Public urged to pressure politicians to create park on Wellesley St. site of stalled apartment project

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by GenericUser

No offence, but Toronto has no chance of turning this into something like Bryant Park. That requires common sense. Something that Toronto's councillors lack. I keep up with Toronto news through this site pretty regularly, and it seems that especially Kristyn Wong-Tam is very into the narrow, childish mentality of protecting every square inch of ground from the catastrophic effects of shadows (Can you imagine the horror?? Shadows in downtown!).

As for the revitalization of Yonge St., I also don't think that this will happen for a long time. It seems like Toronto is caught up in the stupidity of classifying everything as a "Heritage" structure. In a few decades, Toronto's downtown will be too silly at street level to take seriously. Maybe it could be the new Vegas? WIth the casino moving in, the whole idea of putting a random house (just because it is X years old) in front of every building in downtown might make sense? I'm sorry, but to me, the whole point of having large buildings downtown is to create a nice street wall. Why are Torontonians so scared of shadows? It's very odd. Have any of your stepped in Chicago's downtown? Maybe your councillors should...

I'll end the rant at that. These were just some of the things that I've observed from following this forum for the past year or so.

I realize that traditionally there has been an element of competitiveness here on SSC between Chicago and Toronto members, but I have to say that your "observations" and your beliefs about what is happening in Toronto seem a little puzzling, particularly your theory about an obsession with "shadows". I can think of only two projects in the past 7 years where shadows were an issue (one being Sapphire which would have cast a shadow on our City Hall). If you are thinking that shadows or historical preservation are never taken into account for urban planning in cities like Chicago or New York then you are mistaken.
It's okay that Toronto and Chicago are not identical. We are two different cities, with two different cultures and two completely different neighbourhood vibes; and we are quite cool with that! We invite you to come and see our city first-hand and to get a real feel for it.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by GenericUser

No offence, but Toronto has no chance of turning this into something like Bryant Park. That requires common sense. Something that Toronto's councillors lack.

I agree with some of what you said, but not all.

I agree that its counterproductive that we classify everything as heritage with little regard as to whether it's functional going forward. Casinos? Toronto is in no danger of turning into Las Vegas and doesn't look to other cities for guidance about what is a appropriate for our city. Placing them out of sight in some periphery city seems a little childish in this day and age. If Americans don't want them in their downtowns, that's their own prerogative.

Toronto City Councillors? Those people will have to retire eventually.

[Taller, Better]

Bryant Park is 9603 acres, and has been there since 1686 which is well beyond the reach of any councillor, common sense or otherwise. I honestly don't think we can expect something similar in this little postage-stamp of land. What that neighbourhood needs is a simple grass-trees-and-benches park with the exploding population along Bay St. Somewhere to walk the dogs and kids. No need for too many bells and whistles, no need for stages and concession stands. Perhaps a fountain would be nice, though.

[isaidso]

I wasn't referring to the size/amenities, but more the quality/design of that park. Quality paving, lush vegetation, black historical lighting fixtures, stone urns, beautiful trees, etc. Just planting a lawn is better than what's there now, but we could do so much better. There's a tendency to under design parks here. There's no reason it couldn't look as beautiful as this:

Bryant Park, New York


It's urban perfection; I could spend all day in that park.

[yin_yang]

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I wasn't referring to the size/amenities, but more the quality/design of that park. Quality paving, lush vegetation, black historical lighting fixtures, stone urns, beautiful trees, etc. Just planting a lawn is better than what's there now, but we could do so much better. There's a tendency to under design parks here. There's no reason it couldn't look as beautiful as this:

Bryant Park, New York


It's urban perfection; I could spend all day in that park.

I'm curious as to why you would look longingly to New York for an example like that as there are parks like that already in Toronto. I think there is a tendency in Toronto to overlook what we actually have here while looking longingly at similar things in other cities. So, all in all no need to wait til any City Councillors die if people want a little park manicured to death. But these are more visual parks than simple relaxation parks. I think a park with more open space, more grass and less having been detailed to the nth degree would suit Bay Street the best. A park where two kids can throw a football to one another without falling into the flower beds or the fountain. This does not mean "just planting a lawn", but it does mean not over designing every square centimetre. There is room for both types of parks in a city just as there is room for both manicured little French Poodles and messier little Spaniels; parks should be planned to suit the neighbourhood they are being made for.

Here is the urban park in Yorkville, and it suits Yorkville's needs beautifully.

Yorkville Park, Toronto












Here's an even newer one in Yorkville; on Scollard close to the old firehall:





more manicured little parks in Toronto:








one of the many parks when you walk from the Distillery District through the St Lawrence Market neighbourhood.



and finally the St Jame's Cathedral park, which seems to be in-between the Spring and Summer flowers:
















Cloud Gardens, which is an oasis for downtown retail and office workers. Pics taken
during the extended drought this past summer, so the plants/grass are tired looking:





















neighbours:

[ONE HUMAN]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

Bryant Park is 9603 acres...

You might want to stick the decimal point in there. It's 9.603 acres in size.

I love Bryant Park. It's one of my favourite spots in Manhattan. I wouldn't mind if we had something similar, even if it were smaller in scale.

[Kellog_G8]

It's great that they are going to make a park rather than some glass box.

[monkeyronin]

I'm not completely sold on the idea of a park here. Its a large lot on a low(ish) traffic side street in area with a fairly large amount of existing green space - Queen's Park is a block away, there's a parkette across the street, the parks along the east side of Yonge, generous landscaping surrounding many of the towers in the area, College Park nearby.

Nonetheless, if it does become a park I'd like to see the land used something like this:




Develop the area directly to the east of the existing high-rises with a few more (ideally, nice lookin' ones), add a lane to the east of those separating them from the new park. Then I'd like to see some development on Yonge side of the lane facing towards the park (sort of like the aforementioned 5 St. Joseph), and with some sort of direct connection to Yonge (perhaps like the entrance to that plaza off Yonge south of Adelaide).

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

I'm curious as to why you would look longingly to New York for an example like that as there are parks like that already in Toronto.

Some of those Toronto parks you posted (which I'm very familiar with) are good, but Bryant Park is a notch above them. I look to who ever does parks best, and Bryant Park is the best example of what I look for in an urban park. Toronto doesn't have a park like that or I would have used it as an example.

Concrete paving? That's a non-starter right off the bat. The only one that comes close to Bryant Park is that Yorkville Park, but Bryant has the whole package; it hits all the check marks.

If there is a Toronto park like Bryant, I'd gladly use it but I haven't come across it yet.......

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by monkeyronin

I'm not completely sold on the idea of a park here. Its a large lot on a low(ish) traffic side street in area with a fairly large amount of existing green space - Queen's Park is a block away, there's a parkette across the street, the parks along the east side of Yonge, generous landscaping surrounding many of the towers in the area, College Park nearby.

Sorry, not good enough. How am I supposed to watch the hustle and bustle of Yonge Street from Queen's Park? I'd need binoculars. Am I supposed to take a break from my Yonge Street shopping with a 3 block detour to Queen's Park? The whole point of it is to have it right there. Do you think Dundas Square would be the hit it is if they had built it on Jarvis and Dundas? Those parkettes? Really? Those are miniscule.

Yonge Street is going to get very dense over the coming decades. It's not going to be low rise forever. When its 40-100 floor buildings all around, we'll be glad someone had the foresight to set this piece of land aside for a public square/park.

[GenericUser]

Thanks for those amazing pics, TB. I didn't realize Toronto has such gorgeous parks downtown!

Originally Posted by isaidso

Yonge Street is going to get very dense over the coming decades. It's not going to be low rise forever. When its 40-100 floor buildings all around, we'll be glad someone had the foresight to set this piece of land aside for a public square/park.

How likely is this to happen? Wasn't there some kind of height restriction plan making its way through city hall? Either way though, if Yonge Street does gain significant density, then I can see why a park here would be very beneficial in the future.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by GenericUser

How likely is this to happen? Wasn't there some kind of height restriction plan making its way through city hall? Either way though, if Yonge Street does gain significant density, then I can see why a park here would be very beneficial in the future.

It's inevitable unless Toronto does an immediate 180. There's a segment of the population that wishes to see development kept at bay, but its becoming apparent that the core is going vertical in a hurry and these wishes just aren't realistic.

Yonge Street? I'm shocked that its managed to stay low rise this long. Around 2009, the first large scale encroachments on Yonge Street started to surface.

L Tower (205m) is almost finished and bookends the southern end of Yonge Street. It will soon be joined by a smaller tower across the street from it called Backstage. At the Bloor Street end, One Bloor is under construction and will be around 250m tall. Half way between the two, AURA is rising. It will be 274m tall. Five condos and Karma are under construction, with about 10 other condo towers proposed along the downtown Yonge Street strip.

Massive intensification has already started. We're just at the beginning of the transformation of Yonge from a low rise strip to a skyscraper canyon. Not all of these buildings will abut against Yonge Street (5ive being an example of that), but many of them will.

As early as 2020, much of Yonge from Front to Yorkville will consist of high rises. Bay Street which is parallel to Yonge to the west is already a high rise canyon. Getting this park is crucial and the single wisest decision Toronto has made this current building cycle.

[yin_yang]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Sorry, not good enough. How am I supposed to watch the hustle and bustle of Yonge Street from Queen's Park? I'd need binoculars. Am I supposed to take a break from my Yonge Street shopping with a 3 block detour to Queen's Park? The whole point of it is to have it right there. Do you think Dundas Square would be the hit it is if they had built it on Jarvis and Dundas? Those parkettes? Really? Those are miniscule.

Yonge Street is going to get very dense over the coming decades. It's not going to be low rise forever. When its 40-100 floor buildings all around, we'll be glad someone had the foresight to set this piece of land aside for a public square/park.

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Some of those Toronto parks you posted (which I'm very familiar with) are good, but Bryant Park is a notch above them. I look to who ever does parks best, and Bryant Park is the best example of what I look for in an urban park. Toronto doesn't have a park like that or I would have used it as an example.

You've sparked my curiosity... what ways is Bryant Park a notch above the Yorkville Park? I'm not one for automatically assuming materials used in New York must be better than what we use (because I've walked on their sidewalks, and seen their traffic lights, public signage and garbage cans too many times) so I'm curious to find out what firm examples you have observed about Bryant Park that would take it a level above Yorkville. Is your entire evaluation of a park based on whether the pavers are stone or not? Aside from Bryant Park, concrete does get used a lot in New York (and in London too by the way). All paving is not made from stone.

[GenericUser]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

You've sparked my curiosity... what ways is Bryant Park a notch above the Yorkville Park? I'm not one for automatically assuming materials used in New York must be better than what we use (because I've walked on their sidewalks, and seen their traffic lights, public signage and garbage cans too many times) so I'm curious to find out what firm examples you have observed about Bryant Park that would take it a level above Yorkville. Is your entire evaluation of a park based on whether the pavers are stone or not? Aside from Bryant Park, concrete does get used a lot in New York (and in London too by the way). All paving is not made from stone.

I'm interested to hear the reasoning here as well. From the pictures you've posted, it appears to me that Yorkville Park is a lot more interactive than Bryant Park. I, for one, tend to be more interested in a park that I can actually use rather than one that is mostly off limits with trimmed hedges and flowerbeds.

[Taller, Better]

Yorkville park is a little gem. They took a long rectangular area and subdivided it into several "geographical" sections in order to represent the various types of geographical features we have in Ontario. There is a little forest, a big Precambrian shield rock, a field of grass, a little stylised waterfall, etc... really a smart and user-friendly little park. I really don't recall seeing the like of it anywhere else.

[skyscraper03]

Interesting,
Bryant Park, NY is the first thing came to my mind, too.
My professor was talking about how simple the park is when it comes to its design, but I think it would be awesome to have an urban oasis like that in the heart of bustling Toronto of the future (with probably a similar design: simplicity and power). I have a feeling that it will be very well used by citizens and tourists.

I think demolishing/ relocating the little houses on Yonge Street and making the park directly connected to Yonge Street, instead of hidden behind, will bring the maximum positive impact to the area.


To TB,
No one is expressing a serious inferior complex here, nor they think Toronto can one day become exactly like some great city on the planet (since it is an impossible thing to begin with unless you have 1000 trillion dollars and the Charisma(?) of Hitler/ Chairman Mao).
But learning and getting a good idea from other cities with excellent examples is a common practice in architecture and landscape architecture. Probably NYC that some of us want to reference today was one of the most active copiers in the world before (especially of great European cities). But look. Do you think NYC is like London, Zurich, Rome, or Paris now? It ended up becoming a truly magnificent North American city with its unique scenes and character that "everybody" from the world LOVEs.

[Toronto2008]

Whatever they do I hope they put limestone down for the pathways instead of asphalt or interlock.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

You've sparked my curiosity... what ways is Bryant Park a notch above the Yorkville Park? I'm not one for automatically assuming materials used in New York must be better than what we use (because I've walked on their sidewalks, and seen their traffic lights, public signage and garbage cans too many times) so I'm curious to find out what firm examples you have observed about Bryant Park that would take it a level above Yorkville. Is your entire evaluation of a park based on whether the pavers are stone or not? Aside from Bryant Park, concrete does get used a lot in New York (and in London too by the way). All paving is not made from stone.

First of all, I did mention that the Yorkville Park comes close to Bryant Park so I would consider a design of that calibre satisfactory. Bryant Park is still the best example of my ideal urban park (that I'm aware of).

Secondly, this isn't about New York but 1 park that just happens to be in that city. If Bryant Park were in Winnipeg I still would have chosen it. The Yorkville Park works very well for the area it's located in, but this Wellesley plot needs a less segmented approach. It will likely see far higher foot traffic so a more uniform design is needed.

Beyond these initial points, Bryant Park is better in a few areas. The paving is gorgeous. They used stone vs. concrete/brick blocks/wood in Yorkville. It's a higher end material. Bryant Park also offers seating that's more generous and formal. Black metal benches as opposed to cinder blocks or rocks to sit on. Lighting fixtures? The Yorkville park does well here, but the ones in Bryant Park are nicer again.

I love what they did in Yorkville with the vegetation, but don't want to see it duplicated in this new square/park. I'm not partial to the 'wild' English garden look. I much prefer the highly structured perfection of a French garden.

For me, Bryant Park represents a different aesthetic completely than the Yorkville Park. Yorkville is very nice indeed, but I've always longed for the old world charm that Bryant Park offers, but in downtown Toronto... preferably right on Yonge Street.

I hope this clarifies my position a little. Once again, this has NOTHING to do with New York, London, or what they use on their streets. I've only mentioned Bryant Park so I'm not sure why you're bringing up these non-related points.

Originally Posted by GenericUser

I'm interested to hear the reasoning here as well.

My reasons are listed above.