DOCSLIB.ORG

Regent Park and Cabbagetown

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. pstmodemist and border interpretations of the rnargin. My study of the contrasting yet juxtaposeâ communiaes of Regent Park (a public housing project) and of Cabbegaown (a gentrified ma) leads me to conclude that the rnargin is a multiple, flexible Wace where groups with unequal power meet, corne into conflict and negotiate. Through this research, I examine the links baween power relations. the production of spece and the politics of representation. Drawing on governrnent reports, newspaper articles and personal intm*ews, I investigato the urben planning policies that have sh- the neighbomood since the late 1Ws, the shifts in the media image of each cornmunity, and the stniggI8s of their respective populations. Acknowledgementr My special thanks go to my supe~sors,Susan Ruddick and Ted Rdph, for their availability and their invaluable comments, and to rny mother, Catherine Marchand, for her long distance suppoit. I am most grateful to my infamants, Doug Rice, Maria Long, Richard Milgrom, Adonis Higgins, David Zapparoli, Patricia Gilbert, John Sewell, Joice Guspie and Peggy Kurtin, for their interest in meeting me and in anmering my questions, for their time and for dl the matenel they provided; without them this research would not have been possible. I would like to thank Antonio G6m et-Palacio for the stimulating discussions on my preliminary ideas, Jennifer Hall for her fesdback on my early drafts end her suggestions, as wdl as Kashif Khan foi hi$ tedinical assistance. I also wish to thank &th Ryan for helping me with my wriüng throughout this year and Martine Johnson for revising the final clraft. I would like to mention Pamela Wachna, Curator of the Market Gallery, and the librm*ansof RoMs Ubrary, Parliament Public Library, the City Archives and the Urban Aff airs Ubrary who assisted me in my search toi materiai. nnally, I owe my greatest deM to the community of Rgent Park, to the individuals I maand to the fmw I did rot have the chance to know. iii Tabla of Contents Abûhact.... ...................................~....................................................................................... ii ..* Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... III Tabie of oontents............ ., ............................................................................................ .iv List of maps......................................................................................................................... v List ot figures.......................................*.......................................~-................................. **..v lm- ..................,., ...................................................................................................1 Chapter 1. The juxtaposition of the centre and the margin.. ........................... .2$ Chapter 2. The margin Yrom above' ..................... ... ........ .. Chapter 3. The margin Yrom bdow'.. ............................ .... .................................. -73 Chapter 4. R&Mng the marpin. ....................................................................... 1 14 Appendix A: Data from the Census of Canada 1996............................................. 130 Appendk 8: Intenriam, and events.............................. ... Refemœs.................................................................................................................... .147 Lirt of mapr Map 1-The locations of Regent Park and Cabbagetown as these are currently undwstood......................... .. .......................................................................... ....3 Map 2- a) Cabôagetown Census tracts - b) Rûg~tPark CWWStractr .......................................................................... 6 Figure 1 : The Nosolitudesn, Gerrard St. East faing west ................. .. ....... 19 Figure 2: CeWagetown's econornic heatt, Parliament St. at the corner of cariton st ................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3: A mixing of old and new architecture, Parîiament St. at thcorner of Wnchester St ........................................... .......................................... Figure 4: The 'Benana Island' at the intersection of Parliament and Gerrard stmts*.........*.......................................................................*.................... 20 Figure 5: Richard Milgrom's workshop - 'Rmoâding Regent Park'. Sunday-in-aisPark, July 11, 1999............... ....... ............................ .4ô Figure 6: Badcyards ot ûundas S. East. 1905................................... 2 Figure 7: Regemt Park Nom as premted in an architect's drawing, about 1948.......................................................................................................... 50 Figure 8: Toronto Housing Authority Board lnspects Regent Park Area . 1947.......................................................................................................... 52 Figure 9: Last dey in old home .glad day in new . 1949............... ..... ...........54 Figure 10: a) Community gardens in front of aie Regjent Park Community Ministry United Chuich of Canada which is home to 13 groups of kccil action .40 Oak St .. RmtPark North....................................... 88 b) 1he old Rqent Park Community Hsalth Centre. located in Regent Park South................................................................................. 88 Figure 11 : Surveillance came-: who is watching for whose protection? .....98 Figure 12: David Zapparoli's photographs of Regent Park residents: ordinary peopie mng Mdinary lives........................... ...... 4 Figure 13: Cetch Da nava October 1998 issue on 'neighboumoodism'..... 104 To the cornrnunity of Regent Park vii Introduction Cabôagetown hm ml and a mail town fedhg. (...) There is a sense of prkb, a sense of omierahip, a bernie of ornnmurtity hem in the hart of this large cumopdtan dty. Cabbagetown is a place we can relate to bica*r of its human deand wamith; il is a pi- to saüsfy out mdWc senw. -the Cabbagetown Plsservation AsrilocCe!ion, Wdng OM CaMqgelown (1992: 5). .*O urbanista, miteds, flanm. and htstorians as well rn visita8 fram around globe (...) ane to see one of Nocth America's largest colledons of laîe nineteenth #witury homes, and aie mirade of a neighborhood th* worlrs in a dty that worlce. I tMnk chey should kicû people out no*i p.ople who cause tmubîe in Regent Park cihould be cunt out of il (sic).No or# Jiould peint on the wdls nor steal. Students should not swear nw fiM. They should be thinking of living togethet in p~loanâ bve adhmy. And (hwi we wwld be able to Ih together in peaœ. (Jlwn Gm;in madi. 1999: 30) In this thesis, I wish to explore the concept of the margin in urban social geography. Applying different interpretations to a cas8 Sudy of the margin tmtwmn Cabbagetown and Regent Park in Toronto, I will investigate the meaning of the concept and its usefulness for understanding larger societal processes. First, I will look at the modernist reading which is based on the assumption that the margin is produced and irnposed by the dominant group. Then, I will analyze the postmodernist perspective with the hope of filling in the gaps left by the first approach. The postmodemist critique opens the way to difference by enabling those who are oppr8SSBd and silenced to voice their world view. Finally, taking into consideration the limits of both the modemist and the postmodemist interpretation, I will tum to a mird way', to the ideas presented by border theoiy. According to this, the margin is a Wace of conflict, of negotiation, and of possi*Me hybridity; it is the meeting point between the dominant and the suôordinate, the edge wheie the dialectic between the two takes place.
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]
  • 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]
  • Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease
    HEALTH SURVEILLANCE INDICATORS: CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE Public Health Relevance Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is among the most common causes of illness and death in Canada. CVD refers to diseases of the circulatory system, which includes the heart and blood vessels. The six types of CVD are ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, rheumatic heart disease, and congenital heart disease. Ischemic heart disease, which is the most common cause of heart attack, and cerebrovascular disease, also known as stroke, are the most common CVDs and the most affected by behavioural risk factors. Behavioural risk factors for CVD include smoking, lack of exercise, and a diet high in fatty foods and salt and/or low in fruit and vegetables. Additional risk factors include overweight/obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and stress. Highlights 1. CVD hospitalization and mortality rates in Toronto decreased from 2003 to the most recent year of data. 2. The CVD hospitalization rate in Toronto was similar to the rest of the Greater Toronto Area and lower than the rest of Ontario. 3. Willowdale Don Mills and West Scarborough had lower hospitalization and mortality rates for CVD than Toronto as a whole. 4. Lower income groups in Toronto had higher CVD hospitalization rates compared to the highest income group. Trends Over Time CVD hospitalization and mortality rates in Toronto decreased from 2003 to the most recent year of data. Figure 1 shows age-standardized CVD hospitalization and mortality rates per 100,000 people from 2003 to the most recent year of data. Both hospitalization and mortality rates decreased over time in Toronto.
    [Show full text]