Paul Aitken said:
A park is not the highest and best use for this parcel of land. There is already park space all along the waterfront. There is no connection across Lake Shore. .
Click to expand...

Then maybe this park is an opportunity to solve that problem.

The trail directly north of Lake Shore is on an elevated plain. A suspended pedestrian bridge under the Gardiner’s deck like the proposed Fort York blvd crossing at Bentway could provide that connection. Continue the trail, swerving south and under the Gardiner in a wooden bridge suspended from the deck and land it into the park on the other side, providing an unobstructed pedestrian connection across Lake Shore.

Nothing can be built here because the view of the SkyDome from the lake is protected. Same with the parcel directly north of here which belongs to Rogers.
 
From the May WT Board Meeting CEO Report:

upload_2018-5-8_8-49-9.png


https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm/connect/waterfront/59dbcb11-91bb-413e-a5f0-cf5b6bfea2fd/board+meeting-+may+10,+2018-118072+241.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=59dbcb11-91bb-413e-a5f0-cf5b6bfea2fd (p. 19 of PDF)
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-5-8_8-49-9.png
    upload_2018-5-8_8-49-9.png
    13.8 KB · Views: 586
Has anybody seen the guidelines that architects had to work with in submitting proposals? I seriously hope that there's some actual water on this waterfront. These parks are the last opportunity for a place where kids and adults get to actually interact with water. Just south of Rees Park, HTO Park has no H2O. :confused:
 
MetroMan said:
Has anybody seen the guidelines that architects had to work with in submitting proposals? I seriously hope that there's some actual water on this waterfront. These parks are the last opportunity for a place where kids and adults get to actually interact with water. Just south of Rees Park, HTO Park has no H2O. :confused:
Click to expand...

There is a requirement for water interaction/feature in both the York and Rees Park competition briefs.

AoD
 
Paul Aitken said:
A park is not the highest and best use for this parcel of land. There is already park space all along the waterfront. There is no connection across Lake Shore. There is an opportunity cost for every decision that is made and in this case it is the money that could be made if the land were sold to a developer and then applied to either purchasing land for a park elsewhere or partially funding the rail deck park.
Click to expand...

By your metric, any park would never be the highest and best use. The population density in that area is already very high.
 
MetroMan said:
Nothing can be built here because the view of the SkyDome from the lake is protected. Same with the parcel directly north of here which belongs to Rogers.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is correct. If if there is some view corridor here with formal protection, then please give the details. Beside, a mid-side development here wouldn't obscure the iconic curve of the Skydome roof from the lake. I'm surprised more people are not protesting the City spending scarce park funds for this Rees park when they could clearly be deployed elsewhere to greater benefit.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
There is a requirement for water interaction/feature in both the York and Rees Park competition briefs.

AoD
Click to expand...

That’s great to hear. I’ve been vocal about this at Waterfront Toronto meetings and through Waterfront For All. In my initial mentions, I was told that there were already several water interactions on the waterfront, citing the puny jets at Sugar Beach, the dirty “keep out” stream at Sherbourne Common and an outdoor shower at HTO Park — seriously, that’s what they count for water features. I later spoke with Ken Greenberg who I thought would be bidding to design one of the parks. He nodded in agreement when I suggested something like Chicago’s Crown Fountain.

I hope that the water feature at Rees Park is substantial. This is going to be HTO Park North. It should be all about water. It’d be great to continue Rees Quay into the park as a granite splash pad. Have a wall on the north end with cascading waterfall that kids can play under or just get their feet wet on the splash pad further down.
6EC82940-F9DD-4344-A2E0-961F0B53EA7A.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 6EC82940-F9DD-4344-A2E0-961F0B53EA7A.jpeg
    6EC82940-F9DD-4344-A2E0-961F0B53EA7A.jpeg
    323.2 KB · Views: 637
I like the slope in this proposal. It covers Lake Shore traffic and brings a tree canopy to the Gardiner. It'll calm the noise from the expressway while also providing a nice view of greenery for those driving along.
 
rather than spending all this money to built an earthen berm, it would be better to allow a partner to build a narrow 4-6 story building abutting the Gardiner, and incorporating a series of public terraces and paths sloping toward Queens Quay. The same sloped effect could be achieved, but restaurants, public spaces, and perhaps a community centre could be incorporated, and the private partner could potentially help build a Rees pedestrian bridge underneath the Gardiner that could connect with elevated path near the new transformer station up the road. Given that the Province is unlikely to cough up money money for this, why not partner with a developer and get more out of this. What is there to lose? The north view of this vision shows that the Gardiner is still visible to park users, so despite the slope this area will be filled with traffic noise. A narrow building built along the north edge of this space could completely block the highway noise, and the sloping green space could still be incorporated.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top