Board destructive to environment

Most people in this neighbourhood have a horror story or two to tell about the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). No doubt the majority of cases to hit the OMB are ruled in the developer’s favour. While many will focus on the aesthetics and neighbourhood impact of the board, I tend to focus on how destructive they are to the environment. The OMB has effectively taken control of energy planning out of the hands of planners and municipalities and put it into the hands of benevolent developers who we hope will do the best thing for the environment.

Very few places outside of North America would have an electricity generating station venting waste heat into the atmosphere while right next door a warehouse sits with its own set of shiny new furnaces. Energy is so cheap in Canada that our modus operandi is to waste it. If the provincial Liberal government is serious about taking action on climate change mitigation and adaptation, it needs to start enabling municipalities to take control of their own climate futures. Small legislative changes cost the province relatively little and can make a large impact down the road.

Ontario needs the province to create a framework for municipalities to run with their own thermal energy planning. District Energy, in a nutshell, is a network of underground pipes carrying hot and cold water from a central plant to end-users for the purposes of space heating and cooling. On its own, District Energy is only slightly more efficient than the status quo (and often this is debated), but with the use of waste heat and innovations such as Toronto’s Deep Lake Water Cooling, it’s a hands-down efficiency winner. So the question becomes, why are there so few systems?

Like most things in life, this boils down to cost. In a big congested city, it can cost millions for a single kilometre of piping that no one in their right minds would lay unless there were an ample supply of customers willing to buy from them. Buildings can’t take on district energy that doesn’t exist yet and is not designed for them. North Vancouver solved this chicken and egg problem by declaring the region a thermal energy zone. In short, if you want to build there, the building must be “District Energy Ready”.

Ontario municipalities trying to emulate North Vancouver’s success will often stumble across the OMB.

Forcing developments above and beyond code is a difficult endeavour. As it stands, Ontario falls behind as the rest of the world wakes up to the fact that, in order to be efficient and resilient, we should be recovering waste heat and generating electricity close to where it is consumed.

If Premier Wynne is serious about Ontario addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation, allowing municipalities to set their own energy futures is an easy and cost-effective way to go about it. Unless there is a framework to deal with thermal energy, not just electricity, Ontario will quickly fall behind our peers. The Ministry of Energy needs to have a formal mandate to deal with thermal energy and municipalities need to have greater control over local building codes above and beyond provincial codes.

Dealing with climate change is a difficult issue and Ontario needs to leverage the talent, willpower, and enthusiasm of its municipalities. Binding them to the OMB will not accomplish that.

Terri Chu is an engineer committed to practical environmentalism. This column is dedicated to helping the community reduce energy use, and help distinguish environmental truths from myths. Send questions, comments, and ideas for future columns to Terri at terri.chu@whyshouldicare.ca.

One-time announcements rob City of ability to plan

By Adam Vaughan

The delay of the federal budget has only really delayed bad news for Toronto. Our city has exceptional needs in housing and transit. Ottawa is nowhere to be found on these files, and it appears from questions asked in the House of Commons that there is next to no chance the federal government will deliver needed funding in the budget if and when it is tabled.

On the housing file, Toronto is staring down a $900 million capital repair backlog. It has a waiting list of 92,000 households, and young families looking to get into the real estate market are finding it harder and harder. We have an affordable housing crisis and a crisis in housing affordability.

The next budget should not only fund new housing starts and repairs, but it must also renew affordable housing agreements and in particular stabilize the co-op sector. The Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation must also be given a new mandate to better manage the private housing market to promote affordability.

On the issue of transit, the absence of federal funding makes Canada the only G-7 country without a national transit strategy. Instead of steady improvement and constant expansion, we get one-time announcements that rob the City of the ability to plan and maintain our transit system.

We also know that our national rail system is lagging terribly. The Dupont tracks carry some of the most volatile cargo on the continent. Instead of investment and proper regulation, we get the exact opposite. This is bad for the economy and puts our community at risk.

The money to address these challenges is already in Ottawa. The federal government is planning to fork over the funding to the most affluent Canadians. Income splitting looks as though it will form the centrepiece of the next federal budget.

Instead of handing billions to the 15 per cent most affluent and well-housed Canadians, the money should be used for building a stronger country. Investing in the needs of cities will not only make Toronto a better place to live, but building housing and transit will also put Canadians back to work.

Since being elected to parliament and named Liberal Party Critic for Housing and Urban Affairs, I have been meeting with mayors across Canada.

The common theme expressed by locally-elected leaders is that cities not only need a new deal from Ottawa, but they also need a new partnership. For too long, the federal government has announced one-time funding that spans years. The last infrastructure announcement will not see money flowing for a long time.

For large cities, this unnecessarily politicizes planning and distorts priorities. For small cities, it often means going “without” for extended periods of time. Instead of complex and politically skewed funding announcements, a more significant, equitable, and dedicated share of the tax base needs to be delivered to cities.

Waiting years for funding, no matter how large it is, is not good financial planning, nor does it allow cities to grow responsibly. This must change.

I have also been visiting and discussing with non-profit housing providers what a new housing program should look like. Housing will be a key issue in the Liberal plan. Stay tuned for an announcement.

Infrastructure and a new relationship with municipalities will also be a key ingredient of our platform.

Building strong cities is the best way to tackle poverty and environmental challenges, secure jobs, and improve health outcomes. In short, it boosts the quality of life for virtually everybody.

As your representative in parliament, I have been holding the current government to account on these issues, which are critical to the health of Toronto.

Highlights from the House of Commons are available on my website, www.adamvaughanmp.ca.

Adam Vaughan is the MP?for Trinity-Spadina.

The edict from Liz Sandals, the province’s education minister, to the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) that it must, among other things, decide on which underutilized schools should close might just break the institution into shell-shocked pieces.

Closing schools in any school board is a task requiring courageous confidence. Governing for the benefit of the whole, because it will ultimately pay dividends for the individual parts, takes chutzpah. To ask the TDSB to summon such leadership would be laughable if the potential consequences of them trying and failing were not so damaging.

Over one third of the TDSB inventory of schools is in “critical” need of repair or renovations, according to an Ontario-wide standard facility index. One in five schools has less than 65 per cent occupancy, or in the language of the sector, “utilization rate”. Taken together these facts necessitate a consolidation of capital resources, for in terms of its physical resources, the board has ailing parts, and not all parts are needed for the foreseeable future.

It all seems so logical. But deciding whether or not to close a school is as difficult as deciding which streets to make one way, where to put a clean injection site, or where to locate a new minimum security prison to house sex offenders. Opposition to closing schools can be ferocious.

Deciding which school buildings and land to sacrifice to benefit the whole system is not for the weak-willed. Parents who have taken on a $1 million mortgage in part because there was a school their children could safely walk to will have something to say about this. The mayor has weighed in on other public “interests” including community use, heritage values, and green space. Imagine, for example, closing Central Technical School and selling off the land. Central Tech’s utilization stands currently at 53 per cent, and it is not expected to rise above 50 per cent for the next 20 years. It’s a lot of land and, if sold, it could generate considerable resources for the school board. Imagine that outcome. The fight over whether or not to turf and dome the field would, by comparison, seem like a minor skirmish within the community of stakeholders.

With a dysfunctional board made up of self-interested trustees, it’s not a battle the TDSB is ready to fight.

A provincial audit of TDSB governance was revealing. Margaret Wilson, commissioned by Minister Sandals to assess the governance at the board, said it lacks the political will to “right size” the system. Trustees, she wrote, “horse-trade” for votes and support each other in saving schools in their respective wards. In other cases, trustees invite interference from city councillors or even MPPs.

There is a certain amount of clairvoyance required in the business of planning the future need for school buildings. Demography, immigration, transportation development (i.e., where the subways, LRTs, and smart tracks will go), and curricula all figure into the equation. If those are not enough variables to balance, consider the fact that the Toronto District Catholic School Board has the same issues to grapple with, and the two boards sometimes “trade” properties. On a technical level, landing a probe on a comet for a little walkabout might be easier. On a political level, this task requires the wisdom of Solomon and the TDSB board has neither wisdom nor maturity in spades. The province, of course, knows this and will likely take over and place the board under supervision, nullifying the power of the trustees and the director alike. It may be the time out needed to bring common sense to bear. Perhaps though we should not forget that it was another common sense revolution that got us into this pickle to begin with. Thanks again, Mr. Harris.

By Annemarie Brissenden

Jennifer Hollett received the New Democratic Party nomination for the new riding of University-Rosedale earlier this month at a lively meeting packed with party faithful. Trinity-Spadina councillors and trustee Joe Cressy (Ward 20), Mike Layton (Trinity-Spadina), and Ausma Malik (Ward 10), as well as Peggy Nash (MP, Parkdale-High Park), were among those who showed up to support the broadcaster, academic, and self-described “leading digital expert and visionary,” who was also the digital director of Olivia Chow’s mayoral campaign.

“Olivia is one of the reasons I got into politics. She made it real,” said the acclaimed Hollett, who added she was honoured by the energy and support of those who attended the meeting.

She will face Liberal Chrystia Freeland (MP, Toronto-Centre) in the new riding, which goes into effect with the next federal election, currently fixed for Oct. 19, 2015.

“Most people don’t know that there’s been a boundary change,” said Hollett. “It seems to have flown under the radar.”

The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act mandates a review after every 10-year census, and provides a mechanism for reflecting changes and movements in the nation’s population in the House of Commons.

The representation formula itself is found in the Constitution, although the Fair Representation Act of 2011 introduced a new formula for seat allocation and shortened the process’s timeline.

Ontario received 15 more seats as a result of the review, with Toronto increasing from 23 to 25 ridings.

The Gleaner’s coverage area is home to one of the major changes, as Trinity-Spadina and Toronto-Centre are being redistributed into three new ridings: Toronto-Centre, whose northern boundary going forward will be Bloor Street; University-Rosedale, which includes the north ends of the old Trinity-Spadina and Toronto-Centre ridings and extends to Dundas Street West, where Spadina-Fort York picks up, encompassing everything south to the lake.

“I’ll miss attending events in the north end of the riding,” admitted Adam Vaughan (MP, Trinity-Spadina), who will stand for the Liberals in Spadina-Fort York. But he sees the redistribution as reflective of the city’s growth and hopes that Toronto will be better served under the new boundaries.

Like Vaughan, Freeland will miss parts of her old riding, but is keen to start reaching out to the new one.

“I’m sad that I will no longer have the privilege of representing some of the people in Toronto-Centre,” said Freeland. “Having said that, I hope to have the privilege of representing the Annex.”

The author and journalist is familiar with the area, lives close by, and regularly attends local events, like Harbord Street’s pumpkin festival, a highlight for her children last year.

“I love the Annex,” she said. “I used to live there, so it’s a place I feel very comfortable in.” Both Freeland and Hollett, who recently moved there herself, pointed to the strong feeling of community, and the unique social democratic history of the area, as well as its small town atmosphere.

“It’s a version of Jane Jacobs’s idealized city,” explained Freeland. She’s already begun connecting with people in the area, working with Vaughan and Carolyn Bennett (MP, St. Paul’s) to put together local events on rail safety and youth unemployment.

The latter issue is also on Hollett’s radar.

“University plays a big role in the community; students are worried about unpaid internships and job security,” she said.

Jobs, growing inequality, climate change… these are the concerns that spurred her into running. Hollett is “worried about Canada, but it is easier to sit back and complain. It’s up to us to see change.”

“Jenn is a smart, dynamic, and impressive community leader,” said Cressy, who gave her his enthusiastic support at the nomination meeting, closing the proceedings with “this is a family. Let’s keep it orange.”

He said he doesn’t “like the way the boundaries were redrawn, because it splits communities of interest and historic neighbourhoods.”

But for Hollett, the redistribution, due simply to population growth, is an opportunity to “create a new identity as a riding.”

Vaughan agreed.

“The growth of the city, managed responsibly, led us to this change,” he said, adding, “It’s good for politicians to be a little bit nervous about their future.”

As of writing, the Conservative Party of Canada does not appear to have any candidates nominated for either University-Rosedale or Spadina-Fort York, and did not respond to the Gleaner’s repeated requests for an interview.

The NDP has not yet nominated a candidate for Spadina-Fort York.

For further information on the

redistribution and to see the new riding boundaries, please visit

Elections Canada’s website at www.elections.ca.

Police have arrested three suspects in connection with a brutal alleyway assault last summer. Feyzullah Cetin, 19, and an 18-year-old who cannot be named under the Criminal Youth Justice Act have been charged with conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, robbery, attempted murder, assault to cause bodily harm, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon. A third man, Dominik Rezi, 19, has been charged with conspiracy to commit an indictable offence and robbery, also in connection with the case.

The three men, who are all in police custody after appearing at a preliminary hearing at Old City Hall on Jan. 19, allegedly robbed and viciously beat a fourth young man on Aug. 4 after befriending him during a night out in the College Street and Spadina Avenue area. The young man, whose name police are withholding from the public, had followed his alleged attackers into an alleyway, believing they were all going to a club together. He has since recovered from his injuries.

If you have any information about the crime, please contact the Toronto Police Service at 416-808-1400.

—Claire Kirkpatrick/Gleaner News

The former headquarters of the Boy Scouts of Canada and, until recently, the Restaurant Association of Canada, is slated for demolition to make way for a major condo development.

Photo by Brian Burchell, Gleaner News

Architect’s rendering of the proposed 42-storey tower for Bloor and Madison Ave.

Image courtesy of 316 Bloor West Developments Ltd.

A developer, 316 Bloor West Developments Ltd., has applied for an amendment to zoning by-laws with the hope of raising a 42-storey residential/mixed-use development at Madison Avenue and Bloor Street West. At a total floor area of approximately 24,265 squares metres, the building would include 535 residential units and about 265 square metres of retail space.

The proposed development would replace the existing two-storey building that was formerly home to the Boy Scouts of Canada and, more recently, the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. If approved, it would drastically change the face of the neighbourhood and dwarf the next tallest building on the block: the 18-storey Tartu College Student Residence. It’s also across the street from the historic three-storey University of Toronto Schools building, and abuts the newly re-christened Paul Martel Park.

This proposal was made public after our development review on pages 6 and 7 was completed.

—Claire Kilpatrick, Gleaner News

Elected representatives agree on Trinity-Spadina priorities

By Annemarie Brissenden

Trinity-Spadina’s elected representatives are committed to working together to improve transit infrastructure, increase affordable housing, and enhance the liveability of the area. They also share a renewed spirit of optimism after a series of elections last year that have resulted in new faces at all levels of government.

“It’s nice being the longest serving member,” laughed Adam Vaughan (MP, Trinity-Spadina), who was elected in a federal by-election last June, after previously serving as city councillor. He has “a good working relationship with the others,” none of whom come “from a long history of divisive party politics.”

As Joe Cressy (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina), who ran against Vaughan in the by-election before taking the MP’s vacated municipal seat in the October election, pointed out, “We’re all Trinity-Spadina loyalists.”

Trustee Ausma Malik (TDSB Ward 10, Trinity-Spadina) agreed.

“We all share a passionate love for our communities,” said Malik, who believes a school is the heart of its community. She wants to change the relationship people have with their local trustee, so they know who their trustee is and what they do.

Malik has met with all of her “elected counterparts at all different levels” to “affirm our commitment to cooperation” and “to share our different priorities”.

Chief among those is the need to bring “fast transit to the most people in the most economical way,” said Mike Layton (Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina), something that Vaughan highlighted as well.

The MP focused on boosting transit’s usability by, for example, enhancing nighttime service and developing more points of access.

Han Dong (MPP, Trinity-Spadina) echoed Layton and Vaughan, and said that “moving people in and out” of the area will require cooperation from all levels of government.

It’s a challenge born of increasing density. And, given the number of new condominiums approved by city council last year, he added, that trend isn’t going to abate anytime soon. Dong is also concerned about the sustainability of this growth, and the riding’s capacity for absorbing such a surge without leaving anyone behind.

Everyone stressed the need to grow in an equitable manner, and highlighted the importance of building new safe affordable housing, while protecting the existing stock through revitalization and repairs.

For his part, Vaughan, who would like a national affordable housing program, “is greatly encouraged by the innovative approach that is emerging on [the Mirvish Village/Honest Ed’s] site,” where Westbank Project Corp.’s architect, Gregory Henriquez, is considering building purpose-built rentals across different economic scales. Henriquez, who comes from a tradition of community-based development, wants to create something that promotes the public realm by celebrating the area’s history.

In this, the architect is considering liveability as much as density, a critical component of any development.

As Cressy explained, “We have to make sure that we’re not just adding density, but that we’re building neighbourhoods with the necessary support and infrastructure.”

“We all understand how much has changed in Trinity-Spadina,” said Dong. He said the important question is how to create a liveable community in the face of such tremendous growth.

For Cressy, it’s all about strengthening neighbourhoods. He pointed to planned park improvements as well as the opening of two new schools, a community centre, and a daycare at CityPlace, all in his ward.

He also, like Layton, stressed the necessity of freeing Toronto from the purview of the Ontario Municipal Board, and reaffirmed his opposition to the expansion of the island airport, which he said, “is not compatible with a diverse waterfront”.

Vaughan’s other priorities for the coming year include rail safety, an especially critical area as “more and more volatile goods are moved through the north corridor of the riding,” and emphasizing the need to change the relationship between the federal government and the nation’s cities.

Master list of possible school closures includes eight in Ward 10

Central Technical School 725 Bathurst St.
• Current enrolment: 1,657
• Utilization rate: 58%
• Projected utilization rate in 2034: 54%

Delta Alternative Senior School 301 Montrose Ave.
• Current enrolment: 60
• Utilization rate: 47%
• Projected utilization rate in 2034: 52%

West End Alternative School 777 Bloor St. W.
• Current enrolment: 80
• Utilization rate: 48%
• Projected utilization rate in 2034: 50%

Essex Junior & Senior School
50 Essex St.
• Current enrolment: 278
• Utilization rate: 59%
• Projected utilization rate in 2034: 45%

Heydon Park Secondary School
70 Darcy St.
• Current enrolment: 157
• Utilization rate: 60%
• Projected utilization rate in 2034: 120%

Charles Fraser Junior Public School 79 Manning Ave.
• Current enrolment: 228
• Utilization rate: 51%
• Projected utilization rate in 2034: 60%

Photos: Brian Burchell, Gleaner News

Ryerson Community School 96 Denison Ave.
• Current enrolment: 317
• Utilization rate: 53%
• Projected utilization rate in 2034: 100%

Photo: Brian Burchell, Gleaner News

Kensington Community School 401 College St.
• Current enrolment: 113
• Utilization rate: 25%
• Projected utilization rate in 2034: 20%

Photo: Brian Burchell, Gleaner News

Master list of possible closures includes eight in Ward 10

By Brian Burchell and Claire Kilpatrick

At least eight schools in Trinity-Spadina are at risk of closing following the provincial Minister of Education’s direction to the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) to review its capital plan. It’s but one of several orders based on the recommendations found in Margaret Wilson’s sweeping report, which reviewed “operational issues at the TDSB with a focus on the governing structure”.

On the TDSB to-do list is to “provide a three-year capital plan that reflects the current student population”. Many schools are underutilized, and the board lacks the budget to operate and maintain its entire inventory of buildings. According to TDSB documents, 135 schools have a utilization rate of less than 65 per cent.

The Gleaner has identified eight schools facing possible closure in TDSB Ward 10, which roughly encompasses the area of Dupont Street south to the waterfront, and University Avenue west to Dovercourt Road.

Notably, Central Technical School is on the list, with a utilization rate of 58 per cent. The school has a capacity of 2,857 students, but only 1,657 are currently enrolled. The utilization rate is expected to dip further to 47 per cent by 2019, and not rise above 50 per cent by 2034. These projections are based on the board’s own data.

Low utilization rates only tell one part of the story, as the cost of keeping partially empty schools open affects the TDSB’s ability to maintain its buildings properly.

A June 2014 report by the TDSB, “Capital Facts: Building Strong and Vibrant School Communities,” places the capital renewal backlog at $3.5 billion. Funds are needed to repair or replace electrical systems, pavement, heating and boiler systems, roofs, and windows.

According to the report, the condition of the buildings is ranked on a provincial system known as the Facility Condition Index (FCI), where the ranks are as follows: FCI<10 Good; 10<FCI<30 Fair; 30<FCI<65 Poor; and FCI>65 Critical. In the TDSB, over 200 buildings are classified as FCI>65 or critical, which means they require extensive renovations and replacement of core systems. This represents over one third of the TDSB’s 588 schools.

The Wilson report was highly critical of the “Board in its management [of], or rather failure to manage, capital assets,” and quoted a special assistance team member: “There isn’t a normal process where priorities are established in an objective fashion with the Board acting as a unit.

“Trustees represent their wards and have their own perceptions about what should be done.” Trustees told Wilson that they “horse-trade” for votes and support each other to save schools in their individual wards. The report goes on to say that “trustees seek the support of city councillors and, in the case of at least one capital renewal project, involved the area’s MPP (to intervene).”

Because the board, as the Wilson report states, lacks the political will to right size its system, renewal funding must be spent on too many schools. And unaddressed problems, such as leaking roofs, manifest themselves into exponentially greater problems if they are not repaired in a timely fashion.

One problem that’s left out of this discussion is the intersection of alternative schools housed in underutilized schools and vice versa, and the Gleaner has identified at least four alternative schools in the TDSB that share buildings with public schools that have been slated for possible closure.

Two of them, Hawthorne II Bilingual Junior Alternative School (50 Essex St.) and Grove Community School (108 Gladstone Ave.), are in Trinity-Spadina.

In both cases, the alternative school has strong utilization rates, while its host school does not. Hawthorne II’s projected 2034 utilization rate is at 106 per cent, compared to a projected utilization rate of 45 per cent for Essex Junior and Senior Public School, with whom Hawthorne II shares a building.

The other citywide schools that may be affected are Africentric Alternative School (1430 Sheppard Ave. W.) and Equinox Holistic Alternative School (151 Hiawatha Rd.), both of which are projected to have high rates of enrolment well into the 2030s.

Of course, there is no guarantee that any of the schools that face possible closure will, in fact, close, but if they do, what will happen to the alternative schools that call those buildings home?

According to Ryan Bird, a spokesman for the TDSB, underutilized schools don’t necessarily face closure, but are merely set to undergo studies that may result in closure. Bird wouldn’t speculate on the fate of alternative schools if their host schools do end up closing.

Newly-elected TDSB trustee Ausma Malik did not respond to numerous requests from the Gleaner to provide comment.

By Terri Chu

Turf is as troubling as the toxins now in the soil, the Central Technical School (CTS) dome is a hotly contested issue in this area. I’ve met nearly as many people who support the dome as oppose it. The student body no doubt would like to see the stand-off end. There’s a lot of confusion and many opposing interests at play.

Living just up the street from the CTS, I obviously would prefer to see what little green space we have left preserved as much for personal as for environmental reasons (heat island effect, environmental contamination), but I also want to acknowledge the importance of returning a field to the students at CTS. Their welfare should come first, hands down.

Time has flown since I moved into the Annex, but I’m also no longer a student. In the time I’ve lived here, what seems like a blink of an eye is nearly two generations of high school students.

Imagine spending your entire high school career without a viable sporting facility. This is unacceptable, and without question, I support a speedy resolution. Their best interests should come first.

What is questionable, however, is whether or not a dome is really in their long-term best interest.

Field toxicity

The current field is contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) among other toxins from a bygone era. According to the United States Evironmental Protection Agency, “PAHs are found naturally in the environment but they can also be man-made.

In their purest form, PAHs are solid and range in appearance from colorless to white or pale yellow-green. PAHs are created when products like coal, oil, gas, and garbage are burned, but the burning process is not complete.”

I’ve heard several theories and yet none are quite consistent with the contamination patterns of the soil report.

Either way, what is not disputed is that the PAHs exist.

What is disputed, however, is the health risk. Generations of students have come and gone.

Without a study on alumni, it’s impossible to tell whether or not they have higher rates of cancer or other ailments compared with the general population.

Under an abundance of caution, however, the field has been closed off to all uses.

Remediation options

There are several remediation options available to the TDSB. One is to remove the top layer (about six inches) of soil and replace it with fresh soil. This option is light on a capital budget, but will require a fair bit of annual expenditure as the field will need continual monitoring to ensure the toxins don’t seep upward. Another option is to dig deeper and replace about a metre and a half of the soil. This is much more expensive but will create a permanent solution. Option three is to farm the problem out to a third party and allow an operator to resurface the field with artificial turf and put a dome over it during winter months.

There are undoubted advantages and disadvantages to all options. The idea for an option four was floated at one point to allow a third party to use the field for geothermal storage (specifically the Honest Ed’s redevelopment). While great on paper, I realize the long time frame is unfair to the students who are swiftly moving through the prime of their lives.

Option three, artificial turf, is the one preferred by the TDSB for several reasons.

This allows the students to have a field to play on in the shortest time frame and it requires no capital expenditure from the school board (note: the City and private donors have stepped up to the plate with some capital funds). Having worked on projects for public institutions and seen firsthand the short-sightedness that separating capital from operating and maintenance budgets creates, I will leave this rant for another time.

As I picture the field with artificial turf, my right brain gushes “oooh, pretty field” while my left brain is churning at about the speed of a Commodore 64 trying to reconcile fixing a toxicity problem with an even more toxic solution.

Turf toxins

Scientists in Italy studied the air contamination of Astroturf fields in 2011 while players were actively engaged in sport. This is the time when lungs are most active and air is breathed in most deeply.

As players swept across the fields, they would disturb the turf causing it to release chemicals. The study showed an increase in toxins in the air about two orders of magnitude of greenfield benchmarks.

What this means for human health remains unknown but certainly, compared to a field with below ground contamination, Astroturf would seem to make little sense as an alternative. Italy has taken emergency remediation measures on existing artificial turf sites because of human health risks.

A U.S. study found that football players suffered injuries 40% more often while playing on artificial turf than on grass fields. There’s a reason female world cup soccer players are protesting having to play on artificial turf while their male counterparts get grass.

Professionals the world over are now shunning artificial turf. Our own Skydome (now the Rogers Centre) stands as a monument to a $500-million mistake at the end of the turf era.

Going back to the best interests of the students at CTS, while on the surface giving them a field with four extra months of sports and training seems like a great idea, we have to understand that this trade-off comes at the cost of exposing them to additional toxins.

Is the trade-off worth the risk? I’m not convinced it is but ultimately the administrators, teachers, and parents need to think through the long-term health risks as well as the liability of increased injuries.

While I was researching this issue and taking in all the uncertainties of under-studied technologies (such as artificial turf), someone pointed out that many other schools, universities, and professional sporting organizations already use artificial turf. Did I really believe that Health Canada would be so reckless as to endanger our lives and continue to allow the use of substances that are harmful?? Not really knowing the best way to answer that question, I simply said, “We took 70 years to get lead out of gasoline.” (Side note: it is still in use in aviation gas as an anti-knocking agent.)

So do we want to be proactive or reactive on this issue? The dome seems to me an issue of being penny-wise and pound foolish.

Terri Chu is an engineer committed to practical environmentalism. This column is dedicated to helping the community reduce energy use, and help distinguish environmental truths from myths. Send questions, comments, and ideas for future columns to Terri at terri.chu@ whyshouldicare.ca.

Remediation

options

There are several remediation options available to the TDSB. One is to remove the top layer (about six inches) of soil and replace it with fresh soil. This option is light on a capital budget, but will require a fair bit of annual expenditure as the field will need continual monitoring to ensure the toxins don’t seep upward. Another option is to dig deeper and replace about a metre and a half of the soil. This is much more expensive but will create a permanent solution. Option three is to farm the problem out to a third party and allow an operator to resurface the field with artificial turf and put a dome over it during winter months.

There are undoubted advantages and disadvantages to all options. The idea for an option four was floated at one point to allow a third party to use the field for geothermal storage (specifically the Honest Ed’s redevelopment). While great on paper, I realize the long time frame is unfair to the students who are swiftly moving through the prime of their lives.

Option three, artificial turf, is the one preferred by the TDSB for several reasons.

This allows the students to have a field to play on in the shortest time frame and it requires no capital expenditure from the school board (note: the City and private donors have stepped up to the plate with some capital funds). Having worked on projects for public institutions and seen firsthand the short-sightedness that separating capital from operating and maintenance budgets creates, I will leave this rant for another time.

As I picture the field with artificial turf, my right brain gushes “oooh, pretty field” while my left brain is churning at about the speed of a Commodore 64 trying to reconcile fixing a toxicity problem with an even more toxic solution.

Turf toxins

Scientists in Italy studied the air contamination of Astroturf fields in 2011 while players were actively engaged in sport. This is the time when lungs are most active and air is breathed in most deeply.

As players swept across the fields, they would disturb the turf causing it to release chemicals. The study showed an increase in toxins in the air about two orders of magnitude of greenfield benchmarks.

What this means for human health remains unknown but certainly, compared to a field with below ground contamination, Astroturf would seem to make little sense as an alternative. Italy has taken emergency remediation measures on existing artificial turf sites because of human health risks.

A U.S. study found that football players suffered injuries 40% more often while playing on artificial turf than on grass fields. There’s a reason female world cup soccer players are protesting having to play on artificial turf while their male counterparts get grass.

Professionals the world over are now shunning artificial turf. Our own Skydome (now the Rogers Centre) stands as a monument to a $500-million mistake at the end of the turf era.

Going back to the best interests of the students at CTS, while on the surface giving them a field with four extra months of sports and training seems like a great idea, we have to understand that this trade-off comes at the cost of exposing them to additional toxins.

Is the trade-off worth the risk? I’m not convinced it is but ultimately the administrators, teachers, and parents need to think through the long-term health risks as well as the liability of increased injuries.

While I was researching this issue and taking in all the uncertainties of under-studied technologies (such as artificial turf), someone pointed out that many other schools, universities, and professional sporting organizations already use artificial turf. Did I really believe that Health Canada would be so reckless as to endanger our lives and continue to allow the use of substances that are harmful?? Not really knowing the best way to answer that question, I simply said, “We took 70 years to get lead out of gasoline.” (Side note: it is still in use in aviation gas as an anti-knocking agent.)

So do we want to be proactive or reactive on this issue? The dome seems to me an issue of being penny-wise and pound foolish.

Terri Chu is an engineer committed to practical environmentalism. This column is dedicated to helping the community reduce energy use, and help distinguish environmental truths from myths. Send questions, comments, and ideas for future columns to Terri at terri.chu@ whyshouldicare.ca.