No big Park in the city core: lost opportunity or future development?
13828
156
I have noticed that there is no big park in or near the downtown core.
There are the areas of trinity-bellwods and cabbagetown but they are not big enough.
Plenty of lands has been repurposed but none of that has gone to parks.
Is there hope for a big park in central Toronto or is gone?
Could Toronto have its own Central, Hyde, Regent Park?
![]()
There are the areas of trinity-bellwods and cabbagetown but they are not big enough.
Plenty of lands has been repurposed but none of that has gone to parks.
Is there hope for a big park in central Toronto or is gone?
Could Toronto have its own Central, Hyde, Regent Park?
21 - 40 of 157 Posts
:crazy:
Not to be pedantic, but technically Hyde Park is one part of four connected parks that includes St James’s Park, Green Park and Kensington Gardens. Regent’s Park is to the north. Still even when combined, far from being the largest park in London.
But the West End (which includes Mayfair) is just across the street from Hyde Park. And the West End, by any definition, is part of the central business district. Even Regent's Park is just across the street from Marylebone and Fitzrovia, both neighborhoods being part of the West End. As for Central Park, it's just north of Midtown.
How many people actually walk to High Park from downtown Toronto?
How many people actually walk to High Park from downtown Toronto?
I suppose it's because High Park is quite far from the built up area. It doesn't feel downtown while Central Park does. I wouldn't use the CBD as a reference point.
Thanks for your concern, Jake, but I think you'll find that no one said Hyde Park is the largest park in London... if you read what has been posted thus far. The point was made that there are no large parks in downtown Toronto, and I mentioned that there is one the size of Central Park (Toronto Islands), and one half the size of Hyde Park (High Park). Not to be pedantic, but walk just north of Bloor Street (which is downtown by most people's reckoning) and a massive ravine system of parkland begins that runs all the way the city.
Toronto and London are different cities, so I'm not sure what we are attempting to prove here....these types of city vs city measuring contests generally do go around in circles and this one is starting
to spin in the mud!
And on that happy note, I do believe it is time we turned the sprinklers on yet another Toronto vs London fest in the Toronto forums. These seem to have been particularly
popular this past year. Thanks to one and all for the discussion, but a thread about parks in Toronto does not have to centre around London and it's park system. I am sure there are plenty of other forums in SSC where those parks can be discussed.
High Park is in our West End, and for all intents and purposes is a downtown park. Toronto Islands are extremely close to downtown Toronto, but no one walks to them because they would drown!
Toronto and London are different cities, so I'm not sure what we are attempting to prove here....these types of city vs city measuring contests generally do go around in circles and this one is starting
to spin in the mud!
And on that happy note, I do believe it is time we turned the sprinklers on yet another Toronto vs London fest in the Toronto forums. These seem to have been particularly
popular this past year. Thanks to one and all for the discussion, but a thread about parks in Toronto does not have to centre around London and it's park system. I am sure there are plenty of other forums in SSC where those parks can be discussed.
What would you like to see done with the Don Valley super park? Do you think some of the transportation corridors need to be re-located for it to work?
^^ I've not really looked into what they have planned, to be honest. I really love the park system as it is, personally.... but I know a lot of people won't use it until it is made more accessible and given some amenities like washrooms/drinking fountains, etc.... I love the wildness of it, and there are trails throughout it and different access points and wooden stairs down.. but many people don't seem to know it even exists. It is kind of like our Stanley Park (from Vancouver). I just hope they don't do it up to death and make it twee... it is a breathtaking bit of Mother Nature right under our noses.
It is hard to access unless you know where the entry points are. In lots of places you have to do a 30 minute detour to get an entrance. From what I've seen the plan is to keep the valley natural but stitch it all together, make entry easy, and to restore the Don River to its former state. It's much narrower than it used to be.
The best thing is to shut down both the Don Valley Parkway and Gardiner Expressway. The DVP should be demolished and given over to wildlife, while the Gardiner can be turned into Toronto's Highline park. [email protected]*k the motorists should be John Tory's motto.
When you start strolling through the ravine park system, you are struck by the immensity and the wildness of it; so incredibly close to the heart of the city. For those who are not familiar with it, do a google images search of David Balfour Park (just one of a string of parks that go northward through the city:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=davi...lrDZAhVS-qwKHRypAUoQ_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=943
Truly, it is a stunning expanse of land that is just trees trees trees and paths. Plus little gurgling streams, and even a (man made) fountain:
![]()
And again, a few of my own pictures:
![]()
![]()
![]()
It is just so calming and peaceful to stroll through the woods and stand by the gurgling streams.
![]()
By the way, if you get off the subway at Old Mill station, you can wander through the beautiful Étienne Brûlé Park on the Humber River. The park is named
for Étienne Brûlé, the first European to explore Lake Ontario and the first one to set eyes upon what has now become Toronto.. back in September of 1615.
My favourite time of year is in October when the salmon are swimming upstream to spawn, and jumping the ladders:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
https://www.google.ca/search?q=davi...lrDZAhVS-qwKHRypAUoQ_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=943
Truly, it is a stunning expanse of land that is just trees trees trees and paths. Plus little gurgling streams, and even a (man made) fountain:
And again, a few of my own pictures:
It is just so calming and peaceful to stroll through the woods and stand by the gurgling streams.
By the way, if you get off the subway at Old Mill station, you can wander through the beautiful Étienne Brûlé Park on the Humber River. The park is named
for Étienne Brûlé, the first European to explore Lake Ontario and the first one to set eyes upon what has now become Toronto.. back in September of 1615.
My favourite time of year is in October when the salmon are swimming upstream to spawn, and jumping the ladders:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...hape/article38061066/?cmpid=rss&click=dlvr.it
architecture
On the waterfront, Toronto's next great park takes shape
At a public meeting on Thursday, Waterfront Toronto will present its current vision for a project that will reshape the tail of the Don River
Alex Bozikovic
Published 2 days ago
Updated February 21, 2018
As central Toronto booms, many people have come to see the need for new open space in the core. But not far away, a great collection of park space is in the works: It will cover 80 hectares at the mouth of the Don River, and you'll be able to splash in the river within less than a decade.
"The experience of having your feet in the Don River will be something entirely new," landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh says. "That'll be a great gift for the city."
At a public meeting on Thursday, Waterfront Toronto will present the current vision for that park; it is part of the $1.185-billion Port Lands Flood Protection program announced last June.....
read it all here:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...hape/article38061066/?cmpid=rss&click=dlvr.it
architecture
On the waterfront, Toronto's next great park takes shape
At a public meeting on Thursday, Waterfront Toronto will present its current vision for a project that will reshape the tail of the Don River
Alex Bozikovic
Published 2 days ago
Updated February 21, 2018
As central Toronto booms, many people have come to see the need for new open space in the core. But not far away, a great collection of park space is in the works: It will cover 80 hectares at the mouth of the Don River, and you'll be able to splash in the river within less than a decade.
"The experience of having your feet in the Don River will be something entirely new," landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh says. "That'll be a great gift for the city."
At a public meeting on Thursday, Waterfront Toronto will present the current vision for that park; it is part of the $1.185-billion Port Lands Flood Protection program announced last June.....
read it all here:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...hape/article38061066/?cmpid=rss&click=dlvr.it
The first pic above in the set of pics, is that man-made fountain in Toronto? If so, where is it? I've never seen that before
I have mixed feelings about the DVP. It's one of the most scenic drives in the city but it doesn't mesh well with having a park in the valley. Ideally they'd be no highway, rail line, and power lines but I doubt any of it will get moved. It bears mentioning that Toronto decided to repair the Gardiner rather than take it down.
Now they should just close down Billy Bishop Airport, it's messing up lively/green waterfront image. It's just too industrial and noisy...
Yeah, I totally agree! I have proposed the same with London and their City Airport in that closing the airport would be beneficial to the city. There is no reason why an airport should be this close to the city when you already have good transport links between downtown and the airport.
I don't find Billy Bishop airport disrupts enjoyment of the waterfront one little bit. What's next, condo owners asking for Skydome to be closed down because they moved next to a stadium? Billy Bishop is an integral part of our transportation system and people are voting with their feet. The airport is very popular.
The waterfront is one of the most valuable real estate areas. An airport in the core is a waste of space, on the other hand. Because of the runways, they take too much space. There is no reason why Pearson cannot be expanded to accommodate Billy Bishop traffic. The area around Pearson is "worthless" compared to core, and Pearson is already connected via transit. A stadium, on the other hand, is an entertainment venue and adds value to downtown.
Instead of Billy Bishop, there could be an iconic hotel/resort there, or luxury condo's; their view would be amazing, looking at downtown. Something like this in Singapore:
![]()
The whole point of Toronto's waterfront project is to de-industrialize.
Instead of Billy Bishop, there could be an iconic hotel/resort there, or luxury condo's; their view would be amazing, looking at downtown. Something like this in Singapore:
The whole point of Toronto's waterfront project is to de-industrialize.
I bet the airport pumps as much money/jobs into the downtown economy as the stadium.... if not more. It has a lot of value. I'd much rather have the airport than a hotel/resort. I couldn't think of anything more boring.
I'm all in favour of the waterfront de-industrialization but not that it be completely white washed away. We still need to be a fully functioning diverse city. The airport and sugar refinery are all that's left along the waterfront but I want them to remain permanent fixtures. Beyond the obvious economic benefit they add a layer of vibrancy and intrigue to the downtown.
Mixed use is almost always more appealing and interesting. All residential, retail, and parks? No thank you. I want a little bit of everything. If I wanted a sanitized, plastic, quiet place I'd move to Mississauga or Humber Bay.
I'm all in favour of the waterfront de-industrialization but not that it be completely white washed away. We still need to be a fully functioning diverse city. The airport and sugar refinery are all that's left along the waterfront but I want them to remain permanent fixtures. Beyond the obvious economic benefit they add a layer of vibrancy and intrigue to the downtown.
Mixed use is almost always more appealing and interesting. All residential, retail, and parks? No thank you. I want a little bit of everything. If I wanted a sanitized, plastic, quiet place I'd move to Mississauga or Humber Bay.
Well, if the traffic were moved to Pearson, it'd still pump money, there's no benefit of it being on the islands.
Also I fail to see the vibrancy of the airport. Unless one is a little kid, it's not really exciting to see planes landing and taking off.
It's just a waste of valuable space.
![]()
Instead, there could be another marina, restaurants, hotels, several condo's etc, connected by a little bridge...
Also I fail to see the vibrancy of the airport. Unless one is a little kid, it's not really exciting to see planes landing and taking off.
It's just a waste of valuable space.
Instead, there could be another marina, restaurants, hotels, several condo's etc, connected by a little bridge...
I'd rather not have the island turned into condos. I'd like to keep the toronto skyline in the area it is now and not break it up any more than it already is.
But, tearing out the airport and replacing it with a legit real amusement park or something would be neat. Just nothing that takes away from the skyline itself. I like the idea of the post above mine, but leave out the condos. Just leave the island a park with an amusement park.
Also. Build a frigging bridge or tunnel to it. Make it accessible via walking. The ferry is nice and all, but it could be used a lot more if pedestrians could access it easier.
But, tearing out the airport and replacing it with a legit real amusement park or something would be neat. Just nothing that takes away from the skyline itself. I like the idea of the post above mine, but leave out the condos. Just leave the island a park with an amusement park.
Also. Build a frigging bridge or tunnel to it. Make it accessible via walking. The ferry is nice and all, but it could be used a lot more if pedestrians could access it easier.
Getting rid of the airport would be a mistake, in my opinion. The biggest cities, nowadays, need two or more airports. One handles international and the most important destinations. The other handles more local service. Look at New York City; it has two major airports (JFK and EWR), and several smaller airports with lots of commercial traffic (LaGuardia, which has international flights; Islip; Westchester County; and even Stewart in Newburgh if you want to count that). Washington DC has Dulles, Reagan, and BWI. Los Angeles has LAX, Burbank, Orange County, Ontario, etc.
Putting all of the flights at Pearson would probably be bad because then the local connections would disappear. Billy Bishop Airport serves flights to places like Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Ottawa, etc. Airfare is cheaper because there's less demand for flights from Billy Bishop. If you put those flights at Pearson, prices will go up because of the demand for runway space, not necessarily because of more customers. Then flights to other places in Ontario will become less frequent. And when Pearson has to cut flights because it gets too busy, which flights do you think will be cut from service: the flights to Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, or the flights to Heathrow, Rome, or Los Angeles? Obviously, the international flights will stay, and the people of Ontario will lose a way to move about their own province.
To me, speaking from experience (even I have used Billy Bishop Airport), the airport has value both as a connection at a low cost to consumers to move around central and eastern Canada, and also as convenient access to Downtown for those living in the area, or for charter flights.
Putting all of the flights at Pearson would probably be bad because then the local connections would disappear. Billy Bishop Airport serves flights to places like Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Ottawa, etc. Airfare is cheaper because there's less demand for flights from Billy Bishop. If you put those flights at Pearson, prices will go up because of the demand for runway space, not necessarily because of more customers. Then flights to other places in Ontario will become less frequent. And when Pearson has to cut flights because it gets too busy, which flights do you think will be cut from service: the flights to Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, or the flights to Heathrow, Rome, or Los Angeles? Obviously, the international flights will stay, and the people of Ontario will lose a way to move about their own province.
To me, speaking from experience (even I have used Billy Bishop Airport), the airport has value both as a connection at a low cost to consumers to move around central and eastern Canada, and also as convenient access to Downtown for those living in the area, or for charter flights.
21 - 40 of 157 Posts
