Should face Richmond. Will get some sun that way.
As someone involved w/our parks, I would most upset if PF&R (Parks, Forestry and Recreation) gave the existing proposal a pass.
The lack of sun isn't simply an issue for people, though it surely would be that.
It's an issue for vegetation.
There are only 2 native tree species that can grow in near full shade, but neither will grow quickly with that measure of shade, and less than ideal conditions otherwise. (Sugar Maple and Basswood).
Most flowers won't do well either.
You can make do w/eastern exposure (though the heritage properties on site make that awkward.)
So you really need some southern or western exposure.
You could deal w/a building in the way, but it would have to quite short so as to cast a minimal shadow.
I don't see the proposed park location as viable.
***
Let me throw in the importance of long-term public/City planning.
We all know Moss Park (TCHC) across the street from this proposal will not survive, as is, in the longer term.
Moss Park the park also has redevelopment plans pending.
I would really love the City to have been a position to show how they see that site to the north evolving.
It already has a park-like space, that is entirely TCHC land, but w/mature greenery.
Making that space a public park, and a better one, might be a more useful investment in this case.
I think it's important to actually get net new park space downtown, and not merely invest cash-in-lieu or section 37 monies in restoring or enhancing existing parks.
But I'm not convinced a new park on-site here is the best use of resources.
However, if we are going that route, then the park must have reasonable sunlight levels.
