Canada Malting Silos Workshop

19 April 2005

Summary notes of proceedings

Goldsmith Borgal & Company Architects
Canada Malting Meeting

Introduction

A meeting of interested individuals met on April 19, 2005 to participate in a work-

shop / charette to consider ideas for the potential reuse of the Canada Malting site
(see attached attendees list).

The day was introduced by Councilor Olivia Chow, Rita Davies Executive Director
Culture Division, and Phil Goldsmith, Architect (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd.
Architects).

As an introduction to the day, speakers provided some contextual information on

the site opportunities and constraints in roughly an organization of past, present
and future.

Wayne Morgan, Preservation Coordinator Heritage Preservation Services, City of

Toronto provided an heritage backgrounder with historic images and information
on the site and the history of the location. To summarize:

The construction of the current Canada Malting silos started in 1928 as a facility to
store barley and to process it into malt (brewing). This project re-established To-
ronto in the grain shipping trade after some years with the loss of the earlier wood
silos to fire. The building is of a functional design and included grain storage bins
and germination facilities.

The current composition was built in stages as follows:

1 Silos
6 Kiln Otto Luebkert 1928
2 Headhouse
5 Germination House
Canada Malting Silo site

page 2
9 Power House John Metcalf Company 1928
3 Annex Silos
4 Marine Leg
4 Germinating
Addition T. Pringel & E.C.Miller 1944
7 Addition T. Pringle & Son 1944
10 Offices Francis Wilkes 1946
11 Garage 1952
14 Storage Shed 1953
12 Offices Charles Worsley 1953

In conclusion it is a distinctive purpose built facility at a prominent location on

the waterfront representing an important cultural (industrial) landscape.

Robert Kerns, Chairman, Ireland Park Foundation, spoke of plans and progress on
Ireland Park to be located immediately adjacent to the site on the south flank and
beside the western gap sea wall. The park is to commemorate the struggles and
sacrifices of the early Irish immigrants to the city during the Irish famine of the
first half of the 19th century. The Irish community which resulted here in Toronto
were very influential in shaping the early city.

Robin Clarke, Executive Vice-President, Page + Steele Architects Planners, spoke

of two proposals that his firm had considered for the buildings. These included a
columbarium and secondly a site for the use of the Royal Yacht Club as a re-
placement for their current ferry pier at the east end of the harbour, plus other
public facilities and including display space for waterfront history.

Marisa Piattelli, Vice-President Special Project Manager, Toronto Waterfront revi-

talization Corporation, spoke of current plans being developed by the TWRC To-
ronto Waterfront Redevelopment Corp. This presentation spoke of various parts
of the waterfront proposal from the Canada Malting site to the port-lands with an Offices of Richardo Bofill, Barcelona
emphasis on the work in progress to develop the port-lands, East Bayfront and
West Don Lands.

page 3
Phil Goldsmith provided a presentation of adaptive reuse precedents from
around the world of similar waterfront and / or silo sites. This group of precedents
included major institutions, mixed use projects, hotels, offices, parking facilities,
theatre and other examples. He further touched on principles that are commonly
considered when looking at heritage sites for adaptive reuse and the need to po-
sition the project relative to appropriateness and fit with the nature of the site and
its unique structures.

Brainstorming

The group considered the site, options, issues, and potential uses. These were
presented and discussed at the end of the day. The ideas were wide ranging and Stadtlagerhaus - Mixed Commercial, Offices
varied from the presentation of general objectives, through specific ideas for ac-
tual uses.

The following is a summary paraphrasing of the results of the day in the following
key headings: objectives, possible approaches, suggested uses and hanging ques-
tions.

Objectives

• This is an unique site, preserve the iconic, inspirational components of

the building complex.
• Don’t ruin the iconic image of the silos on the waterfront, retain the es-
sential architectural features.
• Take the long term view of this unique site , caution against short term
inappropriate reuse. Rotterdam Study - Proposal Concert Hall
• This site should set an example for heritage preservation, green building,
and city beautiful. Demonstrate how to do it right. Incorporate sustain-
able objectives, mitigate pollution of the Portland St. slip.

page 4
 • The heritage element is key. Preserve the spirit of the site and material fab-
ric of the buildings, link to past.
• Provide public access to the site, particularly at the ground level.
• Deal with safety issues so the site can be opened.
• Incorporate a community voice / participation from the beginning, antici-
pate long term community needs, use should be connected to the com-
munity.
• Create a destination and a mix of uses (public / private) possibility of di-
verse and diversity of uses.
• The reuse should be based on a viable business plan.
• Encourage marine uses, recognition of waterfront theme, extend waterfront
promenade for access to Ireland Park.
• Take project to Council for September to get commitment for the 2006
budget.
OXO Tower London, Mixed Commercial

Possible Approaches

• Redevelop the site in context of a master plan / site programme. Define

the vision of the site. Needs to be done right. Leave door open for the
BIG IDEA to happen. First steps can happen now, incrementally. De-
velop a 5 year plan with better information about context.

• Take a phased approach, consider mixed use, preserve the silos.

• Create a committee similar to the Harbourfront Steering Committee.

This group chaired by Councillor Chow with money is needed.

• Need full consultation with the community, take discussion to commu-

nity in late May / early June 2005 to discuss initial phase and longer
Batersea Power Station, London, Master Plan

page 5
 term.

• City should start by beautification of park on water’s edge, accessible to

public, open up south and east path. Stabilize buildings for safety. Money
from Harbourfront Parks? TWRC to repair water’s edge?

• Study condition of existing buildings, run tests. Federal Government did a

state of good repair and environmental study 10 years ago, update report.
This is good public information (for possible users).

• Consider parcelling site for smaller uses / users before we get to the big
idea. Decide on uses for adjunct buildings, short term leases maybe on the
model of 401 Richmond or Distillery District.

• Consider the option of all or part retained in picturesque dereliction.

• Talk to builders / developers who have worked on similar projects e.g.. Ci-
tyscape (Goderham & Worts site).

• Keep in touch with and coordinate with Ireland park for good access.
Incorporate pedestrian link, music garden, link park to community cen-
tre and school, possible bridge connection to school (pedestrian safety).

• Approach senior levels of government for funding, at least for heritage

issues.

• Deal with dock wall structure. Work with federal - provincial to transfer
ownership.

Suggested Uses

• Silos are an iconic structure and site for a significant public and cultural
institution. Space to showcase different cultures (cultural mosaic). Tate Modern - Art Gallery, London

• Landmark site, could be tourist destination. Consider landscaping, light-

ing, sculpture-fountain using silos as first step.

page 6
 • Cultural showcase, museum of immigration, world youth centre, abo-
riginal cultural centre. Possible site for Humanitas.

• A possible site for Ontario Archives or Toronto artifact collection.

• Programming hub for innovation, sustainability and youth.

• Encourage marine use, cruise terminal or port of call. Fisherman’s wharf

type retail mixed use. Consider a “belt line” ferry - this could be one
stop. Add a ship, old laker, as additional capacity and environment set- Phillipe Starck, Buenos Aries
ting artifact.

• Toronto National Aquatics Centre where slip separated from the harbour
becomes a major pool.

• Aquarium, marine attraction-marine industry museum.

• Recreation uses such as rock / wall climbing, fitness.

• Intrawest type urban resort village, downtown spa and village, roof top res-
taurant.

• Casino

• Residential, condo, mixed use, retail, restaurant, public uses at grade,

connection to community, roof top public access, views, restaurant.

• Telecommunications centre, new media.

Hanging Questions

• How to deal with site in the interim, can it be cleaned up, made safe,
repair silos - stabilize site? Helsinki - Office Project

• Is this a possible site for Humanitas?

page 7
 • How will the site fit into developing plans for the World’s Fair bid?

• What impact would the development of the Island Airport have?

• How will site fit into future plans for the western gap?

• How much investment is the City prepared to make?

• How much control does the City want to maintain?

• What proportion of the site and buildings should be retained?

Conclusions

It was a spirited day with positive results. As can be seen above some excellent
suggestions were made and important questions left unanswered. The signifi-
cance and iconic value of the site are clear and there was a definite interest in
the recognition of this site as a special waterfront location with heritage and
symbolic value.

There appeared to be more interest in the development of the site as a major in-
stitution although the practicability of this lead to alternative views of public pri-
vate partnerships, mixed use and finer grain uses both commercial and institu-
tional or even residential uses. It was almost unanimous that the views from the
roof top are very special and important, public access should be maintained and
it would make an excellent restaurant as all or part of this experience (consider
OXO Tower or Tate Modern Gallery). The community interest in facilities related
to their needs and environment were also well represented.

The location of the site is clearly important to the development of the waterfront. It
was noted that the two silo sites, this one and the Victory Soya Mills site are like
anchors to a waterfront “mall”. Each site one east and one west could anchor and
define the public city waterfront across the entire core linked by a pedestrian and
park network and as such are extremely valuable sites for public destination uses.
In addition to a pedestrian system the very interesting idea of a “belt line” ferry was

page 8
raised adding a marine transportation element around instead of just across the
harbour.

The development of the site will ultimately be based on either a proactive or reac-
tive basis.

On a proactive basis the City could retain leadership of the development of the site.
This could include full use of the site as a major institution such as Humanitas or
through a public -private partnership a mixed use development with both private
commercial and institutional uses sharing the site under City control. Spaces cre-
ated for rental use would have to bear rents and exist in a marketing / promotional/
operational model that helped to create an environment for commercial viability.
The advantage of maintaining control is that the City could develop the site to suit
expressed needs for public uses, ensure heritage preservation, avoid inappropriate
alterations, stabilize and maintain the iconic values of the site, and make connec-
tions to waterfront aspirations and the public realm.

On a reactive basis the City would seek significant proposals for the commercial
use of the site. Criteria would be set as the basis for this selection process but
would of necessity need to be flexible enough to permit the private developers /
promoters room for a financially successful project. Within this context, principles
and requirements would have to be established to ensure heritage preservation, in-
appropriate alterations, stabilization and maintenance of the iconic values of the
site, connections to waterfront aspirations and the public realm. These later re-
quirements are often seen as being at odds with business interests and it can be ex-
pected that significant City participation in the public aspects of the project would
be requested. The advantage of this scenario is that the project might proceed with
a lower requirement for public funding.

In either development scenario the site is clearly important with the potential for
facilities that improve the Toronto quality of life experience, enhance the water-
front, and become a major tourist destination.

page 9
Next Steps

To move forward we suggest consideration of the following list of next steps. These
are suggested to do two things; one, develop a clear background piece for informa-
tion required under any development scenario and two, to develop momentum for
the eventual reuse of the site. These steps could be conjoined as a larger study or
developed incrementally as separate pieces of work.

Heritage Building Structure Report

Prepare a Heritage Building Structure Report. This report can be generated from ex-
isting materials and / or will require further site investigations or updates to pre-
existing information.

This report will provide site plan information, basic building plans, notes on the
history of the site and its development in time, comments on the social history of
the site, summary of required stabilization work, preliminary ball park costs.

Heritage values should be identified and include character setting features that
should be preserved. This could form the basis for “reasons” for designation.

Site Assessment

A site assessment that looks at the surrounding community, pattern of use, official
plan and zoning designations, known or anticipated development projects. This will
establish the known context for the project and opportunities for linkages in one
direction and suggestions for fit of other proposals in the other direction. Maps and
diagrammes would summarize the opportunities and constraints.

Existing Building Adaptive Reuse Study

This study would look at specific opportunities and constraints for the development
of the building elements and the local ground plain / context. The study should look
at world wide precedents for the adaptive reuse of industrial sites generally and si-
los specifically to inspire creative thinking.

page 10
The internal volumes of the building and restrictions on alterations should be pre-
liminarily identified in relation to the Heritage Building Structures Report. Op-
portunities based on items such as structural capacities, light and air, views in
and out, restrictions or opportunities for new fenestration, access, separations,
fire and life safety.

A list of “expressed interest” for alternate uses that the City would prefer or be
willing to consider should be developed. These should include consideration of a
larger vision of the site at the local community, city wide and provincial (fed-
eral?) level given the significance of the site. Input from appropriate industry
people or organizations should be sought to test interest and potential viability of
the uses under consideration.

From this work a series of “development principles” should be created . These

principles would then help to guide and inform either proactive or reactive de-
velopment scenarios. These principles could include a master plan scenario.

Commitment

In order to move forward it will be necessary for the City to show leadership and
resolve. Funds will have to be assigned to be able to undertake any of the next
steps and so is an important next step in and of itself. In addition to funding car-
riage of the project should be clearly defined, assigned and scheduled.

Based on funding and schedule one or more of the next steps outlined above
should proceed.

page 11