See also Site Map
From J.Treviranus, an article called Sidewalk Toronto and Why Smarter is Not Better
In our history, data and machine determinations about people have often been used to excuse inhumane decisions. Pointing to the data is used to absolve ourselves of guilt in acts that we would otherwise consider unfair. Common examples include when a government official denies a service or gives an excuse for an unreasonable application of a policy. We claim that the data doesn’t lie; that we are powerless to make exceptions.
I'm hoping you can clear up some confusion in my mind. I wrote in my Monday email to you that after we figure out the removal of the protruding chimneys, we'd meet up with you and get a plan worked out to take to the building department. The plan would cost $1500 from you, and at the meeting with George I wrote down that the city will charge us $200 to do a zoning review and $1000 to do the "building permit review."
I was talking to Ana Bailao and her assistant Brandon at the end of a park meeting tonight, and I said that as far as I can tell, I have to spend $2700 ($1500 + $1000 + $200) to get a clear indication from the city whether they will accept the 86 cm walkway width and we can go ahead with making the more detailed plans, blueprint etc.
Brandon said that's not right, that it will only cost $200 for us to get the decision.
I'm guessing that I'm right, but can you set me straight? Ana says she really wants to know.
1. Jane Jacobs wrote that buildings should be flexible so that cities can change with the people who live there. Garages for 1913 cars can be replaced by laneway houses.
2. Cities can add fire hydrants as more people build laneway housing.
3. Laneways can be plowed with the right dimension plow trucks.
4. Cities can gradually add shorter fire trucks of the kind that are common in European cities.
Problems can be solved with flexible approaches.
The....total fires reported have been decreasing, even as the number of population and structures have been increasing. This does not reflect decreased reporting. From 2012 to 2016 the number of total calls reported – fire and non fire calls has increased from 462,542 incidents reported in 2012 to 494,811 in 2016.
Loss fires are defined as any fire with an injury, fatality or dollar loss reported.
All Loss fires reported have declined from 11,294 in 2012 to 10,844 in 2016.
Structure fires are about 66% (2016) of the total fires with loss.
The graph shows a total decline from 7,496 in 2012 to 7,169 in 2016.
Residential fires account for about 73% (2016) of structure fire losses. These fires have also decreased from 5,440 in 2012 to 5,243 in 2016.
Cooking 2012-2016 - average of 1,281 fires per year, a decline of 9%.
Electrical wiring, outlets, etc. 2012-2016 - average of 636 fires per year, a decline of 14%.
Heating, cooling 2012-2016 - average of 583 fires per year, a decline of 20%.
Cigarettes 2012-2016 - 532 fires per year, a decline of 3%.
Appliances 2012-2016 - 329 fire per year, a decline of 10%.
Back to front page