An article in the Star today discusses the issues that have arisen over the redevelopment of Downsview Park.
Christopher Hume says,
"It could change the city and offer a new model of urban planning. The opportunity exists here to build something magnificent — a 21st-century variation of New York's Central Park or London's Regent's Park, a place where green space and housing exist harmoniously, even symbiotically, each deriving value from the other."

As much as I believe that this new design will blend urban and greenbelt in a harmonious way, I think Downsview's location, so far from the heart of downtown, will set it back as the city's "Central Park". I don't think that it will be a popular place for downtowners who want to take a break from shopping/working... you would have to take the subway there and back!

Here's the article:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1098483011877&call_pageid=968350130169&col=969483202845&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

^I have always liked the idea of turning Downsview into a park but the cost is astronomical.

The land has been heavily contaminated with jet fuels, solvents and many other things that would require a vast amount of clean up. This coupled with the huge area of the former Air Force Base would make it even more difficult.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the government won't even try to help us fund our city servises, what makes people think that they will help fund this?

Sorry, but when it comes to civic improvements in Toronto, the city is on its own. The waterfront proves my point.

Certain types of vegetation will be able to grow in that contaminated soil. You can't just put anything there. If they do that, and forget about the housing developments, you can, in a decade's or so time, have a pretty nice young forest on your hands. With the introduction of some organic material, that place can be revitalized in 20 years or so, and by that time, you'll have a nice early stage wild forest that Toronto can be proud of.

It's just not in the greatest location methinks.

^The point is that by law, brown fields must be cleaned up before developement can occur. This is so the "Love Canal Syndrom" does not happen in the new developement.

I'm pretty sure that the city considers Downsview a brownfield.

Christ, this has been going on for so long. Whatever parkland that is developed will fall far short of the expectations of those who are pushing for it. I'd love to have a great urban park, but where are the people going to access this park from? The eastern perimeter is bounded by the Allen and the Spadina line. It's northern perimeter is developed along the entire length of Sheppard until you get to Keele. Along Keele you have a bit of nice park space, and there's parts along Wilson which can be opened up. But on both of those two sides is low density residential. The people who would actually be using this park would have to drive there, and that doesn't seem like an urban park to me.

Christ, this has been going on for so long. Whatever parkland that is developed will fall far short of the expectations of those who are pushing for it. I'd love to have a great urban park, but where are the people going to access this park from? The eastern perimeter is bounded by the Allen and the Spadina line. It's northern perimeter is developed along the entire length of Sheppard until you get to Keele. Along Keele you have a bit of nice park space, and there's parts along Wilson which can be opened up. But on both of those two sides is low density residential. The people who would actually be using this park would have to drive there, and that doesn't seem like an urban park to me.

You could take the TTC up to Downsview and then walk... basically, then, I agree with you. It's a no go.

I have an idea: we use High Park as an urban park!

The feds are going to help Toronto with the Downsview project at around the same time that they will help Toronto with Harbourfront and the TTC. Our grandchildren will enjoy this legacy!

Just to point out, Central Park was not at all "central" when they first planned it. The park existed at the city's northernmost edge. New York later grew up around the park, as the original urban planners assumed it would.

A park like the one you describe could well be a significant and very urban amenity in 50 years time.

I have an idea: we use High Park as an urban park!


Don't we already?

"A park like the one you describe could well be a significant and very urban amenity in 50 years time."


Flatiron...this is misanthropic Toronto...and the age of instant gratification....that's not a good mix....that's why you are hearing people using the "grandchildren" remark as sarcastic. LOL





"The feds are going to help Toronto with the Downsview project at around the same time that they will help Toronto with Harbourfront and the TTC."


Well, haven't they handed over money for the TTC and are building that little art park at Harbourfront? Remember...this is federal property to begin with.






KGB

Let''s just hope something starts soon, before we get a Conservative government that sells the land off to build cookie cutter housing, in order to facilitate tax cuts.

The two best parks in Toronto are High Park and on Toronto Island and both are fine the way they are. All we need to do is develop the waterfront, and I'd rather the money go there than Downsview. KGB's right about this being the age of instant gratification. This great urban park at Downsview is not just going to happen overnight, but that seems to be what people expect.

What I think they should do is tear up the airport, get the Boy Scouts to plant a million trees, throw up a big ass fence around the entire park land, and then leave it alone for one hundred years! By that time the density of North York will have grown considerably, a will have the trees and plant life. You'd have a forest in the middle of a dense urban area. For once, can't we plan something not for ourselves, but for future generations? Instead of planning a half-assed park now, why not have a great park later? That would be a much better legacy for city counicl.

^I agree with you that making it a greenspace is the right thing to do for the long run.

But it won't be anything in the long run if nothing happens. Its not that people like myself want things to happen overnight, it is just that the promises have been broken so many times that I do not trust anything short of action.

"The two best parks in Toronto are High Park and on Toronto Island"


Well, there is no "best" park...parks serve different purposes...and different people...if you live in Riverdale, then Withrow Park is the best...if you live in the Beach, then Kew Gardens is the best park...if you live in St Lawrence, then maybe the Sculpture Garden is the best park. There are 1500 parks in the city, which means everybody gets lots of parks. Monumental parks like Downsview are great, but sometimes all you really need is the small 1 acre one down the block from your house where you take your kid to the swings.






KGB

what exactly is a 'national urban park'???

Does this mean it'll be run by Parks Canada? If so, then it shouldn't be affected by the fed/prov/city beurocracy malaise that Toronto always suffers from. It would simply be greenspace, and the land would regenerate on its own. You won't even need to plant trees.

A good example of such regrowth in Point Farms provincial park, near Goderich. It was donated farm land; they just let it grown on its own. 20 years later it's pretty much forest, and it's quite fascinating to see indigenous plant life take over without any help. Of course, it was never used as an airport!

Personally, I think it should be developed. Do a dense, mix-use community centred on a smaller park in the middle. It could be simliar to a new-urbanist development, design it on a grid, but with higher density corridors. Hell, even run a streetcar into Downsview! I think North York needs that more than it needs another big, vast, boring suburban park that no one will bother to visit.

Oh, I should add.... make it affordable housing. Just think, where else in the city is there so much empty land with direct subway access? Let's have another Esplanade! It's been proven that we can do large housing 'projects' well.

It's a "national" park, because the land is owned by the federal government...and federal land is land owned by all Canadians.

It's kinda like Rouge Park is also not a "municipal" park...it's owned and run by a different body than the "city".

I don't think leaving Downsview to grow on it's own...it is not a natural regeneration candidate...it definetely needs to be designed. If you want that kind of thing, head to the Spit....that has completely eveloved on it's own.






KGB

Any site can be given over to natural regeneration so long as it's not on the moon. A flower popping up from a crack in the pavement is natural regeneration. It's what the Earth does. Just like the Spit, which I think is great, but that area is still being used by the city, and is also open to the public. I think for Downsview, all that should be done is to rip out the infrasructure, throw up a fence around it, and leave it alone. Kinda like M. Night's "The Village." Minus the red caped creatures.