News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

I would agree that adding a couple small hotels and a few restaurants might be disirable but the majority of the island should remain as parkland. It's a treasure to have a park such as this in the city and it should not be squandered.

There is a lot of brownfield in the Port Lands and lots of opportunity for increased density on major roads throughout the city. The cost to service new neighbourhoods would be greater that increasing density within the city. There are under utilized schools that could be filled before building new ones and underused transit routes that could serve a larger population. I do think a pedestrian bridge would be a welcome addition. For those who want to take the ferry from Harbourfront, that option should remain but being able to walk or ride a bike onto the island would be disirable.
 
This is an interesting discussion. I would side with those saying leave it alone. However, it is under-utilized, and indeed under-promoted as a destination for events and just plain old park use. Improved access is the key here. Build a pedestrian/cyclist bridge to the airport, tunnel under the airport itself, and connect it with the roads/paths on the islands. Make it a circuitous route so that you can bike the islands starting at the foot of Bathurst, returning to the mainland via Cherry (or ferry, if your legs give out). Though I realize bridging the gap between the islands and Cherry St is problematic due to harbour access, I think there are options.

Still, I think this idea could bring a lot more people to the islands, and be a Vancouver Seawall for Toronto. People love the seawall because of its views and the circuitous route-- Toronto has this opportunity, though admittedly not the same views.
 
Would be nice if there was at least an LRT line going to the park, maybe have a bridge on the airport side and a tunnel on the other? That would be so expensive though...
 
The cholera is the least of it. Whenever winter weather disrupts ferry service, island residents can't get to grocery stores, and resort to cannibalism. It's happened three times this year, mild winter notwithstanding. It's a terrible problem.
 
All this talk about the park being "under-utilized" is a bit weird. Have you ever actually been there on a nice day in summer? The park serves, as many parks do in the city, as a substitute cottage / country experience for our large community of people who carn't afford a cottage in Muskoka or who can't take their family to guesthouses. Even so, yes, there are parts of the islands that are not that much occupied, but the idea that because the park is not chock-a-block with people every day, in every weather, is "wasted space", is weird for me. Just leave it alone, great cities also offer places to get away from it all. I've walked in the Bois de Boulogne and not had to watch for too many people, should it be built over? Should we be building over Stanley Park, too?

I wouldn't be opposed to a bridge though, though I find the ferries charming. And yes, the cost to get there ought to be reduced or gotten rid of entirely, but it's not going to happen.
 
What the city should do is construct a bridge to island airport and a bus can take people across and over to the islands.
A vehicle bridge would be very controversial. A pedestrian bridge from near Cherry Street would suffice.

As for development. I'm not sure turning any of the existing green space into other uses is a good idea. But I see nothing wrong with developing the non-green spaces. The park is vastly underused - particularily outside of summer weekends. We need a balance between parks, residents, and businesses ... and this area swings the other way.
 
A vehicle bridge would be very controversial. A pedestrian bridge from near Cherry Street would suffice.

As for development. I'm not sure turning any of the existing green space into other uses is a good idea. But I see nothing wrong with developing the non-green spaces. The park is vastly underused - particularily outside of summer weekends. We need a balance between parks, residents, and businesses ... and this area swings the other way.

I agree, a pedestrian/cycle bridge from Cherry would be nice. As much as I love the ferries (as many do), having them be the only access point is a bother. Try taking one on Labour Day weekend! The crowding is insane. But Archivist is right: calling this park "underutilized" makes little sense. It's thoroughly used, and beloved, as a park. If some of it is emptier than it could be, well, that's parks for you.
 
OP, I understand your logic in putting density on the Island, but I think there's much more gain in keeping it a park instead. All it needs is better mobility, and it can become the Central Park of Toronto.
I'd propose this mobility as links up the straights to Bathurst in the West and Portlands in the East, using LRT bridges that would join up with the Queen's Quay West and Cherry LRTs. These bridges would carry LRTs, which would run in ROWs all across the island, giving people mobility to and through the island. The bridges would also have a bike section, and a large pedestrian section. But for those to work, the Airport and Portlands would need to get redeveloped, the Airport into more of a park area, and Portlands into the pedestrian-friendly residential area it is slated to be. Those LRTs would be a significant travel time improvement to the island, and would be able to provide year-round travel to the island. That starts to open up your possibilities.

Aside from the mobility issue, there's really just a bunch of small things that could make the island nicer. Some general landscaping: better kept grass, more aesthetically pleasing buildings and paths, bigger variety in trees, etc. I think there's also some possibilities for some more stores, namely some restaurants and possibly some cafes. I think beachside restaurants would be a good draw, and some cafes at either end of the island on the LRT roads, to give people some place to go quickly (a CBD worker's lunch break, for example.) I think that some places could have some residential buildings, like one or two small streets with 3/4 story shop-apartments. I think as a street just off a LRT, it'd be good in a couple ways. Firstly, it helps maximize the amount of people that can live a relatively secluded, rural-feeling city life, assuming it keeps with the aesthetics. It'd also mean that there's always going to be someone there, which could make it feel less deserted. When I imagine this, I'm thinking the main street of some small European town in the middle of a forest, but as long as the aesthetics make it feel isolated, it'd work fine.

As for where the other density will go, there's Portlands sitting right next to the islands, which are just as unused and lifeless as the island is, which is a lie because the island actually gets tonnes of use, while the Portlands are basically grass lots doing nothing. I don't think Portlands should be getting really high density though, more of a slew of mid-rise condos. High density wouldn't work there. I think that in terms of a waterfront areas, high rises would work the best either on the Leslie Spit or lining Humber Bay. Leslie spit could be interesting, with maybe some reserved parkland near the middle of the spit, with tall skyscrapers at the end.

The waterfront's definitely an interesting place for the future of the city, but I think it'd be better if it all built around a Toronto Island park instead of residential community. The biggest thing I can think of is those two bridges and LRT, supported by nicer areas in the Portlands and Toronto Airport.
 
I'm sorry but that's the worst idea I've ever heard. What a treasure of an oasis. I'm a Ward's Island man myself (best beach in Toronto, by FAR) and so I don't frequent the rest of the islands but I don't understand why it's a bad thing to have such a wonderful park right downtown. Also, assuming it is under-utilised, why is this necessarily a bad thing?

I don't know about hotels either. There's a handful of B+Bs on Ward's.

I'd also like to add that its seclusion is what makes it so attractive. Not everywhere has to be a cheek-by-jowl, put your blanket on top of mine, sardine fest a la Woodbine Beach.
 
As for where the other density will go, there's Portlands sitting right next to the islands, which are just as unused and lifeless as the island is, .

You've clearly never been to Cherry Beach on any week-end between April and October.
 
I'm sorry but that's the worst idea I've ever heard. What a treasure of an oasis. I'm a Ward's Island man myself (best beach in Toronto, by FAR) and so I don't frequent the rest of the islands but I don't understand why it's a bad thing to have such a wonderful park right downtown.

Rooughly, where on Ward's is the great beach?
 
You've clearly never been to Cherry Beach on any week-end between April and October.
Then you've clearly never been to the Island on any week-end between April and October then? The beach may be popular and get a lot of people, but Portlands is quite desolate in terms of anything else.
 
There's a field. A pitch just as you head off the ferry, slightly to the left. Behind it (so, to the south) is a washroom building and to the right, south of the boardwalk is Toronto's greatest beach. Amazing sand. Low wind. Barely any people most of the time. I didn't know it was a secret, but that would explain why it's not absolutely packed with people. It really is the best beach in the Toronto area, by far. The sand is perfect.

++++
I don't know....T+T is pretty bumping, but I now know what you originally meant.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top