News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

Unfortunately, Toronto occupies the second half of the list of world megapolises ranked by a percentage of public green space. So, there is something to improve yet.


While I want to see lots more parkland in Toronto this list is comically wrong.

It states NYC is 27% parkland. I knew there was zero chance of that.................

So I looked it up......

According to New York City......

The number is 14%

https://www.nycgovparks.org/about

The City to which we are most compared in North America is Chicago which is ~8% parkland.

******

I took at look at some of the numbers on that list a bit closer............

I see they included National, State/Provincial Parks as well as things like 'exhibition grounds' and many other questionable spaces.

******

The 13% cited for Toronto does not include Rouge National Park which would bump Toronto's number to ~16%

Ok, I believe kids will be happy if we do not include their playgrounds in public green space. Let them have their own standard per capita. Then we can deal with many of those parks with an area of fewer than 1.5 acres.

There are many different ways to calculate parkland metrics.

I do think its useful to divide parks into roughly 4 categories.

1) Large Natural Spaces

2) Sports/Recreation Parks

3) Playgrounds/Neighbourhood Parks (a space of 3-5 acres, a playground, some running around room, some benches, some flowers, perhaps 1 small sports amenity like a tennis court.)

4) Small signature spaces. These are the under 2 acre parks that dot dense urban areas. Little oasis of green in the midst of the urban area. Often formal in nature, more hardscape, art, fountains, flowers, no sports amenities or nature of scale.

I'm not aware of any uniform standards for all of the above to easily compare one place with another.
 
In terms of parkland need.

If Toronto were to maintain the current amount of parkland per person (28m2), with the population growing to 4,000,000

It would require 3,000 hectares of additional parks.

Or roughly an additional 4.5% of the City's total area.
 
In terms of parkland need.

If Toronto were to maintain the current amount of parkland per person (28m2), with the population growing to 4,000,000

It would require 3,000 hectares of additional parks.

Or roughly an additional 4.5% of the City's total area.
What if Toronto were to describe all feasible ravine lands as urban woodland natural areas ? Maybe this has been done, or is in the works. Northern Light, you are much more knowlegible than I.
 
What if Toronto were to describe all feasible ravine lands as urban woodland natural areas ? Maybe this has been done, or is in the works. Northern Light, you are much more knowlegible than I.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Are you suggesting including what are now private golf courses in the parks calculation?

Ravine lands that are literally someone's backyard?

****

I think if we're talking about parkland, the standard certainly involves some measure of public accessibility.

One can certainly talk about % tree canopy or % permeable land etc and include private property in those statistics.

But that doesn't seem appropriate for private land that one could not legally access.
 
I'm not sure what you mean here.

Are you suggesting including what are now private golf courses in the parks calculation?

Ravine lands that are literally someone's backyard?

****

I think if we're talking about parkland, the standard certainly involves some measure of public accessibility.

One can certainly talk about % tree canopy or % permeable land etc and include private property in those statistics.

But that doesn't seem appropriate for private land that one could not legally access.
You're right about the private land , but it still doesn't negate the fact that the ravines are a wonderful feature of the Toronto landscape worth preserving. I wonder how many golf courses there are in the ravine system and if they block public trails. I also hope they're careful with pesticides which include herbicides.
 
You're right about the private land , but it still doesn't negate the fact that the ravines are a wonderful feature of the Toronto landscape worth preserving. I wonder how many golf courses there are in the ravine system and if they block public trails. I also hope they're careful with pesticides which include herbicides.

The Toronto Ravine Protection By-Law includes private lands, and covers 17% of Toronto's land area.

About 6% total is publicly owned as parks, the rest is private/institutional/commercial etc.

****

Golf Courses:

There are a dozen or so privately-owned courses in the City; though Royal Woodbine is entirely on TRCA lands if I recall.

There are 5 City owned and operated courses

Plus Etobicoke Centennial (City owned, but privately operated)

They vary in size, so I can't quote an exact number, but they tend to be around 50ha or so each; some smaller, some larger.

So they cover something like 600ha/1,500 acres of land.

Not all of that is floodplain/ravine mind you; but a fair-sized chunk would be.
 
Last edited:
I can't say I want to see this in a public park.

Its an indoor facility, which to me is not a park.

Its also more of an amusement park than say a recreation centre.
Excuse me; I wrote: "As there are no open water spaces, it could be working a year-round water park in the best-case scenario."

I didn't suggest substituting green space with a water entertainment facility. Instead, I have just offered to build a water park for city inhabitants and families with children in the area suffering from a lack of green spaces and bodies of open water.

I would want to emphasize that people who live in the city should not take their properties for granted. A modern city like Toronto can't afford to be a solid, unchangeable structure of streets and single-family houses given for ages. The city is a growing and changeable body that should chase the wellness and comfort of its population. What's more, the existing matrix of zoning and a building format seems to be out of date. In my opinion, the city should change the policy to transform the urban area (say GTA) into high-rise urban centers surrounded by mid-rise and following green belts interconnected with LRT. As a basic principle, all new one or two-story construction of private houses should be moved away to a rural area. A personal car as a means of transport should gradually be disappearing from our life and be replaced by thought-out public transit and delivery service. Now we have some high-rise areas, but mid-rise development (the core of the urban development) is still in the embryo state. It deadly gripped by the net of parcels of private properties with garages' doors as a front of the house and often unused backyards. Therefore, we have population density in GTA 4-5 times less than in the most developed world capitals and a shortage of green space. That means that the currently developed area 4-5 times more extensive than it supposes to be, we lose 80% of ground for parks, transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities. If we leave things as they are, we never solve the problem of large parks and corridors for cycling and transit infrastructure as well as accommodation of the projected population growth. Instead, we will keep running along the stumbling sidewalks, riding our bikes across patched asphalt laid around of catch basins' grills, and swallow dust of time. Development of the future requires bringing to the table the meaning of beauty. Doing only practical things leads to rising topics like the one we are discussing here. Without things that catch our eyes because they are pleasant and sightly, it is hard to redefine the current design standards. When we start designing beautiful and gorgeous buildings, trade and entertainment centers, and parks, urban life will change for the better obviously.
 
Last edited:
Therefore, we have population density in GTA 4-5 times less than in the most developed world capitals and a shortage of green space.

This is not accurate.

Yes, Toronto can and should be more dense in many sections, particularly in light of the growth we're seeing.

But for the record.

Toronto has a population density of 4,750 per km2.

Berlin, Germany has a population density of: 4,048 per km2
Rome, Italy has a population density of 2,236 per km2
Chicago, U.S. has a population density of 4,572 per km2
Sydney, Aus has a population density of 1,900 per km2

Even 2 of the world's largest Cities are nowhere near as dense as 4x Toronto

Greater London, UK is 5,700 per km2
Tokyo Prefecture, Japan is 6,200 per km2

*****

That said.........

This thread is not about population density
Nor is it about the general need for more parkland (though I certainly support that).
This thread is focused on flaws in park design; and how to make existing (or proposed) parks better.
Perhaps we could get back to that.
 
Last edited:
This thread is focused on flaws in park design; and how to make existing (or proposed) parks better.
I'll give two pictures here and ask which of the fountains do you like more?

1624211403986.png
E4Vw_oOWUAMSfZZ.jpg
 

Keeping in mind that I haven't see this park in person, nor heard any expression of its intent.............

My first reactions are these:

1) Good news, the trees are pretty healthy

2) Bad news, someone confused a tree nursery with a park.

I mean I really do want to applaud the tree health...............but at first blush the space seems neither inviting, nor like there's any reason to really be there.

I see very little seating, what's there doesn't look comfortable................

Hmmm, first I fetched an aerial photo:

1625196110919.png


Just No.

I mean this respectfully, but the path system looks like it was designed by someone with ADHD ( my best friend has ADHD, I'm not making light of it).........there's just a level of .......hyper line drawing w/o evidence of a reason.

The park feels sparse, and like it would lack any winter interest........

***

OMG..........I have the answer.............


The designers of June Callwood Park...............Gh3 are behind this.................

FFS

Looking at 25 St. Mary, they apparently have really talented architects on staff...............but they should be let nowhere near park design, EVER, again.

***according to the renders on the link I offered above, there is supposed to be some table + chair seating

But if its there, you can't see it in your pictures.

At the end of the day the space doesn't look inviting at all.

It doesn't convey warmth or beauty, or invitation.

Nor does it appear to manage 4-season interest......

And again w/the @#$# gravel!

*****

For clarity, I've decided that this is a good example of problematic park design! LOL
 
Last edited:
***according to the renders on the link I offered above, there is supposed to be some table + chair seating

But if its there, you can't see it in your pictures.

At the end of the day the space doesn't look inviting at all.

It doesn't convey warmth or beauty, or invitation.

Nor does it appear to manage 4-season interest......

And again w/the @#$# gravel!

*****

For clarity, I've decided that this is a good example of problematic park design! LOL
I think everything is simple. Tables and chair sitting are missing because they should be secured to prevent them from disappearing at nighttime. And that would be ridiculous to chain up them, right? So, again - design for the sake of innovation. It might have been that the chairs were even delivered but are now keeping in storage.

May I say something daring?
Most people judge and distinguish a good park design from a problematic one and feel where one wants to be and not. Now everyone knows that Gh3 promotes quite a strange park design principles. Gh3 was allowed even to reproduce them. Maybe we are blind and don't see a unique, gorgeous design style, or should we suspect any wrongdoing? Why should that leave scars on the face of the city? Are there other design firms that can be questioned similarly? Will the community ever get a chance to hear from them or from the city to explain why things go like this? How to get feedback from the city? Will we have an opportunity to do that, or, overwise, it all turns to blow off some steam?

Here is another example. This below is a view of Lawren Harris Square. In the middle of the picture, we can see a bench. This bench quite obviously mounted on a slope. I believe that it is not comfortable to sit on this bench. All this place with those black tree pots, gravel floor, and the falling bench looks like a field for wrong experiments... Why does this bench look like a ship deck at a storm? Even mountain climbers at the height of 10000ft always try to find a flat surface to accommodate their tents. I tried to determine whether it is prohibited to install any seatings on a slope or not, and I couldn't find any information. That is just not mentioned anywhere globally. I can assume that this is because such a question even is not considered. The position of a hip of any human being at an angle to a backbone is unnatural, harmful, leads to rapid fatigue, and can be only temporary while doing work, sport, fight, etc., and never for resting. Although it can be seen as an exaggeration, in fact, that bench, gravel, any thoughtless design is a direct waste of our tax money.

It seems to me, as new for Toronto, while there are many positive things, some of them look abnormal, like those deserted new parks. Meanwhile, there are enough standards, policies, rules, planning organizations, societies, conferences, famous urban designers, and landscaping architects. That means something doesn't work right. What is the root of the problem?

Does anybody know and can share how urban design issues address countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland?

Too many questions.

We can waste our lives chasing nothing or making the city better for living in reality by addressing questions directly to someone responsible. Maybe next time they will think twice.




1625281491705.png
 
I mean this respectfully, but the path system looks like it was designed by someone with ADHD ( my best friend has ADHD, I'm not making light of it).........there's just a level of .......hyper line drawing w/o evidence of a reason.

I wonder if it's to give the appearance of accessibility and access from the parking lots, in an area that has been traditionally auto-centric.
 
I wonder if it's to give the appearance of accessibility and access from the parking lots, in an area that has been traditionally auto-centric.

While possible; I doubt it.

In the photo above, I count 18 different, apparent paths that all intersect a relatively small parking lot, and there may be more out of photo.

That's an average one every few feet.

But many of those paths are narrow, to the point of being inaccessible to someone using a mobility aid, or pushing a stroller (barely 1M wide)

I can't really ascribe a motive or design intent here, perhaps I could find it on the design website in a brief.

But it feels as though it were designed for how it would look from above, rather than how it would function.
 

Back
Top