Tronrud, Thorold J. (1993). ''[http://www.thunderbaymuseum.com/publications.htm Guardians of Progress: Boosters and Boosterism in Thunder Bay, 1870–1914]''. [[Thunder Bay Historical Museum Society]], pp. ## ISBN 0-920119-16-6.
Tronrud, Thorold J; Epp, Ernest A.; and others. (1995). ''[http://www.thunderbaymuseum.com/publications.htm Thunder Bay: From Rivalry to Unity]''. [[Thunder Bay Historical Museum Society]], pp ##. ISBN 0-920119-22-0.
The Geography of a Century of Residential Development
Urban growth in the Lakehead was centred on three focal points. The first was Westfort, known then as "the Town Plot". Located on the Kaministiquia River 7km upstream from its mouth, Westfort was the early favourite for development in the Lakehead after being designated by the Canadian Government as the Lake Superior terminus for the Transcontinental railway. This changed in 1883 when the government transferred responsibility for financing the railway to the private Canadian Pacific Railway, which relocated the terminus to the McKellar area, 6km downstream. A second node was developed at this new terminus on land originally owned by the McKellar Family. Centred on the intersection of Simpson Street and Victoria Avenue, this node would be chosen as the administrative centre of Fort William when the town was incorporated in 1893. A third node was the community of Prince Arthur's Landing. Located 5 miles north of the McKellar area, it formed along Cumberland and Water streets, and would become the centre of the town of Port Arthur upon its incorporation in 1884.[1]
Port Arthur in 1885 was confined to the area west of Banning and College streets, north of Bay Street, and south of Dawson Street and McVicar Creek. At first, growth spread north and south from the core along the street railway.[2]
The area between McVicar Creek and River Street is the "McVicars Addition", and includes what is now the "Harrington Avenue - Ray Court Heritage District". The "O'Brien Addition" was the area located south of Downtown, between Bay Street and John Street, east of Banning. The "Russel Addition" is the area between Red River Road and River Street, east of Pine Street and west of High Street.[3]
Port Arthur's growth diffused in several directions, but Fort William was more linear. It faced a natural barrier to the south and east with the Kaministiquia River, and a man made one to the north and west with the CN rail line.[4]
The first parts of Fort William to be developed were the Westfort area, the lands adjacent to the CP Railway and Hudson Bay Company operations along the river, and the McKellar and Vickers areas. While all streets were built on a grid plan, they didn't all have the same orientations which results in numerous grid fractures. The area adjacent to the CP Railway and Hudson Bay Company operations was bisected by the CP mainline. East of the line the grid is oriented to the river, while to the west its oriented to the rail yards. This results in streets having an angular bend between Miles Street and Dease Street where the grid meets the north-south grid of the McKellar and Vickers neighbourhoods. Streets between Pacific Avenue and the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway are aligned with the Vickers block, which results in another grid fracture north of the East End and Simpson-Ogden areas.[5]
Residential Developments in the Street Railway Era (1909 to 1939)
In 1920, the Simpson-Ogden area contained one third of Fort William's residential buildings. With a density of 800 to 1,100 buildings per square kilometre, it was three to five more dense than the neighbourhoods to the west. Fort William's elites built their homes south of the core, in the area along Ridgeway Street and near Vickers Park.[6]
An example of Port Arthur's optimism is evident in a 1914 map of the city, which includes an area labelled "Prince Arthur Heights" covering much of what is today County Park and Grandview Gardens, and located north of that area is Lancaster Heights and Superior Heights, five kilometres from the CBD. Some streets were laid out, such as Lancaster Avenue, but full scale development of those areas never came to fruition. The area that would have been Lancaster Heights and Superior Heights is today home to little more than 200 people.[7]
The street railway extension to the intersection of Hodder Avenue and Arundel Street opened in 1912. By 1920, Current River has only 100 homes on 17 streets.[8]
Development of the Mariday Park area was slower than in the area along south Windemere, Empress and Kenogami avenues. As a result, that part of the city actually grew toward the core, not away from it.[9]
Residential Development since 1945: The Corporate Suburb Era
By 1949, Fort William had filled the area between the Kaministiquia River and the CN rail line. To meet a growing demand for single family homes, the community had to begin developing the land across the tracks. This proved challenging as the land was owned by many different people, and some areas were already developed as farmland. While some streets were already laid out in the area, they were spaced for a grid plan that would accommodate lots with 25-foot frontages. At this time however was the modern practice of designing subdivisions with cul-de-sacs and crescents to decrease the amount of traffic on residential streets was becoming more prevalent, requiring the city to take control in urban planning to design modern subdivisions in 1953. The city created a three-stage process to assemble land for modern subdivisions. In the first stage, the city would design a subdivision. Second, it would allow landowners who were affected by the new layout to review the plan. They could sell their land to the city, or exchange their 25-foot lots for 50-foot lots in the new subdivision, with the city losing some of its own land in the process. A by-law forbidding the construction of new homes on 25-foot lots forced acceptance of this new plan. Once everyone affected had agreed on the plan, the third stage, development of the land, could proceed. Landowners could either develop the land themselves, or sell the land to private individuals. By 1956, the city had developed eight of these plans, mostly located in the Edgewater Park and Green Acres areas. One hundred-eighty land owners were involved, 90% of whom chose the lot exchange over selling the land to the city.[10]
There were consequences to this new method of urban planning. Suburbs with a street hierarchy consumed land much faster than the traditional grid plans. Estimates received by the city of Fort William from its Hydro Electric Commission for installing electrical service to a 284-lot subdivision noted that a standard grid of 50-foot lots would be able to hold 19 additional lots, and the cost of wiring them would be 25% less. The new layout also altered the street scape with the adoption of new building styles. Homes were typically rectangular, one story bungalows with the longer side facing the street, providing bigger yards and a sense of spaciousness not found in older parts of the city.[11]
The most significant benefit of Fort William's subdivision creation process was that the city was able to control the rate at which land was developed. As a result, the city grow out at a more steady page instead of "leap-frogging", where gaps would form between areas that were developed. Additional plans for subdivisions would only be put into place once previous subdivisions had run out of room. Victoria Park, the area between Ford and Edward streets, south of Arthur Street, was approved for development in 1955, while the Green Acres area between Edward and Leland streets was approved in 1958. Gateway, a local development company, bought 24 acres of land west of Mountdale Avenue in 1961, marking the first time direct responsibility for designing and servicing subdivisions went from the city to the private sector.[12]
In the mid-1960s, development north of the Neebing River took place, first filling the area between Edward Street and Chapples Park, and the area west of Edward Street around Sir Winston Churchill Collegiate & Vocational Institute. Housing didn't appear west of James Street until the early 1970s, and College Park was not developed until the 1980s.[13]
Port Arthur had less municipal involvement in subdivision planning, as the city's displaced growth resulted in large quantities of vacant lots in existing areas. Demand for modern subdivisions didn't come until 1956, several years later than in Fort William. Several streets in the Mariday Park area have conspicuous amounts of wartime housing, and much of the north end of Port Arthur had grid streets laid out prior to the 1950s that were not completely developed until the 1960s.[14]
When demand for modern suburbs in Port Arthur began in the mid-1950s, the private sector played the leading role. As the municipality owned much of the land beyond the urban area, developing subdivisions in Port Arthur was much less difficult than in Fort William. A private company would buy land for its subdivision, with a clause issuing a time limit for development and requiring a certain number of lots to be sold to individuals to hire their own contractors if they so desired, to prevent companies buying land for speculative purposes. The private land owners would have a minimum size for homes built in their subdivisions, which removed uncertainty over what may be built beside existing homes. These measures resulted in more homogeneous streetscapes than the older parts of the city. Headway, a Port Arthur development company, developed the 150 lot subdivision Grandview Gardens East located around CD Howe Public School in 1956. Two years later the company would develop the 196 lot subdivision which was then known as "Patricia Park" on the opposite side of River Street. In 1964, they developed Grandview Gardens West, located southwest of Grandview Gardens East. Development in Forest Park began in 1959, in the area north of Windsor Street and between Clarkson and Algonquin. Development south of Windsor Street took place in 1962. Lakehead Holdings Limited developed St. Joseph's Co-operative in the 1960s. Located north of River Street, east of Elm Street and west of McVicar Creek, it was described as "one of the loveliest tracts of residential land in Western Canada" because of its irregular terrain and views of the lake. It was laid out by V. J. Kostka of the University of Manitoba Faculty of Architecture. The plan consisted of 101 lots on narrow crescent streets and cul-de-sacs, but the Port Arthur Planning Board forced the inclusion of wider streets and a decrease to 85 lots. The intended exclusiveness of the area is indicated by covenants stating that homes could not be less than 1000sqft, and the typical price of a dwelling was 15 to 25 thousand dollars, compared to 13 to 18 thousand dollars in Grandview Gardens. St. Joseph's is unique in North America in that it is rare to see a modern suburb so close to the central business district.[15]
Like St. Joseph's Co-operative, the street layout in Jumbo Gardens is unique for its location. While St. Joseph's is a suburban style subdivision close to the core, Jumbo Gardens has a grid plan almost 5 kilometres away from the core, and is surrounded by modern subdivisions. Homes had been built in the area as early as the 1930s, which made it almost impossible to develop a modern subdivision in the area. Like many other areas of Port Arthur at the time, Jumbo Gardens had many vacant lots which were developed into the 1980s. As a result, there is an unusual combination of building styles spanning three quarters of a century.[16]
Despite the existence of transportation links between both cities as early as the 1890s, development in the intercity area is a recent trend. Prior to the construction of the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway in 1982, much of the area was a swampy, muskeg-like area prone to flooding. Today, Intercity is the primary commercial area of Thunder Bay, due primarily to cheap land and central location.[17]
Since amalgamation, Thunder Bay has seen an outward growth trend. With few exceptions, the population in areas east of the Thunder Bay Expressway has declined as new subdivisions are built to west of it. As a result, the importance of the former downtown cores has declined significantly. While both cores are focal points for the city's public transport system, it has not played as large a role in transporting people since the boom times of the early 20th century. Since the end of World War II, private cars have replaced demand for public transit, resulting in a less centralized urban structure.[18]
The construction of Intercity Plaza in 1957 was the first major commercial development located outside of one of the cores. As recently as 1969, much of the intercity area was undeveloped. After amalgamation, its central location was prime for non-residential development. Memorial Avenue, which was originally a tree lined route in memory of veterans of the Great War,[19] is today a commercial strip with few trees remaining. While originally intended to be an industrial area, new types of commercial developments such as business parks and Big-box stores or power centres have become more prevalent in recent years. As this transition continues, it is not uncommon to see unusual neighbours, such as an asphalt plant located beside a business park. The rail lines that once criss-crossed the area have been replaced by streets lines with both businesses and industrial facilities. With the development of modern suburbs since the 1960s, community shopping malls such as County Fair Plaza, Northwood Park Plaza, and the Arthur Street Marketplace have been developed. While many organizations are fighting to preserve the original downtown cores, many businesses once found in them are now located in Intercity. The primary factors are likely Intercity's central location, increase in use of private vehicles, and the low cost of the undeveloped land. This trend isn't unique to private businesses. Many public institutions, such as Canada Post, the Thunder Bay District Health Unit, the Thunder Bay Police Service and TBayTel has all relocated to the Balmoral Park area of Intercity since the late 1980s.[20]
FWCI is also Beaux-Arts Classicism. It displays an eclectic mix of styles, with a Neo-Gothic arched entrance supporting a monumental Classical composite order.[27]
The Hydro Building is a subdued example of Neo-Gothic, with only a few features typical the style. These features include arches, rib-like buttresses, and sculptural details at the street and roof levels.[28]
The Prospector Restaurant, formerly a Bank of Montreal, is Edwardian Classicism. It displays some notable sixteenth centuryMannerist features adopted to the style, which include stone channelling (or banding) of the façade on the ground floor, compound window pediments, rusticated (banded) window surrounds, multiple keystones, and an office entrance topped with an enriched mezzanine-level oval window.[29]
The bungalow with a Japanese Pagoda-style roof is indeed located in Thunder Bay.[30]
The upper reaches of the Royal Edward Arms has an Art Deco stylization of Gothic ornamentation.[31]
Wiggles 'n' Giggles, formerly the Paramount Theatre, is an Art Moderne building which features streamlined forms with a variety of rounded and textured finishes.[32]
In 1961, the Jayceesservice club painted polka dots on the Port Arthur Tourist Pagoda as a joke, but the dots caught on and remained for several years. The pagoda's original roof was copper, which shone brightly at first but over time had faded to green.[33]
Fed up with private schemes to generate electricity, Port Arthur built a generating station on the Current River in 1892 to power its new street railway.. It originally ran on two 150 HP motors which were powered by steam boilers burning coal and wood, it was converted to hydroelectricity in 1901.[34]
Black Bay Bridge over the Current River was, upon its completion in 1912, the world's largest single-span reinforced concrete bridge.[35]
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 46 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 109 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 129 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 131 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 133 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 140 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 168 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 181 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 196 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
^Blumenson, John J. G. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms (1874–1984). Fitzhenry & Whiteside, pp. 202 ISBN 0-88902-872-9.
