Admiral Beez said:
I get you. Allan Gardens. I used to be a pedantic dick too, waiting for that gotcha moment to desperately show how smart I think I am. But as you age past your 20s one grows tired of the needless peacocking and you just want to enjoy the conversation.
Click to expand...

Geez I was just kidding. Sorry for any confusion.

I actually agree that I'd leave the Islands as is except for some small changes.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Easy to say, but can you think of any city in North America that‘s addressed those problems that we can look to?

And besides, why do you assume that only poor people do the things I mentioned? Beggars and encampments certainly, but public drug use and defecation, littering and vandalism… that’s all sh#tty people, not poor people business. If having a clean park missing these elements above requires me to pay a few bucks and enjoy a ferry ride, I’m good.
Click to expand...
Because you said having a cost keeps those people out. therefore the implication is that people who do those things are poor, and if the island costs money they will not come to it. Yet there are lots of low income people who are not doing the things you are seemingly accusing all low-income people of doing. Why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy the best part of our city? That's my concern with having a cost to use the island. Maybe we need a program like the low-fare TTC rates to access the island, idk. But I don't think making island access based on your financial situation is either fair or ethical.

To give an example, as a gay dude, if I lose my job, I shouldn't be allowed to access what is essentially the only gay beach in the city because I'm trying to responsibly manage my money until I have a job again? (and yes i realise this forum is usually terrible at understanding why gay people may want to go to gay spaces over straight ones, but I'm not having that fight today) I wouldn't be going there to trash the island, but your position is that in this scenario, I should be financially prohibited from spending a day at the beach with my friends for no fault of my own. And yeah, I know one beach trip isn't gonna usually make-or-break most people's budget, but it's still incredibly unfair.

But yeah, maybe a pedestrian bridge isn't the answer, but we do need a way to make island access equitable.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Easy to say, but can you think of any city in North America that‘s addressed those problems that we can look to?

And besides, why do you assume that only poor people do the things I mentioned? Beggars and encampments certainly, but public drug use and defecation, littering and vandalism… that’s all sh#tty people, not poor people business. If having a clean park missing these elements above requires me to pay a few bucks and enjoy a ferry ride, I’m good.
Click to expand...
Almost all of your issues could be solved very simply with more soft infrastructure on the island. There most definitely needs to be more trash cans/recycling bins and there needs to be a lot more public bathrooms. Vandalism is shitty people, but vandals come in all flavours, including rich assholes.

Public drug use...is probably happening on the islands now. I mean, if people are willing and are able to smuggle booze onto the islands to drink on the beach (I did it! I look forward to my Toronto trip next June and drinking at Hanlans Point during Pride!), then they're doing other things. Making free access to islands probably won't increase or decrease it.
 
DKsan said:
Almost all of your issues could be solved very simply with more soft infrastructure on the island. There most definitely needs to be more trash cans/recycling bins and there needs to be a lot more public bathrooms.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see us fix the litter, vandalism, drug use, encampments and defacation in Toronto’s mainland public spaces before we expand regular park use and access on the island. We have a jewel of a park on the island, why mess with it?
 
Last edited:
syn said:
I don't support a a bridge to the Island, but I also have a very hard time believing one would result in drug use, encampments, public defecation, etc.
Click to expand...
I’d like to hope the newly accessible islands would be like High Park, which to its users and neighbour’s credit is kept nice. My experience of Toronto parks is perhaps unfairly defined by Allan Gardens, St. James Park and Moss Park.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I’d like to hope the newly accessible islands would be like High Park, which to its users and neighbour’s credit is kept nice. My experience of Toronto parks is perhaps unfairly defined by Allan Gardens, St. James Park and Moss Park.
Click to expand...

St. James Park is kept nice, especially since the revitalization. I’ve never had a problem there, even at night. Allan Gardens isn’t terrible either - the dog park, playgrounds and the greenhouses are kept well. The eastern side is a hangout for the underhoused and homeless, but it’s certainly not a no-go zone, at least during daylight hours.

Moss Park is in rough shape, but it’s neglected by the city as well, and the armoury doesn’t help.
 
W
JasonParis said:
...and will remain in rough shape until the Ontario Line is completed, I suspect.
Click to expand...
Nothing feels more Toronto than: "Why provide community benefits now, when we can provide them in 10 years after we have driven all the existing residents out through gentrification!"

Obviously the southern part of the park is needed for the OL, but it's a shame nothing will be done to improve the area in the meantime.
 
Some implementation funding for this plan is already in the Capital Budget.

1644618034224.png


The zero is this year, so 500k in 2023, 1.5M in 2024, and 2M in 2025 but have been set aside so far.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
That amount of funding would be good for generating reports/plans, not much by the way of actual physical output.

AoD
Click to expand...

Its fine for naturalization, planting, some SOGR work or possibly a playground.

It is indeed quite inadequate for the scale of change the plan would seem to envision.

But in fairness, the plan isn't actually done yet.

I suspect this is money that was allocated for work on the Islands already that's been re-branded.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Its fine for naturalization, planting, some SOGR work or possibly a playground.

It is indeed quite inadequate for the scale of change the plan would seem to envision.

But in fairness, the plan isn't actually done yet.

I suspect this is money that was allocated for work on the Islands already that's been re-branded.
Click to expand...

No final decisions as to the specifics of the plan have been made yet, correct?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top