City
Nostalgia Tripping: Toronto's bay-and-gable architecture
When strolling through the older neighbourhoods of Toronto, it's inevitable that you'll notice prevalent elements of late Victorian architecture. These remnants of life in late nineteenth-century Toronto represent a style that is distinct in both its simplicity and grace.
The style is unique to Toronto. Patricia McHugh writes in Toronto Architecture: A City Guide that it's actually a combination of Italianate and Gothic Revival. Bay-and-gable houses were rarely built as detached, but were usually erected as double and row dwellings, and were very popular between 1875 and 1890. The oldest known example is the Struthers/Ross house in the Annex, located at 30 and 32 Lowther Avenue, erected in 1875. It is highly likely that other homes were directly inspired by David B. Dick's refined design.
On their exterior, these homes are characterized by polygonal bay windows and pointy gables, which were often decorated with bargeboards. The materials commonly used for their construction were wood or white and red brick. Most of the time, the front of the house contained the living and dining rooms, with the bedrooms located on the upper floor. Sometimes the back of the house was covered in "Insulbrick," a type of fake brick, since this part housed the kitchen, washing lines, and led to the outhouse and the stable.
Despite these common characteristics, there's a great variety of decorations that adorn them, both inside and outside. A well preserved or properly restored bay-and-gable home may have stained glass, tall ceilings (usually measuring ten to eleven feet), ornate plaster work (such as medallions on the ceiling), coal fireplaces, and even elaborate ginger breading.
According to Scott Wei' in "Toronto's House Next Door," these residences aimed to imitate the much grander Gothic mansions of wealthy 1850s Victorians, albeit on a smaller scale. Their decorative but functional features shed light on the social conditions and everyday life in the last quarter of the nineteenth century in Toronto.
The city grew rapidly at that time, experiencing for the first time suburban development in such areas as the lower Annex, Cabbagetown, Don Vale, and Parkdale. The rapid expansion was, however, hindered by the limited forms of transportation (the options for moving building materials were quite restrictive, and included hauling what was needed for construction on your back or on a horse-drawn cart). As a result, the building lots were narrow, between 13 and 20 feet, and thus the dwellings that came to occupy them were skinny and tall, consisting of two and two and a half stories. At the same time, the houses extended well back into the lots, sometimes up to 150 feet.
Even for the middle-class, everyday reality included being subjected to the scents produced by fireplaces, stables, and chamber pots, making access to air and light a dire necessity for one's own well being. The large bay windows were designed to let in as much air as possible, while the high ceilings were able to retain its presence within the house.
It's marvelous that so many varying examples of the bay-and-gable have survived to the present day throughout Toronto. While some of them are abandoned and deteriorating, and many have been dramatically altered, their simplicity and charm remain an iconic piece of Toronto architecture and history.
Photos from the Toronto Archives (series and fond information at bottom of image), Wikimedia Commons and the author.


Discussion
20 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Alas, most developers are stuck in a rut because it costs them a few dollars more per house to change their plans. If they ever got out of that rut we would have a much nicer-looking city.
Bargeboard was originally used to keep wind-blown rain out of the house.
I find this style of house interesting as these late 19th century buildings have been 're-purposed' many, many times: from multi-family, to apartments and rooming houses, to single-family dwellings, to retail stores.
Check out this Travel Cuts on College (Street View): http://goo.gl/5ujO ...and note the Molly Blooms just to the right/west.
I just noticed this odd version the other day! (Street View): http://goo.gl/vn39
@Brad - while the gable might have been used to keep snow off the doorstep, gables were borrowed from Gothic church style to make the house appear larger and 'lift the eyes toward the heavens' ... I'd suggest that as the 'modern era' came in, the flat roof became the preference.
Having said that, most contemporary architecture isn't nearly as considered or beautiful as this stuff, regardless of style. (But I'm hopeful that things are getting better, or at least better than they weer in the mid-to-late 20th century.)
As for the homes situation, it's either that the developers do not believe people want this kind of design or that it's too small (ie. the "entitled to big house/McMansion suburban wasteful mentality" that has poisoned many people's attitudes and common sense); another factor is that developers (at least here) want to create houses which requires a lot of energy while at the same time being made out of cheap and light material. The developers also want to create houses that encourage owning cars as well. Same goes for the neighbourhoods they're laying out as well. Too much car-based and unfriendly and plain ugly. That is why both home and city developers in the past, were actually the smart, advanced and innovative ones, as well as real planners and artists.
To answer Joel's question, why developer's don't build them like this anymore. I think it is because they simply don't need to, people gladly pay for whatever dreck the developers put out. And as a society we have become quite ignorant about what actually constitutes good housing.
People have also developed all sorts of crazy ideas that bigger & newer is better. And have no actual idea about value or quality. Only a scientist can tell you what the actual ingredients that go into a building are because they are so far removed from their natural state. Homes these days are made out of synthetic everything. New homes are primarily made of reconsituted saw dust/glue, foam, vinyl, glass and plastic covered in and a layer of either fake brick or stucco. But because developers can buy all this stuff cheap and build a bigger new home, and spend more on marketing, ignorant people just lap it up.
The solution to a better looking city is more education and discussion.
As for the comments suggesting developers don't build like this anymore, there are some examples. Cornell, Markham (a New Urbanist-ish project) has some buildings *similar* to bay-and-gables. However, newer houses that are very similar to bay and gables can be found here and there. I think these houses on Adelaide are fairly new (Street View): http://goo.gl/2QdY ...also see Massey Street just to the east.
Some new houses on Shaw just north of Bloor are recent and copy the bay-and-gable style (Street View): http://goo.gl/NozG
Of course, I'm only pointing to the architectural style - I have no doubt they aren't as solidly built. You might find it interesting that original bay-and-gables were manly pre-fabricated - builders could order out of catalogs and could choose from a variety of details.
The clear thing about these old houses is that whoever built or paid for them had a sense of pride in their work and in their home.
For those that say developers arn't building great architecture today - don't look to the cheapest of homes in the suburbs. The suburban culture didn't exist during this period - and I think it's an unfair comparison. The people that did live in these victorian era homes were likely a bit better off than most - and a slew of other people probably lived in more deplorable conditions. Suburbanization was the great equalizer if you remember - allowing everyone to live a more privileged life. The reality is you can't have quality built suburbs - it's an oxymoron - they exist because they're cheap and affordable.
If you want a fair comparison to these homes - look at some of the great infill projects happening in the core. I think Cube Lofts is probably a great example of that, although I'm sure there's many others. As well, you can probably take a walk through rosedale and see a whole variety of newly built 'classical' homes that could rival in quality to any of the featured homes.
While there may be some exceptions, I think for the most part infill homes are the most offensive and ugliest of the bunch, especially when they're built in an established older neighbourhood. They are generally out of character, and again made of cheaper inferior materials, with an emphasis on building the biggest house allowable on the lot, rather than the best house. Just have a walk around Leaside or North Toronto, to see the proliferation of cheap stucco boxes, adorned with mock stone and garages in the front or in the basement. Most have been built within the last 15 years, yet they look more dated and tacky then any of the 70+ year old houses that make up the original housing stock that surrounds them.
It's terrifying to think what all these condos will look like in 20 years.
Reminds me of this one on Augusta:
http://tinyurl.com/2bhvjsg
Much better view when sitting at King's Cafe.