Couture | T/O | 43 st | 131 m | Downtown / Church-Wellesley

[Jaborandi]

Originally Posted by isaidso

You're entitled to your opinion, but sound proof/affordable/a good recycling program are hardly good reasons to abandon studying better use of scarce land. Are you suggesting these things are too complicated concepts to be reproduced in the new building?

Those sunbathing spaces you speak of are small patches of grass for residents of those buildings, what about the rest of the people in the Church-Wellesley neighbourhood? Where are we supposed to go? Locals don't want more green space? I am a local and I'm tired of having to go to the waterfront, Centre Island, or Cherry Beach for it. Those places are nice, but we should have a BIG park where we live.

I've never had much problem walking to Queen's Park, University of Toronto, or the linear parks over the Yonge Subway not to mention Allan Gardens or Manulife. I would think that Rosedale Valley, Craigleigh Gardens, Ryerson Quad or Cabbagetown's parks would be far easier and quicker to get to than Toronto Islands or Cherry Beach. I'm sorry that you are finding it so difficult to find a place to relax. For myself, whenever I want to sit in a quiet park and read, I just head to Sugar Beach. I'm a senior and it's no big deal to walk there. It's actually a delightful 30 minute walk. The lack of park space in downtown Toronto is nothing compared to the lack of affordable housing which City Park provides. By the way, anybody can use the lawns at City Park though they usually go unused. Just how much space do you require?

And why target City Park rather than something more central to Church Wellesley. Oops, I forgot Cawthra Park and the Paul Kane Park. I simply don't see the point in destroying a successful affordable neighbourhood that works to provide sports grounds for GLBT teams which would only serve to segregate them further from the larger community. Sports grounds a block from a major downtown subway station sounds like a tragic waste of resources. I admire your desire to create a better city but this idea sounds quite impractical - I mean, who is going to pay for this prime real estate to be turned over to recreational uses and just how many users will there be in winter to justify the cost?

[isaidso]

I play in gay sports leagues, so I was looking more for something large enough for our teams to use, but multi purposed so as to become a loved amenity for all of Church-Wellesley. Those other parks aren't in Church-Wellesley. The point was to build something for the community rather than a question of being too lazy to walk to Sugar Beach.

I've seen similar parks in downtown New York and London and they do wonders for the immediate vicinity. I don't see them as a waste of resources, but adding tremendously to the quality of life of the neighbourhoods they exist in. Church & Wellesley doesn't have anything of significant size. Cawthra Park is puny. As the core densifies, our opportunity for such an amenity gets further and further out of reach.

Toronto saw the wisdom in building Dundas Square, it also showed that urban renewal on a large scale is quite do-able (Regents Park). Are we really going to add another 100 condo towers downtown and not build any more large public spaces for the people that live here? I think we will come to regret it if we don't plan for them. They have to go somewhere and it will require compromise and redevelopment of some blocks.

[Mollywood]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Fresh angle. This area could do with a large retail/office complex. I've always preferred mixed use neighbourhoods. The area works, but would be more interesting with some office workers, maybe one day a big cinema or museum.

Not going to happen, but I always thought those identical apartment slabs directly north of Maple Leaf Gardens should be redeveloped. The one closest to Church could be rebuilt right up to the Church Street apron, with retail at the bottom and 4-5 times taller. The others knocked down and an urban park built for the Church-Wellesley locals. All the LGBT sports teams could play their games there and it could become a focal point for the community.

Locals have no where in the summer to lounge except a patio or some concrete step. I bet it would be packed like sardines in the summer. This block is currently not an efficient use of space and could be so much more than it is. None of the residents would need to be displaced permanently, just relocated in one tall building along Church.

The way those buildings are situated, does waste a lot of valuable space. I wouldn't want to tear them all down but I think there might be enough space between them, to build a few more buildings in there. That parking lot along the Church Street side needs to be taken out and replaced with retail buildings. It would be quite easy to do that and would be such a big improvement to Church Street and the neighbourhood.

By the way, the redevelopment of Regent Park also includes a new park beside the aquatic centre. The West Don Lands will also have a big new park, so you can't say the city isn't getting new parks. I believe Cawthra Park is getting redesigned soon which is good because it's not looking so good these days.

The sad part is we have a HUGE area of raw, lush, undeveloped park land running along the ravines of the Don Valley, yet the city pretty much ignores it. Toronto has more ravines than any other city in the WORLD but no tourist (and few Torontonians) will ever know/see that. Few people use it for anything besides a transportation route. When I walk along there, I see few other people around and god help you if you are of need of a toilet. One day this city will realize what a great resource it could be and maybe they will start using it for parks, sports and other creative uses. It's just there waiting to be put to good use.

What Toronto really lacks is a beautiful, well designed park. Our parks usually look like a patch of grass with random trees thrown here and there. We just don't do those stylish, innovative, beautiful parks that other places do. I think we need one unique and highly detailed, beautifully designed park, lush with colourful plants, cool lighting and great art. That's what we really need!

[Nouvellecosse]

What about the big empty lot on Breadalbane? It may not be right in Church-Wellesley, but it's pretty damn close. And it wouldn't require any buildings to be demoed; just some site resurfacing and landscaping. I'm not sure if there are any proposals for the location, but it's too big to justify wasting on condos which can be shoe horned into much tighter spaces. And the recreation space could also be enjoyed by the growing populations of Bay street and Yorkville as well.

[isaidso]

Redeveloping the first 8-10 floors of those 2 condo towers on Bay into a giant retail podium for a Macy's that fronts onto both Bay and a new public square that stretches all the way to Yonge Street. It would give Bay a much needed boost, and create another Dundas Square further north. The buildings fronting Yonge would have to come down.

Phase 2: major intensification on the north and south sides of the square.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Mollywood

The way those buildings are situated, does waste a lot of valuable space. I wouldn't want to tear them all down but I think there might be enough space between them, to build a few more buildings in there. That parking lot along the Church Street side needs to be taken out and replaced with retail buildings. It would be quite easy to do that and would be such a big improvement to Church Street and the neighbourhood.

Why not just stack the middle ones on top of the ones on the ends, and have a park in the middle? It would make more sense to start from scratch, although residents in those buildings might not want to move regardless of what you offer them.

[Nouvellecosse]

I gotta hand it to ya buddy - ya think big!

[isaidso]

Many people react to my ideas with shock/horror, so I'll take 'ya think big' any day. I have rather transformative ideas about the rail corridor too.

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Many people react to my ideas with shock/horror

Only when they involve desires to have great hulking exposed concrete bunkers like the Hotel Bonaventure relocated to Toronto!

Originally Posted by Jaborandi

I've never had much problem walking to Queen's Park, University of Toronto, or the linear parks over the Yonge Subway not to mention Allan Gardens or Manulife. I would think that Rosedale Valley, Craigleigh Gardens, Ryerson Quad or Cabbagetown's parks would be far easier and quicker to get to than Toronto Islands or Cherry Beach. I'm sorry that you are finding it so difficult to find a place to relax. For myself, whenever I want to sit in a quiet park and read, I just head to Sugar Beach. I'm a senior and it's no big deal to walk there. It's actually a delightful 30 minute walk. The lack of park space in downtown Toronto is nothing compared to the lack of affordable housing which City Park provides. By the way, anybody can use the lawns at City Park though they usually go unused. Just how much space do you require?

And why target City Park rather than something more central to Church Wellesley. Oops, I forgot Cawthra Park and the Paul Kane Park. I simply don't see the point in destroying a successful affordable neighbourhood that works to provide sports grounds for GLBT teams which would only serve to segregate them further from the larger community. Sports grounds a block from a major downtown subway station sounds like a tragic waste of resources. I admire your desire to create a better city but this idea sounds quite impractical - I mean, who is going to pay for this prime real estate to be turned over to recreational uses and just how many users will there be in winter to justify the cost?

+1
There are tons of parks and greenspaces in this city that people simply don't even bother to use as it is.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

There are tons of parks and greenspaces in this city that people simply don't even bother to use as it is.

You could have used that argument against building Dundas Square.

[Taller, Better]

?? Sorry, but I can't imagine calling YD Square a "park" or "green space". I would never take my dog for a walk there because it is a town square, not a park, and was much needed.

I've heard arguments that we should have a Central Park like the one in New York. When you stop to think about it, that would entail bulldozing every building between Bloor Street and Front Street and between Yonge and Spadina which we can file under the "Ain't Gonna Happen" category, along with snow peaked mountains. As fun as it is to complain we don't have enough parks and wish we had massive tracks of parkland in the middle of the city, an alternative is to get to know the ones we have. It is no more difficult to go to Queen's Park or Allan Gardens than it is to go to any park in any other city; it just involves going off our beaten track a tiny bit.

Drawing the convo back to Couture; picks from today:

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

?? Sorry, but I can't imagine calling YD Square a "park" or "green space".

I'm not suggesting that Dundas Square is a park or green space, but a public space for people to lounge in. It serves a similar public function: one is green, the other is not. I remember people complaining that Dundas Square wasn't necessary due to other public areas being under utilized. It's a weak argument and we all know how Dundas Square turned out.

Toronto will need another public area the size of DS or larger off Yonge and it needs to go between College and Bloor.

[Mollywood]

We need both public parks and public squares. Both serve an important purpose. We have a huge amount of undeveloped parkland, along the Don River and our ravines. It sits there mostly unused but once Toronto becomes serious about park development, it could be turned into great parks, public spaces and sporting venues. It's just waiting to be developed when we're ready. Toronto has the largest ravine system of any major city in the WORLD!

[monkeyronin]

But that they're undeveloped is kinda the point. Its unspoiled green space in the middle of the city. Besides the existing paths, there isn't anything else that can or should be "developed" within them.

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by monkeyronin

But that they're undeveloped is kinda the point. Its unspoiled green space in the middle of the city. Besides the existing paths, there isn't anything else that can or should be "developed" within them.

+1

Why would anyone want to spoil that incredibly beautiful ravine by turning it into a "Park" with a capital "P"? I encourage everyone to visit it, if they have not already. It is a stunning place to walk.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Mollywood

We need both public parks and public squares. Both serve an important purpose.

Agree. I think in 10-15 years when our downtown core has another 50-60 condo towers and 60,000 more residents we'll regret not having the foresight to build another Dundas Square or 2. I'd rather the next square be green: something like Bryant Park. We'd still need another one after that though: grass suitable for recreational activities like soccer, football, or just sun bathing, dog walking, etc.

Downtown Toronto's population increased by 32% between 2006 and 2011 to about 175,000. It's likely to increase substantially beyond that. What's sufficient today will not be sufficient tomorrow. Thank God we built Dundas Square, but we need a few more public spaces that size.

[Jasonzed]

[isaidso]

It's a bit weird (even taking perspective into account) how short those buildings look behind the trees.

[Mollywood]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

+1

Why would anyone want to spoil that incredibly beautiful ravine by turning it into a "Park" with a capital "P"? I encourage everyone to visit it, if they have not already. It is a stunning place to walk.

In that case, did building pathways and access points spoil the beauty of the ravine? A cement pathway is not nature.
And if that didn't spoil it, why would a washroom, park bench, bike stand or recreational facilities spoil it? If the freaking DON VALLEY PARKWAY is not an issue, why would a few amenities be? I just don't get it.

Why would we not use our great natural assets to not only sell our city but to develop them into something really special? Is something like Central Park really that terrible? The Don Valley Ravine could be a more natural kind of Central Park. (of course, not as fully developed) I'm not saying to turn it into Times Square but at least use it for more than we do now. (a highway and bike path)

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by Mollywood

In that case, did building pathways and access points spoil the beauty of the ravine? A cement pathway is not nature.
And if that didn't spoil it, why would a washroom, park bench, bike stand or recreational facilities spoil it? If the freaking DON VALLEY PARKWAY is not an issue, why would a few amenities be. I just don't get it.

There aren't cement pathways, and the steps down are simple wood planks. The paths are just compressed soil, with perhaps a bit of gravel sprinkled over. Please give it a go this summer and check it out for yourself. Get off the subway at Summerhill, and walk down Shaftesbury Ave till you get to the ravine. Follow the wooden steps down, and you will be in heaven. When I first moved here, the area was notorious as a late night meeting place for gay men.