I think the essence of our disagreement over this issue is a conflation of land and design. I am arguing that the City should grab whatever land it can, whenever it can, for parkland. The reason is that cities work on 100 or 1,000 year time horizons during which governments change, designs change, technologies change, trends change, etc. But land is land and once the City owns a park, I hope we can agree that it should never sell it and that this creates the opportunity for many generations of evolution.
You are arguing that many parks are failing in Toronto, or parks that could be great are not great here, because of design and operational issues. I totally agree.
But where we differ is that you are arguing that the design and operational issues mean that we should not take any and all parkland when we can get it. Whereas I am saying that land acquisitions operate on a time horizon completely different from design and operational issues and that the latter should not frustrate the former. I do not believe there is such thing as a bad parkland acquisition. Bad operations, yes. Bad design, no doubt. But land is land and when given the opportunity to convert land from private uses to a public park, we should take it.
On that last bit, I think the key here is, we can get land here (potentially); but is this exact spot of land we want? Put another way, a developer can provide off-site parkland acquisition of any site the City may request, subject to a willing seller, and the price being in line w/the statutory benefit.
Should we not consider asking for a different, better parcel of land for parks purposes?
We (the City) can also accept cash-in-lieu and go get the desired land via expropriation. I realize this often doesn't happen (money sits around gathering dust as it were); and I agree that is not desirable. But there is no reason it has to be that way
The City is perfectly capable of expropriating ideal park sites (and by the way does so more often than people think, just not as often as they ought to)
*****
On 'selling' parks............overwhelmingly that is a hard 'no'...........but....yes, there's a but.........
The City just recently (3 years ago or so) did a landswap with a developer, in which it gave the developer an existing park; and obtained a new, larger, more usable (better shape) park as part of a redevelopment. I'm speaking of the 90 Eastdale thread.
This particular swap was widely supported by the community as the previous park was poorly used, not terribly attractive and under-sized; and the replacement park will be a marked improvement.
I think this is an example of 'never say never'. I would generally have zero tolerance for any discussion of selling off ravine lands or bits of High Park, or waterfront parklands or the like..........but I think some of the smaller, less successful parks are not beyond reconsideration, providing there is no net loss of parkland.