[JacksonYodels]

Thank you for the summary !! Sorry any details on what university park is referring too ?

I would assume it’s this:

Reimagining an Ontario icon

Take a look at our vision for this revitalization project which will amalgamate several patches of public green space into a signature destination.

universitypark.evergreen.ca

Also, the DRP meeting is up on YouTube, so anyone can watch it. Pretty disappointing to be honest, there was very little real criticism. I got the sense the members barely looked at the project, and were taken in by a few buzz words.

 

[Northern Light]

Thank you for the summary !!

You're Welcome

Sorry any details on what university park is referring too ?

@JacksonYodels has you on that w/the link above.

But the long/short is an idea to remove Queen's Park West, then to remove the University Avenue Median and consolidate the space to the NB/East Sidewalk which would be greened up as park space College to Queen.

 

[Toux]

I would assume it’s this:

Reimagining an Ontario icon

Take a look at our vision for this revitalization project which will amalgamate several patches of public green space into a signature destination.

universitypark.evergreen.ca

Also, the DRP meeting is up on YouTube, so anyone can watch it. Pretty disappointing to be honest, there was very little real criticism. I got the sense the members barely looked at the project, and were taken in by a few buzz words.

Suggesting the panel "barely looked" at the material is a disservice to them. Multiple points during the meeting panel members commented on how clear the presented material was, which made their review easier. The conversation that followed made it clear they were well versed in the components of the design.

That said... I would also disagree that there was very little real criticism here. It was there - albeit not always 100% clear - and the requirement to reconsider the programming (i.e. to address (remove) the tree walk...) is a clear indication that there was in fact criticism of the current design. The tree walk is one example... there were others, like the memorial garden, placement of the statue, etc.

I chalk their support (with conditions) up to a couple of things.

1. this is, current design aside, an exciting, big project for the city. They want to express support for such an opportunity.
2. there is likely some politicking to this as well... a couple of times, the donation / philanthropy aspect of the project was brought up. This is something the city needs more of, and wants to encourage, so to reject or be overtly critical of a design that the donor clearly supports would be a bad look.

I think the vote and its conditions was a clear sign that things are moving in the right direction, broadly speaking, and that there is enthusiasm for the project.

It will be interesting to see what comes of the programming reconsideration...

But being disappointed that they didn't rip this apart is an odd take, in my opinion. It has good bones - unlike so many things that the DRP typically gets to review.

 

[Northern Light]

Suggesting the panel "barely looked" at the material is a disservice to them. Multiple points during the meeting panel members commented on how clear the presented material was, which made their review easier. The conversation that followed made it clear they were well versed in the components of the design.

That said... I would also disagree that there was very little real criticism here. It was there - albeit not always 100% clear - and the requirement to reconsider the programming (i.e. to address (remove) the tree walk...) is a clear indication that there was in fact criticism of the current design. The tree walk is one example... there were others, like the memorial garden, placement of the statue, etc.

I chalk their support (with conditions) up to a couple of things.

1. this is, current design aside, an exciting, big project for the city. They want to express support for such an opportunity.
2. there is likely some politicking to this as well... a couple of times, the donation / philanthropy aspect of the project was brought up. This is something the city needs more of, and wants to encourage, so to reject or be overtly critical of a design that the donor clearly supports would be a bad look.

I think the vote and its conditions was a clear sign that things are moving in the right direction, broadly speaking, and that there is enthusiasm for the project.

It will be interesting to see what comes of the programming reconsideration...

But being disappointed that they didn't rip this apart is an odd take, in my opinion. It has good bones - unlike so many things that the DRP typically gets to review.

I get your take above, and agree in part.

I do think the fact that no one touched on the water feature struck me as well and truly odd. I consider it a design fail; but no one really stepped into it, or endorsed it.

I think the University Park thing, which the City is clearly avoiding discussing needs more discussion, in that it may impact grade levels at the south-west corner of the park. The University's regrettable choice to put parking under front campus, and the entrance to same via Wellesley severe impacts the ability to remove vehicle traffic at that corner.

The real Taddle Creek cannot be revived as it is fully intermixed with sanitary sewer, but any intent as discussed in the UP proposal of a partially reinstated ravine would involve a material grade change.

 

[JacksonYodels]

Suggesting the panel "barely looked" at the material is a disservice to them. Multiple points during the meeting panel members commented on how clear the presented material was, which made their review easier. The conversation that followed made it clear they were well versed in the components of the design.

That said... I would also disagree that there was very little real criticism here. It was there - albeit not always 100% clear - and the requirement to reconsider the programming (i.e. to address (remove) the tree walk...) is a clear indication that there was in fact criticism of the current design. The tree walk is one example... there were others, like the memorial garden, placement of the statue, etc.

I chalk their support (with conditions) up to a couple of things.

1. this is, current design aside, an exciting, big project for the city. They want to express support for such an opportunity.
2. there is likely some politicking to this as well... a couple of times, the donation / philanthropy aspect of the project was brought up. This is something the city needs more of, and wants to encourage, so to reject or be overtly critical of a design that the donor clearly supports would be a bad look.

I think the vote and its conditions was a clear sign that things are moving in the right direction, broadly speaking, and that there is enthusiasm for the project.

It will be interesting to see what comes of the programming reconsideration...

But being disappointed that they didn't rip this apart is an odd take, in my opinion. It has good bones - unlike so many things that the DRP typically gets to review.

I’m not disappointed they didn’t rip it apart, I am disappointed because it was quite obvious the review committee did not have a true variety of opinions. All of it seemed of the same positive tone, very little was thought through, and it was quite obvious no one on the panel had frequently used the park. At best they had walked through it once or twice and were offering huge generalizations on it. And their critiques were all pretty surface level.

And when I say this, I say it as a frequent user of the park. There are parts of this park that need improvement- parts that are simply not mentioned at all. The entire north end, the entire south end. What is the interface to Queens Park like? How can the interface up to the Rom and Yorkville be improved?

Not a mention of the various aspects of safety that should be addressed. From dealing with homeless encampments to proposing to enclose the running track with bushes - a nightmare for anyone at night.

To me it felt like a strange cheerleading exercise likely amongst a design community that knows each other well. It did not serve the public interest, and none of the criticisms that are quite obvious to the public seemed at all evident to the committee.

Seriously, it’s a park they want to cover half of it up in bushes. And there was not a single voice on that committee questioning that? That’s not useful. Neither is questing the tree walk - everyone and their mother knows that’s a bad idea. What is all of their professional knowledge bringing? It was not evident: