Skip to content

MRA Feedback to Mimico 20/20 Open House on Nov. 8, 2012

Sent: November 14, 2012

Attn: Matthew Premru, City of Toronto – Planning

Re: Mimico 20/20 Open House Feedback – November 8, 2012

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for allowing the Mimico Residents Association (MRA) an opportunity for community feedback on your November 8th Open House.  However, we feel the technical language and specific questions asked in the “Open House Feedback Form” may lead to incorrect conclusions.  Although qualitative data can give the City some general direction, it does not replace quantitative data which actually reflects the community positions on key issues related to the emerging Mimico Secondary Plan.  We are also concerned that the time frame in which you are asking for community feedback. Furthermore, the questions in your survey appear leading.  However, due to the time frame given, we will utilize a survey we conducted with our residents in June 2012 which allows us to generally answer some of your questions.

1. Development Framework

These are a mix of open and closed questions and we have not had time to survey our membership for answers.  However, in general terms:

    1. Does the framework provide for an expansion of the waterfront park area with more parkland?
      No – there does not seem to be any more parkland apart from the existing waterfront park – there are very few public green spaces between the Waterfront park and Lake Shore Blvd. There doesn’t seem to be a plan for condo developers to provide public parkland on or through their properties. Instead there are roads.
    2. Does the framework provide for an expansion of the waterfront park area with an extension of the waterfront trail?
      There appears to be  a very small extension onto the Longo’s property, but it does not appear that the trail would continue West from this point.
    3. Does the framework provide for an expansion of the waterfront with additional connections to the waterfront?
      Yes. There are connections in the form of roads serving the condos. However, there are few bike/walking path/green space connections between LSB and the waterfront, particularly in the Northern part of the 20/20 area.

Comments from our survey:

    • The vast majority of respondents agree (96%) that it is important to increase the amount of parkland along the waterfront.
    • 98% of respondents agree that public access to the waterfront is important throughout the development area.
    • 20% of respondents who provided a comment to the open-ended question mentioned the importance of preserving and expanding the Waterfront public realm, to include both retail and recreational opportunities.

2. Village Heart

This question was not asked on our survey but would be an easy question for our residents to answer with a quantitative question.

Comments from our survey:

  • 68% of respondents agreed that it is important to have shops or restaurants in the base of the high-rises along the waterfront trail.]

3. Road Network

These questions do not get into the ‘heart’ of the issue with the road network, ie: traffic congestion, pollution and shortage of parking as a result of high density development.  There are no open ended questions to add additional comments on this issue.  Therefore,

Comments from our survey:

  • 86% of respondents indicated that they do not believe the current roadways and public transit system in Mimico can support a 75-200% increase in density over what is currently at Humber Bay Shores
  • 15% of respondents who provided a comment in the open-ended section indicated that improving the underlying infrastructure, particularly as it relates to traffic, needs to have more consideration in the Mimico 20/20 plan.

4. Housing Mix

This question was not specifically asked of our membership,  However, the results from our survey indicate:

  • Nearly half (45%) of respondents believe that new housing built should include a more equitable split between 1-2 bedroom and 3-4 bedroom units.
  • Respondents are split between the need for more affordable housing in Mimico (41% in favour and 42% not in favour; with 17% ambivalent).

5. Building Heights

The MRA would have liked to have the opportunity to quantitatively survey its membership on the new heights that were introduced to the residents on November 8th.

Based on our survey results from June 2012:

  • An overwhelming majority (91%) of respondents indicated that the Mimico 20/20 Plan should place height restrictions on new buildings.
  • 87% of respondents agree that current zoning bylaws should be revised to reflect maximum building heights for the area.
  •  The majority of respondents (79%) disagreed with a possible increase in density of 250-500% resulting from new development in the study area as proposed in the findings reports from the Mimico 20/20 Revitalization Charette, held on April 6-9, 2009

6. Lake Shore Boulevard West

Question seems redundant to question #5.

7. Community Infrastructure

The question was not specifically asked to our membership.  Please see response from question #1 (parkland, access to lake and trail)


Thank you for allowing us to comment on the Mimico 20/20 process. We remain committed to promoting the quality of residential and economic life in and around the Mimico area.


Kyra Trainor, President

Mimico Residents Association

Cc: Mark Grimes – City of Toronto Councillor Ward 6

2 thoughts on “MRA Feedback to Mimico 20/20 Open House on Nov. 8, 2012”

  1. Pingback: Feedback from Mimico Residents Association concerning Nov. 8, 2012 Mimico 20/20 Open House | Preserved Stories

  2. Having looked at the plans, I am astounded that the traffic survey only includes Lakeshore and none of the side streets which will be heavily impacted when the congestion at the entrance to the Gardiner and Lkshr. at Humber becomes intolerable. The Longo proposal will simply exacerbate this situation for all the side streets from Symons through to the end of the old town without even considering the developments proposed over at the foot of Royal York.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *