Toronto New Park 819 Yonge (at Church) | City of Toronto

[Northern Light]

The City is set to approve acquisition of the above property for parks purposes.

It's a small site, at just over 500m2, but it's a very high profile corner, and I can see some merit in it, if it's thought of more as a public square vs a park.

That said, it will not be pleasant unless Church here is reduced from 4 lanes to 2, with or without cycle tracks.

First, the Member Motion on the above to next week's meeting of City Council:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-253785.pdf

Second, a streetview of the site as-is:

Then the aerial view:

Such a prominent site would benefit from a design competition. I think it should also be looked at with Frank Stollery Park across the street and seen as one integrated concept, and then in turn that should be integrated with streetscape work on Church and on Scollard.

 

[Blovertis]

I really can't get behind these microparks, especially one surrounded by fairly high speed traffic on two sides. I'm not sure what Stollery Park adds to the area -- and there's already the rather sad Harold Towne Park just about across the street.

 

[Northern Light]

I really can't get behind these microparks,

I generally agree.

especially one surrounded by fairly high speed traffic on two sides.

Yonge (for now) has cycle tracks. Traffic on that side isn't that much of an issue; but this is why I noted above that if this were to be successful, Church must be narrowed to two lanes from 4.

I'm not sure what Stollery Park adds to the area

Stollery is not a bad space, but not great either. It could be more if:

1) Davenport were narrowed to 2 lanes (contemplated now)

2) Scollard were narrowed and streetscaped similar to Yorkville (all interlock)

-- and there's already the rather sad Harold Towne Park just about across the street.

Something is contemplated there..............its not a done deal..........but stay tuned.

 

[whatever]

I wouldn't mind if the City considered this a mid-term holding, and at some point worked out a landswap if/when 817 comes up for development. I'd rather the park mid block (and potentially abutting the reference library), and then the Yonge/Church frontages at the corner getting an animated urban treatment.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Stooooooooooooooooooooooopid

 

[Amare]

What an absolute waste of money this is, I dont see the point of this whatsoever.

Why not use the funds to expand Ramsden Park, where it would actually serve a better use? This city baffles me...a lot.

 

[Northern Light]

What an absolute waste of money this is, I dont see the point of this whatsoever.

Why not use the funds to expand Ramsden Park, where it would actually serve a better use? This city baffles me...a lot.

Stooooooooooooooooooooooopid

Fascinating.

As the person who has ragged more on micro parks than anyone else.........I'm nowhere near as emphatic in dismissing this one.

Clearly it's not a usable park in the sense of playgrounds or sports fields. The only play here is public square type. Chairs/Tables, Flowers, seating, maybe fountain.
This is not a space for much of anything else.

Yet...........I see this as a sort of a gateway location to Yorkville.

I'll admit, I'm probably also biased here by a visceral dislike of the existing building.

I also see the opportunity to tie Frank Stollery, to this space, to Harold Towne, to the Rosedale Valley parklands.

Now, am I worried this could be half-assed and ill-considered. Sure.
But I'm not ruling out its potential.

***

Expanding Ramsden Park is absolutely an alternative position here, though one that would require more than 1 property to deliver comparable dollar value.

A bit late to explore that.........but hey, Council hasn't voted yet.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Yep, there's the site in the background on the left. Unrelated question, what's that in the foreground???

 

[Northern Light]

Yep, there's the site in the background on the left. Unrelated question, what's that in the foreground???

Assuming you weren't going for a trick question. Its Frank Stollery, of course.

That space is not what it could or should be; though, is not actually terrible to sit in, I have.

But it certainly isn't the best design. I note, I advocated above for a design competition, and one which would include this space.

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 638582

So...I don't remember if I ever took this space apart in the Problematic Park Design thread...........I certainly could............but.......just looking at the photo above............one thing jumps out to me that isn't on Parks......

Who the @#$# put the garbage can right in front of the path, in violation of accessibility standards I might add. Egads........ why should anyone need to be told why that's wrong?

 

[Amare]

If the city was actually using their brain, they would use the funds to improve Frank Stollery plaza/parkette (or whatver they want to call it), and expand Ramsden Park.

The way this city operates, whatever "parkette" they plan on building will just become a run down joke in 5 years, thus defeating the point of whatever they're trying to do here. The approach being taken here is very ill-sighted.

But to their credit and if it makes them feel better, it's marginally smarter then the idiotic parkette they're going ahead with at Queen and Augusta (aka the king all of idiotic "parks").

 

[prisecaru0]

Im no expert but the money spent on these stupid micro parks could be gathered to build a nice landmark park in downtown *ahem* RAILDECK *ahem* but theres no money for Beauty just useless landscaped street corners

 

[Northern Light]

Im no expert but the money spent on these stupid micro parks could be gathered to build a nice landmark park in downtown *ahem* RAILDECK *ahem* but theres no money for Beauty just useless landscaped street corners

Raildeck park would be a terrible waste of money for reasons I have repeatedly outlined in detail in the applicable thread.

I agree that there should be more focus on expanding existing parks or creating large new ones, particularly further from the core.

Though there are 1/2 a doze sites in the core, from the valley to Bathurst and Front to Davenport where something larger could be considered.

 

[xy3]

The site should be combined with the building next door, redeveloped and incorporate a protected courtyard /pocket park if possible. Parks exposed to the corner of huge busy streets are very unappealing.

Re : Ramsden Park
I disagree with the plan to expand Ramsden Park by knocking out storefronts. Part of its appeal is being shielded from the busy/noisy/dangerous traffic of Avenue Road.

The rear Hausmannian style side of the cosmetic surgery clinic on Avenue also looks really pretty with spring greenery and purple flowering trees . Itd be a huge mistake to get rid of that.

Why not invest those funds in installing a couple beautiful limestone water fountains, interlock hardscaping, and sitting areas in Ramsden Park?

Im about quality, not quantity.

 

[just east of the creek]

Raildeck park would be a terrible waste of money for reasons I have repeatedly outlined in detail in the applicable thread.

I agree that there should be more focus on expanding existing parks or creating large new ones, particularly further from the core.

Though there are 1/2 a doze sites in the core, from the valley to Bathurst and Front to Davenport where something larger could be considered.

Raildeck park would be a horrible waste of $ as presently designed, but I have more mixed opinions on these smaller parks? squares? parkettes? Given good design and neighbouring elements i.e. an above average boulangerie, then these 'gathering places' can be quite useful. Sunshine and filtered shade mixes preferred but not always possibly in tall tower neighbourhoods. Maintenance is always an issue and often a turnoff.