[innsertnamehere]

Anything nearby as in not here... >.>

but if not here, where is there a site that is notably larger within a ~5 minute walk? That's the point. You can't just hand-wave and say "somewhere else", especially in an area like the entertainment district where land comes at more of a premium than basically anywhere else in the country.

I'm not too concerned about it being located along Spadina, the street is fairly well shielded for traffic. Clarence Square works fine along the street and Spadina is much more of a traffic sewer on that block than it is here.

 

[Northern Light]

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.

I'll disagree.

I'm a complete champion of new parks.

But I want to see them effectively serve area residents; being large enough to enjoy and offer different types of programming, and I don't want to see them 'strata' because that means scraping all the trees and vegetation off every 40 years.

I'm not opposed to a park here, though it wouldn't be my first choice for how to address the parks deficiency in the area; but it should not be strata.

I'm agree that money should be sat on indefinitely; but I equally feel it could be deployed more effectively.

 

[MoObserves]

I'll disagree.

I'm a complete champion of new parks.

But I want to see them effectively serve area residents; being large enough to enjoy and offer different types of programming, and I don't want to see them 'strata' because that means scraping all the trees and vegetation off every 40 years.

I'm not opposed to a park here, though it wouldn't be my first choice for how to address the parks deficiency in the area; but it should not be strata.

I'm agree that money should be sat on indefinitely; but I equally feel it could be deployed more effectively.

I agree. I'm always a proponent of new parks (and parkettes)- anywhere. But, it does make a huge difference where these parks are located. Even on a bigger scale, Queen's Park is great example. As amazing as the park is, being surrounded by what is essentially a city highway is extremely bothersome for area residents who would love to use it more frequently. Noise, fumes, lack of facilities, make uses of the park very limited. People run around the track as it's the only big green space outlet in the area, until after a lap or two of inhaling exhaust fumes you realize how less that ideal that is. The argument that many people use it, is only valid due to the lack of other open green space in the area, to serve many of the condos along Bay Street.

Additionally, Hoping the cars will reduce in prominence in a city that loves its vehicles (and that's not building transit fast enough) is wishful thinking. Small parks in small residential neighbourhoods make absolute sense, however in this case at Spadina and Adelaide, I suspect this will be a space where some employees in the area will have their lunch (if anyone goes back offices), and skaters will be taking advantage if the hard landscaping in the evenings.

Counter argument here is of course, this is Toronto, and we'll have to take anything we can get! Any green space is helpful, no matter how small or busy!

 

[picard102]

where is nearby? that's the problem here. There isn't really a "nearby".

David Pecaut, Clarance Sqr, Victoria Memorial, St. Andrews, to name a few.

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.

This is an intersection in the heart of the city. A park here would be a massive miss-use of space that is better served by providing housing in a dense urban environment. Not everywhere needs a park at their doorstep.

 

[innsertnamehere]

David Pecaut, Clarance Sqr, Victoria Memorial, St. Andrews, to name a few.



This is an intersection in the heart of the city. A park here would be a massive miss-use of space that is better served by providing housing in a dense urban environment. Not everywhere needs a park at their doorstep.

Those are existing parks!

The only existing parks within a 5 minute walk of here are Clarence Square and St. Andrew's.

The area bounded by Queen, University, Front Street, and Spadina is going to have probably nearly 50,000 people living in it by 2030 (interestingly, as little as 1,800 lived there as recently as 2006), with the only parks currently existing in that area right now being David Peacut and Clarence Square.

We are talking about enough people to form a small city. They need some parks that are within easy walking distance and that don't require a trek over to Grange Park or the waterfront to get some greenspace. The area needs some more green relief.

Not saying it needs to become some green oasis, but as it is today is sorely underserviced for parkland and community amenities.

 

[Towered]

I'll disagree.

I'm a complete champion of new parks.

But I want to see them effectively serve area residents; being large enough to enjoy and offer different types of programming, and I don't want to see them 'strata' because that means scraping all the trees and vegetation off every 40 years.

I'm not opposed to a park here, though it wouldn't be my first choice for how to address the parks deficiency in the area; but it should not be strata.

I'm agree that money should be sat on indefinitely; but I equally feel it could be deployed more effectively.

But...but...they can call this one Pop-Up Park!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This open space will be fine - just don't try to be all things to all users, because it's impossible for such a small site. From the Landscape and Lighting Plan:

AoD

 

[picard102]

Those are existing parks!

And they could benefit from updates.

The area bounded by Queen, University, Front Street, and Spadina is going to have probably nearly 50,000 people living in it by 2030 (interestingly, as little as 1,800 lived there as recently as 2006), with the only parks currently existing in that area right now being David Peacut and Clarence Square.

The city has some massive parks they can visit in the city, many accessible by transit. They do not need to be within a 5 min walk, that's an unreasonable goal in a dense urban environment.
Directly south of this the Toronto Islands and are one of the largest parks in the city.

 

[DirectionNorth]

And they could benefit from updates.


The city has some massive parks they can visit in the city, many accessible by transit. They do not need to be within a 5 min walk, that's an unreasonable goal in a dense urban environment.
Directly south of this the Toronto Islands and are one of the largest parks in the city.

How much housing can this land support? What kind of benefit is there to siting the housing here, compared to say, the gas station or low-rise building south of King? There are larger urban spaces available elsewhere is such a Toronto argument, I just can't -

A park should be a place of co-incidental socialization. A good urban park should be a place you can access easily. If you have a spare 20 minutes after work, you can visit the park and socialize/enjoy time there easily. Walking, especially in the winter, to a distant location isn't fun.

Good urbanism doesn't come from having a small number of massive places to congregate. It comes from having a large number of smaller locations where localized activity can occur, within a convenient walk of residences, employment, and commercial activity.

 

[Edward Skira]

I'd rather see continuous retail/commercial uses on a street like Spadina. Makes for a healthier retail community.

 

[picard102]

How much housing can this land support? What kind of benefit is there to siting the housing here, compared to say, the gas station or low-rise building south of King? There are larger urban spaces available elsewhere is such a Toronto argument, I just can't -

Is the gas station or the low-rise building the one up for development here? Not sure how property not being developed actively is relevant, but when those sites are re-developed, they also should maximize the available space for housing.

 

[junctionist]

The Toronto Islands are often mentioned in discussions as examples of ample parkland in the downtown core, yet they're not particularly accessible.

If it's 8:00 pm on a weekday and you want to go for a bike ride, a walk after dinner, or a jog, are you going to go to the ferry docks, pay for a ferry, wait for the ferry, ride the ferry, walk around in the dark, and then take the ferry back? Probably not.

It's a destination park that takes time and money to visit, even if it's not a lot of money. That limits how often people use it. Parkland on the mainland in the downtown core gets used in different ways versus parkland on the Islands.

 

[Yegger]

As someone who lived and worked in the neighbourhood, my position is that all parks are welcome (of course, some will be better than others but all will provide some sort of utility). There is a major lack of outdoor space in the entertainment district for when one is pressed for time or needs to make a short / quick stop. For example, the struggle to find somewhere to sit outside during lunch on a nice day was shocking for such a dense area.

Given the tiny size of condos and in light of the pandemic, public spaces with outdoor seating offer places to lounge and opportunities to rest or socialize and continue to be an incredibly important part of urban living.

 

[picard102]

The Toronto Islands are often mentioned in discussions as examples of ample parkland in the downtown core, yet they're not particularly accessible.

Divert funds from this park and build a bridge, make the ferry free, use the connection at BB and connect it to the public areas.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Divert funds from this park and build a bridge, make the ferry free, use the connection at BB and connect it to the public areas.

That still doesn't move the Toronto Islands closer geographically to the Entertainment District. Unless you know how to warp time?