Urban-Affair said:
Do they not consider desire lines during the design process?
Click to expand...

They are supposed to.

I'm going to guess they felt they had to check off another box 'informal play space'. The City (Parks) is currently very big into 'informal/unstructured' lawn, which they claim is for kids to play tag or throw a frisbee or such.
But this is often applied to spaces that are far too small and parks that are too over subscribed for it to work. I can't speak to the process on this particular park; I'm just describing a current, common, phenomenon.

This is one example, among many, of why I champion fewer, but larger new/expanded parks vs a multitude of small ones, as there is a tendency to want to jam as much as you can into each space.

Small parks are fine, taken as what they are, a landscaped path, or public square where people can take a brief rest, enjoy their lunch outside, view a bird or two, or some pretty flowers.

But when you try to shoe-horn in play equipment, a space for dogs, a space for tag, plus something for nature, and a symbolic overture to the First Nations and some public art etc etc.... It just doesn't work out very often.
Kids do need places to run around, adults need places to play sports, and you're not fitting that in here, beyond the small skate trail.

The strategic opportunities near here, are adding 1 acre+ to the Orde Street Park, and the same to James Canning Gardens. Both are about 800M away.

Truly large facilities will have to be further still.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
They are supposed to.

I'm going to guess they felt they had to check off another box 'informal play space'. The City (Parks) is currently very big into 'informal/unstructured' lawn, which they claim is for kids to play tag or throw a frisbee or such.
But this is often applied to spaces that are far too small and parks that are too over subscribed for it to work. I can't speak to the process on this particular park; I'm just describing a current, common, phenomenon.

This is one example, among many, of why I champion fewer, but larger new/expanded parks vs a multitude of small ones, as there is a tendency to want to jam as much as you can into each space.

Small parks are fine, taken as what they are, a landscaped path, or public square where people can take a brief rest, enjoy their lunch outside, view a bird or two, or some pretty flowers.

But when you try to shoe-horn in play equipment, a space for dogs, a space for tag, plus something for nature, and a symbolic overturn to the First Nations and some public art etc etc.... It just doesn't work out very often.
Kids do need places to run around, adults need places to play sports, and you're not fitting that in here, beyond the small skate trail.

The strategic opportunities near here, are adding 1 acre+ to the Orde Street Park, and the same to James Canning Gardens. Both are about 800M away.

Truly large facilities will have to be further still.
Click to expand...
Makes total sense, parkettes vs real parks essentially. I grew up near Sherwood park, that is a wonderful park that feels like it has it all, but also has the space to have it all. Most of these new small parklands created from parkland dedication via developments, too often feel piecemeal to be of great use. I support your approach.
 
I am putting this here instead of the events thread because the programming of a space is just as important as the physical attributes. I have seen some of these in action and this one will be wildly popular because of all the new residents nearby.

www.blogto.com

Free outdoor movies are screening near a major Toronto intersection this summer

You'll soon be able to attend free outdoor movie screenings in dowtown Toronto. Kicking off on June 5, College Park's free outdoor movie screenings...
www.blogto.com www.blogto.com
 
John Lorinc over at Spacing is flagging many issues w/this park, the desire line/slash dust pit being the chief one, but he has other concerns too:

spacing.ca

LORINC: The public space embarrassment that is College Park - Spacing Toronto

When College Park (pictured above) formally re-opened, in 2019, the City of Toronto put out a rather breathless press release on what had been achieved in this “placing making” exercise: “[a] multi-year, multi-use redevelopment project has resulted in an exhilarating and engaging outdoor...
spacing.ca

I'll bring one picture forward from the article, and encourage the interested to follow the link:

1726868445583.png
 
Couldn't they have just paved that part instead?
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Couldn't they have just paved that part instead?
Click to expand...

There should and could be a paved/hard surface path following the desire line here.

There is no need to pave all of that. That would be too much.

First, you hard surface the primary route of travel to a reasonable width; then you obstruct people from taking other routes, by correct placement of seating, ornamental fences, or landscaping.

The design here was wrong. That said, the fix is not all that expensive in the context of Parks budget. Curtail the consultant enrichment program and you find ample funds with room to spare.
 
Last edited:
...I mean, this should have been obvious from the start. And if they built this to be under budget, wouldn't it have made sense to factor those things from the get go so they wouldn't have to spend more money on it in the future? They really didn't think this one through.
 
This park is larger than Grange Park (I think?) but while Grange Park isn't perfect, it achieves a whole lot more for a lot more people than this disaster.
 
AnnetteMeetsJane said:
This park is larger than Grange Park (I think?) but while Grange Park isn't perfect, it achieves a whole lot more for a lot more people than this disaster.
Click to expand...

Just eyeballing it I think Grange Park is quite a bit bigger. There is a good amount of connected open space that isn't part of this park proper.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top