Also a bigger park as a part of shoppers world redevelopment would be great too👍 to be fair I'm definitely more neutral on this topic as I did not know about the development pipeline that is probably going to come to shoppers world and the plaza across from kfc
This topic being the park in this development
 
I see it used maybe a third of evenings for baseball and rarely see pedestrian usage of it. You have a fair point about per capita parkland. I think the disagreements we have comes down to what types of sacrifice I'm okay with. Less parkland is okay with me if it means this much housing. I would like the balance of maybe closer and better access to Taylor Creek off of the north end of eastdale considering all the density around there and the fact that it's 10ish minutes walk from this development. That would be a balance I would be perfectly okay with.

My principle issue in terms of park size is functionality.

For instance, to have a soccer pitch (and the City overall has a lot of wait lists for these) you require about 1ha or 2.5 acres for the field itself, but assuming this requires some buffer, more like 1.4ha or 3 acres. That assumes no playground or children's waterplay etc.

I think the City frankly has too many parks, but not enough parkland.

In terms of manicured parks, (as opposed to ravines/nature) I would really like to see a 1.4ha minimum size, which provides some programming options, and I would prefer 2ha/5ac so that you can do at least 2 different things within the space. (or one really well).

If one wants nature, I would measure appropriate size in a couple of ways, from a selfish, human perspective, how many people/hikers/cyclists does a space reasonably allow w/o crowding, and from an ecological perspective you're looking for benchmarks around health, biodiversity, ability to have self-sustaining quality habitats for plants and wildlife.

In general, this requires some very large areas, including areas either off-limits to humans or with low accessibility to we don't trample rare plants or harass human-adverse wildlife.

I'm perfectly supportive of development and housing, but I want to see both parks and other services (transit, childcare, schools, libraries, recreation centres etc. properly planned for).

Rec. Centres are a great example of quality/quantity issues in this particular area..

On paper, you have a Main Square Rec Centre and Secord Community Centre not far away.

In reality, neither one has a gym. Main Square is a pool, plus a small fitness room meant to handle yoga/dance/weights combined. Secord doesn't have the pool. Nearby school D.A. Morrison has a pool, but its only open to the community one even evening and Saturday daytime each week.

So 3 facilities, no gym, and if you add Stan Wadlow's clubhouse, still no gym.

I would prefer to see 2 facilities to the current 4, but have them offer gyms, running tracks, a good pools, etc etc.

As it stands the proposal at 2575 (Main Square) seeks to demolish the existing facility there and not replace it, instead contributing 4M to a future replacement, on a site the City has yet to identify, at a probable cost exceeding 80M.

So we're actually going to reduce recreation service here in the near to medium term.
 
My principle issue in terms of park size is functionality.

For instance, to have a soccer pitch (and the City overall has a lot of wait lists for these) you require about 1ha or 2.5 acres for the field itself, but assuming this requires some buffer, more like 1.4ha or 3 acres. That assumes no playground or children's waterplay etc.

I think the City frankly has too many parks, but not enough parkland.

In terms of manicured parks, (as opposed to ravines/nature) I would really like to see a 1.4ha minimum size, which provides some programming options, and I would prefer 2ha/5ac so that you can do at least 2 different things within the space. (or one really well).

If one wants nature, I would measure appropriate size in a couple of ways, from a selfish, human perspective, how many people/hikers/cyclists does a space reasonably allow w/o crowding, and from an ecological perspective you're looking for benchmarks around health, biodiversity, ability to have self-sustaining quality habitats for plants and wildlife.

In general, this requires some very large areas, including areas either off-limits to humans or with low accessibility to we don't trample rare plants or harass human-adverse wildlife.

I'm perfectly supportive of development and housing, but I want to see both parks and other services (transit, childcare, schools, libraries, recreation centres etc. properly planned for).

Rec. Centres are a great example of quality/quantity issues in this particular area..

On paper, you have a Main Square Rec Centre and Secord Community Centre not far away.

In reality, neither one has a gym. Main Square is a pool, plus a small fitness room meant to handle yoga/dance/weights combined. Secord doesn't have the pool. Nearby school D.A. Morrison has a pool, but its only open to the community one even evening and Saturday daytime each week.

So 3 facilities, no gym, and if you add Stan Wadlow's clubhouse, still no gym.

I would prefer to see 2 facilities to the current 4, but have them offer gyms, running tracks, a good pools, etc etc.

As it stands the proposal at 2575 (Main Square) seeks to demolish the existing facility there and not replace it, instead contributing 4M to a future replacement, on a site the City has yet to identify, at a probable cost exceeding 80M.

So we're actually going to reduce recreation service here in the near to medium term.
With this amount of density in the area. The city should have negotiated a community centre into one of the buildings as a condition of approval.
 
With this amount of density in the area. The city should have negotiated a community centre into one of the buildings as a condition of approval.

Broadly, I agree.

Its worth saying, the City had such a deal w/Rushden (the project now underway); but Metrolinx kiboshed it for being next to their rail corridor.
 
Looks like the Canadian Tire will be moving down the street to Shoppers World "soon": https://www.riocan.com/English/our-...ils/2016/Shoppers-World-Danforth/default.aspx

Screenshot 2024-08-12 at 9.37.05 PM.jpg
 
Is this just temporary? I thought they had plans to relocate back to their current location once that site was redeveloped.
 
Just saw a spirit Halloween has opened in the old Lowes space. So assume Canadian Tire won't be moving till the new year.

Moving in the New Year may be on the optimistic side - a little bit of process to go through first. Obvious things I can think of, as a lay person not involved in the industry:
  • Interior store design (may take longer than a typical new Canadian Tire store, as it is a retrofit into an existing structure)
  • Review / revise / approve and sign-off on interior design
  • Prepare construction and permit application drawings and specifications
  • Prepare and issue construction tender package
  • Submit permit applications to City
  • City review, questions, changes required to permit drawings and specifications
  • Construction permits issued
  • Bids back on construction (or pricing back if sole sourced)
  • Review bids / pricing - management approval of selected vendor
  • Award and contract
  • Ordering of construction materials / organization of construction activities / sub-contract with suppliers and specialty contractors
  • Construction (guessing a minimum four months, up to six or eight month process, including FF&E)
  • Staffing and store pre-opening activities (inventory stocking, computer systems and sales register equipment installation and commissioning, etc.)
  • Final inspections and occupancy permit
  • Grand Opening
So, some time next year, hopefully not very much too long after the New Year.
 

Back
Top