News   Apr 25, 2024
Wyse Meter Solutions Encouraging Sustainability Through Submetering Technology
 273     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
News Roundup for April 25, 2024
 392     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
How It Started
 590     0 

King-Spadina East Park

If King is going to be a pedestrian street, it makes a lot of sense to put it on the LCBO site. Along with 57 Spadina, they could essentially double the size of Clarence Square. Clarence Square has a lot of history which would make this expansion a great addition to the neighbourhood.
 
MetroMan said:
It has to be this on Adelaide/Spadina. It's all parking lot and crumbling low rises. It's a pretty big lot when all assembled and can include the rarely used alleyway-like Oxley St.
Click to expand...

As @Edward Skira notes, at this point at least, it's not 101 Spadina (Spadina & Adelaide). Whether the city buys it later is another matter.
 
Then where would it go? I live in the area. There are no other obvious scenarios. Everything is either new construction, protected buildings, buildings under construction or in sales, too close to existing parks or too far from the area.
 
It should be remembered that just because Cressy is willing to expropriate land for a park, that doesn't mean that Council agree to it. I have a hard time imagining Council approving this. I think it would be a good idea for Cressy to scope out other locations, just in case his preferred property refuses to sell.

Also, this money might be better spent maintaining and improving existing parks, some of which could really use a makeover.
 
ShonTron said:
My preference would be to expand St. Andrew's Playground up to Richmond Street, removing the old city works building. A larger, existing park makes a lot more sense than another parkette.
Click to expand...
The Waterworks Building is a provincially designated heritage building. Save the art deco!

MetroMan said:
Then where would it go? I live in the area. There are no other obvious scenarios. Everything is either new construction, protected buildings, buildings under construction or in sales, too close to existing parks or too far from the area.
Click to expand...
How about the current MEC property?
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
What I really think? If they got to do it, hire Claude Cormier. Heck, I'd go further - give him a permanent city contract for park renewal and streetscape design across the entire city. He maybe from Montreal, but I'd gladly make him ours.

AoD
Click to expand...


Hmmm.

Notwithstanding my usual penchant for appreciating AOD musings..............I'm so/so on Cormier.

I really found Sugar Beach overrated and the 'candy stripe' thing rather kitschy.

Granted he's 100x better than Janet Rosenberg whose park designs are universally unappealing.

But, I'm not not in love w/what I've seen thus far.

***

I'd rather have Michael Van Valkenburgh

designing more parks here.
 
Northern Light said:
Hmmm.
Notwithstanding my usual penchant for appreciating AOD musings..............I'm so/so on Cormier.
I really found Sugar Beach overrated and the 'candy stripe' thing rather kitschy.
Granted he's 100x better than Janet Rosenberg whose park designs are universally unappealing.
But, I'm not not in love w/what I've seen thus far.
***
I'd rather have Michael Van Valkenburgh designing more parks here.
Click to expand...

I find MVVA much better at greenscaping with a focus on ecology (great choice for the Corktown Commons and the Don Mouuth) - but Cormier is much more convincing at designing throughly urban, smallish parks, and especially at hardscape and animation.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
As @Edward Skira notes, at this point at least, it's not 101 Spadina (Spadina & Adelaide). Whether the city buys it later is another matter.
Click to expand...

Cressy has said that they are keeping the location secret because they haven't yet approached the property owner. So if it is 101 Spadina, not even the owner knows yet.

I can't think of any other obvious locations that don't involve tearing down an existing tall building, many of which are protected for their warehouse character that the city wants to preserve in the area.

The parking lot around Quantum Coffee is owned by Allied but is classified as future development with no imminent sales or even any project details. It's a candidate but the park would be fairly small and narrow, although it would be nice surrounding the restored Tudor building and brick warehouse, with a patio facing into the park.

@smably suggested MTC but that land and the Shoppers Drugmart are an active project in development. The lot behind it has also already been built on and that would limit the size of the park.

The LCBO is also an active condo project which the city has been taking a role in ushering into a pedestrian friendly realm.

The cluster of low rise buildings on Spadina at Richmond are a possibility but this is no longer King West. It's Queen St at that point and King is the neighbourhood with exploding population.

That all said, the Spadina/Adelaide location also presents an issue where it's very close to Clarence Square and St. Andrew's Playground.

I'm all for new parks but this immediate area is well served. I'd rather see existing parks expanded and redeveloped.

Clarence Square can be expanded into the LCBO project where the pedestrian zones could be merged into the park and St. Andrew's Playground is already being expanded into the parking lot next to it. I think that the real potential lies in David Pecaut Square which can be converted into real grass and the amount of trees can easily be doubled or even tripled.
 
I was aware of Allied's proposal for 388 King (Shoppers site), but is anything planned for the MEC site? My understanding was that the site hasn't gone on the market yet, and the move to Queen is more of a preemptive strike on their part. Anyway, I have no special insight into this, but it is a decent sized corner lot. And it's well placed to serve some of the most intense residential development on King West.
 
smably said:
I was aware of Allied's proposal for 388 King (Shoppers site), but is anything planned for the MEC site? My understanding was that the site hasn't gone on the market yet, and the move to Queen is more of a preemptive strike on their part. Anyway, I have no special insight into this, but it is a decent sized corner lot. And it's well placed to serve some of the most intense residential development on King West.
Click to expand...

400 King Street West (the existing MEC site) was sold to a local developer earlier this year. CBRE brokered the deal.
 
MetroMan said:
Cressy has said that they are keeping the location secret because they haven't yet approached the property owner. So if it is 101 Spadina, not even the owner knows yet.

I can't think of any other obvious locations that don't involve tearing down an existing tall building, many of which are protected for their warehouse character that the city wants to preserve in the area.

The parking lot around Quantum Coffee is owned by Allied but is classified as future development with no imminent sales or even any project details. It's a candidate but the park would be fairly small and narrow, although it would be nice surrounding the restored Tudor building and brick warehouse, with a patio facing into the park.

@smably suggested MTC but that land and the Shoppers Drugmart are an active project in development. The lot behind it has also already been built on and that would limit the size of the park.

The LCBO is also an active condo project which the city has been taking a role in ushering into a pedestrian friendly realm.

The cluster of low rise buildings on Spadina at Richmond are a possibility but this is no longer King West. It's Queen St at that point and King is the neighbourhood with exploding population.

That all said, the Spadina/Adelaide location also presents an issue where it's very close to Clarence Square and St. Andrew's Playground.

I'm all for new parks but this immediate area is well served. I'd rather see existing parks expanded and redeveloped.

Clarence Square can be expanded into the LCBO project where the pedestrian zones could be merged into the park and St. Andrew's Playground is already being expanded into the parking lot next to it. I think that the real potential lies in David Pecaut Square which can be converted into real grass and the amount of trees can easily be doubled or even tripled.
Click to expand...

That is entirely possible but the current owner is currently studying the property for use(s) that does not include a park.

What's more, Clarence Square is already getting a makeover authored by Public Work as part of the 400 Front Street West application and St. Andrews Playground is subject to an expansion / makeover as part of the larger Richmond Street Waterworks / YMCA plan.

I agree that the area is currently well-served. That said, Cressy feels he has to at least give the appearance that he's 'fighting for the people,' even if that 'fight' is a nonsense political facade.
 
ProjectEnd said:
That is entirely possible but the current owner is currently studying the property for use(s) that does not include a park.

What's more, Clarence Square is already getting a makeover authored by Public Work as part of the 400 Front Street West application and St. Andrews Playground is subject to an expansion / makeover as part of the larger Richmond Street Waterworks / YMCA plan.

I agree that the area is currently well-served. That said, Cressy feels he has to at least give the appearance that he's 'fighting for the people,' even if that 'fight' is a nonsense political facade.
Click to expand...

Thinking this through the cost of expropriation is way too prohibitive. It's probably the same as decking over the tracks on one side of Spadina. Would make the pedestrian experience a lot better to get across the tracks and give access to parkland for all the new condos popping up around there.

And the province owns this corridor so we don't have CN fighting for air rights.

But is a 5 minute walk too far away?
 
CityPlace is extraordinarily well served for parks, given Canoe Landing and Queens Quay are right there. There's also the UnderGardiner that'll bring even more green and recreational space. Decking over the rail corridor would be fantastic but a lack of parks in the area wouldn't be the motivation.

Cressy is trying to address the new population along the King West/Adelaide corridor, clustered around Spadina. That's why the Spadina/Adelaide parking lot is an ideal location. Further north and you're not serving King St. adequately and instead building a park for Queen West which is all low rise and not currently growing in population. Too far south and you're missing out on the Adelaide edge of the population boom and serving an area with plenty of parks and access to the waterfront.

I'm curious what they'll announce. Cressy seems to be in a hurry which leads me to believe that it's a lot that was recently purchased for development and he wants to get ahead of the proposal before costs mount.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top