October 26th, 2006
Don Mills Centre redevelopment stirs conflict
Posted by Josh Hume
For some downtown Toronto residents, the idea of a mall being something worth preserving might seem odd. But in Don Mills, this is exactly what community preservation advocates are fighting over.
Cadillac Fairview, the company that owns the Don Mills Centre, is in the process of demolishing the current mall and replacing it with an outdoor “lifestyle centre,” which will include condominiums as well as outdoor-concept retail stores.
The mall was conceived as the epicentre of a new planned community, the first of its kind in North America. To reflect post-war optimism in Toronto, buildings in the area were commissioned to be designed by prominent architects in a distinctly modernist style. The singular vision for the area established a sense of continuity, grace, and practicality that would be admired and imitated by planners across the continent.
The Don Mills Centre was initially constructed in 1954 as an open-air complex, but was covered in 1978.
So when developers posted a sign outside the Don Mills Centre, asking, “What if the Don Mills Centre became more than a mall?” it made many local residents nervous about what they had in mind.
This humble mall was the neighbourhood’s community centre, recalls John Blair, who is running for City Council in Don Mills’ Ward 25. He remembers being “hard pressed to go there and not find people you knew.” In more recent years it has also served as a vital part of the large seniors’ community that surrounds the property. This was a place where the elderly could congregate, eat, shop, and easily spend the better part of a day without having to worry about such matters as parking and inclement weather.
In a community that has this year already lost the modernist gem, Inn on the Park, and faces the impending disappearance of the striking Bata Shoe Company headquarters, this comes as one more irreversible injury to the young heritage of the area.
What some advocates are seeking is the construction of a new mall, as opposed to the proposed street-oriented development. A vocal residents group, the Concerned Don Mills Residents for Maintaining the Don Mills Centre Indoor Mall, is arguing that Cadillac Fairview is violating the terms of the Central Don Mills Secondary Plan, written by the City’s Urban Development Services. The document mandates that developers “manage change in the community in a manner that retains and enhances the existing character of the area.”
The group, which candidate Blair is associated with, also accuses Cliff Jenkins, the incumbent councillor in Ward 25, of not acting in good faith during negotiations with Cadillac Fairview, and subsequently at the OMB. It criticizes his acceptance of “a million dollars worth of public art and a piece of parkland,” instead of demanding an enclosed space as part of a settlement with the company.
The group’s polemic website asks, “was the suggestion that indoor space could be negotiated at the OMB merely a gesture to keep us quiet and believing that the City was working for the community?”
Jenkins refused to comment for this article, saying “the issue is supercharged and I have to have control over every word.” Jenkins is concerned about “misinformation” circulated by the “ad-hoc” residents group about the nature of the negotiations between Cadillac Fairview and the City.
Terry West, the president of another area residents group called Don Mills Residents, Inc., supports Jenkins, saying he has been a strong voice for residents throughout the development process. “Jenkins met with developers at Cadillac Fairview to get them to change their minds,” he says.
According to West, there was little Jenkins or the City could do, as Cadillac Fairview was working within all applicable zoning bylaws. “The only way it could be avoided was to get them to change their minds,” he says.
West believes it is still possible, however, to obtain a covered area for the food court and other amenities. He is also “almost certain” that Cadillac Fairview will agree to provide a parcel of land for public use, which might include a park or community centre, adding that “Jenkins did all the work” to make it happen.
But whereas Jenkins’ antagonists allege betrayal, West interprets events differently, as he says Cadillac Fairview is not obliged to meet any of these requests, and that the park was not part of any settlement agreement.
Don Mills Residents, Inc. are also currently trying to settle “outstanding differences” with Cadillac Fairview, as West expects developers “will likely be asking for more density” for condominiums.
Cadillac Fairview, which has yet to put forth a final proposal, declined to comment for this article.
For Blair’s part, he plans to galvanize support for the preservation of the Don Mills Centre, in part by focusing “public shame” on developers who he believes have ignored the wishes of the community. A 5,000-signature petition has already been circulated decrying the proposed future of the area. There are many, including Blair, who would like to see an investigation into how developers were given free rein to “put up whatever they feel like.”
As for whether the Don Mills Centre could have been designated as a heritage site, Brian Gallaugher, the City’s Preservation Co-ordinator, points out that this would have been unlikely, as the new development is actually a closer approximation to the original complex.
“There is no heritage value in that closed-in mall — the heritage value would be in the original mall,” Gallaugher says.
image courtesy John Blair’s election site
Loading ...
Comments
In a community that has this year already lost the modernist gem, Inn on the Park, and faces the impending disappearance of the striking Bata Shoe Company headquarters, this comes as one more irreversible injury to the young heritage of the area.
The Don Mills Centre was not a modernist gem. It was a mediocre mall. Replacing it with an outdoor shopping centre will not cause “one more irreversible injury” to the area. Sure, a covered food court might be nice for elderly residents who live nearby, but this is just hyperbole.
Street-oriented redevelopment is *good*.
Comment by thickslab
October 26, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
Correction: it *was* a modernist gem. Originally. In the 50s. {As Brian Gallaugher states.)
And had it escaped enclosure-beyond-recognition in the 70s, to argue its removal on “street-oriented redevelopment is *good*” grounds would be simply cloddish. (Especially if said “street-oriented redevelopment” is as mediocre as the mall, i.e. DMC in its post-70s form, it replaces. Or all the more so if it compounds the sin through “ye olde” aesthetics…)
Comment by Adam Sobolak
October 26, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
just what every neighborhood needs….more condo’s and box stores
Comment by Bob the builder
October 27, 2006 @ 7:53 am
What is at issue here is that CF had many, many meetings with the community during which they pretended to give a crap about what the residents wanted. I know, because I attended most of them. Macklin Hancock, the man who planned Don Mills in 1952-53, was at one of these meetings and they fawned over him and even asked for his advice, which was, essentially, to make sure they didn’t build a faux Tudor crapfest of an outdoor mall that looked completely out of character with the rest of the ‘hood as well as keep some (if not all) of it enclosed.
Then, in a classic “let’s gain their trust and then screw ‘em” scenario, they went ahead and demo’d the whole site even tho’ they promised they’d do the demolition in phases, thereby leaving thousands of people with no place to shop and gather. They’ve completely ignored all dissenting voices (including Don Mills housing architect Henry Fliess and the aforementioned 5000 petition-signers) and, in my view, pulling the biggest PR boner of their long corporate life.
As Hancock once told me, Don Mills may have been surrounded by the suburbs but it was planned as a “New Town” and CF has just ripped the heart right out of it.
Comment by Dave LeBlanc
October 27, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
My opinion is…. It was the same from the beginning as it is now and will forever be : CADILLAC FAIRVIEW HAS NO HEART ! They are not interested in people, they appear to only be interested in more, more and more money.
COULD THEY BE PARASITIC?
Comment by Martin
October 27, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
We are asking for a covered mall not just for the elderly and not “just” for a food court. It is actually for everyone. The elderly were not “just” there because of the food court. There were all kinds of people of all ages and from all walks of life. From within the covered mall, we were able to access the banks, the dentists, the drugstore, restaurants and many other stores. If a person uses a wheelchair, or the person is an elderly, the covered mall is very important, something that CF people do not understand.
Comment by Marie C. Waldo
October 28, 2006 @ 7:43 am
Note> The folks at CF also allowed the extremely wonderful modernist mall underneath the TD Centre to be vandalized by allowing vernacular signage.
There must be someway to connect all this with the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund, who seems to control CF (er, sketchy on the exact details), but they seem like they would be sensitive to criticism, or at least being called philistines, in the TD Centre case.
Use of words like “vandelized” and “philistine” will certainly help the cause.
Comment by Shawn Micallef
October 28, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Indeed–CF is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ontario Teachers’Pension Fund (OTPP). Isn’t it ironic that, on the one hand, we expect our teachers to help our children become decent citizens who respect and honour others and live in partnership with them, but on the other hand, our teachers’ pensions are funded through a ruthless developer who doesn’t give a hoot about how their decisions affect our communities.
We’ve tried to get the OTPP to listen, to no avail so far, but thank you, Shawn Micallef, for your excellent suggestions.
Comment by Simone Gabbay
October 28, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
The OTPP also has a huge stake in the Leafs (perhaps explaining why that team strives for mediocrity rather than risk-taking as long as they get suits in seats). The OTTP is independant of the teachers, which do not control their own pension fund, as far as I recall. The OTTP is run by accountants and financial planners, not teachers, who would likely have more of a heart.
Comment by Sean M.
October 29, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
It is important to note that Cadillac Fairview had originally posted huge colour signs in the Don Mills Centre indoor mall, illustrating how they were going to replace the indoor mall with another indoor mall and they promised to work in partnership with the Don Mills community. Then, without warning, the signs came down and the “outdoor lifestyle” concept came into effect and they weren’t going to work in partnership with anyone. Hmm.
Comment by John Blair
October 29, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
The first thing I cannot believe is that the Inn On The Park was allowed to be demolished. Toronto has absolutely no sense of history. And now to hear that the Bata Shoe Building will be torn down also is just disgusting. The Don Mills Centre should never have been enclosed. It was an amazing mall when it was open aired (and it is a lovely mall in its enclosure) and hopefully it will revert back to its original magnificence when it is once again an open aired concept.
Comment by Lesly
December 3, 2006 @ 1:43 pm