PDP Annual Public Meeting

Comparison of 2006, 2007, and 2008 Participant Survey Responses

Parc Downsview Park Inc. has hosted an Annual Public Meeting in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Approximately 250 people were in attendance each year. In 2006, 40 surveys were completed; in 2007, 73 surveys were completed; and in 2008, 57 surveys were completed.

Multiple choice

2008 – 53% of respondents attended last year’s Annual Public Meeting.
2007 – 23% of respondents attended the previous year’s Annual Public Meeting.
2006 – N/A (an Annual Public Meeting was not previously held)

2008 – 88% of respondents indicated that the presentations were informative (somewhat-very)
2007 – 92% of respondents indicated that the presentations were informative (somewhat-very)
2006 – 78% of respondents indicated that the presentations were informative (somewhat-very)

2008 – 81% of respondents felt that responses to questions were helpful (somewhat-very)
2007 – 90% of respondents felt that responses to questions were helpful (somewhat-very)
2006 – 71% of respondents felt that responses to questions were helpful (somewhat-very)

2008 – 86% of respondents were pleased with the meeting overall (somewhat-very)
2007 – 88% of respondents were pleased with the meeting overall (somewhat-very)
2006 – N/A (this question was not asked)

Summary of Comments

2008

The majority of comments pertained to topics of development and improvements to the Park.

• “I am impressed with the professionalism and the quality of leadership that is involved.”
• “I got valuable information. How can I participate as an individual in this project?”
• “Keep on producing measurable results.”
• “I would like to know more about housing plans, location, type, infrastructure, traffic congestion solutions.”
• Need swimming pools for instructional swimming, seniors complex and playground for kids.”
• “Just wondering what is the government status on the development of the park. Is it going to be funded by the provincial or federal budget? Is there an environmental impact assessment done or in place?”
• The park should attract tourists, but to do so it needs to be more attractive.”
• “I was disappointed when further direction was not presented in regards to future low-rise, high-rise developments.”
• “No bold or gutsy decision making. Development is dragging on forever with very little movement on the ground.”
• “Park should not be an eye sore, eg. parking lot. It should be the pride of the city. The focus should be on greening the park rather than furthering corporate, commercial, industrial agendas. It’s depressing.”

2007

Generally, most positive responses centered around programs and events, while the negative criticism focused on plans for development and housing.

• “I am pleased with the direction that PDP is heading,”
• “Congrats to PDP for including a progressive community from the start,”
• “Please continue with the Family Festivals (FREE). They are a joy to attend!”
• “Program and space for older generation – retirement complex,”
• “I hope that use of the facilities will be FREE for non-profit agencies,”
• “Will there be any recreation for a swimming (all ages to benefit – healthy lifestyle) pavilion?”
• “Don’t over-program the Park grounds! Parks need not be complex,”
• “I don’t want to see HOUSING so this corner of Toronto becomes so densely populated,”
• “Be more transparent RE: Development!”

2006

A common theme among respondents was that the presentations were too ‘one-way’ and information-heavy. Yet most feedback about the presentations was positive and considered to be very informative.

While there were a few concerns about proposed development and population density, most feedback about the substance of the plans included positive suggestions to advance the plans, such as more sidewalks, more transit access, and types of programming (including artificial hockey rinks, botanical gardens, a race track).

• “Tony and Cathy’s presentations were well put together.”
• “It’s good to see that after 12 years of perceived inactivity, we may see results soon.”
• “The presentations were excellent – clear, well organized and presented well with effective visual.”
• “The Park should develop to attract tourists and facility for young people not for more population/houses.”
• “Keep the housing to Sheppard and leave the south end to dog walkers, kids soccer...”
• “No more houses or buildings, make an inviting place to use residents and visitors.”
• “I want more park – less commerce – accessibility of parks for main streets, TTC.”
• “No chance for community WHO LIVE HERE to speak.”
• “The answers were very vague with not answering the questions concretely.”