Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 06 September 2016

The removal of disfiguring and unsightly metal sidings from the front of historic commercial buildings on Main Street South allows us to see, for the first time in decades, what lies behind.

The sidings are being removed to allow detailed inspection of the state of the facades.

Bob Forrest’s Clock Tower application for a seven storey rental apartment block in the heart of the Town’s Heritage Conservation District involves the demolition of the historic commercial buildings at 184, 188 and 194-196 Main Street South and the retention and restoration of their facades.

The building at 190 Main Street South occupies an old alley and is neither historic nor complementary to the existing buildings. It was the former pizza shop. It has no historic nor architectural merit.  

The streetscape (below) shows the block before the sidings were removed. It is taken from the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) commissioned by Bob and produced for him by Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd, Architects.

Main Street South streetscape

That Heritage Impact Assessment  conveniently reminds us of the Town’s policies which are set out in the Lower Main Street Heritage Conservation District Plan 2011 (which is entrenched in the October 2013 By-law).

 The Town’s objectives are (amongst others):

“To retain historic buildings, maintain their integrity, improve them with respect for historic materials and distinctive features and, where possible, restore their lost features or damaged materials.”

Existing policy makes it clear:

“The Town supports the retention of historic buildings in the district.”

Taking us all for fools

Bob, who takes us all for fools, would demolish 184 Main Street South, one of the oldest buildings in Town (and, indeed, the Province) dating from the mid 1840s.

The first woman pharmacist in Canada ran her business from this building. (This building was not clad in metal siding.)

Bob’s Heritage Impact Assessment says dryly:

“As perhaps the oldest extant building on the site and on the block, the heritage significance will be acknowledged through preservation and interpretation.”

188 Main Street South, by contrast, was clad in metal siding. Bob’s Heritage Impact Assessment says:

“Archival documentation and on-site investigation shows the original brick façade – now painted and covered with metal siding… the brick appears to be in good condition.”

The facade is shown below painted in green.

194 Main Street South, also clad in metal siding, was home to the business “Lemon and Lime” (photo bottom right). After Bob evicted them, the business owners relocated a few doors away, in the same block. Bob’s HIA says:

“Archival documentation and on-site investigation shows a brick façade, identical to the neighbouring building to the south. From a preliminary on-site investigation, the brick appears to be in good condition.”  

Peer Review

Bob’s HIA was “peer reviewed” by ERA architects of Toronto who plainly did not fulfil the terms of their contract with the Town. There is no discussion in the peer review of the architectural or historic qualities of the properties Bob would like to demolish.

Conservation strategy

Instead, the peer reviewer asks Bob

“to clarify the conservation strategy by describing the intended approach to each building being conserved”. (my emphasis)

It seems pretty clear to me Bob wants to knock the old buildings down and preserve the facades, as best he can. Being Bob, he will probably want to do as little as he can get away with.

Hideous application

In due course we shall see what the Town’s own planners have to say about Bob’s hideous application.

A report will go up to the Town's Committee of the Whole some time after the Ward 5 by-election on 17 October 2016.

In the meantime, we can all look at the old buildings without their metal sidings and imagine what they could look like, if properly and sensitively restored.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 04 September 2016

Background note and health warning. Thanks to the Census and the National Household Survey we can unpack Ward 5 and build a profile without invading anyone’s personal privacy. This is as it should be. The census is a treasure trove of information. There are three census tracts which cover Ward 5. The census tract is the smallest area examined by the census. The Town of Newmarket is a census division; within it are the census tracts. The census tracts and Ward boundaries are not coterminous.

I have looked at the census tract (5350451.02) which covers the largest area in Ward 5 from Davis Drive in the north to Eagle Street in the South, Yonge Street in the West and the rail track in the East. The second census tract covering the south west part of Ward 5 bleeds into Ward 6 (5350451.03). The third census tract covers the area from Eagle Street in the North to Mulock Drive in the South and includes the Town’s HQ (5350451.01). It has a population of 2,230 – less than half the size of the biggest tract that I am looking at. It shares many of the characteristics of the other tracts.

The statistics I quote below come exclusively from the largest census tract, ignoring the other two. This saves me a lot of work and flaffing about. It gives us a feel for the old downtown which is at the heart of Ward 5.

The data is not from this year’s census. It is from 2011 and, in many instances, it shows its age. House prices, for example, will for some appear curiously affordable ($357,571). But as we know, since 2011, house prices have gone through the roof. These figures no longer reflect present reality. But in other respects the data is still good. The structure of the population in terms of housing tenure and, say, income distribution probably remains much about the same. The numbers do not always round for a myriad of reasons explained by Statistics Canada. So, with all these health warnings, what did I learn?

Older and wealthier and wiser?

The population of the biggest census tract of Ward 5 (where voters will be going to the polls on 17 October) is on average older, wealthier and more highly educated than the Town as a whole.

The population was 4,903 in 2011 – down 3% from the 5,056 in 2006. During that period the Town’s population grew by 7.6%. The population density per square kilometer is higher in the biggest census tract of Ward 5 than for the Town as a whole (2,460 vs 2,088) so they cosy up together.

The median age of residents (half way between the youngest and oldest) is 46 compared with just over 39 for the Town. This census tract of Ward 5 has fewer children than the town as a whole and smaller households (the tract has 2.1 people in the average household compared with 2.9 for the Town.)  

Deep roots

The census tract is overwhelmingly anglo with 4,105 people citing their mother tongue is English (French 70 and other non official languages 530). And they’ve been here for a long time and have deep roots.

Of the total population (4,750) in private households, 780 are first generation Canadians; 1,070 are second generation and a remarkable 2,900 are third generation or earlier.

2,820 cite origins in the British Isles followed by France (455), Germany (410) and the Netherlands (350). Of those from the British Isles, 1,765 census respondents say they have links with England (through parents or grandparents or more distant relatives); 1,215 with Scotland and 1,095 with Ireland.

Well educated

The people in this part of Ward 5 are very well educated. They know the time of day.

2,400 people have a post secondary certificate, diploma or degree. 455 have qualifications in business, management or public administration. 405 in architecture, engineering and similar disciplines and 360 in health and related fields.

The top four occupations in Ward 5 are (1) sales and service - 650 (2) business, finance and  administration – 500 (3) education, law and government – 350 and (4) management of some kind – 270.

Full time or Part-time?

Just over one fifth of people in work in this part of Ward 5 are part-timers (PT = 605 and FT = 2030). Most of those in work leave home between 7am and 9am (1385) but there are early risers leaving between 5am and 7am (540) and the leisurely sleepy heads (330) who leave anytime after 9am.

The cost of having a roof over your head

There are 2,230 households in this part of Ward 5. Of these 1,425 are owned and 810 rented. Of the total, taking both tenures together, 1,500 households are spending less than 30% of their income on their accommodation and 730 more.

36.4% of tenants are spending 30% or more of their total household income on shelter (ie accommodation). In 2011 this was $906. For owner occupiers it was $1,323. It will have increased significantly since then.

Out of the total number of owner households, 58.2% have a mortgage. Almost one third (30.5%) are spending 30% or more of their household income on their accommodation. (30% is often regarded as a benchmark of affordability.)

The average value of dwellings in this part of Ward 5 in 2011 was $357,571.

Wealthier than most Canadians

The National Household Survey looked at the after-tax family income of the population in this part of Ward 5 (4,745) by decile, (or by bite-size chunks of 10%). It found 2,610 were in the top half of Canadian distribution and 2,140 in the bottom half.

615 people were in the top 10% of Canadian income distribution.

In the National Household Survey of 2011, of the 2,230 private households in this part of Ward 5, the average household income was $76,307 and, after-tax, $63,975. Again, these figures will have changed.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Nominations for the by-election on 17 October 2016 have now closed. The candidates are: Bob Kwapis, Darryl Wolk, Tom Pearson, Ron Eibel, Ian Johnston, Wasim Jarrah, Tracee Chambers (no web site yet though I am told one is under construction) and Peter Geibel.

I shall be looking at them all in turn.

Update at 6pm on 4 September: Tracee Chambers' website is now up and running.

Update on 5 September: Population counts and dwelling information from the 2016 Census will be released on 8 February 2017 by Statistics Canada.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 31 August 2016

I have no recollection of ever meeting Peter Geibel and I was intrigued to find out more about his position on the Clock Tower and, more generally, why he was running for the Ward 5 by-election. So I emailed him.

As I didn’t get any response I posted a gentle blog saying he backed Jill Kellie’s on-line petition supporting the Clock Tower. (He tells me he is away and my emails disappeared into his spam folder. He says the problem is now fixed.)

Geibel says my earlier post was “a bit presumptuous in regards to my views”. He has specifically asked me to update my blog with his considered comments which are set out below.

I am happy to do this.

Exploring possible alternatives

Geibel says he favours greater density in the old downtown but is undecided about Bob Forrest’s seven storey rental block which is currently before Council. He tells me he has spoken before about reducing the height of the development

“to lessen the impact to Main Street”

but since deciding to run for election he has been

“exploring possible alternatives which could be proposed to achieve the goal of increased density while preserving the essence and character of the historic area”.

I want to be fair to all the candidates running for election in Ward 5 but I am not neutral. I don’t want to trip anyone up just for the sake of it. But if I get out of bed on the wrong side, who knows what I’ll say?  I am not the CBC.

Clock Tower eclipses all other issues in importance

To be clear, the key issue in the forthcoming by-election - and the one that eclipses all others in importance - is the Clock Tower. If the Council approves Bob’s seven storey rental block in the middle of the Heritage Conservation District (and if the decision is allowed to stand*) it would be irreversible, opening the floodgates for more inappropriate development blighting the entire historic downtown and changing its character forever.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

* If the Council approves Bob’s Clock Tower, as sure as night follows day the decision would be challenged by residents at the OMB. On the other hand, if the Council rejects the application, Bob would reactivate the sleeping appeal he has lodged at the OMB. In those circumstances, the Council would be expected to defend its decision at the OMB, supported by the Newmarket Branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario and other concerned residents.

Peter Geibel’s position

I was reviewing your blog and noticed the commentary you noted with respect to my views in regards to the clock tower development. I appreciate you attempted to contact me previously but I wish you would have spoken to me prior to making this post which is a bit presumptuous in regards to my views.

To be clear on my position, I do believe that increased density in the Main Street area would be a benefit to support the area businesses which I would like to see remain and prosper on Main Street as they have been an integral part of its rejuvenation, and also to provide living options for our aging population who would appreciate remaining in the area but may find maintaining their century homes budget prohibitive, but I am currently undecided about the proposal set before council.  

I have expressed previously I would like to see the height reduced to lessen the impact to Main Street, but at the same time since my decision to enter the race I have been exploring possible alternatives which could be proposed to achieve the goal of increased density while preserving the essence and character of the historic area.

Update on 31 August 2016: Peter Geibel's website is now up and running.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 28 August 2016

How livable will Newmarket be in, say, ten years time?

We know “intensification” is coming but how will it impact on us?

Can the Town grow and breathe at the same time?

Tomorrow’s Committee of the Whole (29 August) will consider a new Parkland Dedication By-law which will supposedly secure the open spaces the Town will need in the future. 

Perversely, it does so by recommending a new, revised strategy which:

(1)  reduces the amount of parkland required by the municipality

(2)  applies a cap on the amount of parkland conveyed to the municipality per application and

(3)  accepts more urban forms of parkland that previously would not have been accepted. The draft by-law talks of Pocket Parks, Sliver Spaces and Pedestrian Mews which developers can use to contribute to the parkland dedication requirement of the Town.

The amount of parkland we need is, of course, directly related to the number of people living here – and the projections are all over the place.

The open space Bible, the Parkland Policy Development Manual, tells us the Town will grow to 97,133 residents by 2031 (from 85,000 in 2012).

This contrasts sharply with estimates published by Ruth “Glenway” Victor in November 2013 who told councillors:

“for 2031, the projected growth is estimated at 116,521 people as per the Secondary Plan currently in progress”.

In fact, York Region expects the Town’s population to reach 97,100 by 2031.

The report going to councillors tomorrow says the Town’s population will grow by 10,356 to 95,356 by 2025.

So, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Whatever the population estimates may be, we are told with iron certainty that at build out (when there is no more land to develop) there will be 33,000 people living in the Davis and Yonge corridors – compared with a few thousand now. That is the figure we should focus on.

How big is the area in Newmarket that can be developed?

According to the Town’s Secondary Plan there are approximately 130 hectares of developable area with about 30 hectares of land identified as parks, open space, natural heritage and stormwater management. The Plan as adopted in June 2014 excludes the historic downtown.

The report on Newmarket Urban Centres parkland requirements that went to councillors in December 2014 (after the Town adopted the Secondary Plan) told them the developable area was 160 hectares – not 130 hectares.

The latest report (29 August 2016) tells us the total land area in hectares in the urban centres is 232 hectares.  I am assuming this figure includes the historic downtown centre.

Intensification that you can see vs steady growth that is imperceptible

Our Mayor, the retired banker, Tony Van Bynen, is by nature and instinct a cautious administrator rather than a visionary.  As soon as Newmarket was identified by the Province as one of 25 places to grow, Van Bynen predictably became the champion of “intensification”.

The Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor, John Taylor takes a more measured approach. He doesn’t want to frighten the horses. Sure, he says, change will happen but it will be so slow and incremental you will hardly notice. Nothing dramatic will happen before 2024 anyway because the Town can ration water and sewage hook-ups under its Service Allocation policy. At that date, new pipes and treatment plants will end the need to ration and the brakes will then be off.

But Taylor also supports the proposed GO Rail Station at Mulock Drive (as do I) and is suggesting a new Secondary Plan to intensify development in the area to persuade Metrolinx that the station will, in future, attract passengers from those who live and work nearby. And that will mean more people.

What do the developers think of the Parkland By-law?

My general rule of thumb is if the “development community” thinks something proposed by the Town is OK then we should have a careful second look at what the Town is proposing. There were only five submissions from the development industry and others commenting on the proposed By-law and

“overall, there was a large degree of support expressed for the intent and direction of the draft by-law and it was agreed that the proposed approach offered a reasonable and effective means to help reduce soft costs of development within the corridors.”

The wily lawyer, Ira Kagan (who acted for the owners/developers in Slessor Square and Glenway) told the Bill Committee at Queen’s Park which was examining possible changes to the rules on parkland dedication that he wanted an amendment to the Planning Act that would provide a percentage cap on parkland takings for high-density residential development.

When asked by PC MPP Ernie Hardeman:

“If I had a magic wand and I could fix one thing for you, what would it be?"

Without missing a beat, Kagan replies:

 “Parkland. That’s why I did it first. Hands-down, the parkland charge in the GTA exceeds all other development charges combined by a significant factor. If you want to fix one thing that will make a really big difference, put a percentage cap on parkland, please.”

The Town’s Parkland By-law sets a maximum 25% cap of development lands for parkland with cash-in-lieu to make up for any differences between what is required from developers and the actual land that transfers. Curiously, the Town can use this cash-in-lieu of parkland for tangential purposes such as buying vehicles and equipment used in parks.

What is a Park?

The Town’s earlier draft parkland by law was peer reviewed by Barry Lyon Consultants who thought the standards too burdensome on developers and

“would likely discourage investment and delay the achievement of the Town’s policy objectives regarding intensification as per the Urban Centres Secondary Plan.”

The Town then brought in the consultants “The Planning Partnership” which proposed

a parkland system that adequately serves the needs of the Town and outlines specific strategies of parkland dedication for urban contexts that will not discourage investment.” (My underlining)

I see in an addendum to tomorrow’s agenda that Ron Palmer from the Planning Partnership is going to address councillors on the Parkland Dedication By-Law. If I were a councillor I would ask him:  Is it enough? Are we going to get the open space we need or are we going to be crushed together with no room to breathe?

The Parks Policy Development Manual forecasts there will be a 10.5 hectare parkland shortfall on a Town wide basis by 2031 and a whopping 45 hectare shortfall by build out. (The map below shows Town owned land in 2016.)

Newmarket is a million light years away from the contemporary Middle East where public parks have largely disappeared. But unless we are very, very careful, Newmarket will not have the green lungs it needs as it grows into a small city.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.