Toronto Harbour Commission Building

Toronto Harbour Commission Building

The Building

Toronto Harbour Commission Building

Toronto Harbour Commission Building

Started in 1917 and completed a year after, this six-storey building was developed on reclaimed waterfront land called Harbour Square at the end of Bay Street south of Lake Street (Goad’s) – Now known as Lakeshore Blvd West – to house the newly formed Toronto Harbour Commission. It was designed in the Beaux-Arts style by the architectural firm Chapman and Oxley and clad in Indiana limestone. Given the date it was constructed – just after the war – it wasn’t prudent to construct ornate or monumental civic structures, but the predominance that this building had on the waterfront did request some special treatment; with window mouldings and mantles accompanied by a central sculpture helped dignify the simplified frontage and three-quarter decretive columns added depth and shadow (Gagnierm, 1919, 37).

Inside, the building hosted some marble and wood treatment; but most floors, aside from the Commissioner’s room lined with walnut panels, focused on simple dressings around the ceilings and crown moulding. Only the basement, first, sixth and part of the second floors were designated for the Toronto Harbour Commission with the rest to be leased out to like-mined industrial and commercial concerns – specifically those with an interest having office space close to the harbour and ports. Services included a switchboard reception, elevators and lavatories with a bulkhead to conceal plumbing – and given that this was mentioned, perhaps a luxury at the time (Gagnier, 1919, 35).

The Architect

Alfred Hirschfelder Chapman is regarded as a well-known architect of the early 20th Century and his buildings have become local cultural icons with many remaining standing to this day. Born in Toronto in 1878 he attended Harbord Collegiate before graduating from The National Fine Arts School in Paris, France (École Nationale et Spéciale des Beaux-Arts) in 1902 – where he studied his traditional style. After a brief stint in New York, he returned home to design several Carnegie libraries, including the Toronto Reference Library on College, now the University of Toronto Bookstore (Achieve of Ontario, 1976).

After the war, he combined forces with engineer J. Morrow Oxley and developed some the more predominate pieces of institutional and commercial architecture in the city, including many of the buildings on the Canadian National Exhibition ground and its grand entry, the Prince’s Gates. He slowly evolved his style to match the Art Deco movement as seen with the old Toronto Star Building – since demolished to make way for the TD Centre – and the Toronto Hydroelectric Building on College which remains today (Achieve of Ontario, 1976).

Toronto Central Library

Toronto Central Library

His final project was to be the 16-storey contemporary classical-designed Bank of Montreal building at Bay and King but was halted in 1940 during the war and Chapman, after suffering a stroke in 1943 only just saw its completion in 1948 a year before his death (Montreal Gazette, 1946). With his wife Doris, he raised six children, one of which, Howard D. Chapman, followed in his father’s footsteps and became known for his modern architecture style for a number of Toronto landmarks, such as the Riverdale Hospital – now demolished and under replacement by Bridgepoint Health (City of Toronto, 2011).

The Style

The Beaux-Arts style of architecture is often described as ornate but imposing, mixing a number of other styles and building members onto on façade, including classical, renaissance and baroque details and over-sizing elements over doors and windows (Kyles, 2002). Often criticised for its garishness and opulence, it was the style of choice for governmental buildings, city institutions and financial headquarters in North American from 1880-1920’s. The style is developed by the accumulation of talents over centuries both teaching and studying at the Fine Arts School in Paris, where Chapman trained (Cunliffe & Loussier, 2006, 178-179).

A number of examples, aside from those worked on by this architect, can be found in and around Toronto – from as early as the 1880’s with the Bank of Montreal branch at Front and Yonge to the most familiar of which is Union Station, on Front just north of the Commission building. The latest example of notice would be the Canada Life building, one of the only implementation of the master grand avenues plan developed by the city after the war to beautify the downtown and provide better traffic flow with the advent and growing popularity of the car only to be halted by the on-set of the depression (Osbaldeston, 2011, 45; Hayes, 2008, 138-139).

At openning

At openning

The Tenant

The Toronto Harbour Commission was established by Act of the Parliament of Canada in 1911 to manage the port facilities of Toronto – then a major international shipping facility – and to encourage the reclaiming of shallow and swampy land that has limited the capacity for growth in the city. At the time, no single authority had control over harbour traffic and infrastructure development along the waterfront thus a single agency was sought to allow for the local management of industries and private concerns surrounding the area (Transport Canada, 2006)

After construction of the building, the THC embarked on an ambitious plan to perform dredging of the inner harbour to accommodate for larger ships that were expected after the creation of the Welland canal, piling for the infill of land with garbage to provide piers at the end of city streets and by marking out promenades and recreational reserves with shoreline breakwaters to limit erosion. The plans also called for a link over the east and west channels to connect the Toronto Islands and its inhabitants to the mainland and provide for new beaches at both ends of the waterfront located at Sunnyside and Ashbridge’s Bay (Gagnier, 1919, 37-39).

At this time over 300 acres of newfound land was created with over half leased to factories, warehouses and shipwrights. The full completion of this plan would see the present shoreline extend another 300 feet in to the lake from its current position with wharfs protruding another 500 to 700 feet further (Gagnier, 1919, 39). Changes to the waterfront, including the Island Airport and new marine terminals to handle increased load from the St. Lawrence Seaway increased the importance of Toronto as an international port. But, the Depression and the shift from shipping by boat to rail and transport trucks along with industrial and manufacturing concerns moving to cheaper lands outside the city, eventually led the dissolution of the Toronto Harbour Commission; transferring some of its land to the city and the remainder ending in Federal hands under the Toronto Port Authority, which still uses this building as its headquarters since the 1990’s (Transport Canada, 2006).

The Area

Pressures to expand the waterfront started with the adoption of railways as the primary mode of resource and product transportation. Rail, at first, required little, but linear land that could easily be formed along waterfronts and thus close to downtown factories and populations, sharing resource storage needs with the waterways but as war efforts and industrial expansion continued, competing railway companies and the businesses that rely on them for the movement of goods required more land in and around the waterfront (Hayes, 2008, 120-121). After two consecutives fires in the downtown core, cleanup efforts along with waste from reconstruction and expansion required a place to be disposed of – along with the growing waste produced by an expanding city (Fair, 2011). The waterfront and its marshy shallow waters provided a dual solution, quick access to dumping and reclaimed land to develop more rail and port lands upon.

The area

The area

The industrialisation of southern Ontario and capacity issues dealing with war efforts placing pressure of valuable land close to the core of the city, the expansion program in to the lake offered a simple, inexpensive way to expand a city continuous steps outward from the original shoreline expanded usable land by 500-700 metres. The areas south of the core were primarily rail yards while merchant buildings, warehouses, factories lined the shoreline. As industry and families moved further out of the city and after World War II and the automobile took over as the primary mode (Osbaldeston, 2011, 50-58) for transportation the usefulness of these lands centralised around the rail and water faded as employment lands opened on the outskirts of the city and suburbia exploded (Hayes, 2008, 154-157). As a result, many of the buildings were left vacant and more cost-effective to tear them down and turn the land into parking lots for the booming financial district (Wickson, 2002).

The push of people out of the city by the car and pull of cheap housing created an age where roadways were becoming infrastructure giants. The Gardiner Expressway promised to ease congestion by elevating traffic pouring in from the outer-suburbs directly into the city, bypassing crossroads and flying over the old industry lands (Hayes, 2008, 170). This created what Kevin Lynch regards as a hard edge – a barrier that visually and intuitively blocks the flow within and understanding of a city. While development continued north of the expressway, the reclaimed land on the waterfront saw only a small amount of development limited to properties on the water’s edge. Reconnecting the city to the waterfront – a difficult task undertaken in many eastern North American cities with mixed results – has had a number of false starts in Toronto over the past forty years (WTC, 1968, 126). Plans that show mixed-use office and residential towers lining the area around the Toronto Harbour Commission exist both when the CN Tower was planned and when the Metro Convention Centre was built in the seventies and eighties respectively (Osbaldeston, 2011, 234-235).

The Building Today

The building was listed as a Toronto heritage landmark in 1973 during the push to retain some of Toronto’s history while many buildings were lost to large-scale redevelopment of the downtown core. After modernization of the office space in the 1980s the building was designated under Section IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1987 as well as covered under the Union Station Conservation District by council in 2006. These successive designations limit changes allowed to the structure and require that consideration must be taken to land-uses on surrounding lands and abide by the limitations afforded by the Act (Toronto Preservation Board). The history and location of the building attracts many to question its origin and is regularly apart of the DoorsOpen event that takes place annually in Toronto to showcase the ornate commissioners office and nautical history. The basement of the building which once stored the documents and archive rooms for the Commission now contains a high-end steak restaurant.

The Future

With a more stable economy backed by sound banking practices and coupled with a vivid downtown with an active day and night-time street life that attracts the upwardly mobile individual has made condominium development within and surrounding the core a burgeoning industry (Waterfront Toronto, 2010). Reclaimed railway and industrial lands connected by both public and private transit provide ample land for redevelopment and efforts to contain sprawl within the GTA with provincial protection acts for the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Green Belt have made dense residential development more attractive to developers and young professionals over the past decade (Place to Grow, 12-13, 30).

Future Plans

Future Plans

With this, pressure on companies to relocate offices from the outer suburbs to find and appease new sources of young and creative employees plus incentives on commercial development and networking connections with other industries have brought forth a massive office construction boom that sees approximately 8 million square feet of office space being added south of the historic core of the city – lands that were once parking lots for sporting and entertainment events held by the close by Air Canada and Rogers Centres (UrbanToronto).

While previous expansion of the core centred in CityPlace west of the CN Tower and the area just south of Union Station; the area surrounding the Toronto Harbour Commission Building remain the last few prime locations plans are before council to integrate the underground PATH network within a few years. As such, the past few months have saw exceptional interest by major corporations, including RBC and development companies, such as Tridel and Menkes to become new centres of retail, residencial and office construction. The announcements of new development in this area occur so rapidly that since the draft of this assignment was completed just over a month ago, plans for three new 70-75 storey condominiums and another office tower have been made public and are slated to enter feasibility and design studies while construction of a new 30-storey office tower has went from the planning stage directly into construction without the need for sales. The area directly around the Toronto Harbour Commission that was once slated for low-density warehousing and port facilities 80 years ago that never came to fruition due to yawing economic climates and wars will soon see a canyon of 50-70 storey buildings gracing its streets within the next decade – that is to say if a global recession doesn’t rear its ugly head again in the coming months (UrbanToronto).

Download the Toronto Harbour Commission Building report




Achieves of Ontario, Alfred H. Chapman Fonds (C 18) (Toronto: Queen’s Press, 1976)

City of Toronto. A Work in Progress: Commercial Architects, Howard D. Chapman (Toronto: City of Toronto Achieves , 2011)

Cunliffe, S & Loussier, J. [ed.] Architectural Styles: Spotter Guide (San Diego: Thunder Bay Press. 2006)

Fair, R. HST527 In-Class Lecture (Toronto, RyersonUniversity, 2011)

Gagnier, H. Publishers, Ltd. Construction: A Journal for the Architectural, Engineering and Contracting Interests of Canada, 12. (Toronto: Gagnier, H. Publishers Ltd, 1919). pp34-40

Goad’s Fire Insurance Plans (Retrieved from the City of Toronto)

Hayes, Derek. Historical Atlas of Toronto (Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre, 2008)

Kyles, S. Ontario Architecture (Hamilton: 2002)

Mongo (sic). 60 Harbour Street (Toronto: UrbanToronto, 2011)

Montreal Gazette, The. Bank of Montreal Set to Resume Construction of Toronto Building (Montreal, Feb.22, 1946) Retrieved from,3657352

Osbaldeston, M. Unbuilt Toronto: A History of the City That Might Have Been (Toronto, Dundurn Press, 2008)

Osbaldeston, M. Unbuild Toronto 2: More of the City That Might Have Been (Toronto, Dundurn Press, 2011)

Places to Grow (2005) Growth Plan for the Greater Toronto Horseshoe (Toronto, Queen’s Press, 2005) 14-30.

Toronto Preservation Board [TPB]. Heritage Listings. (Toronto, City of Toronto, 2011)

Transport Canada. Review of the Toronto Port Authority Report (Ottawa: Government of Canada, October, 2006) Retrieved from

UrbanToronto [eds.] 120, 90 & 60 Harbour. (Toronto: Urban Toronto, 2011)

Wickson, Ted. Reflections of Toronto Harbour (Toronto: TorontoPort Authority, 2002)

Waterfront Toronto. Waterfront Toronto General Update (Toronto: Waterfront Toronto, 2010) [Slide Presentation]

Water Technical Committee [WTC]. Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (Toronto: Metro Toronto, 1968)

Thoughts and Shorts

Thursday, November 12th 2009

The history of modern town planning reflects an attempt to provide safe, sound, and sanitary conditions in urban areas, Discuss this statement with specific reference to: the conditions that accompanied dramatic urban growth in the post 1750 period; the major reasons for urban reform; the three primary approaches to urban reform

To clothe and feed a burgeoning population, “a new way was needed to meet the demands that a growing population would make on Britain.” (Trueman, 2000) The Industrial Revolution transformed the methods of production, eliminating the need for fragmented work forces that produce small quantities of food and goods. The Domestic System, where small workshop cottages completed all levels of production was deemed too inefficient of a process and was replaced by mass manufacturing. Farms, needing to increase output, utilized new technologies that obtained a larger harvest with less labour. Seeking a new quality of life, countless numbers of former farmhands and cottage workmen descended on the cities to find employment, crowding around the budding factories established near pre-existing centres of population and shipping corridors and to emerging resource towns that stoke the economic engine. With little time and regard to organize such an influx, the safe, sound and sanitary conditions of the urban setting spun desperately out of control.


Shoddy and hastily built timber homes with little setback from each other became home for numbers of people. With close quarters, no running water or sanitation, disease was rampant. The density and lack of proper ventilation in each neighbourhood was a festering breeding ground for Tuberculosis, and it was “believed that TB killed one-third of all those who died in Britain between 1800 and 1850” (Trueman, 2000). John Snow discovered that sewage poured out the back windows into cesspools or nearby streams, re-entered the local water table, spreading Cholera via contaminated wells and pumps, (Johnson, 2006). Poor design also led to string of fires that consumed cities around the industrialized world. Absence of modern firefighting utilities, such as the hydrant, plus the use of combustible materials and zero tolerance between structures allowed fire to spread quickly, overtaking large sections of the city and devastating many lives and the local economy.


These conditions were exasperated by rampant poverty and poor living and working conditions. Health, widely affected by pollution from smokestacks, manure left behind from horse-drawn carriages and poor nutrition, increased susceptibility to disease. Children worked dangerous positions and at early ages, receiving no formal education and often paid little to nothing. Adults were overworked, unfairly treated and had little democratic recourse to alter these conditions. Ultimately, revolt took hold causing general strikes and unrest across cities, with demands for suffrage and reform.


Most problems were isolated to the working poor, offering little incentive for political change. But when the upper-classes became jeopardized and started to see cities as sick, dangerous, ugly and sin-filled places, public consensus and governmental movements took hold. Regulation, redevelopment and relocation provided tools to resolve each of the underlying issues.


Regulation took the form of zoning and building codes, such as the requirement for firewalls and setbacks; and the form of laws, as in the British Public Health Act of 1848 which paved the way for sewage and water systems via local boards of health. Also included in the act was the organization of all major public issues at the time, including poverty, housing, environment, safety and food (Springer, 2009). Redevelopment, starting with Haussmann in Paris, sought to redesign the outlay of a city, demolished areas of impoverished neighbourhoods and replaced them with grand avenues and public squares to ensure the proper economic growth, flow and security of the city (Schwartz, 2001). The City Beautiful Movement, as set out by Burnham in Chicago and based on Haussmann’s design, extended these ideas to include aesthetic, efficient and economic values to achieve parity with the civil loyalty and moral wellbeing seen in European cities (Rose, 1996). Relocation, alternatively, strived to ensure that future developments wouldn’t fall into the disarray seen of inner-cities. Howard’s utopian vision limited the number of residents, defined densities and set the locations of structures and established environmental balance with neighbourhood gardens and green belts. Often overlooked was the “belt of green” or Grand Avenue to separate incompatible land uses (Hodge, 2008).


These reforms, coupled with the City Efficient Movement where civil-engineers designed transportation networks and water systems – the backbone of effective and efficient cities – laid the foundation for modern urban planning (Hodge, 2008). Local governments were entrusted to control these regulations and planning and health boards oversaw and directed action to existing or emerging problems. The realization that any issue within a city affects all of its residents equally, regardless of position or stature, demanded that solutions must become more rational, equitable and holistic so that the city can be efficient, effective and sustainable.

Describe and discuss the four approaches to decision making in Planning. (Rational Comprehensive, Satisficing, Incrementalism, and Mixed Scanning).

Over the years, scholars, weary of the cumbersome inclusiveness of the Rational-Comprehensive Model to decision making, have attempted to extend or alter the process to better match realities and encompass differing values. Rationality can be a seductive beast and often seen as sole proprietor of truth – but knowledge derived from logic often ignores other human abilities, such as imagination, intuitiveness and emotion (Darke, 1995). Much as rational economists understand that consumers do not actively purchase on the margin, planning theory must also be malleable to fit within known constraints and placate unknown factors.


Banfield’s 1955 Rational Planning Model used ends-reduction and elaboration to qualify a problem and quantify a measure of success or failure to potential solutions, including consequences of retaining the status quo. After collecting and evaluating all potential methodologies, each is placed against this benchmark to determine the best alternative. From this, a course of action and a plan for implementation is created followed by a system to monitor its validity and cohesiveness to correcting the original issue. While definitively this is the ideal approach to problem solving, reality remains that planners do not have infinite resources, time and expertise to circumvent all permutations and combinations nor at times have all of the information required to make a logical conclusion. From a set of goals that include the good, the cheap and the quick, rarely can all three be achieved simultaneously. To not further limit comprehensiveness one must also understand the power, politics and inertia of change (Springer, 2009).


In 1957, Herbert Simon, a Nobel Award-winning economist, added a caveat to the rational model, comparing alternatives with opportunity cost and benefit of each. From the Satisficing Model, the most irrational opportunities are summarily rejected at an early stage, creating a more efficient and cost effective process. By ranking the remaining options by pay-off, a selection of the most satisfactory and viable solution can be made (Springer, 2009). While the end result may not be the optimal solution, in general it would be the best approximation for success. This also assists in the removal of a person’s rationale to select the first plausible option encountered rather than determining a better one. Though productive, critiques of this method often find it cold as it neglects to integrate core-values that often are affected by the decision process (Argyris, 1973).


Lindblom’s Model of Incrementalism saw planning in a more finite view, realizing that ends and means are intertwined and scarce time and resources often limits the ability to be comprehensive. Options are chosen which do not deviate far from the status quo and by means of agreement between interested parties. Evaluations of these options are crude and limited by knowledge and scope, and may miss many consequences (Chilton, 2003). By mudding through, small steps and changes with little impact can facilitate the planning process with little cost and time, dealing with problems as they arise, rather than setting aside time to evaluate and compare. Modern day uses of this method can be found in the Agile programming method where “the conformance to plan is replaced with the ability to change” (Leffingwell, 2007). While this model is efficient, innovative opprotunities can be missed and it is commonly usurped as a stelthy method of pushing forward a plan not positively perceived by limiting the shock of immediate exposure.


Amitai Etzioni, seeing rationalism as being too utopian and unwieldy, and incrementalism stifling ingenuity and lacking opportunities (Etzioni, 1986), set forth the notion of combining the best of both rationales and presented the Mixed Scanning Method in 1967. The concept allows for two levels of decision processes, one at a high fundamental or contextual level and one at the lower incremental level, delineating them by relative size or nested relationship (Etzioni, 1986). This allows for a more efficient allocation of resources for the search, collection, processing and evaluation of information while keeping perspective on the overall goal. This process has been deemed as a more intuitive and holistic approach by scholars in that it allows for a master plan and an understanding of consequences while leaving room for effective and innovative solutions (Etzioni, 1986).


As planning principals evolved, so have the methods of planning. Starting with logic and the search for truth, the inclusion of other patterns of decision-making grounded idealism and allowed planners to abide by the realities and consequences of every option. The shift in process from a pure science to a more realistic approach is essential to ensure that all opportunities are determined and all goals are met while still being effective and efficient.


Describe the three early theories of urban form and structure (Concentric rings, sectors and multiple nuclei). Relate these models, where appropriate, to what you were able to observe on the 506 street car assignment.

Substantive Theory, as seen in the Concentric, Sector and Multiple Nuclei Models, differs from Rational Theory as it attempts to explain the organic growth of a city – The order and relationship of differing land uses, wealth and densities and how this is affected by the interaction between urban actors (Leung, 2003). The comparison can be made clear by stating one is a theory-of-planning while the other is a theory-in-planning (Faludi, 1973).  Each of the three models attempts to explain the structure of a city by utilizing lessons from different schools of thought.


Sociologist Ernest Burgess developed his Concentric Circle Model in 1933 based on the elasticity and inelasticity of demand of property from the centre of the city by differing economic parties. Observing Chicago, he noted that commercial sectors situate themselves in areas of most exposure, the core, whereas factories ring these developments take advantage of both the retail zones and the workers surrounding the city. Residential areas radiated out in increasing wealth, with the working-class within walking distance to the factories and high-class citizens live well outside the urban centre. This can be attributed to the high cost of transportation and the want to avoid the negatives of urban living, particularly at the turn of the century (Rodrigue, 2009).  While correct for most North American cities, where a good part of their development took place prior to 1950, the proliferation of the automobile post-World War II changed how people commute and ultimately allowed the city to break the bonds of the urban core. As well, the model did little to describe European cities whose development predated the Industrial Revolution and social status was garnered by living closer to the urban centre – inverting the residential rings in this model (Rodrigue, 2009).


Economist Homer Hoyt in 1939 manipulated the Circle model by observing that differing areas emanated out from the central core in wedge-shaped pieces, usually following a transportation corridor. His Sector Model still had commercial properties gravitating towards the middle, but allowed for all classes of residential and levels of industrial to border the core. These sectors would also organize themselves based around desirables and nuisances: the high-end housing furthest from the factories; factories situated close to rail and shipping links; and working homes closest to the employment areas. His model, where a city would expand on a series of axes (Rodrigue, 2009) was still limited by historical trends and does provide allowance for commuters travelling by automobile, leapfrogging to cheaper land on the outskirts (Rodwin, 2009).


Geographers Harris and Ullman discovered in 1945 that other than the central business district, cities tend to be designed around a multitude of areas that relate not just by distance to financial and retail sectors, but other attributes such as: accessibility; conflicting and compatible land uses; and suitability of the land (Rodrigue, 2009). The Multiple Nuclei Model helped explain cities with growth around natural barriers and variable transportation modes and allowed for sub-nodes of commercial properties or satellite communities and employment areas. Still referencing ideas from older models, where high-class housing would resist areas of industry or manufacturing and low-class housing often remained close to areas of employment to limit travel costs, it also explained the fractured or unpredictable form of cities. Harris and Ullman suggested that social-economic and cultural values also influence the land use with examples in Western cities where historical and often wealthy neighbourhoods co-exist with undesirable zones because of their sentiment and significance (Pacione, 2009).


Streetcar zones

(Figure 1) Approximation of land-use in and around the Carlton Streetcar Line – Best described by the Multiple Nuclei Model

While Toronto, pre-radial cars, arguably could have been described historically using Concentric Circles, a number of economic and social shifts over the years makes this model impossible to discern today. Remnants still exist in some areas with the waterfront and core as areas of employment; the lower-end houses north of Queen and the higher-end above Gerrard do follow this model; but urban renewal and gentrification have greatly altered value and form across the city. To a lesser extent, the Sector Model could be used – observing the city’s growth after the advent of streetcars and railways connecting the large industrial fields and middle-class housing both in the east and west ends – but the cities largest barrier to growth, Lake Ontario, and annexed towns with separate growth patterns, makes this model difficult to ascertain. The most intuitive method would be the Multiple Nuclei Model with a heavy focus on transportation corridors that would have been a factor in the Sector Model. From this, we have a concrete model forming, with lower-end housing ringing the central core, but also the factory outlays to the east and west. Medium and high-end houses exist on the periphery but also close to the core, as seen in Annex South, Cabbagetown and Riverdale verses HighPark and the UpperBeach(es) (see Figure 1).



Argyris, C. (1973). Some limits of rational man organization theory, Public Administration Review, 23(3), 255.


Chilton, S. (2003). Rationality Vs. “Muddling Through”. Retrieved from


Darke, R. (1985). Rationality, Planning and the State. In Breheny, M. & Hopper, A. (Eds.) Rationality in Planning: Critical essays on the role of Rationality in Urban & Regional Planning. London: Pion Limited. 15-26.


Etzioni, A. (1986). Mixed Scanning Revisited, Public Administration Review, January-February, 8-13.


Faludi, A. (1973). Planning Theory. New York: Pergamon Press


Hodge, G., Gordon D. (2008) Planning Canadian Communities. Toronto: Thompson Nelson. 60-63.


Johnson, Steven (2006). The Ghost Map: The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic – and How it Changed Science, Cities and the Modern World. New York: Riverhead Books.


Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling Software Agility: Best Practices for Large Enterprises. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional, 178.


Leung, H.K. (2003). Land Use Planning Made Plain. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2-4.


Rodrigue, J.P. (2009). The Geography of Transport Systems. New York: Routledge.


Rodwin, L. (1950) The Theory of Residential Growth and Structure, Apprasial Journal, 18, 295-317.


Rose, J. (1996) The City Beatiful Movement. Retrieved from


Pacione, M. (2006) Urban Geography: A Global Perspective. New York: Taylor & Francis, 143.


Springer, J. (2009) Planning Theory: Rationality and Alternative Approaches [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from Blackboard.


Springer, J. (2009) Responses to Urban Reform: Regulation, Redevelopment & Relocation [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from Blackboard.


Schwartz, R. (2001) Haussmann and New Paris. Retrieved from


Trueman, C. (2000) History Learning Site. Retrieved from

506 Carlton Streetcar Assignment


506 Carlton Streetcar Assignment

Submitted: October 11th, 2009

506 Carlton Streetcar Assignment Sample

Sample of the 506 Carlton Streetcar Assignment

The 506 Carlton Streetcar assignment is an individual paper conducted by first-year students to expose them to a variety of neighbourhoods, built-form and land uses that will be discussed in the next few years. For many students who attend Ryerson, this project is the first time they would have travelled the entire route in one trip — and reveals to students how the city expanded and evolved over time. Part of the assignment was to also explore in-depth one neighbourhood in detail.

This assignment was the first I submitted within the Ryerson Urban Planning program program






Download the 506 Carlton Streetcar Assignment