The final bird walk of the season will be this Saturday, June 15th
9:00am – 11:00am at Colonel Samuel Smith Park.
Leader: Glenn Coady
Meet in the South parking lot (where the road ends). MAP
On our June walk, we will expect to see mainly summer resident species including many that breed in and around the park. A highlight this year will be Red-necked Grebe chicks, just hatched this week.
The intent to designate report on the Ormsby/Franceshini Estate that
was deferred from the April 2013 Etobicoke York Community Council
meeting will be considered at the meeting of June 18th along with the
report on the Mimico Secondary Plan.
The designation item can be found here:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.EY25.16
The secondary plan item can be found here:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.EY25.15
Also, since April the Longo family has sold the site to another owner.
Details can be found at Michael Harrison’s blog:
http://mimicoestates.blogspot.ca/2010/04/ormscliffemyrtle-villa-estate.html
The Wesley Mimico United Church redevelopment project is predicated upon the fact that churches are not autonomous agents with regard to heritage places of worship.
They are, instead, part of a regulated land-use system.
A recent journal article by Jason Hackworth and Erin Gullikson of the University of Toronto outlines how Ontario’s land-use planning framework shapes projects involving heritage properties in Toronto and elsewhere.
A summary of their overview can be accessed here.
Extensive information is available regarding heritage preservation legislation in Ontario as it relates to places of worship.
The preferred use of a heritage place of worship is its original one, according to A Guide for Conserving Heritage Places of Worship in Ontario Communities.
Wesley Mimico United Church. On the left is part of the 1950s addition. On the right is the bell tower from the original 1920s church building. Jaan Pill photo
1. Wesley Mimico United Church at 2 Station Road was built in two phases beginning with a structure completed in 1924 followed by an addition completed in 1954.
Church redevelopment project at 152 Annette Street. Jaan Pill photo
2. A church-to-condo conversion project has been completed at 152 Annette Street (photo on left, below the Wesley Mimico United Church photo).
3. A church-to-condo project at 243 Perth Avenue has been highlighted in a Toronto Star article. The large parking lot at the back of the building will provide space for construction of an additional building. The original church building and addition will be the sold as condo units.
4. A church-to-condo conversion project has been completed at 21 Swanwick Avenue has been completed. A City of Toronto report notes that proposed alterations to the building, as part of the church conversion process, are acceptable in order to accommodate the new use for the church.
Assembly Hall near corner of Kipling Avenue and Lake Shore Blvd. West. Jaan Pill photo
5. The Assembly Hall at Kipling Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard West is a multi-use community building which features an adaptation involving the addition of a wide set of stairs within a partially transparent enclosure added to the outside of the century-old building.
The Assembly Hall illustrates the adaptive re-use of a significant heritage resource. A similar adaptive reuse project involving the attribute of transparency can be found at the historic Goodes Hall facility at the Queen’s School of Business in Kingston, Ontario.
6. Other buildings are of interest with regard to adaptive-reuse options include Bethel Green Seniors Residence and Asbury and West United Church.
Bethel Green Seniors Residence. Jaan Pill photo
In their article about church reconversions in Toronto, Jason Hackwork and Erin Gullikson (2013) describe the Bethel Green Seniors Residence as a church conversion involving mixed function and form.
In such a form of church redevelopment, a building is constructed around all of part of a congregation’s initial place of worship, and a new church, or some other service extension of the church, is built or renovated on the site.
Although the church was built in 1920, Table 3 in Hackworth and Gullikson (2013) indicates the building was neither heritage listed or designated. The website for the residence notes that the roof of the church was aging.
A February 13, 2012 report from the Older Women’s Network regarding a presentation by Deirdre Gibson, of Gibson and Associates, provides background regarding the development of Bethel Green Seniors Residences.
A Toronto 2010 Doors Open profile provides information about the history of the Bethel Green Seniors Residence project.
Below is an excerpt from the above-noted document:
Bethel Green Seniors Residence. Jaan Pill photo
This four-storey building includes a re-developed and smaller Bethel Baptist Church on grade, plus common room and nineteen “Life-Lease Apartments” for seniors, plus parking underground for 26 cars. Sponsored by Bethel Baptist Church, which has existed on this site since 1920, this 4 year-old energy-efficient building is an excellent example of a new intensified use of an inner city site. It was specifically designed for “independent” seniors over 65 to age-in-place surrounded by a caring community of other seniors and neighbourhood families.
Most importantly it allows a well established community institution (the Church) to continue with greatly reduced overhead while local seniors can remain residing in the neighbourhood where they raised their families and living without the worry and financial stress of owning a larger residential house.
[End of excerpt]
The redevelopment of the church is highlighted in a City of Toronto document entitled Draft By-laws – Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 36 Whitewood Road (St. Paul’s, Ward 22).
An application was submitted by Robert Reimers Architect on August 14, 2003 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and for Site Plan Approval for 36 Whitewood Road.
The application is to demolish the existing church building on the site and replace it with a 4-storey mixed-use church and seniors non-profit residential apartment building.
Bethel Green Seniors Residence. Jaan Pill photo
The proposed building has 19 apartment units, 26 underground parking spaces and approximately 170 square metres of worship area on the first floor. Vehicular access is proposed from Whitewood Road. Please refer to Attachments 3 and 4 for Site Plan and Elevation details and Attachment 1 for site statistics.
The site is located within a low density residential neighbourhood at the south-west corner of Millwood Road and Whitewood Road. The existing 3-storey church building sits in an L-shape configuration on the site with walls extending the length of the west and south property lines adjacent to 643 Millwood Road and 34 Whitewood Road, respectively.
The immediate area is comprised predominantly of 1 and 2 storey single and semi-detached houses.
One block to the east is the local retail and service shops and the higher density residential buildings of Bayview Avenue. Commercial uses within one block of the site include a grocery store, a dry cleaners, a bank and a video store. Houses on the east side of Whitewood Road (facing the site) flank or back onto those commercial uses.
Bethel Green Seniors Residence. Jaan Pill photo
The site is designated Low Density Residential Area in the Yonge-Eglinton Part II Plan of the former City of Toronto (refer to Attachment 6). This designation permits residential buildings up to a maximum density of 1.0 times the lot area.

Toronto City Council 4 Toronto South Community Council June 22, 23 and 24, 2004 Report 5, Clause 6
At its meeting of November 26 – 28, 2002, City Council adopted the new Official Plan for the City of Toronto. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved the new plan in part, with modifications. The Minister’s decision has been appealed in its entirety.
The new Official Plan is now before the Ontario Municipal Board. The first pre-hearing on the new Official Plan was held on April 19 and 20, 2004. The next pre-hearing has been scheduled for September 14, 2004.
The site is zoned R2 Z0.6 with a height limit of 9.0 metres (refer to Attachment 5). That designation permits residential buildings within a density of 0.6 times the area of the lot.
The proposed development is subject to Site Plan Control. An application for Site Plan approval has been submitted concurrently with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application.
The owner shall be required to protect 5 City-owned trees and to apply for City approval to remove 2 trees on City property.
Street view on Bayview Avenue near Millwood Road. Jaan Pill photo
The applicant is proposing a total density of 2.0 times the lot area instead of the 1.0 or 0.6 times coverage permitted in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law respectively. The proposed height of 14.4 metres (to the top of the parapets) exceeds the 9.0 metre height limit for the property. Other areas of non-compliance with the Zoning By-law are identified in the Zoning Review, which is found in Attachment 7.
At the direction of Toronto South Community Council, a community consultation meeting was held at Bethel Baptist Church on March 10, 2004. Concerns expressed at the meeting and in written comments subsequent to the meeting included:
- building height, particularly with respect to the shadowing and overlook of adjacent houses and their yards but also with respect to the massing of a 4-storey apartment building in a neighbourhood of predominantly 1 and 2-storey single family homes;
- the number of units was felt to be excessive for the neighbourhood;
- street parking is considered in short supply due to patrons of local (Bayview Avenue) businesses;
- the height of the mechanical penthouse which was considered too imposing on the street as a result of its size;
- the location and the potential for noise generation of the HVAC equipment; and
- the property line fencing should be shown as a combination of wood and living fence materials.
The application was circulated to all appropriate agencies and City Departments. Responses received have been used to assist in evaluating the application and to formulate appropriate by- law standards.
(i) Land Use
The subject site is located within a low density residential neighbourhood which is comprised primarily of 1 and 2-storey single detached and semi-detached family homes with some townhouses and walk-up apartments throughout.
The 3.5-storey church building has been a physical presence at its current address and a part of the neighbourhood for over 74 years. The church has had a shrinking congregation to the point where it can no longer afford to occupy the building. Further, the church has indicated that its choices with respect to its future at 36 Whitewood Road are limited to two alternatives, which are:
- downsize on-site by demolishing the existing church building and incorporating a greatly reduced worship area into a mixed-non-profit seniors residential apartment and church building, or
- vacate the site and sell the property.
The church has been a long-time member of the neighbourhood and, in addition to Sunday services, it offers a range of community services that include, Brownies and Guides, after school programs, homework help, music programs, moms and tots coffee time as well as making space available for community needs.
The first alternative is the Churches desired choice. It achieves two benefits for the neighbourhood.
First, it would maintain the church presence in the neighbourhood.
Second, it provides affordable housing for seniors within a neighbourhood that is ideally suited for them. The site is walking distance to grocery stores, pharmacies and other retail stores, restaurants and banks and other services.

(ii) Height
The proposed mixed use, seniors apartment and church building is 4-storeys in height. The building measures approximately 13.6 metres to the top of the fourth floor roof-line, 14.4 metres to the top of the parapets and 15.24 metres to the top of the bell tower architectural feature (no bells are included). While the parapets (1 on Millwood Road and 2 on Whitewood Road) and the bell tower are included in the building height and require a zoning exemption, they do not form continuous roof lines at those heights.
The mechanical penthouse is exempted from the maximum height restriction. As originally proposed it extended the building’s height to 17.4 metres. The mechanical penthouse has been redesigned to, be lower (16.6 metres) and smaller in area (79.2 square metres) and therefore less visibly obtrusive from the street.
The existing house to the south at 34 Whitewood Road is approximately 11 metres to the top of its roof line or approximately 2.6 metres lower than the proposed building. The existing building to the west at 643 Millwood Road is lower at approximately 8 metres to the top of its roof line. In response to neighbourhood concerns respecting height, two of the six fourth floor units have been deleted. As a result, the building is more sensitive to the height differences between the proposed building and these abutting and other existing houses in the neighbourhood.
The deletion of the western most fourth floor unit facing Millwood Road, effectively shows a progressive stepping up from the existing 2-storey houses on Millwood to the 3 storeys (approximately 9.2 metres or 0.2 metres over the permitted height limit) of the first apartment bay of the proposed building on the north elevation, to the 4-storeys of the same elevation at Millwood and Whitewood Roads.
The deletion of the southern-most fourth floor unit on Whitewood Road shows a stepping down in height from 4-storeys at the corner of Millwood and Whitewood Roads to 3-storeys (approximately 10.0 metres or 1.0 metre over the permitted height limit). The 3-storey, 10 metre height of the proposed building at this point (at the southern property line) would be lower than the 11.0 metre height of the roof-line of the adjacent house at 34 Whitewood Road.
The stepping down at the west and south ends of the proposed building concentrates the height of the building at the corner of Millwood and Whitewood roads and not on the abutting houses next to the shared property lines of the project. Height concentration at the corner also has the effect of centering attention on the bell tower and formal entrance area that straddles the corner and accentuates the church presence in the neighbourhood.
(iii) Massing
Street view of Bayview Avenue near Millwood Road. Jaan Pill photo
The existing 3-storey church building is built in an ‘L’ shape, tight to the west and south property lines. This built form and orientation presents a 3-storey brick wall to the rear yards of the adjacent houses on Millwood and Whitewood roads. The existing church also extends beyond the front walls of the adjacent homes on both streets. Open space on the site is currently focussed on the corner of Millwood and Whitewood roads with no rear yard open space.

Toronto City Council 7 Toronto South Community Council June 22, 23 and 24, 2004 Report 5, Clause 6
The massing of the proposed building has the opposite configuration not unlike an upside down and backwards ‘L’ shape (see Attachment 2). Its’ massing is pulled to the street edges and away from the neighbouring homes leaving a landscaped garden area adjacent to their rear yard lot lines instead of the existing brick wall. The building mass as well as its height are focussed at the corner.
In addition to the stepping down of building height (discussed in the previous section of this report), the proposed mansard roof (with dormers) on the 4-storey portion of the proposed building will tend to fade that floor into the visual background by virtue of its sloping design away from the street and its construction of darker, non-brick materials.
(iv) Shadow and Overlook
Staff have reviewed the applicant’s shadow impact study and find that the proposed development maintains reasonable access to sunlight for the existing houses in the area.
An objective of the new Official Plan is to encourage the reinforcement of the existing physical patterns of established neighbourhoods. The new Official Plan also states that maintaining existing setbacks from streets and maintaining the prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space as a means of achieving that objective. The proposed development concentrates the building area on the street edges (as does the existing lotting pattern in the neighbourhood) rather than on the west and south lot lines of the abutting houses as does the existing church (refer to Attachments 2, 3 and 4).
The reorientation of the proposed building to the street edges improves the shadow impact on the rear yards of the houses immediately to the west on Millwood Road. This orientation also has the additional benefit of increasing rear yard privacy for adjacent homes on Millwood Road and Whitewood Road by increasing the distance between the windows of the proposed new units and existing homes.
The shadows cast on the north side of Millwood Road and on the east side of Whitewood Road move quickly across the houses in those locations. The proposed building would not have a significantly greater shadow impact on these existing homes than would as-of-right, 3-storey, housing forms such as townhouses or semi-detached houses should they be built on this site.
(v) Density and Unit Count
The applicant has reduced the number of units by 2 which brings the total unit count down from 21 as originally proposed to 19 and reduces the overall density to 2.0 from 2.1 times the lot area. The actual residential density (excluding the church component of the building) is approximately 1.76 times the lot area and is not significantly over the 1.0 times coverage permitted in the Official Plan for this site.

The City’s new Official Plan states that an objective of the City’s continuous development is to reinforce Toronto’s low density residential neighbourhoods but acknowledges that these neighbourhoods may be interspersed with walk-up apartments. The new plan also acknowledges that ‘local institutions’ play an important role in ‘the rhythm of daily life in the neighbourhoods’ and that such institutions include places of worship and seniors housing.
The activity generated by 19 seniors apartment units (or the intensity of the use) can reasonably be expected to be far less than the activity generated by the same number or fewer non-seniors residential units.
(vi) Parking, Access and Traffic Impact
The applicant is proposing 26 parking spaces in a 2-level underground garage. There will be no surface spaces. Twenty six exceeds the 19 spaces (1 per unit) that are required of this development by By-law 438-86.
The By-law does not adjust the parking requirements for the proposed tenant group of residential buildings. For example, no distinction is made in the By-law between seniors or non-seniors apartment unit parking requirements. However, the City’s Works Department estimated parking demands are based on study data of actual similar uses. In this case the Works Department estimated parking demand for a building containing 21 seniors apartment units and 167 m2 of worship area is 7 spaces. Three for the seniors apartments and 4 for the church component. As an example of the lower parking demand by tenants of senior’s housing, the main floor parking garage of the comparable seniors apartment building a few blocks away at 1387 Bayview Avenue rarely contains more than two cars.
The By-law has no parking requirement for the church component of the project. If parking were to required on the basis of Sunday church service demand, it could generate large asphalt surface parking areas in our neighbourhoods or multiple levels of expensive underground parking that would be largely vacant for much of the remainder of the week. The existing church currently has 4 surface parking spaces and the applicant is proposing to replace these with 4 underground spaces for the greatly reduced church area. This would be satisfactory.
Vehicular access to the garage is proposed from Whitewood Road and is considered acceptable by City Works.
The anticipated traffic impact will not be significant. Residents of seniors apartment buildings typically have low rates of automobile ownership and trip generation is often at non-peak hours.
(vii) Landscaped Open Space
The applicant is proposing that 40% of the area of the lot is to be landscaped open space. This exceeds the 30%, which is required by By-law 438-86. The landscaping includes a sitting area at the main entrance on Millwood Road and a new garden area (proposed to be a community garden for the residents of the building) at the rear of the development.

Toronto City Council 9 Toronto South Community Council June 22, 23 and 24, 2004 Report 5, Clause 6
A ‘living fence’ which is a combination of fencing and vegetative materials along the west and south property lines is proposed.
The applicant’s landscape plan and arborist’s report show 2 City-owned trees that are proposed to be removed and replaced. City approval will be required. Some flowering crabapple trees on private property are proposed to be removed due to the walking hazard that the crabapple fruit poses to seniors.
The proposed removal and replacement of trees is acceptable to the City Forester.
(viii) Tenure
The proposed 19 non-profit apartments will be owned by the non-profit housing corporation which will offer a ‘life lease’ contract wherein seniors purchase the right to occupy specific units while overall ownership and land title remains undivided and held by the non-profit corporation of which the seniors and the church are members.
The applicant is proposing a building that exceeds the current planning permissions respecting height and density. This is acceptable for reasons that include the following:
- the proposal would provide single floor apartment accommodation for seniors which is close to shopping and services, the TTC and other amenities;
- building height and massing are appropriately situated on the site to minimize impact on existing homes;
- sufficient underground parking is to be provided;
- traffic impact resulting from the seniors apartments is anticipated to be low;
- the proposed redevelopment is providing more than the required amount of landscaped open space; and
- the proposal maintains and continues the 74-year church presence as a service provider in the neighbourhood.
An initial proposal for the redevelopment of Wesley Mimico United Church envisioned the demolition of the church with the exception of the bell tower. The architect associated with the initial proposal, Robert Reimers, was the designer of the Bethel Green Seniors Residence.
I have visited the Bethel Green site to take photographs and gather impressions.
It would not be good use of my time to spent time to visit in order to attune to the neighbourhood, to get a sense of what it is about. There are other parts of Toronto, more closely related to my line of work, that I want to focus upon.
However, for whatever value they may have, I’m pleased to share some general impressions.
First, the absence of a heritage listing or designation for the original church intrigues me.
Secondly, what struck me on my one or two visits to the site was the presence of the traffic along Bayview Avenue. With that level of noise and activity, preservation of heritage buildings may not matter. There may be other reasons.
Thirdly, I’m aware of how little I know.
In a neighbourhood such as Mimico where Wesley Mimico United Church is located, or in Long Branch, I’m part of a network of contacts that gives me a sense of what’s happening in local neighbourhoods that I otherwise would not have. My current contacts with regard to the neighbourhood at Bayview and Millwood are minimal. Thus I’m aware of how little I know about that neighbourhood, or about the story behind Bethel Green Seniors Residence.
A meeting open to the public to review the
“MIMICO BEACH SECONDARY PLAN ALTERNATIVE”
Place: LAMP, 185 5th STREET, ETOBICOKE M8V 2Z5
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013
Time: 7 to 9 p.m.
See the flyer for details:
Public Meeting MIMICO BEACH Secondary Plan Alternative
All are welcome.
I have attended field trips at Colonel Samuel Smith Park for Grade 4 students organized by Humber Arboretum in 2012 and 2013.
I am very highly impressed with, and inspired by, the work that Humber Arboretum is doing.
The field trips, in my experience, provide a tremendously valuable form of outdoor education for elementary school students.
The PDF file accompanying the message can be accessed here:
The_HumberArb_Report_June_Issue
Hello Everyone
Firstly please allow me to appologize to those who have received this copy of the newsletter previously. There was a glitch in the contacts list that caused a lot of the emails to come back as undeliverable. I believe we have rectified the error and thus able to present you with the June issue of the Humber Arb Report.
It’s the second issue of our Newsletter is here. This release is even more interesting and informative than the first. A highlight of this month’s newsletter is the restorative work the Humber Arboretum in conjunction with the Ministry of Natural Resources, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, the School of Applied Technology & the Humber Research Office to bring back the Butternut tree population.
Additionally we’ll tell you about some interesting facts that make the Humber Arboretum such a unique place. So sit back and enjoy.
Remember if you have any nature themed photographs that you would like to share, feel free to send them to arboretum@humber.ca . Any feedback or nature story you may have is also greatly appreciated, who knows next month’s issue may feature you.
Hope you have an enjoyable rest of the week, don’t forget there is no such thing as bad weather only bad clothing.
Thank you for your support and we hope to see you soon, at the place “Where Learning Is Natural “.
The Humber Arboretum Digital Media Team
This is the second year in which I’ve spoken with a Grade 4 class at École Sir Adam Beck Junior School in Toronto.
My topic on May 27, 2013, as was the case last year, was one that I’m very familiar with, having spent a lifetime addressing it.
I began with a question: What is stuttering?
A student explained that it involves the repetition of words.
That’s a good place to start.
In the past, I’ve spent months rehearsing presentations about the topic of stuttering. Because I know the key points of what I want to say quite well, having had years of practice in sharing them, for this talk I only prepared a one-page outline of points I wanted to share in my talk to the Grade 4 class.
I described how I began to stutter at the age of six. I explained how by my late teens and early twenties, I wasn’t just repeating sounds. Sometimes I could not get out any sounds at all. I spoke of the time when I phoned someone, but couldn’t say “Hello,” as the “H” sound was at times almost impossible for me to sound out in those days. After what might have been 30 seconds or so, realizing I could not get past “Hello,” I had hung up the phone.
I asked the students how that might have felt.
I also described how I had received some help, in learning how to speak, in my early thirties in Toronto and had managed to get through teacher’s college and get work as a special education teacher, working with developmentally handicapped students in very small classes, in a situation where the fact I stuttered wasn’t really a matter of concern for anyone. I generally never spoke at staff meetings in those days.
Years later I began to teach mainstream classes, and began to speak at staff meetings as well. Teaching Grade 4 was among my favourite classes to teach. I used to speak with my students about the fact that I stutter. They found the topic of interest. I also shared with them the fact that if I heard of a situation in the school where a child was teasing a child who stuttered, then I would address the teasing at once, and with a strong level of motivation.
In my talk this year I also described how, in my early forties, I attended a three-week speech therapy clinic in Edmonton, where I relearned how to speak. I relearned how to coordinate breathing with voice production when speaking, how to initiate sounds, and all manner of other skills that are applied without further thought or reflection by non-stuttering speakers.
Stuttering is about more than word repetition. I spoke of the avoidance of speaking situations and what that means. Sometimes you can’t learn as many things when you don’t ask questions, when you don’t engage in a conversation in the classroom. During childhood and the adolescent years especially, we learn many things by sharing our thoughts with other people and getting feedback from them, in an ongoing process involving back-and-forth conversation. Conversation sometimes helps us to figure out who we are and where we’re going. If you don’t engage in those conversations during those years, it can take a while to learn some things.
During the years when I could barely speak, and at times was not capable of speech at all, I tried different jobs where a lot of speaking would not be required. But that was not going to be my route, as it turned out. Eventually I became a teacher. As a child, sitting in a classroom, dreading the next time I would be called upon to engage in oral reading, the idea that someday I would be standing in front of a classroom, teaching, would never have occurred to me. I just would not have been able to imagine it.
As a result of speech therapy, at different stages of my life I had the experience, a novel one for me at the time, of being able to say a complete sentence with ease, without struggling to get from the start of the sentence to the end. Many things in life have brought me joy and pleasure. The experience of being able to just speak more or less freely is among the things in life that I most appreciate, and that I am most thankful for. I take nothing for granted. The simplest feature of everyday life is a source of pleasure for me.
Stuttering appears to have a neurological basis; the exact cause is unknown.
The students in Mme. Warburton’s Grade 4 class found my talk of interest and enjoyed our discussion. Some students spoke of being interviewed in the context of sports teams; they spoke of being nervous. One student spoke of a non-stuttering child, in fear of doing a media interview connected with his sports team, chewing his fingernails with the chewed off pieces flying into the air. It was like some cartoon image. I liked that image. It was an evocative description.
I spoke about being interviewed in connection with my volunteer work in years past on behalf of people who stutter. I spoke about preparing people for interviews. Sometimes I would pretend to be a reporter and would role play the interview, and then review with the interviewee what points would benefit from further refinement. I would speak about the value of practice, and of rehearsal.
A presentation that involved extensive writing, refining of the message, and rehearsal was a talk to a Kiwanis Club some years ago. A video of that talk is available online, at the link in the previous sentence.
The speaking notes of the talk are available here.
Among articles in which I’ve been interviewed about stuttering here are some of them:
Stuttering a ‘hidden’ disability
At the conclusion of the talk, I read the children’s book Hooray for Aiden to the class. I finished it just before the bell rang for morning recess.
Children, I’ve found, can relate to the story of a person who has overcome challenges at an early stage and have found a way to deal with them. That is a source of interest and inspiration for them.
About twenty percent of people who stutter are not able to attain the control over stuttering that I’ve been able to achieve. It’s not because they haven’t tried as hard as I have, but because of how a person’s brain is wired for speech production. Those of us who stutter who can’t gain long-term benefit from a form of therapy that is akin to learning fluency as a second language can benefit from speech therapy that enables a person to modify their stuttering, so that she or he experiences less interference with effective communication.
You can call these things speech therapy or treatment, if you like to apply a medical model to such things. I like to speak of it in terms of relearning a skill, as I like to apply an educational model to these things. One has a choice in how such matters are conceptualized.
Getting help early is key.
A treatment program for preschoolers called the Lidcombe Program is highly effective in addressing stuttering in very young children, as indicated by research published in peer-reviewed professional journals. For your interest, I’ve outlined, in an online article, what I’ve learned about the options that may be available for those of us who stutter.
Here’s the announcement on BikeEventsTO website
Date: Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 12:00 - 14:00
Join this ride as part of City of Toronto Feeling Congested? consultation process.
Meet at noon at the fountain at City Hall.
Address:
City Hall
100 Queen Street W
Toronto
Please find the full eNewsletter attached as a .pdf
Last Saturday, June 1st, marked the first day of the Humber Bay Shores farmers market in Humber Bay Park West. Several hundred local residents came out to sample the locally grown Ontario produce while walking along the beautiful shores of Lake Ontario. Hosted by the Humber Bay Shores Condominium Association the farmers market runs every Saturday until the end of Summer. I hope to see you there.
Sincerely,
Mark Grimes
On Friday June 7, 2013 I was pleased to attend the grand opening of phase 2 of the Mimico Linear Park. Opened to the public in November of 2012, the 500 metre extension brings the new park to its full length of 1.1 kilometres. With a budget of $18.2 million, the park was funded by all three levels of government and overseen by Waterfront Toronto.
I can not stress enough what a great community asset the park has become. Starting at the foot of Norris Crescent, pedestrians and cyclists can now head all the way into the downtown core along the lake front path network. The Linear Park includes rehabilitated and naturalized areas to support wildlife as well as several sections of boardwalk and separated trails for cyclists and pedestrians.
Councillor Grimes grand re-opening for Marie Cutis Park, previously scheduled for Saturday, June 8, 2013, has been postponed. A new date will be distributed in the coming weeks.
Councillor Mark Grimes’ Office
Ward 6, Etobicoke Lakeshore
City Hall
100 Queen Street West, Suite C48
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Tel: 416-397-9273 Fax: 416-397-9279
www.markgrimes.ca
Councillor Mark Grimes is committed to building a community with an active, liveable lifestyle. Etobicoke Lakeshore offers its residents and visitors the beauty of waterfront parks, a flourishing arts community and the use of outstanding recreational facilities.
The most recent Wesley Mimico United Church community forum took place on April 8, 2013.
The next one is on June 24, 2013.
Background about the Wesley Mimico redevelopment project - and related topics, of which there are many – can be found at the Wesley Mimico United Church Category.
The April 8 report is subject to correction.
Some items will have been updated since April 8, 2013. Updates are not included here.
From my notes:
In 1864 the Methodist congregation bought some property and built their first church, which they used until 1922. The church was where the Mimico Adult Learning Centre is now located. The first building was sold to the municipality, which used it as a municipal hall.
The cornerstone for a new church, located on Station Road, was laid in 1922. The church building was completed in 1924. It was identified at the time as a Sunday school.
In the 1950s a plan was in developed for two additions. One addition was built; it features an entrance on the Mimico Avenue side of the building. Large steel girders, visible in the basement, were installed to hold up the structure at the entrance.
The 1953 addition was completed in 1954.
The dedication service for the addition coincided with the arrival of Hurricane Hazel on October 17, 1954. The Lakeshore Road bridge over the Humber River became impassable and the Bloor Street bridge was closed to all but emergency traffic.
The car carrying the officiant for the dedication service was allowed to proceed, however, as an emergency vehicle, and the dedication was completed as scheduled. [I assume the reference here is to the Bloor Street bridge, but am not certain.]
An additional 16-ft addition was to be added at the north side of the building but that didn’t happen. It’s not known why.
The current building has become difficult to manage. It’s hard to keep it together. It’s become a burden in costs and maintenance. [Many churches in Toronto have encountered a challenge of this nature.]
About six years ago the Faith and Hope Team [it's also referred to as the Faith and Hope Committee; I don't recall which term was used at this point in the meeting] was created.
In the summer of 2011 Deirdre Gibson of Gibson and Associates sent a letter to the church. She noted that laws were changing and churches would need the services of consultants with regard to building matters.
The letter led to the possibility of of the church working with the architectural firm of Robert Reimers and Associates. Reimers and Gibson, who are a husband and wife team, would act as consultants.
The initial proposal for addressing the challenges faced by the congregation called for the demolition of the church building except for the bell tower.
The community didn’t like the concept.
Subsequently, the concept of Repurpose, Renew, and Add was adopted.
Forty-six pounds of paper went to the City Hall as the zoning application.
The church has confirmed it would stay.
The essential principle is that the congregation continues, as does the church building.
A mix of one, two, and three-bedroom housing would be added. There would be some two and three-bedroom units to allow flexibility – for example, there would be a property manager and superintendent; the need for a few larger units might arise.
A long conversation is expected with the City of Toronto. There may be between 36 and 48 units. The design is based on the concept of aging in place. This would involve less parking spaces than otherwise.
The goal is for seniors to remain in the community; the redevelopment project seeks to offer something that is not yet in place. For example, consider a situation of an adult with a developmentally handicapped child, or a brother and sister wishing to share a unit.
A person has been hired to count parking spaces and look at the demand for parking. That was done in February 2013. There are currently nine parking spaces in the back of the building on the north side.
Those spaces would be replaced. Taking into account other needs, a total of 25 parking spaces in the underground level of the building would be set up.
The peak of the church would define the height of the redeveloped building. Construction would not go above that except for mechanical equipment.
The profile of the Bell tower, and the exterior of it, would remain the same.
Robert Reimers displayed a flowchart. It was noted that Matthew Premru is the official gatekeeper at the city, with regard to this project. He’s the planner they work with.
A pre-application meeting was held. They’ve talked to the neighborhood. These steps are among the items on the flowchart. There’s still a way to on progression through the chart.
It was noted that planning is proceeding consistent with the Official Plan. An Official Plan amendment is not being sought. The zoning they are seeking is site specific for this property. For example, parking and sewer connections must be addressed.
The hope is that in nine months a City Council decision will be made. Then in January 2014 work would start on working drawings.
The construction would take 14 to 16 months.
They’re looking at 2016 for completion of construction. There was a reference to proceeding after 80% of the units have been sold. Before building begins, however, zoning bylaws would need to be addressed through the municipal planning process.
The units will be sold through a Life Lease contract. It was noted that there are about 140 Life Lease buildings in Ontario, in some cases buildings that also provide Long Term Care.
The Life Lease model involves a community-based organization run by a nonprofit group. It’s usually a church that owns the land.
A question was asked about archaeology.
It’s been confirmed there are no indications of aboriginal settlements or a cemetery on the land.
A design update from Roberts Reimers followed. He showed a slide depicting a massing model. The white areas in the display referred to existing features. The brown areas referred to proposed new additions.
The design concept involves the addition of a third and fourth floor. There would be a new addition built over the parking lot, with the result that the building would extend closer to the property line on the north side.
The ground floor is planned for community use purposes. The original entrance through the bell tower was closed off during the 1950s construction and two windows were installed. The original main entrance would become the main entrance again.
There is room for a kitchen, a small lounge, and some offices including an office for the church minister. There would be double doors opening out to Mimico Street.
There would be a slight slope down to the sidewalk, so that rain flows away from the building.
There was no distance there for a ramp. There are some stairs. A walkway through the garden would provide wheelchair accessibility to the new front door of the church.
There would be a community garden.
It was noted that on the Mimico Avenue side of the building, a limb from one of the trees had fallen to the front yard. The tree is not balanced; the centre of it has decayed. The city may require removal of the tree. The tree closer to the corner is in good shape.
An ambulatory walkway is what they’re working on with a landscape architect. The garden creates spaces – “visual rooms.”
This is not a big site. It’s defined by the existing building.
There has been a desire was to bring the church down to ground level and make it visible.
The proposed large windows on the Mimico Avenue side would enable people to see the outside from the inside, and for passersby to see the inside.
The ceiling height would 12 feet on the side facing Mimico Avenue, and higher further inside the building. It was noted that the design of the new structure on the Mimico Avenue side would mimic the pattern that’s already in place. A type of rose window is a characteristic design feature of the proposed design.
The rose window now in place would become part of the windows for the apartments.
There would be folding or sliding walls depending on the community’s requirements.
A once a week food bank and a community supper would continue, once the construction is completed.
An attempt has been made to make the design flexible. The plan is to resume activities that have been ongoing in the past.
There is a “derelict space” in the back of the building, on the west side, which would now be used.
The Mimico Avenue door would be more of a formal door for occasions such as a wedding or funeral. The doors could be opened. There would be a place outside the doors to relax in the summer.
The second floor plan was also explained. The sanctuary area would have windows bringing in light. On the second floor part of a unit would be in the bell tower.
Plans for the third and fourth floors were displayed as well.
The mechanical equipment would be offset from the side of the building. That is, as I understand, it would not be visible if you’re looking up from the street.
The basement plan was shown; it includes 25 places for parking plus some storage. There is currently mould and dampness in the basement level. This calls for excavation and waterproofing.
There would be a sump pump and proper ventilation. The basement would be devoted to the parking garage and storage space.
A garbage compactor would be installed. Things would go into three different bins depending on the type of garbage.
Question: Can you incorporate composting?
Answer: All we would need are good volunteers.
There was a diagram showing the top of the roof plan. There was a reference to permaculture.
There was a question about solar or geothermal applications at the building.
The response was that this will be looked at but the question arises: “How much are people willing to pay for their units?”
The City of Toronto has asked the design team to look at the possible green features for the building.
The current focus is on basic parameters; the green initiatives would be considered later.
With a geothermal system, the payback is 10 to 15 years. Owners generally don’t want that.
Eight years ago the design team installed solar collectors at a project. These were Hydro collectors, which pre-heat hot water for systems in the building. A grant was arranged for that. At the moment, capital grants are not widely available.
Another client group applied to the Trillium Foundation for a grant for a solar system producing electricity. That made sense for Trillium.
But all of the options are difficult. “This [property] doesn’t have a large amount of room.”
There would be a small heat pump in each apartment. There would be ducts within each apartment. The heat pumps would act as both a condenser and heat pump.
There would be individual controls in each apartment.
A typical two-bedroom suite would be about 1000 ft.². A one bedroom would have 600 ft.²
Existing stained-glass windows would be restored during reconstruction of the building. They would be incorporated into the new energy-efficient clerestory windows of the new sanctuary, as was done at the Bethel Green Seniors Residence.
Oak wood paneling currently in place would be removed and reinstalled in a new sanctuary. An inventory is being made of the available materials. A local master carpenter would help to establish the most effective re-use of the paneling.
Half of the pews would be used as lumber, the sale of which would fund some of the wood paneling work.
It was noted that the back of the seats for the oak pews are solid oak. Large oak pieces of this size are rare. There generally aren’t oak trees that size around any more. The seats of the pews are laminate. Pews, doors, frames, and furniture would be reused where possible.
A question was asked: Will the doors and window panels be reused? The answer was that in some cases their reuse would not meet fire regulations.
It was noted that guest rooms are unlikely as this is a fairly tight space.
The new addition would be in a stone similar to what’s there now. It’s a form of manufactured stone. The first floor at Bethel Green Seniors Residence was done in this material; the next level up was in brick.
There was discussion of the stair design of the interior promenade; “lighting for older eyes”; and grab bars.
The concept is that you can live in a building no matter what your age. For example, a person can consider a situation where there’s a couple, of whom one person has had a stroke. That person might need a walker or wheelchair. Often such a situation requires a nursing home, if aging in place is not available.
The aim is to meet people’s needs as the needs change.
The stairs would have a six-inch rise. The aim is to have a gentle rise on the stairs where this can be arranged. This would enable use of the stairs as indoor exercise in winter.
Sometimes a landing can be made big enough for a bench. It can be designed as part of a windowsill, to ensure that it won’t be in the way if firefighters need to enter the building. The end of a staircase can be outside, where light can come in.
Electrical plugs can be placed a little higher, switches a little lower, for easier access from a wheelchair. Indirect lighting in hallways can cut down glare.
To help residents who have macular degeneration, the floor, ceiling, and walls can be of a different colour. In that way a person can see the edge of things.
Lighting can be placed over the counter in kitchens. In that way you don’t have a central light that causes you to work in shadow.
Grab bars instead of regular towel bars would be installed in bathrooms. A strong grab bar makes a good towel bar. If you slip, the grab bar will hold. There would be grab bars in the shower area also. The bathroom would be a usable space for everybody.
It was noted that when government funding is involved, five percent of units must be wheelchair accessible. The bathroom in such a unit is 25% larger than usual.
Robert Reimers remarked he’s done 50 senior apartment buildings, with disabled units in all of them. But building managers sometimes ask to have counters moved back up to a regular height – because if you’re not disabled, a low counter is awkward. You can have a counter that moves up and down but that’s expensive.
There was a reference to addressing an urban heat island effect at grade through a combination of shading and light-coloured materials for 50% of hard surfaces.
There was a reference to reduction of air leakage to less than 2.0 square inches per 100 square feet, and the use of Energy Star heating and cooling systems, appliances, and lighting fixtures.
Rainwater harvesting – its reuse for irrigation and toilets – was also discussed. A question was asked as well about graywater.
Forms are available. By April 8, 2013, nine people have expressed interest and paid a $100 deposit.
Robert Martindale noted that the property is heritage listed. A heritage impact assessment has been submitted.
An heritage professional at the City of Toronto has indicated in an initial discussion that the current design proposal does not complement the heritage attributes of the church building. The Etobicoke Heritage Society has asserted that in its view the design proposal does complement the building’s heritage attributes.
Mr. Martindale commented that heritage can be seen as larger than bricks and mortar.
He added that the building will be heritage designated. It was noted that heritage designation after the approvals process is completed would be the preferred option, from the perspective of the Wesley Mimico redevelopment team.
A question was asked regarding the current zoning for the property. The answer was: R3, which allows for a variety of uses. A proposal to change the zoning has not been advanced.
A context plan was done. There are some two and three-story buildings in the area.
It was noted that the timing of the recently completed application to the City of Toronto was critical.
The application got in before the relevant bylaw was amended. Extensive work was involved in getting the application organized. Robert Reimers, Deirdre Gibson, and Robert Martindale coordinated the application process.
The scope and detail of the current redevelopment proposal has been established. A next topic concerns how to determine the sources of income.
Two proposed governing bodies were outlined in a handout distributed at the meeting. The first is concerned with project development. The second is concerned with the program-related aspects.
Grants that are being sought were outlined in a handout distributed at the meeting. Capital cost grants involve large sums of money. Specific project grants are aimed at things such as the wood reuse project.
A loan and community investment item was described, amounting to $200,000. This, as I understand from my notes, are for the rezoning application.
For construction financing, one would go to a financial institution.
An investment vehicle was described, in which people invest in their own community. You get your money back, slowly. The Centre for Social Innovation was described as an example.
There was discussion of a small loans program operated by a church credit union. Sometimes a small grant is given out as a gift for which a tax credit is received in exchange.
There was discussion about development of a website aimed at the sharing of information related to the redevelopment. There was discussion of the building of a fundraising capability.
Life Lease was described as the single most important part of the financing.
Discussions have been under way with community organizations that might share in the community space. They would have control of the community space 50% of the time. The sanctuary space would be leased in perpetuity by the church.
Some people are looking through church archival records, with the aim of reaching out to former members and offspring with past connections with the congregation.
It was noted that a person might want to fund a particular room, e.g. “The doors were funded by …. “
The overall budget is in the range of $15-million.
It was noted that donation of time is also a consideration. By way of example, John English Junior Middle School has an eco program; there are also gardening clubs.
