Abstract
<div>This Major Research Paper (MRP) examines the disproportionate designation of Heritage Conservation Districts (HCDs) within the City of Toronto, which are predominantly located in the City's downtown core, compared to the City's inner suburban areas. To illustrate the discrepancies in HCD designation, two potential HCDs in Scarborough, one of three inner suburbs in Toronto, are chronologically examined. Both Agincourt and Midland Park’s HCD represent the most recent examples of heritage designation in the inner suburb, which stands as the only area in the City that has zero HCDs. Before the case studies are discussed, the effects of Toronto's 1998 amalgamation, select timeframes of the City's planning history and recent changes to Provincial planning legislation that govern municipalities' heritage approach are examined. It is determined that a series of factors contribute to the disproportionate designation of HCDs in the City of Toronto. These factors include the incremental designation of heritage properties post amalgamation, the lengthy heritage designation process, the intergovernmental nature of municipal heritage policies, the lack of public education on the benefits of heritage and a complex HCD prioritization process all contribute to the disproportionate designation of HCD’s in the City of Toronto. Four key recommendations are offered to help resolve the heritage designation issue in the City of Toronto.</div><div><br></div><div>Keywords: Heritage Conservation Districts; Toronto; Urban Planning, Urban Policy, Heritage Urbanism.</div>
Highlights
Methodology The research for this Major Research Paper (MRP) started inMarch 2020, and the method employed was qualitative. The method included the textual analysis of various primary documents, such as decision and heritage department correspondence letters, heritage conservation policy manuals, heritage blogs and board meeting minutes
AUTHOR'S DECLARATION FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF A Major Research Paper (MRP) I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this MRP
Conservation Districts (HCDs) within the City of Toronto, which are predominantly located in the City's downtown core, compared to the City's inner suburban areas
Summary
March 2020, and the method employed was qualitative. The method included the textual analysis of various primary documents, such as decision and heritage department correspondence letters, heritage conservation policy manuals, heritage blogs and board meeting minutes. In this MRP, the key aspects of two major theories and a framework were considered to contextualize the intersections of urban policy, planning and heritage conservation. They note: That [the] field of planning is divided among those who define it, according to its object (producing and regulating the relations of people and structures in space), and those who do so according to its method (the process of decision making as it relates to spatial development) These different approaches lead to two largely separate sets of theoretical questions and priorities that undermine a single definition of planning. As Walker and Belanger (2013) note, to decolonize “our approaches to urban planning and policy requires that we consciously decenter ‘Western’ authority over procedural and substantive knowledge that dominate and presume cultural neutrality in the physical and aesthetic, social, cultural, economic, and political production of space”(p. Aside from the changes to the cultural policies mentioned, the PPS 2020 changes overall are “positive, as they provide more certainty around land development in Ontario... (and) provides both municipalities and developers with various tools to create some degree of flexibility in the land development process” (What’s Changing? The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, 2020, p. 3)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
