[Northern Light]

@AlexBozikovic is out with a column on this proposal.

Ramsden Park embodies the potential of public design in Toronto

The proposed site raises two serious questions: Should a rec centre be combined with housing? And what kind of a place should it be?

www.theglobeandmail.com

Regrettably, he spends much of it advocating for diminishing the adjacent parkland by sticking a tower on top of the Recreation Centre.

A move, by the way, that virtue aside would delay this facility by a minimum of 3 years, and more likely 5.

CreateTO are about as quick-moving as molasses out of the fridge.......

The last time we had to tolerate this.....just re-think the plan nonsense..........
First we killed a park behind the St. Lawrence Market South. Then we proposed a library.
Which we then killed by insisting on a tower.........

A tower which is not under construction, not designed, not funded...........and will not be coming soon.

The desire among some not only to not build housing, but to not build anything else either is a serious problem.
Getting in the way of good ideas, doesn't make your maybe better/maybe not idea happen, it just kills the other good idea.

*****

That aside, Alex has a legitimate concern about the over-bearing size of some new centralized recreation centres and that a department not known for getting details right, misses too many with some very expensive projects.

He also advocates for design competitions for projects of this scale. I'm happy enough to get behind that, but we need to slash the public consultation here back by 75% and kill the suggestion of a tower so we can get on with a completion and still build something before most UT'ers are in Long Term Care homes.

 

[Midtown Hank]

"Housing was considered here, but the idea was dismissed because of concerns with shadowing the park." - AB

Thank goodness for that. The location of the proposed community centre couldn't be any closer or have any greater impact on the park being that it is directly adjacent and to the south.

"(City urban design staff are fixated on the idea that shadows ruin public space. That dogma needs to be rigorously tested every time.)" - AB

I wouldn't call it "dogma", rather it strikes me as sound planning. Shadows do in fact negatively impact public spaces. Particularly ones with trees and grass and are already frequented by the public. Shadows also impact private yards and homes mid rises (and I can't think of anyone who is pro-shadow). They should be considered in our planning act, but seem to be a much weakened criteria in our existing pro development environment.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

A move, by the way, that virtue aside would delay this facility by a minimum of 3 years, and more likely 5

He also advocates for design competitions for projects of this scale. I'm happy enough to get behind that, but we need to slash the public consultation here back by 75% and kill the suggestion of a tower so we can get on with a completion and still build something before most UT'ers are in Long Term Care homes.

This is saying, in effect: the city is bad at doing things, so we should reward the status quo of inflexibility, wasted resources, and departmental infighting.

Surely we should expect better than that.

As for delays: Parks is taking 8-10 years to deliver rec centres by itself. Wallace Emerson 2018-2026; Wabash 2018-2027 at best. That’s longer than the development cycle for a major private sector project.

It’s entirely possible to achieve more on this site. What’s missing is the political will and leadership.

I’m not convinced that providing pools and a gym on this site is desperately needed immediately. If a more complex process ends up building a couple of hundred units of housing and generating tens of millions of dollars for the city, it’s entirely worth it.

 

[christiesplits]

Regarding the shadow discussion.

@Northern Light, while in general, I recognize that significant shadows are to be discouraged over parkland, should exceptions be made in the case of parks, like Ramsden, where they are adjacent to a transit station? I think there should be some flexibility in this situation, and possibly with other parks in dense, amenity-rich communities.

 

[Northern Light]

Regarding the shadow discussion.

@Northern Light, while in general, I recognize that significant shadows are to be discouraged over parkland, should exceptions be made in the case of parks, like Ramsden, where they are adjacent to a transit station? I think there should be some flexibility in this situation, and possibly with other parks in dense, amenity-rich communities.

How many alternative large parks are there in/near the north end of downtown?

I will always advocate for nuance; but this is a jewel in the City. Also remember precedent. Once you go tall and shadow the park here, you just invited a wall of that lining the north side of Belmont.

I'm disinclined to open that can of worms here. As noted, it would also delay things many years.

 

[gregv]

Not my photo. As seen on MLS C12135549.