[Skeezix]

...And this is the point where I wonder how I didn't grasp the appallingly obvious. "Hmm, a school site has been purchased by a school board. With no evidence of an intent to change its use. I WONDER WHAT THEY COULD BE UP TO"

Not all that obvious. Yours was a fair question. The demolition of the school, and lack of any public discussion by the TCDSB, means that a lot is still unknown -- what, when, where, how. Since school boards have right of first refusal to acquire surplus properties from other boards, the TCDSB may not even have concrete plans, but acquired it using EDC monies because of its strategic location. The property, or parts thereof, might or might not still be used for a JK-6 school, which is what it had been used for. Even if it is used as an elementary school site, the timing, the design, etc. are all still up in the air.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Perhaps the TCDSB will close down St. Martins on Salisbury (aka Jail School to my kids) and move something to the Duke of York location.

http://cabbagetowner.com/apple-program-at-st-martins-school/

 

[Dilla]

Thanks for the insight, everyone.

 

[Torontovibe]

An update tour of Regent Park

 

[wwdmaxwell]

I believe at the 0:40 mark the building under construction is the Bartholomew, while the pit is where the rental building will be going.

 

[The Golem]

The video was okay but left out one of my favourite details of the reno, this signage:

 

[Admiral Beez]

Does anyone know if the proposed 38-40 storey building at the north-west corner of the development (south east corner of Gerrard and Parliament) was approved at this height? This is referred to as Block 1 in the below map. I remember the shock at the community meeting where this revision to the original plan was put forward.

Here's the text of the proposed adjustment and page 13 describes the community reaction at the meeting I attended http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-66817.pdf

"Built form concerns were focused around the proposed 120 metre tower on Block 1 (See Block Plan on Attachment 4) and the impact of an approximately 38-40 storey building given the built form context of Parliament Street. "

As a comparison, the One Park Place building in Regent Park is only 29 storeys.

 

[The Golem]

I never know if the developers:
a. Ask for 38-40 when they really want 32-36 and will "compromise" down to demonstrate they're reasonable, community-oriented people, or
b. Ask for 38-40 and if the city refuses, pay off, er, request the OMB to overrule the city.

And...Regent Park is looking good!

 

[Admiral Beez]

I was chatting to some Regent Park community organizer folks at the Daniel's Spectrum last week, and they told me that TCHC is being very selective about who gets to come back to Regent Park. If you were a troublesome tenant, you're not welcome back apparently, and can stay wherever they've housed you.

 

[UserNameToronto]

If you were a troublesome tenant, you're not welcome back apparently, and can stay wherever they've housed you.

1) I wonder how they determine what a "troublesome tenant" is, exactly?
2) I'm OK with this.

 

[Admiral Beez]

1) I wonder how they determine what a "troublesome tenant" is, exactly?
2) I'm OK with this.

1) AIUI, the non-welcome back group includes any former resident, including their dependents with:

• criminal records
• On record for willful damage and vandalism on TCHC property
• Associations with known criminals or gangs (the ubiquitous Known to Police tag),
• Charged with defrauding the TCHC by dishonesty in income declaration (essential for RGI housing to work) including illegal subletting their unit for extra cash (including couch surfers) or other undeclared income
• Rent in arrears outside of the dispute process.

Basically they want the tenant I am now seeing every morning I walk through Regent Park; functional families including new and established Canadians of all origins making a start or otherwise transitioning through some bad fortune back to private housing; and seniors and people with disabilities that need permanent housing. What I'm not seeing anymore are the hooded gangsta wannabes loitering in the shadows dealing drugs, nor the white trash, overweight welfare-for-life moms on their Rascals trailing their brood of benefits-babies. I know that's harsh, but the new crowd is such a marked improvement, IMO.

2) I am also OK with this.

 

[TheKingEast]

This is good to read.

 

[dowlingm]

1) I wonder how they determine what a "troublesome tenant" is, exactly?
2) I'm OK with this.

Tenants and their advocates will be aware of this during future relocations, however.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tenants and their advocates will be aware of this during future relocations, however.

It's bit of a balance - you don't want to cast too wide a net to preclude someone who may have missteped but is otherwise ok, but at the same time it's not a free for all that will end up wrecking the experience for everyone else, all in the name of "social justice" either.

AoD

 

[UserNameToronto]

It's bit of a balance - you don't want to cast too wide a net to preclude someone who may have missteped but is otherwise ok, but at the same time it's not a free for all that will end up wrecking the experience for everyone else, all in the name of "social justice" either.

AoD

I will echo AB's comments that the community "vibe" in Regent Park right now seems pretty good. Whoever the are residents are - owners of condos, market rate renters, or subsidized TCHC tenants - they're OK by me. I haven't really seen any sketchy business going on at all.