[Fad225]

There's certainly no question about the need to re-boot parks.

But I have to say, the author's suggestions are almost entirely off-puttingly dumb.

Lots of bureaucratic nonsense (shift the department to a different deputy City Manager, spend a year or more thinking about reclassifying parks types, add a lens or tag line to thought processes)

Utter trash.

There is certainly a need for a changing of the proverbial guard, but this is simply get the top person right and give them wide latitude and budget to rid the department of dead weight.

There is a need for less process, and less engagement. These are used as fig leaves to avoid accountability for decisions or to avoid making decisions entirely. They also contribute to over-programming; we must do something for everyone, in every single park. Jamming that into 5 acres is impossible, but jamming it into 1/2 an acre is farcical.

I have written much on the subject of a more ideal organizational structure for Parks, and all the past reorgs that have generally made matters worse. But aside from hiring the correct leader..........I wouldn't get tied up w/that.

****

The assertion about under-used sports fields is generally incorrect, there are certainly some isolated examples. But for the most part, every sport, mens and womens is short of space. Teams either can't find space or not anywhere near their home area.

True for hockey, true for soccer, true for baseball too, and cricket. We're also short on tennis courts and there's other un-met demand.

If you focus on repurposing what we have, we won't build more.

****

We need better every day upkeep, more washrooms and attractive waste receptacles.

We need better design of new/overhauled parks.

We need a minimum size for most parks of 0.4ha (1 acre) and a strong preference to creating larger spaces. You need 1ha to hold a soccer pitch and nothing else, you need more than 2ha to hold a baseball diamond.

Toronto should consider areas short of parks in an absolute sense, but also facility shortages based on wait lists.

It should then prioritize delivering 10 new or expanded table land (non ravine) parks over 10 years with every expansion delivering a minimum one net new major facility. The overall goal should be to add 15 major facilities minimum.

The City should also seek to complete ravine and waterfront park systems.

In combination, the goal should be to deliver no less than 80ha or 200 acres of net new park over 10 years. Double that would be preferred, but is likely unrealistic in cost.

There are also many tangible recommendations in the article linking park design with maintenance, including mandating features like toe-rail guards. I especially like the suggestion of considering certain parks that help give the city its “identity”, Sugar Beach, Yorkville, Berzcy..etc as flagship parks and as cultural assets, that require an additional tier of maintenance versus your everyday neighbourhood parks. I also like the suggestions for a “park economy”, and diversifying/activating parks year round with concessions etc. The meme of the trash cans aside, that is tongue and cheek, but really compelling, makes me think that we truly do settle for mediocrity in the public realm, and it does not need to be that way.

 

[DSCToronto]

There are also many tangible recommendations in the article linking park design with maintenance, including mandating features like toe-rail guards. I especially like the suggestion of considering certain parks that help give the city its “identity”, Sugar Beach, Yorkville, Berzcy..etc as flagship parks and as cultural assets, that require an additional tier of maintenance versus your everyday neighbourhood parks. I also like the suggestions for a “park economy”, and diversifying/activating parks year round with concessions etc. The meme of the trash cans aside, that is tongue and cheek, but really compelling, makes me think that we truly do settle for mediocrity in the public realm, and it does not need to be that way.

I thought that the City did have some sort of 'park hierarchy' running from 'signature parks' to 'local parks' but cannot see anything about it on the City website Maybe @NorthernLight can shed some (northern) light??.

 

[Northern Light]

I thought that the City did have some sort of 'park hierarchy' running from 'signature parks' to 'local parks' but cannot see anything about it on the City website Maybe @NorthernLight can shed some (northern) light??.

You rang?

The City does a Parks Plan roughly every 5 years. They spend oodles of money and time re-measuring the same things and reclassifying them. Typically takes 2 years and wastes at least six figures.

Example below this is from the 2011 Parks Plans.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-39317.pdf

Only 2 years later:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-250425.pdf

But.....

10 years later in 2022, the above has morphed...........again.

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/97fb-parkland-strategy-full-report-final.pdf

****

From the Audit Report linked above:

Am I the only one who wants to know how 7 washrooms vanished from June to Aug?

There's a lot in that audit report to make note of.....

 

[picard102]

Right, and what i've said is that I really don't see baseball fields used to any sort of real degree that would warrant their number and scope.

Except the demand would say otherwise.

 

[picard102]

You're probably right about the storage, but I don't see why Toronto can't meet halfway between what happens now, and having bins daisy-chained to a golf cart and brought to a garbage truck, emptied, and redistributed. Right now for garbage collection in neighbourhoods a truck moves along the road as 1 or 2 workers collect bins from sidewalks and roll them to the truck. It would require bins that could be rolled, or a golf cart could have a large rolling bin hitched onto the back.

I don't see the benefit other than aesthetics of not seeing a truck. The time and money to build facilities for managing all of this, plus you would still need trucks anyways for maintenance, on the carts and the park. That money would be better spent repairing the path in your photos.

 

[generalcanada]

Shawn Micallef: Let’s Fix it: Trinity Bellwoods is the hardest-working park in downtown Toronto. Here’s how it can finally become the great place it should be

As good as Trinity Bellwoods is, there is still room for improvement.

www.thestar.com

since were talking about parks....

 

[Northern Light]

Shawn Micallef: Let’s Fix it: Trinity Bellwoods is the hardest-working park in downtown Toronto. Here’s how it can finally become the great place it should be

As good as Trinity Bellwoods is, there is still room for improvement.

www.thestar.com

since were talking about parks....

His ideas are ok..............I like mine better.......... LOL

This was my review (followed by suggested changes) of Trinity Bellwoods Park in the Problematic Park Design thread:

Problematic Park Design - Why Some Parks Don't Work

@mjl08 and @evandyk Personally, I'm fine w/the Muskoka chairs. My issue in this particular park is their somewhat haphazard placement. They aren't a solution to everything, but they do offer a different type of seating, and some bright bursts of colour, and if the desire is to make those a...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[txlseries4]

I'm not sure I understand this comment above, as it doesn't seem to fit with the one below.

The fields aren't good for much, but there's huge demand and a lack of them?

The latter is true, so I don't understand the former.

There is demand from people who have left youth leagues to keep playing soccer, but the sports fields in city parks are inadequate — uneven ground, no line markings, unlit, and goal posts without nets (nobody casually owns nets).

Tennis and basketball are popular because the infrastructure supports it -- permanent lines, nets, and contained areas. Baseball diamonds have similar permanent ready-to-use features. Soccer fields ("sports fields") lack comparable infrastructure that make them appropriate only for the most recreational youth leagues which seek to keep permit costs low, or for the most determined who want to kick a ball around on some grass. I never see kids playing games of pick up soccer in parks, yet it's the most played sport for youth 5-17 according to research.

I believe a solution to help address demand, and offer spaces that are also youth friendly, are small fenced or boarded hard courts around the size of a tennis court that can serve multiple sports and activities. These would fit into existing parks and would be more conducive for people getting together with friends to play; much easier when you only need to bring a ball and a smaller number of people isn't a problem because of the smaller playing area.

I think your perception of size is a bit off.

It's not, and using 9000m2 is misleading because that's far bigger than the vast majority top-tier pitches at professional clubs, which are closer to that of BMO Field (105*68 - 7140 m2). No other pitch in the city is that big, especially for casual or amateur play. Earlscourt Turf, Varsity Field, and York Lions are 6400–6500m2; Lamport (6500) and Central Tech (6000) host adult rec sports "downtown". At 6500m² (1.6 acres), players per acre goes from 8 to 13. But 11v11 numbers aren't important because I’m not talking about two teams using a full field — I didn’t clarify that before.

High demand means pitches are split for 7v7 50 minute games. Leagues previously configured pitches into 3 mini fields; now it’s 4 because high demand out of the pandemic. Last summer Central Tech's operator added two boarded mini pitches (27×15m — 405m2 — 0.1 acre) in each end zone for 5v5 leagues. By November, a dome goes up, the boarded pitches are stored, and the footprint shrinks reducing mini fields to 3. To play on just decent surfaces the costs are high: summer $2200, winter $2800.

At small school fields, single 6v6 or 7v7 games are played on fields around 940-1350 m2. I'll also note that the fields used for rec soccer aren't the same ones used for youth 11v11 leagues.

Looking at players per acre:
Full pitch (1.6 acres) split into 4 mini fields - for 56 players: 35 per acre

Small pitch - (I'll use 1150m2 - 0.28 acre) for 12-14 players: 42 - 50 per acre

Boarded mini pitch (0.1 acre) for 10 players: 100 per acre

If June Rowlands 6 tennis courts were multipurpose for 5-a-side soccer, players per acre would go from 16–32 to 80.

Far from advocating for lit full size soccer fields everywhere, I suggest that unlit areas of grass with goal posts absent of nets are useless for the sports they're thought to accommodate. They're out of step with the money spent on infrastructure for other sports. Yes, there are city owned turf fields, but they because orgs pay for permits to use them, they're are rarely available for casual use like tennis courts, ball diamonds, and basketball courts are for people in the community.

All of this is political -- park funding, prioritization, and decisions about what gets installed in the first place, and I see an imbalance in the status quo.

 

[Northern Light]

There is demand from people who have left youth leagues to keep playing soccer, but the sports fields in city parks are inadequate — uneven ground, no line markings, unlit, and goal posts without nets (nobody casually owns nets).

The City has several different classifications for field facilities (soccer pitches, baseball diamonds and more)

Lamport as example is a 'Premier' facility (best in class)

Then facilities are ranked A through C level.

A being high quality, but not premier............B being so/so, and C being junk, frankly.

Here's the detail:

Baseball and other facilities are similarly classified.

***

My first push would to upgrade the B and C level facilities to the A classification.

This isn't possible for every site, as some are not large enough, but many are.

Its a matter of adding lights, irrigation, better turf and turf maintenance etc.

My second push would be more for more parkland and facilities.

If one simply repurposes the existing facilities you're taking something away from people and you're spending precious money to do it.

To be clear, you're not going to get your way, that's not about my personal preference, its about an understanding of lobbying and how City Hall works. Zero chance you're taking out a tennis court in this city. So spending
time lobbying for it is time wasted.

We could find no bigger waste of space than current City golf courses, and despite years of lobbying, and bringing staff on board, we couldn't get even one course converted to pitch n' putt (which takes up less room) so that the rest of the space could be adjusted for public access, a bike trail and other facilities.

If that wouldn't go through, no way you're taking out in demand facilities that have way more users.

 

[just east of the creek]

The City has several different classifications for field facilities (soccer pitches, baseball diamonds and more)

Lamport as example is a 'Premier' facility (best in class)

Then facilities are ranked A through C level.

A being high quality, but not premier............B being so/so, and C being junk, frankly.

Here's the detail:

View attachment 672272
View attachment 672273

Baseball and other facilities are similarly classified.

***

My first push would to upgrade the B and C level facilities to the A classification.

This isn't possible for every site, as some are not large enough, but many are.

Its a matter of adding lights, irrigation, better turf and turf maintenance etc.

My second push would be more for more parkland and facilities.

If one simply repurposes the existing facilities you're taking something away from people and you're spending precious money to do it.

To be clear, you're not going to get your way, that's not about my personal preference, its about an understanding of lobbying and how City Hall works. Zero chance you're taking out a tennis court in this city. So spending
time lobbying for it is time wasted.

We could find no bigger waste of space than current City golf courses, and despite years of lobbying, and bringing staff on board, we couldn't get even one course converted to pitch n' putt (which takes up less room) so that the rest of the space could be adjusted for public access, a bike trail and other facilities.

If that wouldn't go through, no way you're taking out in demand facilities that have way more users.

Two things.

Grass turf has difficulty standing up to the use many pitches would see, regardless of water seeding etc. Turf fields, although not for the purist, have advanced significantly in technology and quality, offer expanding uses to any game played on grass, and will withstand rigours of use that grass turf will not. I am sure this has been discussed elsewhere before. So perhaps greater expansion of those facilities in higher use facilities, combined with lights etc.

Pitch n’ putt? Ugh. But perhaps you really mean courses more like Dentonia, Rock Chapel, Turnberry, Scarlett Woods….. True Par 3 Golf that can challenge all levels of users, consumes less space, and less time. I think that leaves the city with two other courses (a couple quite lovely) that could be reworked to reward the golfer both visually and from a challenging golf perspective, as well as converting some portion of the existing course to other uses. (Excluding possibly Humber Valley - a Stanley Thompson in part gem) City golf courses are public access, just apparently(?) a different type of public?

 

[Northern Light]

Two things.

Grass turf has difficulty standing up to the use many pitches would see, regardless of water seeding etc. Turf fields, although not for the purist, have advanced significantly in technology and quality, offer expanding uses to any game played on grass, and will withstand rigours of use that grass turf will not. I am sure this has been discussed elsewhere before. So perhaps greater expansion of those facilities in higher use facilities, combined with lights etc.

Pitch n’ putt? Ugh. But perhaps you really mean courses more like Dentonia, Rock Chapel, Turnberry, Scarlett Woods….. True Par 3 Golf that can challenge all levels of users, consumes less space, and less time. I think that leaves the city with two other courses (a couple quite lovely) that could be reworked to reward the golfer both visually and from a challenging golf perspective, as well as converting some portion of the existing course to other uses. (Excluding possibly Humber Valley - a Stanley Thompson in part gem) City golf courses are public access, just apparently(?) a different type of public?

Your explainer:

Pitch and putt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[just east of the creek]

Your explainer:

Pitch and putt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks. But no. Still ugh. But a good executive Par 3, yes. And at least two of the city courses are I believe. I have played Dentonia. Nice. And I do get the point re demands on park land. So you have two, maybe three courses ( you would have to be very gentle with Humber Valley and preserve the historic holes) to reimagine. And that could be interesting.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

FYI...

The GTA is in an extreme fire danger area.

Wildfire danger is on the rise across Southern Ontario and conditions are expected to become even more challenging in the coming days.Two wildfires, HAL018 south of Coe Hill and HAL019 between Kinmount and Bobcaygeon, continue to burn out of control. Fire crews are actively working to suppress both blazes, but the weather is not on their side. Monday’s forecast will make firefighting extremely difficult, both for these active fires and for any new ones that may ignite.As shown on the wildfire risk map, much of Southern Ontario will be under high to extreme fire danger on Monday. Daytime highs are expected to climb into the low to mid 30s, while relative humidity could drop into the 20 to 30 percent range. This combination means we could see “crossover conditions” which is a dangerous situation where the temperature in Celsius is higher than the humidity percentage. When this happens, fuels like grass, brush and trees dry out rapidly, and fire behaviour can become intense, fast-moving and unpredictable.Unfortunately, there is little rain in the forecast to help ease the situation. The next chance for precipitation comes on Tuesday, but it may bring thunderstorms with it. While rain would be welcome, lightning strikes could ignite new fires, adding to the strain on crews.Many municipalities across the region have total fire bans in place, and it is critical to respect these restrictions. Even a small spark from a campfire, burn barrel or discarded cigarette could start a fire that spreads quickly in these conditions. Always check with your local municipality or fire department for the latest rules before lighting any fire.

Maps from https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/maps/fw?type=fdr&year=2025&month=08&day=11

 

[PL1]

FYI...

The GTA is in an extreme fire danger area.
View attachment 672498
View attachment 672496


Maps from https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/maps/fw?type=fdr&year=2025&month=08&day=11

I'm not sure this is the correct thread for this as there's absolutely nothing any mayor can do about climate and fire risk. Although if a grass (edit to add: or forest) fire does occur in Toronto, it will certainly require Toronto Fire to deal with it!

Anyway, hopefully we get more rain than is forecast on Tuesday and Wednesday. The forecast looks to have continued heat and little rain, unfortunately

 

[PurplePinky]

I'm not sure this is the correct thread for this as there's absolutely nothing any mayor can do about climate and fire risk. Although if a grass fire does occur in Toronto, it will certainly require Toronto Fire to deal with it!

Anyway, hopefully we get more rain than is forecast on Tuesday and Wednesday. The forecast looks to have continued heat and little rain, unfortunately

I’m glad to see this posted. Always good to be aware and like yourself, hoping for rain to offset any fire risk.