Toronto 78-84 Vaughan Road (future city park)

[AlexBozikovic]

Serious question, why is the city doing this?

Because this area is seeing population growth, and the central tenet of Toronto parks planning is that more people in an area requires more square metres of park.

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/9504-oakwood-st-clair-parkland-study-plan.pdf

Do they not comprehend what usesable/useful park space is?

Unfortunately not.

 

[Northern Light]

Because this area is seeing population growth, and the central tenet of Toronto parks planning is that more people in an area requires more square metres of park.

This part isn't really wrong, per se.

In as much as, as with any service, if more people are making use of it, you get to the point of rationing ...

But the focus really should be drilling down to functions.

How long is the wait list for soccer pitch, cricket pitch or baseball diamond time, or for more passive uses, how crowded is a space. Does this impair enjoyment.

Those details tend not be considered; and when/if they are..... there seems to be no requirement that the new park space actually address the identified problem.

Unfortunately not.

100% agreed. There just isn't' a clear logical connection between community needs and what Parks chooses to deliver.

***

Side note,

She's had long enough to get her feet wet (started November 3rd) ........maybe it's time for a media interview of Terry Ricketts, Toronto's new GM of Parks on how she plans to address these issues (and others).

 

[AlexBozikovic]

How long is wait list for soccer pitch, cricket pitch or baseball diamond time, or more passive uses, how crowded is a space. Does this impair enjoyment.

This is a complex topic, but.. I don’t think there is a single park in Toronto that is so crowded as to “impair enjoyment.” Certainly not the ones in this area.

At P&R it does not seem to compute that people go to small parks because they want to see other people, not avoid them.

 

[Northern Light]

This is a complex topic, but.. I don’t think there is a single park in Toronto that is so crowded as to “impair enjoyment.” Certainly not the ones in this area.

There are definitely parks that don't have available seating at times of peak demand in summer. Village of Yorkville Park can get very full.

Victoria Memorial Square is another one where I've seen every bench or table filled.

I can't speak to that issue in the St. Clair/Vaughan area as I'm not up there enough to provide an informed assessment.

At P&R it does not seem to compute that people go to small parks because they want to see other people, not avoid them.

I don't think they really do an assessment of crowding, any more than they address wait lists, they just go by formulas and nagging from Councillors offices and maybe an Official Plan or Strategy....sometimes....(ie. TO Core)

The problem as I see it, is that the formula should be a broad strokes guideline that says 'we should have a look at this', or 'this is likely a low priority', then Parks should actually do the drill down, as well as apply some common sense.

As example on the latter, portions of East York show as being very high in park space, because of adjacent valley lands in the Don or Taylor-Massey Creek.

But those parks aside from being mostly at the extreme west or north of the area in question, are relatively difficult to access. Steep hills pose an issue year-round, but there aren't even entrances/paths/stairs all that frequently, and of course, the 'natural' parks don't provide sports fields or a variety of other uses the community may need.

Meanwhile, some other areas may show as low in parks, because of high density, but no one has actually ground-truthed the extent of any issues.

****

I will say, not everyone wants parks as social spaces, that's absolutely the right answer for some, just as sports fields or tennis courts or botanical gardens are for others. But there are people who seek refuge from the noise and bustle of the city in Parks too. (along with wildlife viewing, etc.)

All these different needs can be met.

The problem with Parks, it tends to please just about no one. Executing almost every idea poorly.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

There are definitely parks that don't have available seating at times of peak demand in summer. Village of Yorkville Park can get very full.

A perfect illustration. That park is busy because it is busy. It benefits from tons of foot traffic, retail across the street and an adjacent café, none of which conditions exist on Vaughan Road.

It needs a restoration and some new seating. About 20% of the existing space is ragged (altered from the original design) and not well used.

Instead of restoring the park ($10-million?) so as to provide a better experience, and figuring out how to add more chairs and tables, and pedestrianizing Cumberland Street, the city is spending $50-million+ to demolish an office building next door and expand the park.

Quantity over quality.

 

[Tuscani01]

A perfect illustration. That park is busy because it is busy. It benefits from tons of foot traffic, retail across the street and an adjacent café, none of which conditions exist on Vaughan Road.

It needs a restoration and some new seating. About 20% of the existing space is ragged (altered from the original design) and not well used.



Instead of restoring the park ($10-million?) so as to provide a better experience, and figuring out how to add more chairs and tables, and pedestrianizing Cumberland Street, the city is spending $50-million+ to demolish an office building next door and expand the park.

Quantity over quality.

This is a case where both are needed. The expansion is a direct result of an ask from the community for more space given the amount of residential growth in the area. There should also be money put towards improving the existing space as well (including pedestrianization).

 

[Northern Light]

Instead of restoring the park ($10-million?)

A reasonable estimate if you're not adding any new features. Once contemplated, but cut for budget was rebuilding the TTC vestibule, that could add a few million to the tab, but it would also make it possible to add washrooms.

the city is spending $50-million+ to demolish an office building next door and expand the park. Quantity over quality.

Where did the 50M come from? The cost to demolish a building this size is under 5M.

The cost of the new build should not exceed 20M on site, if the City provides a generous budget.

There was going to be some lease buy-out costs, but since the project got deferred by several years, this should be a non-issue.

 

[innsertnamehere]

A reasonable estimate if you're not adding any new features. Once contemplated, but cut for budget was rebuilding the TTC vestibule, that could add a few million to the tab, but it would also make it possible to add washrooms.



Where did the 50M come from? The cost to demolish a building this size is under 5M.

The cost of the new build should not exceed 20M on site, if the City provides a generous budget.

There was going to be some lease buy-out costs, but since the project got deferred by several years, this should be a non-issue.

how much did the city pay to buy the building?

 

[Northern Light]

how much did the city pay to buy the building?

The City has a ground lease as it's over Bay Station, it's a small, class C building, the developer of the site on Bloor was required to obtain the ground lease, and unencumber it and demolish the building as the S.37 benefit.

So, nothing.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The City has a ground lease as it's over Bay Station, it's a small, class C building, the developer of the site on Bloor was required to obtain the ground lease, and unencumber it and demolish the building as the S.37 benefit.

So, nothing.

nothing in the sense that it burned the S.37 benefit on it instead of something else.. nothing is free in this world. I'm sure that S.37 benefit had a significant commuted value.

 

[Northern Light]

nothing in the sense that it burned the S.37 benefit on it instead of something else.. nothing is free in this world. I'm sure that S.37 benefit had a significant commuted value.

Now you're being a bit silly. The original suggestion was a 50m budget, that's what I was correcting.

S.37 was the standard mechanism of the day, there's no City cash involved except for above-base park construction, and/or TTC improvements.

This was the thing requested by area residents.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Now you're being a bit silly. The original suggestion was a 50m budget, that's what I was correcting.

S.37 was the standard mechanism of the day, there's no City cash involved except for above-base park construction, and/or TTC improvements.

This was the thing requested by area residents.

S.37 can be used for a wide variety of things. The developer basically agrees to provide $X million in benefits. Some times it's a cash payment, sometimes its something like providing land or purchasing land.. but that land still has a cost, and the City opts to direct that money to that cost. Sure, $X dollars don't land in the City's bank account.. but the City loses that opportunity nonetheless to use that money on something else.

if the City agreed to take, say, $30 million worth of S.37 benefits to buy the building, that same $30 million could have instead bought a larger park in an area with lower land values, could have been used to reconstruct multiple parks in the ward, be used to provide a large number of new affordable housing units.. etc.

Instead, they used it to demolish an existing office block and build a small new park.

The core of the cost question on the park was meant to illustrate how much the city is spending to create it and if there are better ways of using that money - both real money in the City's account the commuted value of S.37 benefits.

 

[Northern Light]

.....

Instead, they used it to demolish an existing office block and build a small new park.

With respect, you're taking a side in a discussion and arguing it without any cause or reason, simply to do so. I don't really want to pursue that type of discussion.

It was a class C building, in poor condition, well shy of fully leased, in a hot market, ugly, unattractive.

****

Though, for the record, the benefit was valued at 45M

 

[AlexBozikovic]

S.37 can be used for a wide variety of things. The developer basically agrees to provide $X million in benefits. Some times it's a cash payment, sometimes its something like providing land or purchasing land.. but that land still has a cost, and the City opts to direct that money to that cost. Sure, $X dollars don't land in the City's bank account.. but the City loses that opportunity nonetheless to use that money on something else.

if the City agreed to take, say, $30 million worth of S.37 benefits to buy the building, that same $30 million could have instead bought a larger park in an area with lower land values, could have been used to reconstruct multiple parks in the ward, be used to provide a large number of new affordable housing units.. etc.

Instead, they used it to demolish an existing office block and build a small new park.

The core of the cost question on the park was meant to illustrate how much the city is spending to create it and if there are better ways of using that money - both real money in the City's account the commuted value of S.37 benefits.

Precisely, and the actual cost of the site (via S37) was more than $45-million. That will be a $60-million park, at least.

This is a case where both are needed. The expansion is a direct result of an ask from the community for more space given the amount of residential growth in the area

With respect, "the community" is wrong.

When that is eventually opened (after many years, at huge expense, when the people who spoke for "the community" are probably all gone) it will not be a good park.

Anyway, sorry to hijack this thread.