*Docs are Up*

1641807755464.png


1641807787710.png


Closer detail:

1641808287471.png


1641808320654.png


1641808344598.png

1641807860781.png


1641807953456.png

1641808086218.png

1641808180121.png
 
innsertnamehere said:
this development proposes 70 Green P spaces and interestingly, also has the parking garage running underneath the new city park. This is the first time I can remember Toronto Parks accepting a strata park.
Click to expand...

It isn't the first; but it should be the last.

Lillian McGregor Park at Wellesley on the Park is partially strata; more notably College Park is strata.

There are actually a few others, some dating back decades.

St. Jamestown West park is Strata.

475 Yonge includes a proposal for a strata park.
 
I know College Park is strata, and my understanding was that park was a big reason that Parks hated them and avoided them at all costs.

I forgot Lillian McGregor was strata. It also includes a Green P garage, which seems to be a theme for these newer strata parks.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I know College Park is strata, and my understanding was that park was a big reason that Parks hated them and avoided them at all costs.

I forgot Lillian McGregor was strata. It also includes a Green P garage, which seems to be a theme for these newer strata parks.
Click to expand...

Parks doesn't like them.

By their nature, they mean stripping off all vegetation every 30-50 years to re-do the membrane of the parking garage roof.

It offends the public, the trees never get to a truly majestic size, and it's expensive.

It's likely a situation in which they were told that was what they were going to have to accept.
 
picard102 said:
Scrap the park and add more units. Divert funds to another nearby park project.
Click to expand...
where is nearby? that's the problem here. There isn't really a "nearby".

If anything, Toronto Parks should be buying the whole site here and removing the building, not vice-versa. The entertainment district is genuinely short on parks, and this comes from someone who thinks most of the city does not really need more park land.
 
I just don't really think many people are going to want to spend much time hanging out in a small space hemmed in by the car sewers that are Spadina and Adelaide. This is a common gripe I have with Parks/Planning -- they give little thought to park placement vis-a-vis horrible conditions in terms of vehicular noise and air pollution and pedestrian safety.
 
ADRM said:
I just don't really think many people are going to want to spend much time hanging out in a small space hemmed in by the car sewers that are Spadina and Adelaide. This is a common gripe I have with Parks/Planning -- they give little thought to park placement vis-a-vis horrible conditions in terms of vehicular noise and air pollution and pedestrian safety.
Click to expand...
I'll disagree with you here -- as I disagree with people criticizing the 500 sq. m. park within the 200 Queens Quay West project (small park sandwiched beside Simcoe, Harbour, Gardiner).

The City will change over time. With any luck cars will reduce in prominence, sidewalks will widen, other modes will be prioritized. The City is not in city-building for a 10 or 20 year period. They are in it for 100 or 1,000 years. So to me, every new park is worth getting. It never hurts to hold land. It can be added to. It can be the start of something greater. It can catalyze road diets and boulevard widenings.

I say yes to it all. This is certainly a lot better than billions of dollars sitting in a parkland bank account, un-used and losing its value against the rising cost of land with every day that passes.

There's no such thing as a bad new public park.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top