|
|
The New NTCI - Bulletin Board
Alumni Home |
Back to 'About the Foundation' |
NTCI Home
This bulletin board is for posting letters and e-mails from NTCI alumni who wish to express their opinions regarding the re-development
of the NTCI site. For information regarding the re-development project, click here.
If you wish to post your opinions on this bulletin board, please:
- send an e-mail to the foundation at ntcifoundation@ntci.on.ca
- include your graduating year (or teaching years)
- indicate that you wish to have your message posted on this bulletin board
Index of Letters/E-mails
16-Apr-2004: Drew Nameth, Director of Business Service Branch, Ministry of
Education
[Back to Index]
30-Mar-2004: Paul Raff
RE: School funding formula, urban development and public land;
How the North Toronto Collegiate controversy underscores the need for change.
This is an open letter to all citizens and elected representatives of Toronto, Ontario.
You have no doubt heard about the controversy surrounding the redevelopment of
North Toronto Collegiate. The plan is to demolish the historic building, sell some of the
school’s land to private developers, and to construct a new school building funded
largely by the land sale. This is the best option for the Toronto District School Board
(TDSB), ironically, because our laws and government processes make it impossible to
pursue better alternatives.
While North Toronto Collegiate’s redevelopment appears to be a “local” issue, I have
discovered just the opposite. Indeed, the North Toronto controversy is a symptom of
flaws in provincial laws and municipal processes that threaten the quality of our
society.
I have followed the process closely as a citizen, as a member of the school’s Alumni
Advisory Board, as a representative to the Toronto District School Board’s design
meetings, and as an architect with international experience. I am shocked at what I
have discovered, and wish to bring two issues into focus for all concerned.
The first issue relates to the coordination of different public bodies. In the case of the
North Toronto redevelopment, I am referring to the Toronto District School Board and
the Toronto Parking Authority. If the Parking Authority, which owns a surface parking lot
next door to North Toronto Collegiate, agreed to swap its land for a new and larger
parking structure beneath the schoolyard, it would go a long way toward saving the
school – which was recently added to the city’s Inventory of Heritage Properties - from
selling its land. However, the publicly-owned Parking Authority has no mandate to serve
public education, and would not normally consider the land swap because “on paper” it
would be losing money. Unfortunately, we are guarding the long-term interests of
parking cars over the interests of education. This is an obvious affront to our
common values. I hope our elected representatives will take the opportunity to fix
this problem; indeed, they are the only ones who can.
The second issue has to do with the Province of Ontario’s “funding formula” for
education, which mathematically defines the process of maintaining and developing
schools. Based on the NTC example, the funding formula provides insufficient funding
for the TDSB either to rehabilitate an existing school building or to replace it with an
equivalent new building. This is because the funding formula does not recognize when a
building is being used, and when a building is closed. Furthermore, the funding formula
does not recognize where facilities are located with respect to the needs of children and
young adults. For example, a surplus of disused warehouse space in western
Etobicoke means that kids 40 km away in Scarborough might have their school
closed. This is ludicrous. Surely the provincial government could make modest but
significant improvements to the funding formula simply by saying that unused buildings
should not be counted as functioning space.
In the case of North Toronto, the funding formula encourages the demolition of
historic buildings. As is natural with old buildings, North Toronto Collegiate is well
beyond the point of mere maintenance—it needs a full rehabilitation including asbestos
removal, structural remediation, and life safety systems. The funding formula
unfortunately provides zero funding for any such work. The funding formula recognizes
neither architectural quality nor historic value—so the building will be demolished and
gone forever.
The formula is an abstraction, but the needs of students are real and immediate.
Responding to these real and immediate needs, the TDSB has shown talent and
ingenuity to find a way to fund the replacement of the dilapidated building with a good,
modern, though smaller facility. Unfortunately, this requires the sale of public land. If
North Toronto Collegiate is to survive, there is no real choice for the TDSB and the
community but to sell this land, and the TDSB has done an extraordinary job working
with the community to build understanding and consensus. The sale of public school
land is not a balancing of the budget; it is a depletion of assets for public
education. We are never going to get the land back, and the government has no
strategy for what to do when there is no land left to sell. This is an unsustainable
approach to education.
I implore you to use this opportunity to take action. Stop our degenerative status quo
approach, and engage these issues. Let us ensure that our city and province reflect
who we really are and what we really believe in.
As a citizen of Toronto, Ontario, I look forward to your response.
Thank you for you consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul Raff, Architect
B.E.S., B.Arch. T.S.A., O.A.A., M.R.A.I.C.
[Back to Index]
13-Nov-2003: Sheila Penny, Executive Superintendent of Facility Services:
Dear Co-Chairs of the North Toronto Collegiate Institute Foundation:
In response to correspondence from Cornell Wright, Breese Davies and Andy Georgiades (copy attached), that has recently come to our attention, I would like to offer the following comments.
Most cases of school redevelopment raise anxiety. We acknowledge the concerns raised in the correspondence and believe that we have taken into account these and others as we planned for the revitalization of North Toronto Collegiate. In fact, this whole project is the product of intense community involvement and consideration of all concerns.
In response to your comments, we note that our plans for North Toronto Collegiate are neither ‘radical’ nor ‘unprecedented.’ The sale of development rights on part of a property, including a school property, to finance improvements on the rest of the property is an accepted practice across North America. In the case of North Toronto, the TDSB studied alternative ways of raising funding and determined this was the only realistic way of financing rebuilding. The new school replacing the Claude Watson School for the Performing Arts on the Spring Garden site will be financed through development.
You call for an informed, vigorous public debate of all possible alternatives. In fact, the concept for the new school was created by representatives of the entire community. The North Toronto Collegiate Institute Site Redevelopment Design Team including students, teachers, school administrators, alumni and ratepayers, held four meetings. On June 12, two months after the approval of the TDSB’s revitalization master plan, the team unanimously approved the land use concept for the redevelopment of the 5.3 acre NTCI site and an adjacent .78 acre lot owned by the Toronto Parking Authority.
Factually, the land on which North Toronto Collegiate is situated was not, in fact, ‘given’ to the current public school board. The land was purchased by the Town of North Toronto in 1912. The site became a Toronto City school when North Toronto was annexed to the City so it already has changed owners several times and through the evolution of several communities. The new school will complement the existing community. The main criterion set by the City is that this project reinforce “the continuity of the street façade (and) compatibility of scale to the buildings” in the vicinity. The City, board and Design Team believe the entire site is going to be a credit to and a centrepiece of this neighborhood.
You mention budgetary constraints. It is true the board has faced severe funding shortages since amalgamation in 1998 and, given the current budget deficit of the province, may face constraints for a long time to come. Even without such constraints, however, the plan for revitalization of North Toronto Collegiate would be the most constructively creative solution. In this way, an exemplary new school can be financed and built efficiently and economically. The public good will be very well served in the most responsible manner possible.
We won’t compare this project with any other in Toronto, as you have called for us to do. Each school and each site presents different opportunities and challenges. No development should be subject to a cookie cutter approach.
You describe changes to North Toronto Collegiate as potentially jeopardizing a ‘safe, separate community’ of students. The current institution is very close to becoming unsafe and does not present a good learning environment. The school building is among the worst in our inventory and the playing field becomes a ‘lake’ when it rains, according to teachers. A teacher tells us there is a lineup of instructors waiting to take the first swing of the wrecking ball.
The development plan calls for two schools and three slender residential towers. The new North Toronto Collegiate will be a four-storey building wrapped around a 26-storey tower that fronts on Broadway Avenue in the northeast corner of the site. NTCI will house 1,200 students in its new building. The design team’s concept ensures light and views for all aspects of the buildings and each classroom, and connects the public spaces of the schools with the community at large.
At the southwest corner of the site, a four-storey French Catholic School, Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique Centre-Sud (CSDC-CS), will form the base for a 26-storey condominium tower with the school’s address on Roehampton Avenue. This school will house 500 students.
You are mistaken in your apparent belief that the new building will be substantially smaller with less room for expansion while lacking the prominence and character of the existing building. Nostalgia is a wonderful human feeling but it cannot mask the deterioration of this 91-year-old structure that has no unique architectural feature and completely outdated functionality. In fact, the new school will benefit from smaller, more efficient mechanical rooms and service spaces and an increase in learning space. There will be new science and computer labs, larger music rooms, an 80 percent larger library, 8,000 additional square feet in gym space, larger staff facilities and more green space for the field instead of the hemmed-in surroundings you imagine. The new building will be, in the opinion of professional architects and designers, an architectural gem.
Your letter talks of renovating the old North Toronto Collegiate building just as we have done with other schools without the sale of building rights on properties. Some of these other revitalization projects were accomplished under a quite different funding model and others were very different in physical terms. We considered carefully the possible renovation of the old building but dismissed this notion as totally impractical. This is a decaying structure full of problems that would frustrate any attempt to restore it in an economical, responsible way. The new building presents a learning environment far surpassing anything possible in a renovated school.
It is quite true that North Toronto Collegiate has been a community landmark for 91 years but it is the spirit of the school and the achievements of the students and educators that have been responsible for this status. Most schools throughout North America have had structural changes in their histories but these are not what constitute character; it is the human aspect of each school that marks it and we believe North Toronto’s spirit will be strengthened greatly by this revitalization. NOW Magazine may believe the building is worth saving but architects and the Toronto Historical Board do not mark it as special, nor do the majority of teachers and students who have to tolerate its many shortcomings.
You remark in your letter that, “The school is a magnet for students and parents from all over the city who appreciate the school's long tradition of high academic standards and excellence in music, athletics, student leadership, and extracurricular activities.” We agree and note that none of the attributes you list depend on the physical structure. All are currently being hampered by the deterioration of the building.
The TDSB moved forward with this plan for revitalization after years of debate, careful planning, negotiations with the City and community involvement.
At this time, there is no indication at all that a contemplated change in the education funding formula will have any impact on this project at all since it does not include capital for rebuilding or renovation of schools. There simply is no
need to delay this much-needed project to replace an obsolete, worn-out school building. A delay at this late stage would be irresponsible. We know several of you, as lawyers, will understand the importance of meeting schedules and deadlines when dealing with an undertaking of this size.
As attorneys, you will also know that, contrary to what you state in your letter, this project does not have ‘enormous implications for the local community and for public schools all across Ontario.’
For the local community, the effect of a revitalized North Toronto Collegiate is not implied, it is clear. The community’s students and educators will benefit greatly through a brand new school with more usable space and the safest, most comfortable learning environment possible. The school’s spirit and its marvelous record of student achievement will be undimmed and will be commemorated in the new building. The community will grow and be enhanced by well-designed, well-built residences.
Just as it has always been, North Toronto Collegiate will be one of a kind, a great school primarily because of the abilities, will and pride of its students, parents, teachers and staff. And, in September, 2007, North Toronto Collegiate will be housed in a new school building designed by its entire community.
I encourage the continued participation of the NTCI Association in the on-going development of this school building to assist us all in achieving our objective of making this new building a great piece of architecture worthy of the current and past student of North Toronto.
Could you please ensure that this letter is copied to your Foundation members.
Yours sincerely;
Sheila Penny
Executive Superintendent
Facility Services
[Back to Index]
10-Nov-2003: Breese Davies(’91), Andy Georgiades (’92) and Cornell Wright (’92):
Dear Ms. Penny:
We are part of a large and growing group of former students, teachers and parents of North Toronto Collegiate who are deeply concerned about the proposal to "redevelop" North Toronto Collegiate by demolishing the school, selling off part of the land to a private condominium developer and using the proceeds to build a new smaller school. This proposal is radical and unprecedented and must not proceed further without an informed, vigorous public debate of all possible alternatives.
The land on which North Toronto Collegiate is situated was given to the public school board for the benefit of the school and the community. It should not be sold to private developers. You have suggested that, given current budgetary constraints, the school board needs to adopt creative solutions to improve its schools. We agree. However, selling school land to private developers is not a creative solution. It is an easy, short-sighted solution that will provide a quick profit for the board but ultimately be detrimental to the school and the community.
Many other schools beyond North Toronto Collegiate also sit on prime real estate. Is the school board’s plan to sell off other school land to private developers? Examples of schools with land that would be ripe for private development include John Fisher Public School, Northern Secondary School, Lawrence Park Collegiate, Parkdale Collegiate, Bloor Collegiate and Central Technical School.
Attachment
Currently, North Toronto Collegiate’s land and building design create a separate campus in the burgeoning Yonge-Eglinton area. Students are part of a safe, separate community in which they can learn, socialize and explore extra-curricular pursuits without being in the way of people who live and carry on business nearby. Under the proposal, the school will be surrounded by three 24-30 storey condominium towers. Other than the playing field, there will be almost no other outside space for students and the community. In addition, the new building will be substantially smaller and have less room for future expansion. The new building will also lack the prominence and character of the existing building.
The school board has already committed $14 million for capital improvements at North Toronto Collegiate. You have indicated publicly that it would cost $16-18 million "to fully renovate" the existing school. Although the $14 million already committed would not cover this entire cost, it would undoubtedly make a substantial improvement. Other sources of funding should be explored to make further improvements to the building without selling off the school’s land. Indeed, many secondary schools in Toronto have been renovated and rebuilt without private development, including Riverdale Collegiate, Earl Haig Secondary School, Harbord Collegiate, East York Collegiate, and Forest Hill Collegiate.
North Toronto Collegiate has been a community landmark for over 90 years. NOW Magazine recently identified it as one of ten buildings in Toronto worth saving. The school is a magnet for students and parents from all over the city who appreciate the school’s long tradition of high academic standards and excellence in music, athletics, student leadership, and extra-curricular activities.
The new provincial government is committed to reviewing the education funding formula to ensure that school boards have adequate resources to repair, renovate and rebuild aging schools. Indeed, the new government has established a Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal to support the revitalization of schools and other public institutions. The new Minister of Education has terminated the TDSB supervisor and indicated that the school trustees elected on November 10th will be given full decision-making authority. Given all of these recent developments, now is not the time to race ahead with this proposal.
There are serious flaws in the process that led to this decision. There was no consultation with the community before the plan to demolish the school was announced. Nor has there been any discussion of alternatives. The school board claims that there is support for this proposal. However, given the lack of consultation and the fact that there has been no discussion of alternatives, this claim has no credibility.
Before this proposal proceeds further, we urge you to ensure that there is a full, public discussion of all possible alternatives. This issue has enormous implications for the local community and for public schools all across Ontario. It deserves a full and open debate.
Yours truly,
Breese Davies (’91)
Andy Georgiades (’92)
Cornell Wright (’92)
[Back to Index]
|
|
|
