[MisterF]

There's also precedents for parks, and not just "parks." Menkes is building a condo on top of the park and rose garden at Park Home & Yonge in North York, and it's not just some dead grass with mud pathways formed by people cutting across it. The city could have bought and saved the site but it's probably worth over $30M, so it never happened and now a condo will be built on top of half the park.

Was that a municipal park or a privately owned property that people referred to as a park? If it was the latter it was indeed a "park" in the way I meant it. My poing being simply that even if a private company makes a vacant lot available for the public to use, there's nothing stopping them from developing it later on. But I'm not aware of the city selling off any municipal parks for development.

 

[cdr108]

Was that a municipal park or a privately owned property that people referred to as a park? If it was the latter it was indeed a "park" in the way I meant it. My poing being simply that even if a private company makes a vacant lot available for the public to use, there's nothing stopping them from developing it later on. But I'm not aware of the city selling off any municipal parks for development.

that was PRIVATE property, which the owner turned into a rose garden and allowed the public access.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Was that a municipal park or a privately owned property that people referred to as a park? If it was the latter it was indeed a "park" in the way I meant it. My poing being simply that even if a private company makes a vacant lot available for the public to use, there's nothing stopping them from developing it later on. But I'm not aware of the city selling off any municipal parks for development.

Technically, you'd consider it a "park," but it's not just a patch of dead grass...it has flowers and trees and sculptures. Even though it is privately owned, it would have stayed a real park, a permanently accessible, privately owned, municipally maintained (I think) park, had the proposed office tower gone up next to it. People, the city, the developer, everyone acknowledges that it is parkland in every sense other than legal ownership, and not just grass or green space. When it comes time to find interim uses for sites, a patch of dead grass is one thing, missed only by those who cry for every bit of paved paradise or who used it to shave 5 seconds off their walking trips, but an actual rose garden and park is another. I'm not aware of anyone trying to halt the development of the dead grass at Bay & Dundas, but people did try to rescue the park and rose garden, including the local councillor. A main difference is that it was never slated for development and it took ownership and rezoning changes to threaten the park.

Yeah, as long as the city doesn't own it, it might theoretically get developed one day, 'and there's nothing we can do about it,' but we need to distinguish between rather explicitly temporary "parks" like the dead grass at Bay & Dundas and whatever could get built at 1 Bloor (even it's the 1 Bloor East Botanical Gardens & Butterfly Conservatory) with ostensibly permanent parks that unexpectedly fall prey to development over time through municipal unwillingness or inability to fight for them...the city could have bought the site or denied approval or worked out some agreement, but didn't. The goal with 1 Bloor, should anything beyond a parking lot be built, is to avoid, as Ramako says, a future stink, and the best way to avoid future stinks is to not bother building a "park" and stick with a park[ing lot]. And, yes, it can be important to avoid stinks.

 

[SimonP]

In downtown Ottawa the site of the third phase of Constitution Square was a very nice park for over a decade. There were benches, trees, flowers, etc. and it was a popular place for lunching office workers. When the market improved the developers decided to build. I don't recall there being any problems with the park disappearing.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

In downtown Ottawa the site of the third phase of Constitution Square was a very nice park for over a decade. There were benches, trees, flowers, etc. and it was a popular place for lunching office workers. When the market improved the developers decided to build. I don't recall there being any problems with the park disappearing.

And there may be no problem with razing the 1 Bloor East Botanical Gardens & Butterfly Conservatory if everyone keeps in mind that the temporary public space created is just that, temporary...a huge "FUTURE SITE OF X" billboard would help.

 

[tomms]

.

 

[Solaris]

thank you tomms for sharing this first-hand info ... sure beats all the "my friend heard ..." rumours out there ~

much appreciated !!

 

[tomms]

no worries, i know its not news, but i wanted to share it anyways.

on a side note, i really need to work on those scanning skills

 

[41stfloor]

^Couldn't they think of a date other than September 11th for the sign-back of the release? That's really tasteless in the context of a tall tower.

I think this thread will need a new name now.

 

[MisterF]

Yeah, as long as the city doesn't own it, it might theoretically get developed one day, 'and there's nothing we can do about it,' but we need to distinguish between rather explicitly temporary "parks" like the dead grass at Bay & Dundas and whatever could get built at 1 Bloor (even it's the 1 Bloor East Botanical Gardens & Butterfly Conservatory) with ostensibly permanent parks that unexpectedly fall prey to development over time through municipal unwillingness or inability to fight for them...the city could have bought the site or denied approval or worked out some agreement, but didn't. The goal with 1 Bloor, should anything beyond a parking lot be built, is to avoid, as Ramako says, a future stink, and the best way to avoid future stinks is to not bother building a "park" and stick with a park[ing lot]. And, yes, it can be important to avoid stinks.

Any private park can be developed, even if it seems permanent. When it's already zoned and has approval for a skyscraper, it's inevitable. Sure the city could buy the property but it wouldn't be cheap. For a site that's not already approved, the city could deny approval, or even unilateraly rezone the property but I don't see that surviving an OMB hearing - you can't arbitrarily deny someone the right to build on their property. The city can guide development but it can't prevent it altogether. These are the kinds of things councillors sometimes forget.

The only private parks that are relatively safe (other than in places you can't build anyway like floodplains) are sites where the open space is spelled out in a development agreement, zoning provisions, heritage designation, etc. Even then, the first two can be changed fairly easily.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Any private park can be developed, even if it seems permanent. When it's already zoned and has approval for a skyscraper, it's inevitable. Sure the city could buy the property but it wouldn't be cheap. For a site that's not already approved, the city could deny approval, or even unilateraly rezone the property but I don't see that surviving an OMB hearing - you can't arbitrarily deny someone the right to build on their property. The city can guide development but it can't prevent it altogether. These are the kinds of things councillors sometimes forget.

The only private parks that are relatively safe (other than in places you can't build anyway like floodplains) are sites where the open space is spelled out in a development agreement, zoning provisions, heritage designation, etc. Even then, the first two can be changed fairly easily.

And for the park at Yonge & Park Home, it was completely safe for such reasons, until an ownership change followed by rezoning made it unsafe...if the Imperial Oil HQ had been built as planned, it would have been just a permanent park, instead of a permanent park with a condo plopped down on the middle of it. It wasn't inevitable.

If anything interim other than a parking lot gets built on the 1 Bloor site, though, even if it's just a few benches, it'll be private space being 'given' to the public and then, inevitably, taken away. Might as well not bother, particularly since it seems Great Gulf may launch something soon.

 

[MisterF]

And for the park at Yonge & Park Home, it was completely safe for such reasons, until an ownership change followed by rezoning made it unsafe...if the Imperial Oil HQ had been built as planned, it would have been just a permanent park, instead of a permanent park with a condo plopped down on the middle of it. It wasn't inevitable.

If anything interim other than a parking lot gets built on the 1 Bloor site, though, even if it's just a few benches, it'll be private space being 'given' to the public and then, inevitably, taken away. Might as well not bother, particularly since it seems Great Gulf may launch something soon.

So it wasn't really safe at all, which was my point. I wasn't saying it was inevitable at Yonge and Park Home, I was saying it's inevitable at 1 Bloor.

Ultimately an interim use at 1 Bloor, if any, is up to Great Gulf.

 

[p5connex]

Yeah, those scans are only here-say. Now here is some real news.
So my friend heard that they are going to be building a building here. I also have a close acquaintance whose is somehow connected to the project, but wants to remain anonymous, who mentioned that this is a sure deal. Furthermore, I know this guy who was close to the development team, who knows the owner of the site, who mentioned that they are going to be working hard to make this building a reality and it will be of stellar status. Can't wait!

p5

 

[gregdavismail]

hehe... and I heard that it will have windows and a top floor. This was from somebody very close to the new project.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

So it wasn't really safe at all, which was my point. I wasn't saying it was inevitable at Yonge and Park Home, I was saying it's inevitable at 1 Bloor.

Ultimately an interim use at 1 Bloor, if any, is up to Great Gulf.

Yes, I know what you were saying. If the city permitted an ostensibly permanent park up Yonge to fall to a condo, (as part of the deal, most of the park not sitting under the condo will be turned over to the city, adding to the part of the park that the city previously took a 999 year lease out on to complement an adjacent heritage property...money and will prevented additional parkland from being acquired), they certainly would do nothing and would not really be able to do anything to save an explicitly temporary park on the 1 Bloor site.

Everyone knows a new tower could get underway almost immediately, yet if any public space was built in the interim, given things like all the talk of how great a square/piazza would be at the 1 Bloor site and Torontonians' increasing concern about issues like public space, it's more likely that a stink is raised than we collectively say "So long, and thanks for all the temporary sod." The point is that we don't want a stink...we want a great skyscraper and not delays and futile debates. Hopefully, there will be no interim use, if no interim use is a sign of sooner construction.