City of Toronto Community Consultation
Meeting for the Revitalization of Regent Park Phases 3-5
Tuesday, September
17, 2013, 7-9 pm
Daniels Spectrum,
585 Dundas Street East
Come and make your voice heard! As a follow-up to the revitalization plans
presented on June 10, 2013, this consultation will present revisions made in
response to community concerns. For
example, the 40-storey tower planned for Gerrard and Parliament will now be
only 20 storeys! Obviously, it’s
worthwhile to speak out.
Although good changes have been made to the June 10th
proposal, two issues may still be of concern to the community: (1) the decision
not to demolish 14 Blevins (because it is listed as historical), and (2)
the plan to keep the density increase at 36%. Here are some arguments to consider as you
make up your own mind.
1. Why should 14 Blevins be torn down?
·
The building will be difficult and expensive to
retrofit
o Water
pipes and other major elements have not been kept in repair.
o The
elevator does not go down to the basement.
o There
is no provision for underground parking.
·
Costly renovations will mean less money for good
social housing.
o The
Historical Board provides no funds to preserve the buildings it lists.
·
The building will look out of place.
o Situated
at an angle, it will not follow the grid of the streets as will all other
buildings.
o In
an entirely new neighbourhood, it will be the only old building.
·
Regent Park is about people, not buildings. Their stories are what need to be remembered.
Please take a moment to sign the petition to advocate for the demolition of 14 Blevins Place.
Please take a moment to sign the petition to advocate for the demolition of 14 Blevins Place.
2. Why should
the density not be raised by 36%?
(Before any redevelopment, Regent Park had a population
of roughly 7,500. The original
revitalization plan projected a population of 12,500. Then the June 10th amendment shot
that projection up to 17,000 – a 36% increase.)
·
With more people, services will be under strain.
o Parks
and streets will be more crowded.
o If
mothers currently line up at 4:00 am to enlist their children in swimming
lessons, imagine how early they must rise in the future.
·
The voices of those who live in social housing
will not be heard.
o Since
all the additional units will be market-value, social housing units will, in
future, comprise only 25% of the total.
·
The need for money should not jeopardize the
health of the neighbourhood.
o TCHC
says it needs more condo sales to offset the cost of replacing social
housing. If so, why was the initial
revitalization plan so flawed that a 36% increase in density is now needed? And will the new business plan require even
more density if the condo market falls? TCHC
needs to plan cautiously, for increased densities come at a cost to the social
health of the neighbourhood.
These are ideas to think about. Please come to the September 17th
meeting to express your own views.
