Community Feedback – Proposed Extendicare Development at 60 Guildwood Parkway

Dear Phillip, Deputy Mayor Ainslie and Extendicare team,

On behalf of the Guildwood Village Community Association (GVCA), I am writing to provide formal feedback regarding the proposed redevelopment of 60 Guildwood Parkway. The feedback in this letter reflects community and association feedback gathered through community consultations, letters of concern, and a thorough examination of available documentation.

First and foremost, the GVCA would like to express our support for the continued use of this site as a long-term care facility. The need for modernized, expanded seniors’ care infrastructure is both recognized and supported by our community. We appreciate Extendicare’s investment in upgrading and expanding capacity to meet growing demand.

Although the GVCA supports the intent of the proposal, we have a number of concerns related to the current design approach and elements of the associated communications that should be revisited. 

1. Building Height and Neighbourhood Fit

Guildwood is characterized by a low-rise, community-oriented built form. The proposed building height represents a significant departure from this established character and risks setting a precedent that is not aligned with the surrounding neighbourhood. While the Planning rationale cites other approved tall LTC projects in Toronto, these are typically found on other road typologies, on deeper buffers, and in transitional or mixed use contexts. One size does not fit all. Further, since the designation of Guildwood Parkway as a Major Street is currently under review due to missing and incorrect mapping references to the same should be tempered until outcomes of those inquiries are solidified.

The GVCA strongly encourages the project team to explore alternative massing strategies that would:

• Reduce overall height

• Distribute density more horizontally across the site

• Better transition to adjacent residential areas

• Acknowledge that Compliance-based shadow metrics do not address the loss of openness, sky view, and privacy. 

There appears to be an opportunity to achieve the desired increase in capacity through a more context-sensitive design that respects the scale of Guildwood. This may even increase overall capacity, especially considering the intent to close the other Scarborough Facility. 

2. The intended closure of Extendicare Scarborough

The proposed expansion of the Guildwood Extendicare has been presented in public consultations and related communications as a significant investment aimed at increasing long-term care capacity. The Planning Rationale relies heavily on the gross number of beds to justify the proposal; however, this approach may be misleading in a planning context.

Through community discussions during the consultation process, it became evident that the actual increase in capacity would be limited, due to the unpublicized plan to close or merge the Scarborough facility at 3830 Lawrence Avenue with the existing Guildwood site. As a result, the net gain in beds is considerably lower than what has been communicated.

This distinction is critical and must be clearly reflected in the evaluation of the proposal. Any assessment of need and community impact should be based on net new capacity, rather than gross figures. Where the justification for increased height, density, and massing is tied to addressing an urgent shortage of long-term care beds, it is essential that this rationale be grounded in the actual incremental benefit to the system.

Without this clarity, the proposed scale of development risks exceeding what can reasonably be supported under Official Plan policies related to proportionality, contextual fit, and minimizing impacts within established neighbourhoods. As it stands, there is a disconnect between how the project has been presented and its likely outcomes.

We request that:

• Planning need evaluations should consider net system capacity, not the reshuffling of existing assets or redistribution of resources.

• The Rationale overstates benefit by ignoring displacement effects.

• The City requires an explicit net-gain analysis as part of the planning record.

• The closure/merger be treated as a material planning consideration, not an operational afterthought.

3. Parking and On-Site Capacity

Adequate parking is a critical concern for residents, staff, and visitors alike. Long-term care facilities generate consistent, daily traffic from multiple user groups, including shift workers, healthcare providers, and visiting family members. The focus should be less on compliance with minimums and more on actual demand and utility.  Unlike conventional residential or mixed‑use developments, long‑term care homes serve a population that does not meaningfully benefit from proximity to higher‑order transit. Operational demand is driven by staff shift changes, emergency response, service providers, and family visitation patterns that remain predominantly auto‑oriented regardless of transit availability.

The current proposal does not appear to provide sufficient on-site parking to meet these needs. Without adequate provision, there is a high likelihood of overflow parking impacting surrounding residential streets, the commercial plaza across the street, and other locations nearby, which are not designed or intended to accommodate this demand, and place further permanent strain on the community. 

We recommend:

• A meaningful increase in on-site parking capacity

• A reduction in the bicycle parking spaces which are likely to be significantly underutilized

• Consideration of staff-specific parking allocations

• Consideration of underground parking to decrease the need to utilize site ground space

• A detailed parking demand study that reflects real-world usage patterns for long-term care facilities

4. Traffic and Community Impact

In addition to parking, the increase in capacity will naturally result in increased traffic volumes. Peak periods or otherwise, given the existing conditions along Guildwood Parkway and surrounding streets, a more robust assessment of traffic impact is necessary. Most of the documentation available highlights end state conditions, but ignores construction phase impacts on a stable neighbourhood with seniors, and four schools nearby. In a stable, low‑rise neighbourhood with a high concentration of seniors, students, and working professionals, extended construction impacts are not incidental considerations but form part of the overall assessment of whether a proposal maintains neighbourhood stability as required under Official Plan Section 4.1. As an example; have any transit studies been performed to assess the impact of a drastic increase in Extendicare staff that largely relies on the busing system? This is already strained in peak opening and closing hours for our four schools in the area.

We ask that the City and applicant ensure:

• A published comprehensive traffic impact study inclusive of cumulative impact of proposed developments within a 5km radius.

• Clear mitigation strategies for congestion and safety.

• That the traffic impact studies consider rush hour implications - particularly getting out onto Kingston Rd from a community with limited routes to exit the community.  These should be done in fall, winter and spring (not summer when there is reduced traffic in rush hour).

• Consideration of pedestrian safety, particularly given proximity to residential areas, schools and community amenities.

• Construction management, staging, and mitigation plans are conditions of any approval. 

5. Continuity of Care and Impact on Residents and Staff

In addition to the planning considerations outlined above, the GVCA wishes to express serious concerns regarding the implications of this proposal for current residents and staff.

The proposed consolidation of facilities necessarily involves the relocation of individuals who are already frail and vulnerable. For many long-term care residents, stability, familiarity, and continuity of care are critical to their health and well-being. Any transition of this nature can have significant physical and emotional impacts, and these risks must be carefully considered and mitigated.

The GVCA therefore requests greater clarity on the relocation strategy, including how continuity of care will be ensured, what are the supports that will be provided to residents and families, and how decisions regarding transfers will be communicated and implemented.

The GVCA also seeks to better understand the implications for staff. Frontline workers play an essential role in maintaining quality of care, and their experience and continuity are key factors in successful transitions. It is important to know whether staff have been meaningfully engaged in the planning and communication process, and how workforce impacts—such as redeployment, retention, and working conditions—are being addressed.

Given the scale of the proposal and its human impact, the GVCA believes these considerations should form an integral part of the overall evaluation.

6. Opportunity for Improved Design Outcomes

Importantly, our concerns are not about limiting growth, but about optimizing it.

We believe there is a viable path forward that:

• Maintains or even increases the proposed resident capacity

• Reduces building height and visual impact

• Provides sufficient parking and improves site functionality

• Enhances integration with the surrounding community

• More wings stemming from the main building allows for greater capacity, lower overall height, and identical functional design elements

While Official Plan policies acknowledge that neighbourhoods evolve, they also require that intensification occur in a manner that reinforces, rather than overwhelms, the established physical character of the area. Technical compliance with separation distances and shadow studies does not, on its own, satisfy this test of contextual fit.

We would welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with Extendicare and City staff to explore design alternatives that better align with these objectives.

Conclusion

The GVCA supports the redevelopment of 60 Guildwood Parkway as a modern long-term care facility. However, we respectfully submit that the current proposal can and should be improved to better reflect the character of Guildwood, the intended purpose of increasing the number of beds while simultaneously merging two locations into one, and the practical needs of those who will rely on this facility.

We urge the applicant and the City to revisit the design with a focus on reduced height, increased parking, and a more community-sensitive approach.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to continued engagement on this important project.

Sincerely,

Jeff Garrah

President, Guildwood Village Community Association 

president@guildwood.ca