scarborough village revitalization study

Cedar Dr

Cougar Crt

Eglinton AveScarborough VillageRevitalization StudyOpportunities For ACommunity Improvement PlanPrepared By:Scarborough Village Studio GroupSchool of Urban & Regional PlanningRyerson University

For:Action for Neighbourhood Change Scarborough VillageAction for Neighbourhood Change Residents AssociationScarborough Centre for Healthy CommunitiesYWCA Scarborough Village

December 2010

Scarborough Village Revitaliza on Study:Opportuni es For A Community Improvement Plan

Studio Group

Michael Binne Cale BrillingerTim Kennedy

Shehryar KhanMichal Kuzniar

Joshua MacleodDerek Nawrot

Melissa NguyenVi orio SimoneNicholas SuppaJasmine Tranter

Faculty AdvisorDonald Verbanac

Client Contacts

Bianca Sanchez, Client Representa ve CoordinatorAssociate Partner in Scarborough VillageTel.: 905 903 5736Toronto4you@sympa co.ca

Wosen Y. Beyene, ManagerAc on for Neighbourhood Change Scarborough VillageScarborough Village-Westhill, Scarborough, ONTel.: 416 261 0150 (Offi ce)[email protected]

Mike McKenzieAc on for Neighbourhood Change Residents Associa on202 Markham Road, Scarborough, ONTel.: 416 830 6855

Jeanie Joaquin, Execu ve DirectorScarborough Centre for Healthy Communi es3545 Kingston Road, Scarborough, ONTel.: 416 847 [email protected]

Janice Earle, ManagerYWCA Scarborough Village3730 Kingston Road, 2nd Floor, Scarborough, ONTel.: 416 264 5788 x 238

This 4th year studio project comprises part of the requirement for Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional Planning PLG 720 course.

School of Urban and Regional PlanningRyerson University105 Bond Street, Toronto, ONM5B 1Y3

1.0 Background 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Ra onale 1 1.3 Methodology 4 1.4 Project Area Informa on 7 1.5 Context 9 1.6 Public Realm 12 2.0 Community Improvement Plan Policy Context 2.1 Legisla ve Authority and Policy Basis 13 2.2 Goals and Objec ves 14 2.3 Recommended Grants 15 2.3.1 Grant and Funding Programs Synopsis 15 2.3.2 Commercial Façade Improvement Program 15 2.3.3 Mural Program 15 2.3.4 Streetscape Improvement Program 17 2.3.5 Various Grants for Community Arts, Dance, Literacy, Music, Theatre and Visual and Media Arts 17 2.3.6 Compe veness, Crea vity and Collabora on Investment Program 17 2.3.7 Community Safety Investment Program 18 2.3.8 Community Service Partnership 18 2.3.9 Iden fy N’ Impact Investment Fund 18 2.3.10 Live Green Community Investment Program 18 2.3.11 Community Grants Program 19 2.3.12 Beau ful Streets Program 19

3.0 Recommenda ons 3.1 Design Issues and Challenges 21 3.2 Design Recommenda ons 26 3.2.1 Cougar Court 27 3.2.2 Informal Pathway 29 3.2.3 Dunelm Street Lands 30 3.2.4 35 Cedar Drive 31 3.2.5 Informal Pedestrian Crossings 32 3.2.6 Forest Pathway 33 3.2.7 Intersec on at Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East 34 3.2.8 Pedestrian Realm along Eglinton Avenue East and Markham Road 35 3.2.9 Improvement of Retail Plazas 37 3.2.10 Semi-Private Space Surrounding 3380 - 3434 Eglinton Avenue East Apartment Complex 38

Table of Contents

4.0 Marke ng Strategy 39

5.0 Next Steps 41

References

Appendix A: Background Studies and Analysis 1. YWCA Needs Analysis Report 2. Strong Neighbourhoods: A Call to Ac on 3. Walkability in Toronto’s Apartment Neighbourhoods 4. Priori es to Strengthen Neighbourhoods 5. ANC Plaza Project in Scarborough Village 6. ANC Neighbourhood Vitality Index 7. Mayor’s Tower Renewal Recommenda ons 8. Tower Renewal Financing Op ons Report 9. University of Toronto Research Proposal on Greyfi elds 10. University of Toronto “Vision and Ac on Plan” for Scarborough Village

Appendix B: Municipal Policies and Relevant Documenta on 1. Planning Act Policies 2. City of Toronto Act Policies 3. CPTED Principles

Appendix C: Interviews relevant to Scarborough Village Revitaliza on

Appendix D: Suppor ng Maps 1. City of Toronto Zoning By-Law 2. City of Toronto Offi cial Plan Land Use 3. Avenues and Midrise Buildings Study 4. Figure Ground 5. Road Classifi ca ons 6. Transit Circula on 7. Public Green Space and Parks

1

Figure 1 - Scarborough Village Community Centre and Theatre.

1.1 Purpose

A group of eleven senior planning students studied the opportuni es and constraints associated with the revitaliza on of the Scarborough Village neighbourhood. This report is the fi nal deliverable. This report is meant to provide the basis for a Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for Scarborough Village. The strategies proposed are in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Aff airs and Housing Community Improvement Handbook 2008 which establishes expecta ons with respect to neighbourhoods forming community improvement plans.

1.2 Ra onale

Scarborough Village is an area in need of change. This change requires a plan, and a Community Improvement Plan will play an important role in guiding the area in addressing local needs, priori es and circumstances. A CIP will deliver a new vision for Scarborough Village and will provide some of the tools that will allow for local landowners and community organiza ons to implement the recommenda ons. This report will iden fy the opportuni es towards the crea on of a community improvement plan.

The recommenda ons seek to create a plan that indicates the coinciding roles of the private and public realms in an a empt to revitalize

retail and housing, enhance the pedestrian experience, and create an overall improvement to the quality of life in Scarborough Village.

The vision contained in this report will seek to enhance Scarborough Village as a whole, as local businesses and the larger community stand to benefi t from the private and public ini a ves outlined throughout. The neighbourhood may also become more of a des na on for surrounding area residents as improved retail and streetscapes make it more desirable. Since Scarborough Village is listed as one of Toronto’s 13 Priority Neighbourhoods, improvement of the area will ul mately benefi t the City of Toronto.

1.0 Background

Loca on Map

ScarboroughVillage

Lake Ontario

Guildwood

West Hill

Woburn

Eglinton East

KennedyPark

Ionview

BendaleDorset

Park

Clairlea-Birchmount

Cli crest

Neighbourhoods Map

4

1.3 Methodology

Over the course of this semester, several steps were taken towards the comple on of this report. The fi rst step was the crea on of a Terms of Reference that was agreed upon through collabora on of the group’s vision and the original vision of the client. Next, the scope of work was determined, and the project was divided into two main deliverables, the Interim Scope Review and the Final Report.

The Interim Scope Review consisted of research including:

• Background studies such as site-specifi c literature reviews and case studies;

• A review of relevant provincial and municipal policies and legisla on; and

• Establishing context through mapping and site surveys including walking tours, site photos and aerials photos.

The Dra and Final Report consisted of:• Background studies and context of the

neighbourhood;• Interviews with professionals with

knowledge of the neighbourhood; • Design chare e recommenda ons;• Sources of funding including grants and

other programs;• Recommenda ons for the area;• Marke ng strategies for the area; and• Next steps.

The Final Report provides the Scarborough Village community with some of the tools and the background informa on necessary to pursue a Community Improvement Plan for the area.

Methodology Flow Chart

Terms of References

Scope of Work

Interim Scope Review

Policy

Provinicial Municipal Other

Background Studies

Literature Review

Case Studies

Site Specific

Context

Mapping

Site Surveys

Aerial Views Photos Walking

Tour

Draft Proposal

Design Charette

Funding/Grants

Interviews

Final Report

Recommend-ations

Marketing Strategies Next Steps

Project Area Map

Markham

RdEglinton Ave

CN Railway

Kingsto

n Rd

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St

Scarborough Golf Club Rd

Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

CIP Study Area

Approved Site Plan AreaMarkington Square by RioCan

Owned by RioCan

Openspace

Vacant Land

7

1.4 Project Area Informa on

Scarborough Village is located 19 kilometres east of downtown Toronto, 12 kilometres east of the Don Valley Parkway, 5 kilometres south of Highway 401 and just a few kilometers from the Scarborough Bluff s. The neighbourhood is at the junc on of three major arterial roads, Markham Road, Eglinton Avenue East and Kingston Road. The core of Scarborough Village is dominated by high rise apartment and condominium buildings, strip retail plazas, and an outdoor shopping centre known as Markington Square. The area south of Kingston Road features a more affl uent popula on with large single-family homes overlooking the Scarborough Bluff s and Lake Ontario.

The design of the public realm in Scarborough Village represents a me when development was primarily automobile oriented. The neighbourhood features wide arterial roads, narrow sidewalks, large spaces of grass, and parking areas surrounding the majority of the high rise buildings.

The majority of buildings in the Scarborough Village neighbourhood were constructed in the 1960’s and 1970’s, with only a handful of buildings constructed in the past 20 years. The most recent development is an Op ons for Homes development located on the south side of the Markington Square Shopping Center along Kingston Road. This not-for-profi t development engages residents with low incomes to purchase a row house or single family unit. A common commercial design feature in this area is strip retail plazas fronted with small parking lots.

Popula on

In 2006, Scarborough Village was home to 15,590 residents (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). Of this popula on, 5,267 residents lived in the area north east of the Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East intersec on (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). This area, which represents 33% of the popula on of Scarborough Village, is known as Cougar Court. Between 2001 and 2006, the Scarborough Village area experienced a decline in popula on of 8% (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). Incidentally, the majority of the decline has occurred in the Cougar Court area with an 18% decrease in popula on between 2001 and 2006 (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). In contrast, Scarborough as a whole experienced a 1% decline over the same period (Sta s cs Canada, 2006).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

North East South East West

Population

2001 2006

Figure 2 - Scarborough Village Community Centre and Theatre

8

families and upper middle income families is growing in Scarborough Village, while the incidence of low income families is decreasing (Sta s cs Canada, 2006).

Immigra on

According to the 2006 census tract, 15% of the residents of Scarborough Village are recent immigrants who landed in Canada between 2001 and 2006 (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). The overall percentage of recent immigrants, non-offi cial languages spoken at home, and visible minori es located in Scarborough Village is higher than average for the Greater Toronto Area (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). The largest cluster of recent immigrants reside in the Cougar Court apartment buildings.

In addi on to these sta s cs, the research from the Scarborough Village Community Needs Analysis revealed that members of the neighbourhood iden fi ed Scarborough Village as an “immigra on recep on center” (Piazza, 2008). While there are many new families and individuals arriving to the project

Income

The 2006 census recorded median yearly income of all census families in Scarborough Village to be $48,373, well below the Toronto census metropolitan area average of $69,321 (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). A further analysis shows that the neighbourhood has a wide range of yearly median family incomes throughout the neighbourhood, ranging from $32,554 to $68,835. The northeast area, including Cougar Court, had the lowest average family income in the neighbourhood with an average of $32,554 per year (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). In contrast, the area south of Eglinton Avenue East had a family income of $68,835, close to the Toronto average (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). This diff erence can be a ributed to the lack of low income housing and the predominance of single family homes. While these income levels are in close geographical proximity to each other they are not necessarily integrated.

According to the Scarborough Village Neighbourhood Profi le, compiled by the City of Toronto, the propor on of middle income

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800


Immigration

Before 1991 1991 - 2000 2001 - 2006Figure 3 - Built form typical of the neighbourhood

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000


Median Famly Income

9

area, immigra on is not part of the scope of this report and further analysis regarding immigra on in this area will not be addressed in this report.

Housing

Scarborough Village is a predominately high rise suburban neighbourhood, with approximately 65% of residen al dwellings located in high rise buildings. The area east of Markham Road and north of Eglinton Avenue East has the largest propor on of high rise residen al dwellings, making up almost 88% of residen al dwellings. Moving away from the Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East intersec on, the built form changes to single family homes. This represents the typical urban suburb development pa ern of 1960’s and 1970’s in Toronto.

Transporta on

Close to half of Scarborough Village residents regularly use public transit to get to work. Transit use was highest among residents of Cougar Court and in the area west of Markham Road on Eglinton Avenue East, with over 40% of residents in these areas using transit to travel to work.

As much as 6% of residents in the Cougar Court high rises walk or ride a bicycle to work. While this modal share may seem low, this fi gure is actually high for a North American suburban neighbourhood in an outlying area of a city.

1.5 Context

Scarborough Village is located within three diff erent wards – Ward 36, 38 and 43 (Sta s cs Canada, 2006). Ward 36 encompasses the apartment buildings located in Cougar Court and ends at the intersec on of Eglinton Avenue East and Markham Road. Ward 38 includes Cedar Drive Junior Public School and Scarborough Village Park. Ward 43 is the area containing the Markington Square Shopping Centre. For the purpose of this report, a smaller focus area within the neighbourhood was defi ned. This focus area features commercial and high-density residen al proper es. Areas that include single-detached homes were largely not included in the project area as they are not generally classifi ed as a priority in previous background studies of the area.

The focus area of this report is bounded by the following:

North: The CN Railway tracks, coming south at Cedar Drive and con nuing east on Gatesview Avenue to Scarborough Golf Club Road. The division was drawn down Cedar Drive and Gatesview Avenue to include Cedar Drive Public School and the residen al land to the west of Cedar Drive that backs onto Cougar Court. It does not include the single-detached residen al lands to the northeast of Cedar Drive and Gatesview Avenue.

East: The parcel of land where Scarborough Golf Club Road intersects with Kingston Road. This was chosen as a boundary in order to include the Markington Square redevelopment.

Figure 4 - Frequent service at convenient loca ons help keep residents mobile.

10

Markham

Rd

Eglinton Ave

CN Ra

ilway

Kings

ton R

d

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St


Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

1

2

3

5

6

78

4Major Arterial

Railroads

Local Park Space

1 Cougar Court2 ANC3 Markington Square4 Scarborough Golf Club5 Christ Church6 Cedar Drive Junior Public School7 Scarborough Retirement Centre8 St Boniface YMCA9 Vacant Lands

9

9

South: Kingston Road running southwest from Scarborough Golf Club Road to the west side of Markham Road. This was chosen as a boundary to encompass Scarborough Village Community Centre.

West: This boundary was chosen in order to include the Toronto Community Housing building located at the southwest corner of Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East, St. Boniface Church, and other low income, high rise buildings along Eglinton Avenue East.

Context and Landmarks Map

11

Important features of the Study Area include the following:

1. Cougar Court

These high rise buildings are located northeast of the Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East intersec on. They represent one of the areas of the neighbourhood that is most in need of revitaliza on.

2. Ac on for Neighbourhood Change (ANC)

The offi ce for Ac on for Neighbourhood Change (ANC) is located at 202 Markham Road, on the northwest side of the Eglinton Avenue East and Markham Road intersec on. The ANC’s priority is “to facilitate improved living condi ons for individuals and families.” (Ac on for Neighbourhood Change, 2007).

3. Markington Square

The Markington Square Shopping Centre is located on the southeast corner of Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East, and stretches down to Kingston Road. The property is currently owned by RioCan, who plan to replace it through the development of a phased, mixed-use project comprised of 1,400 residen al units in seven condominium apartment buildings (Lyon, 2007). The redevelopment of this property will likely have an eff ect on the Community Improvement project area, though the eff ects are not yet known.

4. Scarborough Golf Club

The Scarborough Golf Club is a private club located within Scarborough Village. While the Golf Club may seem out of place, the areas South and East of the neighbourhood are rela vely wealthy. These neighbourhoods include the Scarborough Bluff s and Guildwood.

5. Christ Church

This is one of two churches in the project area. Engaging the youth in the area has been iden fi ed as a cri cal need by various United Way and City of Toronto reports and while it is limited, Christ Church provides some youth related programming for the area.

6. Cedar Drive Junior Public School

Cedar Drive Junior Public School is located at 21 Gatesview Avenue, north of Eglinton Avenue East, west of Kingston Road and east of Markham Road. The school is located next to one of the few open spaces in the project area, Scarborough Village Park. The school is one of the largest elementary schools in the east end of Toronto (Cedar Drive Junior Public School, 2010). Approximately three quarters of the student popula on is enrolled in the English as a Second Language curriculum (Cedar Drive Junior Public School, 2010). This is a focal point of interac on amongst residents as they commute to the building, and community events are o en located at this school.

Figure 5 - View of Scarborough Village Residen al Towers from Markington Square

12

7. Scarborough Re rement Centre

The Re rement Centre located west of Markham Road, north of Kingston Road, and south of Eglinton Avenue East, accommodates an alterna ve lifestyle to the rest of the project area. With this elderly popula on, safety and mobility are important aspects to consider.

8. St. Boniface YMCA

Located at 20 Markanna Drive, across the street from Christ Church, St. Boniface off ers a child care centre to serve the families of Scarborough Village.

9. Vacant Land

The north end of the focus area includes two pieces of vacant land, cut off from one another by Markham Road, and bounded to the north by the CN Railway line. The lands located on the west side of Markham Road are currently zoned commercial residen al. The major constraint on this piece of land is the street wall along Markham Road, crea ng poten al accessibility problems for any type of commercial residen al development. The vacant land on the east side of Markham Road is currently zoned residen al. Currently, a lease sign is on these lands. These vacant lands are divided into several lots, which may pose a problem for any community based organiza on who may wish to make use of the underu lized space.

1.6 Public Realm

Simply put, the public realm consists of the spaces between buildings. Public realm is experienced primarily close-up and at ground level as it includes streets, building frontages, sidewalks, front yard landscaping and plan ngs, as well as larger open spaces such as parks and publicly accessible courtyards or pathways between buildings.

Studying the public realm of Scarborough Village will guide the development of streets, parks, and adjoining open spaces by iden fying:

• Their rela onship to adjacent neighbourhoods and public space linkages;

• The conceptual streetscape plans for the various types of streets;

• The rela onship between public open spaces and private open spaces; and

• The conceptual design of the principle neighbourhood parks.

A public realm study is important as it helps iden fy improvements that need to be made to the spaces between buildings, whether it be green space, pathways or gathering places. Aspects of this type of study are useful in determining policy and urban design principles that improve the quality of life in Scarborough Village.

Figure 7 - St. Boniface YMCA

Figure 8 - Vacant Land

Figure 6 - Scarborough Re rement Centre

13

While this report may not be a Community Improvement Plan (CIP), a CIP is one of the mechanisms that this report could be used to ini ate going forward. This sec on outlines some of the legisla on and policy that is relevant for both CIP’s and Scarborough Village in general.

2.1 Legisla ve Authority and Policy Basis

Planning Act

Municipal planning, and the establishment of Community Improvement Plans, must take into considera on sec on 28 of the Planning Act. The Planning Act states that a community improvement plan

“means the planning or replanning, design or redesign, resubdivision, clearance, development or redevelopment, construc on, reconstruc on and rehabilita on, improvement of energy effi ciency, or any of them, of a community improvement project area, and the provision of such residen al, commercial, industrial, public, recrea onal, ins tu onal, religious, charitable or other uses, buildings, structures, works, improvements or facili es, or spaces therefore, as may be appropriate or necessary.”

With respect to powers regarding land, Sec on 28 (6) states that the City may:

a) construct, repair, rehabilitate or improve

buildings on land acquired or held by it in the community improvement project area in conformity with the community improvement plan, and sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any such buildings and the land appurtenant thereto; and/or b) sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any land acquired or held by it in the community improvement project area to any person or governmental authority for use in conformity with the community improvement plan.

Planning Act s.28 states Council may off er grants or loans to registered tenants to cover eligible costs, defi ned in subsec on 7 that

“For the purpose of carrying out a municipality’s community improvement plan that has come into eff ect, the municipality may make grants or loans, in conformity with the community improvement plan, to registered owners, assessed owners and tenants of lands and buildings within the community improvement project area, and to any person to whom such an owner or tenant has assigned the right to receive a grant or loan, to pay for the whole or any part of the eligible costs of the community improvement plan.”

2.0 Policy Context

Figure 9 - Markington Square Eglinton Avenue Entrance

14

Provincial Policy Statement

The PPS was adopted on March 1, 2005 and is a policy direc ve on land use and development in the province. Some of the direc ons relevant to Scarborough Village include:

• Ensuring suffi cient land availability for an appropriate mix or employment, residen al, recrea onal and open space uses;

• Planning public streets, spaces and facili es to meet the need of pedestrian and cycling uses; and

• Effi cient use of land and public service facili es

Places to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

In 2006 this growth plan was created to provide regional and local area municipali es with growth management and direc on. Relevant policies include:

• Reduce automobile dependency;• Provide access to public transit;• Mixed range of housing types; and• Maintain supply of employment lands.

The Scarborough Village project area policy recommenda ons should focus on crea ng an understanding of community improvement through community engagement, and should support the implementa on of related programs. The future policy will be benefi cial to the community if they include and create the following:

• Internal and external understanding and support for community improvement ac vi es and programs;

• Private sector understanding and par cipa on in incen ve-based programs; and

• Program implementa on, marke ng and monitoring.

2.2 Goals and Objec ves

The goals and objec ves of this report can be used to help facilitate a policy based, future ac on plan.

The goal of this report is to increase awareness of the following:

• Internal and external support for community improvement ac vi es and programs;

• Private sector support and par cipa on in incen ve-based programs;

• Development of an a rac ve living and working environment within the neighbourhood;

• How a rac ve streetscapes can be created through the co-ordina on of sites, buildings and landscape design, on and between individual sites;

• Development and design current built form to provide a safe, a rac ve and comfortable pedestrian environment, including, where appropriate, the following characteris cs:

• Frequent and convenient pedestrian connec ons between buildings, transit stops, parking lots and the public sidewalk; and

• A range of ac ve and passive pedestrian spaces with coordinated street furniture, paving and plan ng design;

Figure 10 - Cougar Court Daycare Playground

15

• Marke ng strategies for the neighbourhood.

This report will facilitate the following objec ves:

• To improve the image and appearance of the area;

• To promote redevelopment/rehabilita on that supports the Scarborough Village “vision”, i.e., an immigra on corridor with employment and se lement services, pedestrian-oriented pathways, increased func oning as the hub of the core of Scarborough Village

• To improve pedestrian safety and ameni es in the area; and

• To enhance private sector investment opportuni es and property maintenance.

2.3 Recommended Grants

2.3.1 Grant and Funding Programs Synopsis

There are many funding opportuni es available. While all the deadlines for this year have passed, these annual funding opportuni es will soon be accep ng applica ons for the coming year. The following chart summarizes the funding opportuni es pertaining to the beau fi ca on and engagement of community within the Scarborough Village area. This is not a fi nite list of funding op ons. It is meant to demonstrate some of the grants that are available for community improvement and whether they are applicable to Scarborough Village.

2.3.2 Commercial Façade Improvement Program

This grant from the City of Toronto is off ered to eligible commercial property owners to improve the building façade through a variety of upgrades such as the replacement or repair of windows, doors, ligh ng, awnings, brickwork, signage, or even the addi on of wheel-chair accessible entrances.

Contact George Wheeler 416-392-1820 for more informa on.

2.3.3 Mural Program

This program is a one- me funding opportunity that allows community groups with strong business par cipa on to create an outdoor wall mural that promotes local themes and facilitates a posi ve commercial neighbourhood iden ty.

Contact Michael Saunders 416-392-1005 for more informa on.

Figure 11 - Crosswalk to Tim Horton’s Loca on along Kingston Road

16

Grant Agency Eligibility Reason

Commercial Façade Improvement Program for BIAs

City of Toronto No Scarborough Village does not have a BIA in place.

Mural Program for BIAs City of Toronto No Scarborough Village does not have a BIA in place.

Streetscape Improvement Program for BIAs

City of Toronto No Scarborough Village does not have a BIA in place.

Various Grants for Community Arts, Dance, Literacy, Music, Theatre and Visual and Media Arts

Toronto Arts Council (TAC)

Maybe The TAC provides funding to non-profi t organiza ons and individuals for ongoing ar s c ac vi es.

Compe veness, Crea vity and Collabora on Investment Program (CCCIP)

City of Toronto Maybe The CCCIP awards this grant to a non-profi t organiza on that helps s mulate the local economy.

Community Safety Investment Program

City of Toronto Yes Scarborough Village is a priority neighbourhood that is constantly looking to improve safety in the area.

Community Service Partnership City of Toronto Yes This could be used for the YWCA, ANC, or any other organiza on that works to improve social condi ons.

Iden fy N’ Impact Investment Fund

City of Toronto Maybe This fund is awarded to youth led ini a ves that provide valuable contribu ons to their community.

Live Green Community Investment Program

Livegreen Toronto No This grant is given to non-profi t groups partnered with a sponsoring organiza on that have innova ve environmental projects.

Community Grants Program Toronto Parks and Trees Founda on Community

Yes This grant could be used to assist in the beau fi ca on of the neighbourhood through programs like B.U.L.B.S. (see sec on 2.3.11)

Beau ful Streets Program City of Toronto Yes Scarborough Village would need to provide a ra onale as to what type of beau fi ca on project they would use the funding for.

17

2.3.4 Streetscape Improvement Program

This is a neighbourhood wide program that is designed to improve the aesthe cs of the area by increasing its pedestrian friendliness. Through a partnership with a BIA, the City will match the capital funds put forth for streetscape beau fi ca on projects. Such projects can be anything from decora ve pedestrian ligh ng, kiosks, banners, and theme signage, to landscaping, fountains, and decora ve street furniture.

Contact Rajashree Kumar 416 392-7696 for more informa on.

While the three aforemen oned grants would be excellent funding tools for Scarborough Village, they are only available to areas with Business Improvement Associa ons, exemp ng the neighbourhood from applying for these grants.

2.3.5 Various Grants for Community Arts, Dance, Literacy, Music, Theatre and Visual and Media Arts

The Toronto Arts Council (TAC) has several grant programs that provide funding to ar sts and art organiza ons that contribute to the cultural life of Toronto. The TAC off ers grants in the areas of community arts, dance, music, theatre, literary arts and visual media arts. The grant programs range from single project opera on to annual opera on to mul -year opera ons.

Scarborough Village may be eligible for any of these grants if there are any non-profi t, arts-

related community organiza ons within the area that meet the eligibility requirements. The Scarborough Village Community Centre has various programs, such as its annual theatre produc on, that may qualify for a grant.

For more informa on about each grant and the eligibility requirements available visit: h p://www.torontoartscouncil.org/

2.3.6 Compe veness, Crea vity and Collabora on Investment Program

The City of Toronto’s Compe veness, Crea vity and Collabora on Investment Program was designed to s mulate economic growth by suppor ng non-profi t business organiza ons that help generate jobs, a ract new investment and increase economic ac vity with grants of up to $50,000. Scarborough Village is currently not eligible for this program as it does not have an organiza on that meets the requirements of the program.

To download an informa on brochure go to: h p://www.toronto.ca/grants/pdf/cccip_brochure.pdf

For more informa on and to request applica on forms please contact:Program Administrator Dan Rosen at 416-397-5417 or [email protected]

Figure 12 - Mural on the Scarborough Village Com-munity Centre and Theatre.

18

2.3.7 Community Safety Investment Program

The City’s Community Safety Investment Program provides funding for up to three years for outcome focused ac vi es that build capacity for violence preven on and increased safety within the 13 priority neighbourhoods. The goals of this program are to address violence preven on needs of low-income women of colour and to provide support for youth volunteers and workers in areas that have been aff ected by youth violence. Scarborough Village has been designated as a priority neighbourhood and is constantly working to improve safety in the area, making the neighbourhood a candidate for the program.

For more informa on about this grant visit:h p://www.toronto.ca/grants/csi/index.htm

2.3.8 Community Service Partnership

The Community Service Partnerships program helps to facilitate the vulnerable and marginalized members of high-risk communi es’ access services that can improve social outcomes. The maximum funding allo ed is $75,000 per program and can be used to cover the costs of opera ng such a program by securing support for direct program costs (including staff salaries), program support costs (planning and development), expenses (child-care, refreshments, supplies, etc.) and program space. This program is en rely funded by the City of Toronto’s tax dollars. This grant could assist in the opera on of the new YWCA loca on, Ac on for Neighbourhood Change or

any other community ini a ve that works to create social change in the area.

For more informa on about this program visit: h p://www.toronto.ca/grants/csi/index.htm

2.3.9 Iden fy N’ Impact Investment Fund

In support of youth-led ac vi es, the Toronto Youth Cabinet has introduced the Iden fy ‘N Impact Investment Fund. This fund allows youth-led projects to enhance the engagement opportuni es through community organiza ons and groups by helping turn ideas into ac on. Projects can cover a wide range of ac vi es but must increase youth involvement within priority neighbourhoods. This grant could be available to the Scarborough Village community if there is a non-profi t, youth ini a ve that aims to engage residents, businesses and community groups to bring about change.

For more informa on about this program visit: h p://www.toronto.ca/grants/ini/fund.htm

2.3.10 Live Green Community Investment Program

Livegreen Toronto has grants and incen ves available to non-profi t resident groups, community organiza ons and businesses that help ‘green’ the neighbourhood. The Live Green Community Investment Program provides up to $25,000 to projects that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality and adapt to changes caused by climate change. Scarborough Village is not currently eligible for this grant as there is no large

Figure 13 - Neighbourhood Children.

19

ini a ve to ‘green’ the neighbourhood through a partnership between local resident groups, community organiza ons and businesses.

For more informa on about this investment program visit:h p://www.toronto.ca/livegreen/greenneighbourhood_rebates_cip.htm

2.3.11 Community Grants Program

The Toronto Parks and Trees Founda on has a Community Grants Program that supports charitable community organiza ons that are interested in sustaining and enhancing Toronto’s parkland. This can take many forms such as an urban agriculture ini a ve, a beau fi ca on project or providing the fi nancial and/or material resources to complete a beau fi ca on project. Scarborough Village is eligible to apply for these grants; the applica on process begins in 2011. Two funding opportuni es that may be of par cular interest to the community would be the Be er Urban Landscapes with Bulbs program (B.U.L.B.S.), a program that donates fl ower bulbs to increase the aesthe c appeal of the area; and the poten al to get funding to help build cricket grounds in the neighbourhood.

For more informa on about the various grants given by the Toronto Parks and Tree Founda on visit:h p://www.torontoparksandtrees.org/grants.htm or call 416 397-5178

2.3.12 Beau ful Streets Program

The Public Realm Sec on – Beau ful Streets program aims to renew public spaces through the par cipa on and ini a ves of residents, community groups, non-profi t organiza ons and local businesses. Smaller projects may receive up to $4,000 for the implementa on of community gardens, murals, clean-ups and graffi removal. More funding is also available for large-scale and special projects. Scarborough Village is eligible for this program, however it must provide a proposal providing a ra onale sta ng the type of project it would like to undertake and its importance.

For more informa on about this program visit: h p://www.toronto.ca/cleanandbeau ful/programs.htm

Figure 14 - An area within the neighbourhood that is well landscaped and maintained.

21

3.1 Design Issues and Challenges

The following table and maps present a list of recommenda ons organized into 5 broad categories: Beau fi ca on and Streetscapes, Capital Works, Private Property Improvements, Connec ons, and Community Ini a ves. Following the maps are 10 site specifi c recommenda ons for the improvement of highlighted areas within Scarborough Village that take into account the recommenda ons contained in this table. The ten site specifi c projects are not in order of priority.

3.0 Recommendations

Beau fi ca on and StreetscapesNew Playground Equipment Exis ng unfenced playground equipment is minimal and in a state of disrepair.

The introduc on of new equipment could enhance outdoor ac vity.Appropriate 35 Cedar Drive Could be turned into a parke e and provide a be er connec on to the school. Landlord Improvement of Green Space

Further encouragement of building owners to improve lawns and other green space.

Enhance Scarborough Village Park

Addi on or picnic tables, benches, fl owers, or playground equipment, and improvements to exis ng features like the fi eld areas.

More Street Furniture (Benches, Planters, etc)

Using coordinated street furniture program – Astral Media. Could also be funded through a local BIA.

Capital WorksSidewalk Widening Along Eglinton Avenue

The current width is dangerous for pedestrians. An increase in the width will make it safer and provide the opportunity to add some streetscaping.

Enlarge Bus Shelter at Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue

The current bus shelter does not suit the volume of people using the bus stop at peak hours. A larger bus shelter would be er refl ect this integral mee ng place and transit loca on.

Public Space Along Major Arterial Roads

The sidewalks are narrow and there is not much grass space along roadways. More invi ng sidewalk corridors could promote more outdoor ac vity.

Central Boulevard on Eglinton Avenue

High amount of illegal crossing by pedestrian area near the Metro. By crea ng a central boulevard it could make crossing safer and the street generally nicer to walk along and look at.

Enhanced Community Ligh ng Add addi onal ligh ng in mul ple loca ons as the area is poorly lit making sight lines more diffi cult in the evenings and lowering overall levels of safety.

Signage Improvements Current signage appears to meet a minimum standard. Improve city street signs as well as signage for apartment buildings.

22

Improve Southeast Corner or Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue

Iden fi ed as a major community mee ng place. Work in conjunc on with private landowner and city for improved sea ng and planters. Bus shelter improvement as previously men oned.

Private Property ImprovementsFaçade Improvements Many stores and plaza are poor in appearance. Appropriate grant programs are

iden fi ed above. BIA necessary to be eligible. Lawn and Landscape Improvements

Be er maintenance of grass and increased plants and shrubbery.

Fences Fences between private property must be be er maintained. Fences at plazas are in some cases in a state of disrepair. Dangerous for vehicles and pedestrians.

Connec onsImproved Pathway Systems Between buildings, schools, plazas, roads. Cougar Court sidewalks. Enhance Pathway to Strip Mall Between Cougar Court and plaza to the south. Remove tree and add ligh ng.

Curb cut and levelling of ground. Pedestrian Crossing to Metro Add a pedestrian crossing across Eglinton Avenue where high volumes of

people go to and from the Metro. Improved Sight Lines Many overgrown bushes and trees provide for poor sight lines along Markham

Road. Cut back branches further for safe vision. Improve Forest Pathway - Markington Square

A be er and safer connec on is required between Markington Square and the community centre.

Enhance/Create New Pathways Between School and Apartment Complexes

Currently holes have been cut in the fences to the south of the school and park. Introducing gates would be a safer way for children to travel from apartment buildings to school.

Community Ini a vesCrea on of Community Gardens

Establish gardens for residents in open space on proper es in Cougar Court.

Basketball Court/Recrea onal Sports Area

Loca on could be on the poten al YWCA lot on Dunelm Street. There is a lack of outdoor ac vity for young people and a basketball court could be a major asset.

Neighbourhood Watch Establishing an organiza on of commi ed and respected community members could improve safety.

Male Job Placement YWCA has placement programs for women but placement programs for men could also be introduced in the area.

Fundraising Possible joint eff ort with the Scarborough Golf and Country Club, etc., to raise money for beau fi ca on.

Green Projects Green roofs, energy effi ciency.

23

Markham

Rd

Eglinton Ave

CN Railway

Kingsto

n Rd

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St


Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

Strip Mall Pathway

Metro Crossing

Kingston Road Ravine Pathway

Forest Pathways

35 Cedar Drive Pathway

Apartment - School Pathways

Sightline Improvement

Design Ideas: Connec ons

24

Markham

Rd

Eglinton AveCN Rail

way

Kingsto

n Rd

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St


Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

Eglington Central Boulevard

Widening of Sidewalks

Public Space along Arterials

Commercial Facade Improvements

Enhance Lighting and Signage

Large Bus Shelter

Design Ideas: Streetscape Improvements

25

Design Ideas: Beau fi ca on and Community Ini a ves

Markham

Rd

Eglinton Ave

CN Railway

Kingsto

n Rd

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St


Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

New Playground Equipment

35 Cedar Drive Parkette

Landlord Owned Greenspace Improvements

Scarborough Village Park Enhancement

Implementing Street Furniture

Community Gardens

YWCA Centre and Sports Facility

26

Markham

Rd

Eglinton Ave

CN Ra

ilway

Kings

ton R

d

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St


Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 Cougar Court2 Informal Pathway3 Dunelm Street Lands4 35 Cedar Drive5 Informal Pedestrian Crossings6 Forest Pathway7 Intersection at Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East8 Pedestrian Realm along Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East9 Improvement of Retail Plazas10 Semi-private space surroundin g 3400 Eglinton Avenue East Apartment Complex

Map of Recommenda ons

3.2 Design Recommenda ons

A er the site surveys were completed, an ideas chare e was held that shaped the content of the recommenda ons included. These recommenda ons were chosen based on the background informa on gathered from the various reports. The areas included in the recommenda ons were those most referenced by the reports and residents of the community. A Community Improvement Plan should establish policies and regula ons for urban design criteria as well as developing strategies or programs that can be administered in order to address the needs of the community.

27

3.2.1 Cougar Court

Cougar Court is the most densely populated area within the neighbourhood. It is comprised of several high rise buildings, approximately 18 storeys tall, each surrounded by ample yet underused green space. One of the buildings, 215 Markham Road, was the site of a City of Toronto pilot project which recommended on-site community use space, improvements to transporta on routes including the shared driveway and pedestrian linkages, community garden and beau fi ca on, and shared outdoor recrea on space. The main barrier to the implementa on of these recommenda ons is the private-ownership of the building in that owners are reluctant to make changes.

Improvements to this area of Scarborough Village should raise the quality of life for residents, increase the desirability of the towers as places to reside, and expand the public realm, as there are currently limited spaces for residents to congregate, and playground equipment is limited or has been le to decay. A natural path system, as opposed to the current sidewalk system which runs parallel to roads is non-existent and could be located along the open space on the east-side of Markham Road from Cougar Court to Dunelm Street. This could be extended throughout the complex in order to get pedestrian traffi c away from the high traffi c roads. The space to the east of Markham Road has a natural buff er to protect it from traffi c along Markham Road and is rela vely fl at, which would allow for the addi on of children’s facili es, sports facili es such as

Figure 15 - Overview of the area east of Markham Road north of Cougar Court, and south of Dunelm Street, showing ample room for a natural path system as well as ameni es such as a community garden, basketball courts, etc. Source: Bing Maps

Figure 16 - Proposed area for natural pathway.

Figure 17 - David Crombie Park in Toronto shows how park space, along with ameni es such as a playground and basketball court, can exist alongside high density development. (Source: dt_toronto_geek, urbantoronto.ca)

28

a basketball court, or a community garden. Other investments could include new benches, ligh ng, and be er drainage.

The visibility of large garbage bins belonging to the towers, their proximity to building entrances and exits, the overfl ow of garbage and the odours emana ng from the bins make the complex somewhat unpleasant. Resident groups should meet with building owners in order to determine be er placement of the bins that s ll allow residents and waste services access, but do not block pedestrian paths, and are in accordance with City of Toronto by-laws. The City of Toronto 3Rs Ambassador Volunteer Program works with volunteers interested in promo ng ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ as a means of reducing waste. Building owners should also promote this program as it reduces the cost of waste collec on.

As these lands are private, some degree of private investment would greatly improve the complex. As opposed to a ‘neighbourhood residents associa ons’, which covers a larger area, personal dialogue amongst building owners and residents should be encouraged. The issues brought forth by the building owners should be documented and a business case prepared on behalf of residents. Although a complete makeover is not realis c in a short period of me, low-cost, easily-implemented projects such as a community garden, or the installa on of benches, could be completed.

Figure 18 - Proximity of garbage bins to entrance, daycare facili es and playground in Cougar Court.

Figure 19 - Suggested new loca on for the reloca on of garbage bins away from the entrances and exits on Cougar Court. (Source: Bing Maps)

29

3.2.2 Informal Pathway

This informal pathway, located on the south end of Cougar Court, extending between two strip malls on the north side of Eglinton Avenue East, is one of the most u lized pedestrian paths within Scarborough Village. The pathway requires an abundance of work for it to be a func onal walkway. As residents will con nue to use the informal pathway regardless of a empts by landlords to stop its use through repairs of the fence, it is important to acknowledge it as a key pathway within the neighbourhood, and make necessary improvements.

The current pathway is very poorly lit and its poor sightlines pose a danger for residents who pass through, par cularly at night. The pavement is cracked and has several potholes which pose a further danger for pedestrians passing through. Recently, landscape improvements have been made to improve sightlines, and a project has been ini ated by which the curbs on the Cougar Court side of the fence are being cut out to improve access.

Ligh ng is the main issue that s ll needs to be addressed along the pathway. Lights should be installed along the walls of the strip malls on either side of the pathway in order to improve the safety of residents. As these lands are private, some private investment by the owners of the stores which surround and back onto the pathway will be needed. Grants to improve the proper es may be applied for, though without a Business Improvement Associa on (BIA), they may be diffi cult to get.

Figure 20 - The Plaza shortcut looking toward the Cougar Court apartments from Eglinton Avenue East. The trees have since been cleaned up to improve sightlines but there is s ll no ligh ng along the pathway. (Source: Hess & Farrow, 2009)

Figure 21 - The entrance to the Plaza shortcut from Cougar Court. Currently a project is being undertaken to cut the curb install planters to improve access, and to keep the cars from blocking the entrance. (Source:Hess & Farrow, 2009)

Figure 22 - Exis ng pathway condi ons and a rendering of how a repaved pathway can be implemented without obstruc ng regular business aci vites.

30

3.2.3 Dunelm Street lands

The Dunelm Street lands are located on the east side of Markham Road, just north of Cougar Court. This property is currently vacant. If correctly u lized, this land could have a posi ve impact on the neighbourhood. It is evident that the community, as a whole, lacks public and open spaces for recrea onal use by residents. This land could be used to provide the community with facili es and recrea onal space, such as a basketball court, or as a public gathering place. Furthermore, the lack of proper playground equipment or suffi cient child-friendly spaces in the Cougar Court complex make this vacant land an opportunity to create a be er space for the children of the neighbourhood.

This area could also be used as a community garden. This would provide the residents with the opportunity to interact with one another, as well as have a sense of pride in their involvement of the overall beau fi ca on of the space. As this property is currently owned by the City of Toronto, the residents of Scarborough Village may have an opportunity to give some input as to what they think a benefi cial use of the vacant land may be.

Figure 25 - The current state of the vacant land on Dunelm Street.

Figure 23 - Current state of playground equipment at Cougar Court

Figure 24 - Ligh ng fi xtures surrounding the Cougar Court playground

Figure 26 - A poten al playground for the Dunelm Street vacant lands (Source: h p://playmasters.info/?p=346)

Figure 27 - A basketball court could be one of the uses created on the Dunelm Street vacant land. (Source: h p://iroquoissprings.com/images/photo-big-basketball-new.jpg)

31

Figure 28 - The house located at 35 Cedar Dr. is boarded up and has been abandoned for a signifi cant period of me.

Figure 29 - Exposed nails on the side of the 35 Cedar Drive “Ghost House.”

Figure 30 - Makeshi hole cover used a fi repit can be a safety hazard for those using 35 Cedar Drive as a pathway.

Figure 31 - The “Ghost House” is commonly u lized as a pathway from Cougar Court to Cedar Drive Public School.

3.2.4 35 Cedar Drive Property

The property and house located at 35 Cedar Drive, one street east of Markham Road and Cougar Court, has been called the “Ghost House” by many of the neighbourhood’s residents. The property, which has been abandoned for years, is unkept and contains a house that no longer appears to be structurally sound.

The residents of Cougar Court o en use this property as an informal pathway to take their children to Cedar Drive Junior Public School, located at Gatesview Avenue and Cedar Drive. Similar to other informal pathways highlighted in this report, pedestrian safety is a problem. Sightlines along both Cougar Court and Cedar Drive are poor, making it poten al grounds for criminal ac vity. The exposed nails and deep hole in the backyard, which appears to have been a well or manhole, also test the safety of the property. A er being abandoned for a long period of me, it may be suitable to appropriate this property from its owner if there are no plans to improve it.

In this case, appropria ng this land could be an opportunity to create community space, such as a small parke e or gathering place for members of the community. This would also be an opportunity to improve connec vity by crea ng a formal pathway on the property.

32

3.2.5 Informal Pedestrian Crossings

At the south end of the informal pathway discussed in sec on 3.1.2, the lack of connec vity forces many residents to jay-walk across Eglinton Avenue East to get to Markington Square. Eglinton Avenue East is very wide, and as a major arterial road it is always busy posing a risk to crossing pedestrians. The crea on of a boulevard or pedestrian island along Eglinton Avenue East, with a place for residents to stop, would reduce the danger faced by pedestrians crossing at this point as they wait for traffi c to pass.

This problem of informal pedestrian crossings also exists on Markham Road between Cougar Court and the strip mall plazas on the west side of Markham Road. A boulevard along Markham Road with a place for pedestrians to stop and wait for traffi c would also be benefi cial.

Beyond pedestrian safety, these boulevards or pedestrian islands are an opportunity to improve aesthe cs in the neighbourhod through the addi on of planters for fl owers, shrubbery, or trees.

Figure 33 - Some of the steady fl ow of pedestrians crossing Eglinton a er exi ng from the Plaza shortcut. (Source: Hess & Farrow, 2009)

Figure 34 - A rendering of a poten al landscaped boulevard along Eglinton Avenue East.

Figure 32 - High speeds and inconvenient access to Markington Square pose a threat to crossing pedestrians

Figure 35 - A rendering of a pedestrian island, a poten al solu on to the dangers that jay-walkers face when crossing Eglinton Avenue East and Markham Road. (Source: h p://www.altaplanning.com/vol+10+issue+1.aspx).

33

Figure 36 - The current condi ons of the forest pathway.

Figure 38 - Another image of the forest pathway

Figure 37 - A well maintained forest pathway. (Source: h p://pixdaus.com/pics/1271312890L4bUVs8.jpg)

3.2.6 Forest Pathway

Adjacent to Markington Square, an informal pathway exists that connects the Square to the Scarborough Village Community Centre and Theatre. The community centre provides several services to residents, and access through this informal path makes trips to the Community Centre much shorter. Similar to other pathways in the Scarborough Village neighbourhood this path system poses safety and security issues for residents. Poor ligh ng and an unpaved path make for an unsafe route. Remedia on of this area would vastly improve pedestrian connec vity in this part of Scarborough Village.

Improvements to the physical characteris cs of this pathway should include the placement of ligh ng fi xtures to increase safety, especially at night. Also, the construc on of a paved path would make the route more comfortable for those who use it as well as handicap accessible. While the natural landscape surrounding this informal pathway is already aesthe cally appealing, a remedia on of this area would be benefi cial as it would provide residents of the community easier access to the much needed services off ered by the Scarborough Village Community Centre and Theatre

34

3.2.7 Intersec on at Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East

The intersec on at Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East is the most ac ve area within Scarborough Village. As a major component of the neighbourhood, it is important to ensure that it is aesthe cally pleasing and provides adequate ameni es. It also presents an opportunity for improved or addi onal public/open spaces.

The south east corner of the intersec on currently has a small patch of grass and a few trees, along with a large planter with sea ng around it. The high volume of people walking through this area, using it to wait for a bus, or to even stop and chat have made it an informal gathering place. This corner could be an excellent opportunity, in conjunc on with the private landowner, to make some streetscape and beau fi ca on improvements as a way to embrace this gathering place. The addi on of benches and more planters would help make it a more welcoming spot.

This intersec on is also a major transit point for many residents of Scarborough Village. Unfortunately, the current bus shelters, par cularly on the north east corner, are very small, forcing large numbers of people to line up along the narrow sidewalks, or grassy areas, especially during rush hour. This gives pedestrians very li le space to maneuver the sidewalks around the bus shelter and contributes to the degrada on of physical landscape by crea ng muddy patches in the grass. A larger bus shelter, combined with

wider sidewalks, whether it be through the elimina on of the grassy stretches, or through addi onal paving, would improve pedestrian safety and the rush hour commute.

Figure 42 - Large shelter built to accomodate passengers of Brampton Zum (Source: ShonTron)

Figure 41 - Currently under construc on, this large shelter will be used for passengers of Viva Rapidway

Figure 39 - Small bus shelters and lack of sea ng make this parke e a convenient loca on for transit riders to wait

Figure 40 - Another view of makeshi sea ng at the parke e

35

Figure 43 - Narrow sidewalks. As can be seen from the image, two pedestrians cannot comfortably share the sidewalk.

Figure 45 - A rendering depic ng addi onal ligh ng along Eglinton Avenue East and Markham Road which increases safety and security at night in the public realm

Figure 44 - Narrow sidewalk and pedestrians walking on Eglinton Avenue East near intersec on with Cedar Drive. (Source: Hess & Farrow, 2009)

3.2.8 Pedestrian Realm along Eglinton Avenue East and Markham Road

The sidewalks along both, Eglinton Avenue East and Markham Road, are heavily used. Despite all the pedestrian traffi c, the sidewalks are very narrow and merge with the retail plaza parking lots. These sidewalks are in very close proximity to two major arterial roads with heavy traffi c, and high speed limits causing a safety concern for residents who frequently use them.

Pedestrians should not have to compete with cars for space, especially given the adequate physical space in the area. A streetscape improvement program for the area should priori ze the crea on of wider sidewalks and the addi on of barriers to separate pedestrians from traffi c. The presence of a Business Improvement Area (BIA) associa on could help provide funding for such improvements. For instance, the City has a streetscape improvement program for BIA’s that will match the capital funds for streetscape beau fi ca on projects.

The community should also seek assistance from their Councillor in support of the City of Toronto Walking Strategy. This document allows for consulta on with City Transporta on Services to possibly receive municipal investment aimed at improving the pedestrian realm, especially in the areas of construc ng new sidewalks and assessing opportuni es for narrow pavement. City Street Railings or Decora ve Aluminum Railing/Splash Guards (Barrier) as per the Toronto Urban Design

36

Streetscape Manual, are an op on to separate higher traffi c pedestrian routes from the street.

Figure 46 - Example of Decora ve Aluminum Barrier/Splash Guard that could be used to separate road traffi c and sidewalks.(Source: City of Toronto, Urban Design Streetscape Manual)

Figure 47 - Example of street barriers in East Renfrewshire, UK.(Source: East Renfrewshire Council)

37

Figure 50 - The current state of an exis ng strip mall along Eglinton Avenue East.

Figure 48 - A rendering displaying some small changes to improve the retail plazas such as planters, decora ve fencing, and new signage.

Figure 49 - A plaza with a more a rac ve façade, signage, and landscaping.(Source: Google Streetview)

3.2.9 Improvement of Retail Plazas

One of the main focuses of this report is the improvement of built form throughout the neighbourhood. The commercial and retail plazas can be greatly improved through the implementa on of several changes.

Improvements to the façade will revitalize the look of these retail plazas, in turn a rac ng higher quality tenants and clientele. This is a great way for business owners to show that they take pride in their businesses, further increasing patronage. Landlords can provide improvements to the property through paving, proper fencing, etc.

An essen al recommenda on to the retail plazas would be the inclusion of be er signage. This would provide shoppers and residents knowledge of what is available, where it is available, and increase the overall a rac veness of the businesses.

In addi on to improved signage, it would be essen al for these retail plazas to upgrade and increase ligh ng, especially at night. This would help to increase safety in the area and deter criminal ac vity.

Lastly, beau fi ca on along property lines would improve the look of these establishments. The addi on of planters, benches and lampposts could signifi cantly enhance the aesthe c appeal of the retail plazas.

All of the improvements, façade improvements in par cular, would be easier to accomplish

if there was a Business Improvement Area (BIA) associa on involved. BIA’s are able to obtain funding for the improvements and recommenda ons men oned.

38

3.2.10 Semi-Private Space Surrounding 3380 - 3434 Eglinton Avenue East Apartment Complex

Similar to the many apartment buildings within Scarborough Village, 3380-3434 Eglinton Avenue East lacks connec vity. Sec ons within these apartment complexes are segregated from the areas that residents regularly access. There is no formal path linking the apartment buildings to important neighbourhood landmarks, such as Cedar Drive Public School, even though some of the apartment buildings back onto the school yard. In order to deal with this lack of connec vity, residents are forced to create their own informal pathways.

The addi on of a formal pathway would benefi t the residents of this community and increase accessibility within the neighbourhood. To achieve this, property owners and the community will have to work together to create a safe network of pathways that connects residents to open spaces and important neighbourhood landmarks.

In addi on to the lack of connec vity, there is an ineffi cient use of open space surrounding these buildings. The beau fi ca on of the areas surrounding the apartment buildings, combined with the addi on of benches and replacement of dilapidated playground equipment, could help increase u liza on of these open spaces.

Working with landlords and property owners to improve the aesthe c appeal of their proper es would be extremely benefi cial to the neighbourhood as it would change the

percep on of the area among residents and visitors. The inclusion of community gardens, the plan ng of trees, shrubs and fl owers and the addi on of benches would help create more gathering places, further fostering a sense of community.

Figure 52 - Underu lized open space and barriers to connec vity surrounding the buildings on Eglinton Avenue East.

Figure 53 - A rendering of how a small change to the pathway behind Cedar Drive Junior Public School can make a diff erence to the percep on of safety and increase connec vity throughout the area

Figure 51 - Exis ng condi ons demonstrate that there is a lack of connec vity in the area. This rendering depicts how dras cally small improvements to the pathway can make a big diff erence

39

Figure 55 - Roads shut down along Lawrence Avenue East for the Taste of Lawrence Fes val.

This sec on outlines some possible marke ng strategies for the neighbourhood. While this is not an exhaus ve list, it provides some poten al ideas for Scarborough Village moving forward.

Ethnic Flavour

Toronto has many diverse neighbourhoods, each of which off ers residents and visitors a unique experience. Whether visi ng Greektown on the Danforth, Chinatown, or Li le India, each neighbourhood has its own dis nct cultural features that draw visitors to the area. These features encourage visitors to explore the neighbourhood showcasing specialty retail shops, food stores and restaurants.

An emerging culturally dis nct neighbourhood in Toronto is Wexford in Scarborough, with a largely Middle Eastern infl uence. This neighbourhood has a long stretch of bakeries and restaurants along Lawrence Avenue East, some of which has been voted best in Toronto.

The Taste of Lawrence Fes val is an annual street fes val held in Wexford, approximately 10 minutes west of Scarborough Village. The fes val takes place over three days, and the stretch of Lawrence Avenue East from Warden Avenue to Pharmacy Avenue is closed off to vehicle traffi c. This wide suburban arterial street is transformed into a temporary

pedestrian only space, with children’s rides, street vendors, and food stands. The Taste of Lawrence highlights the many businesses and restaurants on Lawrence Avenue East, including the large number of Middle Eastern restaurants and shops which give this stretch of Lawrence Avenue its own unique fl avor.

The Taste of Lawrence is an outstanding example of a street fes val held in a suburban area, and it showcases that a street lined with strip malls can be closed down, and people will visit and enjoy what the neighbourhood has to off er.

Scarborough Village and Wexford share some similari es in terms of built form and the abundance of ethnic businesses in the neighbourhood. That being said, Scarborough Village could use a similar strategy as a way of displaying their culturally dis nct neighbourhood. A fes val similar to the Taste of Lawrence could poten ally expose the community’s unique restaurants and stores. This could also a ract new visitors to the area that would normally not visit the area due to its suburban nature.

For more informa on visit: h p://www.tasteofl awrence.com/

4.0 Marketing Strategy

Figure 54 - Vendors along Lawrence Avenue East at the Taste of Lawrence fes val.

40

Gateways to the Neighbourhood

Signs iden fying par cular neighbourhoods are usually a good indicator that a community has a sense of pride of where they live, and they wish to convey the knowledge of being in the neighbourhood to those who pass through. This can be accomplished through the erec on of a sign or banners, or crea on of a mural.

Engage Local Schools

Scarborough Village could ac vely engage more members of the community by connec ng with local schools. Increased involvement will strengthen the neighbourhood’s image and sense of unity, giving community members a greater sense of iden ty. This engagement can take many forms; ideas range from students presen ng projects about community, to forming special groups aimed at reviving the area, such as taking on small projects or organizing clean-up crews.

One example of engaging local schools in Toronto is in Leslieville. Children from the neighbourhood school were invited to paint a mural on the side of a building showing the neighbourhood from their perspec ve and what they felt the strengths were. As a result the children recognized their own diversity and its importance in the City of Toronto. Although this is a very basic awareness strategy, it ins lls pride in the local youth and also draws the interest of visitors passing through the area.

Another ini a ve could be to have neighbourhood schools raise funds for local chari es or community groups. This can help

Figure 56 - Example of a gateway close to Scarborough Village.

Figure 57 - Corktown Mural in Detroit announces your entrance into the Corktown area. This idea could be used on the high rises in Scarborough Village.(Source: h p://www.23hq.com/insky/photo/2180800/large)

to achieve the goals of, and create awareness for, the associated groups, projects, chari es or problems. There are three high schools in proximity to Scarborough Village; Sir Wilfred Laurier Collegiate Ins tute, Cedarbrae Collegiate Ins tute and R.H. King Academy. Engaging with these schools could open up new possibili es for achieving shared goals for the community.

Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Informa on Sessions

Internal marke ng is an essen al component to the revitaliza on of Scarborough Village. Part of the reason that many residents feel a sense of detachment to the area is due to a lack of knowledge about their own community and the a empts at improvements throughout the neighbourhood. Once a Community Improvement Plan has been created, informa on sessions would be held in aim of increasing awareness of the challenges the community faces, as well as what can be done.

The Community Improvement Plan would contain a combina on of poten al programs and recommended improvements to the area. This knowledge would greatly benefi t residents and facilitate in the achievement of the neighbourhood goals. Awareness could be spread through informa on sessions held by schools, community centres or even local businesses. These sessions will provide a be er understanding of the benefi ts of a CIP, as well as how community involvement can help expand these programs in the future and the impact it could have on their livelihood.

Figure 58 - The mural created by students in Leslieville, Toronto.(Source: h p://citynoise.org/upload/26817.jpg)

41

This report is a comprehensive background study of the work that has already been done, the issues that plague the area, and improvements that can be made. This report determines various priori es throughout the neighbourhood that need to be addressed moving forward. This report is not an offi cial policy document and is meant to be used to facilitate the crea on of a Community Improvement Plan. The data gathered in this report will provide the guidelines for specifi c policies that will allow for the implementa on of recommenda ons.

Community members will need to ac vely communicate prior to the implementa on of a Community Improvement Plan. Once the policies have been dra ed, the Scarborough Village community will need to priori ze their projects. It is recommended that a phasing approach is employed and takes into considera on the feasibility of the projects. Larger public works such as the widening of sidewalks have very high capital costs meaning that they are likely to be long term projects. The crea on of paths that be er link the community however, can be part of the earlier phases of the process as they are short term projects, or “small wins”.

Once the Community Improvement Plan is completed, it must be approved by the City of Toronto. The comple on of this process through the crea on of a formal policy document will allow for further opportuni es for the revitaliza on of Scarborough Village.

5.0 Next Steps

42

Ac on for Neighbourhood Change. 2007. About Us. Retrieved November 20, 2010 from h p://www.anccommunity.ca/AboutANC.html

Cedar Drive Junior Public School. (2010). About Us. Retrieved November 20, 2010 from h p://www.tdsb.on.ca/SchoolWeb/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10288&menuid=16683&pageid=14757

City of Cornwall. (2004). Offi cial Plan of the Corpora on of the City of Cornwall. Cornwall: City of Cornwall.

City of Toronto. (2009 September). Business Connect - Connec ng Toronto’s Business Community to Selected Assistance Programs. Retrieved 2010 21-September from Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism h p://www.toronto.ca/business/pdf/BusinessConnect.pdf

City of Toronto. (2006) City of Toronto Act. [Toronto]: The Assembly. (Last amendment: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 26, s. 1.).

City of Toronto. (2006). Stronger Communi es. Retrieved 2010 26-September from City of Toronto website: h p://www.toronto.ca/greatcity/stronger4.html

City of Toronto. (2010). Toronto Municipal Code. Retrieved 2010 27-Septermber from City of Toronto website: h p://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/index.htm

City of Toronto. (2009). Toronto Offi cial Plan. Retrieved 2010 22-September from City of Toronto website: h p://www.toronto.ca/planning/offi cial_plan/introduc on.htm

City of Toronto. (2010 31-May). Tower Renewal. Retrieved 2010 30-September from Mayor’s Tower Renewal: h p://www.towerrenewal.ca

City of Toronto. (2010). Urban Design Guidelines:Highland Creek. Toronto: City of Toronto.

City of Toronto. (2008). Finch-Warden Revitaliza on Study. Toronto: City of Toronto.

Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design Vancouver. (2010). Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design Principles. Retrieved 2010 24-September from Design Centre for Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design Vancouver: h p://www.designcentreforcpted.org/Pages/Principles.html#1

du Toit Allsopp Hillier. (2004). Fort York Neighbourhood Public Realm Master Plan and Architectural Design Guidelines. Toronto, ON. du Toit Allsopp Hillier.

Farrow, P., & Hess. J. (2010). Walkability in Toronto’s Apartment Neighbourhoods - prelimiary report on Scarborough Village walkability workshop. Retrieved 2010 28-September from Jane’s Walk Website: h p://janeswalk.net/ci es/category/toronto/

Interna onal Crime Preven on Through Environemtal Design Associa on. (2010). Home. Retrieved 2010 29-September from Interna onal Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design Associa on Website: h p://www.cpted.net

References

43

Lyon, J. (2007). 3201 – 3227 Eglinton Avenue East – Rezoning and Subdivision Applica ons - Preliminary Report. Retrieved November 20, 2010 from h p://www.toronto.ca

McKay, D. (2007). Redeveloping Greyfi elds in the Greater Toronto Area. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Meagher, S. (2007). A Neighbourhood Vitality Index: an approach to measuring neighbourhood well-being. Toronto: The United Way.

MetCap Living Incorporated. (2010). Find my Place to Live. Retrieved November 20, 2010 from h p://www.metcap.com/why_choose_metcapliving/

Ministry of Municipal Aff airs and Housing . (2006). Municipal Quality of Economic Prosperity. Toronto: Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch.

Ministry of Municipal Aff airs and Housing. (2008). Community Improvement Planning Handbook. Toronto: Provincial Planning Policy Branch.

Morrison Park Advisors. (2010). Tower Renewal . Retrieved 2010 25-September from Tower Renewal Financing Op ons Report: h p://www.towerrenewal.ca/

Ontario. Legisla ve Assembly. (2001) The Municipal Act. [Toronto]: The Assembly. (Last amendment: 2009, c. 34, Sched. I, s. 22.).

Ontario. Legisla ve Assembly. (1990). The Planning Act. [Toronto]: The Assembly. (Last amendment: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 21, s. 10).

Piazza, C. (2008). Scarborough Village Community Needs Analysis. Toronto: YMCA and Employment Ontario. Retried on November 20, 2010 from h p://www.ywcatoronto.org/employment/merc.htm

Saleff , T., & Kesik, I. (2009). Tower renewal guidelines for the comprehensive retrofi t of mul -unit residen al buildings in cold climates. Toronto: Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design, University of Toronto.

Shewprasad, S. (2006). Ac on for Neighbourhood Change Plaza Project in Scarborough Village. Toronto: Ac on for Neighbourhood Change.

United Way of Greater Toronto . (2005). United Way: Strong Neighbourhoods: A Call to Ac on. Toronto: United Way of Greater Toronto .

44

Images

Alta Planning and Design. “Pedestrian Island on SC 135”. Online Image. 2010. Alta Planning and Design. Retrieved 25 November 2010 from: <h p://www.altaplanning.com/vol+10+issue+1.aspx>

East Renfrewshire Council. “Example of street barriers in East Renfrewshire, UK”. Online image. 2010. East Renfrewshire Council. Retrieved 20 November 2010 from: <h p://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/traffi c_lights1.jpg>

City of Toronto. “Example of Decora ve Aluminum Barrier/Splash Guard that could be used to separate road traffi c and sidewalks”. City of Toronto - Urban Design Streetscape Manual. Retrieved 20 November 2010 from: <h p://wx.toronto.ca/inter/plan/streetscape.nsf/0af496a433b08d9f85257457005a104f/ 9F1E31CB1EC5A6638525751200771995/$fi le/F-5.pdf>

dt_toronto_geek. “David Crombie Park”. dt_toronto_geek - urbantoronto.ca. Retrieved 20 November 2010 from: <h p://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?9123-Toronto-Parks/page4>

Bing Maps. “Loca on of land in Cougar Ct”. Bing Maps. Retrieved 20 November 2010 from: www.bing.com/maps/

Bing Maps. “Loca on of garbage bins and proposed new loca on”. Bing Maps. Retrieved 20 November 2010 from: www.bing.com/maps/

Elicar. “The Murals of Leslieville”. Online Image. City Noise. Retrieved 22 November 2010 from: <h p://citynoise.org/ ar cle/7952>

GTD Aquitane. “512 Row at Avenue”. Online Image. 2008. 512 St. Clair. Wikipedia. Retrieved 24 November 2010 from: <h p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/512_St._Clair>

insky. “Mural – Corktown”. Online Image. 2007. 23hq. Retrieved 22 November 2010 from: <h p://www.23hq.com/insky/ photo/2180800>

Iroquois Springs. “Outdoor Basketball Courts”. Online Image. 2008. Iroquois Springs. Retrieved 25 November 2010 from: <h p://iroquoissprings.com/rental-facili es-tour.html>

jimniles. “Bamboo Forest Pathway in Kyoto, Japan”. Online Image. 2010. Pixdaus. Retrieved 25 November 2010 from: <h p://pixdaus.com/single.php?id=242469>

Playmasters Recrea on. “Playground Equipment”. Online Image. 2010. Playmasters Recrea on. Retrieved 25 November 2010 from: <h p://playmasters.info/?p=346>

ShonTron “Zum Shelter” Online Image. 2010. urbantoronto.ca Retrieved 30 November 2010 from: <h p://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?3110-Brampton-Transit-Zm-(formerly-Acceleride)/page11>

45

Appendix A: Background and Analysis

1. YWCA Needs Analysis Report

In 2008, the YWCA was commissioned by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universi es to conduct a needs assessment analysis of the Scarborough Village community. Through con nual communica on with the YWCA, Caroline Piazza was able to use a basic demographic analysis, community overview and neighbourhood study the report voices the needs, concerns and demands of the women in the Scarborough Village. The report also briefl y touches on similar concerns addressed in the University of Toronto’s Walkability Report, discuss in appendix A sec on C, such as safety. The main focus of this report is on the need for social programs that encourage employment for women in the area. It also off ers several strategies and types of programs that could help Scarborough Village reach this goal, including a goal base restructuring within the YWCA staff . While the report off ers an excellent voice for the vision of community members, it does not address the physical changes needed in order to improve safety throughout the area.

2. Strong Neighbourhoods: A Call to Ac on

In 2004, a joint ini a ve between the United Way of Greater Toronto and the City of Toronto, along with the support of the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, came together to create the Strong Neighbourhood Task Force. This task force was created to build an ac on plan for the revitaliza on of Toronto

neighbourhoods. A er comple ng a variety of reports and studies which looked at the City of Toronto’s “priority” neighbourhoods, United Way of Greater Toronto no ced a few startling trends that needed immediate a en on. These reports revealed, a drama c increase in poverty levels in par cular Toronto neighbourhoods, inadequate infrastructure, and the failure of community organiza ons to meet the growing and changing needs of their residents. One of the communi es iden fi ed was Scarborough Village meaning that this report and the ac on it calls for are directly linked to our study.

The study aims to take ac on through a variety of means. Strong communi es are vital to Toronto’s overall success. With con nual growth in the city it is important for neighbourhoods to demonstrate their strength, both socially and economically. The constantly changing demography, reduc on in social support programs, short term funding to projects and a lack of public and open spaces all contribute to the barriers faced by these neighbourhoods. The report outlines that strong community services are the easiest and most cost eff ec ve way of overcoming these challenges. Nevertheless research shows that investment can be used as a means of strengthening neighbourhoods. Although a lack of funding o en poses a problem.

The report suggests that coordina on on all levels of government is necessary in order

46

to implement policies to increase in social programming and create new sources of funding. Once implemented all investments and funding ini a ves should include aspects of social, economic and urban planning.

Finally, the report recommends a call for the three levels of government to unite and create task forces of elected offi cials that will monitor investment, investment strategies and social and economic ini a ves. This can be accomplished by examining qualita ve and quan ta ve data sets that observe neighbourhood economic, educa onal, health, and demographic changes over a fi ve year period.

3. Priori es to Strengthen Neighbourhoods

In 2003, the City of Toronto established nine key priori es from a public consulta on, as part of the Listening to Toronto sessions, earlier that year. Later in 2005, the City partnered with the province to secure a new City of Toronto Act using these priori es to infl uence both program planning and budget decisions. This report highlights the accomplishments made on addressing these priori es to date.

The City of Toronto has laid out guidelines for crea ng Community Safety Plans in at-risk neighbourhoods focusing on job training and employment of youth and comba ng the eff ects of guns and gangs on communi es. The city in partnership with higher levels of government and private sector funding created 85 community improvement projects to help improve community safety and economic

opportuni es for at-risk youths subject to homelessness, hunger, and lacking resources for higher learning.

The plan involves:• Establishing a Mayor’s Advisory Panel

on Community Safety to help guide the building of safe communi es and bringing together private and public community leaders;

• Establishing a Community Safety Secretariat to coordinate and establish programs and services in at-risk neighbourhoods;

• Developing neighbourhood ac on plans for key at-risk communi es;

• Targe ng programs and services to designated at-risk neighbourhoods such as Breaking the Cycle of Violence, AIDS Preven on, and programs addressing the use of harmful drugs;

• Fast tracking the development of innova ve programs to combat gun use and gang involvement;

• Engaging the corporate sector in developing new employment opportuni es for at-risk youth;

• Working with the provincial and federal governments to change relevant legisla on;

• Expanding the Community Crisis Response program; and

• Engaging City councillors in developing or expanding community safety ini a ves in their wards

47

4. Walkability in Toronto’s Apartment Neighbourhoods

A “Walkability Workshop” was held in Scarborough Village on September 26, 2009 by Paul Hess, from the University of Toronto, and Jane Farrow, of Jane’s Walk. This workshop was part of a larger study called Walkability in Toronto’s Apartment Neighbourhoods that aims incorporate informa on gathered from eight Toronto neighbourhoods. The study intended to iden fy the barriers experienced by pedestrians, as well as improvements that could be made to the pedestrian environment. Members of the community were present to engage in this workshop, including representa ves of the Scarborough Village Neighbourhood Associa on, Ac on for Neighbourhood Change, Youthlink and residents of the apartment buildings found on Cougar Court.

The resident par cipants from Scarborough Village expressed a wide range of opinions about the pedestrian environment in their neighbourhood. From the responses gathered, a common concern was the major impediments to walking, as iden fi ed below:

• Poor ligh ng; • Li ered or unkempt pathways/sidewalks;• Too much/too fast traffi c;• Missing connec ons or pathways;• Places are very far apart;• Scary people;• Too few people;• Narrow spaces with fencing on all sides;

and• Obstructed sightlines, corners.

Other key fi ndings include:• In the survey, 29% of par cipants noted

that the lack of direct connected walking routes as a major barrier to walking in the neighbourhood and 66% said that they o en use shortcuts to get to their des na ons;

• In general informal routes and shortcuts o en involve pedestrians coping with poor walking condi ons such as steps, mud, and increased risk to personal security or traffi c when compared to more formal routes. The signifi cant amounts of shortcuts and improvised walking routes in Scarborough Village are indica ons of ‘poor connec vity’ because formal routes do not directly connect the places people want to go;

• People generally state that the condi on of sidewalks and paths are in poor condi on, surfacing is uneven and it makes ge ng around hazardous;

• Informal, low cost infrastructure is missing or derelict in several important loca ons, and presents a barrier to much needed social cohesion and

• Many par cipants who had children commented on the lack of nearby play areas for children that were safe and accessible.

Four key pedestrian links have been iden fi ed in Scarborough Village:

1. The driveway that runs east and west, between 215 Markham and 15 Cougar Court that emp es out on Cedar Drive.

2. The pedestrian pathway between the two

48

privately held proper es on the plaza that fronts on the north side of Eglinton, east of Markham.

3. A high traffi c jaywalking site across Eglinton between the Plaza shortcut and Markington Square where the Metro supermarket is located.

5. ANC Plaza Project in Scarborough Village

The ANC Plaza Project in Scarborough Village Report was prepared for the United Way by members from Ac on for Neighbourhood Change (ANC) and three students from the University of Toronto, Sco Birchall, Lesley Collins and Jessica Wilczack, in 2006. The report was designed to explore the role of the plazas within the neighbourhood as a way of understanding the opportuni es and challenges faced by these businesses and to engage business owners in community development. This report also off ers valuable insight into issues of customer rela ons, marke ng, safety and aesthe c appeal of the plazas. The report men ons that businesses regularly par cipate in ANC ac vi es, and are working in collabora on with residents on issues that aff ect the whole community. However, the report was produced in 2006 and the dynamics of this rela onship may have changed which is an important considera on when using this report.

6. ANC Neighbourhood Vitality Index

The United Way approached Public Interest to develop an index to measure neighbourhood vitality. The index provides a method for collec ng and tabula ng data into a meaningful

portrait of the community’s needs and gaps and engages residents to get involved in voicing their opinion on neighbourhood priori es and to set collec ve goals.

Understanding where Scarborough Village community stands in rela on to other neighbourhoods across the city is important in priori zing goals and objec ves related to the Community Improvement Plan. The report iden fi es the need for community services, such as public space and community centres, improved safety throughout the neighbourhood and how addressing these issues will posi vely aff ect the community as a whole. That being said, this report is just a star ng off point for useful data collec on and states that it is only useful in further communica on and upkeep with the residents and business owners of the area.

7. Mayor’s Tower Renewal Recommenda ons

The former Mayor, David Miller’s Tower Renewal program is an ini a ve approved back in 2008 to drive broad environmental, social, economic, and cultural change by improving Toronto’s concrete apartment towers and the neighbourhoods surrounding them. The goals of the program are fairly broad and include crea ng local ‘green’ jobs, increasing on-site small-scale retail and markets, upgrading green space around the buildings, providing more space for neighbourhood mee ngs and interac ons, installing solar, wind and geothermal energy solu ons, and green roofs where appropriate, increasing water conserva on and on-site management of

49

waste, increasing the demand for locally-produced green and clean technology, and fostering community gardens and urban agriculture at the sites.

The Tower Renewal Guidelines provides insight in rela on to the rehabilita on, retrofi ng and conserva on of buildings. The guidelines also provide instruc on for the retro-fi ng of buildings with energy conserving materials. While Tower Renewal iden fi es the importance of rehabilita ng the surrounding lands in the Tower Renewal Implementa on Book, there is no instruc on on how this is to be carried out in the Guidelines.

The Tower Renewal Implementa on Book provides an overview of the project, the historic evolu on of towers in Toronto, neighbourhood studies (most notably the Scarborough Village Walkability Report), and case studies regarding pilot projects. There is reference to the importance of community space and the project is dedicated to making space available where residents can meet with their neighbours, take part in recrea on ac vi es and access social programs. The majority of space suggested however appears to be inside buildings or within the building property, and does not concern itself with surrounding public lands.

The pilot site case study is 215 Markham Road, one of four apartment buildings located on Cougar Court. Based on the results of the studies, assessments and consulta ons with property owners and residents, the following

projects are proposed: • Energy retrofi ts, in par cular the use of

mo on sensors for common area ligh ng; • Waste diversion strategies; • On-site community use space; • Improvements to shared driveway; • Improvements to main pathway; • Community garden and beau fi ca on;

and • Shared outdoor recrea on space (Cougar

Court).

Safety audits at 215 Markham Road resulted in the following recommenda ons:

• Increasing exterior ligh ng in key loca ons;

• Improving site lines on the east side of property;

• Increasing opportuni es for residents to get to know each other (e.g. basketball court, indoor mul purpose rooms, etc.);

• Upgrading surveillance system from analog to digital;

• Adding more security cameras at building exits;

• Hiring an on-site, on-duty security guard; • Erec ng signage lis ng prohibi ons (“no

trespassing”, etc.) and ensuring signage is in languages appropriate for resident popula on;

• Increasing common area cleaning schedule;

• Repairing elevators to reduce incidents of residents ge ng stuck in elevators; and

• Conduc ng regular inspec ons of dwelling units for pest management and hiring exterminators.

50

The following recommenda ons are made to improve the shared driveway between 215 Markham Road and 15 Cougar Court:

• Increased ligh ng; • Enhanced snow removal; • Lowering curb heights and installing curb

cuts for people with strollers, buggies, and wheelchairs;

• Improving pedestrian pathways; and • Improving drainage of storm water on the

pathways and driveway.

The ‘main pathway’ is an informal pathway from Cougar Court through a shopping plaza to Eglinton Avenue East. The following improvements are recommended for the pathway:

• Resurfacing the pavement to make it easier for people with strollers, buggies, wheelchairs, and limited mobility to use the pathway;

• Improving the ligh ng; • Crea ng sea ng areas, e.g. benches; • Adding trees, bushes, shrubs, and

fl owers; and • Landscaping, maintenance of exis ng

trees and introducing landscaping materials.

The residents of the Cougar Court area and the Scarborough Village Advisory Council have iden fi ed vacant City-owned land north of Dunelm Road as a poten al loca on for a community garden. The open space between 15 and 25 Cougar Court has been iden fi ed as a good loca on for a shared outdoor recrea on area for all four apartment buildings.

8. Tower Renewal Financing Op ons Report

The Tower Renewal Financing Op ons Report states that comprehensive Tower Renewal projects for target buildings could cost several million dollars per buildings, including all ini al reports and studies, construc on, and program administra on. Also included would be the cost of ongoing monitoring, repor ng, tenant educa on and staff training that would be required throughout the life of the Tower Renewal project. There is no breakdown available on the specifi c costs per recommenda on however with regards to outdoor and surrounding space the cost is unlikely to be in the millions. Financing for the project could consist of any of, or some combina on of:

• Owner self-fi nancing/cash. Given the expected size of Tower Renewal, this op on might more properly be regarded as a contribu on to another form of fi nancing, where a building owner would pay a por on of the total cost only;

• Real Estate Mortgage. The building itself would have a new or second mortgage applied to it, or the exis ng mortgage would be refi nanced and increased in size;

• Unsecured commercial loan;• Government grant/subsidy;• Government fi nancing, with or without

an alterna ve form of security (i.e., not a mortgage). In this instance a government is the actual lender to the projects, and assumes the risk associated with default. The government may ul mately raise the money from the capital markets, but

51

would stand in between capital providers and Tower Renewal Projects;

• Credit-enhanced capital pool, with or without an alterna ve form of security (i.e., not a mortgage). In this model, the City, or an en ty controlled by the City, would sponsor and create a special purpose en ty that would fi nance individual Tower Renewal Projects. Groups of projects would be pooled together, and fi nanced through bond issues to the capital markets. This pooling approach would ensure effi cient administra on of the raising of funds, and the sharing of risk between individual projects in a pool would improve credit terms. In order to improve credit terms further, the City, or some other en ty, would “over-collateralize” the capital pool, so that bondholders would be further protected from defaults that might occur among the projects.

Each of these op ons relates diff erently to building owners’ investment return requirements, debt ra os, and building values, and would be more or less a rac ve to the City of Toronto based on budget impact, credit impact, and impact on program viability.

9. University of Toronto Research Proposal on Greyfi elds

In 2007, David A. MacKay prepared a report on tled Redeveloping Greyfi elds in the Greater

Toronto Area for the University Of Toronto Department Of Geography. This study covered the defi ni on of a greyfi eld and how a private

en ty could go about developing this land. Greyfi elds are commercial shopping sites that have high levels of vacancies and experience low level of pedestrian ac vity. They may also be characterized by their un-kept and underu lized parking lots and deteriora ng facades.

Private developers are responsible for most greyfi eld revitaliza ons and unless the site is a part of a business improvement plan, there is li le the municipality is willing to do in terms of helping the revitaliza on process. Using this report, it was determined that the Scarborough Village could not quite be considered a greyfi eld because while they have suff ering facades and some vacant space, the parking lots are generally fi lled with cars and pedestrian ac vity, on top of the fact that many business do quite well. Also, the city not likely to advocate for improvements to this area unless it was supported by the local business or there were signifi cant safety concerns with the commercial sites. The Markington Square redevelopment provides an excellent example of a local greyfi eld that has been developed by a private corpora on.

10. University of Toronto “Vision and Ac on Plan” for Scarborough Village

At the me of this report, there was a parallel study done by University of Toronto students, under the direc on of Paul Bedford, looking at high-level ini a ves for Scarborough Village. The study has yet to be fi nalized.

53

1. Planning Act Policies

Community improvement project area28. (1) In this sec on,

“community improvement” means the planning or replanning, design or redesign, resubdivision, clearance, development or redevelopment, construc on, reconstruc on and rehabilita on, improvement of energy effi ciency, or any of them, of a community improvement project area, and the provision of such residen al, commercial, industrial, public, recrea onal, ins tu onal, religious, charitable or other uses, buildings, structures, works, improvements or facili es, or spaces therefore, as may be appropriate or necessary; (“améliora ons communautaires”)“community improvement plan” means a plan for the community improvement of a community improvement project area; (“plan d’améliora ons communautaires”)“community improvement project area” means a municipality or an area within a municipality, the community improvement of which in the opinion of the council is desirable because of age, dilapida on, overcrowding, faulty arrangement, unsuitability of buildings or for any other environmental, social or community economic development reason. (“zone d’améliora ons communautaires”) R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 17, s. 7 (1, 2); 2006, c. 23, s. 14 (1).

Aff ordable housing(1.1) Without limi ng the generality of the defi ni on of “community improvement” in subsec on (1), for greater certainty, it includes the provision of aff ordable housing. 2006, c. 23, s. 14 (2).

Designa on of community improvement project area

(2) Where there is an offi cial plan in eff ect in a local municipality or in a prescribed upper- er municipality that contains provisions

rela ng to community improvement in the municipality, the council may, by by-law, designate the whole or any part of an area covered by such an offi cial plan as a community improvement project area. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 28 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 14 (3).

Acquisi on and clearance of land(3) When a by-law has been passed under subsec on (2), the municipality may,

(a) acquire land within the community improvement project area with the approval of the Minister if the land is acquired before a community improvement plan men oned in subsec on (4) comes into eff ect and without the approval of the Minister if the land is acquired a er the community improvement plan comes into eff ect;(b) hold land acquired before or a er the passing of the by-law within the community

Appendix B: Municipal Policies and Relevant Documentation

54

improvement project area; and(c) clear, grade or otherwise prepare the land for community improvement. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 28 (3); 2001, c. 17, s. 7 (3).

Community improvement plan(4) When a by-law has been passed under subsec on (2), the council may provide for the prepara on of a plan suitable for adop on as a community improvement plan for the community improvement project area and the plan may be adopted and come into eff ect in accordance with subsec ons (5) and (5.1). 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 47 (1).

Restric on re upper- er municipality(4.0.1) The community improvement plan of an upper- er municipality may deal only with prescribed ma ers. 2006, c. 23, s. 14 (4).(4.1)-(4.4) Repealed: 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 47 (1).

Same(5) Subsec ons 17 (15), (17), (19) to (19.3), (19.5) to (24), (25) to (30.1), (44) to (47) and (49) to (50.1) apply, with necessary modifi ca ons, in respect of a community improvement plan and any amendments to it. 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 47 (1).

Same(5.1) The Minister is deemed to be the approval authority for the purpose of subsec on (5). 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 47 (1).

Same(5.2) Despite subsec on (5), if an offi cial plan contains provisions describing the alterna ve measures men oned in subsec on 17 (19.3), subsec ons 17 (15), (17) and (19) to (19.2) do not apply in respect of the community improvement plan and any amendments to it, if the measures are complied with. 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 47 (1).

Powers of council re land(6) For the purpose of carrying out a community improvement plan that has come into eff ect, the municipality may,

(a) construct, repair, rehabilitate or improve buildings on land acquired or held by it in the community improvement project area in conformity with the community improvement plan, and sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any such buildings and the land appurtenant thereto;(b) sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any land acquired or held by it in the community improvement project area to any person or governmental authority for use in conformity with the community improvement plan. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 28 (6); 2001, c. 17, s. 7 (6).

Grants or loans regarding eligible costs(7) For the purpose of carrying out a municipality’s community improvement plan that has come into eff ect, the municipality may make grants or loans, in conformity with the community improvement plan, to registered owners, assessed owners and tenants of lands and buildings within the

55

community improvement project area, and to any person to whom such an owner or tenant has assigned the right to receive a grant or loan, to pay for the whole or any part of the eligible costs of the community improvement plan. 2006, c. 23, s. 14 (8).

Eligible costs(7.1) For the purposes of subsec on (7), the eligible costs of a community improvement plan may include costs related to environmental site assessment, environmental remedia on, development, redevelopment, construc on and reconstruc on of lands and buildings for rehabilita on purposes or for the provision of energy effi cient uses, buildings, structures, works, improvements or facili es. 2006, c. 23, s. 14 (8).

Grants or loans between upper and lower- er municipali es

(7.2) The council of an upper- er municipality may make grants or loans to the council of a lower- er municipality and the council of a lower- er municipality may make grants or loans to the council of the upper- er municipality, for the purpose of carrying

out a community improvement plan that has come into eff ect, on such terms as to security and otherwise as the council considers appropriate, but only if the offi cial plan of the municipality making the grant or loan contains provisions rela ng to the making of such grants or loans. 2006, c. 23, s. 14 (8).

Maximum amount(7.3) The total of the grants and loans made in respect of par cular lands and buildings under subsec ons (7) and (7.2) and the tax assistance as defi ned in sec on 365.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 or sec on 333 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be, that is provided in respect of the lands and buildings shall not exceed the eligible cost of the community improvement plan with respect to those lands and buildings. 2006, c. 23, s. 14 (8); 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 48 (3).(8) Repealed: 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 47 (3).

Applica on of s. 32 (2, 3)(9) Subsec ons 32 (2) and (3) apply with necessary modifi ca ons to any loan made under subsec on (7) of this sec on. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 28 (9).

Condi ons of sale, etc.(10) Un l a by-law or amending by-law passed under sec on 34 a er the adop on of the community improvement plan is in force in the community improvement project area, no land acquired, and no building constructed, by the municipality in the community improvement project area shall be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of unless the person or authority to whom it is disposed of enters into a wri en agreement with the municipality that the person or authority will keep and maintain the land and building and the use thereof in conformity with the community improvement plan un l such a by-law or amending by-law is in force, but the municipality may, during the

56

period of the development of the plan, lease any land or any building or part thereof in the area for any purpose, whether or not in conformity with the community improvement plan, for a term of not more than three years at any one me. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 28 (10).

Registra on of agreement(11) An agreement concerning a grant or loan made under subsec on (7) or an agreement entered into under subsec on (10), may be registered against the land to which it applies and the municipality shall be en tled to enforce the provisions thereof against any party to the agreement and, subject to the provisions of the Registry Act and the Land Titles Act, against any and all subsequent owners or tenants of the land. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 28 (11); 2006, c. 23, s. 14 (10).

Debentures(12) Despite subsec on 408 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 or any regula on under sec on 256 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, debentures issued by the municipality for the purpose of this sec on may be for such term of years as the debenture by-law, with the approval of the Municipal Board, provides. 2002, c. 17, Sched. B, s. 9; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 47 (4).

Dissolu on of area(13) When the council is sa sfi ed that the community improvement plan has been carried out, the council may, by by-law,

dissolve the community improvement project area. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 28 (13).

Agreement re studies and development29.(1)A municipality, with the approval of the Minister, may enter into agreement with any governmental authority or any agency thereof created by statute, for the carrying out of studies and the prepara on and implementa on of plans and programs for the development or improvement of the municipality.Where approval of Minister not required(2)Despite subsec on (1), a municipality may enter into agreement with one or more other municipali es under subsec on (1) without the approval of the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 29.

Agreements for grants in aid of community improvement

30.The Minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and a municipality may enter into agreement providing for payment to the municipality on such terms and condi ons and in such amounts as may be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to assist in the community improvement of a community improvement project area as defi ned in sec on 28, including the carrying out of studies for the purpose of selec ng areas for community improvement. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 30.31.Repealed: 1997, c. 24, s. 226 (1).Note: Despite the repeal of sec on 31, an order made under that sec on is con nued as an order made under the corresponding provision of the Building Code Act, 1992. See:

57

1997, c. 24, ss. 226 (2), 228.

Grants or loans for repairs32.(1)When a by-law under sec on 15.1 of the Building Code Act, 1992 is in force in a municipality, the council of the municipality may pass a by-law for providing for the making of grants or loans to the registered owners or assessed owners of lands in respect of which an order has been made under subsec on 15.2 (2) of that Act to pay for the whole or any part of the cost of the repairs required to be done, or of the clearing, grading and leveling of the lands, on such terms and condi ons as the council may prescribe. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 32 (1); 1997, c. 24, s. 226 (3).

Loans collected as taxes, lien on land(2)The amount of any loan made under a by-law passed under this sec on, together with interest at a rate to be determined by the council, may be added by the clerk of the municipality to the collector’s roll and collected in like manner as municipal taxes over a period fi xed by the council, and such amount and interest shall, un l payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the loan has been made.

Registra on of cer fi cate(3)A cer fi cate signed by the clerk of the municipality se ng out the amount loaned to any owner under a by-law passed under this sec on, including the rate of interest thereon, together with a descrip on of the land in respect of which the loan has been

made, suffi cient for registra on, shall be registered in the proper land registry offi ce against the land, and, upon repayment in full to the municipality of the amount loaned and interest thereon, a cer fi cate signed by the clerk of the municipality showing such repayment shall be similarly registered, and thereupon the lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the loan was made is discharged. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 32 (2, 3).

Demoli on control area33.(1)In this sec on,“dwelling unit” means any property that is used or designed for use as a domes c establishment in which one or more persons may sleep and prepare and serve meals; (“logement”)“residen al property” means a building that contains one or more dwelling units, but does not include subordinate or accessory buildings the use of which is incidental to the use of the main building. (“immeuble d’habita on”) R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 33 (1).

Establishment of demoli on control area by by-law

(2)When a by-law under sec on 15.1 of the Building Code Act, 1992 or a predecessor thereof is in force in a municipality or when a by-law prescribing standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property under any special Act is in force in a municipality, the council of the local municipality may by by-law designate any area within the municipality to which the standards of maintenance and occupancy by-

58

law applies as an area of demoli on control and therea er no person shall demolish the whole or any part of any residen al property in the area of demoli on control unless the person is the holder of a demoli on permit issued by the council under this sec on. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 33 (2); 1997, c. 24, s. 226 (4).

Council may issue or refuse to issue permit(3)Subject to subsec on (6), where applica on is made to the council for a permit to demolish residen al property, the council may issue the permit or refuse to issue the permit.

Appeal to O.M.B.(4)Where the council refuses to issue the permit or neglects to make a decision thereon within thirty days a er the receipt by the clerk of the municipality of the applica on, the applicant may appeal to the Municipal Board and the Board shall hear the appeal and either dismiss the same or direct that the demoli on permit be issued, and the decision of the Board shall be fi nal.

No ce of appeal(5)The person appealing to the Municipal Board under subsec on (4) shall, in such manner and to such persons as the Board may direct, give no ce of the appeal to the Board.

Applica on for demoli on permit where building permit issued

(6)Subject to subsec on (7), the council shall,

on applica on therefore, issue a demoli on permit where a building permit has been issued to erect a new building on the site of the residen al property sought to be demolished.

Condi ons of demoli on permit(7)A demoli on permit under subsec on (6) may be issued on the condi on that the applicant for the permit construct and substan ally complete the new building to be erected on the site of the residen al property proposed to be demolished by not later than such date as the permit specifi es, such date being not less than two years from the day demoli on of the exis ng residen al property is commenced, and on the condi on that on failure to complete the new building within the me specifi ed in the permit, the clerk of the municipality shall be en tled to enter on the collector’s roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, such sum of money as the permit specifi es, but not in any case to exceed the sum of $20,000 for each dwelling unit contained in the residen al property in respect of which the demoli on permit is issued and such sum shall, un l payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permit to demolish the residen al property is issued.

Registra on of no ce(8)No ce of any condi on imposed under subsec on (7) may be registered in the proper land registry offi ce against the land to which it applies.

59

Registra on of cer fi cate(9)Where the clerk of the municipality adds a sum of money to the collector’s roll under subsec on (7), a cer fi cate signed by the clerk se ng out the sum added to the roll, together with a descrip on of the land in respect of which the sum has been added to the roll, suffi cient for registra on, shall be registered in the proper land registry offi ce against the land, and upon payment in full to the municipality of the sum added to the roll, a cer fi cate signed by the clerk of the municipality showing such payment shall be similarly registered, and thereupon the lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the sum was added to the roll is discharged.

Appeal to O.M.B.(10)Where an applicant for a demoli on permit under subsec on (6) is not sa sfi ed as to the condi ons on which the demoli on permit is proposed to be issued, the applicant may appeal to the Municipal Board for a varia on of the condi ons and, where an appeal is brought, the Board shall hear the appeal and may dismiss the same or may direct that the condi ons upon which the permit shall be issued be varied in such manner as the Board considers appropriate, and the decision of the Board shall be fi nal.

Applica on to council for relief from condi ons of demoli on permit

(11)Where a condi on has been imposed under subsec on (7) and the holder of the demoli on permit considers that it is not possible to complete the new building within

the me specifi ed in the permit or where the holder of the permit is of the opinion that the construc on of the new building has become not feasible on economic or other grounds, the permit holder may apply to the council of the municipality for relief from the condi ons on which the permit was issued.

No ce of applica on(12)No ce of applica on under subsec on (11) shall be sent by registered mail to the clerk of the municipality not less than sixty days before the me specifi ed in the permit for the comple on of the new building and, where the council under subsec on (14) extends the me for comple on of the new building, applica on may similarly be made for relief by sending no ce of applica on not less than sixty days before the expiry of the extended comple on me.

Extension of me(13)Despite subsec on (12), the council may, at any me, extend the date specifi ed in that subsec on for the making of an applica on for relief from the condi ons on which the permit was issued.

Powers of council on applica on(14)Where an applica on is made under subsec on (11), the council shall consider the applica on and may grant the same or may extend the me for comple on of the new building for such period of me and on such terms and condi ons as the council considers appropriate or the council may relieve the person applying from the requirement of

60

construc ng the new building.

Appeal to O.M.B.(15)Any person who has made applica on to the council under subsec on (11) may appeal from the decision of the council to the Municipal Board within twenty days of the mailing of the no ce of the decision, or where the council refuses or neglects to make a decision thereon within thirty days a er the receipt by the clerk of the applica on, the applicant may appeal to the Municipal Board and the Board shall hear the appeal and the Board on the appeal has the same powers as the council has under subsec on (14) and the decision of the Board shall be fi nal.

Off ence(16)Every person who demolishes a residen al property, or any por on thereof, in contraven on of subsec on (2) is guilty of an off ence and on convic on is liable to a fi ne of not more than $50,000 for each dwelling unit contained in the residen al property, the whole or any por on of which residen al property has been demolished.

Standards for health and safety remain in force(17)The provisions of any general or special Act and any by-law passed thereunder respec ng standards rela ng to the health or safety of the occupants of buildings and structures remain in full force and eff ect in respect of residen al property situate within an area of demoli on control. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 33 (3-17).

Certain proceedings stayed(18)Subject to subsec on (17), an applica on to the council for a permit to demolish any residen al property operates as a stay to any proceedings that may have been ini ated under any by-law under sec on 15.1 of the Building Code Act, 1992or a predecessor thereof or under any special Act respec ng maintenance or occupancy standards in respect of the residen al property sought to be demolished, un l the council disposes of the applica on, or where an appeal is taken under subsec on (4), un l the Municipal Board has heard the appeal and issued its order thereon. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 33 (18); 1997, c. 24, s. 226 (5).

Exemp on re Building Code(19)Where a permit to demolish residen al property is obtained under this sec on, it is not necessary for the holder thereof to obtain the permit men oned in subsec on 8 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 33 (19); 1997, c. 24, s. 226 (6).

61

2. City of Toronto Act Policies

333. (1) In this sec on,“community improvement plan” and “community improvement project area” have the same meaning as in subsec on 28 (1) of the Planning Act; (“plan d’améliora ons communautaires”, “zone d’améliora ons communautaires”)“development period” means, with respect to an eligible property, the period of me star ng on the date the rehabilita on period ends and ending on the earlier of,

(a) the date specifi ed in the by-law made under subsec on (2), or(b) the date that the tax assistance provided for the property equals the sum of,

(i) the cost of any ac on taken to reduce the concentra on of contaminants on, in or under the property to permit a record of site condi on to be fi led in the Environmental Site Registry under sec on 168.4 of theEnvironmental Protec on Act, and(ii) the cost of complying with any cer fi cate of property use issued under sec on 168.6 of the Environmental Protec on Act; (“période d’aménagement”)

“eligible property” means property for which a phase two environmental site assessment has been conducted,

(a) that is included under sec on 28 of the Planning Act in a community improvement project area for which a community improvement plan is in eff ect containing provisions in respect of tax assistance under this sec on, and

(b) that, as of the date the phase two environmental site assessment was completed, did not meet the standards that must be met under subparagraph 4 i of subsec on 168.4 (1) of the Environmental Protec on Act to permit a record of site condi on to be fi led under that subsec on in the Environmental Site Registry; (“bien admissible”)

“phase two environmental site assessment” has the same meaning as in Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act; (“évalua on environnementale de site de phase II”)“rehabilita on period” means, with respect to an eligible property, the period of me star ng on the date on which the by-law under subsec on (2) providing tax assistance for the property is passed and ending on the earliest of,

(a) the date that is 18 months a er the date that the tax assistance begins to be provided,(b) the date that a record of site condi on for the property is fi led in the Environmental Site Registry under sec on 168.4 of the Environmental Protec on Act, and(c) the date that the tax assistance provided for the property equals the sum of,

(i) the cost of any ac on taken to reduce the concentra on of contaminants on, in or under the property to permit a record of site condi on to be fi led in the Environmental Site Registry under sec on 168.4 of theEnvironmental Protec on Act, and(ii) the cost of complying with any

62

cer fi cate of property use issued under sec on 168.6 of the Environmental Protec on Act; (“période de réhabilita on”)

“tax assistance” means, with respect to an eligible property, the cancella on or deferral of taxes pursuant to a by-law passed under subsec on (2). (“aide fi scale”) 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (1); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (1-3).

By-law to cancel taxes(2) Subject to subsec on (7), the City may pass by-laws providing for the cancella on of all or a por on of the taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on one or more specifi ed eligible proper es, on such condi ons as the City may determine, and a by-law may apply in respect of the rehabilita on period for a specifi ed property, the development period for a specifi ed property, or both. 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (4).(3) Repealed: 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (4).

Payment of tax if condi ons not met(4) If the City passes a by-law under subsec on (2) and the by-law contains condi ons which must be met before tax assistance is provided, the by-law may also provide,(a) that all or some of the taxes that are the subject of the tax assistance may be levied but not collected during the period before the City determines whether the condi ons have been met; and(b) that the taxes shall become payable only

upon no ce in wri ng by the City to the owner of the property that the condi ons have not been met as required under the by-law. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (4); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (5).

Same(5) A by-law providing that taxes become payable in the circumstances described in subsec on (4) may also provide that the interest provisions of a by-law passed under sec on 310 apply, if the taxes become payable, as if the payment of the taxes had not been deferred. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (5).

No ce to Minister of Finance(6) If the City intends to pass a by-law under subsec on (2), it shall give the Minister of Finance the following informa on:1. A copy of the proposed by-law.2. An es mate of how much the tax

assistance to be provided under the by-law will cost the City.

3. The tax rates currently applicable to the eligible property and its assessment and property class.

4. The taxes currently levied on the eligible property for municipal purposes and for school purposes.

5. Such other informa on as may be prescribed by the Minister of Finance. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (6); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (6).

Agreement of Minister of Finance(7) A by-law under subsec on (2) does not

63

apply to taxes for school purposes unless, before the by-law is passed, it is approved in wri ng by the Minister of Finance and, in giving approval, the Minister may require that the by-law contain such condi ons or restric ons with respect to taxes for school purposes as he or she considers appropriate. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (7); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (7).

Copy of by-law to be given(8) If the City passes a by-law under subsec on (2), it shall, within 30 days, give a copy of the by-law to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Municipal Aff airs and Housing. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (8); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (8).

Applica on by owner of an eligible property(9) The owner of an eligible property may apply to the City to receive tax assistance and shall provide to the City such informa on as the City may require. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (9).

Approval by City(10) Upon approval of an applica on made under subsec on (9), the City shall advise the owner of the eligible property of the commencement date of the tax assistance and provide the owner with an es mate of the maximum amount of the tax assistance. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (10); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (9).(11), (12) Repealed: 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (10).

Tax cancella on for por on of a year(13) If the tax assistance provided with respect to a property under this sec on is for a por on of a taxa on year, the amount of the tax assistance shall apply only to that por on of the year, and the taxes otherwise payable shall apply to the other por on of the year. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (13).

Sharing costs, if by-law under subs. (2)(14) If a by-law is passed under subsec on (2) by the City, the amount of the tax assistance shall be shared by the City and the school boards that share in the revenues from the taxes on the property aff ected by the by-law in the same propor on that tax assistance is provided under the by-law. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (14).

Where by-law does not apply to taxes for school purposes

(15) Despite subsec on (14), if a by-law made under subsec on (2) does not apply to taxes for school purposes, the amount of the tax assistance does not aff ect the amount of taxes for school purposes to be paid to the school boards. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (15).(16), (17) Repealed: 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (10).

Refund or credit(18) In providing tax assistance for an eligible property, the City may,(a) refund the taxes to the extent required to provide the tax assistance, if the taxes have been paid; or

64

(b) credit the amount to be refunded to an outstanding tax liability of the owner of the eligible property with respect to the property, if the taxes have not been paid. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (18); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (11).

Tax roll(19) The treasurer of the City shall alter the tax roll to refl ect the tax assistance provided for an eligible property. 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (12).

No ce to City(20) The owner of an eligible property in respect of which a record of site condi on has been fi led in the Environmental Site Registry under sec on 168.4 of the Environmental Protec on Act shall, within 30 days a er the record of site condi on is fi led, no fy the City of the fi ling and the City shall, within 30 days a er receiving the no ce, advise the Minister of Finance of the fi ling. 2007, c. 7, Sched. 4, s. 2.

Eff ect of repeal or amendment of by-law(21) The City may repeal or amend a by-law passed under subsec on (2) with respect to a par cular eligible property, but the repeal or amendment does not ex nguish a right to tax assistance under the by-law unless the owner of the property consents in wri ng to the repeal or amendment. 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (12).

Applica on of provisions(22) Subsec ons (6), (7) and (8) apply, with

necessary modifi ca ons, to the amendment of a by-law passed under subsec on (2), and subsec on (8) applies, with necessary modifi ca ons, to the repeal of a by-law passed under subsec on (2). 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (22); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (13).

Regula ons(23) The Minister of Municipal Aff airs and Housing may make regula ons governing by-laws under subsec on (2). 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (23); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (14).

Regula ons by Minister of Finance(24) The Minister of Finance may make regula ons prescribing informa on for the purposes of paragraph 5 of subsec on (6). 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 65 (15).

Applica on(25) This sec on applies to the por on of the taxa on year remaining in the taxa on year in which this sec on comes into force and to subsequent taxa on years. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 333 (25).

65

3. CPTED Principles

Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is defi ned as a mul -disciplinary approach to deterring criminal behaviour through environmental design. CPTED strategies rely on the ability to infl uence off ender decisions that precede criminal acts by aff ec ng the built, social and administra ve environment (Interna onal CPTED Associa on, 2010). The CPTED principles adopted by the City of Vancouver were examined as a case study. The Scarborough Village has been designated as a “priority” neighbourhood and any design features recommended should incorporate the following principles to help deter criminal ac vi es in the area.

The fi rst component is the Jane Jacobs Test. Her test a empts to not only create an innova ve built environment but also to incorporate designs that create an environment that is not conducive to criminal acts. Jane Jacobs believed that by improving specifi c traits with regards to design along with beau fi ca on, quality of life for all residents could be enhanced and in turn begin to eliminate nega ve behaviour. (CPTED Vancouver, 2010)

CPTED Vancouver also believes that it is important to undertake a process that iden fi es problem areas within the neighbourhood. CPTED designs may then be used to reduce the nega ve ac vi es that go on in these areas. Having a good idea of these types of ac vi es can allow the area to create designs and dra policy that aims to benefi t the well being of the residents. We hope to

garner a be er idea of these “problem” areas when the group speaks to police offi cers involved with the TAVIS ini a ve.

CPTED promotes crea ng a sense of ownership in neighbourhoods. By claiming public space in a neighbourhood it creates a sense of both territoriality and defensibility. This is one of the most prominent issues facing the residents of Scarborough Village. The community does not have a place to call their own.

Another CPTED principal that can be applied to Scarborough Village is crea ng streets that work as a func oning unit. This idea hinges on the fact that a street consists not only of the cars that drive on them but the services that are located along them, as well as the pedestrians who navigate them. Removal of any one these elements will create public areas that can become at risk and more suscep ble to criminal ac vity.

During visits to the neighbourhood, there were concerns related to the commercial uses in the area. CPTED states that commercial uses should be located at street grade, located at the front of the property line with large glass display windows. Outdoor sea ng and outdoor display of goods should be encouraged. This commercial street formula projects a posi ve image as bars on windows detract from the posi ve image.

Further applica on of CPTED principles was determined through interviews with the Program Manager of Urban Design for the

66

Scarborough District. In this mee ng the group discussed how these principles were incorporated in the recommenda ons and design concepts that were included into the study.

67

Several interviews were conducted with various professionals to get their opinions on the issues plaguing Scarborough Village. City Planners, Urban Design Consultants, Community Developers and those with a vested interest in the neighbourhood were asked specifi c ques ons related to their role in shaping the community. The ques ons were designed to allow them to voice their professional perspec ve, as well as off er sugges ons as to what can be done to shape the future of Scarborough Village.

Community Collabora on and Safety - CPTED

A Manager of Urban Design for the Scarborough District was consulted on their thoughts about the neighbourhood and how the implementa on of CPTED (Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design) Principles could be applied to Scarborough Village. It was acknowledged that the most common problem experienced in crea ng a Community Improvement Plan is ge ng residents of the community to collaborate. This is due to a general lack of willingness on the part of residents, poli cians, landowners and stakeholders. Without the involvement of these key players, any change in the Scarborough Village will be diffi cult to achieve.

The interviewee has had a great deal of success based on community workshops. An idea must be presented and par cipant feedback

must be gathered for the group to work. There should be 6 to 8 mee ngs over 12 months with support from land owners, residents, and city staff . The group should be ac vity based, and all members should contribute. The fi nal image for the area will not be disclosed un l everyone can agree upon it.

Concerns that need to be addressed in Scarborough Village include, but are not limited to, public safety, schools, parks, social aspects of the community, sustainable development, and tower renewal. Scarborough Village has experienced the “broken window” theory. This occurs when a window is broken and not fi xed, and vandalism spreads in the area, as there is a sense of neglect and disorder. In order for the City to even consider working with Scarborough Village, a set of urban design guidelines must fi rst be recommended by city council. This again hinges on working partnerships between the poli cians and residents of the neighbourhood

This interview also involved a discussion of Markington Square and how a development of this magnitude will impact the community. The interviewee men oned that removing the older style retail plaza and replacing it with a newer, more modern development would have a posi ve impact on the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood, in general, lacks the appropriate ameni es to eff ec vely service residents. They o en have to travel out of

Appendix C: Interviews

68

the area for daily services such as banking and postal services. Once the development is complete it will provide mixed uses, allowing residents to live, shop and poten ally work in the area.

Another major impediment to the streets in this neighbourhood is safety. The incorpora on of Crime Preven on through Environmental Design Principles (CPTED) could create a more pedestrian friendly environment and deter criminal ac vity and nega ve behaviour. For example, the removal of the two small walls at 3250 Eglinton Avenue would dras cally improve sightlines and increase safety. In general, sightlines could be improved throughout the neighbourhood.

The last part of the discussion focused on the improvement of the heavily used informal pathways in Scarborough Village. Members of the community need to come together on this issue if they would like to see any changes. They will need to gain the support of a local poli cian who can then bring up these issues with the property owner. The poli cian can voice the concerns and recommenda ons of the residents to these property owners and suggest what the City can do to help achieve these improvements. Also, involvement by the Property Standards Department can facilitate the process. The City currently has by-laws in place that require these land owners to keep their proper es well maintained and is able to take ac on if there are complaints from residents and poli cians.

Markington Square Redevelopment

This interview was conducted with a Senior Planner in Scarborough District, to gain more perspec ve on the Markington Square development and how it will aff ect Scarborough Village. The Markington Square development received site plan approval back in June 2009 but currently there is no indica on of when the development will commence.

Currently, this site is designated for mixed-use in the Offi cial Plan and will incorporate diff erent building typologies including mul ple residen al buildings that will add up to 1200 units, in addi on to the commercial and retail space and a large area for parkland.

He men oned that this specifi c loca on is an excellent choice for redevelopment because the Avenues studies completed along Kingston Road and Eglinton Avenue East will lead to improvements in transit that will service the increase in popula on.

In a development of this size it is important that the surrounding community also benefi t from the major changes that will occur. The interviewee explained how the community would benefi t from an increase from the open space provision by the redevelopment, as it will off er an opportunity for more social interac on. The lack of community and social programming in the area is due in part to the very limited space available. This issue was brought to the a en on of the City and they have entered into a Sec on 37 agreement with the developer to contribute funds that

69

will be used to enhance the neighbourhood. Pursuant to Sec on 37, the Scarborough Village Community Centre will also receive improvements to its building. These concerns led to the proposed open space in the Markington Square redevelopment to be three mes larger than was originally intended, fi nanced by the developer.

It is important to note that although the site plan has been approved, there is no date for when redevelopment will begin. This could poten ally aff ect any changes or even halt the changes currently in progress. It also raises ques ons as to what will become of the site if redevelopment does not happen in the near future.

Tower Renewal

A project manager for the Mayor’s Tower Renewal Program was interviewed to share their thoughts on the current state of Scarborough Village and what could be done to bring about change.

One of the primary objec ves of this report is to get municipal governments to invest public funding on specifi c private proper es that would subsequently be for public benefi t. A major challenge for Tower Renewal is determining which improvements would provide the most benefi t to the general public and ge ng municipali es to fund them.

A recurring theme throughout the interviews was communica on issues with private landowners. The interviewee stated that

par cipa on by these landowners is essen al in achieving the goals of the community but that this is also the most challenging part. The importance of engaging with owners directly though individual mee ngs to get to know their stance on the issues was also stated. It is important to be open to anything they contribute and build a solid business case from there.

With the recent mayoral change, another challenge has arisen. Rob Ford has vowed to review the Tower Renewal ini a ve, in addi on to several other green ini a ves, which could poten ally end the program. The interviewee noted that they will be recommending approaches and methods to achieve Tower Renewal in the coming year, by responding to Council direc ves and then repor ng back to Council in 2011.

The crea on of the Tower Renewal Corpora on is based on the idea that funds can be raised by the private fi nancial markets to provide rela vely low-cost, long-term loans to the property owners. More informa on about funding can be found in the July 2010 report on Tower Renewal prepared for the Execu ve Commi ee and Council, as well as the Tower Renewal Implementa on Handbook under fi nancing tools.

A building addressed in this report with relevance to the Tower Renewal Ini a ve is 215 Markham Road. It was explained that City Planning has been working with the owner of this property to ensure that the use of its

70

open space will be available for community use. This is done by preparing a minor variance applica on on the owner’s behalf. In addi on to this property, the Tower Renewal offi ce has worked with a number of divisions and community members to improve the walkway to the retail plaza. It was also men oned that some of the safety concerns, as outlined by safety audits, have been addressed. This included the addi on of ligh ng and the removal of branches to improve sightlines.

71

Appendix D: Supporting Maps

1. City of Toronto Zoning By-Law

2. City of Toronto Offi cial Plan Land Use

3. Avenues and Midrise Buildings Study

4. Figure Ground

5. Road Classifi ca ons

6. Transit Circula on

7. Public Green Space and Parks

Markham

RdEglinton Ave

CN Railway

Kingsto

n Rd

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St


Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

Residential

Parks and Open Space

Commercial Residential

Commercial Residential Employment

Institutional

Employment

Utility

Not Part of This By-Law

OR

OR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CRCR

CL

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CRIPW

IPW

IPW

I

I

CRCR

CR CR

CR

CR

RS

RS

RD

RD

RD

RD

RD RD

RM

RM

RDRD

RD

RD

RDRD

RD

RDRD

RD

RDRS

RD

RD

RD

RA

RA

RA

RA

RA

RARA

RA

RA

RA

RA

RA

OR

OR

ON

OR

O

A. City of Toronto Zoning By-Law

Markham

RdEglinton Ave

CN Railway

Kingsto

n Rd

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St


Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

Neighbourhoods

Apartment Neighbourhoods

Mixed Use Areas

Parks

Utility Corridors

B. City of Toronto Offi cial Plan Land Use

Markham

RdEglinton Ave

CN Railway

Kingsto

n Rd

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St


Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

Avenues Study Boundary

Character Areas

Avenues excluded fromMid-Rise Performance Standards

Avenues excluded from the Retail Study

Land Use Designations:

Neighbourhoods Mixed-Use Areas

Apartment Neighbourhoods Parks

C. Avenues and Midrise Buildings Study

Dunelm St

Cedar Dr

Cougar Crt

CN Railway

Kingsto

n Rd


Centre St

Beachell St

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Markham

Rd

Eglinton Ave

0 100 300 Metres

Building Footprint

CIP Study Area

D. Figure Ground

Eglinton Ave

Eglinton AveCN Railway

CN Railway

Kingsto

n RdMarkham

Rd

Markham

Rd


Beachell St

Centre St

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

Cedar Dr

Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

Major Arterial Roads

Minor Arterial Roads

Local Roads

E. Road Classifi ca ons

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

Cedar Dr

Cougar Crt

CN Railway

Kingsto

n Rd


Centre St

Beachell St

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

CN Railway

Markham

Rd

Eglinton Ave

0 100 300 Metres

TTC Bus Route

Vehicular Traffic

Pedestrian Pathways

GO Transit and CN Rail

Proposed Scarborough Malvern LRT

34 86 116

34 86 116

34

34

102

102

86116

F. Transit Circula on

Markham

RdEglinton Ave

CN Railway

Kingsto

n Rd

Cedar Dr

Eglinton Ave

Markham

Rd

Dunelm St

Gatesview Ave

CN Railway

Centre St


Cougar Crt

0 100 300 Metres

Public Green Space and Parks

ScarboroughVillage Park

LochlevenPark

BethunePark

ScarboroughVillage

Community Centre and

Theatre

G. Public Green Space and Parks

scarborough village revitalization study

Documents