Of course there is nuance. But this spot is 200m from a park (St Andrews), 100m from a parkette, 300 m from a midsize existing park and 300 m from a midsize planned park.
How much park space should you expect in the middle of a city? if the formula says this is a shortage of park space, what is wrong with the formula?
So lets start by remembering I agree this particular park is a dumb idea.
****
Now, let me not justify it, but explain how the mathematical model dictates more space in the area.
You need to refer to the Parkland Strategy from 2017 which shows whether an area meets target. Any shade of green is good, yellow is inadequate, orange and red are critically low.
This is the map from that strategy....which is regrettably lacking in definition.
The large green space up against a road, roughly in the centre is Alexandra Park.
The green dot is the closed street allowance as greenspace.
The slightly larger square, south of Queen is St. Andrews.
So you can see the map suggests a significant shortage of space, based on the mathematical model.
This is the same area, from the same strategy, projected out to 2032, based on population growth models:
(it also shows proposed park expansions that were known at the time)
To reference the document, follow this link:
Note this conclusion from p. 10 of the document:
You asked about park supply and what's reasonable in a city core area. The document examines this with comparisons to other cities in North America:
Note that based on the Cities selected, Toronto does respectably City-wide; but looking at the urban core.... its below NYC, Chicago and Houston.
One might reasonably debate the City's chosen....but I would note that that many additional cities exceed Toronto's parkland per person.
As example, Berlin, Germany is 88m2 per person. more than 3x as much park space as Toronto.
****
So again, I don't think the amount of parkland, broadly, is the issue.
Is the calculation to fine grained here? Perhaps........
But here's what I wouldn't do............ I wouldn't count the number of parks, but their area.
I also wouldn't just assume a given number is enough, too little, or too much. To answer that question, you want to look at how crowded parks are at peak times. Is there room to sit down on a bench or on the grass? Is there room for kids to play? Is there wait list for access to the soccer pitch or the tennis court? etc.
I'll be perfectly, honest, I don't know the answers to that for this particular area, but I would be all for a passionate reporter on the public realm asking those questions, of public officials.
Here's what we can agree on either way.............this park won't help any wait list, because there is no room for a new soccer pitch , and probably not tennis courts either.
I'm not a fan of this park as an idea, nor do I approve of Randy Padmore Park just to the north, on a closed section of Carr Street. It doesn't add value.
If I were to allocate space here, I would prefer to enlarge Alexandra Park to the south.
I'm not saying the entire area I've outlined, but preferably either the entire blocks east or west of Ryerson.
Why? Because each of those is ~60M in a N-S direction and over 100M E-W, enough to do any number of useful things with.
I'd be happy enough if they sold Padmore, and this site, and/or repurposed either for housing.
To the south, there is no room to grow St. Andrews which is immensely popular, after that you're looking at Victoria Memorial which is also busting at the seams. That park will be expanded, but how functionally is an open question.
