More Moss Park Final Report WHAT WE’VE LEARNED More Moss Park Final Report WHAT WE’VE LEARNED Contents

Executive summary 6 How the design team responded to community ideas and advice 38 Final Report 10 Early design work 40 Project overview 12 Refine phase: what we heard 44 The site 14 Issues that require further consideration, Who’s involved 16 based on response to September designs 50

Consultation overview 17 Community programming priorities 54

We had more than 2,500 conversations… 20 Social enterprise, procurement, community benefits and partnerships 56 Overview of public meetings 22 Next steps 58 Participant demographics 24 More Moss Park consultation activities 60 Meet the Community Organizers 26

Design phase: what we heard 28

4 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Executive summary More Moss Park: an overview The City and The 519 are working together with the community to Summary of key themes from the consultation create a proposal for new facilities and park space in Moss Park. If City Council approves the project based on the findings from the • Most people in the community are excited to • Many expressed a desire for more flexible, feasibility study, the redevelopment will provide an opportunity to see the redevelopment of facilities and park multi-purpose spaces so that the facility expand programs and spaces in Moss Park at a time when ’s space, though many raise questions about could be used for many different activities. community and recreational facilities face growing demand. As a how they will meet the diverse needs of all. partner in this project, The 519 brings a history of collaboration and • Food security was identified as a key issue relationship-building with local residents and services, as well as • Safety is the most commonly cited issue and opportunity for community-building. expertise in creating spaces that are equitable and accessible for all. among all consultation participants, including • Some people wonder how new spaces and people from vulnerable populations, such as programming will balance the needs of local The consultation process those who are experiencing homelessness. residents and regional users. From May through September, 2016 the More Moss Park public • Many community members were concerned consultation team talked to members of the Moss Park community • Given that Moss Park is home to many that the redevelopment would create about what they’d like to see in new facilities and park space. Team indigenous-serving organizations, the displacement, service disruption and loss of members conducted more than 2,500 conversations designed to redevelopment must include indigenous recreational services during construction. gather ideas and advice from local communities. The goals of the people in helping to shape the governance project are to improve facilities, programs and services, and to • Participants expressed a strong desire for and programming moving forward. create new buildings and spaces that are welcoming, equitable a more open and accessible site that is and accessible for all. welcoming to everyone.

6 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Overview of community response to early Issues that may require further design concepts and schematics consideration/refinement

Although the first phase of consultation has concluded, the • The decision to situate the building on the • Ice users welcomed the introduction of an NHL- consultation team is continuing discussions with local communities west side of the park received broad approval sized rink and outdoor ice feature, but many and support. This site would reduce impact said another full-sized rink is still needed. to address concerns as plans develop. Important issues to be considered include the following: on programming as the new facilities are • Many participants expressed support for the developed. Objections were raised from the amount of green space the plans feature, • Is there an appropriate balance between • How can we maximize economic development residents’ associations, who don’t think the but raised concerns about the proposed structured and unstructured green space? and capacity-building opportunities for proposed site placement is optimal because pathways, which don’t currently reflect local residents during and after construction? of increased activity and traffic along Shuter existing desire lines (informal pathways). • How can design decisions reflect and respond • How can the proposed facilities and park Street and are concerned that the building’s They also expressed concerns about a to the needs of vulnerable populations with a space accommodate the aspirations and placement beside the Armoury will create a possible pedestrian bridge that some history of trauma? support reconciliation, healing and place laneway for illegal activity. believed could pose a safety risk. • Will the proposed elevated walkway enhance making of indigenous communities? • The vertical building design, increased sports • Some sports enthusiasts raised concerns or reduce people’s experience of the park? and recreation spaces, community kitchen, about the lack of dedicated space for soccer • Are there ways to mitigate the concerns of expanded aquatics centre and flexible, multi- and baseball. Others felt these structured residents along Shuter Street who worry purpose spaces were all well-received. sports fields limited opportunities for other about the effects of increased activity and • There was support for the rooftop design, types of activities. traffic and the height of the building? Next steps particularly the green roof and active spaces, • There are concerns about rapid development • What further discussions need to happen to This report will be included in the although accessibility and concerns about and how increased demand for recreational ensure that the new facilities and park space final feasibility study on Moss Park shadows on the park were raised. space in the neighbourhood will impact low are as inclusive as possible? redevelopment that will be presented • The emphasis on lighting and visibility income and marginalized residents. Many of • How will local communities be engaged to City Council in early 2017. If Council throughout the park and community centre these residents already experience significant as plans develop? approves it and votes to move ahead was appreciated, although more conversations barriers when accessing community and with redevelopment, there will be more about personal and community safety will be recreational space. opportunities for the public to share required as the project moves forward. ideas and advice.

8 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Final Report

From May through September 2016, we had more than 2,500 conversations with the Moss Park community about what they’d like to see in new facilities and park space at Moss Park.

This report outlines what they said, and the shared vision that has emerged so far.

10 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Project overview Current Moss Park Site

John Innes Community Centre, Moss Park Arena and the park Shuter St. space around them have been fixtures of the Moss Park community for decades. (John Innes was built in 1951, while the Arena was

constructed during the 1970s.) The City and The 519 are partnering Bike Share in consultation with the community to build a shared vision for the Station future of the site. From May to September 2016, the More Moss Children’s Community Playgrounds Park consultation team conducted more than 2,500 conversations Gardens with local communities to find out what they’d like to see for the Senior new facilities and park space. Softball Children’s Diamond Splash Pad Community Tennis Courts Recreation The goals of the project are to improve facilities, programs Centre and services, and to create new buildings and spaces that are Sherbourne St. welcoming, equitable and accessible for all. So it’s critical that local Moss Park Sports Parking communities play a role in shaping them. Armoury Fields Community Arena Non-Regulation Soccer Field

Basketball Courts

Parking Lot

Queen St. E.

12 Final Report — What We’ve Learned The site

The site being proposed for redevelopment includes John Innes Community Centre, Moss Park Arena and the park space around them. It is bordered by East to the south, Sherbourne Street to the east, Shuter Street to the north and the Armoury to the west.

The neighbourhood surrounding the site is a diverse community that’s undergoing considerable change as new development brings more Torontonians to the neighbourhood. Moss Park has a significant population of people who are homeless or underhoused. Several shelters and organizations that serve this community are located in the neighbourhood. Many indigenous organizations are also located in the area, making it an important hub for indigenous communities.

Household income $ $ Moss Park vs. City of Toronto Average

Less than Moss Park 30% $20,000/yr Citywide 19%

Housing by building type Moss Park vs. City of Toronto Average

Single Moss Park 1% detached homes Citywide 26%

Apartment Moss Park 66% 5+ storeys Citywide 41%

Source: City of Toronto, 2011. The City’s research defines Moss Park as the area bounded by Carlton Street to the north; to the south; to the west and Parliament Street to the east; it also includes the area between Queen Street East and west of the .

14 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Consultation overview

While the formal consultation period began in May, the consultation Who’s involved team began working in early spring, meeting with local communities and service organizations to discuss the project and seek ideas and More Moss Park is a joint project of the as well as expertise in fundraising that it advice about the consultation process. These early conversations City and The 519. Redevelopment provides has developed as an AOCC community informed the design of the consultation and helped ensure the an opportunity for the City to expand its centre (Toronto’s Association of Community participation of a broad range of individuals and communities, programs and spaces in Moss Park at a time Centres facilities receive money for particularly marginalized and underserved residents, who do not when Toronto’s community and recreational administrative operations but rely on always feel comfortable participating in public meetings, formal facilities are in high — and still growing — fundraising and other sources of funding to focus groups and roundtables. The consultation team developed a demand. It also presents an opportunity pay for programs and services). The 519 also broad range of innovative ways to consult, including activities such to evaluate the program offerings that are has a wealth of experience creating spaces as basketball games, neighbourhood barbecues and skating parties, available now, assess what local residents that are equitable and accessible and has in addition to more conventional formal events like public meetings want and make sure their needs are being expertise working with equity-seeking groups and group presentations. met by developing a shared vision for what — in particular, the LGBTQ2S communities. the community wants and needs. As a More Moss Park partner, The 519 will Critical to this process was a group of Community Organizers who help the City develop innovative new models worked full-time to intentionally build and strengthen relationships As a partner in this project, The 519 brings for inclusion, fundraising and community with these communities, meeting them where they gather and where a history of collaboration and relationship- development that can be applied to other they live to talk about their needs and priorities. The strategy helped building with local residents and services, facilities in Toronto. ensure that all voices were heard during the consultation, including those that are often not included in conversations about change.

Ultimately, everyone who uses Moss Park — or would like to use it — was invited to share ideas and perspectives. When communities come together to discuss how we can collectively shape the future — and preserve what’s important — we make our neighbourhoods better for all.

16 Final Report — What We’ve Learned LAUNCH (May-early(May — early June) June) Begins conversations with with residents residents, The More Moss Park public consultation localand local communities communities; and gathersstakeholders; took place in three phases (launch, design gathersinitial ideas initial ideas and refine), offering the public multiple opportunities to have input on designs and plans as they emerged. The process included four community roundtables, the DESIGN (June-July)(June — July) first of which was designed to introduce the Explores emerging designdesign ideas ideas with project in May and gather ideas and advice communitywith community members; members; shares shares early from a broad range of community members. siteearly design site design concepts concepts The second, held in early June, introduced the design team and sought feedback on initial community priorities for new facilities and park space. At the third, held in late July, REFINE (August-September)(August — September) participants saw early design concepts and ImprovesImproves sitesite designdesign concepts concepts based based the new proposed site location and gave on communitypublic advice; input; refines refines design design feedback. That feedback was incorporated features andand programprogram approaches approaches into further design work presented to the community in mid-September. In between these roundtables, dozens of other sessions and activities took place. FEASIBILITYCONSULTATION REPORT REPORT (fall 2016) (EarlyThe report 2017) to City Council will be Thisshared consultation with the community. report will City be sharedcouncil withmust the approve community any proposal and for includedredeveloping in a thebroader park, feasibilitycommunity report thatcentre will and be arena. presented to City Council in 2017. City Council must approve any proposal for redeveloping the park, community centre and arena

18 Final Report — What We’ve Learned We had more than 2,500 conversations…

• 43 focus groups Total Participation in Each Type of Activity • 1 online survey Public Meetings 480 • 6 community events Community Events 306 • 4 public meetings Focus Groups 773 • 11 information table sessions Community Presentations • 136 interviews 95 Interviews 241 • 6 presentations to groups Information table sessions • 1 youth design competition 253 Online Survey 551 … with a diverse range of community groups Design Competition 79

• 25 co-ops, community housing buildings, neighbourhood associations and other local resident representatives • 15 park, arena, or community centre user groups • 19 sport league and rec program organizers • 21 parent, teacher, children and youth groups • 8 seniors groups • 18 groups of service agency and local shelter users • 64 service agency staff • 2 meetings with John Innes Community Centre staff • 32 local businesses • 11 indigenous groups and representatives • 14 groups or representatives of LGBTQ2S communities • 6 groups or representatives of people with disabilities

20 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Overview of public meetings

At a community roundtable in late May, the In early June, MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller At a July roundtable, MJMA and members of More Moss Park team presented: Architects (MJMA) and members of the More the More Moss Park team presented: • An overview of the More Moss Park project Moss Park design team presented: • An overview of the project, process • An overview of the consultation process • An overview of the design planning process and timelines • Key dates in the process and opportunities • An outline of issues to consider when thinking • An overview of key themes emerging from to participate about the major elements of the site: aquatics, consultation activities to date athletics (gym, studios, courts), the arena, • Questions designed to seek ideas and advice • Design considerations that shaped change rooms, indoor social spaces and the about what participants would like to see preliminary design thinking surrounding park and landscape • Preliminary design directions that included • Questions designed to seek feedback on each the proposed siting on the west side of of the elements the park and the notion of a multi-storied “stacked form” with an active rooftop • Questions designed to seek feedback on the early design work and shape refinements

In late September, MJMA and members of the More Moss Park team presented: • An overview of the project, process and timelines • An overview of key themes emerging from consultation activities to date • Rough design schematics and a discussion of how they incorporated ideas and advice • Questions designed to seek feedback on the rough design schematics

22 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Participant demographics

The team used a broad range of communication techniques and media to ensure that communities were well informed and updated about consultation activities, including a More Moss Park website, email blasts, regular social media presence, letter and flyer mailouts, neighbourhood postering, information tables, signs inside John Innes Community Centre and the Moss Park Arena, event listings in local media and media coverage.

More than 1,800 people participated in conversations and consultation activities, sharing thoughts and ideas based on the ways they connect with Moss Park. More than half lived within 650 metres of Moss Park:

6% No connection to Moss Park

Participants came from all age groups 11% Don’t live, work, volunteer or receive services nearby but use 0-14 9% Moss Park 15-24 9% 14% Work, volunteer or receive 25-44 42% services within a 10 min walk 45-64 31% 65+ 9%

18% Live between 650m and 1km

And used Moss Park in varying ways 51% Live within 650m

Use JICC 29% Use the Arena 27% Use the Park 44% 67% use at least 1 of the 3

24 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Meet the Community Organizers

Many people in Moss Park knew the consultation team by name: Shava, Jaymie, Curran, Barb and Ryan.

Hired by The 519 to ensure that the voices of the Moss Park community were clearly heard in the decision-making process, the Community Organizers worked tirelessly to bring people into conversations. “People have ideas about everything, from where the trash cans should go to what types of governing models should be used,” said Curran. “When I get asked, ‘What are you doing and why are you talking to me,’ my answer is, ‘I want to hear your thoughts.’ It’s my belief that your insights can make a difference in the long term future of this project.”

The organizers drew on their strong ties within Moss Park communities to bring people into the consultation process. They conducted dozens of focus groups and phone interviews in five languages, handed out flyers at more than a dozen social service organizations and shelters, surveyed Areas of focus sex workers at night and organized numerous informal activities like Community Organizers conducted a broad range of conversations and barbecues and basketball games aimed at providing more informal activities during the consultation, but with a particular emphasis on: opportunities for people to share ideas. • indigenous communities They also reached out to residents and service users on issues that ranged from community gardens to safe spaces for women, and • youth consulted with co-op boards, equity organizations, recreational • sex workers sports leagues, school boards and other community organizations. • street-involved and underhoused people They made sure children had a say by organizing a design challenge • families with children for young people who were interested in sharing their vision for Moss Park through drawings. • people living with substance use issues, and harm reduction experts • seniors and experts in accessibility design For Shava, a highlight of the work was providing a forum for people to share their ideas and experiences: “This consultation gave my neighbours an opportunity to be more than just a single mom, a taxpayer, a refugee, a homeless youth or a sex worker. They became voices that spoke volumes, that used their realities to help shape and inform what the space should look like.”

26 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Design phase: what we heard

During the Design Phase of the consultation, participants offered advice and ideas that helped determine priorities for early design ?? work. The following themes reflect the key issues that emerged through these conversations.

Most of those we talked to told us they’re excited to see the General park, the community centre and the arena redeveloped; many, perceptions however, believe it will be difficult to meet the diverse needs of of the project all nearby residents and current users, and some worry about whose needs will be given preference.

Most people we’ve spoken to who use the current facilities say While many people say that a redeveloped Despite concerns about competing priorities, they are excited about the possibility of better programs and Moss Park must serve the needs of those the results of our online survey suggest that spaces. People who don’t currently use them have also expressed who have the least access to community community members have identified universal enthusiasm for the project and said that improvements designed space and recreational opportunities, most values to guide this project: When asked to to make the facilities more accessible and welcoming would make also suggest that the new facilities shouldn’t select the three most important values that them more inclined to use them. (Reasons cited for not using Moss serve them exclusively; there are important should inform the plan for a redeveloped Moss Park spaces include concerns about safety, lack of knowledge about opportunities to build bridges and establish a Park, respondents chose “safe and secure,” what’s on offer, accessibility barriers and challenges registering for stronger sense of community. “welcoming” and “beautiful.” programs). About 22% of the consultation participants who said they lived/worked/volunteered or received services within one Many local residents, particularly those with low kilometre of the site say they don’t use the facilities or park. incomes, believe their needs and those of people who are most marginalized should be prioritized Even though the community centre, arena and park are valued places, over the needs of those who travel from other many feel they could be designed and programmed to better serve neighbourhoods to use Moss Park facilities. They local communities. In our online survey, 36% of respondents said know that new, improved facilities will result that the programs and services offered at John Innes Community in greater demand, and they worry that access Centre and Moss Park Arena don’t meet their needs (this percentage won’t necessarily be equitable. was lower among arena users, and significantly higher — 47% — among people who live within 650 metres of Moss Park). There is an These concerns go beyond design issues acknowledgment that different groups have different needs; Moss and relate to programming and scheduling Park can’t necessarily be all things to all people, and some express choices, which many people would like more serious concern about whose needs will be given priority. information about.

28 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Most residents told us that concerns about safety create major barriers to using the current facilities and park spaces; they Safety and hope a redeveloped Moss Park will use great design, quality security programming and effective community building to increase feelings of safety and security.

Safety is the most commonly cited concern among people who use there were different responses to the role of opportunities for recreation — would feel more the park and its facilities — and it’s a frequent issue mentioned by police presence in the facilities and park space. safe and welcoming and would lessen the those who don’t. In our online survey, 76% of respondents said they Some issues raised included concerns about need for formal security measures. Some local don’t feel safe in the park’s outdoor spaces (this statistic was even over-policing and racialized police violence businesses have also expressed interest in higher among people who live near the park and say they don’t use and carding. Some people who felt more working with the community centre to animate it. 85% said they felt the outdoor space was unsafe). Indoor spaces comfortable with police recommended more the space as well. were also described as unsafe by 26% of respondents (this figure involvement by them in Moss Park spaces, was even higher among people who live nearby but don’t use the while others felt that an increased police Some Moss Park residents also told us they facilities; safety was less of a concern among arena users). presence would lower their sense of security feel intimidated by the nearby Armoury due to and belonging. factors that include its gated, unwelcoming and Some residents told us they find the number of people congregating generally “cold” presence. outside the Sherbourne Street entrances to John Innes and the On-site security (as opposed to increased Arena intimidating. Many of the shelter users say they’d like to have police presence) was one potential solution Some felt landscaping, facility siting and better spaces within the park to relax and enjoy the green space and that people often agreed on during group design features could help hide the Armoury outdoor park features. discussions. Similarly, many groups reached or change the dynamic between the two sites. consensus around “opt-in” safety measures Some of those we’ve spoken with said they felt unsafe inside John such as emergency panic buttons where an Innes because of poor sightlines, cramped hallways and poorly individual or group has the option of signaling designed changerooms. Sightlines and lighting were also mentioned for assistance or security if they are feeling as safety issues in the park. as though their safety is compromised. When issues of safety arise, those we’ve spoken with often describe Many residents talked about how they felt complicated relationships with the police and their presence in Moss that a more lively and animated park space Park. While many people said they would like to feel more secure, — filled with more events, neighbours and

30 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Many residents hope that the design and programming of Accessibility new facilities will make them more open and accessible; currently, many perceive barriers to use.

People who participated in More Moss Park consultation activities was an arena.) The stairs that visitors need to climb to access were unanimous about one thing: They want to feel welcome in all John Innes are particularly challenging for many seniors and other of the new spaces. Easy, relatively unrestricted access to facilities less mobile residents. Buildings send subtler cues too, extending a — particularly washrooms — is something many people say welcome to visitors through design choices like artwork and through they would like to see. The current design of John Innes requires programming decisions that reflect the needs and interests of visitors to pass by a reception desk and makes some visitors feel specific groups of users. Many indigenous consultation participants unwelcome or excessively scrutinized when they enter and exit. said they hoped to see aboriginal art and nature-inspired design elements Some residents, particularly those who are under-housed or who incorporated into the design. They also hoped for spaces that recognize engage in sex work, said they would like nighttime/early morning the cultural importance of indigenous people, such as indoor smudging access to washrooms and showers. Some also said that multiple spaces and an outdoor sacred fire pit, and supported the inclusion of entrances and exits would provide greater freedom of movement Elders in groundbreaking and opening activities/ceremonies. and less of a feeling of being “policed.” An overarching concern for youth was the creation of equitable and Accessible design was the top priority throughout all of our accessible spaces and programs that ensure the full participation of conversations with seniors. We received detailed suggestions on individuals regardless of their identity, income level or lived experience. everything from the placement of water fountains to how wide the This involves maintaining and expanding free programming — especially corridors in the change rooms should be. Many seniors discussed culturally specific programming — access to computers, and the creation how their desire to access more community, recreational and social of gender-neutral changerooms and quiet spaces for studying. services is stymied by inaccessible buildings and outdated design. They hope that a newly designed building and park will address the many Overall, many residents talked about the lack of information re: barriers to access they face with the current spaces. Many participants programs, services and opportunities; they also expressed concern discussed how they would like to use the park areas, but are unable about registration practices that are challenging and in some cases to due to the lack of seating options and accessible pathways. make programs inaccessible: online booking, for instance, doesn’t work for people who don’t have computers, and many programs fill Overall, a welcoming, barrier-free design could help convey that the up so quickly offline registration isn’t possible. Another frustration new facilities are for everyone and invite people in. (Some people cited by many: John Innes’s free programs are often oversubscribed, said they weren’t aware that John Innes was a community centre, yet many of the people who register for them don’t show up. for instance; others were unaware that the neighbouring building

32 Final Report — What We’ve Learned For many residents, Moss Park’s public spaces serve as an Service disruption and displacement are a major worry for many; Communal extension of their homes; they say they hope for more open, regular users of Moss Park facilities express concern that they’ll Service flexible spaces where people can meet, gather, eat and work. have nowhere to go while the current site is being redeveloped. spaces interruption A diverse range of participants highlighted the need for spaces “Do not close the buildings during construction,” was a comment to meet and socialize outside the home. Seniors and youth were frequently expressed at public meetings and focus group especially vocal about the lack of space for relaxing and socializing. conversations, particularly with marginalized residents and social One focus group participant said she’d like “a big living room” at service organizations. Without access to John Innes Community Centre John Innes Community Centre, “where people can hang out.” Many and the surrounding park area, many residents have nowhere to go residents made similar comments, expressing desire for spaces during the daytime. This is especially true of shelter users, who are that could be used for a variety of needs that include working required to vacate facilities early in the morning and remain outside all at a computer, job-hunting, having lunch or snacks, and holding day. Families also expressed concerns about children’s programming meetings, presentations and group activities. being unavailable during construction. Even among people who are excited about the possibility of new facilities, strong concerns exist Flexible spaces that can be adapted to the needs of any individual or about Moss Park residents being left with no recreational spaces during group would enable people to use the park and facilities to get things construction. Many people said they had no other options for a gym, done, create things together and build stronger relationships within pool or green space and expressed hope that as much of the site as the Moss Park community. Some young people said they hoped to possible could be kept open for as long as possible. see a dedicated youth area in the new facilities where they could go after school to socialize, play games and access supports such as Food is cited by many people as a community builder, a factor in homework and employment assistance — a hope echoed by several Food good health, and a possible source of income; they hope to see local service organizations. Staff and programmers who work with facilities that help residents access, prepare and store food. security youth pointed out that youth-friendly spaces and programming should be designated as such, since “youth aren’t inclined to join Residents and local service organizations frequently talked about things open to the general public or that aren’t promoted as youth- food in conversations about Moss Park facilities, in many different focused programming.” One interviewee also cited the importance of contexts. Many residents want to be able to grow their own food, having youth have a voice in designing their own space. and value the community garden plot (the garden was the most frequently cited priority in conversations about outdoor features); Some residents also expressed a need for quiet, contemplative many say they’d like a place to prepare, cook and store food, either spaces that can be used for meditation and religious practices, for themselves or to generate income. Many see potential for among other things. food-based micro-businesses that could rely on commercial-grade kitchen facilities. Food-handling certification was also cited as a The desire for places to gather extended to outdoor space too. desirable programming opportunity for a kitchen facility. Preserving and expanding green space was the second-most commonly cited priority among consultation participants when Others say they’d like to be able to buy food on the premises, asked about their ideas for outdoor spaces. particularly fresh, healthy items, since grocery stores are lacking in the area. Overall, food security is a recurring theme that many hope the new facilities will help address.

34 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Growing demand for sports facilities in Toronto creates pressure Sports for Moss Park facilities to meet the needs of not only local facilities residents, but regional users too. Some people wonder how new spaces and programming will balance the needs of each.

Sport enthusiasts are accustomed, increasingly, to traveling across size, these leagues have expressed interest in use Moss Park facilities. About 70% rely on the city to play wherever they can find time and space, and many of moving to other locations downtown. Other City of Toronto facilities for space; 50% say them end up traveling to Moss Park. Many people cited hockey, in residents told us they rarely use the diamond, they’re on wait lists. In interviews with inclusive particular, as a draw for Torontonians from other neighbourhoods, and say baseball games are a barrier to park sports league organizers, respondents expressed since ice is relatively scarce and in such huge demand. Moss Park is use since wayward balls can be dangerous difficulty securing permits and bookings. the nearest arena for much of . Many arena users to people walking in the area. (Similar “Creating a social safe space and connecting have been using the facility for decades and would like to see more comments were made about tennis balls.) people is hard with disjointed permits and ice available, as well as more parking spaces, since hockey players Some also expressed concerns about bright locations or times,” one commented. The typically arrive in cars filled with equipment. lights staying on during night games and cost of permits also presented a barrier to the contributing to light pollution; fencing and sustainability of leagues and the involvement of The arena also serves the local community, with many participants baseball backstops were also identified as lower income members. in the large learn-to-skate program and free Saturday kids hockey possible impediments to movement through league coming from the nearby area. Many nearby residents who the park and crime prevention. Many youth who currently use John Innes don’t use the arena told us, however, that they didn’t know much discussed a need for more gym space, as it about the rink or its programs — some said they didn’t even know LGBTQ sports and recreation league participants is currently difficult to have more than one it was a public facility. Many mentioned an interest in skating, but also travel from other neighbourhoods to activity happening at once. lack opportunities to learn or the finances to pay for programs and equipment. Others travel to Nathan Phillips Square in the winter, where skates can be rented. Given the opportunity to learn — Most participants agreed that preserving green space — through lower-cost programming or equipment rental opportunities especially the mature tree canopy that currently exists on Green — many said they would be interested in skating. the site — should be a priority. space The baseball field, another feature that draws Torontonians from Potential loss of trees and green space in general was a surrounding neighbourhoods, generates a mixed response. Some concern mentioned at all of the public meetings. Many local residents use it regularly, including a group of players who have residents expressed hope as many trees as possible experienced homelessness and participate in a league organized by could be preserved. the City in partnership with local social service agencies. Families with children also expressed support for the City’s Learn-to-Play T-ball program for kids, a popular initiative run by John Innes staff. Two baseball leagues that use the park expressed concerns about its condition, citing holes in the field and the poor state of it in general, and also commented that games are often disrupted by pedestrians and other groups. Because the Moss Park diamond isn’t regulation

36 Final Report — What We’ve Learned How the design team responded to community ideas and advice

More Moss Park’s Design Team, led by MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects (MJMA), worked closely with the consultation team and the local community to ensure that designs reflected and incorporated community feedback, from early schematics through more refined designs. The team’s first step was to develop guidelines based on what they heard from community members. The following principles Design spaces to be accessible shaped their work throughout the design process: Plans for the new facilities and park areas will prioritize accessibility by ensuring that people can use spaces Design spaces to be inclusive easily and seamlessly. Design choices will focus on The new facilities and park areas will be welcoming to all, inviting creating spaces that invite use and provide barrier-free members of all communities to enter, participate and feel a sense of access with minimal restrictions. ownership over all spaces. Maximize green space—and potential uses of it Make safety a priority Plans will endeavour to maintain the proportion of The design team recognizes the right of all users to feel safe in Moss park and green space currently present on the site and Park’s facilities and park areas. Design choices will focus on creating facilitate a wide range of potential uses to reflect varying spaces that foster a sense of personal safety through features such needs and interests. as clear sightlines and lighting. Develop facilities with a reduced carbon impact Minimize service disruption To reflect the City and The 519’s shared commitment to Designs will be developed with the goal of eliminating service environmental sustainability, the architects will develop disruptions and preserving the use of John Innes Community Centre plans that minimize energy consumption and use low- and the Arena during any new construction. carbon-emitting or renewable energy sources to meet the remaining demand.

38 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Early design work

Drawing on the above design principles and feedback from the first phase of consultation Community kitchen space helps address food security concerns. activities, MJMA produced a set of preliminary design concepts that were presented to the public in late July for feedback. The preliminary design concepts attempted to address community An industrial-grade kitchen and proposed cafe help ensure access Early design concepts priorities in the following ways: to fresh, nutritious food. These facilities are located on the ground floor, making them readily accessible to all. The community were presented to the The new building was proposed to be sited Expanded sports and recreation facilities kitchen would also help facilitate micro-enterprise since local public in late July. on the west side of Moss Park to minimize create more opportunities. residents could use equipment and appliances there for catering disruptions and ensure that the existing Design features include an NHL-sized rink and food preparation initiatives. facilities can remain open during construction. that’s 40% larger than the existing ice pad, In addition to eliminating service disruptions, an outdoor skating area, multiple gym courts, the proposed location of the community centre several flex activity studios and a multi-use increases safety by opening up the park on three pool — all fully accessible. This expansion is sides and increasing the visibility into the park. facilitated by stacking the building vertically, The west side location offers other advantages creating a community centre that has too: the building’s positioning provides a buffer more levels than the existing facility and to the neighbouring Armoury, the presence accommodates more features and square of which many marginalized residents found footage overall. intimidating, protects the most mature trees (out of the available siting options) and leaves Flexible spaces allow for diverse use and open a large field space for sports and events. diverse user groups. Overall, the location facilitates more activity and Preliminary plans featured flexible studios for greater transparency. sport and social activities, park and rooftop areas designed for mixed uses, and an open and adaptable main floor that prioritizes community needs and community-building by offering many easily accessed gathering spaces.

40 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Safety concerns were factored into design choices throughout. Possible features presented as part of the preliminary design concepts: Clear sightlines were prioritized in an attempt to address safety • regulation indoor ice rink • community kitchen concerns. The location of the building opens up sightlines through the • outdoor skating area • indoor youth space park and makes activities within it more visible from all three surrounding streets. A commitment was also made to ensuring consistent light • multiple gym courts • rooftop activity spaces levels throughout the park to avoid dark corners that might feel • several flex activity studios • ground-level terrace unsafe. In the building itself, prominent windows and glass features were • multi-use pool • parking proposed, and clear sightlines within hallways and entrances, creating • range of changing options • outdoor splash pad/winter a greater sense of openness, transparency and safety. • easy-to-access washrooms ice feature A better connection between the building and the park enhances • cardio room • sport field and outdoor courts openness and transparency. • meeting rooms • playground By adding entrances and opening up the building to the outdoors • office and classroom space • community garden with more glass and window features, the proposed new building • space for community markets would be more open and transparent to the park, helping address • wood and workshop concerns about safety and accessibility. • restaurant and cafe Refine phase: what we heard There was considerable support for Many supported the choice to build the facility the rooftop design, although some vertically in order to maximize space and keep as expressed reservations. much park space as possible. People appreciated During the Refine Phase, discussions about the early designs continued, as did further the fact that the plans expanded the amount of conversations designed to seek input from and strengthen relationships with particular Some people thought moving at least some sports and recreation space available as well community groups, including youth, seniors, indigenous groups, families with children and people of the community garden to the roof keeps as increasing the existing green space. who engage in sex work. The following themes strive to summarize what we heard from the the garden away from drug use, litter and vandalism, while also allowing gardeners to feel community about the preliminary designs and further issues that residents raised during Refine Soccer and baseball players worried that the park more welcome. There were some concerns that Phase consultation activities. would no longer be able to accommodate them, the design created barriers to entry, however, since the outdoor areas didn’t feature dedicated particularly for gardeners who prefer to visit There was broad approval of the decision to sports fields. Some expressed concerns that early or late in the day. Access for the elderly site the building on the west side of the park. active sport activities in general wouldn’t be and people who use wheelchairs should also Many people appreciated that this proposed at the north side of the park was also a concern, supported by the new park, since the design be considered. Residents who lived nearby location would allow the current facilities to stay since this area currently offers a welcome, quiet suggests passive uses for open outdoor areas. also raised concerns about the height of the open during construction and indicated that space. Some people also raised concerns that Others, however, welcomed the unstructured building, its proximity to nearby homes and the the decision allayed their fears about losing the new building would be too far away from green space, pointing out that structured play shadowing that a vertical design creates. services. Other benefits of the proposed siting transit stops, particularly the new often limits the use of park spaces. City of were also broadly supported: participants liked station, proposed for the corner of Sherbourne Toronto staff have conducted exhaustive analysis that it increased safety and visibility within the and Queen East. Overall, however, most Some participants highlighted the benefits of the use — and users — of the existing soccer park and that it opened up the space available participants supported the proposed siting. of flexible, multi-purpose spaces — including pitch and baseball field and have found that the for outdoor activities, facilitating a wider range Some raised questions about the building’s the flex studios, meeting spaces and multi- majority of field use could be accommodated by of uses. The residents’ associations voiced relationship to the Armoury and wondered use ground floor spaces that have been other nearby facilities. Given that the majority concerns about the proposed siting, suggesting about the appropriateness of the siting given incorporated into plans. of sport field users are from outside of the Moss that it would increase traffic on Shuter Street the hope that the federal government-owned Park community, relocating baseball and soccer since the service road for deliveries would property could one day be handed over to the City. While some questioned whether these spaces to another facility helps to facilitate a broader be accessed from the north. They also cited a The design team responded by saying that if this could in fact be shared (“Will the areas be range of use in the park and allows for “pop-up” concern that the location of the building would happened, the site wouldn’t be compromised. managed and controlled? I want to be able to sports activities to continue as well. create an alley between the Armoury and the Because the proposed design features an open, bring my children there but I’m worried about community centre that would be used for illegal ground-floor plan with entrances, exits and who might be there using those large seating activity, especially after hours. As well, they programming space on all sides the building areas —street-involved, drug users, etc.”), worried that the new building would afford can be fully integrated within an expanded site. many participants welcomed the inclusion of views into their homes from the upper levels, spaces that could accommodate diverse uses compromising their privacy. Increased activity and diverse user groups.

44 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Ice users welcomed the introduction of an Many people welcomed the emphasis on outdoor lighting features, NHL-sized rink, and many said another visibility throughout the park and community centre, and clear sightlines. full-sized rink is still needed. While they appreciated that safety was being considered, many In general, ice users agree that demand for added, it should be full-size rather than a half- continued to feel uncertain about whether the new outdoor space rinks exceeds the supply of available facilities. pad. Programs that could move to an indoor would feel safer than the current park space. Most ice users who come to Moss Park do so half-pad, and thus free up capacity on the full- Many said they were happy to see more natural light incorporated into because it is the closest arena to where they size rink, would likely be limited. (As plans are the new facilities, which they said was preferable to harsh, and often live. They may not be from the immediate developed and refined, conversations about inconsistent, indoor lighting. They also appreciated the improved sightlines, area, but no other arena is closer for them. additional ice capacity should continue.) While particularly parents, who were pleased to see that the playground was Others have a historical connection to Moss ground-level placement of the arena is preferred to highly visible. Consistent night-time lighting was also welcome, although a Park or come for a particular program not underground positioning, concerns were mostly few nearby residents worried about the potential of light pollution should offered elsewhere (e.g. the lesbian-positive described in terms of physical accessibility the area become highly illuminated. Overall, however, many participants hockey league). issues (stairs etc. with equipment), safety in continued to express concerns about safety. underground parking lots, and the loss of the Most users were pleased to see the expansion opportunity to add natural light to the arena. of the rink to NHL regulation size, but said that When shown the proposed design ideas, ice one, albeit larger, rink is still inadequate. The users were generally positive about the potential new outdoor ice feature, while welcomed by for accessible (elevator, ramp) access to the all, was seen as limited in terms of expanding underground arena. They hoped there would be capacity for organized sports and lessons. visibility from the park into the arena itself. They also noted that if another rink were

46 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Parents welcomed the children’s playground and hope to see plans for it developed further. Many said they’d like to see more than one playground to accommodate the needs of younger and older children. They also hoped to see rubber surfaces instead of the wood chips that are currently used to cover the surface of the existing playground, since garbage and discarded needles can often be hidden among the chips.

Further design work: schematics Taking into consideration the ideas and advice that community members were sharing, MJMA developed the early design concepts further and presented schematics at a September Community Roundtable. Key features that were presented included designs of the outdoor park space and the following building features:

• multiple gyms Outdoor features included: • flex studios • larger splash pad • 2 pools (lane + leisure) • active roof with track + community garden • regulation-size ice rink and outdoor skating pad • 5% more park space • workout & wellness spaces • extensive seating curb + additional furniture • indoor running tracks • 500 metres of park path • cafe, industrial kitchen and community • kids and family playground kitchen • swing sets • youth space; kid-minding space • new pathways • program room; gym-side lounge and • elevated walkway offering a view of the workshop entire park, downtown and uninterrupted • meeting rooms access to Queen and Sherbourne • multiple washrooms on each floor • addition of more than 250 trees • 4 main entrances + sliding doors, all at-grade • 3 elevators • balconies • increased parking • solar panels; a water waste reduction system; and geothermal energy

48 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Issues that require further consideration, based on response to September designs Are there ways to mitigate the concerns How will dogs be accommodated? While this first phase of public consultation has now wrapped up, of residents along Shuter Street who Some participants highlighted the need the consultation team intends to continue discussions with local worry about the effects of increased to address the presence of dogs in the communities as plans develop. Key issues to consider include: activity and traffic? park, which is likely to increase as the area Is there an appropriate balance between What further decisions need to be made to Because designs are still preliminary and gentrifies. A few specifically requested an structured and unstructured green space? ensure that the new facilities and park space will continue to evolve, further opportunities off-leash dog park be added to the site, while exist to mitigate concerns. At the September others simply noted that the presence of dogs Roundtable participants raised concerns about are as inclusive as possible? Community Roundtable, City of Toronto was all but assured and that their activities the bowl shape of the common, unstructured Several participants provided positive feedback planning staff explained that Shuter Street is would need to be managed. outdoor space. Some thought that the slope concerning the current design’s focus on intended to serve as a main artery into and of the bowl would unnecessarily constrain inclusivity, recognizing the current design as out of the downtown area and that residents What types of outdoor seating will meet functional active space for activities like soccer a positive step towards the vision described should expect higher levels of traffic as the city people’s needs? and other pick-up sports. While members of by the project team. But despite recognizing core develops. They also advised against using the design team stressed that the space was inclusive design features, some participants Many people — particularly families, seniors Sherbourne Street or Queen Street East for sufficient for informal games of soccer and expressed continued concern about whether and people who are underhoused — expressed service roads leading into the new community baseball, some participants wondered whether the new facility can actually achieve inclusivity a need for more seating outdoors to support centre because they would interfere with soccer nets or a baseball backstop should be for the most marginalized. A few participants informal, unstructured park use. existing vehicle and TTC traffic. That said, the added to at least passively facilitate these sports. expressed broader concerns about how consultation team recognizes the desire to gentrification in the neighbourhood would make minimize disruption to the neighbourhood and Will the proposed elevated walkway enhance it increasingly difficult to achieve inclusivity, as plans to continue conversations with residents or reduce people’s experience of the park? this would lead to greater proportions of middle- in the area to discuss ways to reduce noise and More than a dozen participants at several and high-income residents using the facility. other concerns through design refinements different tables expressed concerns about Some highlighted the Sherbourne Street border such as setting service areas farther back from the elevated walkway. These individuals felt of the park as an area that requires further the street. The height and setback of the public that it would unnecessarily reduce safety by design consideration: how will it accommodate rooftop area could also be altered to address blocking sightlines and create a covered, dim the marginalized shelter users who currently concerns. MJMA and the consultation team area under the walkway. A small number of congregate there? have continued to meet with the residents to others felt the placement of the walkway and further refine the design of the facility and the related pathways created unnecessary Some participants suggested programming is park to respond to these concerns. The new constraints on the size of the open space, an important tool to achieve inclusivity. Others designs will be made available on the Moss thus reducing the available space for active suggested creating specific gathering spaces for Park website in advance of the Council Report pick-up sports like soccer. Others expressed indigenous peoples, such as a fire pit managed in — so stay connected. uncertainty about the walkway while only a partnership with a local indigenous service agency. couple expressed support for it.

50 Final Report — What We’ve Learned How will local communities be engaged as plans develop? The consultation team understands that receiving detailed information about what was further consultation and engagement is to be discussed well in advance of the meetings needed to develop design and programming and suggested this be continued in the future. details. As we develop plans, we remain All of these concerns and issues will be committed to ensuring that diverse and wide- incorporated into further consultation ranging perspectives are reflected, including and engagement plans and activities. The those of marginalized community members. consultation team will work with the City to In terms of what we’ve heard so far, many explore models of access and engagement participants recommended that the next phase that can be used to ensure the involvement of of engagement involve residents and users in diverse members of the Moss Park community. more detailed, focused conversations about Marginalized residents, in particular, must aspects of programming and safety. Several be integrated not only into consultation participants asked that additional information and engagement processes but also into the be provided to the community, in particular processes to design the facilities and programs related to the roles of The City and The 519 that are ultimately developed. It’s important in both the current decision-making and the to begin now to test models and gain a deeper ultimate operation and programming of the understanding of how diverse users can share facility. Others asked for more information spaces. These efforts are already beginning about how current staff would be transitioned, through conversations with community-based who would be responsible for park and facility service providers to explore how to enhance maintenance, and the timeline for construction. access to John Innes Community Centre for Others requested regular updates to the residents of Toronto Community Housing community and ongoing mechanisms (likely buildings, for instance. Community organizers online) for residents and users to get in touch will also work to find creative ways to involve with the project on an as-needed basis. these residents and other vulnerable groups in recreational activities moving forward. The Some participants encouraged The City and The consultation team recognizes the importance 519 to do additional promotion and reminders of creating a resident-focused engagement concerning major events — signage in the park strategy now that can begin to build critical was suggested by a few. Some appreciated relationships and best practices.

52 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Community programming priorities More programming for youth. Involve indigenous people in decision-making. Young participants and service organizations in Among indigenous consultation participants, Participants made thousands of suggestions about how the new the Moss Park area that work with them were there has been a unanimous call for indigenous facilities and park space should be programmed. The following keen to see programs specifically designed for involvement in governance, staffing and As the design came items reflect the most common issues and suggestions: youth. Service organization staff also stressed decision-making, not mere advisory roles. into view, what ideas that programs for youth should be clearly Participants also identified a strong need most excited people Ensure that free programming continues. labeled as such, since young people often for ongoing staff training and anti-racist in terms of what the Most participants expressed expectations that existing programs stay away from all-ages programming geared engagement to help foster cultural safety for facility could provide? would continue to be free, although new programs could have toward the general public. Additionally, youth indigenous community members. Indigenous The five most popular costs associated wtih them. wanted a community centre that took a wider groups have also highlighted the opportunity priorities from in-person view of what recreation is, offering space and for placemaking by creating a meeting place discussions (beyond Offer a diverse range of indoor programs that cater to the opportunities for arts-based programming in for indigenous people on the site, an initiative standard recreational various groups using the facility. addition to more typical sports-based activities. that’s now being actively explored with the activities) were: social Some of the suggested activities include yoga, mindfulness Indigenous Place Making Council. This project More programming for street-involved women. services & programs; classes, tai chi, group fitness, basketball, a dance studio, and would engage indigenous youth, in particular, educational and skill arts and culture classes. Fitness facilities were identified as an A key issue raised by many sex workers and to create an inspiring space that restores development classes; important draw to get various groups in the community involved. service providers was the need for more space indigenous presence on the site as part of seniors programming; and programming geared towards street- reconciliation and healing. community events like More programming for seniors. involved women. This includes employment and Incorporate a harm-reduction strategy into movie nights, and art/ Many cited the need for programming for seniors, particularly life-skills training, a safe space for women to public, community space. creative programming. seniors groups and social service organizations in the area, who socialize and connect with one another during identified isolation and lack of activity as a problem. (More than the night, and targeted recreational programs for Through focus groups, one-on-one meetings, 50% of seniors live alone in Moss Park.) Expanded cooking women who have mental health difficulties or community events and in-person outreach, and gardening opportunities were often mentioned as a way to lack access to low-cost, nutritious food. As one the More Moss Park team is working with provide intergenerational programming so seniors can share their participant said, “Due to the stigma, constant harm reduction experts and service providers expertise with other generations while becoming more connected discrimination, we’re afraid… we need classes to to develop a harm-reduction strategy for the to the neighbourhood and increasing food security. help us pay our bills, help us cope in life.” site. As one harm reduction expert stated, “We need to discuss the how of implementation; not Animate outdoor spaces. get lost in whether or not we should do it – we Many participants pointed out that one way to should.” This strategy should engage and include ensure the safety of the park is to keep it busy existing community members (who are often and animated. Outdoor, year-round programs and excluded), consider harm reduction service activities should be a key part of programming. provision and program delivery and provide ongoing safe space for community access.

54 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Social enterprise, procurement, community benefits and partnerships

Organizations in the community offered a number of valuable suggestions about ways to leverage relationships, form partnerships and develop spaces and programs that offer maximum benefit to the community. Discussions with 64 service agency staff at more than 15 local organizations yielded the following suggestions, and these Develop community programming initiatives Offer access to computers. conversations will continue if City Council approves the redevelopment. around a commercial-grade kitchen. Regular co-ordination and outreach to local organizations would help Access to computers was cited as an important uncover opportunities to meet their emerging needs. More than a dozen local organizations identified consideration for many in the community who this as a key community-building opportunity. do not have a computer at home or who do not Create a hub for the delivery of community resources and programming. Several groups expressed interest in using the have a library card. A common theme that emerged from these discussions was the idea kitchen for food preparation for community of using the community centre as a place to connect people with vital events, hands-on community-based food Support community-led activities resources and health services. Suggestions included: ID clinics, foot programming/classes and social enterprise. with rental space. health clinics, haircuts, employment opportunity co-ordination, dental Connecting a small café and event space Several service organizations highlighted services, acupuncture, diabetes care, nurse practitioner visits, recovery to the community kitchen could provide an demand for affordable rental space for activities groups, counselling, crisis management services and other medical employment opportunity in the community and run by organizations in the community that do and mental health-related programs. A combination of social service help decrease reliance on food banks in the area. not have adequate on-site space. agencies could co-ordinate the delivery of clinical care in a designated Some also suggested the kitchen could support place within the community centre. small income generation by providing food Create employment opportunities. handling certification training. Several expressed Staffing and maintenance of the park and Given that at least some of these proposed programs and services will support for the Foodshare model. While at building facilities could create valuable training be offered as part of the City’s George Street Revitalization project, least one participant expressed concern that and employment opportunities for people in it will be important to develop a strategic approach to community “restaurant-based social enterprises have an the neighbourhood. Providing real, meaningful recreation and health services in order to maximize available resources. 80% failure rate,” it’s important to note The opportunities and job skills development is a Within the neighbourhood, it’s clear that these services and programs 519 has a proven success record of operating critical objective of redevelopment plans. are needed; those offered at Moss Park should complement and not a revenue-generating cafe. necessarily duplicate those offered at George Street so that the overall offering meets multiple needs and issues.

56 Final Report — What We’ve Learned Next steps

While the More Moss Park consultation team represent an important opportunity to re- has spoken with many groups and individuals establish indigenous presence in Moss Park and over the past number of months, the team will be explored as part of the team’s ongoing recognizes that the conversations need to efforts to strengthen relationships with continue. This document will be included in indigenous people in the area. the final report on the feasibility of developing new facilities and park space. This report will Community centres and the public spaces be presented to City Council early in 2017. that surround them play a vital role in the If Council approves moving ahead with communities they serve by offering a safe, redevelopment, there will be more opportunities accessible place for all. Moss Park’s new for the public to share ideas and advice. Ongoing facilities could play a stronger and even more collaboration will be critical to this next phase. important role in city-building. They could serve How to stay updated The More Moss Park team will continue working not only as a much-needed neighbourhood hub but as a model for the city that pioneers new to actively engage community members and, The More Moss Park website will be updated as the project ways to integrate communities and develops in particular, community service providers, who evolves. To see the latest updates, visit www.moremosspark.ca, best practices that ensure that vulnerable have an important role to play in refining the where you can also sign up for email newsletters. design plans and development model. populations’ needs are being met. As the project moves forward, we hope to explore new Indigenous groups will also be engaged ways to engage communities now to ensure Thank you more deeply to ensure their perspectives are that all people are accommodated — and Thanks to everyone who took the time to share advice and ideas informing the collective vision as plans develop welcomed — in new facilities at Moss Park. (More Moss Park heard more than 6,500 suggestions in total)! further. Partnerships with initiatives such as the Your many suggestions are being carefully considered and will re>Tkaronto project, a placemaking initiative continue to inspire the emerging plans for a revitalized Moss Park. led by the Indigenous Place Making Council,

Feasibility Study Timelines

REFINE DESIGN PRESENT TO AND DEVELOP CONSTRUCTION OPEN COUNCIL PROGRAM

March 2017 April 2017 and onwards

58 Final Report — What We’ve Learned More Moss Park Consultation Activities Groups and organizations engaged Public events: Themed focus groups: 416 Community Support for Women Moss Park House League 519 Sunday drop-in participants Native Women’s Resource Centre Public meetings (4) Community gardens, food and micro-business African Partnership Against AIDS Neighbourhood Information Post Community free skate and drop-in consultation (2) Accessibility All Saints Community Centre Neighbourhood Legal Services Back to School Bash family event Inclusive sport Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians Nelson Mandela Park Public School and Parent Council Moss Park Portrait Project Harm reduction meetings (2) Alzheimer Society of Toronto Ode Youth Basketball Competition Anishnawbe Health Blind Sports Association Team Up to Clean Up community event Info tables: Cabbagetown South Residents’ Association Open Streets Toronto Moss Park Summer Fest Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture Out Sport Children’s Design Challenge 251 Shuter Central Neighbourhood House Out&Out Online survey 275 Shuter 285 Shuter Central Toronto Skating Club PARC (Parkdale Activity Rec Centre) 200 Sherbourne Charlie’s Freewheels Pathways to Education Focus groups: John Innes Community Centre Children’s Book Bank Pink Turf 416 Community Resources for Women 295 Shuter Christian Resource Centre Progress Place 519 Sunday drop-in Early Years Health Promotion Day Council Fire Queen West Community Health Centre 291 George Street All Saints Seniors BBQ Covenant House Rainbow Hoops 275 Shuter Moss Park Market Dixon Hall Community Centre 295 Shuter Downtown East Softball League (DIESEL) Regent Park Community Health Centre Downtown Swim Club Rekai Centres 200 Sherbourne Presentations: 251 Sherbourne Egale Youth Outreach Ryerson University Cabbagetown South Residents’ Association Charlie’s Freewheels Evergreen Street Youth St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Board Hazelburn Co-op Board Council Fire Fabarnak – The 519 Café St. Michael’s Hospital Family Health Team Marketview Co-op Board Covenant House Fifehouse St. Paul Catholic School St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Fife House/Woodgreen Filipino Community Centre for Youth Workers Senior Pride Network Senior Pride Network Filipino Community Centre for Youth Workers Foodshare SGMT/TBC Practice Fred Victor Centre Fred Victor Centre Gateway House Discussion: Fred Victor – Catering Seventh Generation Midwives Toronto Good Neighbour’s Club George Brown College students Fudger House Sherbourne Health Centre Houselink Garden District Residents Association Street Health Hugh Garner Co-op residents Individual outreach and conversations with: Gateway House TD Learning Centre John Innes Community Centre participants George Brown College The Stop Harm reduction workers John Innes Community Centre staff George Brown College Bridging for Immigrants Program Toronto Accessible Sports Council Indigenous health and service providers JICC Youth and Youth Workers Good Neighbour’s Club Toronto Community Housing Seniors and senior service users Jarvis Collegiate Grace Church Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre Sex workers LGBT 50+ Houselink Toronto Drop-In Network Local residents Maxwell Meighen Shelter Hugh Garner Co-op Toronto Enterprise Fund Toronto Community Housing residents Meal Trans Jarvis Collegiate Toronto Mutual Fund Softball League Shelter users Moss Park Arena users John Innes Community Centre (users and staff) Toronto Police Services John Innes Community Centre participants Native Women’s Resource Centre of Toronto June Callwood Centre Toronto Seniors’ Forum Moss Park Arena and Park users Ode Learning Enrichment Foundation Toronto Spartan Volleyball League Faith leaders St. Paul Catholic School (2) Maxwell Meighen Shelter — The Salvation Army Toronto Sport and Social Club Local businesses SGMT/TBC Practice Meal Trans Trans Youth Mentorship Program TD Learning Centre Miziwe Biik Aboriginal Employment and Training Womens Hockey Club of Toronto Trans Youth Mentorship Program Monday Shelter Baseball League WoodGreen Community Services Moss Park Arena Yonge St Mission

60 Final Report — What We’ve Learned

For more information and to sign up for email updates, visit moremosspark.ca or call 416-355-6777

@MoreMossPark