Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,158
Reaction score
55,046
Indeed. I'll admit that there seems to be more nuance to what makes a good or bad park.

Bad park designed like the one above - Lisgar park.

Bad is too kind.

One of the early reviews I did, in the Problematic Park Design thread:


Bad park designed as grass - Paul Garfinkle park

Bad in as much as it's extraordinarily banal and really offers no reason to be in it, it's only a way to cut a corner......

Good parks designed as one above - Berczy

I'd say Excellent for that one.

Good parks designed as grass - Stanley or Trinity

Both of these are quite solid, both could use some 'tweaks'.
 

kmac12

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 14, 2022
Messages
5
Reaction score
15
Have spent the last 2 hours reading through your thread on park design.

I feel like it is a lot harder to get a "High-concept" park to an average level of useability vs. a more traditional park with grass. Looking at even very bland ones like Roxton Road Parkett it can serve as a place for those few houses next door to have a lawn or "backyard" for picnics, bocce ball, or read on the grass.

Also on your comment on the use of gravel. My assumption is it is done because it is water permeable vs. concrete. and easier to maintain vs. grass?
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,158
Reaction score
55,046
Have spent the last 2 hours reading through your thread on park design.

I feel like it is a lot harder to get a "High-concept" park to an average level of useability vs. a more traditional park with grass. Looking at even very bland ones like Roxton Road Parkett it can serve as a place for those few houses next door to have a lawn or "backyard" for picnics, bocce ball, or read on the grass.

I'm glad you found that thread of interest.

***

I would say you're not wrong. Although, arguably, Claude Cormier makes 'High Concept' look easy; as is so often the case w/people who are skilled at and passionate about what they do.

A basic park can usually hold some degree of function, even if it's a bit under-baked/bland etc. This isn't always true, but it is often the case.

Also on your comment on the use of gravel. My assumption is it is done because it is water permeable vs. concrete. and easier to maintain vs. grass?

Reasons will vary. There certainly could be an ecological ideal at play.

But it's also cheaper than any form of paving so it helps plug holes in a budget.

It can also be a landscape design choice to create a 'garden' feel or a greater sense of intimacy.

But, generally, it is not suitable for pathways with high volume usage; It also helps if you 'edge' it but many designers demur from that as it may be seen to make formal that which was meant to be informal; it's also a budget issue.

Needless to say, it also requires maintenance. In general, a once a year heaping of a fresh wheelbarrow (or several) of new screening. But that's 'operations' which is a different budget and different staff entirely.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,158
Reaction score
55,046
And this one has (almost) made it out the other end of the sausage making process.......... LOL

Final Report, approval recommended, to the next meeting of TEYCC:


Note there is a height change here vs the thread title:

1655484572337.png


Tallest office tower now listed at 60s.

***

S.37 benefits:

1655484641915.png


**
1655484691248.png


**
1655484726776.png
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,158
Reaction score
55,046

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,158
Reaction score
55,046
There's been lobbying activity around the convention centre recently. Due to lack of anything tangible I could see to be new, I hadn't yet posted on that. But that would line up w/what I'm seeing.

To follow-up on that..........an interesting motion at Council in light of what @innsertnamehere and I are hearing (among others)........

1658344752637.png
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,158
Reaction score
55,046
It appears these buildings were approved by city council today, it was the last regular meeting before the election so they were approving new developments left and right, 16 total I believe

Council didn't meet today.........

The meeting wrapped on Friday.

But yes, this was approved.

Also...........if you want a synopsis of what Council approved:

 

khris

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
8,604
Reaction score
497
All of the renderings show three buildings, but it mentions the project is four buildings. Are there renders that we haven't seen yet?
 

Top