management of historic cities, updating and
replacing the Nairobi Recommendation of 19761.
A number of the articles in the Vienna Memorandum (Memorandum hereafter) concern the management
of setting. The document places particular emphasis on the emerging preference for use of “place” in
referring to heritage, rather than the long used “monuments” or “sites” references used to describe the
built heritage, demonstrates the growing importance for contemporary professionals for integrating
conservation practice for heritage structures with concern for the setting within which the structures sit.
More specifically, the Memorandum notes that new architecture should respect the qualities, including
building scale and height, of historic structures: “Ethical standards and a demand for high-quality design
and execution, sensitive to the cultural-historic context, are prerequisites for the planning process.
Architecture of quality in historic areas should give proper consideration to the given scales, particularly
with reference to building volumes and heights. It is important for new development to minimize direct
impacts on important historic elements, such as significant structures or archaeological deposits”. The
Memorandum further notes “in this respect, special emphasis is to be placed on the contextualization of
contemporary architecture in the historic urban landscape and Cultural or Visual Impact Assessment
studies should accompany proposals for contemporary interventions” (UNESCO 2005).
Inscription of properties on the World Heritage List has long required that States Parties proposing
nominations ensure protection of adjacent ‘buffer zones’ (that is, the immediate setting of the property),
whose protection is understood to be critically important for the preservation of the World Heritage
values of the inscribed property itself. For example, inscription of the Rideau Canal on the World
Heritage List required that Canada demonstrate adequate protection of adjacent 30 metre wide buffer
zones on both sides of the Canal. In recent years, the Committee has extended its scrutiny of development
proposals, in particular for proposals of high rise structures, beyond the buffer zone to outlying ‘zones of
influence,’ where inappropriately sited and designed tall structures could be perceived to have possible
negative impacts on World Heritage properties.
In a large number of recent cases, proposals for tall structures in World Heritage cities have attracted the
concern of the World Heritage Committee (including Canada, a member of the Committee 2005 through
2009) and its Advisory Bodies, including ICOMOS. In Cologne (Germany), Vienna (Austria), Riga,
Tallinn (Estonia), Edinburgh (United Kingdom), London (United Kingdom), Liverpool (United
1
The Nairobi Recommendation (to give it its proper name, the Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and
Contemporary Role of Historic Areas), adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization meeting in Nairobi at its nineteenth session, on 26 November 1976, is an
intergovernmental document providing advice to UNESCO member countries interested to develop policies and
practices for the management of historic cities. It was complemented in 1987 by an ICOMOS Charter, the Charter of
Washington, focused on similar issues
Kingdom), Vilnius (Lithuania), Isfahan (Iran), Cairo (Egypt), and St. Petersburg (Russia), the impacts of
recently proposed tall structures in or near the property inscribed on the World Heritage List have been
perceived as negative by the Committee, and received close scrutiny2. The Committee has communicated
various concerns to various States Parties concerned and in almost all cases mentioned above, that
pressure has resulted in height reductions, project reconfigurations, or project cancellations. Five of six 60
storey towers planned for Vienna outside its buffer zone were cancelled and the sixth, already under
construction, was stopped at a lower height. A tower planned in Cologne, located 800 metres from the
inscribed Cologne Cathedral was cancelled. A tower in Isfahan rising above the long established two
storey height of structures surrounding the historic city’s central Maidan was pulled down to a suitable
height, below the tree line. Pressures in Tallinn resulted in a tall buildings study which established
suitable zones for high rise structures outside the traditional old town core. Other projects are still being
discussed and results are not yet entirely clear. In all cases, the challenges to the projects were motivated
by the strong and shared perception among Committee members that the tall buildings proposals
threatened the Outstanding Universal Value of the inscribed properties, and should be significantly altered
if those values were to be retained.
3.1.4 Setting in Canadian Practice
Concern for setting has been a part of best conservation practice in Canada for close to 25 years. The
Federal Government’s Federal Heritage Building Review Office (FHBRO) programme, managed by
Parks Canada, and built around the Federal Heritage Building Policy established by the Treasury Board in
1983 to protect the “heritage character” of Crown owned buildings, has regarded “environment” as a key
part of a building’s “heritage character.” Derived from Hal Kalman’s landmark 1980 publication for
Parks Canada, The Evaluation of Historic Buildings, the FHBRO notion of “environment” is defined to
include the criteria for ‘site’, ‘setting’ and ‘landmark’, in order to “to measure the present-day role of the
building in the community's streetscape.”
FHBRO asks three key questions in evaluating the environmental significance of the heritage buildings
under review (FHBRO 2008). The first question concerns ‘site’:
What is the integrity of the historical relationship between the building and its associated
landscape?
This criterion measures the degree to which the immediate environment enhances and strengthens
the building. The associated landscape is normally that contained within the property lines and
over which the owner has control. For some urban buildings, the evaluation may be limited to the
interface between the building and the adjacent sidewalk or public space. Integrity is judged by
considering the original or historic treatment in relation to the nature of what exists today.
The second question concerns ‘setting’:
2
Details of projects planned for World Heritage properties mentioned are derived from "state of conservation"
reports prepared by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee
(ICOMOS, ICCROM for cultural heritage), and reviewed by the Committee during its annual sessions. These
documents may be referenced at http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/. Once the home page has opened up, material for
particular properties may be explored by following the tabs: Committee - sessions - identify a session (e.g., 33rd
session) - documents - decisions, for the property of interest.
What is the influence of the building on the present character of the area with which it is
associated?
This criterion measures the influence of the building on its streetscape or surroundings, to be
interpreted as broader than the limited space referred to under "Site". The ‘present character of
the area’ should be considered in an urban design sense, as well as in terms of building types. The
character of urban space may be homogeneous or heterogeneous, depending on circumstances.
The FHBRO will have to decide, in the case of complexes, how they wish to define ‘area’.
The third question concerns “landmark’:
What is the nature of the building’s identity within the community?
This criterion evaluates the importance of a building to the community. While it is partially a
matter of physical landmark (i.e., a prominent church spire) it also applies to the symbolic value
of a building to the community as a whole.
The FHBRO approach and evaluation criteria, and the 1980 Parks Canada/ Harold Kalman criteria on
which they are based, have provided evaluation models for dozens of historic communities across the
country. Specific wording establishing the importance of setting as a key factor contributing to heritage
value may be found in the majority of such evaluation instruments, and extend this concern to the
relationship between setting and viewscape.
The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, although written to
provide a guide for decision-making in the context of treatments proposed for important buildings,
landscapes, engineering works and buildings, do emphasize the importance of protecting key views as a
key component of setting. For example, in relation to projects emphasizing ‘Preservation’, the Standards
and Guidelines suggest that it is “Not Recommended” to:
Remove or radically alter views important in defining the heritage value of the contributing
landscape setting, thus causing a loss of heritage value (Parks Canada 2003).
Further, in relation to ‘Rehabilitation’ projects, the Standards and Guidelines note that it is “Not
Recommended” to:
Place a new element in such a way as to negatively impact or to modify characteristic views, for
example masking an important view to a distant landmark with a new wall or construction (Parks
Canada 2003).
Since 2006, accompanying the revised Ontario Heritage Act (2005), Ontario Regulation 9/06, also
building on the Parks Canada/ Kalman and FHBRO evaluation precedents, has recognized the
environment surrounding a heritage structure as significant: OR 9/06 states that a property has contextual
value because it:
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark”.
These international and Canada lessons emphasize and confirm that there is a need to ensure that efforts
to control and manage views are seen as part of larger efforts to maintain the long term integrity of
setting, understood─as these examples amply demonstrate─as a key component of the heritage value of
historic places.
3.2 Assessing Impacts of High Buildings on Important Heritage Buildings
This report has analysed practice in a number of jurisdictions in Canada and internationally3 to examine
methods in place in to measure the impacts of tall buildings on important heritage places. The
jurisdictions examined have been chosen for review because they appeared to offer lessons which could
help guide analysis of the impact of tall buildings on the Queen’s Parks cultural heritage landscape.
In general, the nature of the approaches to controlling views in relation to important heritage landmarks
vary with a number of factors including: the objectives for such control established in various cities; the
degree of technological and planning sophistication desired and available; the length of time during which
relevant experiences have been acquired; and the particular context in which it is desired to achieve
control. The context explored in this report is that of controlling views to an important Toronto landmark
─the Queen’s Parks Legislative Assembly building─from a number of directions along which the
landmark can be appreciated by those moving toward the landmark. More generally, in historic cities,
however, view control has been sought across the breadth of entire zones or districts, in order to manage
views in relation to a large number of important landmarks within such zones or which are visible from
those zones. In such cases, however, even where control mechanisms have been developed for multiple
landmark situations, lessons applicable for view control in relation to single landmarks can often be
extrapolated usefully. The following is a brief summary of approaches developed in cities examined for
this report, highlighting lessons important for the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape.
3.2.1 City of Halifax.
Since 1974, the city of Halifax has protected ten views of the city and its harbour from four key vantage
points, established on Citadel Hill. The view planes from each of the vantage points have defined lateral
edges which extend down to and penetrate well beyond the shoreline into the harbour. The ten view
planes were carefully chosen to retain significant two-way perspectives (to and from Citadel Hill) but do
not together encompass the entire downtown. Control of these view planes is assured within zoning
bylaws which provide precise definition of the view planes through which new tall buildings must not
penetrate.
This zoning is still in place today and until recently has ensured that developments proposed in the city
over the last 35 years have not obscured the important views. However, in September 2007, the Nova
Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSURB) ruled that a 27-storey twin tower development planned for a
block of Halifax bounded by Granville, Sackville, Hollis and Salter Streets could proceed in spite of the
objections of Halifax Regional Council. While it was acknowledged that Municipal Planning Strategy
3
Within Canada, practice adopted in the cities of Halifax, Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver was reviewed.
Internationally, practice in London, United Kingdom and Edinburgh, United Kingdom was reviewed in detail. As
well, practice adopted in the World Heritage cities, including Vienna, St. Petersburg, Tallinn, Vilnius, Riga, Isfahan,
Austria, and Cologne, where the impact of tall buildings on the heritage qualities of these cities has become a matter
of public debate in recent years, was also examined.
policies stress the importance of protecting views of the harbour from Citadel Hill4, the Review Board
approved the development because it did not specifically prohibit penetration of the skyline between the
ten view planes originally established, even though in this case, one of the view planes (view plane 6)
crossed a corner of the lot slated for development.
Hence, although the general intent and long held practice of the city in protecting its important
viewscapes were acknowledged and clear, the NSURB ruling placed greater emphasis on the precise
extent of defined view planes within height controlling provisions of local bylaws.
3.2.2 City of Ottawa
Ottawa reviewed its approach to protecting views of the national symbols in Canada’s Capital city, in
1989, in response to a development proposal for an extremely tall tower within two blocks of the
Parliamentary Precinct. The proposal, if realized, would have adversely impacted Ottawa’s familiar
parliamentary skyline, and also removed all protection for important Ottawa views. A similarly bold
tower proposal in 1971 had resulted in a doubling of the 150 feet height limit then existing to 300 feet.
The 1989 proposal, coming from the same developer who had successfully challenged zoning height
limits in 1971, involved again doubling permissible building height, this time to 600 feet. A 3D computer
model developed by the National Capital Commission (NCC) aided public visualization of the negative
impacts of the tower and prompted Ottawa’s City Council in revising its Official Plan to commit itself to
protect the “visual integrity and symbolic primacy of the Parliament Buildings and other national
symbols,” while equally ensuring potential for private development up to 8 FSI (floor space index) (NCC
2007: 19). A 7- step process was developed to meet City Council’s commitments and included
establishing key viewpoints and associated areas for controls in relation to key national symbols, defining
required visual integrity, establishing control viewpoints from among the multiple viewpoints established,
calculating height control planes and checking impacts of height control on densities.
Confirmed by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in 1996, the new approach strengthened view point
protection in Ottawa by expanding the angular view planes in place to provide a consolidated sphere of
protection, by validating the use of computerized modeling technology, and by winning agreement of
private property owners.
3.2.3 City of Toronto
A report entitled On Building Downtown, prepared by a consortium of designers (the Design Guidelines
Study Group, including George Baird, Roger du Toit, Robert Hill, Bruce Kuwabara et al) submitted to the
City of Toronto Planning Board in Sept. 1974, included an important section on ‘Public Views’. The
report emphasized how “public views can facilitate orientation and overall comprehension of city form”
(Baird et al 1974:75) and proposed a number of specific views to be protected. The Legislative Building
is treated in the report and using a view plane analysis analogous to that employed in Halifax, establishes
a ‘silhouette’ into which new construction should not project.
4
See policy 6.3, Municipal Planning Strategy, which states “The City shall maintain or recreate a sensitive and
complimentary setting for Citadel Hill by controlling the Height of new development in its vicinity to reflect the
historic and traditional scale of development.”
This study represents an early interest of the city of Toronto to protect views from University Avenue to
the Legislative Assembly Building, and equally importantly, a definition of the shape of the skyline view
to be protected.
3.2.4 City of Vancouver
Vancouver set out to strengthen protection of the character of its remarkable natural setting, running from
waterside to distant mountains, in the face of development pressures accompanying continuing increases
in population. A Skyline Study looked at policy options to protect three skylines of particular importance:
the ridge line of the mountains, the skylines of buildings, and the line of the water’s edge. Analysis to
protect these three skylines involved mapping existing heights, zoning potential, important view corridors
and the intersections of important view corridors with topographic contours. Five prototype skylines were
modeled in three dimensions to evaluate impacts on the three skylines, and to test possible protective
approaches. As a result of the process described, City Council ultimately approved three policies to
support desired results: view protection (establishing height limits and future application processes),
higher buildings and bridgehead guidelines (protecting specific views from bridge crossings over water)
(McGeough 2008:165). These policies established generally an overall height limit of 300 feet (reduced
from 450 feet) across the study site, while supporting six potential towers of 6oo feet, where exceptional
architectural quality could be achieved.
Vancouver’s approach generally establishes blanket height restrictions city wide in order to protect
specific important views. The method used works by amalgamating height limits associated with those
important view cones, in order to arrive at an overall height envelope.
3.2.5 City of London, United Kingdom
The establishment of the Greater London Authority in 2000, which gave initial emphasis to promotion of
economic growth and the positioning of London as a pre-eminent world capital, provoked numerous tall
tower development proposals across the city. Review of earlier Planning Guidance notes which had
protected distant views of St. Paul’s Cathedral and the Houses of Parliament resulted in development of
the London View Management Framework in July 2007. This document identified 26 strategically
important views worthy of long term protection, and methodologies for protection. Views identified fall
into a range of categories5, built around three key landmarks, which include the Tower of London, St.
Paul’s, and the Houses of Parliament. The views are managed by the use of qualitative visual assessment
and by the use of “protected vistas,” defined as geometrically defined views, linked to a landmark
viewing corridor with fore, middle, background and lateral zones and a “background height threshold.”
While this approach is meant to provide a comprehensive city wide scheme of interlinked protective view
planes for relevant views to key London landmarks, some concerns have been expressed that its extension
to local landmarks in the boroughs depends on the ability to mobilize and use the expensive and hard-to-
access technical methodology employed for producing ‘Accurate Visual Representations’ (AVRs). As
well, the apparent ability of the scheme to protect important views is put in doubt by the World Heritage
Committee’s interrogation of its effectiveness in protecting particular World Heritage properties, such as
the Tower of London in the face of a very real proliferation of tall buildings in London’s core.
5
: View categories include: townscape; river; prospects; panoramas; and linear views
3.2.6 English Heritage; United Kingdom
English Heritage, concerned with defending United Kingdom World Heritage properties from criticism
before the World Heritage Committee, has followed closely the recent development of view control
mechanisms and approaches in London. In response to lessons learned in London, and to some of the
constraints of the methods developed, including high costs in funds and time to obtain reliable and precise
responses, have developed in 2008 in collaboration with the Greater London Authority, a new method for
examining view focused on assessing qualitative rather than quantitative data. This approach, which looks
at assessing the historic significance of views, is explained in an English Heritage consultation document
Seeing the history in the view: A methodology for assessing heritage significance within views (April
2008). The approach is straightforward and involves definition of the historic values associated with a
particular view, and secondly, an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the defined
historic values. In this second step, the method also looks qualitatively at the visual relationship to setting
and surroundings, scale and massing, appearance, colour, texture, reflectivity, diurnal (including day/
night) and seasonal changes, impact on the existing skyline, and potential blockages to important views.
This approach is very much focused on assisting planners and others to assess impacts of specific
proposals, and is not linked to efforts to establish overall zoning .or mechanisms which would proscribe
developments of certain heights in certain areas.
3.2.7 City of Edinburgh; United Kingdom
A recent proposal by a developer in Edinburgh to build a 17-storey tower in the Haymarket district of the
city, immediately opposite the boundary of the inscribed World Heritage property, focused attention on
existing city mechanisms to protect important city landmark views. The Edinburgh Skyline Study, carried
out in 2008, was used by the City of Edinburgh planning staff to defend the development, in suggesting it
had limited adverse impacts of views important to the World heritage property. The approach used in the
public inquiry involved defining the ‘significance’ of the visual impact of the proposed tower as a
reflection of three aspects:
• the ‘sensitivity’ of a chosen viewpoint (a measure of the value of the view). Sensitivity is
measured as high, medium or low.
• the ‘magnitude’ of the impact (an assessment of the degree of change which a proposed
development will cause within an existing view, taking into account the extent of the
development visible, the distance from the viewer, and the overall impact on the skyline),
Magnitude is measured as high, medium or low; and
• the ‘nature’ of an impact (ranging from positive to negative). Nature is measured as adverse,
minor adverse, neutral, minor beneficial or beneficial.
The assessment of significance resulting (the synthesis of sensitivity, magnitude and nature) is measured
as adverse, minor adverse, neutral, minor beneficial or beneficial.
Although the approach used here lacks the recent English Heritage emphasis on defining significance of
views, it is nevertheless a quantitative approach. Here we can see that while this kind of quantitative
approach can lend itself easily to low cost, and rapid ‘quick and dirty’ assessments, the use of subjective
indicators also opens up a wide range of possible interpretations of data and analyses provided and
suggests there might well be difficulty in justifying, defending and replicating results consistently among
all observers.
3.2.8 Lessons from Experiences Reviewed
Analysis of the experiences gained in these widely varied historic cities highlights a number of key
points:
• Defining the heritage significance in the views associated with any one property provides an
excellent qualitative means to increase awareness of why protection of any one view is important,
and a basis for strengthening support for view protection strategies and policies in general.
• While qualitative methods can bring value to the choice of view points and strengthen
understanding of the contribution of related views to the significance of a particular property,
ultimately, effective measurement of impacts of proposed developments is best carried out
through associating quantitative targets (heights) with the view planes selected for protection.
• The most effective starting point for establishing the height of tall structures in proximity to
important historic landmarks is establishing the desired (or acceptable) degree of integrity of the
skyline silhouette of the subject building. With integrity defined as an acceptable limit of
intrusion of a tall structure into a skyspace, it is possible from known viewpoints to plot height
limits for proposed tall structures at any location.
• While the ground conditions in any area of view protection may vary strongly, it is usually
necessary to identify only a small number of key viewpoints reflecting the most representative
conditions within the area of view protection to define general height limits necessary within the
view protection area.
• While establishing view planes (linking key view points to the subject building and beyond) as a
means to judge whether height limits are respected by proposed development in the background
of the view plane, such view planes alone may not provide sufficient coverage to control heights
of all development in the area of view protection.
• It is valuable in planning policies developed for height protection to give as much consideration
to the means by which satisfactory and appropriate conditions for development can be assured, as
to the suitable forms and means of height protection for proposed developments.
3.3 Context for Establishing a High Buildings Policy
Various forms of analysis in cities concerned with the potential impact of new tall structures on the urban
fabric and on perceptions of its heritage character and values have helped shape planning policies which
provide a context for new buildings. Well balanced view protection policies will emphasize the benefits
of retaining key views, viewscapes, and/ or skyline profiles, while at the same time establishing
conditions suitable for construction of new tall towers.
Efforts to balance opportunities for new high rise structures and commitments to protect existing
viewscapes are exemplified in the City of Edinburgh Guideline for the Protection of Key Views
(‘Guideline’ hereafter) prepared for the World Heritage city of Edinburgh. These emphasize that the
purpose of the policy is not to prohibit tall buildings, but to ensure that new tall building proposals will
compliment the existing skyscape.
Section 5.54 of the Guideline notes:
By their nature, high buildings are visible statements and, as such, their development is more
onerous in a city with such strong visual identity as Edinburgh. The objective of any new high
structure should be to effectively complement the city's world class skyline. The positioning of
high structures has to have a logic which extends beyond the boundaries of the development site.
Historically, where tall structures have been used, it has been to terminate planned vistas, to mark
important gateways or nodal features. It is expected that such a coherent approach should inform
any justification for proposed high buildings.
Going further in establishing this protection-development equilibrium, the City of Edinburgh note a
presumption to safeguard “the essential qualities of Edinburgh’s profiles and views” and “against
permitting development that breaks the bottom of the sky space around key features,” (Section 5.8 of the
Guideline) while also noting in Section 5.9 of the Guideline that:
Many of the features much admired in the city’s townscape and skyline are ones that break the
sky space. Therefore, while a general presumption exists against breaking the sky space, if a
development can demonstrate that it adds to the city’s skyline in a positive way and enhances the
character of the city, it will be supported subject to its meeting other relevant policy
considerations.
In practical terms, and taking into account the arguments referred to above for both protecting high views
and for developing high rise structures where conditions are appropriate, Policy Des 10 of the Edinburgh
City Local Plan establishes criteria for judging the general suitability of high buildings within the City as
a whole. This policy states that:
Proposals for buildings which rise above the building height prevailing generally in the
surrounding area will only be permitted where:
• a landmark is to be created that enhances the skyline and surrounding townscape and is
justified by the proposed use.
• the scale of the building is appropriate to its context.
• there would be no adverse impact on important views of landmark buildings, the historic
skyline, landscape features in the urban area or the landscape setting of the city, including
the Firth of Forth.
Effective view protection in Edinburgh and in other historic cities should be nested within tall building
policies which, while respecting existing skyline silhouettes and important views, will also establish
locations and circumstances where tall buildings may suitably be established as part of long term
municipal growth strategies.
3.4 Methods for Assessing and Managing Impacts of Proposed Tall Structures in Historic Cities.
3.4.1 Overview
While the view control systems reviewed in section 3.4 above take different forms relative to defined
needs and circumstances, generally, at one level or another, all methods reviewed involve three major
steps:
1. Identifying and characterizing significant views.
2. Assessing the impact of proposed developments on identified views
3. Mitigating impacts: methods to manage views
This section looks in more detail at the application of the approaches briefly described in section 3.4 in
various Canadian cities and UK contexts.
The nature of these three steps is sometimes difficult to perceive given variations in the language used in
various jurisdictions for view control processes. For example, the seven step process followed by the City
of Ottawa to respond to the 1989 high rise proposal described above (3.2.2.), which threatened the
integrity of the views to Canada’s Parliament Buildings, essentially includes the three steps mentioned
above. Ottawa’s city planning staff used their seven step process to define an important management tool
described as a “viewshed.” The Ottawa process (1989) included the following seven view control steps:
1. Define and rank the national symbols
2. Establish key viewpoints
3. Define areas where controls are necessary
4. Define visual integrity
5. Establish control viewpoints
6. Calculate height control planes
7. Check impact of height control on densities
The first three steps may be understood to relate to identifying and characterizing significant views. The
fourth step involves an approach to assessing the impact of the proposed development on identified views.
The final three steps involve efforts to construct a three dimensional control mechanism to manage the
height of proposed new structures in relation to the Parliament Buildings.
The following sections provide a detailed review of examples which help illustrate these three key steps
in assessing and managing impacts on views.
3.4.2 Identifying and Characterizing Significant Views.
There are a number of approaches in use in various historic cities for identifying and characterizing
significant views. Most of these involve simple quantitative approaches where view points are established
as a result of field surveys which select viewpoints where ‘integrity’ is still high or unimpaired, and which
involve a high frequency of use by resident, citizens, and visitors.
Sometimes the quantitative may include the qualitative. In a recent public inquiry on the proposed Tiger
Developments high rise structure in the World Heritage City of Edinburgh, planning staff assessed
‘skyline’ impacts by drawing on a method derived from recently adopted policies contained within the
Edinburgh Skyline Study and which blends the first two steps defined above (identification and
characterization of view points and measuring impacts of development on views from the viewpoints
identified). As noted earlier in section 3.2.7., this approach involves defining the ‘significance’ of the
visual impact (a measure of the value of the view), as a reflection of the ‘sensitivity’ of a chosen
viewpoint, the ‘magnitude’ of the impact (degree of change associated with a proposed development), and
the ‘nature’ of an impact. It is worth noting that the value of the view being measured above in assessing
sensitivity is essentially a reflection of the frequency and intensity of experiencing the view. The process
used in Edinburgh to identify and characterize views does not explicitly consider its heritage value.
Recently, some UK jurisdictions have begun to explore use of qualitative methods to identify view points
as illustrated in the new methods now being explored by English Heritage. As reported in section 3.2.6,
English Heritage has also elaborated a new qualitative approach to characterizing selected views, in this
case by seeking to associate heritage significance with those views.
In Seeing the History in the View: a Method for Assessing Heritage Significance within Views, English
Heritage defines a method to identify heritage significance and to use understanding of heritage
significance within views in measuring impacts in order to “highlight the architectural, archaeological and
historic content and context of views, and promote appreciation and understanding of heritage
significance within views” (2008:12). It goes on to “establish a baseline against which to judge the impact
of proposals upon heritage significance” (2008:12) thereby hoping to improve the consistency of results
obtained among different groups or individuals involved in assessment.
The English Heritage approach─as the phrase ‘within views’ suggests─is not just about defining the
heritage significance of the subject property or building, but rather one which attempts to apply this
understanding of significance to selected views.
The process used by English Heritage involves making judgments about the significance of views based
on the following considerations for heritage properties:
• their designated status.

• the degree to which their heritage significance can be appreciated from the Viewing Place.
• whether this is the best (or only) place to view the historic significance of the heritage asset.
• whether they exhibit any additional or lesser significance as a consequence of being seen in
combination with other heritage assets in the view.
The scoping component of the exercise allows the assessor to rank the importance of different heritage
assets according to their significance in the views selected for analysis. Although this approach provides a
statement about the significance associated with the views selected and provides a stronger basis for
understanding why a particular view should be appreciated and maintained, this qualitative approach to
identification of views needs to be paired with a quantitative effort to measure impacts on particular
views.
3.4.3 Assessing the Impact of the Proposed Development on Identified Views
Once important views and vistas are identified and characterized, assessing impacts of proposed
developments is fairly straightforward for established views. The examples of assessment systems drawn
from both Edinburgh and Ottawa illustrate the benefits of applying quantitative approaches to impact
assessment.
As noted above (section 3.2.2.), the City of Ottawa established the concept of ‘visual integrity’ when
assessing the impact of a proposed tall structure on Canada’s Parliament Buildings in 1989. The seven
step approach within which this action was situated had a double purpose. It was intended to ensure the
city’s Official Plan would both protect and enhance the ‘visual integrity’ and ‘symbolic primacy’ of the
Parliamentary structures and other major public buildings and landforms, provide objective, verifiable
measurements to quantify ‘visual integrity’, and also protect private development rights.
The fourth step of Ottawa’s seven step process, the establishment of ‘visual integrity’, was meant to
provide an objectively verifiable approach to measuring impacts. Four levels of “visual integrity,” using
Ottawa’s Parliamentary Centre Block as the subject of the exercise, were established. Shown from the
highest level to the lowest level, these are listed below:
1. High integrity: Fully legible silhouette of the Centre Block including its landform.
This represents the perceptual dominance of Parliament Hill in the Capital until the 1971
bylaw, and the 150 foot blanket height limit breeched by the Place de Ville tower of 1971
2. Moderate integrity: Silhouette above the eavesline.
This is where the main building form is still legible, even if obscured by
background/foreground and allows for development up to its eavesline
3. Low integrity: Silhouette above the ridgeline.
This is where only the spires are legible, if surrounding development reaches the
ridgeline. This is the reality from many viewpoints, following developments after the
1971 bylaw.
4. No integrity: Beyond the ridgeline.
The silhouette of even the spires is obscured and the national symbols are simply
overwhelmed by surrounding development.
The City of Edinburgh has approached the concept of ‘visual integrity’ through a similar approach
involving use of the concept of ‘sky space’. Sky space is defined to be “the open space to the front, side
or beyond a feature that allows that feature to be clearly seen from an identified set of key viewing
points” (City of Edinburgh 2008: Section 5.4). It can be understood to be “the space around [a] city’s
landmark features that will protect their integrity” (City of Edinburgh 2008: Section 5.4). The City of
Edinburgh describes how this works (City of Edinburgh 2008:54)
• The bottom of the sky space for any particular feature is the point (height) up to which a
development can rise where it will not impact on a view to that feature. Once the sky space is
‘pierced’ by a development, it has started to impact on a key view.
• The bottom of the sky space can be measured ….so once the height of any proposed development
is known, it will be possible to assess its impact on any feature by the extent to which it pierces
the bottom of the sky space.
The approach used by the City of Edinburgh at this point in their process of reviewing tall building
applications is very similar to the process developed in Ottawa in 1989 to protect Parliament Hill vistas,
though the language used is quite different. Both approaches are involved with defining and protecting a
skyline silhouette whose penetration would bring adverse consequences for the views involved. Both
methods offer significant advantages to assessors in bringing forward objective, measurable standards to
be maintained in planning review.
3.4.4 Mitigating Impacts: Methods to Manage Views
Once methods for measuring impacts are established for particular viewpoints, there are a number of
important follow-up actions in managing the range of views identified as important to maintain the
integrity of an important structure. These include:
• Efforts devoted to extending geometric understanding of view protection to an entire area of view
protection.
• Placing view protection in the planning system.
• Identifying application requirements which must be met by development proponents for protected
areas.
3.4.4.1 Modeling Height Limits in Three Dimension
In the approach to defining the ‘sky space’ described above for Edinburgh, once height parameters are
established to permit assessment of the impact of any proposed development for defined key viewpoints,
this information may be extrapolated across the entire area of a neighbourhood(s) within which it is
desired to protect views, and a three dimensional set of height limit contours established. This 3D
mapping can provide a basis for designing height zoning regulations which will protect the visual
integrity of views to be protected.
The City of Edinburgh’s ‘sky space’ study identifies the following steps to complete this work:
• Once all the key views have been defined, they may be mapped and ‘viewing cones’ defined.
• Where viewing cones intersect in large numbers around the city centre, a ‘contour’ map showing
the height of the bottom of the sky space can be developed.
• Once established, the view cones can be incorporated into three dimensional models of the
existing city so that the degree to which proposed developments may infringe on the ‘sky space’
may be measured.
3.4.4.2 Translating Desired Height Limits into Zoning and Planning Regulations.
Limiting heights of new construction in prescribed areas (using the kind of analysis described above for
the Edinburgh ‘sky space” for example) is the simplest approach to protecting views to and from
important heritage buildings or complexes. This has been the simplest basic approach used in Canadian
municipalities to protect significant heritage places from the possible negative consequences of tall
buildings. This approach (zoning height restrictions) can be applied at a macro or micro (or local) scale.
Even where zoning regulations flexibly respond to local constraints and conditions, experience
demonstrates that there is no guarantee that such regulations or other sophisticated planning mechanisms
will be implemented fully. Various avenues for design review and development appeal (in Ontario, with
the OMB for example) stand as reminders to the development community that even decisions made by a
municipality following its own Official Plan and zoning regulations may be appealed, and open the door
to reconsideration of many decisions affecting development proposals.
In a Canadian context, the limits established by zoning are often regarded by those in the development
community and even planners processing development applications as a minimum, not maximum,
threshold from which designs should be developed. In some Canadian provinces, height limits established
by zoning or development guidelines have been discarded within the planning process by those seeking
approval for high rise buildings, even where legally binding height limits are clearly prescribed. Recent
decisions in the OMB (Port Dalhousie, Ontario – PDVC proposal), and before the Nova Scotia Utility and
Review Board (Halifax, Nova Scotia – United Gulf proposal) would seem to support this proposition.
In Port Dalhousie, Guidelines which accompanied designation of the Heritage Conservation District
prescribed a height limit for all new construction within the District of 11 metres. This limit was set aside
by the OMB following a 71 day hearing which took place in 2008, in order to permit a high rise
development of 17 stories. Similarly, in Halifax, a public policy commitment to protect views to and from
the Halifax Citadel and the harbour were set aside to permit construction of United Gulf “Twisted Sisters”
twin tower development, in a fall 2007 decision of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.
Two factors are important in adopting the necessary zoning approach:
• the flexibility with which zoning can accommodate local variations in topography, vegetation,
existing vistas, etc. (rather than application of a ‘one size fits all’ blanket approach).
• the willingness of elected officials and the planning system as a whole to implement zoning height
controls adopted, without encouraging a “variances culture” where developers regularly challenge
height limitations established by zoning.
In the end, it is evident that the ability to mobilize effective resistance to tall buildings which offer harm
to protected viewscapes or the character of adjacent areas depends as much on the protective mechanisms
themselves as on the political will to ensure full implementation of adopted measures.
3.4.4.3 Regulatory Assessment of Tall Building Applications
Once a regulatory environment is established that establishes zoned height controls and related
mechanisms, it is also important to define the requirements that proponents of tall buildings must address
in their applications.
Requesting such information explicitly in a planning permission document suggests clearly to the
proponents of a tall building development what particular design objectives associated with a tall building
proposal must be met to gain planning permission. Edinburgh, for example, requires the following
information to be submitted for tall building applications (City of Edinburgh 2008:Section 4.2):
1. sight and height levels.

2. an analysis of the context.
3. environmental modeling that addresses pedestrian wind safety issues related to: wind force
(relative velocities related to a base line study of surrounding area); wind safety (turbulence,
suction, lift; thermal comfort (wind chill); noise level; air quality; and streetscape aesthetics
(impact of any mitigating measures).
4. photomontages showing the impact of the proposal on key views.
5. a helium balloon test may be required, where the true height of the building is
described by a series of markers attached to a cable suspended by a balloon filed with helium,
so that a true understanding of the impact in the surrounding area can be gained.
6. a statement demonstrating that there is an understanding of the impact of the
development and showing how the development enhances its context.
Providing information in regard to anticipated planning requirements for tall building developments in an
up front and transparent way will assist municipal authorities to avoid down-the-road conflicts and
improve public understanding and support for municipal view protection programmes.
3.5 Proposed Methodology for Consideration of Impacts of Proposed Developments on Views

Associated with the Queen’s Parks Cultural Heritage Landscape.
3.5.1 Objectives for the Methodology
The methodology outlined below is derived from the examples of practice cited above. The following
provides a summary of the key objectives derived from this analysis that a method of view control for the
Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape would need to meet to effectively respond to expectations:
1. Clear separation of the identification and characterization of views phase of analysis, from
efforts to measure impacts on selected views.
This ensures transparent documentation of methods used to identify and characterize view
points selected independently of methods used to measure impacts and helps ensure long term
consistency and comparability of results obtained.
2. Reliance on quantitative impact assessment methods (use of measurable means).
This approach greatly reduces the possibility for varying subjective interpretations of impacts
carried out among different assessors at different points in time and strengthens the ability to
associate objective outcomes with the process. Qualitative methods may be used helpfully in
the early stages of the process (identifying and characterizing views) to strengthen
understanding of the importance of view points selected and of the intrinsic importance of
views themselves. Ultimately, this analysis must be translated into objectively verifiable
targets or measures with which all involved in an assessment process can agree.
3. Adopted assessment approaches must be accompanied by development of associated

planning measures and mechanisms that will protect defined views in tangible, clear-cut
means at the highest level of authority possible within the municipal planning system.
This should be done to ensure protection decisions are not undermined through challenges to
the authority of the planning mechanisms involved.
4. Adopted assessment approaches must be accompanied by development of technological

means to support the 3D modeling necessary at each step of the planning process for
developments, from early pre-consultations through formal review of submitted proposals.
5. Expectations for developers wishing to erect tall buildings should be addressed in planning
systems and information packages customized to address tall building issues, and available in
advance for consultation as developers put forward concepts and applications.
6. Planning policies for view protection should include reference to provision of positive
planning guidance and direction for the development community, demonstrating how
development projects may achieve reasonable densities and returns on investment while
working at lower heights.
3.5.2 Methodological Steps
• Step 1. Identifying and characterizing significant views.
o Identify the “area of view protection” associated with the subject building. This is the
surface area within which representative or important viewpoints are to be selected.
o Identify and map a range of potentially important viewpoints based on importance (or,
using Scottish practice, “sensitivity”) - the degree of use of the viewpoint by residents
and visitors; the “value” placed on the view point by users of the city, the heritage
significance associated with the subject building(s) which are the focus of the selected
viewpoints).
o Document the rationale adopted for each view point selected.
• Step 2. Establishing controls (height limits) associated with the view planes from the identified
view points
o Define the desired degree of visual integrity associated with each viewpoint. This means
establishing a point on the subject property beyond which high rise development should
not project (from among the four levels of visual integrity defined for the Ottawa
Parliament Buildings example).
• Step. 3 Extrapolate the view control mechanisms developed for single view points across the full
extent of the territory within which is it desired to control views (zone of view protection).
o Choose key viewpoints (for Queen’s Park perhaps six such control viewpoints – three
from the south along University Avenue, one from the east, one from the west, one from
the north, say Bloor Street)
o Draw ‘view planes’ from the selected view points through the subject building to
establish foreground, background and lateral areas where vertical heights of new
structures should be controlled in order to protect views.
o Draw one or more cross section lines running from key view points through the subject
building and to the furthest point of the viewpoint’s background, in order to be able to
establish representative height controls in relation to high points on the subject building,
in order to protect the visual integrity established above in step 2.
o Draw these cross sections in the vertical dimension in order to establish height limits that
any proposed new construction must respect (along the length of the cross section) in
order to not impair visual integrity.
• Step 4. Amalgamate the vertical height limits established by each cross section to establish a 3D
height contour template (‘sky contour’) for application with appropriate planning mechanisms
and zoning regulations.
o Once cross sections establishing height limits at known background locations for selected
view points, for which it is desired to maintain a desired integrity level are determined,
height limit contours can be plotted above the entire area of view protection. The more
viewpoints and the more cross sections, the more accurately the resulting contour plan
defining permissible heights can be modeled. This approach offers more flexible
definition of height limits for specific locations. Height limits for defined locations on the
‘sky contour’ can accurately reflect the desired degree of integrity for the subject building
from a number of chosen viewpoints. This report does not, however, include a sky
contour tool for future management of the views of Queen’s Park cultural heritage
landscape views, given available technological resources for the present study. Its
recommendations regarding height limits are derived from cross sections projected
through view planes associated with three key view points.
• Step 5. Develop planning mechanisms that will ensure that the visual integrity defined above will
be respected at key view points within the identified zone of protection.
o Define a zoning or other complementary regulation(s) to protect the height limits

established above.
o Ensure that the regulations adopted enjoy the highest authority possible within the City of
Toronto. (e.g., linked to University of Toronto secondary plan and City of Toronto
Official Plan).
o Explore planning direction, guidance and advice which may be provided to developers to
work profitably in areas affected by view controls established above, or in other areas of
the city where tall building objectives may be more suitably met.
• Step 6. Develop necessary technological support mechanisms (3D modeling software) to provide
the “sky contour’ and therefore ability for developers and planners to quickly and accurately
measure the impact of buildings proposed at any location within the area of view protection. In
the interim, the impact of any proposed development on locations other than those hypothesized
for the purposes of this report, should be reviewed. This can be accomplished by identifying
height limits, which would be established by projecting cross sections defined for the desired
level of integrity, through view planes for specific identified view points.
• Step 7. Define and list requirements which development applicants must address in their
applications to assist in assessment of impacts on defined view protection, by planners and
developers alike.
o Make sure this list is readily available to all at early stages in the development of
planning applications
4.0 IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ASSOCIATED WITH QUEEN’S PARK
AND THE ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY BUILDING
4.1 Introduction
The following chapter culminates in the identification of the significant views that contribute to the
cultural heritage value of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape and presents a general scope of
protection for these particular views. A view plane consists of six components: a view point, a view
subject, foreground area of the view, background area of the view, lateral-foreground areas, and lateral-
background areas. Significant views have been identified based on the extent to which they support and
enhance the overall site’s cultural heritage value and which if left unprotected, could permit developments
that would compromise the heritage integrity of the overall site.
The study team developed a specific approach and methodology for identifying, assessing impacts to, and
protecting significant view planes associated with the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. This
approach conceptualizes view planes as a type of heritage attribute which has the potential to contribute to
a cultural heritage resource’s cultural heritage value. Conceptualizing views planes in this way
necessitates that a resource’s cultural heritage value must first be established, from which its heritage
attributes, or significant view planes, can be identified. This approach roots the significance of a view
plane in a cultural heritage resource’s identified heritage values.
Section 4.2 synthesizes previously conducted planning and heritage management studies that have
addressed the cultural heritage significance of Queen’s Park and/or identified particular views that
warrant protection. Section 4.3 then illustrates views of site stakeholders interested in preserving the site’s
significant views. Section 4.4 then provides a proposed statement of significance for the Queen’s Park
cultural heritage landscape. This document clearly articulates the full range of cultural heritage values
present on the site. Section 4.4 applies the methodology proposed in Section 3.5. This section draws on
information provided in previous sections and identifies specific views and view planes which express the
heritage values of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape and which should be fully protected.
4.2 Review of Background Studies
4.2.1 Introduction
Numerous studies have examined aspects of the cultural heritage significance of the Queen’s Park cultural
heritage landscape. Although none have exclusively addressed conservation of the site’s setting and
identification of its significant views, many have acknowledged that these attributes are important
elements that contribute to the site’s cultural heritage significance.
The following section synthesizes previously conducted studies to identify various views in and out of the
site previously recognized as contributing to the site’s overall heritage significance. As part of this
review, the following documents have been consulted:
• The Ontario Legislative Assembly Building and Grounds Restoration Master Plan
(Julian Smith et al 1991);
• Heritage Significance Study Whitney Block and Tower, Queen’s Park, Toronto
(William N. Greer et al. 1996);
• University of Toronto Area Background Study and Official Plan Part II

(City of Toronto 1997);
• Queen’s Park Complex: Cultural Landscape Heritage Significance Study

(Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster Ltd. et al. 2002); and
• Cultural Heritage Significance Study: Queen’s Park Complex, Toronto

(Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Limited 2005).
A brief description of the purpose and scope of each study is provided, followed by a chart that
individually itemizes identified views in and out of the Queens Park site noted in each of the studies.
Mapping is then provided to depict the approximate location and extent of previously identified views.
4.2.2 University of Toronto Secondary Plan
A Secondary Plan was developed for the University of Toronto Area (Figure 11).
Figure 11: University of Toronto

Secondary Plan Area
Source: University of
Toronto Secondary Plan
Map 20-4 of the secondary plan identified the following significant views in association with the Queen’s
Park site:
Table 1: Views in and out of the Queen’s Park Site, as Identified in the University of Toronto Secondary Plan
View ID View Subject Viewing Point
V1 Queen’s Park proper Bloor Street and Avenue Road, southward
V2 Ontario Legislative North end of Queen’s Park proper, southward

Building
V3 Queen’s Park proper Hoskin Road and Tower Road, eastward
V4 Ontario Legislative College Street and University Avenue, northward
Building
V5 Semi-circular lawns Grosvenor Street and Bay Street, westward
south of Ontario
Legislative Building
4.2.3 Queen’s Park Complex: Cultural Landscape Heritage Significance Study
The Ontario Realty Corporation retained a consultant team led by Hough Woodland Naylor Dance
Leinster to prepare a landscape masterplan and implementation phasing for a program of landscape
updates for the Queen’s Park Complex in Toronto. The study team also included ERA Architects and
Mark Laird to assist in the cultural landscape heritage review and preparation of the Queen’s Park
Complex Cultural Landscape Evaluation. The Queen’s Park Complex is comprised of the Whitney Block,
Macdonald Block, the North and South Frost Buildings, and 880 Bay Street.
The study identified the following four significant views in association with the Queen’s Park site:
Table 2: Views in and out of the Queen’s Park Site, as Identified in Queen’s Park Complex: Cultural
Landscape Heritage Significance Study
View ID View Subject Viewing Point
V1 Whitney Block – East Ontario Legislative Assembly and grounds
Block
V2 Ontario Legislative West side of Whitney Block
Building
V3 Queen’s Park proper Upper west side of the Macdonald Block
V4 Ontario Legislative Upper west side of the Macdonald Block
Building
3.2.4 Cultural Heritage Significance Study: Queen’s Park Complex, Toronto
The Ontario Realty Corporation retained Commonwealth Resource Management Limited (CRML) to
develop strategies for the management of buildings and infrastructure for its properties in the Queen’s
Park Complex. The Queen’s Park Complex consists of the following buildings: Macdonald Block, Hearst
Block, Mowat Block, Ferguson Block, Hepburn Block, Frost Building North, Frost Building South,
Ontario Government Building, and the Surrey Place Centre. Specifically, the CRML was to advise on the
cultural heritage significance of these buildings. This report was designed to supplement the extant
Queen’s Park Complex: Cultural Landscape Heritage Significance Study (Hough Woodland et al. 2002)
with assessments and/or clarifications of significance, including integrity, experience and scenic amenity,
and a discussion of social value for the Queen’s Park Complex through an analysis of tangible and
intangible heritage resources, including interior and exterior spatial organization and inter-relationships,
viewscapes, and ground-level (inside and outside) public circulation, amenities, and features
(Commonwealth Resource Management Ltd. 2005: 5).
Although this study focused on the Queen’s Park Complex, defined as the group of government buildings
located east of Queen’s Park Crescent, it identified the following thirteen significant views in association
with the Queen’s Park site:
Table 3: Views in and out of the Queen’s Park site, as identified in the Cultural Heritage Significance Study:
Queen’s Park Complex Toronto
View ID View Subject Viewing Point Rationale6
V1 Ontario Legislative North from University Avenue Emphasizes view of the Leg.
Assembly and Assembly as the focus or ‘eye-
grounds catcher’.
V2 Semi-circular Westward from Grosvenor Street, Funnelled view plane
grounds directly between Bay Street and Queen’s reinforces views of the
south of Ontario Park Crescent. legislature.
Legislative
Assembly building
V3 Ontario Legislative Northwest from landscaped area Reinforces views on the
Assembly Building on the west elevation of the South legislature.
and Grounds Frost Building.
V4 Ontario Legislative Northwest from the 7th Floor of the Reinforce the concept of a
Building South Frost Building. focus on Queen’s Park.
V5 Ontario Legislative Northwest and west from Help direct the views to the
Building and Grosvenor and Queen’s Park legislature is forceful
Grounds Crescent.
V6 Ontario Legislative West from between the storey This view is an extremely fine
Building and columns at the Hepburn Block. use of light and shadow,
Grounds landscape and structure
creating a classic ‘Kodak’
moment.
V7 South Frost Southeast from the south
Building and legislature grounds.
Grounds
V8 Ontario Legislative Westward from the McDonald
Building Block towers.
V9 Macdonald Block Eastward from east elevation of
Ontario Legislative Building, over
the Whitney Block and Tower.
V10 South Legislature Westward from unknown location
Grounds within the Mcdonald Block.
V11 Macdonald Block Eastward from the south
Legislature grounds.
V12 North Frost Southeast from Ontario Legislative
Building Building.
V13 Ontario Legislative Northwest from North Frost
Building and south Building.
lawn
6
In some cases, this study provided a rationale or analysis of the identified view. This information has been
provided in Table 3 where available.
4.2.5 Heritage Significance Study Whitney Block and Tower, Queen’s Park, Toronto
In 1995, the Ontario Realty Corporation commissioned Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd. to prepare a
Heritage Significance Study of the Whitney Block and Tower for the purposes of guiding
recommendations contained within the Feasibility Investigation Study for the site. The Heritage
Significance Study was produced in accordance with the Cultural Heritage Process prepared for the
Management Board Secretariat. The consultant team consisted of Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd.,
William Greer, Heritage and Preservation Consultant, Pleasance Crawford, Landscape Historian, and
Archaeological Services Inc. The study consists of the following components: building inventory of the
Whitney Block and Tower and associated summary statement of significance and heritage evaluation;
cultural heritage landscape inventory of the Whitney Block and Tower and associated summary statement
of significance and heritage evaluation; archaeological resource inventory and associated statement of
significance and heritage evaluation; overall statement of significance for the entire complex;
recommended preservation principles; and intervention principles and guidelines for the Whitney Block
Tower.
Although this study focused on the Whitney Block and Tower, it identified the following three significant
views in association with the Queen’s Park site:
Table 4: Views in and out of the Queen’s Park site, as identified in the Heritage Significance Study Whitney
Block and Tower
View ID View Subject Viewing Point Rationale7
V1 West elevation of Ground level view eastward from
Whitney Block Ontario Legislative Building and
grounds.
V2 Whitney Block and Eastward from the Ontario
open space to the Legislative Building Grounds.
south
V3 Ontario Legislative Multiple locations from the Considered a traditional and
Assembly Building Whitney Block property. intended view: “Whatever the
point of the compass the
[1893] building is viewed from
it presents an imposing and
striking appearing… the
Parliament Building is…the
centre of a noble group of
public buildings…. (The
Saturday Globe, April 15
1893).
4.2.6 Restoration Master Plan for the Ontario Legislative Assembly and Grounds
In 1989, a Special Committee on the Parliamentary Precinct was established for the purposes of
develop[ing], approv[ing], supervis[ing], and coordinat[ing] the implementation of a programme for the
restoration, renovation, rehabilitation, cyclical maintenance and use of the Parliament Building and
grounds…” (Smith et al. 1991:ii). To initiate this programme, the Special Committee on the
Parliamentary Precinct commissioned a restoration master plan, which was then completed by Julian S.
7
In some cases, this study provided a rationale or analysis of the identified view. This information has been
provided in Table 4 where available.
Smith, Architect and Associates in 1991. The plan contains the following components: description of the
historical context of the property; assessment of the current conditions of the property measured against
its architectural and cultural significance; a statement of heritage character which identifies the key
elements of the property which must be protected and enhanced as part of any redevelopment; general
statement of conservation objectives for the property; a proposed restoration master plan which addresses
conservation, accessibility, accommodation, interpretation, life and fire safety, and mechanical and
electrical services; and a detailed implementation plan.
This study does not directly address identification and protection of the site’s significant views. However,
the study’s examination of the site’s historical context and preparation of a statement of heritage character
implicitly and explicitly acknowledge several significant views of the site. The following table lists
particular viewing objects and vantage points within the overall Queen’s Park site that are identified in the
study as elements that contribute to the site’s established heritage significance.
Table 5: Views of the Queen’s Park site, as identified in the Restoration Master Plan
View ID Viewing Object Viewing Point Condition Assessment of
View as of 1991
V1 Ontario Legislative From the south Good
Assembly Building and
Grounds
V2 Ontario Legislative From the east Good
Grounds
V3 Ontario Legislative From the distant north Good
Grounds
V4 Floodlit Ontario N/A Effective
Legislative Assembly
Building
V5 Ontario Legislative From the near north Poor; obscured by trees
Assembly Building on the west and
southwest
V6 Centre wing of Ontario From the south Good, dominant views
Legislative Assembly that focus on the least
Building altered components of
the building.
V7 East wing of Ontario From the southeast Good, dominant views
Legislative Assembly that focus on the least
Building altered components of
the building.
4.3 Stakeholder Consultation
Various site stakeholders were consulted as part of the process of identifying significant view planes
associated with the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. Stakeholders contacted included: the
Ministry of Culture, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and representatives of the Precinct Properties Branch of
the Ontario Legislative Assembly. The following section provides a brief summary of issues and concerns
raised by these various agencies with respect to the identification and protection of significant view
planes associated with Queen’s Park and conservation of the site’s overall heritage value.
The Ontario Heritage Trust recognizes that Queen’s Park, including the Ontario Legislative Assembly
Building and its surrounding grounds of are of local and provincial cultural heritage value. In written
correspondence, the Ontario Heritage Trust noted that:
Queen’s Park is of clear historical and architectural significance to the province. Its
monumental design and prominent location at College Street and University Avenue
make it an important landmark in downtown Toronto, as well as the province… [Its]
steep roofline, exaggerated arches, and domed turrets all work to create a massive and
imposing monumental building… that is just as striking from a distance as it is up
close…(April 17, 2008).
Correspondence provided by the Ministry of Culture also emphasizes the site’s local and provincial
heritage significance and recognizes that its heritage value, in part, is informed by views and vistas of the
Ontario Legislative Assembly building. This correspondence affirms that previously conducted heritage
studies, such as the Queen’s Park Restoration Master Plan Version 2.0 appropriately identified the site’s
“location on a rise of ground at the head of University Avenue and associated important vistas of the
property from both the south and north” as key heritage attributes (April 15, 2008).
Representatives of the Precinct Properties Division of the Ontario Legislative Assembly also emphasize
that the Ontario Legislative Assembly building and Queen’s Park to the north is “acknowledged to be a
site of great local and provincial and heritage value and interest”. This correspondence links the site’s
importance with its: “park setting; the visual uniqueness of the building both in reality and in
representation, both in photograph and graphic silhouette; and the site’s role as a powerful symbol of the
Province of Ontario and its people’s permanent democratic roots and institutions.” This correspondence
further stipulates that the site’s location and park-like setting were deliberate and original design
elements, which have remained relatively intact over the past 115 years. The site’s location and park-like
setting, as well as the building’s “distinctive roofline set against a background of open skies” and
retention of the building’s “original silhouette framed by parkland” are all identified as a “crucial part of
the Legislative Building’s heritage value” (May 5, 2008).
4.4 Proposed Statement of Significance
A proposed statement of significance for the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape was developed for
the purposes of identifying, assessing impacts to, and protecting significant views which contribute to the
site’s cultural heritage value. The proposed statement of significance was developed based on a review of
archival material, previous background studies, and a previous statement of significance that was
developed as part of a restoration master plan for the Ontario Legislative Assembly Building (See
Appendix C). The proposed statement of significance presented herein reflects consideration of heritage
evaluation criteria provided in Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 - Criteria For Determining Cultural
Heritage Value or Interest and Regulation 10/06 – Criteria For Determining Cultural Heritage Value or
Interest of Provincial Significance and acknowledges the subject resource’s cultural heritage landscape
context. The presented statement of significance also reflects use of heritage evaluation frameworks that
have been used for over thirty years within Canada, and which have been described in Chapter 3.0.
Proposed Statement of Significance for the Queen’s Park Cultural Heritage Landscape
Property Description
The Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape consists of the Ontario Legislative Assembly
building, grounds in front of the building, and adjacent park grounds to the north.
Heritage Value
The Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape is valued for its: symbolic value as the long
standing seat of provincial government in Ontario; landmark status as a prominently
situated building located within an urban environment and park-like setting; innovative
architectural detailing and use of the Richardsonian Romanesque style; and historical
associations with key individuals, organizations, and events which transformed the City of
Toronto during the mid nineteenth century. As a whole, the site is a unique example among
legislative precincts within Canada; its use of planning foresight, urban design excellence,
and innovative architectural detailing capitalized on the site’s setting and terminus at the
top of the processional route along University Avenue to establish a ceremonial and
monumental context for the seat of Ontario’s provincial government.
Symbolic Value
The Ontario Legislative Assembly building is historically associated with the proclamation
of Confederation on July 1, 1867 and development of parliamentary democracy in Ontario
during the nineteenth century. Enactment of the British North America Act established
Toronto as the capital of the Province of Ontario and the present site was formally secured
for the purposes of constructing a new legislative building. Completed in 1893, the present
site and building has physically served as the seat of provincial government in Ontario for
more than 100 years and has become a recognizable and widely-shared symbol of
parliamentary democracy within the province.
Contextual Value
The Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape is also of significant contextual value within
Canada and the City of Toronto. The overall site is of exemplary contextual value within
Canada as an early and accomplished example of the integration of planning, design, and
landscaping to establish a ceremonial and monumental setting for Ontario’s legislative
precinct. It is also contextually significant in the City of Toronto as a prominent landmark
and as an integral component of the city’s built environment and institutional precinct
centred around the intersection of College Street and University Avenue.
The grounds occupied by the Ontario Legislative Assembly building and which comprise
‘Queen’s Park’ proper to the north, were carved out of Park lots 11 and 12, First Concession
from the Bay, which were part of that area of Toronto, between Bloor Street and Queen
Street, which had been originally surveyed into long narrow 100-acre park lots during the
nineteenth century. Park lots 11 and 12 were owned by members of the Family Compact
until 1829, when they were sold to the King’s College for the purposes of establishing an
educational facility. This sale of land resulted in the establishment of a north-south road,
now known today as University Avenue, and an east-west road to Yonge Street, now known
as College Street, as well as development of a landscaping and building design scheme for
the subject site. In 1830, Andre Parmentier, a well known landscape designer from
Brooklyn New York, produced what is thought to be the first landscape plan for University
Park. In 1842, the opening of King’s College on the site was marked by the laying of a
cornerstone of a Greek-Revival inspired building designed by Thomas Young and which
stood at the head of University Avenue. During the 1850s, a second landscaping plan for
University Park was undertaken by William Mundie and Edwin Taylor. In the summer of
1860, ‘University Park’ was officially designated as ‘Queen’s Park’ by the Prince of Wales.
The Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape is visually linked with the government
precinct to the east through the use of landscaping treatments and a range of nineteenth
and twentieth century building materials and massing types. The grounds immediately
surrounding the Ontario Legislative Building reflect a designed landscape emphasizing a
park-like setting. The south lawns in particular, as well as Queen’s Park proper, were
intentionally designed and have been maintained to emphasize curvilinear pathways and a
picturesque setting. Similarly, the government precinct to the east, which consists of the
Whitney Block, Ferguson Block, Hepburn Block, Hearst Block, Mowat Block, and North and
South Frost buildings, incorporated designed landscaping treatments. Readily visible
landscaping treatments are located on the south lawns of the Whitney Block and between
the east façade of the Whitney Block and adjacent buildings. These spaces emphasize
curvilinear pathways and tree cover, landscaping treatments that were generally
implemented during the 1960s. Consistent use of landscaping treatments between the two
sites helps to unify them visually and emphasizes the symbiotic relationship between the
executive level of government and the administrative and bureaucratic branches of
government in Ontario. Additionally though, the massing of, and materials used in the
Ontario Legislative Assembly building and its use of the Richardsonian Romanesque
architectural style stands in strong contrast to the Modern Gothic and International styles
that typify the government precinct to the east. The legislature’s robust and towering
massing and thick masonry blocks, in relation to the smooth surfaces of the Whitney Block
and the slender silhouettes of the adjacent Hepburn, Ferguson, Mowat, and Hearst Blocks
contribute to the visual relationship between the two sites; visually emphasizing the
legislature as the initial seat of government and primary area of decision-making.
The Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape is also spatially linked to the downtown core
to the south. Pedestrian pathways and crossings, vehicular routes, and public transit
facilities establish and maintain this linkage. Between the late 1820s and early 1840s,
University Avenue functioned as a pedestrian promenade, connecting the subject site and
lands to the north of it to the downtown core. The opening of King’s College in 1843 at the
head of University Avenue re-established this spatial connection, as at this time, the
avenue began to be used as a processional route. Although vehicular demands on
University Avenue during the twentieth century have reduced its use as a pedestrian
promenade and pedestrian-based processional route, retention of wide sidewalks,
pedestrian-oriented central medians, and proximity of public transit connections help
maintain a pedestrian-oriented environment and spatial flows between the subject site and
the downtown core. Additionally, the avenue’s historic role as a public promenade and
processional route continues to be formally recognized and invoked on an ad-hoc basis.
University Avenue is frequently closed to vehicular traffic during notable public parades
and events and at times is unofficially used as a place of assembly to stage public
demonstrations.
Finally, the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape is of significant contextual value
within the City of Toronto, and to Canadian citizens, as a prominent landmark. Its landmark
status is due in part to its historical and architectural values, as well as its visual and
spatial connections to the government precinct to the east and the downtown core to the
south. However, its siting on a rise of ground at the head of University Avenue and park-like
setting, with its curved drives and picturesque south lawn, reinforce and complete its role
as a highly visible landmark, representing the birth, evolution and centrality of provincial
government in the Province of Ontario.
Architectural Value
The Ontario Legislative Assembly building’s architectural value lies in its use of the
Richardsonian Romanesque style and its association with the prominent late nineteenth
century architect Richard A. Waite.
The building, located on the south elevation of the site, was constructed between 1886 and
1893 and designed by Richard A Waite. Waite’s design for the building drew on
architectural elements associated with the Richardsonian Romanesque, combined with
innovative design features. Waite’s use of a robust masonry structure, a pyramidal roof
scheme, arched entrances, and carved ornamentation reflect characteristics of the
Richardsonian Romanesque style, which had emerged during the 1880s and would later
become a standard source in the construction of municipal, county, and some federal
buildings in Canada. However, his design also reflected unique architectural innovations.
Construction of a prominent, projecting centre block, with a high crest flanked by heavily
ornamented square towers capped with domes represented a unique design innovation
that resisted use of either domes or towers, as was common in designs for legislative
buildings.
Historical Value
The Ontario Legislative Assembly building and its surrounding grounds are of great
historical importance within the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, and within Canada.
The grounds are of historical importance within the City of Toronto due to their associations
with influential landscape and building architects who shaped the city’s natural and built
environments during the nineteenth century. The grounds also mark the beginning of post-
secondary education in the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, as they were initially
developed to house King’s College and University Park (precursors to the University of
Toronto and Queen’s Park respectively.
The building and surrounding grounds are also historically associated with various events
and organizations that have significantly shaped the lives of Torontonians, as well as
international images of the city. A highly visible and public building, it has hosted
numerous public functions and assemblies over the past one hundred years and its
grounds have been substantially used during various festivals and celebrations. The
overall site witnessed the mustering of troops during World War One; visits from royal
dignitaries; as well as a crowd of 30,000 people in 1990 to gather to see Nelson Mandela.
The site has also been integrated into various public celebrations and parades: it has been
part of the Santa Claus Parade for many years; has served as the starting point for the
Shriner’s Parade, and features prominently in Toronto’s Caribana festival.
Character Defining Elements

• Siting of the building on a rise of ground at the head of University Avenue.
• Surrounding park-like setting, with curved drives, picturesque south lawn, and
collection of statues and monuments.
• Building composition of five pavilions linked by intermediate wings, with the
central entrance pavilion, where the Chamber is located, prominently
expressed with its four domed corner towers, tall pyramidal roof, and
oversized arched windows.
• Slate roofs
• Rugged sandstone exterior materials
• Carved stonework on the spandrels, friezes, towers, and gables.
• Carefully balanced entry sequences and internal layout.
• Interior materials that establish a hierarchy of interior space from the Chamber
on down through the various layers of public and private space, including:
varnished wood materials, cast and wrought iron, marble, slate and tile, and
stained glass.
• Interior finishes including marble, mosaics and heavy cornices
• Function as the seat of provincial government in Ontario.
• Spatial and visual linkages between the Ontario Legislative Assembly building
and the government precinct to the east, downtown core to the south,
University of Toronto grounds to the west and northwest.
• Views and view planes of the site from the north, south, east, and west as
described in Appendix D.
4.5 Identification, Impact Assessment and Protection of Significant Views and View Planes
Associated with the Queen’s Park Cultural Heritage Landscape
The following section demonstrates application of the method presented in Chapter 3.0. The proposed
method was developed based on a review of best practices in other jurisdictions and designed to
accomplish specific objectives. Section 4.5.1 corresponds to identification of significant views and view
planes and demonstrates application of Step 1 of the approach presented in Chapter 3.0. Section 4.5.2
address identification of height limits by defining levels of desired visual integrity. This section
demonstrates application of Step 2 of the method. Section 4.5.3 address protection of north-looking views
and applies Step 3 of the method. This section identifies key control view points, illustrates the area
within which vertical heights should be controlled, and provides modeling of select cross sections from
the key control view points. This modeling demonstrates that the methodology proposed in Chapter 3.0
recognizes that a range of building heights can be permitted within the area requiring view protection.
The modeling also provides a starting point for developing a height contour template to be implemented
into the municipal development application review process and provides an example of height controls in
specific locations.
4.5.1 Identification of Views and View Planes
This study used a values-based approach for identifying significant views and view planes. A statement of
significance for the site was first developed for the purposes of clearly establishing the site’s symbolic,
architectural, historical, and contextual values to the people of Ontario and within the City of Toronto.
This document was developed based on previously conducted studies, analysis of the site’s historical
background, the results of site visits, and based on consultations with site stakeholders. The values
articulated in the statement of significance were then analyzed to identify associated visual characteristics.
Identified heritage values were analyzed to identify associated visual characteristics, which include
elements and forms, for the purposes of developing a conceptual framework which could then be used
when conducting site visits.
Pedestrian and vehicular surveys were then conducted during August, September, and October 2009. Site
visits were first used to define an area of view protection. The area of view protection was defined by
identifying locations where views of the site are first experienced. This process establishes a general area
within which viewing points may be identified for further analysis. This preliminary area of view
protection is illustrated in Figure 12.
A second phase of field survey was undertaken to identify viewing points within the area of view control
and to inventory views linked with the site’s heritage values, as described in the statement of significance.
The site visits inventoried existing views, as well as those that have been lost or altered, through the
introduction of tree plantings, signage or high rise developments. Such views were inventoried because
they have the potential to be re-established; tree plantings and signage which obscure foreground views,
as well as high-rise developments that impair background views, represent reversible interventions.
A total of 41 viewing locations and view planes were inventoried during the site visits. Viewing locations
and view planes were photographically documented and generated three dimensionally for the purposes
of analysis. These 41 views were then categorized based on the extent to which they met the visual
characteristics associated with the site’s heritage values. This process of categorization revealed that some
inventoried views did not contribute substantially to the site’s heritage significance and therefore these
were screened out from further analysis.
Remaining views were then analyzed to determine the extent to which they may be considered important
to the public. Ideally, the public importance of a potential view plane is best determined via
comprehensive public consultation. Similar studies conducted in other jurisdictions, such as Austin Texas,
Ottawa Ontario, and Edinburgh, Scotland integrated extensive public consultations into the process of
view plane identification, and ultimately, view plane protection. Time constraints related to the present
study did not permit development and execution of a comprehensive public consultation strategy designed
to receive public input on candidate view planes of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. To
address this gap, investigative indicators were used to isolate candidate view planes likely to possess high
levels of public importance.
• Is the viewing point located within a high traffic area (pedestrian and vehicular)? Indicators
of high traffic locations include proximity to public transit connections, signalized
intersections, and high vehicle counts.
• Is the viewpoint associated with a place of public assembly?
• Has the view been recognized in previous studies?
• Have site stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Culture, the Ontario Legislative Assembly,
and the Ontario Heritage Trust expressed an interest in the view?
Figure 12: Preliminary area of view protection relating to the Queen’s Park cultural
heritage landscape.
This overall process resulted in identification of 42 viewpoints and related view planes (see Appendix D).
These view planes represent significant views that contribute to the site’s cultural heritage significance
and include views from the north, east, west, and south. Given that the present study was undertaken to
develop a framework for specifically assessing impacts of tall tower development north of the Queen’s
Park cultural heritage landscape, this large set of view planes was analyzed to isolate views that could be
impacted by development north of the site. This selection included those north-looking views that could
be considered significant because they express the site’s contextual values. The site retains a number of
contextual values, two of which are expressed by north-looking views. North-looking views were
identified for further analysis if they expressed either the site’s:
• Symbolic pre-eminence and ceremonial and monumental setting, or

• Function as a prominent landscape which provides orientation to residents and visitors and
enhances comprehension of the city’s built form and historical development.
This component of the process resulted in the identification of 30 north-looking view planes. Fifteen of
these view planes (V1-V15) express the site’s symbolic pre-eminence and ceremonial setting (otherwise
referred to as Contextual Value 1 hereafter) by establishing foreground views of the processional avenue
against background views of the building’s silhouette. The other fifteen view planes (V15 – V30) express
the site’s function as a prominent landscape which provides orientation to residents and visitors and
enhances comprehension of the city’s built form and historical development (otherwise referred to as
Contextual Value 2 hereafter). These view planes express this contextual value by maintaining clear
distinguishable views of the centreblock against the open sky. It should be noted that both of these
contextual values equally contribute to the site’s cultural heritage significance. Indeed, all contextual
values are equally important.
Tables 6 and 7 summarize identification of these significant view planes. The following tables
demonstrate the relationship between identified view planes and Contextual Value 1 and Contextual
Value 2. These charts also briefly describe why identified view planes may be considered significant to
the public. The duration of identified views is also described by categorizing views as either static,
sustained, or kinetic. These terms are defined in Appendix E.
Figures 13 - 21 provide three dimensional graphic simulations and photographic documentation of a

select number of identified view planes presented in these tables.
Table 6: North-Looking View Planes Identified in Association with Contextual Value 1
Visual Characteristics Associated with View ID

Cultural Heritage Value Viewing Locations Public Significance of View Type of View
Contextual Value 1
Contextual Value 1: Foreground views of the processional V1 Pedestrian views from northwest corner of King Street West-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
avenue against background views of the • Public transit exit/entrance to
The site is of exemplary contextual value within building’s silhouette. Subway.
Canada as an accomplished example of the V2 Pedestrian views from northeast corner of Queen Street West-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
integration of planning, design, and landscaping to • Public transit exit/entrance to
establish a ceremonial and monumental setting for subway.
Ontario’s legislative precinct.
V3 Vehicular views from northbound lanes from Queen Street West-University Avenue and • High traffic route for residents Sustained
continuing to College Street-University Avenue. and visitors to move up from the
lakefront area and major transit
hubs to the centre, northern,
eastern, and western portions of
the city.
V4 Pedestrian views moving north and across Queen Street West at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
• Public transit exit/entrance to
subway.
V5 Pedestrian views moving north and across Dundas Street West at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
subway.
V6 Pedestrian views moving north and across Armoury Street at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
• Place of public assembly
V7 Pedestrian views moving north and across Ord Street at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
V8 Pedestrian views moving north and across Gerrard Street at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
V9 Pedestrian views moving north and across Edward Street at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
V10 Pedestrian views moving north and across Elm Street at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
V11 Pedestrian views moving north and across College Street • Signalized intersection Kinetic
subway
V12 Pedestrian views from southeast corner of College Street-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
subway
V13 Pedestrian views from southwest corner of College Street-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
subway
V14 Pedestrian views from northeast corner of College Street-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
subway
V15 Pedestrian views from northwest corner of College Street-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
subway
Table 7: North-Looking View Planes Identified in Association with Contextual Value 2
Visual Characteristics View ID

Cultural Heritage Value Associated with Contextual Viewing Locations Public Significance of View Type of View
Value 2
Contextual Value 2: Clear distinguishable views V16 Pedestrian views from northwest corner of King Street West-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
of the centre block against • Public transit entrance/exit to subway.
The site is significant as a prominent landmark in the the open sky. V17 Pedestrian views from northeast corner of Queen Street West-University • Signalized intersection Static
City of Toronto that provides orientation to visitors and Avenue • Public transit exit/entrance to subway.
residents, enhancing comprehension of the city’s built
form and historical development. V18 Vehicular views from northbound lanes from Queen Street West-University • High traffic route for residents and Sustained
Avenue and continuing to College Street-University Avenue. visitors to move up from the lakefront
area and major transit hubs to the
centre, northern, eastern, and western
portions of the city.
V19 Pedestrian views moving north and across Queen Street West at University • Signalized intersection Kinetic
Avenue • Public transit exit/entrance to subway.
V20 Pedestrian views moving north and across Dundas Street West at University • Signalized intersection Kinetic
V21 Pedestrian views moving north and across Armoury Street at University • Signalized intersection Kinetic
Avenue • Place of public assembly
• Public transit exit/entrance to subway
Figure 13: Graphic simulation of V2 and V17 from northeast corner of Queen Street-University
Figure 14: Photographic documentation of V3 and V18 from northbound driving lane at Queen Street-
University Avenue.
Figure 15: Photographic documentation of V2 and V17 from northeast corner of Queen
Street-University Avenue.
Figure 16: Graphic simulation of V18 and V23 from northbound driving lane at Gerrard Street-
University Avenue.
Figure 17: Photographic documentation of V3, V8, V18, and V23 from northbound driving lane south
of Gerrard Street-University Avenue.
Figure 18: Photographic documentation of V8 and V23 from northwest corner of Gerrard Street-
University Avenue.
Figure 19: Graphic simulation of V5 and V20 from northbound driving lane at Dundas Street-
University Avenue.
Figure 20: Photographic documentation of V5 and V20 from southeast corner Dundas
Street-University Avenue.
Figure 21: Photographic documentation of V3, V5, V18, and V20 from Dundas Street-University
Avenue.
4.5.2 Assessing Impacts to North-Looking View Planes
View planes were then analyzed to define levels of visual integrity. Defining a level of visual integrity
provides an objective method for conserving identified view planes and the integrity of the building’s
silhouette and for assessing impacts of proposed development applications on these view planes.
Assigning a level of visual integrity indicates a point on the view subject beyond which high rise projects
should not project. A scale of visual integrity was developed for the purposes of this study and modeled
on the system used in the City of Ottawa as described in Chapter 3.0. Given that the present study was
undertaken to develop a framework for assessing impacts of tall tower development north of the Queen’s
Park cultural heritage landscape, analysis of visual integrity focused on north-looking views identified in
association with Contextual Value 1 and Contextual Value 2.
Table 8 presents scales of visual integrity that address conservation of the building’s silhouette in relation
to views identified in association with Contextual Value 1 (V1 – V15). Table 9 presents slightly different
scales of visual integrity that address conservation of the building’s silhouette in relation to views
identified in association with Contextual Value 2 (V16 – V30). Scales of visual integrity vary slightly
between these two view categories in order to reflect that these two categories express two different types
of heritage value and retain different visual characteristics.
Table 8: Visual Integrity Scale for Assessing Impacts of Tall Tower Development on Contextual Value 1 (V1 –
V15)
Level of Visual Integrity Associated Height Threshold
Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east block connector

High visual integrity
addition8
Moderate visual integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east block connector
Minimal integrity Visual intrusion up to the peaks of the central domed towers
Lost integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the centre block
8
Gable-roofed additions have been made on the eastern and western elevation of the east block connector. The
ridgeline of the east block connector addition refers to the peak of the gable roof located on the western elevation of
the structure.
Table 9: Visual Integrity Scale Assessing Impacts of Tall Tower Development on Contextual Value 2 (V16 –
V30)
Level of Visual Integrity Associated Height Threshold
High visual integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the west block connector
Moderate visual integrity Visual intrusion up to the eavesline of the centre block
Minimal integrity Visual intrusion up to the peaks of the central domed towers
Lost integrity Visual intrusion beyond the ridgeline of the centre block
Tables 10 and 11 describe levels of visual integrity that have been assigned to each view plane and which
provide benchmarks to measure future impacts of tall tower development north of the site. The highest
levels of visual integrity were assigned to each view plane. To fully protect the site’s Contextual Value 1,
tall tower development north of the site should not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the east block
connector addition (See Figure 22). Similarly, to fully protect the site’s Contextual Value 2, tall tower
development north of the site should not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the west block connector
(See Figure 23).
Table 10: North-Looking Views Identified in Association with Contextual Value 1 and Desired Level of Visual Integrity

Cultural Heritage Value Associated with Cultural Viewing Locations Desired Level of Visual Integrity Associated Height Threshold
Heritage Value Statement
Contextual Value 1: Foreground views of the V1 Pedestrian views from northwest corner of King Street High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
processional avenue against West-University Avenue block connector addition
The site is of exemplary contextual value background views of the
within Canada as an accomplished example building’s silhouette. V2 Pedestrian views from northeast corner of Queen Street High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
of the integration of planning, design, and West-University Avenue block connector addition
landscaping to establish a ceremonial and V3 Vehicular views from northbound lanes from Queen High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
monumental setting for Ontario’s legislative Street West-University Avenue and continuing to College block connector addition
precinct. Street-University Avenue.
V4 Pedestrian views moving north and across Queen Street High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
West at University Avenue block connector addition
V5 Pedestrian views moving north and across Dundas Street High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
West at University Avenue block connector addition
V6 Pedestrian views moving north and across Armoury High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
Street at University Avenue block connector addition
V7 Pedestrian views moving north and across Ord Street at High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
University Avenue block connector addition
V8 Pedestrian views moving north and across Gerrard Street High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
at University Avenue block connector addition
V9 Pedestrian views moving north and across Edward Street High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
at University Avenue block connector addition
V10 Pedestrian views moving north and across Elm Street at High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
V11 Pedestrian views moving north and across College Street High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
block connector addition
V12 Pedestrian views from southeast corner of College Street- High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
V13 Pedestrian views from southwest corner of College High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
Street-University Avenue block connector addition
V14 Pedestrian views from northeast corner of College Street- High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
V15 Pedestrian views from northwest corner of College High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the east
Street-University Avenue block connector addition
Table 11: North-Looking Views Identified in Association with Contextual Value 2 and Desired Level of Visual Integrity

Cultural Heritage Value Associated with Cultural Viewing Locations Desired Level of Visual Integrity Associated Height Threshold
Heritage Value Statement
Contextual Value 2: Clear distinguishable views V16 Pedestrian views from northwest High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the west block
of the centre block roofline corner of King Street West- connector
The site is significant as a prominent against the open sky. University Avenue
landmark in the City of Toronto that
provides orientation to visitors and V17 Pedestrian views from northeast High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the west block
residents, enhancing comprehension of corner of Queen Street West- connector
the city’s built form and historical University Avenue
development. V18 Vehicular views from northbound High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the west block
lanes from Queen Street West- connector
University Avenue and continuing to
College Street-University Avenue.
V19 Pedestrian views moving north and High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the west block
across Queen Street West at connector
University Avenue
across Dundas Street West at connector
University Avenue
across Armoury Street at University connector
Avenue
across Ord Street at University connector
Avenue
across Gerrard Street at University connector
Avenue
across Edward Street at University connector
Avenue
across Elm Street at University connector
Avenue
across College Street connector
V27 Pedestrian views from southeast High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the west block
corner of College Street-University connector
Avenue
V28 Pedestrian views from southwest High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the west block
Avenue
V29 Pedestrian views from northeast High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the west block
Avenue
V30 Pedestrian views from northwest High Visual Integrity Visual intrusion up to the ridgeline of the west block
Avenue
Heritage Impact Assessment
Ridgeline of east
block connector
addition
Figure 22: Height threshold associated with a high level of visual integrity for V1 – V15 and Contextual Value 1.
Ridgeline of west
block connector
Figure 23: Height threshold associated with a high level of visual integrity for V16 – V30 and Contextual
Value 2.
An aggregate level of high visual integrity was then defined to determine an associated height threshold
that would fully protect, to the highest extent possible, the visual integrity of V1 – V30 and both
Contextual Value 1 and Contextual Value 2. The following diagram illustrates the aggregate level of high
visual integrity that is recommended to protect the integrity of the site and V1 – V30. This diagram also
demonstrates the visual implications of the other levels of visual integrity.
Figure 24: Aggregate Levels of Visual Integrity for the Building’s Silhouette and V1-V30.
4.5.3 Protecting North-Looking Views
The identified 30 view planes were then individually plotted. This process indicated that a number of
view planes overlapped and for the purposes of determining broad and preliminary measures of visual
protection, representative key view points were selected to demonstrate a preliminary application of the
proposed view protection methodology presented in Chapter 3.0. It should be noted that to fully establish
the area within which vertical heights of buildings should be controlled, it is necessary to model as many
significant views and view planes as possible. Due to time constraints of the present study, the study team
identified the following key viewing points for modeling purposes:
Table 12: Key Control Viewing Points
Key Viewing Point View Plane Viewing Points Desired Level of Visual
Control Contained within Integrity
View ID Key Control View
• V3 Views from northbound Sustained foreground V4 – V7, V9, and High visual integrity -
lanes from views of processional V10, V18 – V22, visual intrusion up to
Queen Street West- avenue, against V24, and V25 the ridgeline of the
University Avenue and background views of east block connector
continuing to College the building’s addition
Street-University Avenue. silhouette.
• V8 Views moving north and Kinetic foreground V23 High visual integrity -
across Gerrard Street at views of processional visual intrusion up to
University Avenue avenue, against the ridgeline of the
background views of east block connector
the building’s addition
silhouette.
• V11 Views moving north and Kinetic foreground V12- V15 and V26 – High visual integrity -
across College Street views of park-like V30 visual intrusion up to
setting and lawns the ridgeline of the
south of the Ontario east block connector
Legislative Assembly addition
Building, against
background views of
the building’s
silhouette
Two dimensional horizontal view planes were then generated for these key viewing points to establish a
preliminary area where vertical heights of new structures north of the site should be controlled in order to
protect the integrity of the site’s significant views. Figure 25 illustrates view planes associated with V3,
V8, and V11 and demonstrates their horizontal spread. Background areas of each view plane are
identified to illustrate locations within which vertical heights require controls. While the foreground areas
of these view planes also require protection, the existing built environment and configuration of roads in
these areas are unlikely to be targeted for tall tower development.
View plane cross sections were then projected from each viewing location, from an average height of 1.6
m, for the length of the view planes at points intersecting with the centre of the subject building. These
view plane cross sections were modeled for the desired degree of visual integrity. It should be noted that
these view plane cross sections from these locations demonstrate the desired conditions for establishing
the highest degree of visual height integrity.
Figures 26 – 31 provide an example of modeling of view plane cross sections taken from the three key
control viewing points. View plane cross sections were projected from each viewing point, as illustrated
in Figure 27, 29, and 31. These cross sections were modeled at the height of the ridgeline of the east block
connector addition and projected through the centre of the Ontario Legislative Assembly Building. Cross
sections were extended as far north as Yorkville Avenue.
This modeling demonstrates that within the preliminary area within which vertical heights should be
controlled (Figure 25), a range of building heights can be permitted while ensuring that the building’s
silhouette is preserved and that the highest level of visual integrity of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage
landscape is maintained. This model serves as a preliminary demonstration of how to protect significant
views of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. To fully identify the area within which vertical
heights should be controlled, and to illustrate the range of vertical heights that could be permitted within
this area, numerous view plane cross sections from different viewing points require modeling. Select
points along these numerous view plane cross sections can then be generated in the vertical dimension to
develop a height contour template. This type of contour template can serve as an appropriate planning
tool which has the potential to be fully implemented into municipal planning frameworks in a manner
which adequately balances maintenance of visual integrity with objectives of urban growth. This method
and process establishes that a range of building heights would be permissible within the area of view
control, rather than establishing a blanket height control.
Figure 25: Amalgamated two dimensional view planes from V3, V11, and V8, showing background areas and preliminary area within
which vertical heights should be controlled.
Figure 26: Plan showing view plane cross section projected from
V3, at the height of the ridgeline of the east block connector
addition. The cross section is projected through the centre of the
Ontario Legislative Assembly Building and as far north as
Yorkville Avenue.
Figure 27: View plane cross section from V3 modeled at the height of the ridgeline of the east block connector addition and projected through the centre of the building and northerly to the Bloor Street-Yorkville Avenue intersection.
Queen’s Park and Ontario Legislative Assembly Building, Toronto, Ontario
Figure 28: Plan showing view plane cross section projected from V8, at the
height of the ridgeline of the east block connector addition. The cross
section is projected through the centre of the Ontario Legislative Assembly
Building and as far north as Yorkville Avenue.
Figure 29: View plane cross section from V8 modeled at the height of the ridgeline of the east block connector addition and projected through the centre of the building, northerly to Yorkville Avenue.
Figure 30: Plan showing view plane cross section projected from V11, at
the height of the ridgeline of the east block connector addition. The
cross section is projected through the centre of the Ontario Legislative
Assembly Building and as far north as Yorkville Avenue.
Figure 31: View plane cross section from V11 modeled at the height of the ridgeline of the east block connector addition and projected through the centre of the building and northerly to Yorkville Avenue.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
The Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape is an extremely significant cultural heritage resource within
the Province of Ontario. For over a hundred years, this place has served as the seat of provincial
government in Ontario. Perched on a promontory overlooking Toronto’s downtown core, it is a dynamic
symbol of the political system that has shaped this province and the lives of its residents. Located in a
highly visible and accessible location, its visual prominence, park-like setting, and the robust massing,
and intricate architectural detailing of the Legislative Assembly building express ideas, ideals, and
messages about how we interact with our government, engage in the political process, nurture
development of a civil society, and influence public policy. Preservation of these values and messages is a
responsibility that must be assumed for the benefit of future generations.
The present report addresses this critical cultural, social, and political imperative of conserving the
heritage values of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. Specifically, this study examines
conservation of the site’s setting and those significant view planes which express its cultural heritage
values. Following decades of inadequate maintenance for the Ontario Legislative Assembly building, a
restoration master plan was developed in the early 1990s to address conservation of the building’s
tangible material fabric. This work culminated in and initiated a program for ensuring that the site’s built
fabric is appropriately maintained and provided a starting point for developing a comprehensive
conservation plan for the site. The study recognized that the site’s cultural heritage value is more than the
sum of its parts (building and landscape features) but a reflection of its significant building fabric; visual
prominence; monumental and ceremonial setting at the head of a historical processional route and within
a park-like setting; and visual and spatial relationships to the downtown core and government precinct to
the east that together create an incredibly rich, complex, and meaningful place for Ontarians, residents of
the City of Toronto, and visitors. The present study builds upon and contributes to this holistic ‘reading’
of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. It addresses identification, impact assessment, and
protection of the site’s significant view planes for the purpose of developing a conservation framework
for the site that not only seeks to conserve the site’s building materials but which seeks to safeguard its
extremely important, symbolic, complex, intended, and historically-created setting.
Although some Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape view planes have been fairly well preserved
over the past century, a lack of clear planning provisions and appreciation of the importance of all of the
site’s significant view planes have resulted in moderate disturbances and disruptions to the site. If
unregulated, these impacts will persist but at a much larger scale in the future, impairing the visual
integrity and heritage significance of the site. Approval of a zoning by-law amendment in 1969 to
construct the current Four Seasons building, located at Bloor Street and Avenue Road, represents the most
significant impairment of the site’s integrity. While this structure interrupts some of the view planes
identified in this study, this intrusion can be corrected by carefully ensuring any future development at
this location respects the conclusions of this study, particularly the identified view planes and associated
levels of visual integrity.
This conservation objective is shared by the local community and site-specific stakeholders. In 2005,
Heritage Toronto, local businesses, area residents, and institutions vociferously spoke out against a
development application to construct a 46-storey residential tower at the Royal Ontario Museum.
Arguments focused on the height of the proposal and its resulting incompatibility within the historic area
defined by University of Toronto lands and Queen’s Park (Ross 2007; Heritage Toronto n.d). The
proposed 46-residential tower application did not proceed. Additionally, site-specific stakeholders such as
the Ministry of Culture, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and the Properties and Precincts Branch of the
Ontario Legislative Assembly have clearly emphasized that conservation of the site’s public importance
and symbolic value is incumbent upon maintaining its ceremonial and monumental setting and visual pre-
eminence.
The following chapter provides the conclusions of the present study and presents recommendations for
conserving the cultural heritage significance of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape by
addressing protection of the site’s significant view planes. The scope of the present study is first
summarized to outline its objectives, as specified by the City of Toronto and to also illustrate any
limitations of the present study. Following, conclusions of view plane identification and impact
assessment analysis are presented in relation to the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. Based on
the results of this analysis and based on a review of view plane protection policies adopted in other
jurisdictions, a series of recommendations are provided. These recommendations have been designed to
conserve the integrity of the site and to ensure that its significant views are appropriately managed in
future land use planning processes.
5.2 Scope of the Present Study
The present study addresses identification, impact assessment, and protection of significant view planes
related to the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. Numerous view planes were identified in relation
to the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape. However, it should be noted that while a range of view
planes were identified from the north, south, and east, and west, this study was commissioned to
specifically address impact assessment and protection of northerly looking views which may be impacted
by tall tower development north of the site.
The following summarizes study objectives as specified by the City of Toronto:
• Review methodologies for view plane identification and protection completed in other
jurisdictions;
• Develop and execute a methodology for identifying, assessing impacts to, and protecting the
site’s significant view planes;
• Review and analyze previously conducted studies relevant for identifying view planes associated
with Queen’s Park;
• Prepare a statement of significance, outlining the site’s broad range of cultural heritage values
and associated heritage attributes for the purposes of identifying views that express and enhance
the site’s value;
• Illustrate the visual impact of potential tall tower development north of Queen’s Park on
identified view planes; and
• Examine and recommend protective mechanisms under the Planning Act and Ontario Heritage
Act to conserve significant view planes related to the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape.
5.3 Conclusions
The results of background research, a review of view plane protection studies undertaken in other
jurisdictions, multiple site visits, and analysis of existing and future visual conditions of the site
confirmed that the site retains a number of significant view planes from the north, south, east, and west.
42 view planes were identified based on an analysis of the site’s cultural heritage values and in
consideration of the value of the view to city residents, pedestrians, motorists, and visitors. Appendix D
provides a complete summary of these views. In accordance with the scope of the study to address impact
assessment and protection of views that could be impacted by tall tower development north of the site, the
42 view planes were sorted to isolate northerly looking views for further analysis.
A total of 30 view planes were carried forward for impact assessment analysis and consideration of
available protection mechanisms. These 30 view planes were mapped, establishing two dimensional view
envelopes indicating the foreground, background, lateral-foreground, and lateral-background limits of the
view plane. Levels of visual integrity were assigned to each view plane to determine levels of desired
visual integrity. Establishing a level of visual integrity identifies a benchmark against which future
impacts can be assessed and provides a basis for developing specific protection mechanisms, such as
height controls. Levels of desired visual integrity were assigned in relation to the view points’ defined
visual characteristics.
This process indicated that a number of view planes overlapped and for the purposes of determining broad
and preliminary measures of visual protection, representative key view points were selected to
demonstrate a preliminary application of the proposed view protection methodology presented in Chapter
3.0. Key view points that were modeled include:
• V3 Views from northbound lanes from

Queen Street West-University Avenue and continuing
to College Street-University Avenue.
• V8 Views moving north and across Gerrard Street at University Avenue
• V11 Views moving north and across College Street
View planes for each of these key viewpoints were graphically generated. Within each view plane
envelope, view plane cross section lines were generated to intersect with the centre of the Legislative
Assembly. These view plane cross sections establish examples of height limits that proposed new
construction north of the site must respect. This modeling demonstrates that within the preliminary area
within which vertical heights should be controlled (Figure 22), multiple view plane cross sections can be
generated from the key control view points, at the desired level of visual integrity. Select points along
these view plane cross sections can then be generated in the vertical dimension to develop a height
contour template. This method and process recognizes that a range of appropriate heights may be
permitted in background areas of significant view planes and emphasizes that every effort to maintain
visual integrity of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape should be balanced with developers rights
through the provision of a range of heights, rather than a single height blanket, and insurances that
appropriate densities are maintained.
5.4 Recommendations
Analysis of the cultural heritage value of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape confirmed that the
site retains a number of significant view planes that substantially contribute to and enhance its value to
the public, site stakeholders, residents of Toronto and Ontario, and visitors to the site. To conserve the
integrity of the site and to preserve its value for the benefit of future generations, these view planes
require management and protection. The following provides a summary of recommended measures to
conserve and protect significant view planes associated with the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape:
1. Protect the highest level of visual integrity of significant views associated with the Queen’s
Park cultural heritage landscape.
2. The Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape should be designated under the Ontario
Heritage Act in recognition of the site’s outstanding value within the Province of Ontario and
to ensure its long-term conservation and appropriate management. It is further recommended
that this designation be undertaken in collaboration between the City of Toronto and the
Province of Ontario to ensure that the building and its contributing surrounding setting are
fully protected under the Ontario Heritage Act.
3. In accordance with Section 3.1.1 (8) of the City of Toronto’s Official Plan and the University
of Toronto Secondary Plan, new development should be planned to preserve and improve the
highest level of visual integrity of significant public views of the Queen’s Park cultural
heritage landscape.
4. Official plan or zoning by-law amendments should be adopted to support protection of the
highest level of visual integrity of identified significant view planes in the land use planning
process. The official plan or zoning by-law amendment should define the area within which
vertical heights of buildings should be controlled and be supported by an implementation
system for using a height contour template to define appropriate buildings heights within the
specified area.
5. Should an official plan or zoning by-law amendment be adopted in this regard, it must be
supported by a detailed implementation program. An effective implementation program
would include: improved technological capacity to model protected views and to easily
establish height limits within particular parcels within the area of view control; instructions to
developers preparing applications within the area of view control; and provisions to protect
building heights while protecting developments rights through approval of appropriate
densities.
6. The Province of Ontario should take every appropriate action to protect the highest level of
visual integrity of significant views of the Queen’s Park cultural heritage landscape.
6.0 REFERENCES CITED
Abel, John
2008 “Protecting Views of Canada’s National Symbols” in World Heritage: Defining and
Protecting, Proceedings for a Round Table organized by the Canada Research Chair on
Built Heritage, Faculty of Environmental Design, Universite de Montreal; Christina
Cameron and C. Boucher eds. Copy of document with author.
Arthur, E.
1979 From Front Street to Queen’s Park: The Story of Ontario’s Parliament Buildings,
Markham: McClelland and Stewart.
City of Edinburgh
2007 Finalised Edinburgh City Local Plan. Available on-line
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/Attachments/Internet/Environment/Planning_and_
buildings/Planning_hidden/Local_plans/Edinburgh%20City%20Local%20Plan/ECLP%2
0part%201.pdf>
2008 City of Edinburgh Guideline for the Protection of Key Views. Available on-line at
<http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/Attachments/Internet/Environment/Planning_and
_buildings/Planning_hidden/Planning_policies/DM_Guidelines/Protection_of_Key_View
s.pdf>
City of Toronto.
n.d. No. 34-76. A By-Law (To adopt an amendment to Part I of The Official Plan for the City
of Toronto, respecting Housing and parts of the central Area). Passed Jan. 31, 1976.
Copy of document with author.
Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Limited

2005 Cultural Heritage Significance Study, Queen’s Park Complex, Toronto, Vol. 1, Toronto.
Dale, C.A.
1993 Palaces of Government: A History of the Legislative Buildings of the Provinces of Upper
Canada, Canada and Ontario, 1792-1992. Toronto: Ontario Legislative Library.
Design Guidelines Study Group

1974 onbuildingdowntown, Design Guidelines for the Core Area, Second Edition, Toronto.
Dowdall, Lawrence
2009 Prerecognition Brief, submitted to Public Inquiry on the proposed Tiger development,
presented June 2, 2009. Copy of document with author.
du Toit, Allsopp, Hillier

1989 The Art of the Avenue: A University Avenue Public Art Study, Toronto.
du Toit Allsopp Hillier, et al.

2007 Canada’s Capital Views Protection: Protecting the Visual Integrity and Symbolic
Primacy of Our National Symbols, Toronto.
ERA Architects Inc., Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster

2001 Queen’s Park Complex, Cultural Landscape Inventory, Summary of Findings, Toronto.
English Heritage/CABE
2007 Guidance on Tall Buildings. Available on-line < http://www.english-
heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.11149>
Federal Heritage Building Review Office

2008 FHBRO Evaluation Criteria. Available at http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/beefp-fhbro/itm1-
/criteres-criteria3_e.asp
Greer, W.N., et al
1996 Heritage Significance Study, Whitney Block & Tower, Queen’s Park, Toronto, Toronto.
Hall, R.
1993 A Century to Celebrate: The Ontario Legislative Building, Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Heritage Toronto
n.d. Position Paper, Re: 100 Queen’s Park (ROM Planetarium), copy of document.
Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster Ltd., et al.

2002 Queen’s Park Complex: Cultural Landscape Heritage Significance Study. Toronto.
Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster, et al.

2001 Queen’s Park Project: Tentative Evaluation for Cultural Landscapes, Toronto.
International Council on Monuments and Sites

2005 Xi'an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and
Areas, Adopted in Xi'an, China by the 15th General Assembly of ICOMOS. Available on
line at <http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/xian-declaration.pdf>.
Julian S. Smith Architect and Associates

1991 A Time for Renewal, Restoration Master Plan for the Ontario Legislative Assembly
Building and Grounds, Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ottawa.
Land Use Consultants

2008 Seeing the History in the View: A Method for Assessing Heritage Significance Within
Views (Draft for Consultants), London, UK.
McGeough, Gerry
2008 “Vancouver’s Tall Buildings: Protecting Important Views” in World Heritage: Defining
and Protecting, Proceedings for a Round Table organized by the Canada Research Chair
on Built Heritage, Faculty of Environmental Design, Universite de Montreal; Christina
Cameron and C. Boucher eds. Copy of document with author.
Ministry of Culture
2005 Ontario Heritage Act.

2008 Ministry of Culture (MCL) Review & Preliminary Technical Comment, Application to
Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for a Mixed-use Building located at 21
Avenue Road (City of Toronto Application No. 07 289063 STE 27 OZ), Correspondence,
April 15, 2008.
Nova Scotia Utilities and Review Board

2007 DECISION NSUARB-PL-06-14-15-16-17, 2007 NSUARB 122. Available on-line <
http://www.nsuarb.ca/newReleases/documents/heritageTrust_000.pdf>
Ontario Heritage Trust

2008 Application to Amend the City of Toronto Official Plan and Zoning By-law for mixed –
use building at 21 Avenue Road, Application no. 07 289063 STE 27 OZ. correspondence,
April 17, 2008.
Parks Canada
2003 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Available
on-line http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/pc/guide/nldclpc-sgchpc.aspx
Ross, V.
2007 “ROM Floats another condo plan”, The Globe and Mail, Toronto.
Sergeant-at-Arms and Precinct Properties Division, Legislative Assembly of Ontario

2008 Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for a mixed-use building at 21
Avenue Road (City of Toronto Application no. 07 289063 STE 27 OZ); correspondence,
May 5, 2008.
Toronto City Planning
1991 City of Toronto Official Plan, 1991.
2007 City of Toronto Official Plan, 2007.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

2005 Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing
the Historic Urban Landscape. Available on-line at
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-47-2.pdf
[--------]
n.d. “University of Toronto Secondary Plan”,
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/official_plan/pdf_secondary/20_university_toronto_june
2006.pdf
[--------]
1993 “Opening Day, April 4, 1893”, A Century to Celebrate 1893 - 1993: The Ontario
Legislative Building. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1993.
APPENDIX A
1976 Central Area Plan

APPENDIX B
Excerpt from 1991 Official Plan

APPENDIX C:
Heritage Character Statement, Queen’s Park Restoration Master Plan (1991)

APPENDIX D
Significant View s Identified in Association with the Queen’s Park Cultural Heritage Landscape
North-Looking Views Identified in Association with the Queen’s Park Cultural Heritage Landscape
Visual View ID
Characteristics
Cultural Heritage Value Associated with Viewing Locations Public Significance of View Type of View
Cultural Heritage
Value Statement
Contextual Value 1: Foreground views of V1 Pedestrian views from northwest corner of King Street West-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
the processional • Public transit exit/entrance to
The site is of exemplary contextual value within avenue against Subway.
Canada as an accomplished example of the background views V2 Pedestrian views from northeast corner of Queen Street West-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
integration of planning, design, and landscaping of the building’s • Public transit exit/entrance to
to establish a ceremonial and monumental silhouette. subway.
setting for Ontario’s legislative precinct.
V3 Vehicular views from northbound lanes from Queen Street West-University Avenue and • High traffic route for residents Sustained
continuing to College Street-University Avenue. and visitors to move up from the
lakefront area and major transit
hubs to the centre, northern,
eastern, and western portions of
the city.
V4 Pedestrian views moving north and across Queen Street West at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
subway.
V5 Pedestrian views moving north and across Dundas Street West at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
subway.
V6 Pedestrian views moving north and across Armoury Street at University Avenue • Signalized intersection Kinetic
• Place of public assembly
subway
subway
subway
subway
subway
North-Looking Views Identified in Association with the Queen’s Park Cultural Heritage Landscape
Visual View ID
Characteristics
Cultural Heritage
Value Statement
Contextual Value 2: Clear V16 Pedestrian views from northwest corner of King Street West-University Avenue • Signalized intersection Static
distinguishable • Public transit entrance/exit to subway.
The site is significant as a prominent landmark in the views of the V17 Pedestrian views from northeast corner of Queen Street West-University • Signalized intersection Static
City of Toronto that provides orientation to visitors and centreblock against Avenue • Public transit exit/entrance to subway.
residents, enhancing comprehension of the city’s built the open sky.
form and historical development. V18 Vehicular views from northbound lanes from Queen Street West-University • High traffic route for residents and Sustained
Avenue and continuing to College Street-University Avenue. visitors to move up from the lakefront
area and major transit hubs to the
centre, northern, eastern, and western
portions of the city.
V19 Pedestrian views moving north and across Queen Street West at University • Signalized intersection Kinetic
V20 Pedestrian views moving north and across Dundas Street West at University • Signalized intersection Kinetic
V21 Pedestrian views moving north and across Armoury Street at University • Signalized intersection Kinetic
Avenue • Place of public assembly
Public transit exit/entrance to subway
North-East, South-West, and South-Looking Views Identified in Association with the Queen’s Park Cultural Heritage Landscape
Associated with
Cultural Heritage Value Viewing Locations Public Significance of View Type of View
Cultural Heritage
Value Statement
Contextual Value 1: The site is of Views of the building V31 Vehicular views, moving northeast, along Queen’s Park Crescent between • High traffic route for residents and visitors to move Kinetic
exemplary contextual value within set within a park-like College Street and Wellesley Street. up from the lakefront area and major transit hubs to
Canada as an accomplished example of setting the centre, northern, eastern, and western portions
the integration of planning, design, and of the city.
landscaping to establish a ceremonial V32 Vehicular views moving southwest along Queen’s Park Crescent between • High traffic route for residents and visitors to move Kinetic
and monumental setting for Ontario’s Avenue Road and College Street down from the central, northern, eastern, and
legislative precinct. western potions of the city to the lakefront area,
major transit hubs, the entertainment district, and
financial district.
V33 Vehicular views moving south along Avenue Road between Bloor Street and • High traffic route for residents and visitors to move Sustained
northern edge of Queen’s Park circle. down from the central, northern, eastern, and
western potions of the city to the lakefront area,
major transit hubs, the entertainment district, and
financial district.
V34 Pedestrian views southward moving across Bloor Street at Avenue Road. • Signalized intersection Kinetic
• High pedestrian traffic intersection
•
West, North-West, North-Looking Views Identified in Association with the Queen’s Park Cultural Heritage Landscape
Visual View ID
Characteristics
Cultural Heritage
Value
Contextual Value 3: Views of the V35 Pedestrian views westward and northwest along Grosvenor Street from Bay • Widely used pedestrian linkage between Kinetic
The site is significant as an integral component of the City’s Queen’s Park Street. the Ontario Legislative Assembly and the
built environment and institutional precinct centred around cultural heritage government precinct to the east.
the intersection of College Street and University Avenue. landscape and
government
precinct to the east,
which include views
of unifying
landscape
treatments and
contrasting building
materials and
massing.
Architectural Value: Full views of the V36 Pedestrian views moving north and across Gerrard Street at University • Signalized intersection Kinetic
The site is valued for its innovative architectural detailing building’s southern Avenue. • High pedestrian traffic
and use of the Richardsonian Romanesque style. façade.
V37 Pedestrian views moving north along University Avenue between Gerrard • Signalized intersection Sustained
Street and College Street • Public transit exit/entrance to subway.
V38 Pedestrian views at southeast corner of College Street and University • Signalized intersection Static
• Public transit exit/entrance to subway.
V39 Pedestrian views at southwest corner of College Street and University • Signalized intersection Static
V40 Pedestrian views at northeast corner of College Street and University • Signalized intersection Static
V41 Pedestrian views at northwest corner of College Street and University • Signalized intersection Static
V42 Pedestrian views moving north and across College Street at University • Signalized intersection Kinetic
Avenue. • Public transit exit/entrance to subway.
• High pedestrian traffic.
APPENDIX E
Glossary of Terms
Cultural Heritage Landscape: A defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been
modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It
involves a group of individual heritage features such as structures,
spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together
form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its
constituent elements or parts. Examples may include, but are not
limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the
Ontario Heritage Act; and villages, parks, gardens, battlefields,
mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways and
industrial complexes of cultural heritage value.
View: What an observer sees when standing at a particular location (view

point) looking toward the view subject which is the intended subject
of view protection
View Point: The location of the observer from whose position a view plane is
generated.
View Plane: A view plane consists of six components: a view point, a view
subject, foreground area of the view, background area of the view,
lateral-foreground areas, and lateral-background areas.
Viewscape: A composite view of the subject building comprised of a number of

views from different locations
Static Views: A view from a stationary view point.
Kinetic Views: A range and shifting views experienced when moving from a single
view point.
Sustained Views: A continuous view experienced when moving from a single view point
toward the view subject.
View Subject: The building, structure or property which is the subject of the view

Heritage Impact Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Heritage Impact Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

November 19th, 2009

Dear Louis and Mary;

It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. .

Ronald F. Williamson, Ph.D., CAHP

Queen’s Park and Ontario Legislative Assembly Building

ASI File 09SP-55

Queen’s Park and Legislative Assembly of Ontario

4. Official plan or zoning by-law amendments should be adopted to support protection of

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC.

Senior Project Manager: Herb Stovel

Cultural Heritage Specialists: Herb Stovel

Report Preparation Rebecca Sciarra

Graphics Preparation: Rebecca Sciarra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. ii

4.3 Stakeholder Consultation.......................................................................................................................50

Figure 1: Location of study area in the City of Toronto, Ontario ................................................................................7

1.1 Site Context

Figure 1: Location of study area in the City of Toronto, Ontario

Figure 2: Aerial view of

Figure 3: 60th Anniversary of Confederation, 1927 showing decorations.

Figure 6: 2009 public demonstration on the front lawns of Queen’s Park.

1.2 Report Purpose

2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING VIEWS ASSOCIATED WITH

2.1 Site Planning History

Figure 7: Sketch of the original King’s College Site, showing

Figure 9: Proposed site layout, 1892.

Figure 10: Existing conditions site layout, 1894.

2.2.1 On Building Downtown

• Views of Connaught Laboratories (University of Toronto)

• Views of Homewood Avenue, Carleton Street to Wellesley Street

2.2.2 1993 Official Plan Provisions

2.2.3 University of Toronto Secondary Plan

• Recognize and protect the Area primarily as an Institutional District;

2.2.4 2006 Official Plan Provisions

a) maintaining views and vistas as new development occurs;

10. Heritage landscapes and historic cemeteries will be conserved.

3.0 APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING AND PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS

3.1 Introduction and Context

3.1.1 Purpose and Scope

3.1.2 The Importance of Protecting Views

• ensures an appropriate mix of uses is achieved.

3.1.3 The Importance of Setting in Best Conservation Practice

3.1.4 Setting in Canadian Practice

The second question concerns ‘setting’:

The third question concerns “landmark’:

What is the nature of the building’s identity within the community?

3.2 Assessing Impacts of High Buildings on Important Heritage Buildings

3.2.1 City of Halifax.

3.2.2 City of Ottawa

3.2.3 City of Toronto

3.2.4 City of Vancouver

3.2.5 City of London, United Kingdom

3.2.6 English Heritage; United Kingdom

3.2.7 City of Edinburgh; United Kingdom

3.2.8 Lessons from Experiences Reviewed

3.3 Context for Establishing a High Buildings Policy

Section 5.54 of the Guideline notes:

• the scale of the building is appropriate to its context.

1. Identifying and characterizing significant views.

2. Assessing the impact of proposed developments on identified views

3. Mitigating impacts: methods to manage views

1. Define and rank the national symbols

2. Establish key viewpoints