We've tried to explain this all more fully in a new front page story that's worth a read!

42
 
Great front page story - helps put it all in context.

@Northern Light - what do you think would fit in the proposed park? It looks sizeable, but will probably be the main park for not just this development, but the whole future surrounding neighbourhood. I think my ideal would be to have a soccer field in the north portion, and have the south portion shared between a playground and a fenced off-leash dog park. Could all of that fit? What would you envision?
 
Ottawan said:
Great front page story - helps put it all in context.

@Northern Light - what do you think would fit in the proposed park? It looks sizeable, but will probably be the main park for not just this development, but the whole future surrounding neighbourhood. I think my ideal would be to have a soccer field in the north portion, and have the south portion shared between a playground and a fenced off-leash dog park. Could all of that fit? What would you envision?
Click to expand...

The park is not nearly as large as you may think. It's proposed as being only 0.5ha or 1.25 acres.

As proposed, (so excluding any abutting City lands) the proposed park is not nearly large enough to hold a regulation soccer pitch.

Crudely drawn, the park's length along Benny Stark appears to be ~84m, that's the long side of the park.

A soccer pitch by regulation is 105M by 68M. (0.7ha or roughly 40% larger than the entire park!)

So there just isn't the room.

You can made an under-sized one for kids, should you wish. A pitch doesn't have to follow FIFA rules!

From Wikipedia:

1637362286633.png


For reference, I have crudely drawn an approximation of a regulation soccer pitch over the lands in question.

As you can see, this could not only consume the entire park, but also the City's EMS Station and a few adjacent homes!

1637362862760.png


It could be made to work, but other than substantially reducing the size of the field, the EMS station would have to go, and you would need some additional land either from the proponent or adjacent owners.

The City will accept a regulation field as small as 100 x 64 which make it a bit more workable. But kiddy fields (mini-pitches) can be as small as 31m x 67m. That would definitely fit.

****

Turnberry North Park is actually an ultra-mini, or soccer for pre-K! LOL

1637363277081.png


It's only ~22 x 35. If you want those, we can put in two, no problem!

****

As to what belongs in the park, I think that obviously depends on what locals want, what's available,and how much room is left after you insert your highest priority.

Given that there is no Children's playground going all the way north to Rogers Road and East to Old Weston Rd; that would seem the most logical priority.

A decent sized play area, with water play, will take up about 0.3ha/0.75 acres. A DOLA (Dogs Off-Leash Area would ideally be of similar size).

That means you could really only get one of the two, without significantly expanding the park.

This is a park based on the proponent's space, plus the north portion of the EMS site and the existing Turnberry Park:


1637364781412.png


That configuration is 0.8ha or 2 acres.

You could probably squeeze a playground/waterplay, a small'ish DOLA, and the existing super-mini soccer pitch on that........just barely.

Given that this area has low parkland levels, I think, the City should not be shy about buying some additional land here. That could either be at this site or another nearby.
 
Last edited:
What are the shadow towers in the renderings? An unannounced project to the south?

I am also very curious about what happens to the old flea market. seems like an obvious redevelopment site that has not been touched yet.
 
sebajun said:
What are the shadow towers in the renderings? An unannounced project to the south?

I am also very curious about what happens to the old flea market. seems like an obvious redevelopment site that has not been touched yet.
Click to expand...
46662-139031.jpeg


Those would be on this site, for which lobbying has begin at City Hall. No proposal submitted to planning yet though.

42
 
This area is a navigation nightmare. New streets would make big difference.
Also, there are no NIMBYs and no heritage buildings involved. Or are they ?
 
DrillBit said:
This area is a navigation nightmare. New streets would make big difference.
Also, there are no NIMBYs and no heritage buildings involved. Or are they ?
Click to expand...

There's no heritage buildings involved with this site or future project(s) expected on the adjacent parcels. The only building of historical significance within an approximate 1-2 km radius of here is the Heydon House at the NW corner of St. Clair W & Old Weston. Which I still hope gets properly restored someday.

In terms of the area's concerns, I think transportation remains the number one focus, along with improved street circulation. Getting a St. Clair GO/Smart track station solidified should be top priority in order to sustain all these large scale developments in the pipeline.
 
I am new to this forum. So please pardon my ignorance on matters that may be public knowledge already. When will this development (Starklands) be approved to start construction? What are approximate timelines for approvals etc.? Is there a draft schedule somewhere?
 
Welcome aboard @Aone. All good questions. This is fundamentally a land play - the associated rezoning application is just there so that the vendor can cite it as 'ongoing progress' with the City and get the future purchaser out of things like Inclusionary Zoning. The site is currently for sale so it'll be up to the purchaser to complete (or restart) the rezoning process when the transaction completes, then get to unit sales, and finally construction.

Long story short, there is no draft schedule at this point.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top