regent park revitalization initiative (tchc:2004-150) · 2018. 6. 9. · board of directors...

Board of Directors (December 15, 2004) TCHC:2004:150 Report Regent Park Revitalization Initiative of 24

Date: December 13, 2004

To: Board of Directors

From: Chief Executive Officer

Subject: REGENT PARK REVITALIZATION INITIATIVE (TCHC:2004-150)

PURPOSE: To seek Board of Directors approval to proceed with the Regent Park redevelopment planning approvals and related matters. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Board:

(1) approve proceeding with the application for planning approvals including rezoning, secondary plan and plan of sub-division as outlined in this report, including the housing mix and strategy for achieving this mix;

(2) authorize staff to seek and acquire sites suitable for the development of social housing

in the east downtown area in order to build rent-geared-to-income RGI units not replaced at the Regent Park site and in order to meet the commitment to retain or replace 2,083 (RGI) units currently at Regent Park;

(3) authorize the CEO to seek, through the City of Toronto, sufficient affordable housing

funds in order to build affordable market rent units to be mixed with replacement RGI units at Regent Park and other sites in order to provide mixed buildings;

(4) authorize the CEO to work with the City of Toronto to seek the necessary funds to

complete all infrastructure work required for the redevelopment of Regent Park;

(5) authorize the CEO to proceed with Phase 1 of the redevelopment, including the issue of all required requests for proposals and design/build contracts;

(6) approve a project budget for 2005 of $4,775,000 as outlined in this report;

(7) approve the transfer of $100,000 in each of the next three years from the Regent

Park redevelopment reserve to the Regent Park Resident’s Council or its successor organization for the purposes of supporting the revitalization efforts and related social development initiatives; and

December 15/04 Board

Item 5


(8) authorize the appropriate officials of the Corporation to give effect to the above recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors gave approval in May 2003 to proceed with the revitalization of Regent Park. Shareholder approval to proceed was obtained in July 2003. These approvals were based on extensive studies undertaken in 2002 to develop an urban and financial plan for the revitalization of the community. The planning studies and subsequent planning applications were based on revitalization principles developed with members of the community in a series of workshops (Attachment 1). In February 2004 TCHC hired a consortium of consultants to refine the urban plan, prepare planning applications, and support the initiation of proposal calls for the first Phase of the redevelopment. Throughout the plan development, TCHC has conducted consultations with residents, stakeholders and held broader community meetings to review the status of the plan and the planning applications. In summary, TCHC is proposing to:

• replace in phases 2,079 RGI units (4 units will be retained in their present form) both on the present site and off-site in the east downtown area

• increase the density of the Regent Park 28 hectare site from the present 2,083 units to approximately 5,100 units

• create a mixed income, mixed tenure community • re-introduce streets and small block patterns that are characteristic of the surrounding

neighbourhoods and the past Regent Park neighbourhood • create a central park and a network of boulevard parks and parkettes • create a neighbourhood with the highest overall environmental sustainability measures

through design and construction methods, district energy systems, water and storm water controls and other measures

• work with community partners in creating a social development strategy that levers the redevelopment opportunity to improve social and economic sustainability of the neighbourhood

• build 450 affordable social housing rental units to be mixed with RGI units within buildings as part of the housing mix strategy for the neighbourhood

• build a minimum of 300 affordable ownership units, at least 150 of which will be designed to be accessible to Regent Park residents

• provide a net addition of 600 – 700 new affordable housing units to the public and non-profit stocks through the redevelopment initiative

• redevelop following strong urban design guidelines to achieve a high quality public realm and high quality architecture

This report to the Board seeks approvals to proceed with the planning approvals and the first Phase of redevelopment.


REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendation 1 It is recommended that TCHC proceed with the planning applications required in order to proceed with the redevelopment of Regent Park (Attachment 2). These include:

• an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) which takes the form of a secondary plan for the area that sets out the vision and conditions for the redevelopment

• a rezoning application to allow for the types, heights and general location of buildings that are contemplated, and

• a plan of subdivision that creates the new City blocks and streets.

The OPA and rezoning application are being processed together and should be at Community Council on January 18, 2005 and City Council on February 1, 2, and 3, 2005. The plan of subdivision will follow a month later (February 17, 2005 at Community Council and March 1, 2005 at Council). Assuming that the City approves these planning changes, then in order to construct buildings TCHC must:

• meet the approval conditions and register the plan of subdivision for Phase 1; • subdivide the Phase 1 blocks into building parcels for sale or retention. This will

be done through the removal of part lot control at the same time as registering the subdivision phase; and

• obtain site plan approval and a building permit for sites that TCHC is retaining and building on

Private developers who purchase sites from TCHC will have to obtain site plan approval and a building permit from the City. The Official Plan Amendment (secondary plan), rezoning and plan of subdivision will be the subject of City staff reports to Community Council. This report will recommend approval with a number of conditions and revised wording in the secondary plan. It is not known if City staff recommendations will create significant development issues and costs. Areas of project risk and cost risk are assessed below. Official Plan Amendment (OPA - Secondary Plan)

Attachment 2 to this report provides the current draft secondary plan for Regent Park. Subsequent to recent meetings with City staff, it is expected that further comments will be received by TCHC on this draft, and amendments will be made prior to the final application submission. The issues and anticipated changes are discussed below. For the most part, the Secondary Plan follows a standard approach, providing an outline of the vision for a revitalized neighbourhood, setting out the objectives or characteristics of a the future neighbourhood, describing land use and urban design. After extensive


discussions, TCHC and the City have resolved many of the issues, including the housing policy issues. The issue of greatest concern and cost risk to TCHC is the potential to be required to install sprinklers in residential units. The issue of greatest concern to some residents and community agencies is the housing mix.

Road widths

TCHC has proposed to rebuild the streets in Regent Park using the typical dimensions found in the surrounding neighbourhood. As shown on the attached plan, four streets crossing the neighbourhood (Oak, St. David, Sackville and Sumac) will be two-way with parking on one side and 8.5 meters wide. All other streets, with the exception of those bordering the parkettes, are proposed as one way streets with parking on one side at 7.3 meters wide. The streets along the parkettes are designed to be 6 meters wide, with no street parking.

The street widths were arrived at through discussion with City staff. They are wider than originally proposed. However, staff is confident that these widths, with proper urban design, can achieve the feel of the surrounding neighbourhoods. The local Councillor has indicated that the 8.5 meter wide streets should be narrowed. This position is supported by residents, who are concerned with the higher speed of traffic that is usual on wider streets. Fire Services are not in agreement with approval of narrower streets. They have expressed a concern that narrower streets increase the response time in case of emergency. They would like all streets to be a minimum of 8.5 meters wide, in order to have 6 meters of clear pavement. This width is deemed necessary in order to deploy the stabilizer legs on fire trucks and to provide operating space around trucks in emergency situations. TCHC has proposed to reinforce the sidewalks on the side of the street without parking in order to accommodate the truck stabilizers. This is not deemed a suitable solution by Fire Services who cite a Fire Marshall’s Office opinion that sidewalks cannot be included in the calculation of clear pavement width. The proposed Regent Park street widths are similar to most downtown residential streets. In the event that the streets are approved at proposed widths (or narrower), Fire Services has indicated they will recommend that all buildings along streets that do not provide 6 meters of clear pavement have sprinklers installed in all units. Sprinklers in residential units are not common in Ontario. It is estimated the cost of construction (TCHC and market) will rise by approximately $ 9 million with the addition of sprinklers. TCHC will bear this as a project cost as the value of land will be reduced by the cost of sprinklers on market sites, and will be a direct cost to TCHC on sites for social housing. In addition, the operating costs for TCHC buildings will rise. The added capital costs are not included in the business plan (see below) and would be unfunded at this time. The requirement to install sprinklers in all units adjacent to 7.3 meter streets would be achieved through a Section 37 development agreement. In effect, approval to develop would be made contingent on installation of sprinklers. There is no legislated requirement


for sprinklers at this time, and the City is not able, under current legislation, to enforce this through a by-law. Housing mix In developing a housing mix proposal for Regent Park, TCHC has balanced three issues:

• overall unit mix (social housing / market) • mix of built form(number of social / market buildings - GFA) • mix within social housing buildings (RGI / affordable rental)

The proposed housing mix was driven by the aim to effectively end the isolation of Regent Park residents from the surrounding communities, and to meet the principles of a mixed community developed with residents through the planning process. It seeks to achieve a balance of market and social housing in the community, and to integrate RGI and affordable market units within rental buildings. TCHC is proposing that for Regent Park, a minimum of 1,800 social housing units be re-built, and that of these a minimum of 75%, or 1,350, be RGI. The balance of housing will be regulated affordable ownership (300 units), other social housing that might be built by community groups and market housing (estimated 2,900 to 3,000 units). This mix scenario is based on seeking to achieve a mix of social housing and regulated ownership of approximately 40%, and 60% market housing. Attachment 4 illustrates four different mix scenarios.

Units Gross Floor Area (m2) Est. Population Market 2850 3,192,000 5320 RGI (minimum) 1500 2,070,000 5270 Affordable 450 540,000 1190 Affordable ownership (regulated) 300 336,000 Off-site RGI (maximum 583 805,000 1540 Off-site affordable 250 300,000 660 Total 5,933 7,243,000 13,980

Proposed housing mix model – Regent Park

In proposing minimums targets, TCHC can build above these limits. The City, through agreements approved with the plan of subdivision, can ensure the targets for on-site and off-site replacement of units is being met as a condition of allowing each successive phase proceed. The target of 40% social and regulated affordable ownership is based on maintaining the overall built form (the gross floor area - GFA) at a maximum of total area built. The RGI units are on average approximately 20% larger than the market units. Therefore, building 40% of the total area as social and regulated ownership will use 50% of the total land


available for building. This is a result of the high proportion of 3, 4 and 5 bedroom RGI units. There will also be 1 and 2 bedroom social housing. Close to 90 of the 5 bedroom units, 200 of the 4 bedroom units and 600 of the 3 bedroom units will be rebuilt at Regent Park. A very high percentage of the 4 and 5 bedroom units will be constructed in low-rise (stacked townhouse form). New affordable rental housing will also include some larger units. In developing a strategy for a mixed community, TCHC examined approaches taken in the United States, the United Kingdom, elsewhere in Europe as well as the St. Lawrence Market redevelopment. After the review of other large scale developments and redevelopments, there was no conclusion reached on what ratios of market and RGI housing constitute the most appropriate mix to achieve healthy and sustainable communities. Approaches vary from place to place, and are largely based on local issues and conditions. The most relevant example for Regent Park is the St. Lawrence Market area. There is a general consensus that this is a healthy community, has a good mix of RGI, other affordable rental housing and market housing. The neighbourhood also has well integrated community services and public facilities (schools, community centre). The table below provides a comparison of the proposed mix for Regent Park and the current mix of housing in St. Lawrence Market.

Unit Mix comparison - St. Lawrence / Regent park

25%29%

32%

9%

0%

6%

43%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

St Law rence Regent

RGI

Other social

Aff. Ow nership

Market

Comparison of housing mix – Regent Park / St. Lawrence Market


In the proposed mix at Regent Park, it is proposed that there be an integration of RGI and affordable rental units. However, it will not be possible to achieve the same level of mix ratios as in St. Lawrence. The social housing in St. Lawrence was built when housing programs provided funding to achieve ratios of 25% RGI to 75% market units in buildings. The building mix ratios for Regent Park are anticipated to be close to 60% RGI and 40% market. Some buildings, such as seniors or supportive housing will be 100% RGI. It should be noted that in the St. Lawrence Market area the average unit size for social housing is significantly smaller than what is proposed for Regent Park. Regent Park is unusual in the number of large family units. In the St. Lawrence neighbourhood 12% of the social housing units are 3 bedrooms or larger (there are few above the 3 bedroom size). In Regent Park, it is projected that 54% of social housing units will be 3 bedroom or larger. It is proposed that virtually all the 4 and 5 bedroom units, and 70% of the 3 bedroom units will be rebuilt on or adjacent to the Regent Park site. The housing mix as proposed will result in a very similar demographic profile (family size, number of children) as is presently the case for Regent Park. Therefore, there should be no significant impact on schools and other services in the community. The proposed housing mix was developed largely based on seeking to achieve a balance of market and social housing in the community, and seeking to integrate RGI and affordable market units within rental buildings. The mix within buildings is seen as desirable by residents, and is a successful model for social housing in other Toronto neighbourhoods. There is agreement that concentration of RGI units in buildings and in close proximity does not create balanced and healthy communities. Some residents and community agencies have expressed a strong objection to not replacing all RGI units (2,079 to be replaced) at Regent Park. There is an objection to locating some of the RGI units elsewhere in the east downtown area. Replacement of all RGI units at Regent Park, and mixing these with 600 affordable rental units to create mixed buildings, would result in there being a high proportion of social housing at Regent Park (approximately 50% of all units and 60% of all built area). Staff is of the opinion that replacement of all RGI units at Regent Park will not meet the principles of a mixed community as expressed by residents through the planning process.

Community Services and Facilities Study TCHC has prepared a Community Services and Facilities Study for Regent Park, which was submitted to the City in support of the planning applications. This study covers the following topics:

• Who lives in Regent Park now and who is projected to live there when it is redeveloped

• What services currently exist that serve Regent Park residents, what are the service gaps and what are the factors that prevent the identified needs from being met


• What services are likely to be required to meet the needs of the added population in market housing.

The information on the adequacy of existing services was based on surveys of service providers and tenants. The report was circulated to the agencies in the Regent Park area and revised to reflect the comments received. This report provided background information for the Community Services and Facilities Strategy as well as for the Social Development Strategy.

Community Services and Facilities Strategy The Community Services and Facilities Strategy (CS&FS) is required by the City for approval as party of the planning approvals. Its purpose is to create a strategy for providing space for the replacement of any services that are in buildings that will be demolished, for meeting the service needs created by the redevelopment, and for meeting the existing unmet service need in Regent Park. The emphasis in the strategy is on ensuring the provision of suitable locations for services, and not on service delivery. Service delivery is dealt with in the Social Development Strategy (see below) and the process for this will continue well past the date for planning approvals. As the Community Services and Facilities Strategy will be implemented over time as each phase of the redevelopment occurs and the findings of the Social Development Strategy will inform the implementation of the CS&F Strategy. The CS&F Strategy covers three types of services and their space needs:

• City recreation services • Childcare (mainly dependent on the City for financing) • Other agencies and services.

The Strategy proposes that TCHC will ensure that there is space allocated and funding to build it for all services that are in demolished TCHC buildings and for the needs of the additional population. These facilities have an estimated total cost of $19,549,185 for the whole redevelopment. TCHC proposes to work with all levels of government and other funders to find the necessary monies to construct the facilities prior to approval for each phase. The timing for replacement of demolished facilities and the provision of new facilities is set out in the strategy by development phase. The City may withhold approval of a given phase if TCHC does not have the funds to construct the space replacement space or space for additional residents required in that phase. In addition, there may be a need for more agency and recreational space in Regent Park to meet currently unmet needs and for additional childcare, if the higher levels of government make good on their promises for more childcare. TCHC proposes to reserve space for these needs in its plans, but would not be required to provide the space in a given phase if the funding for its construction was not available.


Social Development Plan TCHC is required to ensure that a Social Development Plan is created to guide elements of the community revitalization as the redevelopment proceeds. At the outset, TCHC has had an objective of ensuring that the revitalization initiative at Regent Park be more than just bricks and mortar. The Social Development Plan will outline the approaches to be taken to ensure identification and delivery of community services (present and future); how current service gaps can be bridged; economic development opportunities for residents of the community and the broader east downtown area, including job training and placement programs. The process for development of the Plan is an open one. TCHC, working with the City of Toronto, has invited community agencies, residents and other stakeholders to engage in defining the objectives for the Plan, sharing their ideas, identifying actions and approaches that can yield results and developing a coordinated implementation plan. The Social Development Plan process was initiated this fall – first a group of stakeholders volunteered to develop an over framework for the Plan. A first session with community agencies was held in December. The “open space” approach allowed for the identification of key issues and a number of ideas on how social development can be approached. Similar sessions will be held with other stakeholder groups in the new year. A draft plan will be created by the end of next summer. As part of the input to the Social Development Plan, the City of Toronto, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, TCHC and the Regent Park Resident’s Council are undertaking an economic development study. Business Plan Update The proposed business plan for the revitalization of Regent Park has evolved over the past 18 months to have three principle components which are:

1. The TCHC business plan for replacing its existing 2,083 units of social housing/RGI units within the context of the broader site development of a mixed RGI and market housing community along with commercial, community service and institutional uses and the public infrastructure that would be required;

2. The development of a district energy facility and system that would serve the entire site;

3. A strategy to secure additional funding to augment the redevelopment with enhanced affordability and income mixing specifically to include mixing incomes within TCHC buildings, providing at least 300 units of home ownership affordable by TCHC tenants and introducing a component of affordable rental housing within the market component of the overall development.

It should be noted that 4 of the 2,083 units will be retained – for the purposes of this business plan all units are identified for replacement.


The full replacement of TCHC’s social housing/RGI units

With respect to the replacement of TCHC existing social housing units within the context of creating a broadly mixed community, this next section of the report provides the: • Complete financial proforma of the redevelopment including all costs, projected

sources of funds (cost recoveries and revenues), the projected amounts that can be financed through long-term debt and the extent of any projected shortfall;

• Projected costs of public infrastructure, potential offsetting revenues and the balance that still needs to be funded by sources other than TCHC;

• Financial risk exposure to TCHC in light of potential additional requirements by the City not originally envisioned, unsecured sources of funding for public infrastructure costs, market and interest rate risks and potential for increased costs or erosion of projected revenues or recoveries;

• Proposed risk mitigation strategies that need to be undertaken in the next few months.

All elements of the revitalization plan for Regent Park as reflected in the documents being submitted to the City for planning approvals have been exhaustively costed. All major elements of costs or projected revenues have been developed by the widely respected firms in the field. In particular, construction costs, projected land revenues, demolition costs, environmental remediation costs, infrastructure costs and all costs of environmental sustainability measures have been developed by outside experts. In all instances, every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of these estimates and their future projections. The estimated costs and revenues contained in the following proforma do not include additional requirements that may be imposed by the City in the final planning approvals process. These items are covered in the financial risk exposure section of the report.


Regent Park Revitalization Redevelopment Proforma for Replacement of all Social Housing Units

(For period 2003 – 2017 expressed in future dollars) Items of Costs and Revenues Projected Amounts Demolition $8,900,000 Environmental Remediation $2,962,435 Construction (2,083 TCHC units) $318,654,070 Development Management $31,751,926 Relocation $10,403,114 Interim Financing $39,383,456

Total Gross Costs $412,055,001 Less: Recovery of remediation costs (OHC) ($2,962,435) Less: Partial recovery of demolition costs ($5,696,000) Less: Reinvestment of TCHC operating savings ($90,092,412) Less: Sale/lease of excess land (GFA) ($106,562,828) Less: TCHC Equity contribution ($30,000,000) Less: Confirmed Grants ($350,000)

Total Projected Recoveries ($235,663,675)

Net Cost $176,853,726 Financed by Long-term TCHC debt (maximum) $175,853,726 Shortfall before infrastructure and other costs ($537,600) Public Infrastructure Cost (to be funded) Physical infrastructure including parks $26,683,172 Community Facilities $19,549,185

Total Infrastructure Costs $46,232,357

Affordable Housing (grant portion only) Affordable rental $26,250,000 Affordable ownership $13,500,000

Total affordable housing grant $39,750,000


Of particular note in the specific proforma estimates are the following: • Demolition costs are for the entire site over the 6 phases of redevelopment and are

likely to be undertaken by TCHC for the entire site of each phase at one time; • Recovery of the private sector portion of demolition costs is be assumed to occur

through either apportionment of these costs to private developers or through the sale or re-use of materials that has been identified in the sustainability studies;

• Remediation costs are for the entire site and the recovery of the full amount from the Province (OHC) is being assumed since OHC did retain the liability for remediation when Regent Park was transferred to TCHC;

• Construction costs are for the complete replacement of 2,083 TCHC units; • Construction costs include added costs for proposed sustainability and energy

efficiency measures in TCHC buildings and these are critical to TCHC achieving its operating savings/reinvestment contributions as an offset to these costs;

• Revenues from the sale or lease of lands not required for TCHC units have been independently estimated as what might be reasonably expected over the course of redevelopment.

The “bottom line” of the above financial projections is virtually identical to that approved by the TCHC Board in May 2003 and endorsed by City Council in July 2003, and are now supported by highly detailed plans and estimates. The proforma clearly demonstrates that TCHC only has the financial capacity, even with a substantial equity contribution, the achievement and reinvestment of substantial operating savings and maximizing its long-term debt carrying capacity, to replace its 2,083 social housing/RGI units. This conclusion was fundamental to the plan of 2003 as presented to the TCHC Board and City Council, and remains the case today. For example, TCHC has always stated that the cost of public infrastructure would have to be borne by the City and/or other levels of government. Any increases in costs, assumption of any additional items of cost or the erosion of recoveries will add to the projected shortfall.

Assessment of Financial Risk to TCHC While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the costs and anticipated recoveries, and their future projections, in the development proforma, it is essential that the Board fully understand the potential financial risks associated with the revitalization plan. In considering the individual cost and revenue items, it is reasonable to conclude that: • Costs will not likely turn out to be less than forecast; • Cost recoveries for demolition and remediation will not likely be more than forecast; • Reinvestment of operating savings will not likely be more than forecast; • Future grants to offset costs cannot be prudently forecast to be higher than what is

currently confirmed;


• Only revenues for the sale or lease of excess land have potential to be higher than forecast but that probability is at best uncertain and would depend on Regent Park becoming a “premier” location for private sector development.

Consequently, the majority of costs and projected recoveries all have downside risk that could result in an increasing shortfall. The table that follows identifies the known elements of risk and provides an order of magnitude estimate of the financial impact of these risks. Since the previously presented redevelopment proforma presents the maximum financial potential of TCHC to undertake the redevelopment, the dollar magnitude of every item of risk would add to a TCHC funding shortfall. The specific risks and their potential financial magnitude are based on the following: • Potential for the City to require, as part of its conditions of planning approval,

installation of sprinklering systems in all residential buildings on site at an estimated cost of $1.50 per square foot of Gross Floor Area (GFA);

• Potential for TCHC to not recover the portion of demolition costs associated with the private market housing since this cost was not factored into the calculation of anticipated land revenues or alternatively be unable to make this partial recovery through the sale of materials created in demolition that has been identified in the sustainability report;

• Potential to underachieve the projections for land sale/lease revenues and TCHC operating savings;

• Inability of TCHC to secure the projected shortfall in infrastructure costs from non-City sources since the planning approvals report is likely to be written to leave the onus for securing these funds with TCHC;

• General market forces that could increase interest rates and increases in major elements of cost beyond the 2% per annum as contained in the forecasts.

There should be no risk associated with the full recovery of remediation costs from OHC. Subject to finalization of a legal agreement between OHC and TCHC, the following terms have been negotiated: • OHC assumes the obligation, and will periodically advance funds on the basis of

project phases, for the full amount of the cost estimates of $2,962,435 noted in the proforma, and

• Will further assume responsibility for 100% any additional remediation costs incurred above these estimates subject to documentation by TCHC of such remediation problems encountered and their costs during the course of the complete redevelopment of the site.

The areas of financial risk have been divided into two categories: 1) those arising from immediate stakeholders, and 2) those arising from general market factors and conditions in the future.


This distinction is useful in that the former are ones that TCHC can undertake certain actions to mitigate, eliminate or risk-share with others to reduce the magnitude of these risks in the coming months. The risks associated with the City as a stakeholder reflect those additional cost requirements or funding arrangements that are anticipated to be contained in the staff report to Council, to be finalized by mid December, regarding planning approvals for redevelopment. The risks arising from general market forces and conditions are ones over which TCHC will have little control and it will simply have manage over the course of redevelopment.

Areas and Magnitude of Financial Risk to TCHC ( For the period 2005 – 2017 expressed in future dollars)

RISK ITEMS ARISING FROM IMMEDIATE STAKEHOLDERS $ Estimate Additional City Requirements Cost of sprinkler systems for all residential buildings $8,969,980

Subtotal $8,969,980 Shortfall in demolition cost recovery (private sector) $5,696,000 Shortfall in TCHC operating savings for reinvestment (5%) $4,504,621 Infrastructure Costs Estimated total costs $46,232,357 Projected City grant equal to City development charges (Assume actual at 80% - grant not confirmed) ($11,040,000)

Shortfall $35,192,357 Total of risk exposure to items above $54,362,958 RISK ITEMS ARISING FROM GENERAL MARKET FORCES Increase in interest rates (interim from 4% to 6% and $59,243,957 Takeout financing from 6% to 8%), OR Increase in interest rates (interim from 4% to 8% and $111,962,398 Takeout financing from 6% to 10%) Underachievement of land revenues by 10% $10,656,283 Increase of all construction costs by 5% $16,377,704


There is also a risk to the overall development concept if TCHC is not able to obtain funds for affordable rental and ownership housing. A lack of affordable rental funds will eliminate the possibility of building mixed buildings. While it is not being suggested that all of these downside risk items will materialize, or in the magnitude as noted in the table, they are nonetheless real and plausible in a project of this magnitude and which occurs over as lengthy a development period. For TCHC to preserve the financial viability of revitalization plan, it must actively pursue a risk mitigation strategy over the coming months. This strategy will be a component of its overall strategy for securing other government funds including from senior levels of government.

District energy plant and system for the entire site

Subsequent to the approval of the original concept plans in the spring and summer of 2003, TCHC has pursued a very comprehensive and leading edge environmental sustainability initiative that will be reflected in the final plans submitted to the City. This was supported by a $350,000 grant from FCM to pursue a variety of sustainability studies. This is one of the largest grants ever provided by FCM. A key component of the sustainability and energy efficiency plan is the creation of a central heating and cooling system, and possibly energy generation, for the entire development and requiring all buildings to connect to this system and meet high levels of energy efficiency. It is further being proposed that the central heating and cooling system be owned, financed and managed as separate corporate entity with the likelihood that TCHC will have at least an ownership interest in this entity. The district energy system and its related impacts on requirements for building construction (both TCHC and private) energy efficiency components are now being finalized. The final plan will also propose two different levels of energy efficiency that are “packages of measures”, both of which exceed current building standards and practice. Level 2 will provide additional sustainability measures above Level 1 that will further reduce the capacity requirements of a district energy system. In turn, each of the two Levels will provide for the ability to supplement the basic district energy system with added components of geothermal and solar energy when and if these components make economic sense. The system is being designed to be built incrementally as the phased redevelopment occurs and to allow for flexibility in the inclusion of alternative energy sources when these are needed and viable. The estimated range of total capital costs to construct the complete system and facility is a function of Levels of Sustainability being targeted and the extent to which there will be a full energy system with geothermal and solar components.


The preliminary estimate of the range of all capital costs is: • Level 1 $26.1 - $49.1 million • Level 2 $14.3 - $32.7 million The lower capital costs for Level 2 reflects the lesser capacity required for the system due to increased energy efficiency within the individual buildings themselves. There may be some additional capital costs for the construction of buildings to meet Level 2 energy efficiency. However, these are not considered to be large. As previously noted, the intention is to create a separate district energy corporation that would supply the facilities, system and future heating and cooling supplies and possibly energy to all buildings within the development. While preliminary analysis has determined that this separate entity would be a viable business operation in its own right, capital contributions by senior levels of government could have the effect of providing enhanced net positive cashflow that could be used for other community purposes. In addition to the significant energy efficiency benefits of the proposed system, it will provide additional environmental benefits including large CO2 reductions that might be attractive as high profile environmental investments by senior levels of government. For comparison, the projected Regent Park reductions of CO2 per year with efficient buildings and district heating/cooling are between 44,000 and 56,000 tonnes which is greater than the Enwave Deep Lake Water Cooling Project at 40,000 tonnes per year. There will also be a reduction in consumption of fossil fuels by up to 77% of that used by conventional development.

Funds for enhancing affordability and income mix Affordable Home Ownership for Regent Park residents

In May of 2003, the TCHC Board endorsed the concept of endeavouring to create 300-500 ownership units within the overall redevelopment that would be affordable to Regent Park residents. TCHC commissioned a consultant study in the winter of 2004 to examine the feasibility of this initiative and further conducted an extensive consultation process with residents. The study clearly demonstrated that substantial financial assistance from TCHC and other levels of government would be required to “close the affordability gap” between the construction costs of units and the capacity of Regent Park residents to carry the maximum 1st mortgage that would be approved by a financial institution based on varying levels of household income. Similar initiatives in other jurisdictions have frequently secured this assistance by way of 2nd mortgages, or even further subordinated mortgages, that are often interest free or for which no repayment is required until the point of resale. The extent to which this assistance is then recovered at the point of resale or rolled over to the next buyer depends on the extent to which “permanent affordability” is an objective on such a program.


The extent of assistance required from TCHC and other levels of government to make home ownership a reality for Regent Park residents is a function of household income levels and size of units, and hence price, needed for various household sizes. Given the generally very low income levels of Regent Park residents, this alone results in substantial assistance being required to close the affordability gap. To illustrate the magnitude of assistance required for this initiative, a household with an income of $24,000 (upper end of incomes of Regent Park residents) requiring a three-bedroom unit would need the following: • Deferral of the realization of the land value to TCHC by securing this as a second

mortgage payable on resale of approximately $20,000 per unit; • Other financial assistance from the various levels of government totaling

approximately $45,000 per unit. This assistance could take the form of waivers of fees from the City to direct financial assistance from senior levels of government that could also be secured by a subordinate mortgage repayable on resale.

Using this specific example, 100 such units would require at least $2,000,000 in deferred land revenues (if undertaken today) by TCHC and $4,500,000 in financial assistance from other levels of government. Increased size of units required and/or lower household incomes will increase the contributions required by TCHC and other levels of government. The ability of TCHC to achieve its affordable home ownership objective for Regent Park residents is solely dependent on the significant financial participation of all three levels of government. Affordable rental units

Redevelopment plans include the addition of approximately 3,000 market units. It is assumed that these will be ownership units (freehold and condominium). While it is desirable to encourage a portion of these market rental units to be offered at affordable rents, external funding is required to achieve this. The inclusion of affordable rental units could take the form of either income mixing within TCHC buildings or provision of affordable rental units by the private and non-profit/coop sectors. This would provide a greater balance and income integration within the overall community. In order to add affordable market rental units, a grant of $50,000 per unit is required. The grant is assumed to be from the federal / provincial affordable rental housing program. Construction under this program would also mean the waiver of development charges and permit fees by the City in the same way such assistance has been provided under the City Let’s Build program. This will reduce the total City development charge revenues. As in the case of the home ownership initiative, significant financial participation by all three levels of government is essential.


Senior Government Funding Strategy

The categories of the Regent Park revitalization for which external funds are required include: • Capital cost of the public infrastructure, eg. new roads and sidewalks, upgraded

sewer and water system, environmental sustainability components of this infrastructure, parks, streetscaping etc

• Capital cost of community facilities, including recreation facilities, child care centres

and space for community agencies, required to be replaced or needed for the expanded population

• Capital cost contributions towards the district heating and cooling facility and system; • Financial support for sustainability initiatives to achieve even greater levels of energy

efficiency and environmental sustainability (L2) for the overall development and possibly offsetting the additional costs of TCHC building related energy efficiency;

• Government financial assistance to make the affordable home ownership concept

affordable for Regent Park residents and to provide for additional affordable rental units;

It is likely that multi-party agreements on appropriate cost sharing arrangements will be required for the above.

External funding

The attached table shows a total project cost of $565.25-million, and an external funding requirement of $122.25 to $125.75 million (depending on options for requesting funds). This figure represents a maximum “ask” and includes the hard infrastructure, community facilities infrastructure, funding for 300 affordable ownership units, funding for 600 affordable rental units, and funding for the district energy systems and building upgrades to maximize energy efficiency. The 600 affordable rental units would be used to achieve a mix of market and RGI units in rental buildings (approximately a 40:60 ratio).

External funding requirements – Option 1


Cost item TCHC Toronto Other govt. Total

RGI units 412.00 412.00 - construction - project implementation - relocation Public infrastructure 10.00 17.00 27.00 - roads / sidewalks - upgraded sewers - water system - storm water management - parks - streetscaping

Community facilities 5.50 14.00 19.50 - recreation - community service - child care

District Energy System / Facilities 25.00 24.00 49.00 - district energy system - enhanced energy reduction building initiatives 12.00 12.00

Affordable ownership (300) 6.00 1.50 12.00 19.50 Affordable rental units (500) 2.50 23.75 26.25

Total 443.00 19.50 102.75 565.25 Recommendation 2


It is recommended that the CEO be authorized to acquire sites suitable for the development of social housing in order to build mixed RGI and affordable market housing. The RGI units will be replacement units for those not replaced on-site at Regent Park. As noted above, the housing mix strategy proposed requires the building of 600 to 700 RGI units. In order to achieve a minimum mix of 35% affordable rental units within buildings, an additional 240 units will be required. In order to accommodate the total off-site requirements for the Regent Park redevelopment, several sites must be acquired by TCHC in the east downtown (generally the area bordered by Yonge St, Bloor St., River St. and the water front. TCHC will first seek to secure site that are publicly owned (directly or through City agencies). The first such site, 30 Regent St. has already been acquired from the City and has a capacity of approximately 50 stacked townhouses. Funds for off-site land acquisition are included in the costs for the project. The assumption is that a portion of the sites will be secured at little or no land cost. Recommendation 3 It is recommended that the CEO be authorized to seek funding for affordable rental units in order to provide a mix of affordable market and RGI units within buildings. Currently, there is no federal-provincial program that can provide this funding. However, it is anticipated that negotiations currently underway between the Province and the Federal Government will result in the availability of funding for affordable rental and home ownership funding. This funding will enable TCHC to achieve the community and building mix sought. Recommendation 4 As noted above, the overall business plan for the redevelopment requires funding for infrastructure replacement (hard infrastructure and community infrastructure). The estimated gap in funding is $32.4-million. TCHC must work with the City of Toronto to secure this funding. A portion of the funds could be made available through environmental sustainability and energy demand reduction programs. There is a need to explore other options for bridging this shortfall. The need for funding for the infrastructure does not impact proceeding with the first phase of redevelopment. There is no community space being demolished, and therefore replaced in this phase. TCHC has sufficient cash flow to build the components of hard infrastructure required. However, prior to the start of demolition of Phase 1, TCHC and the City of Toronto should have secured future infrastructure funding. Recommendation 5


It is recommended that the CEO be authorized to proceed with Phase 1 of the redevelopment. This phase includes the demolition of all existing housing in the area bounded by Parliament St. (west), Oak St. (north), Sackville St. (east) and Dundas St. (south). A total of 418 units will be replaced with a mix of 320 social housing units and 480 market units. This phase will likely include a seniors building. In addition, this phase includes 8,108 square meters of commercial space. In order to meet the project time line, TCHC is required to proceed with issuing requests for expressions of interest for a supermarket operator by January 2005 and for developers of market housing by March 2005. In addition, TCHC must prepare a design/ build proposal call for TCHC units by April 2005. There is little risk in proceeding at this time. TCHC has sufficient reserve funding to initiate the projects in Phase 1. The design and demolition process in Phase 1 will take close to one year, which is sufficient time to secure other funding elements for the overall project. If these funds are not secured at the time of demolition, TCHC can decide to delay proceeding with the redevelopment. A decision to move ahead at this time gives staff the ability to keep the redevelopment project on the planned schedule. Recommendation 6 It is recommended that the CEO be authorized to spend up to $4,775,000 in 2005 for the Regent Park redevelopment (exclusive of costs outlined in Recommendation 7 below).The overall estimated project costs are outlined above (see Recommendation 1, Business Plan). The costs for pre-development are outlined in the table below:


Regent Park Development Corporation

Proposed Budget Authorizations Approved Approved Proposed 2003 2004 2005 Totals Staffing

Subtotal $125,000 $350,000 $407,000 $882,000 Consultants Planning approvals - Manage approvals incl. Phase 1 $75,000 $0 $100,000 $175,000 - Planning studies required $317,000 $1,625,000 $0 $1,942,000 Manage developer selection process $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Technical (eng., arch., QS) $50,000 $275,000 $400,000 $725,000 Professional (fin., marketing) $75,000 $125,000 $350,000 $550,000 DES consulting $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 Legal $75,000 $160,000 $300,000 $535,000 Other less grants $25,000 $35,000 $2,500 $62,500

Subtotal $617,000 $2,220,000 $1,602,500 $4,439,500

Office and Miscellaneous $30,000 $80,000 $80,000 $190,000 Healthy Community Building $125,000 $250,000 $350,000 $725,000 Communication $50,000 $100,000 $145,500 $295,500 Totals $947,000 $3,000,000 $2,585,000 $6,532,000

The pre-development costs include the costs for a project team. In addition, to the $2,585,000 required for a project team, it is estimated that TCHC will expend $740,000 on demolition and $430,000 on environmental remediation beginning in late 2005. Environmental remediation costs will be funded by the Ontario Housing Corporation (OHC). Relocation costs for tenants in Phase 1 are estimated at $1,000,000 Recommendation 7 It is recommended that the CEO be authorized to make a payment of $100,000 in each of the next three years to the Regent Park Resident’s Council (or successor organization) to provide financial support for community development, engagement in the redevelopment and revitalization process, and coordination of social development initiatives in the community. The Regent Park Resident’s Association (RPRC) has, through its revitalization committee and economic development committee, provided support and important community


engagement in the revitalization initiative. The RPRC is in the process of re-organizing into a community economic development corporation. The restructuring of the RPRC will provide an important resource for community and economic development initiatives. This resource will result in TCHC being able to scale back its role in these areas, and support community-based initiatives. Building community capacity to take on these initiatives is a goal for TCHC in the revitalization of the community. The RPRC is working with Ideas That Matter in the development of a strategic and business plan. The RPRC has approved the re-structuring of its Board to include non-resident persons who are committed to the building of a healthy and sustainable community and can assist the RPRC in implementing its strategies, including raising funds. The three-year $100,000 commitment from TCHC will provide funds to hire staff for community engagement, support participation in the creation of the Social Development Plan, and launch economic development initiatives. RPRC has shared the draft business plan with TCHC. Staff is confident that the objectives that are set for RPRC can be achieved. RPRC will be accountable to TCHC and other funders for achieving expected results. Should this not be the case, TCHC can review its funding commitments at any time. Staff will execute an agreement with RPRC for the transfer of funds. Staff will also seek, at a future date, authority from the Board for the transfer of approximately $200,000 received from the Ontario Housing Corporation and originally held in a trust account for community initiatives. CONCLUSION: TCHC is ready to proceed with the planning approvals required to start Phase 1 of the redevelopment. There are outstanding financial issues that require resolution in the near term. However, the financial risks related to Phase 1 are not severe, and there is an ability to manage these in the short term. Long term resolution of funding for infrastructure is required prior to construction start in 2006. Discussions have taken place with City officials on securing additional funding for infrastructure and for affordable rental housing. The latter will permit the mixing of affordable and RGI units in social housing buildings. Issues related to the governance of the revitalization initiative will be addressed in a subsequent report to the Board. The report is delayed until the Board has an opportunity to review the proposed development program for the next three years, and how this program may relate to the Regent Park initiative. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:


Financial implications are outlined above. The revitalization plan is close to the original budget assumptions made in the feasibility study. There are financial risk elements that could increase the cost of the project to TCHC. Should there be a gap in senior government funding, or an inability to obtain funding for affordable rental units, the project economics will change, and the delivery of a mix of units within buildings will not be possible. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no direct legal implications as a result of this report. TCHC will be subject to agreements as part of the planning approvals process. TCHC will also be required to enter into other legal agreements related to the acquisition of sites and project funding. COMMUNICATIONS IMPLICATIONS: A communications plan has been developed for this initiative. Prior to the submission of planning applications there has been extensive communication with residents, community stakeholders, and other interested parties. All information related to the applications is available on the Regent Park website. Regular communications with residents and other stakeholders forms part of the on-going plan. __________________ Derek Ballantyne Chief Executive Officer [email protected] 416 981 1440

Attachments:

1. Revitalization principles 2. Proposed secondary plan 3. Proposed urban plan, zoning and height map 4. Housing mix scenarios

Attachment 1 Community Planning Principles * 1 Renew the Regent Park neighbourhood 2 Re-introduce pedestrian friendly streets and park spaces 3 Design a safe and accessible neighbourhood 4 Involve the community in the process 5 Build on cultural diversity, youth, skills and energy 6 Create a diverse neighbourhood with a mix of uses including a variety of

housing, employment, institutions and services 7 Design a clean, healthy and environmentally responsible neighbourhood 8 Keep the same number of Rent Geared to Income (RGI) units 9 Minimise disruption for residents during relocation 10 Develop a Financially Responsible Strategy 11 Create a Successful Toronto Neighbourhood 12 Improve the rest of Regent Park as well while Redevelopment takes place * developed with residents and other participants in community workshops 2002

REGENT PARK Attachment 2 DRAFT SECONDARY PLAN December 9, 2004 Section 1: Vision for a revitalized neighbourhood Regent Park is one of the largest and oldest public housing developments in Canada. About 7,500 residents live in the neighbourhood in 2,083 rent-geared-to-income social housing units. Regent Park covers about 70 acres on the eastern of Downtown Toronto. It is extremely well located, served well by transit, close to desirable neighbourhoods and the city’s financial district, and close to the transportation infrastructure and natural heritage of the Don Valley. The Regent Park area has a history of housing Toronto’s low-income residents. Before 1948, it had a reputation as one of Toronto’s most run down areas. The development of Regent Park was part of North America’s mid- 20th century urban renewal movement, where the historic housing stock and urban fabric were cleared and redeveloped with new social housing. Regent Park North was developed beginning in 1948, financed by a municipal debenture approved through a City referendum. Its design was made up of a series of three and six storey walk-up apartments and a number of town houses surrounded by green spaces. Regent Park South was developed beginning in the late 1950s. Its design included a series of five “tower-in-the-park” modernist high-rises, mixed with ground-related townhouses. Public through streets were removed from Regent Park, since the buildings were intended to front onto surrounding open space rather than public streets, and the redevelopment sought to exclude cars from the neighbourhood. Regent Park was initially successful in that it provided quality, new housing to many low-income residents. As the neighbourhood evolved, it developed many strengths, including cultural diversity and a strong sense of community among its residents. At the same time, challenges have emerged. The housing stock has deteriorated and no longer provides quality housing. The buildings in Regent Park have a poor relationship to the surrounding open spaces. Public spaces are often poorly designed and many residents have found that the design facilitates criminal activity and undermines public safety. The neighbourhood has become both physically and socially isolated from the surrounding areas and the rest of Toronto. The Toronto Community Housing Corporation – the City’s arms-length, non-profit housing corporation -- is the sole owner of both North and South Regent Park. Through TCHC, Toronto has new opportunities to achieve revitalization of Regent Park through redevelopment.

The Regent Park Secondary Plan establishes a framework to guide the phased redevelopment of Regent Park. The intent of the plan is to support and build upon the strong community that exists in Regent Park as the neighbourhood undergoes significant physical change. Redevelopment will achieve a revitalized mixed income, mixed use, and residential neighbourhood. The neighbourhood will be integrated with the surrounding area, exhibit high quality design, and accommodate a population that is socially and economically diverse in a healthy and sustainable environment. Redevelopment will involve the phased demolition and reconstruction of all of the social housing in Regent Park. The total number of residential units will increase, as some land will be developed as market housing. The neighbourhood will continue to provide social and rent-geared to income housing. The plan will support the construction of up to 5,400 social and market housing units, with a projected population of approximately 12,500 at the completion of all phases. The anticipated population characteristics will be reviewed and assessed on an on-going basis in order to support good planning for services and transportation. Regent Park will be revitalized as a vibrant, healthy, and livable neighbourhood. The vision of a new and revitalized Regent Park neighbourhood is supported by a number of principles: Reconnection. The plan will physically integrate Regent Park with adjoining neighbourhoods through the introduction of connected, pedestrian-friendly, publicly-owned streets, parks, and open spaces. Housing Diversity In addition to the replacement or retention of 2,083 existing rent-geared-to-income social housing units through redevelopment, the neighbourhood will provide a full range of housing to accommodate a diverse population with a broad range of household incomes and sizes, under varied forms of tenure and within a range of building forms. Mix of Uses The plan encourages a mix of uses that supports a healthy neighbourhood, including community facilities, parks, retail, and a range of employment uses such as live-work, workshops, office, and institutional; Safety and accessibility Regent Park will be a neighbourhood where residents have a high level of security and safety and convenient access to public space. Buildings and spaces should be designed to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities.

Environmental Sustainability Redevelopment will advance environmental sustainability through infrastructure, community design, and building design. Approaches and innovations such as district heating and cooling, green roofs will be explored. Economic health Regent Park will be an economically healthy neighbourhood that incorporates sufficient flexibility in design to allow adaptation over time to demographic, lifestyle, and technological changes. Fewer automobiles The plan intends to encourage walking, cycling and transit use and low levels of private automobile use in order to improve safety, promote environmental sustainability, and establish neighbourhood character. Section 2: Building a Good Place Redevelopment will transform the physical character of Regent Park. When Regent Park was first built, the elimination of through streets and automobiles was intended to create a park-like character. These good intentions had drawbacks, and left the neighbourhood distinctly different and disconnected from surrounding areas. Redevelopment of Regent Park creates opportunities to integrate the neighbourhood with the surrounding city, and create a continuous networks of public streets and park spaces that is integrated into the existing context. The neighbourhood will be structured around the public realm, which includes streets, parks and open spaces. Public through streets will break down the invisible boundary around the community. The built-form will be organized with a fine-grained pattern of blocks, while permitting flexibility for future development. Regent Park is planned as a medium-density, primarily residential neighbourhood, with a wide range of building types. These include stacked townhouses and mid-rise buildings along the street edges, in addition to carefully placed and well designed point towers. 2.1 Structure, Form, and Physical Amenity The physical structure of Regent Park is planned around a hierarchy of streets and open spaces. It guides the relationship of different parts of the neighbourhood to each other to the surrounding city, and to development. 2.1.1 Neighbourhood structure, form and physical amenity are planned to support a pedestrian-friendly grid of small blocks, with active and accessible

public spaces, and a mix of uses appropriately located to support a healthy neighbourhood. 2.1.2 Streets and blocks in Regent Park will be located to physically integrate the secondary plan area with adjoining neighbourhoods and the rest of the City. Streets in Regent Park will be public streets. As public space, streets will fall within a hierarchy of arterial streets, Primary Local Streets, and Internal Local Streets. Map 2 shows the hierarchy of proposed streets. 2.1.3 The location of Primary Local Streets within the Secondary Plan Area will be generally as shown on Map 2. The extensions of Gifford Street, Nasmith Street and Sword Street from Gerrard Street East south to Oak Street will also be located generally as shown on Map 2. Other Internal Local Streets shown on Map 2 illustrate the intent of the streets and blocks plan; however, their location may change or they may be removed without requiring an amendment to this Secondary Plan, if the subdivision review process determines such revisions to be appropriate and within the intent of the Plan. 2.1.4 Public streets in Regent Park will: serve pedestrians; provide well-designed public space; be designed to accommodate landscaping and greening of the public realm; and accommodate the transportation and infrastructure needs of the neighbourhood and the broader City. 2.1.5 Internal Local Streets will contain a high proportion of ground-related units and be designed with particular regard for pedestrian comfort and safety. 2.1.6 Parliament Street north of Gerrard Street East serves as a shopping district for neighbourhoods in Toronto’s east Downtown. Parliament Street adjacent to Regent Park will extend the commercial character of the street southward from Gerrard Street East to provide a mix of grade-related retail uses and small scale commercial uses in mixed-use buildings. 2.1.7 The predominant character of built-form in Regent Park will be low-rise and mid-rise buildings fronting onto public streets, interspersed in appropriate locations with tall buildings. .. 2.1.8 Parliament, Gerrard, Dundas, Shuter, and River Streets, are generally appropriate for mid-rise buildings. Development sites across from major parks and the two large blocks located between Dundas, Sumach, Sackville, and St. David Streets are also appropriate for mid-rise buildings. 2.1.9 Primary local streets and internal local streets are generally appropriate for development of low-rise, predominantly residential buildings.

2.1.10 Tall buildings with small floor-plates may be constructed on top of base buildings in appropriate locations. The zoning by-law will define and limit appropriate locations and floorplate sizes for tall buildings. Appropriate locations will be primarily along River Street, Dundas Street East, and on the two large blocks between Dundas, Sumach, Sackville, and St. David Streets. Tall buildings will only be considered on sites which: a) have been assessed regarding their impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood and the adjacent public realm, including streets, parks, and open spaces; b) do not concentrate tall buildings in a localized area; c) are located on large blocks and front onto wide streets or large open spaces. 2.1.11 The open-space system in Regent Park will have four components: a) A major park will be developed on the north side of Dundas Street East between Sumach and Sackville Streets. The park will provide a significant physical feature of the neighbourhood and provide recreation opportunities and open space. b) The City will seek the cooperation of the Toronto District School Board to consolidate the playfield at Nelson Mandela Park Primary School with adjacent land on the south side of St. David Street east of Sackville Street to establish a new expanded park space and recreation area. The nearby land on at the northeast corner of Shuter Street and Sumach Street will also be used for parks and recreation purposes. c) Three local parkettes will be developed in the northeast, southeast, and northwest quadrants of the neighbourhood generally as shown on Map 3. Local parkettes will provide special and unique public places within the quadrants of the neighbourhood. d) A landscaped walkway system will be developed adjacent to St. David, Oak, Sumach and Sackville Streets. These walkways will take the form of linear parks and will function as major tree-lined, pedestrian pathways within the neighbourhood and provide connections to the three main schools in the area and to new parks in Regent Park. 2.2 Land Use Regent Park will be a medium density, primarily residential neighbourhood. Like other healthy neighbourhoods across Toronto, Regent Park will also include diverse land uses to accommodate a variety of services and economic

opportunities for its residents and contribute to the vibrancy of the neighbourhood. 2.2.x The lands within the secondary plan area will be designated as either

Mixed Use Areas, Apartment Neighbourhoods, or Parks and Open Space Areas – Parks, as shown on Map 3.

2.2.x Development in all areas in Regent Park will provide buildings that

conform to the principles of universal design, and wherever possible contain units that are accessible or adaptable for persons with physical disabilities

Mixed Use Areas 2.2.x Mixed Use Areas are made up of a broad range of commercial, residential

and institutional uses, in single use or mixed use buildings, as well as parks and open spaces and utilities.

2.2.x In Mixed Use Areas development will:

a) create a balance of high quality commercial, residential, institutional and open space uses that reduces automobile dependency and meets the needs of the local community;

b) locate and mass new buildings to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale;;

c) locate and mass new buildings to minimize shadow impacts on adjacent residential areas during the spring and fall equinoxes;

d) locate and mass new buildings to frame the edges of streets and parks with good proportion and maintain sunlight and comfortable wind conditions for pedestrians on adjacent streets, parks and open spaces;

e) provide an attractive, comfortable and safe pedestrian environment; f) have access to schools, parks, community centres, libraries, and

childcare; g) take advantage of nearby transit services;

h) provide good site access and circulation; j) locate and screen service areas, ramps and garbage storage to minimize the impact on adjacent streets and residences; and

I) provide appropriate recreation space for building residents. Parks and Open Space Areas - Parks 2.2.x Development is generally prohibited within Parks areas except for

recreational and cultural facilities, conservation projects, and essential public works and utilities where supported by appropriate assessment.

2.2.x Any development provided for in Parks and Open Space Areas – Parks will:

a) protect, enhance or restore trees, vegetation and other natural heritage features;

b) preserve or improve public visibility and access; c) maintain, and where possible, create linkages between parks and

open spaces to create continuous recreational corridors; d) maintain or expand the size and improve the usability of publicly

owned Parks and Open Space – Parks areas for public parks, recreational and cultural purposes;

e) respect the physical form, design, character and function of Parks and Open Space – Parks Areas; and

f) provide comfortable and safe pedestrian conditions. 2.2.x Parks and Open Space Areas - Parks will be used primarily to provide

public parks and recreational opportunities. Apartment Neighbourhoods 2.2.x Apartment Neighbourhoods are made up of apartment buildings and

residential uses in a mix of lower and higher scale buildings such as duplexes, triplexes, townhouses walk-up apartments and towers. Apartment Neighbourhoods also include parks, home occupations, local institutions, community services, schools, cultural and recreational facilities, and small scale retail, service, and office uses.

2.2.x Non-residential uses in Apartment Neighbourhoods will be compatible with

adjacent residential uses and support the objective of providing a mix of uses to support a healthy neighbourhood. Utilities are permitted in Apartment Neighbourhoods where supported by appropriate assessment.

2.2.x Development in Apartment Neighbourhoods will contribute to the quality of

life by:

a) locating and massing new buildings to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale;

b) locating and massing new buildings to minimize shadow impacts on adjacent residential areas during the spring and fall equinoxes

c) locating and massing new buildings to frame the edges of streets and parks with good proportion and maintain sunlight and comfortable wind conditions for pedestrians on adjacent streets, parks and open spaces

d) including sufficient off-street motor vehicle and bicycle parking e) locating and screening service areas, ramps and garbage storage

to minimize the impact on adjacent streets and residences

f) providing appropriate recreation space for building residents g) providing ground floor uses that enhance the safety, amenity and

animation of adjacent streets and open spaces; 2.3 Urban Design The design of the public realm and the relationships between new buildings and the surrounding space will be key to establishing a positive character and identity for the Regent Park neighbourhood. New buildings should have a positive impact on the neighbourhood and on the surrounding area. And the public realm should provide a positive place where residents can work, live, play, and interact with each other. This Secondary Plan establishes a strong foundation for the implementation of fundamental urban design principles through redevelopment. As the neighbourhood develops and evolves, urban design guidelines will be an essential tool to implement good urban design. 2.3.x The public realm in the Regent Park Secondary Plan Area will be

designed to physically integrate the neighbourhood with the surrounding area, to integrate public streets and open spaces together, to create a pedestrian-focused neighbourhood, to contribute to the greening of Regent Park, to incorporate high-quality streetscape features, and to be environmentally sustainable.

2.3.x Urban design guidelines will be adopted by City Council prior to

redevelopment in the Regent Park Secondary Plan Area. The urban design guidelines will support and implement the objectives and policies of the City’s Official Plan and this secondary plan They will set out the design framework for the public realm and the relationship of buildings and private spaces to the public realm. The guidelines will, provide a context for coordinated incremental development of individual sites and blocks and provide guidance for the site plan control process.

2.3.x The built form of the secondary plan area will be located and massed to

frame the edge of streets and parks with good proportion and to maintain sunlight and comfortable wind conditions for pedestrians on adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. Building setbacks and stepbacks will be used to mitigate the impact of building height and massing and to maintain appropriate relationships of buildings to streets and public spaces. Development will be planned to create clear distinctions between private and public spaces.

2.3.x Tall buildings, where permitted, will minimize shadow impacts on the

public realm and on surrounding properties during the spring and fall equinoxes. Design of tall buildings will also address light, view and privacy impacts on surrounding properties.

2.3.x The location and massing of new buildings in the secondary plan area will provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, particularly providing setbacks from and a stepping down of heights toward lower scale residential areas outside of the Secondary Plan Area. The location and massing of new buildings will minimize shadow impacts on properties in adjacent lower scale residential areas during the spring and fall equinoxes.

2.3.x A diversity of building types that incorporate good quality architecture and

environmental design will be encouraged. Existing buildings may be rehabilitated where appropriate and feasible to contribute to the preservation of the area’s heritage.

2.3.x Streetscape improvements in the secondary plan area will contribute to

the role of the street as public gathering space. Development will provide an attractive, comfortable and safe pedestrian environment.

2.3.x Redevelopment of Regent Park will provide for the retention and

relocation of existing trees where possible and appropriate, for the planting of new public trees on all public street rights-of-way, and for the planting and growth of mature trees on private property

2.3.x Within the public realm there will be a range of public art opportunities to

reflect Regent Park’s and the city’s cultural diversity and history. 2.3.x The redevelopment of Regent Park will incorporate elements representing

the heritage and history of the area. 2.3.x Buildings will be located and designed to provide convenient access to

parks and open spaces. Section 3 Supporting a Healthy Neighbourhood The redevelopment of Regent Park is not just about streets, blocks, and buildings. Any neighbourhood requires supports to achieve and maintain its social, economic and environmental health. The redevelopment also presents the challenge of transforming a neighbourhood with over 7,500 residents. Reconstruction of the existing housing must be managed in a way that minimizes the impact on the lives of the residents and which ensures that community supports are developed to appropriately house and provide services to returning and to new residents. Once redevelopment is complete, sustainable environmental and transportation approaches will continue to support the health of the neighbourhood and of the

City. New development in Regent Park should anticipate these approaches and move to their implementation. 3.1 Housing The redevelopment of Regent Park is about creating a strong and vibrant community, the foundation of which is a diverse and affordable housing stock. The neighbourhood has a long history of providing affordable housing and will continue to fulfill that role. Redevelopment of Regent Park needs to ensure that the City’s supply of social housing is replenished and maintained. Social housing will continue to form an integral part of the neighbourhood. Replenishing the stock of social housing is not the only housing goal of this Secondary Plan. Redevelopment is an opportunity to achieve a full range of housing for Regent Park, in terms of tenure, form, and affordability. The housing stock in Regent Park will reflect the diversity of the city’s residents and their housing needs, with a wide range of housing types, sizes and affordability, encompassing social housing, ownership and rental housing. With a full range of housing, Regent Park will become a diverse, mixed income community. A challenge of redevelopment is the smooth relocation of the existing tenants of Regent Park, while minimizing disruption to their lives. TCHC will have to relocate residents to appropriate housing. Some will be temporarily relocated away from the community. Residents of the neighbourhood feel a strong bond with their neighbors and their community, and all residents who wish to return after redevelopment will have the right to do so. Regent Park covers a large area of downtown Toronto and redevelopment may create opportunities to make gains in the supply of affordable housing. New affordable housing, in addition to the replacement of the existing social housing, could further broaden the range of affordable housing available in the neighbourhood. In light of the challenges of redeveloping the complete Regent Park neighbourhood, the development of additional affordable housing units will not be possible without the contribution of land and/or funding from senior levels of government. POLICIES 5.1 The Regent Park Revitalization will secure full replacement of social

housing units that are demolished or converted to uses other than social housing as a result of the redevelopment of the lands. At least 85 % of the replacement social housing units will be provided within the Regent Park Secondary Plan area, or on the lands known in the year 2004 as 30 Regent Street.

5.2 Each replacement social housing unit will be maintained as a social housing unit for not less than 25 years from the date on which it was first occupied.

5.3 The replacement social housing units will generally be of a similar mix of

sizes and unit types by bedroom type as the social housing units they are replacing.

5.4 Social housing units existing in Regent Park in 2004 that are not

redeveloped or converted to other uses will be maintained as social housing for not less than 25 years from (date of the adoption of this Secondary Plan).

5.5 Replacement rent-geared-to-income subsidies will be provided in

conjunction with the redevelopment of Regent Park equal to the number of rent-geared-to-income subsidies that were provided in the Regent Park Secondary Plan Area in March 2004. At least 65% of the replacement rent-geared-to-income subsidies will be provided within the Secondary Plan Area or on the lands known in 2004 as 30 Regent Street.

5.6 The replacement rent-geared-to-income subsidies will be provided for a

period of not less than 25 years, subject to the continued provision of funding from federal, provincial and/or municipal government programs providing such subsidies.

5.7 Replacement social housing units that do not have rent-geared-to-income

subsidies will be affordable rental housing. 5.8 As redevelopment proceeds, progress toward full replacement of the

replacement social housing units and the replacement rent-geared-to-income subsidies will be monitored. Replacement social housing units will be constructed and replacement rent-geared-to-income subsidies will be provided consistent with the pace of housing development in the Secondary Plan Area..

5.9 Replacement social housing units that are not within the Secondary Plan

Area or on the lands known as 30 Regent Street will be located within the East Downtown, generally bounded by the Don Valley, Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and the lakeshore.

5.10 All tenant households that are displaced from Regent Park as a result of

the redevelopment process will have the right to return to a replacement social housing unit within Regent Park within a reasonable time period.

5.11 Tenants in the social housing units to be demolished will receive

assistance, including the provision of alternative accommodation at similar

rents, the right to return to a replacement social housing unit, and financial or other assistance to mitigate hardship caused by relocation.

5.12 Development within the Secondary Plan Area will not be subject to the

requirements to provide new affordable housing in Policy 6.12 of the (former) City of Toronto Official Plan or to Policy 3.2.1.9.b of the Toronto Official Plan.

5.13 Development of new affordable ownership housing and affordable rental

housing in the Secondary Plan Area, over and above the replacement social housing units, is strongly encouraged in order to contribute to a full range of housing affordability in the area. The City will work with its housing corporation, other affordable housing providers, and the federal and provincial governments to assemble land and funding for development of affordable housing.

Housing Definitions

“social housing” means rental housing units owned by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, or on their behalf by a non-profit corporation, or a non-profit housing co-operative, and operated by or on their behalf to provide accommodation primarily to persons of low and moderate income. “replacement social housing” means social housing units which replace the social housing units located in the Regent Park Secondary Plan Area as of March 2004 “rental housing” is a building or related group of buildings containing one or more rented residential units, including vacant units that have been used for rented residential purposes, but does not include condominium-registered, life lease or other ownership forms except that any condominium units purchased and owned by TCHC in the Secondary Plan Area for the purpose of meeting the replacement social housing requirement during the 25 year period shall be deemed to be rental. “ replacement rent-geared-to-income subsidies “means funding provided to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, or on their behalf to a non-profit corporation or a non-profit housing co-operative based on the income of the tenant households such that the rents to be paid by the tenant households are geared to their income. “affordable rental housing” means housing where the total monthly shelter costs (gross monthly rent including utilities – heat, hydro and hot water – but excluding parking and cable television charges) is at or below one

times the average City of Toronto rent, by unit type (number of bedrooms), as reported annually by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. “affordable ownership housing” is housing which is priced at or below an amount where the total monthly shelter cost (mortgage principle and interest – based on a 25-year amortization, 10% down payment and the chartered bank administered mortgage rate for a conventional 5-year mortgage as reported by the Bank of Canada at the time of application – plus property taxes calculated on a monthly basis) equals the average City of Toronto rent, by unit type, as reported annually by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Affordable ownership price includes GST and any other mandatory costs associated with purchasing the unit.

3.2 Community Services and Facilities Recreation, daycare, and social services are an important part of every neighbourhood, accommodated in community centres, schools, and other spaces. A strong community infrastructure supports community capacity and growth. Redevelopment of Regent Park offers an opportunity to ensure that the neighbourhood has the facilities needed to provide services to the community. At the same time, the make-up of the community and its members’ relationships to the surrounding City will rapidly evolve. The hard boundaries of Regent Park will dissolve in favour of interaction with nearby areas. Social planning responsive to the needs of the changing community will accompany redevelopment. 6.x Social infrastructure in Regent Park will be supported through and include

a strong network of community services and facilities designed to meet the evolving needs of the community.

6.x The types and levels of community services and facilities will be informed

through periodic reviews of existing and projected:

(a) demographic profiles of area residents; (b) inventories of area services and facilities; (c) gaps in services and facilities.

6.x Strategies will be prepared to implement the timely and efficient

development of community facilities to serve Regent Park. Strategies will be informed by consultation with residents and service providers and the findings of investigations conducted to implement Policy 7.2. Opportunities for co-location of services will be considered as part of any strategy.

6.x Updates of the strategies will consider:

(a) the market response to new housing in and around Regent Park and it’s effect on the emerging demographic composition; (b) the status of funding, scheduling and delivery of planned facilities, and (c)any implications for service planning and delivery.

6.x Notwithstanding the demolition and redevelopment of buildings and

facilities in Regent Park, existing community services, programs and facilities will not be displaced without without space for relocation being offered that is suitable to carry out the function.

6.x The provision of new and/or replaced community facility space will be

provided in a manner that is consistent with the pace of redevelopment occurring in Regent Park to ensure that community facilities are available when the need for them evolves in the community.

6.x Social development in Regent Park will focus on achieving greater levels

of equity, equality, access, participation, social cohesion and community capacity. Efforts will be directed to developing comprehensive plans and programs that assist in the optimization of the delivery of community services and provide for the integration of initiatives to support local employment, community economic development and resident participation.

6.x Social development efforts in Regent Park will:

(a) be inclusive processes designed to bring together area residents and key stakeholders in the design and delivery of community services; (b) be dynamic and responsive to the changing character and needs of Regent Park residents over the course of redevelopment, and (c) inform strategies designed to implement the development of new community facilities in to serve Regent Park.

3.3 Environment and Sustainability Redevelopment of Regent Park offers the opportunity to develop the neighbourhood as a model of environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability brings many advantages. Clean air, soil and water and abundant trees, parks and open spaces, underlie the health and well-being of all Toronto residents. With efficient use of energy and resources in Regent Park, Toronto Community Housing Corporation will be able to deliver housing services more efficiently and cost-effectively. Sustainable development also reduces stress on

the City’s infrastructure and can complement the environmental policies of senior levels of government. 7.1 A wide range of environmentally sustainable approaches and technologies for the design and construction of development and infrastructure are encouraged in the Secondary Plan Area. Environmentally sustainable approaches and technologies should reduce automobile use, achieve energy efficiency, preserve and enhance the urban forest, make efficient use of stormwater and wastewater, and reduce the urban heat island. 7.2 The City will support actions and innovations to make the secondary plan area a model environmentally sustainable community while meeting the other objectives of this Plan. The City will seek opportunities to implement pilot projects for innovations in environmentally sustainable infrastructure and design. 3.4 Transportation A significant part of achieving a healthy neighbourhood lies in effective transportation. Transportation and transit will connect Regent Park to other areas of the City. Revitalization of Regent Park can be coupled with encouraging alternatives to the use of automobiles. Low automobile use will bring a number of benefits to the neighbourhood, including improved pedestrian safety and environmental sustainability. Low automobile usage also fits in to broader, City-wide goals for transportation and the environment. 8.1 Public streets, lanes and other linkages in the secondary plan area will be designed to create an attractive, safe, grid-like pattern of streets and blocks to connect with the streets in the surrounding neighbourhoods. 8.2 The secondary plan area will be planned and designed to encourage walking, cycling, transit-use, and car-sharing as means to reduce the use of private automobiles. 8.3 On-street parking will be permitted wherever appropriate to meet visitor parking demand, enhance street activity, provide a buffer between vehicular traffic and sidewalks, and create a desirable pedestrian environment. 8.4 All streets will facilitate pedestrian and cyclist movement and provide links where appropriate to the City’s cycling system along adjacent streets. 8.5 Reduced off-street parking requirements for the secondary plan area may be considered and implemented through the Zoning By-law, to contribute to achieving objectives for environmental sustainability and other objectives of this Plan.

8.6 Development will be encouraged to pursue measures aimed at reducing automobile dependence by including facilities for car-sharing, bike-sharing, secure bicycle parking in convenient locations, and transit-pass incentives to residents and visitors. 8.7 Land subdivision and redevelopment in the secondary plan area will protect for the operation of transit corridors on Dundas Street East, Gerrard Street East, and Parliament Street. Section 4 Implementation 4.1 Regulatory Tools Sections 2 and 3 of this plan discussed the use of plans and strategies respecting community facilities, social development, the public realm and urban design, and tenant relocation. These plans and strategies will be important tools to achieve the vision for Regent Park. The vision for Regent Park will also be implemented using a variety of tools under the Planning Act, including a zoning by-law, plan of subdivision, site plan control, part lot control, and community improvement plans. Tools under the Planning Act will be used to establish a legal framework for redevelopment and to create checks and balances for future planning approvals. Coupled with clearly defined phasing, the checks and balances will be used to ensure the evolution of a healthy neighbourhood. Zoning 9.x Council will adopt a zoning by-law for lands within the Secondary Plan Area. The intent of the zoning by-law will be to provide diverse options for future development while securing important physical elements of development. The zoning by-law will permit a range of uses and establish standards for development and built-form consistent with and in conformity with the objectives and policies of the City’s Official Plan and this secondary plan. The zoning by-law will regulate heights, setbacks, building massing, floorplates, and other matters, as appropriate. 9.x Upon completion of redevelopment in one or more phases, Council may adopt a new zoning by-law for that phase or other completed phases of the Secondary Plan Area to protect the stability and character of the area and to restrict future redevelopment options for that phase or other completed phases. If adopted, this zoning by-law will reflect the development existing at the time. Holding 9.x A holding provision may be placed on the Zoning By-law for some or all of the lands within the Secondary Plan Area, in accordance with Section 36 of the

Planning Act, as amended. Where the holding symbol is in place, development may not take place before the symbol is lifted. The holding symbol is to be lifted once specified conditions have been met. Conditions to be met prior to the removal of the holding provision may include: x) registration of a plan of subdivision including all conditions that will be included in the plan of subdivision agreement; x) entering into agreements, including subdivision agreements or

agreements pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act, to secure any of the matters required to satisfy the conditions for removal of the holding provision

x) Provincial consent under the Social Housing Reform Act required prior to the lease or sale of land

9.x The holding symbol may be lifted on a phase by phase basis. Plan of Subdivision 9.x Major development blocks in the Secondary Plan Area will be created by plan of subdivision in accordance with Section 51 of the Planning Act, as amended. Major development blocks may be further divided by plan of subdivision, by removal of part lot control, or by consent to sever. 9.x All division of land in the Secondary Plan Area shall be in conformity with this plan. Division of land shall create land parcels that facilitate development consistent with the intent and objectives of this plan and which can be feasibly developed in accordance with urban design guidelines adopted by Council. 9.x Plans of subdivision in Regent Park may be subject to a variety of conditions to ensure implementation of strategies to provide community services and facilities and recreation facilities, urban design guidelines, the housing policies of this plan, heritage preservation and archaeological investigation and mitigation, provision of public infrastructure, tree preservation and planting on private property and in the public realm, and other matters in accordance with Section 51 of the Planning Act, as amended. Site Plan Control 9.x Applications for Site Plan Approval shall be reviewed to ensure consistency with the objectives and policies of this plan. The site plan approval process will be used to implement urban design guidelines adopted for the Secondary Plan Area. Site plan review will consider the context of a proposal within the larger block on which the site is located to ensure coordinated development.

Section 37 What Section 37 policies do we need? 4.2 Interpretation The following policies provide guidance for the understanding of the text and maps of this Plan. 4.2.x The Plan should be read as a whole to understand its comprehensive intent as a policy framework for priority setting and decision making. 4.2.x. The shaded text the policies of the Regent Park Secondary Plan. Other non-policy text is provided to give context and background and assist in understanding the intent of Policies. 4.2.x Illustrations, sidebars, and photos are included for the purpose of illustration only and are not part of the Plan. 4.2.x. Boundaries of land use designations on Map xx-2 are general except where they coincide with fixed distinguishable features. Where the general intent of the Plan is maintained, minor adjustments to the boundaries will not require amendment to this Plan. 4.2.x Where there is conflict between the policies of this Secondary Plan and the City’s Official Plan, the policies of this Secondary Plan shall take precedence. 4.2.x The implementation of this Plan will take place over time and the use of words such as “will” or “must” should not be construed as Council’s commitment to proceed with all of these undertakings immediately. These will typically occur in a phased manner, subject to budgeting and program availability. 4.2.x The indication of any proposed roads, parks, municipal services or infrastructure in policy text or on Secondary Plan maps will not be interpreted as a commitment by the City to provide such services within a specific time frame. Minor adjustments to the location of these features do not require an amendment to the Plan provided they meet the general intent of the Plan. 4.2.x The indication of any proposed roads, parks, services or infrastructure in policy text or on Plan maps or schedules, will not be interpreted as necessarily being specifically or solely the responsibility of the City to provide, finance or otherwise implement. Schedule X: Housing Units existing in Regent Park in March 2004

MAP 1: AREA MAP

Regent ParkSecondary Plan

SCALE 1:3500SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

33 3222

21

31

3028

20

15

1918

1716

1087

2726

25

62 4 5

24

12

1413

11

1

9

23

29

MAP 2: STREETS & BLOCKS PLAN


SCALE 1:3500DECEMBER 9, 2004

LEGEND

Blocks

GIF

FOR

D

NA

SM

ITH

SW

OR

D

Internal Local Streets

Primary Local Streets

MAP 3: LAND USE MAP



LEGEND

Parks & Open Space

Mixed-Use Residential Area

Mixed-Use Area

G

CR(h)

CR(h)

G

G

G

CR(h)

G

R4A(h)

R4A(h)

R4A(h)

CR(h)

CR(h)

CR(h)

R4A(h)

R4A(h)

G

CR(h)

36 m

.

104

m.

76 m.

142

m.

36 m.

36 m

.

36 m

.

36 m.

65 m

.

19 m

.

28 m.

48 m.

16 m

.

29 m.R4A(h)

R4A(h)34 m.

G

17 m.

60 m

.

MAP 1: ZONE MAP

Regent ParkZoning By-law


LEGEND

Residential Zone 4A

Mixed-Use ZoneCR

R4A

G Park & Open Space

Lands Not Affected by This By-law

Holding Zoneh

36 m

.

48 m

.

H 30.0

H 22.0

H 30.0

H 30.0

H 30.0

H 30.0

H 30.0

H 30.0

H 30.0

H 30.0

H 15.0

H 22.0

H 22.0

H 15.0

H 15.0

H 15.0

H 10.0

H 10.0

H 10.0

H 22.0H 10.0

H 10.0

H 30.0

36 m.

36 m

.

36 m.

36 m

.

36 m

.

36 m.

36 m

.

36 m.36 m.

36 m

.

36 m

.

36 m

.

36 m.

87 m.18

m.

36 m.

H 15.0

H 15.0

16 m

.

36 m.

71 m.

58 m

.

H 15.0

H 22.0

68 m

.

H 22.0H 22.0

H 50.0

H 15.0

60 m.

36 m

.

57 m.

36 m

.

66 m

.

32 m

.

46 m.

31 m

.

H 15.0

48 m.

50 m

.

28 m. 57 m.

48 m.

22 m.

H 10.0

H 22.0

Map 2: Height Map

LEGEND

Building Height (in metres)



H 10.0


18 m. 18 m.

18 m

.

18 m.18 m.

36 m.36 m.90

m.

84 m

.

36 m

.

36 m.

36 m.36 m.

36 m.

62 m

.

62 m

.

36 m.

46 m.

50 m

.

48 m

.

A B

B B

B

C

C

C

36 m

.

Map 3: Height Transition Zones & Tower Locations

LEGEND



Transition Zones

Tower A

Tower B

Tower C

A

B

C

A B C

D E F

G I J

H

K

L

L

MAP 4: GRADE SUB-AREAS



LEGEND

Sub-areas


regent park revitalization initiative (tchc:2004-150) · 2018. 6. 9. · board of directors...

Documents