DOCSLIB.ORG

Safety Audit Report Card Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Safety Audit Report Card Summary SAFETY AUDIT REPORT CARD SUMMARY AUDIT DATE: June 14th, 2011 AUDIT GROUP: 416 Community Support for Women AUDIT AREA: Seaton St. to Bleecker St. to Wellesley St. to Sherbourne St and Dundas St. E. Ward 27 and 28 – Toronto Centre‐Rosedale (north and south) Neighbourhood 73 Moss Park and 71 Cabbagetown – South St. James Town EXECUTIVE SUMMARY METRAC’s Safety Audit looks at how social and physical environments can make an area safe or unsafe. METRAC defines safety as ‘freedom from the threat, fear, and experience of all kinds of violence, oppression, and discrimination.’ The Community Safety Audit was organized by 416 Community Support for Women. The audit was conducted by women who access the services at the 416 and who were concerned about safety issues in the area. The Safety Audit was conducted on the morning of June 14th, 2011 and 3 individuals participated including a representative from the 416 Drop‐In Centre. The area audited was north along Seaton St., west on Carlton St., north on Bleecker St., west to Sherbourne St., south to Dundas St. E., ending at 416 Dundas St. E. The area audited falls within the Moss Park and Cabbagetown – South St. James Town neighbourhoods (Ward 27 and Ward 28). The Moss Park neighbourhood has a higher population of youth (15‐24) in comparison to the rest of the City and over half the population (72.5%) are of working age (25‐64).1 A majority of residents, 71%, live in rented units while 29% live in privately owned dwellings.2 The Cabbagetown – South St. James Town neighbourhood has a lower population of children (0‐14) and youth (15‐24) in comparison to the rest of the City and over half of the population (69.5%) are of working age (25‐64).3 The number of people living in high‐rise apartments in both areas is high ranging from 74‐76%re is also a high percentage (74‐76%).4 1 http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/cns_profiles/2006/pdf1/cpa75.pdf 2 http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/cns_profiles/2006/pdf3/cpa75.pdf 3 http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/cns_profiles/2006/pdf1/cpa71.pdf 4 http://www.toronto.ca/wards2000/ward27.htm/http://www.toronto.ca/wards2000/ward28.htm WALKABOUT PHOTO SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF SAFETY AUDIT RESULTS The information below is based on the results of the survey and comments made during the safety audit walkabout. Recommendations for action were both stated from participants and based on participants concerns. General C Some of the participants did not feel safe in the area, especially when they are alone, or leaving their Impressions house after dark. Some people avoid doing things in their community because of poor lighting, poor security patrols, too many bushes, and drugs in the area. One person sometimes felt unsafe near the front steps of their building, because of the people sitting on the steps outside of it. A ‐ Very Good B ‐ Good C ‐ Ok D ‐ Substandard F– Poor SAFETY GRADE SAFETY CONCERNS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION CONTACT FEATURES LIGHTING C Participants stated that the general Increased and brighter lighting is needed ‐ Contact Toronto lighting in the area is not good and throughout the area and broken lights Hydro about broken that there are broken lights and areas need to be fixed, particularly at: lights and clearing that need more lighting. ‐ The front of houses near 251 trees and bushes that Participants stated that lights should Sherbourne and in front of 251 are blocking lights be installed in front of houses and in Sherbourne St. front of 251 Sherbourne St. ‐ Contact TCHC about Some participants did not know who installing more to call if they saw lights that are lighting on their out/broken. property. Some participants stated that there are lights blocked by trees/ bushes. ‐ Contact Councillor Paths, sidewalks and signs are also not about lighting on city well lit. property and increasing lights near sidewalks and signs. SIGNS and C Some participants said there were ‐Signs need to be placed in areas where ‐Contact Councillor to MAPS enough signs in the area, and they are all people can see them. make sure signs are in easy to find, while other participants plain language so said there needs to be more signs and ‐ Signs need to be in clear writing and they are easy to see that signs are not easy to find. large enough for people to see. and understand. Participants stated that signs are not easy to read and understand. ‐ Emergency signs need to be located ‐Contact property One participant said they were unsure where everyone can see them and in managers of buildings if there were signs showing who to call plain language so everyone can to make emergency for help in emergencies in the area. understand the sign signs more visible and Participants found emergency exits easy to see. were easy to find in buildings, but also stated this was hard for a lot of people. TRAFFIC C Some participants said there needs to ‐ A traffic assessment of the area needs ‐ Contact Councillor be more crosswalks and traffic lights to be done to see if the area needs more about having a traffic throughout the area. traffic lights and crosswalks and also if assessment done in Participants stated traffic in the area is speed bumps or lower speed limits need the area and to assess too fast and speed limit should be to be put into place. the need for bike lowered or speed bumps added. lanes to be added. Some people stated there need to be ‐ Assessment for the need of bike lanes more bike lanes in the area. should be done. TTC B All participants have used public ‐ All bus stops should be properly lit ‐Contact TTC about transit in the area and generally feel the need for proper safe, including while waiting for the ‐ Emergency signs should be at all TTC lighting at bus stops bus at night. stops and on TTC stations and vehicles and emergency signs Some people stated buses are not always on time and should run more ‐ Contact Councillor frequently and that there needs to be about the need for more lighting at bus stops. more lighting at bus Participants stated there are no signs, stops in the area. or were unsure if there were signs about who to call in case of an emergency on the TTC. ISOLATION ‐ Participants did not think the area ‐Install emergency phones throughout ‐Contact Councillor looks/feels abandoned. the area. about installing Participants stated the area is full of emergency phones in people during the day and night. ‐Start a community watch group in the area. Participants feel people would hear community so there are places people them if they screamed for help, but can go/call if they are in an emergency. ‐Contact Crime some thought people would not Prevention respond. ‐Look at areas where people can get Association of Participants stated there are not trapped and look at how to block off Toronto (CPAT) and enough working payphones in area. those areas. community members Participants did not think there were about starting a different safe, well lit routes people community watch could use in the area. group. Some participants believed there are places in the area where they could get ‐Contact Councillor trapped. about blocking off One participant stated if they were in areas where people danger they had a place close by to go could get trapped in for help, while others were unsure. the area. VISIBILITY C Participants stated they are able to ‐Add mirrors to areas where there are ‐Contact Councillor clearly see ahead or around them sharp corners, walls, and fences. about adding mirrors while walking, but one participant to areas with sharp stated this was only in the day and not ‐Trim trees and bushes that block corners. Ask for trees at night. people’s views. and shrubs on public Some participants stated that sharp property to be corners, walls and fences block their ‐ Add lights to the end of pathways and trimmed. Also ask for view. walkways. lights to be installed All participants stated that trees and at end of pathways. bushes (such as in people’s yards), and ‐ Look at areas where people can hide parked cars on the street block their particularly at Ontario St. and Bleecker ‐ Have a community view. St. and work as a community to see what meeting with Some people said they could not see measures can be done to reduce the risk Councillor to address the end of paths and walkways. of those areas. the safety concerns All participants said there should be regarding visibility mirrors to help them see around. and hiding areas near Participants said there are places Ontario St. and people could hide and wait for people, Bleecker St. such as at Ontario St. and Bleecker St. and behind trees and in unlit doorways. MAINTENANCE B Some participants stated that the area ‐ Areas with garbage and litter should be ‐Contact 311 to clear is well maintained. However, some cleaned. areas that might have participants stated that there is a lot of large garbage garbage and litter in the area. ‐ Residents should be informed about Participants stated that there are no who to contact about maintenance ‐ Contact community hate slogans or a lot of vandalism in issues on City property. members to organize the area. community clean up. Participants stated they were unsure or that they did not think there are ‐Ask Councillor to signs showing who to call for send out information maintenance issues in the area. about 311 services.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average Price by Percentage Increase: January to June 2016
    City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average price by percentage increase: January to June 2016 C06 – $1,282,135 C14 – $2,018,060 1,624,017 C15 698,807 $1,649,510 972,204 869,656 754,043 630,542 672,659 1,968,769 1,821,777 781,811 816,344 3,412,579 763,874 $691,205 668,229 1,758,205 $1,698,897 812,608 *C02 $2,122,558 1,229,047 $890,879 1,149,451 1,408,198 *C01 1,085,243 1,262,133 1,116,339 $1,423,843 E06 788,941 803,251 Less than 10% 10% - 19.9% 20% & Above * 1,716,792 * 2,869,584 * 1,775,091 *W01 13.0% *C01 17.9% E01 12.9% W02 13.1% *C02 15.2% E02 20.0% W03 18.7% C03 13.6% E03 15.2% W04 19.9% C04 13.8% E04 13.5% W05 18.3% C06 26.9% E05 18.7% W06 11.1% C07 29.2% E06 8.9% W07 18.0% *C08 29.2% E07 10.4% W08 10.9% *C09 11.4% E08 7.7% W09 6.1% *C10 25.9% E09 16.2% W10 18.2% *C11 7.9% E10 20.1% C12 18.2% E11 12.4% C13 36.4% C14 26.4% C15 31.8% Compared to January to June 2015 Source: RE/MAX Hallmark, Toronto Real Estate Board Market Watch *Districts that recorded less than 100 sales were discounted to prevent the reporting of statistical anomalies R City of Toronto — Neighbourhoods by TREB District WEST W01 High Park, South Parkdale, Swansea, Roncesvalles Village W02 Bloor West Village, Baby Point, The Junction, High Park North W05 W03 Keelesdale, Eglinton West, Rockcliffe-Smythe, Weston-Pellam Park, Corso Italia W10 W04 York, Glen Park, Amesbury (Brookhaven), Pelmo Park – Humberlea, Weston, Fairbank (Briar Hill-Belgravia), Maple Leaf, Mount Dennis W05 Downsview, Humber Summit, Humbermede (Emery), Jane and Finch W09 W04 (Black Creek/Glenfield-Jane
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Centre Community Action Plan Looks to Provide a Vision for the Area Well Into the Next 10-15 Years
    Moss Park/The Garden District Office of Glen Murray, MPP Toronto Centre in collaboration with Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, Ward 27 Toronto Centre – Community Action Plan March 2012 Moss Park/The Garden District Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 2 2. Why a Community Action Plan?................................................................................ 3 The Components of the Community Action Plan...................................................... 3 3. Guiding Principles...................................................................................................... 4 4. Objectives of the CAP ................................................................................................ 4 Government Objectives............................................................................................. 4 Community Objectives .............................................................................................. 5 Institutional and Agency Objectives.......................................................................... 5 Financial Objectives................................................................................................... 5 5. Riding Strengths and Challenges ............................................................................... 6 Toronto Centre: A Vibrant Civil Society..................................................................... 6 Access to Education..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Epidemic a Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto
    THE HIDDEN EPIDEMIC A Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto The hidden epidemic A Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto November 2014 1 Acknowledgements This report was researched and written by a working group consisting of: Michael Polanyi Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Alliance for a Poverty-Free Toronto Lesley Johnston Social Planning Toronto Anita Khanna Family Service Toronto/Ontario Campaign 2000 Said Dirie Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Alliance for a Poverty-Free Toronto michael kerr Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change and Alliance for a Poverty-Free Toronto Research and data analysis support provided by the City of Toronto is gratefully acknowledged. Financial support was provided by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and the Children’s Aid Foundation’s Community Initiatives Program. Editing and design support was provided by Tilman Lewis and Peter Grecco. We thank Ann Fitzpatrick, Christa Freiler, Skylar Maharaj, Laurel Rothman and Alex Tranmer for their review of and assistance with the paper. THE HIDDEN EPIDEMIC A Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Current Levels of Child and Family Poverty in Toronto and Beyond 6 3. Which Toronto Children Are Affected by Poverty? 9 Geography 9 Ethno-racial Background 12 Indigenous Communities 13 Immigration or Citizenship Status 13 Disability 13 Family Structure 13 4. Growing Up in poverty – Reality and impacts on children in Toronto 14 Access to Nutrition 14 Access to Housing 16 Access to Education 17 Access to Recreation 19 5. Underlying Causes of Family Poverty 20 Inadequate Employment Income 20 Inadequate Income Supports and Community Services 22 Lack of Access to Affordable Public Services 24 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Community Housing, Moss Park Multi-Residential
    Multi-Residential Toronto Community Housing, Moss Park Photos of the SolarWall ® and SolarDuct ® systems at Moss Park in Toronto, Ontario Background Solution Moss Park is a community of affordable housing buildings Each of the three towers that make up Moss Park were located in downtown Toronto. It is also a Tower Renewal outfitted with the SolarWall ® air heating technology. Two site, as designated by the City of Toronto, which refers to of the towers had custom designed 3,388 ft 2 (315 m 2) a city-wide program aimed at improving Toronto's con- SolarWall systems, and the other tower a 480 ft 2 (45 m 2) crete apartment towers and surrounding neighborhoods. roof-mount SolarDuct ® system comprised of 20 SolarDuct units. The SolarWall technology was incorporated into the Multi-residential high-rise buildings are excellent candi- building’s mechanical system to compliment the existing dates for SolarWall ® air heating systems because they HRV system. required continuous ventilation air in the hallways and common-areas. In addition to the renewable energy The systems should offset 85 tons of CO2 each year, benefits, with these types of retrofit applications, the which translates into a permanent GHG reduction of installation of the wall-mount SolarWall ® system means 2,250 tons over the 30-year lifespan of the systems. that these buildings have effectively been re-clad, thus reaping a second building envelope benefit. Results Also, the system will provide other benefits; including a The SolarWall air heating projects will improve the opera- significant contribution toward achieving Toronto’s sus- tions of the buildings and will permanently decrease the tainability goals of reducing GHG emissions and creating ongoing operating costs associated with energy use.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line
    EX9.1 Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line As directed by City Council in April 2019, City and TTC staff have assessed the Province’s proposed Ontario Line. The details of this assessment are provided in this attachment. 1. Project Summary 1.1. Project Description The Ontario Line was included as part of the 2019 Ontario Budget1 as a transit project that will cover similar study areas as the Relief Line South and North, as well as a western extension. The proposed project is a 15.5-kilometre higher-order transit line with 15 stations, connecting from Exhibition GO station to Line 5 at Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East, near the Science Centre station, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Ontario Line Proposal (source: Metrolinx IBC) Since April 2019, technical working groups comprising staff from the City, TTC, Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Transportation met regularly to understand alignment and station location options being considered for the Ontario 1 http://budget.ontario.ca/2019/contents.html Attachment 4 - Assessment of Ontario Line Page 1 of 20 Line. Discussions also considered fleet requirements, infrastructure design criteria, and travel demand modelling. Metrolinx prepared an Initial Business Case (IBC) that was publicly posted on July 25, 2019.2 The IBC compared the Ontario Line and Relief Line South projects against a Business As Usual scenario. The general findings by Metrolinx were that "both Relief Line South and Ontario Line offer significant improvements compared to a Business As Usual scenario, generating $3.4 billion and $7.4 billion worth of economic benefits, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Regent Park and Cabbagetown
    NOTE TO USERS Page(s) not included in the original manuscript are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was microfilmed as received. This reproduction is the best copy available UMI EXPLORING THE MARGIN THE BORDERS BETWEEN REGENT PARK AND CABBAGETOWN Luisa Veronis A thesis submitled in confomiity with the qubeme- foithodeg~ofMn@erof MS Gndwr oepmmtof G#OImy ünîwwsity of Tomto Q Copyright by Luise Vmnis 1999 National Libraiy Bibliotheque nationale du Canada A uisitions and Acquisitions et ~&gra~hicSeMces seMces bibliographiques The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive licence aliowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distniute or seU reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract Exploilng the Margin: the Borders ktween Ragent Park and Cabbagetown Master of Arts 1999 Luisa Veronis Graduate Department of Geography University of Toronto This thesis explores the meaning and the usefulness of the spatial metaphor 'margin' in urban social geography. I anaîyze a downtown neighborhood of Toronto in light of the modemist.
    [Show full text]
  • Moss Park Neighbourhood Profile Urban Agriculture
    EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS ANALYSIS HUNGER IN THE CITY Relieving Homelessness in Moss Park with Accessible Urban Agriculture MOSS PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE DARKER COLOURS REPRESENT HIGHER OCCURANCE TORONTO, ONTARIO St. James Cabbage DESIGN INTENT DARKER COLOURS REPRESENT HIGHER OCCURANCE NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE Town town St. James Regent Park Cabbage Moss Park Town town East of Yonge ThisEast of project is an exploratory look into Moss Park, a neighbourhood of Toronto that faces significant development pressures Yonge Regent Park NEIGHBORHOUDS COMMUNITY SPACE GREEN SPACE HEALTH PROVIDERS and socialMoss Park issues. With some of the highest rates of unemployment and population density in the city and a significant homeless population, it presented itself as a perfect case study to explore the role of urban agriculture as a means to create safeNEIGHBORHOUDS and accessible areasCOMMUNITY where SPACE individualsGREEN SPACE can improveHEALTH their PROVIDERS food security, social connections, employability and food literacy. The project explores different forms of urban agriculture in locations which the community has identified as under- used. By creating green connections and accessible gardens the goal is to create a design that is available and accessible to all people physically and socially. YOUTH POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION SOCIAL ASSIATANCE STUDENT NUTRITION MOSSYOUTH POPULATION PARKTOTAL POPULATION SOCIAL ASSIATANCE STUDENT NUTRITIONGOALS AND OBJECTIVES SOCIALGOALS & OBJECTIVES SHERBOURNE HEALTH PARKS REGENT PARK REDEVELOPMENT MOSS PARK
    [Show full text]
  • Low Other* Dwelling Density Availability of Destinations
    21 24 116 130 2 35 36 50 49 48 27 131 22 34 37 117 129 3 25 51 52 47 46 4 132 26 38 53 118 1 5 33 40 128 135 134 23 39 45 6 29 113 28 32 105 133 31 41 42 119 126 137 7 8 30 103 127 136 115 112 108 102 43 125 100 138 140 11 10 110 109 101 99 44 9 111 107 104 56 55 139 106 124 Dwelling Availability of 91 92 97 54 120 density destinations 13 90 94 96 58 123 15 89 98 57 High - High 12 114 93 59 60 14 88 95 67 61 121 83 74 66 High - Low 87 80 79 71 68 69 62 16 75 64 122 86 84 81 78 76 65 Low - High 7372 63 85 70 Low - Low 20 17 82 77 Other* 18 19 0 2.5 5 km * Indicates DB belonged to the middle quintile of Neighbourhoods dwelling density and/or availability of destinations 1 West Humber-Clairville 25 Glenfield-Jane Heights 49 Bayview Woods-Steeles 73 Moss Park 96 Casa Loma 121 Oakridge 2 Mount Olive-Silverstone- 26 Downsview-Roding-CFB 50 Newtonbrook East 74 North St. James Town 97 Yonge-St.Clair 122 Birchcliffe-Cliffside Jamestown 27 York University Heights 51 Willowdale East 75 Church-Yonge Corridor 98 Rosedale-Moore Park 123 Cliffcrest 3 Thistletown-Beaumond Heights 28 Rustic 52 Bayview Village 76 Bay Street Corridor 99 Mount Pleasant East 124 Kennedy Park 4 Rexdale-Kipling 29 Maple Leaf 53 Henry Farm 77 Waterfront Communities- 100 Yonge-Eglinton 125 Ionview 5 Elms-Old Rexdale 30 Brookhaven-Amesbury 54 O'Connor-Parkview The Island 101 Forest Hill South 126 Dorset Park 6 Kingsview Village-The Westway 31 Yorkdale-Glen Park 55 Thorncliffe Park 78 Kensington-Chinatown 102 Forest Hill North 127 Bendale 7 Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview 32 Englemount-Lawrence
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Neighbourhoods in Toronto with the Highest Total Crime Experience Vastly Different Crime Rates
    Ten Neighbourhoods in Toronto with the Highest Total Crime Experience Vastly Different Crime Rates∗ Marginalized communnities experience different crime rates due to continued discrimination. Rachael Lam 29 January 2021 Abstract Neighbourhood Crime Rate data was pulled from the City of Toronto Open Portal to analyze neigh- bourhoods that were most affected by crime and how crime rates have changed over time. Although crime rates have risen between 2014-2019, certain neighbourhoods experience higher crime rates in the Greater Toronto Area. Further literature reviews of neighbourhoods who experience higher crime rates are also found to be economically disadvantaged communities. This data, without a further analysis and understanding of socioeconomic circumstances, could lead to higher police surveillance and further punitive action towards marginalized communities. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Data 2 3 Results 4 4 Discussion 4 4.1 Bay Street Corridor . .7 4.2 Moss Park . .7 4.3 Kensington-Chinatown . .7 4.4 Waterfront Communities-The Island . .7 4.5 Comparison . .7 5 Conclusion 8 References 9 ∗Code and data are available at: https://github.com/rachaellam/Toronto-Crime-Rates.git. 1 1 Introduction In 1971, Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs followed by Ronald Reagan signing the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, initiating decades of increase police presence and highly punitive sentences. Public opinion shifted in support for harsher punishment leading to a massive increase in law-and-order government agencies (Marable 2015). Crime rate statistics were largely misconstrued to further push anti-crime policies that poorly affected low-income communities and communities of colour. These policies led to mass surveillance under the guise of safety and protection, continuing the cycle of oppression that marginalized communities face (Windsor, Dunlap, and Armour 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Toronto Central LHIN Sub-Region Quality Improvement Approach: Mid-East Version 1.0 – July 2017
    ` Overview of the Toronto Central LHIN Sub-Region Quality Improvement Approach: Mid-East Version 1.0 – July 2017 1 Table of Contents Background: Toronto Central LHIN sub-region planning approach 3 Starting point: Quality improvement 4 Planning exercises 4 Sub-region profiles: 4 Neighbourhood level profiles: 7 Prioritizing where to start: 9 Detailed analysis 12 Capturing human experience: No data without stories, and no stories without data 15 Summary of process taken: 16 Snapshot of sub-region initial opportunity areas: 16 Next Steps: Supporting Collaborative Quality Improvement Planning (C-QIPs) 17 Future Vision 19 2 Background: Toronto Central LHIN sub-region planning approach The Toronto Central LHIN has established 5 sub-region planning areas to serve as the focal point for population based planning, service alignment and integration, partnership building, and quality improvement. We recognize and celebrate the diversity of our Toronto communities and we acknowledge that the path to improving health will be different for the diverse communities and population groups throughout the City. By honing in on five smaller, more manageable geographies, we can look at communities on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis, and plan care more appropriately. In May and June of 2016, we held an inaugural cross-sector meeting within each sub-region planning area. The purpose of these meetings was to bring all types of providers together, with our common element being the communities and people that we serve. This group of local providers within a sub-region planning area is our Local Collaborative. Why are Local Collaboratives important? No one organization or individual has the full set of resources, expertise, and capacity to ensure the best possible outcomes – physical, mental, and social – for all individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Tocore Downtown Parks – Phase 1 Background Report
    DOWNTOWN PARKS TOcore PHASE I BACKGROUND REPORT MARCH 2016 PARKS, FORESTRY & RECREATION DOWNTOWN PARKS PHASE I BACKGROUND REPORT 1 DOWNTOWN PARKS PHASE I BACKGROUND REPORT CONTENTS Preface -page 1 1. Toronto’s Downtown Parks -page 3 2. Parks Planning and Development Challenges and Opportunities -page 8 2.1. Acquisition and Provision -page 8 2.2. Design and Build -page 12 2.3. Maintenance and Operations -page 13 3. Downtown Park User Opinions and Behaviour -page 14 3.1. Parks Asset and Use Survey, Summer 2015 -page 14 3.2. Park User Surveys -page 16 3.3. Park Permit Trends Downtown -page 17 3.4. TOcore Phase I Consultation -page 18 3.5. Dogs in Parks -page 18 3.6. Homelessness in Parks -page 18 4. A Healthy Urban Forest -page 19 5. Emerging Priorities -page 20 TOcore Downtown Parks -page 21 DOWNTOWN PARKS TOcore PHASE I BACKGROUND REPORT Parks are essential to making Toronto an attractive place to live, work, and visit. Toronto’s parks offer a broad range of outdoor leisure and recreation opportunities, transportation routes, and places for residents to interact with nature, and with one another. Parks also provide important economic benefits: they attract tourists and businesses, and help to build a healthy workforce. They provide shade, produce oxygen, and store stormwater. Parks are necessary elements for healthy individuals, communities, and natural habitat. Toronto Parks Plan 2013-2017 Figure 1. HTO Park in the summer Together with City Planning Division and Transportation Services Division, Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division (PFR) are developing a Downtown Parks and Public Realm (P+PR) Plan as part of the TOcore study (www.toronto.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons and Impacts
    BREAKING NEW GROUND LESSONS AND IMPACTS from the Weston Family Parks Challenge 119-401 Richmond Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3A8 Park People is an independent charity that builds strong communities by animating [email protected] and improving parks, placing them at the t: (416) 583-5776 heart of life in the city. www.parkpeople.ca Acknowledgements Park People would like to thank The W. Garfield Weston Foundation and Ontario Trillium Foundation for their leadership, generousity, dedication, and innovation in funding the Weston Family Parks Challenge and this report. We learned a lot through administering this program and the lessons and impacts found in this report will help not only us, but other non-profits, funders and city parks departments working in green spaces, to deliver better programs and funding for community partners who are improving and animating green spaces. We would also like to specifically thank Jennifer Canham, Cynthia McQueen, Clare Nolan, and Thea Silver for reviewing the report. The opinions expressed in this report are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the view of The W. Garfield Weston Foundation and the Ontario Trillium Foundation. An agency of the Government of Ontario. Un organisme du gouvernement de l’Ontario. The W. Garfield Weston Foundation is a private The Ontario Trillium Foundation is an agency of Canadian family foundation established in the the Government of Ontario, and one of Canada’s 1950s by Willard Garfield Weston, his wife Reta, largest granting foundations. With a budget of and their children. Today the Foundation directs over $136 million, OTF awards grants to some the majority of its funds to projects in the fields of 1,000 projects every year to build healthy and land conservation, neuroscience, education, and vibrant Ontario communities.
    [Show full text]