That's not to say that the park, built as is, hasn't have hope for improvement - but it is pretty clear that the bare minimum was being done here. Far better examples of private sector execution of public parks can be found with 18 Yorkville, Spire, etc - and considering the scale of Cityplace, shouldn't one expect that level of competence as well?

AoD
 
The main issue is with the budget. I think the park was budgeted and planned back in early 2000. Since then, costs had sky rocketed. I think if the park was made along with the other buildings west of Spadina, they could have done it? But they started working on the park furiously after most of the complexes were either finished (W1, N), almost finished (Neo, Montage, Luna) in progress (Panorama, Parade)
 
Parks are easy to change up and they mature with time. The park isn't going to be a landmark for the city anytime soon. From my perspective this park was only included to help increase property values and as a selling feature of the neighbourhood.

It might just be four plots of grass with random purposeless art (I prefer art that engages people), but it will do its job. Maybe in 30 years the mature trees will help this bare park look fantastic. Or the city sells it to developers.

I would also like to add that if you make a model of your development...you make that. Models help sell development and designs to people who are unsure of the renderings. If you intend not to spend a lot of money, don't design something that will impact your budget. It is very unprofessional.
 
Just came back from it! I thought it was great actually ... if you go without all the preconceived notions of what was suppose to be there - it's a pretty neat park - and extermely heavily used from what I see.

There's some issues though - I'll give you that, maintenance for one - a lack of flowers and what not which is really the same issue.
 
ponyboy said:
I went two months ago, and then a few days ago,and it appears no one is maintaining the park. The green grass is now full of weeds, and the hills around the red canoe are also full of weeds. The slope of the hill is too steep to ever incorporate any kind of sitting area on it. The water "jets" were on, but they look more like the sprinklers shooting up after being run over by the lanwmower.
Click to expand...

so it looks like every other park in the city.. that's the City of Toronto standard!
 
Has UT tried to get in touch with Concord Adex? It would be cool if we could get an official answer to what happened here.
 
Rowe said:
The park isn't going to be a landmark for the city anytime soon. From my perspective this park was only included to help increase property values and as a selling feature of the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

Given the 'front and central' location it should have been a landmark. As mentioned by others the plan itself was fairly promising, and this is certainly not how it was expected to turn out. It's an embarrassment, quite frankly.
 
nstuch said:
so it looks like every other park in the city.. that's the City of Toronto standard!
Click to expand...

The park was constructed by Concord as part of the planning process and to improve the neighbourhood. There must have been plans approved by the City. Did the final resiult match these plans?
 
Knowing Douglas Coupland, any physical deterioration in explanatory plaquage might well be "intentional" (i.e. a tribute to all those Canadian landmarks still with faded/broken signage from the 70s and 80s)
 
Maybe some of the maintenance issues are related to the delayed handoff from city to cityplace (or vice versa). The 18 Yorkville comparison is inappropriate in my view since its a more conventional location and much smaller as well. This made it easier to conceive & execute.
 
18 Yorkville is ONE tower, Cityplace is what, ~20 at build out - surely the amount of resources that could be brought to bear is of a similiar scale? As to conception - the site plan certainly didn't communicate any issues - in fact, the problem is one of the difference between conception and execution - and the same landscape architect are the ones responsible for Sherbourne Commons, which from all accounts appear a far superior product even at this incomplete stage.

AoD
 
Why are some smaller scale parks built as part of other condo projects have more warmth and personality than this barren letdown that was allowed to be built by Concord?
 
... the execution, finish and materials didn't match the standards of the design? It definitely feels like some cuts were made and some punches pulled.
 
Maybe my eyes are deceving me but...I think circle around 2 "fishing bobbers" are lit up and flickering in purple!! And the "beaver dam" is also lit up in purple. Looks cool...
 
The shoddy maintenance of this park continues to be a problem

4982403677_4feb044f99_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

4983001330_f2d22e5937_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

4982399611_dbff96d346_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top