Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
55,593
Worth adding some private and public planning docs to this discussion.

I may dig up some more later.

This one looks at both Thorncliffe and Flemingdon, it's from 2016:


The north end of the Flemingdon Area was identified as Parkland Priority Acquisition area by the City:

1664476696070.png


The orange is the priority area, the large D in the centre north of this image is Don Mills Road, Eglinton is running E-W across the middle of the area.
 

toronto647

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
595
Reaction score
1,122
Worth adding some private and public planning docs to this discussion.

I may dig up some more later.

This one looks at both Thorncliffe and Flemingdon, it's from 2016:


The north end of the Flemingdon Area was identified as Parkland Priority Acquisition area by the City:

View attachment 429743

The orange is the priority area, the large D in the centre north of this image is Don Mills Road, Eglinton is running E-W across the middle of the area.
I don't understand what is the Orange priority area? Is the city trying to buy those lands and turn it into parks? If so that orange is the townhomes on Ferrand Drive... Please explain

Also where is that image from? Source

P.S. This study is from 2016 and in the last 6-7 years Flemo area developmental proposals are going to reshape the area. I think we need a new study done for the DM/EG area.
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
55,593
I don't understand what is the Orange priority area? Is the city trying to buy those lands and turn it into parks? If so that orange is the townhomes on Ferrand Drive... Please explain

Also where is that image from? Source

P.S. This study is from 2016 and in the last 6-7 years Flemo area developmental proposals are going to reshape the area. I think we need a new study done for the DM/EG area.

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/97fb-parkland-strategy-full-report-final.pdf (a lot of zooming involved)

And to my understanding, these are areas that fall below the 28m2 per person City guideline and so are a priority for additional parkland.
 

70Challenger

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 13, 2021
Messages
85
Reaction score
330
Once again, the space is fenced off; but note, it's not even being used by residents of this very building. It's dead, orphaned space. It's also too narrow and too close to ground-floor housing to meaningfully program.
I think unused awkward lawns like these should be renaturalized/reforested, it would improve air quality, provide more of a seaparation from the street, improve the ecology of the area, and get rid of pointless lawn maintenance costs. If not trees, then fully replaced by native shrubs/flowers.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
55,593
I think unused awkward lawns like these should be renaturalized/reforested, it would improve air quality, provide more of a seaparation from the street, improve the ecology of the area, and get rid of pointless lawn maintenance costs. If not trees, then fully replaced by native shrubs/flowers.

If the buildings in question were to stay, in their current location, and there was no new infill, then I certainly agree.

I much prefer natural landscapes to lawns, both aesthetically and environmentally.

But I do think many of the townhomes will be redeveloped over time, and some of the towers too.

Renaturalization may still be appropriate depending on the timeline for redevelopment.
 

Top