Toronto Love Park | 3m | 1s | City of Toronto | CCxA

Have the existing mature trees been removed already? Were they not to be saved and designed as a part of the new park design? The York Forest and BYOT schemes seems to have rendered them in but I can't find them in the CC plan and that perhaps is its only weak point for me. I do think we should try to keep the trees as they were here first after all and have persisted through so much contextual change in their neighbourhood.

Excited to see more details of all the proposals.
 
I think the Forest would fit beautifully anywhere else in the city, but on the waterfront, we don’t need any more places to look at water, we need a place to play with water.

qZz6W3.jpg


The waterfront is a big tease with no places for kids and adults alike to get wet, to splash in the water or just get our feet cool on a hot day. Some of these proposals acknowledged that while others took the requirement for a water feature to be yet another place to look at a pretty fountain.

A shallow splash pad with just an inch of water with a source of water pouring in is the best way to do this. Kids can play by the source, splashing in the water. People can stroll through just getting their feet wet. Park Vert seems to do this best:

rfEHSs.jpg


But again, an opportunity is missed to do a grand tribute to water on our waterfront. This park and Rees are the final spaces available for such a piece. Kids are going to grow up in these neighbourhoods with no way to interact with water other than their condo’s inside pool. That’s a shame and one of the rare failure’s of Waterfront Toronto.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DTC
Because there are a couple of different 'forest-like' concepts here, I am going to put a thought for this and other parks.

I'd really like to see more native plants brought in, even to table-top or manicured designs.

Many species are every bit as durable and require less help than many non-natives to survive. Yet, many have gone missing over the years from the Toronto landscape due to
development/indifference, invasive species and the failure to use native plants more often in landscape choices.

Most native tree species are well represented in Toronto, a notable exception being butternut.

There is one species we could add more of (but not too much, as I remind folks in threads here often, you don't want all one thing, if disease/pests hit, its bad news)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juglans_cinerea


But there's a lot more we could do w/flowers

My favourite of the day to champion, Wood Lily.

Its extremely common in cottage country. Beautiful, bright, cheerful, once established it can dominate a space like no one's business; its a great forest edge species. Yet we only see the non-natives used, even w/lilies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilium_philadelphicum

1024px-Lilium_philadelphicum_var._philadelphicum.jpg


Another wonderful choice would be Cardinal Flower. Now these like marshy, wet sites, though they tend to grow on the drier parts that only a flood a bit during spring or after a heavy rain.

But any park with a pseudo-natural water feature could include these thoughtfully, a great plant for swale-type areas too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobelia_cardinalis

800px-Lobelia_cardinalis_-_Cardinal_Flower.jpg


So many other great choices could be made.
 
Last edited:
MetroMan said:
I think the Forest would fit beautifully anywhere else in the city, but on the waterfront, we don’t need any more places to look at water, we need a place to play with water.

The waterfront is a big tease with no places for kids and adults alike to get wet, to splash in the water or just get our feet cool on a hot day. Some of these proposals acknowledged that while others took the requirement for a water feature to be yet another place to look at a pretty fountain.

A shallow splash pad with just an inch of water with a source of water pouring in is the best way to do this. Kids can play by the source, splashing in the water. People can stroll through just getting their feet wet. Park Vert seems to do this best:

But again, an opportunity is missed to do a grand tribute to water on our waterfront. This park and Rees are the final spaces available for such a piece. Kids are going to grow up in these neighbourhoods with no way to interact with water other than their condo’s inside pool. That’s a shame and one of the rare failure’s of Waterfront Toronto.
Click to expand...

Hapa's concept was very playful and I want to say it included some form of a splash pad, my photos just don't show it. I definitely saw a splash pad somewhere, at York or Rees or both.
 
Hm, dare I say the Cormier one is the least impressive. Feel like one can get banned for saying that 'round here :). I like the idea of the shallow pond, but in my eyes I see many months or years of no water, bare concrete, and wind-blown detritus piled up. The semi-enclosed arcade seems so-so. And "Love Park" with a heart-shaped pool? I dunno. Also seems to be the only one that doesn't repurpose the offramp columns, which I guess is good or bad depending on how you look at it. I personally like the idea of incorporating them.

Vert Park seems neat for the vertical aspect, which somewhat reminds me of Cloud Gardens. BYOT has a water component and a trellis system, also good. And Gardiner Green has a colourful component on the columns, hard to tell how tho, but that's also good.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The CC design would likely have a skating rink come winter time, a la Lake Devo.

York Forest is great too, though I have concerns about the viability of the design given its reliance on extremely mature trees.
Click to expand...

I also wonder what York Forest would look like in the winter months.

Cormier and Park Vert are a cut above the rest, to my eye.
 
While I am a fan of keeping the columns, I dislike the idea of making them into a ramp (such as Park Vert). It's something that very few people will use and seems to make the park cut off from the sidewalks (similar to the elevated walkway around Nathan Phillips Square). If they can be kept as standalone structures then that's great - they add something unique. But no ramp, please.

I really like the Cormier one. I love how Cormier gives their parks a unique theme, and "love" is unique and fun. The splash of colour is great.

Also as an aside, Park Vert has wooden walkways through the grassy areas that have barriers on either side, which I think is a classic issue of design vs. user experience. Those walkways just takes up space with something no one will use, since the barrier prevents people from sitting there and there's no need/reason for people to walk along the wooden walkway when they can walk along the cement to the left and right of it).
 
ADRM said:
I also wonder what York Forest would look like in the winter months.
Click to expand...

Since they didn't include a winter perspective shot (that's been posted) tough to say.

A species list would be helpful too.

A mostly deciduous forest planting can look very nice in winter, with the right mix of trees and understory.

Think White Birch, and just a smattering of Hemlocks or White Pines, and a few Beech (they hold their yellow tinged leaves through winter, quite often) creating contrasts of bright white and dark green.

Then add some Red Osier Dogwood in the understory along with Christmas Fern

(of course none of that may be spec'd here)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betula_papyrifera

1280px-13._The_Fall_of_Acadia_%284039110079%29.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuga_canadensis

220px-Tsuga_canadensis_morton.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornus_sericea

1024px-Cornus_sericea_winter.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystichum_acrostichoides

1280px-Chistmas_fern.jpg
 
Big fan of either Park Vert from Agency or CCA's Love Park. Both would be wonderful options for York St.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top