News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.6K     0 
To add to the above, in addition to the 50M in capital, the Westons will be contributing 2.15M per year, every year, for 20 years for maintenance.

That's 43M, for a total contribution of 93M here.

Its curious to me that they went this route. If they donated 40M all at once, in a Conservancy, it spins off 1M per year, forever (roughly based on average ROI after inflation).

But, if you do that and don't spend it for 20 years (assuming this were for major work which won't be required when everything has just been renewed), you could easily double that, and provide 2M or more per year, forever.
 
...still not turning Queen's Park Crescent W. into pedestrian muse? I would like to cross over to Queens Park from that direction at some point in my life without getting ran over.
 
...still not turning Queen's Park Crescent W. into pedestrian muse? I would like to cross over to Queens Park from that direction at some point in my life without getting ran over.

Just write to the Westons and ask nicely if they'll fund University Park, phase 1. The City and I might differ on the numbers, but I'll say it can be delivered for 200M. That's less than 1/2 the family's typical investment growth in a year.
 
Last edited:
Just write to the Westons and ask nicely if they'll fund University Park, phase 1. The City and I might differ on the numbers, but I'll say it can be delivered for 200M. That's less than 1/2 the family's typical investment growth in a year.

And what about the Thomsons? I can't recall any public realm projects they've donated to.
 
And what about the Thomsons? I can't recall any public realm projects they've donated to.

Valid point, but it strikes me that its not something that excites that family.

The Westons are interested in the environment, and aesthetics and active living.

The Thomsons are interested in art, and healthcare in particular.

Since we can't force people to donate, we kind of have to meet them where there interests lie.
 
Didn't have time to stay for the presentation, but here are some snaps of the posters
20260305_181846.jpg
20260305_181934.jpg
20260305_181936.jpg
20260305_181936.jpg
20260305_181939.jpg
20260305_181956.jpg
20260305_182103.jpg
20260305_182109.jpg
20260305_182136.jpg
20260305_182157.jpg
20260305_182221.jpg
20260305_182239.jpg
20260305_182241.jpg
1000035077.jpg
 
A couple of notes from me:

First, on the goofy Tree Canopy walk, take a look the angle/size:

1772811364970.png


The entire thing is the climb, which gets you to nowhere near the canopy, and then you zigzag right down again. I honestly can't believe we are wasting money on this idea. Sigh.

Shim Sutcliffe have been brought in to design the cafe.

In terms of what's changed, this can be found in the current survey:

1772810626892.png


1772810644003.png


Summation: More lawn, less nature; and minus the kiosk.

*****

1772810789318.png


* the use of the term phases here is incorrect. Read this as 'existing' on left, first proposal in the middle, current proposal on right.

They're still getting it wrong. They're attempting to make a structured, historical, legislative district park, look 'organic'. No sale.

1772810955309.png

1772811067466.png


1772811108617.png

The above, enlarged:

1772811216130.png

1772811262736.png


1772811306935.png


Back to the Tree Walk:

1772811422115.png

1772811489836.png

1772811526235.png


Con't in next post
 
1772812456130.png

1772812492397.png

I can't express how much I loathe this idea. Its simply not appropriate to this space, it lacks any sense of grandeur or historicity.

It does not relate anything about the Canadian Shield except that some of it was damaged to bring this rock south to Toronto.

This park is also not in the Canadian Shield, and trying to make it look otherwise (badly) does not connect one to nature. This is a way to burn money.

1772812673120.png

1772812696882.png


To provide input, this is the link to the above survey:


It closes April 2nd.
 
There is....a *lot*....going on here. I use this park daily, it's my "backyard" and I'm looking at the renders and just wondering how and when - not if - all of those busy, fussy, and in my opinion completely superfluous, overdesigned, tacky, and unnecessary features are going to be degraded, vandalized, neglected and abused in true Toronto fashion. In the summer, for example, there are at least six or seven encampments in the park at any given time, multiple protests, ad-hoc raves and any other number of things that are going to collide head-on with - I'll be blunt - the completely naive, overly academic and vacuum-sealed vision of the park outlined here, one that is divorced from reality. I can't even imagine how long some of that park furniture is going to last when, as happened last summer, some guys in an encampment starting actually putting up plywood and *stealing power* from one of the lampposts to the point where they were building a quasi-favela.

Everything I'm seeing here is a solution in search of a problem.

The park, as it is, works *very* well aside from issues I'll mention below. It's minimalist and, most importantly, practical, as thousands of students and residents have to "commute" through it each and every day. Fussing with that will cause problems (I can see ad-hoc desire paths form everywhere if existing walkways from one side to the other to U of T are in any way obstructed. I remember basically racing through that park to go from a class at UC to one at Vic. I suspect that hasn't changed in thirty years).

Unless this park is maintained by a kind of Central Park Conservancy quasi-private workforce of multiple daily cleans and repairs, I can predict the following:

- the treewalk will be tagged and coffee cups, dog shit bags, drug paraphernalia and other crap left everywhere
- the water features will probably be broken and used for...other purposes...by "local characters"
- any of those chairs and tables that aren't bolted down will disappear, or be thrown and smashed in random places and be covered in graffiti; I feel sorry for any cleaning crew who has to show up on a Monday morning in the summer. I walk by this park to work and can attest that in the summer months it is a constant mess that the Parks Department can *barely* keep up with; add thousands more people spontaneously picnicking, etc. and that park basically needs people sweeping trash all day to keep up with it; all those nooks and crannies and random surfaces in the renders will just be another place for people to leave crap everywhere, this isn't Japan
- a cafe for what, exactly? Just another garbage generator and how is it serviced? Who maintains it? Think of all the deliveries a Tim Hortons or Starbucks needs on a daily basis, at least a few truckloads worth. Where are the loading facilities for this? How do supply trucks backing in and out add to anything? How quickly are the washrooms going to be closed off? If you want a preview of this go to the 7-11 at Bay and St. Joseph and see for yourself.
- those benches next to the running trail...eh... I see bad things happening there if people aren't paying attention. The runners there do *not* yield for anyone.

There's too much "there", there, like a committee was struck to look for problems, found them, and are throwing everything at the wall in an attempt to "fix" things. Spruce up a few things at the margins, sure, but this is just ridiculous overkill. Within five years many if not most of its elements will have to be fixed or upgraded or removed, essentially a parks version of the ROM. But hey, it's the Westons' money, use it or lose it I guess.
 
Everything I'm seeing here is a solution in search of a problem.

In general, I lean towards this view. I think there are a couple of good bits.....but much of the design is over-wrought, inappropriate and unnecessary. Better to spend on quality over quantity.

Unless this park is maintained by a kind of Central Park Conservancy quasi-private workforce of multiple daily cleans and repairs, I can predict the following:

The University of Toronto will have a role in the park governance and be responsible for 'enhanced maintenance'

The Westons are providing ~2M per year for maintenance for the first 20 years.

- the treewalk will be tagged and coffee cups, dog shit bags, drug paraphernalia and other crap left everywhere
- the water features will probably be broken and used for...other purposes...by "local characters"
- any of those chairs and tables that aren't bolted down will disappear, or be thrown and smashed in random places and be covered in graffiti; I feel sorry for any cleaning crew who has to show up on a Monday morning in the summer. I walk by this park to work and can attest that in the summer months it is a constant mess that the Parks Department can *barely* keep up with; add thousands more people spontaneously picnicking, etc. and that park basically needs people sweeping trash all day to keep up with it; all those nooks and crannies and random surfaces in the renders will just be another place for people to leave crap everywhere, this isn't Japan
- a cafe for what, exactly? Just another garbage generator and how is it serviced? Who maintains it? Think of all the deliveries a Tim Hortons or Starbucks needs on a daily basis, at least a few truckloads worth. Where are the loading facilities for this? How do supply trucks backing in and out add to anything? How quickly are the washrooms going to be closed off? If you want a preview of this go to the 7-11 at Bay and St. Joseph and see for yourself.
- those benches next to the running trail...eh... I see bad things happening there if people aren't paying attention. The runners there do *not* yield for anyone.

I'm not quite as negative as you, I would point out that all of the original tables and chairs in Love Park are still there more than 2 years later.

But I agree, the proposal is over-programmed, and wrongly programmed.

PS, Don't forget to fill out the survey I linked in my post and provide your input.
 
I may have shared this previously on this or another thread, but to @Northern Light's point about the viability of patio seating, I got an interesting anecdote from a U of T bigwig a little while ago: before the Landmark project, they ran a little test case on patio seating because they wanted to provide it in and around that area but weren't sure of the cost implications of having to replace stolen furniture. So they ran a test to get data.

They put out a bunch of movable chairs for a few months and kept track of how many walked off and left the area, then took stock of the replacement cost. The upshot was that the cost was negligible, and the chairs seemed extremely well used by people moving them around to seek sun or join in with others in a group. That gave them the confidence to move forward with the plan for movable seating as a part of the Landmark Project that we now see very successfully implemented.

IMG_5562.jpeg
 

Back
Top