News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

north-of-anything

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
654
Reaction score
1,211
There are a few threads in the Buildings subforum on certain schools, of the public and post-secondary varieties, but none that I could find on the locations and development of educational facilities in general. Forgive me if I missed it, or if this is in the wrong place.

With regards to elementary and high schools, it's been no secret that the TDSB has been running in the red for a while, with utilization of its school buildings inconsistent across the city. I keep coming back to this article from CityNews that includes a handy Google Maps visualization of where schools are under- or over-populated:


It's easy to see some of the trends here, where underutilized schools are most likely to be found deep in the yellowbelt (especially Etobicoke), and overpopulated schools are often in the east end, and in North York near Sheppard. The Avondale Public School rebuild going from two stories with provisions for a third to three stories is no doubt a reflection of what may happen at other Toronto schools as these corridors continue to intensify. In addition, a lot of brownfield development projects in the city do not include any schools but are still expected to hold dozens (if not hundreds) of multiple-bedroom units. Will the Golden Mile area have any new schools, or are kids going to be forced to take a bus over a kilometre north or south of Eglinton?

There's also the issue of aging and underutilized infrastructure in places that aren't facing development in the near future, like East Scarborough. As someone who went to an underutilized elementary school, I'm sure the neighbourhoods wouldn't appreciate being told that their school selection is going to shrink, but most of these schools are in locations where selling the plots off to developers wouldn't recuperate enough to keep the board afloat.

Post-secondary schools are also like overcrowded elementary and high schools in the way that there is a demand for more classroom space, and new facilities, but a shortage of real estate to build them, restrictions imposed by the provincial government, or other factors are preventing them from being built. The proposed university campuses in downtown Brampton and Unionville would be a start, but there is a definite need for a degree-granting institution north of Highway 7.
 
There are a few threads in the Buildings subforum on certain schools, of the public and post-secondary varieties, but none that I could find on the locations and development of educational facilities in general. Forgive me if I missed it, or if this is in the wrong place.

With regards to elementary and high schools, it's been no secret that the TDSB has been running in the red for a while, with utilization of its school buildings inconsistent across the city. I keep coming back to this article from CityNews that includes a handy Google Maps visualization of where schools are under- or over-populated:


It's easy to see some of the trends here, where underutilized schools are most likely to be found deep in the yellowbelt (especially Etobicoke), and overpopulated schools are often in the east end, and in North York near Sheppard. The Avondale Public School rebuild going from two stories with provisions for a third to three stories is no doubt a reflection of what may happen at other Toronto schools as these corridors continue to intensify. In addition, a lot of brownfield development projects in the city do not include any schools but are still expected to hold dozens (if not hundreds) of multiple-bedroom units. Will the Golden Mile area have any new schools, or are kids going to be forced to take a bus over a kilometre north or south of Eglinton?

There's also the issue of aging and underutilized infrastructure in places that aren't facing development in the near future, like East Scarborough. As someone who went to an underutilized elementary school, I'm sure the neighbourhoods wouldn't appreciate being told that their school selection is going to shrink, but most of these schools are in locations where selling the plots off to developers wouldn't recuperate enough to keep the board afloat.

Post-secondary schools are also like overcrowded elementary and high schools in the way that there is a demand for more classroom space, and new facilities, but a shortage of real estate to build them, restrictions imposed by the provincial government, or other factors are preventing them from being built. The proposed university campuses in downtown Brampton and Unionville would be a start, but there is a definite need for a degree-granting institution north of Highway 7.
It something I have being saying far too long that that it time to make schools and other things part of new developments at the base and a few floors with X on top of them as well being use 7/24/365 where possible.

We have already seen where a High School that was falling apart got replace by a larger complex with a nice sport field as part of 2 condo buildings development. I maybe wrong, but TDSB walk away with money as well for this new complex.

All school boards are sitting on a pot of money that would see newer schools replacing out dated ones, adding more space, could be use 7/24/365 in place of 8/5/200. Those who buy condos/rent units that have a school at the base and play ground accept the condition that noise from kids/people playing outside is a fact of life and have no option to change it down the road. Gyms can be rented out outside of school hours as extra income that allows people to stay in the area than getting into a car and driving to X.

When enrollment falls, extra space could be rented out until it needed again.

If we are trying to create places where people live, work play and shops, schools need to be the based of creating these communities than putting kids on buses to be school miles away from home than walking to/from home to/from schools.

There isn't anything stopping having K-12 in place of K-6/8 other than various type of high schools that will lead to X at university. If all 9-12 schools taught the same thing, then there is no need to have various high school leading students to x field.

University can do the same thing for x floors at the base of towers/complex.

I look at my k-6 at Rose Anne school that long overdue for major work as well 6-8 Sr Winchester new school built late 1950's that is in bad shape today. It not as bad as the K-6 school next door as Winchester public that needed to be replace decades ago. Not much left of the Rose Anne playground these days as well a school overcrowded that will never meet the new development going up around it.

Better land use will save school boards money as well the schools themselves. I am following 100 Elem K-8 school being built and it will not handle all the new development only 5 blocks way from it that is currently known what is going to be built, let along what is coming down the tracks in the next 5-10 years.

One of the biggest changes that needs to happen is merging the 2 school systems together to the point only various religion classes would be an option to those who want to attend them. This deals with the underuse of schools that I see and know of to the point a few need to go unless changes are made in the next decade or 2.

Single and 2 floor schools should be a thing of the past with at least 3 floors. I had no issues with 4 flights of stairs growing up. Do floors by grade since the stairs will be an issues for the K-1 and you do need elevators in schools 2 plus floor as per the OADA requirements.
 
There are a few threads in the Buildings subforum on certain schools, of the public and post-secondary varieties, but none that I could find on the locations and development of educational facilities in general. Forgive me if I missed it, or if this is in the wrong place.

With regards to elementary and high schools, it's been no secret that the TDSB has been running in the red for a while, with utilization of its school buildings inconsistent across the city. I keep coming back to this article from CityNews that includes a handy Google Maps visualization of where schools are under- or over-populated:


It's easy to see some of the trends here, where underutilized schools are most likely to be found deep in the yellowbelt (especially Etobicoke), and overpopulated schools are often in the east end, and in North York near Sheppard. The Avondale Public School rebuild going from two stories with provisions for a third to three stories is no doubt a reflection of what may happen at other Toronto schools as these corridors continue to intensify. In addition, a lot of brownfield development projects in the city do not include any schools but are still expected to hold dozens (if not hundreds) of multiple-bedroom units. Will the Golden Mile area have any new schools, or are kids going to be forced to take a bus over a kilometre north or south of Eglinton?

There's also the issue of aging and underutilized infrastructure in places that aren't facing development in the near future, like East Scarborough. As someone who went to an underutilized elementary school, I'm sure the neighbourhoods wouldn't appreciate being told that their school selection is going to shrink, but most of these schools are in locations where selling the plots off to developers wouldn't recuperate enough to keep the board afloat.

Post-secondary schools are also like overcrowded elementary and high schools in the way that there is a demand for more classroom space, and new facilities, but a shortage of real estate to build them, restrictions imposed by the provincial government, or other factors are preventing them from being built. The proposed university campuses in downtown Brampton and Unionville would be a start, but there is a definite need for a degree-granting institution north of Highway 7.

The City-TV story is rife with problems.

First, over/under capacity is not defined.

The Province, as I recollect, used 70% for that number.

But I could stand to be corrected.

I would argue strongly for 50%; For a variety of reasons.

One is that I agree w/this figure in general, because whatever rated class size you pick, as ideal; it tends to be when it doubles that you create a new class.

ie. if 15 students is ideal, 30 triggers 2 classes, while 29 end up up in 1.

In that context, it makes sense to allow for a swing of 50-100% of capacity; where I would argue, going over capacity is 100% non-negotiable.

A student w/o a computer, a lab station, a musical instrument of their own, or simply a desk is not reasonable.

Nor is a school that can't be safely evacuated

or

A class where students can't receive adequate attention from a teacher.

******

Beyond that, there is the problem that the TDSB is huge; by far the most populous board in the province.

The notion that surplus capacity in Etobicoke can be redeployed in East York is irrational to put it charitably.

You can't simply change boundary areas endlessly in search of flawlessly optimal attendance per school.

******

On the subject of Central Tech; any proposal to close the school will cause far more fire-breathing that the Dominion Foundry situation, and as well it should.

Its a gorgeous building.

The capacity reports are misleading, as they include the large mechanical/aeronautics wing at the south end, and the Brutalist free-standing building along the north end of the field.

*****

Finally, how does on argue for disposing of nominally surplus property in one of the fastest growing cities in the developed world; and one in which property is only getting more expensive?

Re-acquiring land, should the need arise, would be prohibitive.



In theory, I'd be happy to remove the 'additions'; but they do provide many of the amenities and course-depth of the school.

Its likely they would have to be replaced by at least one new modern addition, as I'm not sure the existing school could be re-purposed to cover those needs.
 
I'm not taking the CityNews article as gospel, but it does raise a point as to where assets of the TDSB are placed. I see the map as more of a way to get a general idea of what schools can take more students and what schools cannot. I wouldn't be basing everything off the Google map in the article either since "capacity" isn't well defined. Is it defined by the number of desks? Is it defined by the number of classrooms with an assumed maximum capacity per room? If a school has all of its portables, is it at 100% capacity or higher than 100%?

In the case of TDSB in particular, I think some of these under-capacity schools, such as around Lawrence Avenue East and in Mimico/Long Branch, should be used to justify increased density nearby instead of selling the properties off. On the other hand, will Port Union or Rowntree Hills need to accommodate hundreds of new students, when shifting demographics means suburban families are getting smaller and smaller?

Better land use will save school boards money as well the schools themselves. I am following 100 Elem K-8 school being built and it will not handle all the new development only 5 blocks way from it that is currently known what is going to be built, let along what is coming down the tracks in the next 5-10 years.
I'm fully convinced that the 100 Elm school is going to serve the same catchment area as the existing Fairview, which will most likely be torn down to complete Joan Drive and Webb Drive and allow for higher density development around it. I think its catchment area should be trimmed at Burnhamthorpe, with another school in a podium somewhere in MCC, but I don't know if school boards are looking to do this or making these desires clear to city planners.
 
I'm not taking the CityNews article as gospel, but it does raise a point as to where assets of the TDSB are placed. I see the map as more of a way to get a general idea of what schools can take more students and what schools cannot. I wouldn't be basing everything off the Google map in the article either since "capacity" isn't well defined. Is it defined by the number of desks? Is it defined by the number of classrooms with an assumed maximum capacity per room? If a school has all of its portables, is it at 100% capacity or higher than 100%?

In the case of TDSB in particular, I think some of these under-capacity schools, such as around Lawrence Avenue East and in Mimico/Long Branch, should be used to justify increased density nearby instead of selling the properties off. On the other hand, will Port Union or Rowntree Hills need to accommodate hundreds of new students, when shifting demographics means suburban families are getting smaller and smaller?


I'm fully convinced that the 100 Elm school is going to serve the same catchment area as the existing Fairview, which will most likely be torn down to complete Joan Drive and Webb Drive and allow for higher density development around it. I think its catchment area should be trimmed at Burnhamthorpe, with another school in a podium somewhere in MCC, but I don't know if school boards are looking to do this or making these desires clear to city planners.
If you have the twin-stick measure of both low capacity utilization ( under 50%) and low total size of school (under 400 students for Elementary, under 1,000 for HS) then, assuming there is no significant growth or demographic shift on the horizon, I'd be willing to look at closure.

Though rarely would I want to see sell-off.

A key thing often overlooked is that school yards serve as de facto park space for communities, and if you sell the school, you lose that space.

Given that parks in this city have no grown in quantity in tandem w/the population (40% growth over 20 years or so) or anything close, I would want to see any potential closure viewed with any eye to preserving green space in the community.

While I think its entirely reasonable to assume that the Baby Boom era is behind us; that we won't see as large a cohort of children in the future; I do think its important to take a generational view of demand on a neighbourhood level.

Areas with lots of children today, will by and large age..........the kids move out, most of the parents will remain into their senior and grandparent years.

School demand will plummet, for a time.

But then the older demographic passes on.............and you get turnover, typically to younger families with children, all over again.

One has to envision being able to meet those needs, literally decades into the future.

*****

Aside from reasonable capacity assessments; something that would be useful is breaking up the TDSB for capacity assessment purposes (and associated capital funds for new builds) into 4 districts, mirroring those the City uses.

In that way, the TDSB would not be denied funds to address shortages of space in Thorncliffe or East York due to surplus space in Etobicoke.

*****

Also important to add here, the province for decades has denied to the TDSB the right to levee development charges like every other Board in Ontario to cover the cost of new schools.

We're the playing field leveled (and lost monies recouped) the TDSB would be in a much better financial position.
 

Back
Top