This is a useless spot for a park or parkette. The parks department has come up with a random formula for determining parks deificiency and doesnt know what to do with all the money they are sitting on. Scadding Court and Alexandra Park are just up the street, why not make them better and more inviting. The problem with these main street parkettes is that the parks department only builds them, they do not do any programming or staffing so you end up with Lisgar park, or the 2 lil parkettes at Denison and ryerson ave. Whatever gets built here, it will probably suck and not alleviate and need for park and recreation space. But, the parks department will consider it a success to spend millions of dollars.
That's not quite accurate.
This KFC building which started this site was actually purchased by a developer, not Parks.
It was purchased to satisfy the standard requirement for parks space associated with any development, but which in that particular case would not/could not be met on-site.
The developer does not have a power of expropriation. They have a mandate to find a comparable amount of land area; as they would have been required to give on-site; and to do so within proximity of the site they are developing.
The developer finds a site on the market, they check that the price is in their ballpark; they go to Parks with the tentative site who then agree to it (or not).
If Parks says yes, it's up to the developer to acquire the site; it is then signed over to the City to fulfill the obligation.
So, yes, Parks had a say on whether to accept this parcel; but they did not likely pick it.
(they have been known to make suggestions to developers from time to time though)
*****
Others could speak to whether there is a maximum distance from the development site that would be accepted.
Certainly, this is not my preferred location for a new park, as I've indicated.
But I think we need to be fair to Parks as to how this process works.
I agree that land adjacent to Alexandra Park would be preferable.
But that isn't what was brought to Parks to approve.
As to the additional acquisition..............I assume (but don't know) that having approved the original site, which we all agree was too small to be functional; the thought was to spend some acquisition money to make it large enough to be functional.
It's hard to disagree w/that logic; IF one is stuck on the idea of a park at this location.
*****
As a final note, as someone who knows several staff in PF&R; I don't think it's fair to broad-brush them as indifferent or incompetent.
Like any large organization, there are some excellent staff; some who are fine.........and some who ......perhaps would serve us all better...........in different jobs.
There are lots of good people there; though sometimes really frustrating decisions get made; for a host of reasons.
I won't let the department off the hook for one moment for some of their bigger goofs; as can be seen in the Problematic Park Design thread; found here:
A few forumers have expressed an interest in a thread about why some parks don't work. So I thought I would start one with some examples and show what can go wrong from the subtle to the obvious. **** A few words on me; and on some terms/ideas discussed below. I am not a Landscape Architect...
urbantoronto.ca
But neither will I throw the entire department under the bus; because some decisions are poor.
The same department that sometimes delivers disappointing parks has brought us Berczy, St.James and Village of Yorkville Parks along with the Music Garden.
I think this decision, on balance, is in error.
But let's seek to correct it, or ameliorate it if we can.
