Toronto Alias | 160.52m | 48s | Madison Group | Teeple Architects

On-site parkland dedication in general is stupid. Folks get all swoony over Paley, and rightly so, but don't understand that it's a private, funded, secured, heavily manicured, experience. The City (no surprise) doesn't seem to get this and, to compound things, are moving away from cash-in-lieu which is going to lead to any number of random, poorly-maintained, open spaces, across the city.
 
Im glad they are making use of the space, but frankly this patch of grass is going to be destroyed by the pets from the immediately adjacent condo, as well as some of the locals in our area (this neighbourhood).

Perhaps if the staff from the condo will do periodic checks, be visible, etc, maybe some of that can be avoided as it is in my building just across the road from this proposed site.
 
I agree that would be best for the neighbourhood, but in a capitalist world, who is going to pay that 'staff' to go monitor the park? The condo? Probably not, since the guard needs to be at the front desk. The City? Not gonna happen.

But hey! Parksssssss...
 
On-site parkland dedication in general is stupid. Folks get all swoony over Paley, and rightly so, but don't understand that it's a private, funded, secured, heavily manicured, experience. The City (no surprise) doesn't seem to get this and, to compound things, are moving away from cash-in-lieu which is going to lead to any number of random, poorly-maintained, open spaces, across the city.

On-site makes sense when:

1) The site is large, and a meaningful park is possible

2) The site directly abuts an existing park and the amount of land available can materially enhance that existing park.

It does not make sense the way it is being used by the City, the majority of the time.

***

What should be happening is a process that looks like this (in my opinion) :

a) Decide which existing parks in an area (downtown for example) would benefit from expansion, and have adjacent parcels which could realistically be acquired and added to said park.

b) Decide which areas would benefit from a completely new park, consider whether the amenities desired/needed in that area can be realistically delivered on the parcel(s) available.

c) Immediately apply an 'H' zoning to any parcel prioritized for acquisition, blocking it from being anything but a park; and/or rezone it parks/open space with the existing use as legal, non-conforming.

d)Acquire those properties that have owners insistent on or willing to sell now, immediately, off-set this with existing cash-in-lieu and direct budgetary expenditure.

e)For lower priority parcels, with owners willing to accept the above zoning and maintain existing uses, acquire them as cash-in-lieu becomes available.
 
Last edited:
Part of the issue though (kind of like S.37) is that all the CIL money goes into a pot and never gets spent. Councillors want big, happy, ribbon cutting, ceremonies - essentially antithesis of consistent, low-level, upkeep and maintenance spending. So every once in awhile we get an announcement of a literal $100m spend on a piece of land that will become a park (https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis...NjcuNjkuMjQ0LjIyLTIwODE1MDY3ODQuMzA1OTAwMjE=~). Otherwise, everyone else is SOL.
 

Screenshot_20210923-130421_Instagram.jpg
 


Screenshot_20211110-002119_Instagram.jpg
 
Oh man, seeing those pictures reminded me of the Rockit if anyone remembers that place. Some old friends of mine played there in some battle of the band competitions way back in the day (and no, they weren't members of the Sex Bob-Ombs or Crash and the Boys lol). Man I'm starting to feel old.
 
Oh man, seeing those pictures reminded me of the Rockit if anyone remembers that place. Some old friends of mine played there in some battle of the band competitions way back in the day (and no, they weren't members of the Sex Bob-Ombs or Crash and the Boys lol). Man I'm starting to feel old.

I frequented Rockit for a while...
 

Back
Top