Oct 17, 2020

20201017_102803.jpg
20201017_102821.jpg
 
The more I think about it, the less I like the park(ette) here.

The space won't be large enough to materially program (playground, sports, nature, stage etc.)

The obvious park for the community here is the Green P lot in behind this .

Thereafter, I think the priority should be on creating usable parks or park connections.

The notion of acquiring land to expand Trinity-Bellwoods; or complete more a of a connected park system along the former Garrison Creek corridor.

Alternatively, expanding Victoria Memorial Square to the west is still viable, for now.

This just doesn't seem like the sort of space that can be made into something great.

Though; I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.
 
Northern Light said:
The more I think about it, the less I like the park(ette) here.

The space won't be large enough to materially program (playground, sports, nature, stage etc.)

The obvious park for the community here is the Green P lot in behind this .

Thereafter, I think the priority should be on creating usable parks or park connections.

The notion of acquiring land to expand Trinity-Bellwoods; or complete more a of a connected park system along the former Garrison Creek corridor.

Alternatively, expanding Victoria Memorial Square to the west is still viable, for now.

This just doesn't seem like the sort of space that can be made into something great.

Though; I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I believe that large Green P lot is being earmarked for affordable housing by the city.
 
Towered said:
I believe that large Green P lot is being earmarked for affordable housing by the city.
Click to expand...

A fine thought; but I'd still prefer the housing front Queen St and the park go in behind in a more usable size and configuration.
 
We should not lose the existing buildings and storefronts on Queen. I'd rather we just build a little building, as Pearl Group were planning to do, and complete the streetscape, then put new housing behind. There's a park one block to the south and one block to the north, another is not needed here.
 
ProjectEnd said:
We should not lose the existing buildings and storefronts on Queen. I'd rather we just build a little building, as Pearl Group were planning to do, and complete the streetscape, then put new housing behind. There's a park one block to the south and one block to the north, another is not needed here.
Click to expand...

We can both agree this site isn't appropriate to a park; I'm uncertain why it can't work for housing (while preserving retail).

Be that as it may.

The adequacy of park space is measured on a m2 per person basis; and on that basis, this area is quite parks deficient.

Ergo the question is not whether in the area gets new park space, but in what form, at what precise location.

The park you cited, just to the north, is a good example of what does not work.


1603226842963.png



This tiny little space is sad, and satisfies no one.

It's not a good place for a walk, nor a picnic, nor for music, nor for sports, nor for nature, nor for little kids quite frankly..............

It's just a total fail.

A space of this size might work as 'public square'; but not in this form, at this spot.

I would rather give this one to housing or back to the through street it once was.

The Green P lot is one of the better shaped and sized blocks for a park and already in public ownership.

Certainly, other parcels could be found.

I cited several in posts above.

I'm open on the point, so long as we expand the park system; wisely.
 
I have never have agreed that Toronto is park-deficient. But that's more a personal thing. I agree that Randy Padmore is small, but it is a park. You know, if only there were another one, a block north of it, or another one, a block north of Dundas on Denison,..
 
ProjectEnd said:
I have never have agreed that Toronto is park-deficient. But that's more a personal thing. I agree that Randy Padmore is small, but it is a park. You know, if only there were another one, a block north of it, or another one, a block north of Dundas on Denison,..
Click to expand...

You're a great poster; all I can say is we very much disagree about the adequacy of parks in Toronto in number and in size and functionality.

Again, I would add that Randy Padmore is not functional as a park.

A modicum of grass and a playground the most open-minded toddler would turn her nose up at; is not a park (to me)
 
I'm in agreeance that a street fronting building at this corner would've been preferable. The original rendition by SvN was perfectly reasonable. The pedestrian patterns at this section of Queen West, although steady, doesn't necessarily command a need for a parkette or meeting spot. The small usable space doesn't help either. I'm fine with the one being planned at Spadina & Adelaide. Where it ideally would've been nice to have one was at Queen W & Soho at the corner where MEC is located, but I digress.
 
Last edited:
The other problem with a rather useless parkette at this site is that it opens up views from Queen Street of an huge surface parking lot. Hardly the urban landscape we should be showing off.
 
Northern Light said:
You're a great poster; all I can say is we very much disagree about the adequacy of parks in Toronto in number and in size and functionality.

Again, I would add that Randy Padmore is not functional as a park.

A modicum of grass and a playground the most open-minded toddler would turn her nose up at; is not a park (to me)
Click to expand...

I'll have to back you up here - that is a deplorable excuse for a "park". It's utterly useless for all the reasons you listed. As someone with kids, it would be unthinkable for me to bring them here. They would laugh at this.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top