xy3
Active Member
I dont find park fronting directly onto a busy windswept dangerous street to be appealing. Id rather funds were directed towards improving the existing park, adding fountains etc.
- Thread starter Marcanadian
- Start date
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Does anyone know whether this idea of expanding Ramsden Park has been suggested before? Is it in a plan? Does parks make such decisions on an ad hoc basis?
Northern Light
Superstar
I do know; and the answer is 'Yes'; and 'Yes'
It's in TOCore the Parks Planning document. (2018)
On . Page 188
Link: https://www.toronto.ca/ext/digital_comm/pdfs/city-planning/tocore-parks-public-realm-plan.pdf
I can add, the idea pre-dates that as well. It's been examined in several different contexts over the years, some practical and some a bit fanciful.
The discussion in TOCore looks at the idea of the Green Line link; but more fanciful discussions looked at it as following the route of Castlefrank Brook with the idea that perhaps one day the Brook might be daylit again.
Which, for the record is plausible in portions (Cedarvale Park); but in Ramsden Park or the Rosedale Valley is likely too ambitious for the next few decades.
The route of the creek can be seen here:
The above is from the Lost Rivers site, here: https://lostrivers.ca/content/YorkvilleReach.html
xy3
Active Member
I agree with another poster that this scheme is the worst possible use of these funds as far as improving this park goes.
The haussmannian (though not perfect proportions and materials, I find the attempt respectable and endearing) eastern rear of the clinic at 199 Avenue Rd is lovely and enhances the park itself. It'd be a foolish waste to tear it down. What it needs is a fountain east of the lane with nighttime spot lighting under the water. The park could benefit from some mix of tasteful grey cobblestone pavers, dark grey granite pavers, dark grey precast pavers, and some black traditional style lamp posts.
Something like this a little further east of my imagined fountain behind the laneway would really tie it together nicely. For much less than the price of expropriating all those buildings along Avenue Road.
The haussmannian (though not perfect proportions and materials, I find the attempt respectable and endearing) eastern rear of the clinic at 199 Avenue Rd is lovely and enhances the park itself. It'd be a foolish waste to tear it down. What it needs is a fountain east of the lane with nighttime spot lighting under the water. The park could benefit from some mix of tasteful grey cobblestone pavers, dark grey granite pavers, dark grey precast pavers, and some black traditional style lamp posts.
Something like this a little further east of my imagined fountain behind the laneway would really tie it together nicely. For much less than the price of expropriating all those buildings along Avenue Road.
Last edited:
junctionist
Senior Member
I wish more builders would build architectural facades for the backs of their buildings when they're visible from parks and public spaces like 199 Avenue Road. Most builders would just put a nondescript wall and servicing area along a laneway even if it faces a park.
Northern Light
Superstar
The challenge though, is this; the City does need more total parkland in areas under heavy development pressure, and in a few that were parks deprived previously (portions of the former York and East York for example).
In this case, development has allowed dedicated revenues for parkland acquisition, not improvement.
So there is no opportunity to allocate that money for fountains or other features irrespective of their desirability ( s.37 funds could be used for such a move, but that's a different pot of money)
Now that you have to spend the money on parkland, and roughly in this neighbourhood, is there really a better choice?
I have lobbied Parks hard to stop buying or accepting single, free-standing lots that can't even support a playground never mind larger park amenities. I feel strongly that the money should go to expanding existing parks
to a critical mass size to improve their functionality.
In this case, the Ramsden Park expansion, due to its shape/size/topography won't achieve a lot by way of amenity. The focus of the gains will be seating/landscaping/visibility/access.
That said, is their another park where one might pick up a better gain nearby?
The only critical mass park I see in the plans is the idea of converting the TTC bus loop at Rosedale to park space. As that is already City-owned, I don't see that being appropriate here.
Tangentially, I'm not privy to what the planners have in mind for the bus routes currently based out of Rosedale Station......
In the end, I think this is reasonable, so far as it goes.
But I also think it makes the most sense to buy out all the Avenue road properties at once (The City can afford it).....then achieve a full, complete expansion as opposed to a modest piecemeal one done over time in stages.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Reminds me of the weaponized TPA purchase of a lot on Broadview a few years ago.
Northern Light
Superstar
Not really. The purchase of this site has been contemplated by TOCore and has been official City policy for several years.
That it happens to coincide w/some groups local grievances works for them; but is not the basis of the policy decision for acquisition here.
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Do you have any specific information about how this decision was made? Or are you just speaking in a general sense?
Many park projects are "contemplated by policy" and most of them never happen. If this happened because an influential private neighbours' group asked for it, that is significant.
Northern Light
Superstar
For clarity:
1) I did not speak with anyone from the local Resident's Association as to their involvement here.
2) I did not actively intervene to support any request here.
3) I was involved in shaping TO Core's Parks Plan (as both a private citizen and a stakeholder); and was among those people to advocate for an expansion of Ramsden Park, specifically along the Avenue Road frontage. It's not something I'm deeply invested in; and I don't live in the area and am not affiliated w/the developer.
artyboy123
Senior Member
A new rendering is updated in the database! The following project information has some minor changes. The overall project height decreased from 57.00m to 44.95m. Total Storey count decreased from 13 storeys to 10 storeys. Overall unit count decreased from 66 units to 64 units. Finally, the total parking space count increased from 106 parking spaces to 122 parking spaces.
The rendering is taken from the architectural plan via rezoning application:
The rendering is taken from the architectural plan via rezoning application:
christiesplits
Senior Member
This honestly isn't too bad.
Kenojuak
Active Member
Two parking spaces per unit on top of the subway in an eminently walkable area is insane and should be illegal. Gonna be damaging to the pro forma and construction schedule too. Really dumb old fashioned thinking.
Building looks fine. Height decrease is shameful and the city and neighbourhood nimbys should be ashamed.
christiesplits
Senior Member
Yikes. Did not see that. Yea that’s terrible.
evandyk
Senior Member
Probably, but you shouldn’t be driving to retail at Yonge and Summerhill either.