Bringing those forward:
Snapinsta.app_432919111_3614031652142205_7121576590704414071_n_1080.jpg
Snapinsta.app_433479722_2737680343059478_492158930169385640_n_1080.jpg
Snapinsta.app_434148462_368662722659518_2316762546454818069_n_1080.jpg
Snapinsta.app_434176188_1239312327029630_6619318808194986897_n_1080.jpg
Snapinsta.app_434177736_962168681989315_3697262713230537107_n_1080.jpg
 
Last edited:
greenleaf said:
Huge missed opportunity to do a unique playground here. Make this a destination, not some empty wasteland. Brutal.
Click to expand...

I'm not impressed either.

Its not the right site for a large outdoor pool as originally envisioned for a host of reasons..............some have to do w/the ultimate size of the park, some have to do w/Metrolinx...........

****

But it could certainly be more and better than this.............

Its not so much that its terrible design, as it is completely underwhelming. Oddly, my intervention may have toned down the ambition here, and I'm ok w/that insofar as what passed for ambition here was misguided.

DTAH should exit the landscape architecture business, I'm being nice when I say its not their strong suit............(holds for a moment......do they have a strong suit.........? I'm digressing)
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
Boring parks are one thing but the lacklustre amount of seating here is far more disappointing in my opinion. Especially considering the amount of people that live within walking distance. At least a boring park with lots of seating will still be a vibrant place where human connection can happen.
Click to expand...

The good news is seating is cheap to add, and within the discretion of the Parks Supervisor w/minor improvements money.

If you have a choice in design on how to spend, (in Toronto Parks) with a finite budget, you always focus on the things that can't/won't be fixed afterwards.

(ie., larger items like washrooms; or the quality of paving material). Adding extra seats or trees is relatively easy.
 
It would be nice if at some point this limited park space could be integrated, via railway decks, with pre-existing parks to the north and south. (Thinking especially of Garrison Common/Fort York) It would be much less costly than Raildeck Park (RIP) and deliver more bang for the buck since the resulting combined park would be pretty hefty.
 
The swings are great actually. I’ll say a nice thing.

People will go to the eastern tip end of the park and want to take photos. This could be enhanced and acknowledged with stairs to the top of the berm, or some other type of art at the base there that is climbable or could involve copious amounts of selfies with the city and CN Tower in the background. A whole long row of seating bending along with the path here looking east would create comfort of place too.
 
Well............you've all been looking forward to his park, to varying degrees, if only so we can all kvetch about DTAH's work some more with pictures, LOL

Apparently we''ll all have to wait a bit longer.............

A report to next week's General Gov't Ctte seeks to extend DTAH's contract/deliverable date to.................wait for it............ 2029!

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/gg/bgrd/backgroundfile-256079.pdf

From the above:

1749477149511.png


Uhhh, at least we get washrooms out of it?? LOL
 
This has gone from $6.2mm to $19.3mm.

DTAH’s fee has gone from $725k to $1.383mm.

For the nth time, the city hires a design team based mostly on them having the lowest fee.. and then the project expands like mad and their fee doubles.

Both PUBLIC WORK and Claude Cormier’s office (when he was still alive) tried to win this commission but they were too expensive.

Why is it that PFR can’t spend $100,000 extra to hire the best landscape architects in the country, but they can consult forever and spend an extra $13-million without anyone raising questions?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top