Public Square and New Park Design in Toronto

[PaulF]

Agreed with the posts that the silva cells have really helped the tree growth and are contributing to an amazing feeling down there. They were used on Bloor St too, so lets see how that strips trees evolve over time.

The redo of the public realm on Front between jarvis and parliament was a complete waste. They dug up the whole thing to put it back the same way it was, but with a few planters and some architectural lighting. They should have deleted street parking, expanded the north sidewalk widths (the condo protruding south between george and frederick is a disaster that walls off the sidewalk), added bike lanes, and made front st a grand blvd thru to the west don lands. No one had any vision here.

But anyhow, am I the only one who is finding the whole waterfront redevelopment otherwise uninspiring?

The Corus and GBC buildings are wide, squat boxes that block views and access to the water and generally are way to close to the water given the amount of space we had back there. The promenade should be at least double the depth. There is only a single at grade commercial space animating the promenade. The GBC building is a big dead zone.

And Sugar Beach is amazing in the summer, but it is already packed on nice days and the developments at Monde and East Bayfront and the Guvernmnent site etc haven't even started to contribute any residents to the area. My point is, Waterfront's grand plans arent grand at all. They are half gestures that are already outgrown. The area was designed for now, not for 30 years from now. Maybe it was financial pressure put on by the city, but the result is underwhelming.

Sherbourne commons park is tiny. The north end of it is an eyesore. It is not functional. No one uses it. We have green roof guidelines to make roofs look like parks and then go build parks out of roof materials. Who thought the single child swing was a good idea? I'm sure the parents with two kids get a lot of use out of that. The water features may look cool but they were obviously poorly designed (no contemplation of damage and vandalism) and now the city is stuck with perpetual maintenance costs. This whole thing is the most pretentious, unwelcoming and unusable public space in Toronto. We should just bulldoze the bloody thing down and start over. How it won an award for anything is beyond me.

The southern part of Sherbourne commons should have been 5 times the size. With the volume of people living in the area, we are going to have a definite shortage of public green space. East bayfront contemplates trees along the water but no green space.

What are we doing here? We seem to be developing condos on every square foot of city owned land as part of a short term cash grab and not recognizing that the waterfront represents out last great opportunity for public spaces, and a massive urban park. I will save for another post, but with plans for the Unilever site, the redevelopment of portlands (at least anything south of the shipping channel) is the worst idea I can think of. This is Toronto's last chance to create central park south or our stanley park equivalent and we are setting up to blow it.

 

[toto]

Waterfront Toronto has your request covered in the form of the planned Lake Ontario Park. 1000 Acres of parkland with 37 Kms of shoreline.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs/4941225d37c48.pdf

Agreed with the posts that the silva cells have really helped the tree growth and are contributing to an amazing feeling down there. They were used on Bloor St too, so lets see how that strips trees evolve over time.

The redo of the public realm on Front between jarvis and parliament was a complete waste. They dug up the whole thing to put it back the same way it was, but with a few planters and some architectural lighting. They should have deleted street parking, expanded the north sidewalk widths (the condo protruding south between george and frederick is a disaster that walls off the sidewalk), added bike lanes, and made front st a grand blvd thru to the west don lands. No one had any vision here.

But anyhow, am I the only one who is finding the whole waterfront redevelopment otherwise uninspiring?

The Corus and GBC buildings are wide, squat boxes that block views and access to the water and generally are way to close to the water given the amount of space we had back there. The promenade should be at least double the depth. There is only a single at grade commercial space animating the promenade. The GBC building is a big dead zone.

And Sugar Beach is amazing in the summer, but it is already packed on nice days and the developments at Monde and East Bayfront and the Guvernmnent site etc haven't even started to contribute any residents to the area. My point is, Waterfront's grand plans arent grand at all. They are half gestures that are already outgrown. The area was designed for now, not for 30 years from now. Maybe it was financial pressure put on by the city, but the result is underwhelming.

Sherbourne commons park is tiny. The north end of it is an eyesore. It is not functional. No one uses it. We have green roof guidelines to make roofs look like parks and then go build parks out of roof materials. Who thought the single child swing was a good idea? I'm sure the parents with two kids get a lot of use out of that. The water features may look cool but they were obviously poorly designed (no contemplation of damage and vandalism) and now the city is stuck with perpetual maintenance costs. This whole thing is the most pretentious, unwelcoming and unusable public space in Toronto. We should just bulldoze the bloody thing down and start over. How it won an award for anything is beyond me.

The southern part of Sherbourne commons should have been 5 times the size. With the volume of people living in the area, we are going to have a definite shortage of public green space. East bayfront contemplates trees along the water but no green space.

What are we doing here? We seem to be developing condos on every square foot of city owned land as part of a short term cash grab and not recognizing that the waterfront represents out last great opportunity for public spaces, and a massive urban park. I will save for another post, but with plans for the Unilever site, the redevelopment of portlands (at least anything south of the shipping channel) is the worst idea I can think of. This is Toronto's last chance to create central park south or our stanley park equivalent and we are setting up to blow it.

 

[Tewder]

This is Toronto's last chance to create central park south or our stanley park equivalent and we are setting up to blow it.

Just what precedent do you see in Toronto that this is even remotely likely? Be grateful for what you get in Hogtown, it's all gravy!

 

[RiverCity1]

But anyhow, am I the only one who is finding the whole waterfront redevelopment otherwise uninspiring?

The thing is that, the lands that Waterfront Toronto have with their scope now would have just sat there waiting for some bold and very rich developer to have a vision and the money to clean up these brownfield sites. Parks and a waterfront promenade would have been an after-thought, I'm sure.

As it exists now, WT cleans up the land, gets zoning changed, builds infrastructure and parks, then sells developable blocks to qualified developers. Plus, there is real action now and not just talk. But things take time.

As far as massive, open greenspace is concerned...we have lots of that already. There will be another park located within East Bayfront, called Aitken Place Park. Plus, as mentioned above, Lake Ontario Park is pretty special in a large city. To think that all the Waterfront Toronto lands would be parks is also not reasonable. We need these buildable sites to sell to developers to then fund the rest of the plans. It's self-sustaining. It's not perfect, but I feel it's win-win over what could have been...which is a big, fat nothing.

Another recent award:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/1999/11/waters_edge_promenade_named_one_of_canadas_best_landscape_architecture_projects

 

[CityPainter]

The southern part of Sherbourne commons should have been 5 times the size. With the volume of people living in the area, we are going to have a definite shortage of public green space. East bayfront contemplates trees along the water but no green space.

Interesting opinions, I see your points, but I'm much less cynical. All this prime land is expensive, and I don't think it's realistic to imagine that it would have been turned into one huge park on the scope of Stanley Park. I don't think you could build something like that if you wanted -- you build up around it. This is an urban park with urban amenities, not wilderness. Mixed-use is the only way this space could be developed, and it couldn't have happened entirely with public money, which isn't exactly flowing easily these days. Considering what was there before (industrial wasteland) and what would have been built if there was no waterfront vision (CityPlace) I think the east waterfront is shaping up nicely.

Could some of the buildings have been be more interesting? Yes. Could the parks have been bigger? Yes. But a lot of things have been done well.

And we did get Corktown Commons, just to the east, which is much larger than Sherbourne Commons and seems more like the kind of space you wish Sherbourne Commons could have been. Yes the location is less central but it's close to the new Donlands development and certainly walkable from the East Bayfront.

 

[Torontovibe]

I don't see anything in this park that changes what is already there. The only real change is linking it all together and considering it a larger park. It is nothing like Central Park, except that it is large. We already have parks all along the waterfront, so how is this park going to change anything other than providing a few new pathways or entrances to the area? I see nothing original, interesting or urban in any part of this park. I also see nothing here for me.

I cannot see this becoming one of the great parks of the world. It''s just going to remain what it is today, passive wilderness with a few areas for sports grounds or water related activities, which we already have now. In terms of a formal park, with a cool design, like Millennium Park in Chicago, or Central Park, this park will have nothing like that, except for what's already there now. (like Kew Gardens in the Beaches) I'm not a sports guy so I see nothing here to get excited about. This is basically a Corktown Common type park, mixed with the the Don River Ravine. (minus the pavilion) It's all trees, grass and sports amenities but nothing for people that love truly urban parks.

That's OK, I realize I am in the minority, wanting urban parks and not cottage country experiences. If I wanted the cottage country experience, I'd go to Algonquin Park or even closer, Rouge Park. (or just walk through Toronto's massive ravine system) Toronto has lots and lots of wilderness parks but sadly, few really great urban spaces. Hell, practically all of Ontario is one big wilderness park.

 

[PaulF]

I will go through the Lake Ontario Park document and see what it contains. I run this area every weekend in the summer - down to Cherry Beach, through Tommy Thompson Park, and out to the Beaches - so I'm curious to see what's planned.

From first glance, my concern is that a laterally oriented park is great to connect the Cherry Beach area with Woodbine Beach, but given the massive redevelopments going on with East Bayfront, Unilever, West Don Lands, and the Portlands, the core of the city is reaching out east. This will mean that we would greatly benefit from conserving additional lands as functional parkland. While I absolutely love Tommy Thompson Park, it is not the type of place that will ever be a gathering place like Trinity Bellwoods is (or like Central Park for that matter). A diversity in the types and intended uses of public spaces is important, and I think Tommy Thompson Park is probably the most visionary thing done on Toronto's waterfront ever. That being said, I think we could benefit from that whole area south of the shipping channel being dedicated as park space. Even if the section north of "The Bar" and south of the shipping channel is developed, it will be so isolated from the rest of the portlands that I fear for its future. The channel creates a 'natural' barrier to define the entry into the parkspace south of it - start off with more urban and functional parks, and then transition into parks like Cherry Beach and Tommy Thompson, which are more rugged and wild. Once we add the kind of development planned for the east side of town to the mix, the parkspace as currently planned will easily become overwhelmed. What makes it great now is that there are places were you can go to escape.

As for the comment about Aitken Place Park in East Bayfront, I hardly consider that a 'park' - it is more of a public square, and doesn't constitute a waterfront park (it's not even on the waterfront - it's closed in by the buildings). While it's great to break of the monotony of buildings, its public recreation and escape functions are limited.

Aside from Trinity Bellwoods, I would argue that Toronto doesn't have much great urban parkland (ruling out High Park for being a bit too far west). The Beaches area is great, but a bit far east from the core. The Grange Park is neglected and too small to be a great gathering place (although set for a reno with the recent Weston donation).

As for the land being too expensive, I would argue that it is not going to get any cheaper, which is why it's worth preserving. Private developing is happening in the area in any case, so there's not much need for the city to grease the development wheels with auctioning off its few remaining parcels to private developers. There's lots of infill development that should happen before we start selling off publicly-owned lands to fund development. While I think the development of the West Don Lands was good given its location, I think the Waterfront should be viewed differently.

I suspect that most of WT's agenda is being constrained by people at city hall who lack the vision to create real value for the city and view selling off land holdings as a great get rich quick scheme.

 

[interchange42]

"Get rich quick scheme" = quite funny. No one at the City is getting rich on this, nor the City itself. It costs a lot to remediate existing contaminated fill, maintain/rebuild the harbour wall, build new underground and surface infrastructure. To get this area ready for new residents and workers is very expensive.

Meanwhile, in regards to your earlier complaint regarding the width of the promenade, what hasn't been built yet is the wooden portions which will sit over the edge of the harbour. The wood deck will add about another 50% of the existing width to the promenade and will be lower, putting people closer to the water.

There's another beach coming as part of the 3C development.

42

 

[taal]

I disagree ... Sugar beach, in particular, has many elements of the great 'manicured' urban parks in other cities, though to a much smaller scale. In terms of the rest of Sherbrone commons, with the stream / waterfall structure running throughout the length of the park, I will not by the "its simply another green space" argument, its far from that. I'm not saying its on par with Millennium Park in Chicago but its not just a typical green space. In regards to space for sports and the like, many enjoy this, and this is still meant to be a community park (Sherborne commons that is, not sugar beach) and needs elements to satisfy that design objective.

In terms of it being too small, this I completely disagree with, I don't see how someone can argue we do not have enough green space when the Toronto islands are on par (size wise) with the largest parks in North America, sure you can argue a lack of connectivity but ignoring this, I think Toronto already has plenty of green space, so I'm glad there will be much more mixed use developments on the eastern side of the waterfront, with retail / commercial and residential. Whereas on the west side, fronting the water, is mainly green space.

I do agree Toronto lacks a great / urban central park (something akin to Millennium park), St. James park has the potential for this I'd argue but it needs so much work for that to be accomplished.

 

[PaulF]

I don't see anything in this park that changes what is already there. The only real change is linking it all together and considering it a larger park. It is nothing like Central Park, except that it is large. We already have parks all along the waterfront, so how is this park going to change anything other than providing a few new pathways or entrances to the area? I see nothing original, interesting or urban in any part of this park. I also see nothing here for me.

I cannot see this becoming one of the great parks of the world. It''s just going to remain what it is today, passive wilderness with a few areas for sports grounds or water related activities, which we already have now. In terms of a formal park, with a cool design, like Millennium Park in Chicago, or Central Park, this park will have nothing like that, except for what's already there now. (like Kew Gardens in the Beaches) I'm not a sports guy so I see nothing here to get excited about. This is basically a Corktown Common type park, mixed with the the Don River Ravine. (minus the pavilion) It's all trees, grass and sports amenities but nothing for people that love truly urban parks.

That's OK, I realize I am in the minority, wanting urban parks and not cottage country experiences. If I wanted the cottage country experience, I'd go to Algonquin Park or even closer, Rouge Park. (or just walk through Toronto's massive ravine system) Toronto has lots and lots of wilderness parks but sadly, few really great urban spaces. Hell, practically all of Ontario is one big wilderness park.

Very much in agreement.

Downtown residential population has doubled in the past few years, and downtown public space and park space per resident still remains among the lowest in the City.

I am not against development or density, but for a dense city to be livable, people need to have some outdoor space (and I don't mean rooftop condo gardens).

 

[Torontovibe]

I disagree ... Sugar beach, in particular, has many elements of the great 'manicured' urban parks in other cities, though to a much smaller scale. In terms of the rest of Sherbourne commons, with the stream / waterfall structure running throughout the length of the park, I will not by the "it's simply another green space" argument, its far from that. I'm not saying its on par with Millennium Park in Chicago but it's not just a typical green space. In regards to space for sports and the like, many enjoy this, and this is still meant to be a community park (Sherborne commons that is, not sugar beach) and needs elements to satisfy that design objective.

In terms of it being too small, this I completely disagree with, I don't see how someone can argue we do not have enough green space when the Toronto islands are on par (size wise) with the largest parks in North America, sure you can argue a lack of connectivity but ignoring this, I think Toronto already has plenty of green space, so I'm glad there will be much more mixed use developments on the eastern side of the waterfront, with retail / commercial and residential. Whereas on the west side, fronting the water, is mainly green space.

I do agree Toronto lacks a great / urban central park (something akin to Millennium park), St. James park has the potential for this I'd argue but it needs so much work for that to be accomplished.

Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Commons are in the downtown core and not part of this park but yes, they are very nice and quite distinctive. I'd like to see well designed, urban spaces like that in this park. Why can't large parks like Ontario Park also include small public squares, with concert venues, indoor amenities, (cafe/restaurant) and central focal points, where people tend to gather? Usually fountains, performance venues, art or seating arrangements create these lively spaces where people interact. Would it kill the integrity of this park to create a few focal points, where animation happens? Some of us are not into sports but still want to get use out of parks. Things like a small zoo, bandshell or even a beautiful garden, at least give us something to look at. And of course, being in a cold climate, we need more indoor spaces in parks. One day people will catch on and say, why didn't we do that sooner.

Toronto does have a few good public parks/spaces like the Music Garden, Sugar Beach and Ontario Place but they are few and far between. There is so much more we could do with our parks, to make them useable all year round and offer more activities. Why shouldn't art, culture and entertainment be incorporated into public parks? More community centres and restaurants should be located in parks, especially the larger ones.

I'm not saying wilderness has no place in parks. Tommy Thompson Park is a great wilderness Park and should remain that way. The problem is, we get mainly these types of parks and very few great urban spaces. Do we have any great public Squares or urban parks that would make a World's top 10 or even top 20 list? I think maybe Ontario Place, if it ever reopens but that's about it. Is there something wrong with trying to create a spectacular, original, beautiful urban park or public square?

Maybe my problem is I travel too much and when I sit in an amazing public space in New York, London, Paris or Hong Kong, I think why can't we create something like or BETTER than this? Why do all the great ideas and innovations happen in other cities? If we are a top creative city, why do we settle for the same old, same old? Besides that water feature at Sherbourne Commons, I can't think of another major design feature that is original, innovative and beautiful. (oh, and also those distinctive wave decks at Harbourfront and the floating pods of Ontario Place) We need more of that kind of innovation, when developing our parks. Enough with the grass and tress BS. We have that coming out of our wazoo. Think more along the lines of Ontario Place and how distinctive it looks. (even in it's degraded state today) It's still a spectacular, innovative and beautiful public park.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

When I was living in Venezuela, one thing I noticed was that the cities have various small plazas, or parks throughout the city and that these parks were actually meant for people unlike the ones we have here. These plazas were usually alive with action and animation. People went there to meet and relax, sit around the fountain or monument, engage in commercial activity, had live performers, etc.

http://i.imgur.com/asIjCVA.jpg
http://www.agenciaan.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2.jpg
http://merida360.com/mrd-v2/mrd-city2/mrdmovies/sucre01.html
http://www.merida360.com/mrd-v2/mrd-city2/mrdmovies/heroinas01.html
http://www.merida360.com/mrd-v2/mrd-city2/mrdmovies/plaza_bol01.html
http://www.merida360.com/mrd-v2/mrd-city2/mrdmovies/bolivar-oeste01.html
http://www.merida360.com/mrd-v2/mrd-city2/mrdmovies/bolivar-sur01.html

I always wondered why we can't have similar things in Toronto/Canada.

 

[PaulF]

I view toronto's problem as both a park problem and a public space problem.

With respect to public spaces, i agree that so many other cities have great public sqaures. I spent a summer living in florence, and like many european cities, these squares tended to be outside churches or other public buildings. The are great gathering places. They become the feautre of the days social life and the starting point for many people's nights - lets meet at the duomo, or piazza x was a common discussion. And most interestingly, these places tended to attact a diversity of people. The city life was not confined to a gathering of youths like it is in many places in Toronto. The european urban lifestyle was an all ages affair - from kids to old folks.

Nathan phillips sqaure and yonge and dundas square are about the only two i can think of - but neither is that inspiring.

Toronto missed its opportunity to creat great public spaces around its cultural buildings when it redeveloped the AGO, and the ROM, and the COC.

I do like the south part of sherbourne commons - and the winter ice rink led to some good winter time animation of the sapce. I just find the north end dreadful. It doesnt promote gathering and is a dead zone. There is no way that fountain feature will last a decade if it cant even last a year. Fundamentally it was poorly designed. Good public space design can be functional for its purpose, durable to handle to condtions of its use, beautiful to look at, and promote engagement and activity etc.

I wonder how the bandshell/stage in the West Don lands park is going to work out.

Regarding the park problem, I just think our park growth is not keeping up with the development other land uses. While yes toronto island is big, it is cut off and only functions as a half or whole day affair type park. It doesnt allow for convenient access, which is a pretty important thing. St James park is nice for what it is, but is too small and doesnt allow for a real escape from the bustle of the city given is proximity to major roadways. I consider it a decent neighbourhood park (I live in the neighbourhood), but I still go to Bellwoods for an urban park experience, and go to Tommy Thompson or the Beaches to get away.

 

[Grimace]

I view toronto's problem as both a park problem and a public space problem.

With respect to public spaces, i agree that so many other cities have great public sqaures. I spent a summer living in florence, and like many european cities, these squares tended to be outside churches or other public buildings. The are great gathering places. They become the feautre of the days social life and the starting point for many people's nights - lets meet at the duomo, or piazza x was a common discussion. And most interestingly, these places tended to attact a diversity of people. The city life was not confined to a gathering of youths like it is in many places in Toronto. The european urban lifestyle was an all ages affair - from kids to old folks.

Nathan phillips sqaure and yonge and dundas square are about the only two i can think of - but neither is that inspiring.

Toronto missed its opportunity to creat great public spaces around its cultural buildings when it redeveloped the AGO, and the ROM, and the COC.

I do like the south part of sherbourne commons - and the winter ice rink led to some good winter time animation of the sapce. I just find the north end dreadful. It doesnt promote gathering and is a dead zone. There is no way that fountain feature will last a decade if it cant even last a year. Fundamentally it was poorly designed. Good public space design can be functional for its purpose, durable to handle to condtions of its use, beautiful to look at, and promote engagement and activity etc.

I wonder how the bandshell/stage in the West Don lands park is going to work out.

Regarding the park problem, I just think our park growth is not keeping up with the development other land uses. While yes toronto island is big, it is cut off and only functions as a half or whole day affair type park. It doesnt allow for convenient access, which is a pretty important thing. St James park is nice for what it is, but is too small and doesnt allow for a real escape from the bustle of the city given is proximity to major roadways. I consider it a decent neighbourhood park (I live in the neighbourhood), but I still go to Bellwoods for an urban park experience, and go to Tommy Thompson or the Beaches to get away.

So, we need a park that isn't a half day affair, like Toronto Islands, but which is large enough to provide a real escape from the bustle of the city. And Trinity Bellwoods counts, high park is too far, beaches are too far, and St. James, Grange, Sherbourne Commons, Corktown Common, Berczy, College Park, the Harbourfront parks, etc., are all too small.

Look, the downtown population has not "doubled" in the last few years. Yes, we are having good development and that is reflected in new parks. In my view the big issue is not new parks but maintaining and improving the ones we have to make them more refined spaces. Trying to evaluate the eastern bayfront at this point when it is a construction zone is worthless. St. James is a lovely park, as is Corktown Common (which isn't even complete yet). Berczy, Grange, NPS and College Park are going through redevelopments, though I am concerned we will be cheap with them. The ferry to the Island should be free. But talking about building a Central or Stanley Park does not fit with the growth of the city.

 

[NBGtect]

I think that you really nailed it here by summarizing these long diatribes very well. In a nutshell: Toronto has a ton of parks and none of them are so perfect like the ones that people enjoy when they are in other cities and when they are in a good mood because they are on VACATION and candy-coat how great those ones are...again because they are in a good mood. Then, at least. Must be awful to come back here to this horrendous place that doesn't have a dark history and has freedoms, a market economy, safe streets, etc.