News   Apr 25, 2024
GTA 2024 BILD Award Finalists Announced — and You Can Vote!
 396     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Brightwater Resubmission Proposes Increased Density and Height in Port Credit
 1.1K     4 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Wyse Meter Solutions Encouraging Sustainability Through Submetering Technology
 1.1K     0 

Moss Park Armoury

I know a bit of necro-posting (and I realize one of the posters in this thread is banned), but I just stumbled across, and as a former member of one the tenants of Moss Park, I find alot of these comments amusing.

1) that the park isn't used. Of course it is, when the whether is nice people are there all the time (Cept when David Miller used it as a dump site). Sometimes parks are just that, open space, why do they need to have sculptures and the like? What's wrong with a decent sports field?
2) The only time us military folks used the park is for sports, like all the other area residents.
3)For people suggesting in should be moved, no one has really brought up one real legitimate reason for doing so. The most common refrain is that it looks ugly. So what, blame the people who designed it in the 60's. It's
purpose is to provide a staging/training area for the city's reserve members, and the current mission of the reserves is to provide support to local authorities in times of emergency, natural or man made. Despite all the media attention of Mayor Mel calling in the army for the snow storm, most of those army members were in fact reservists.
4) Two of the units in the armoury, The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, and The 48th Highlanders of Canada (my former unit), have histories dating back to the 1800's, and have more in connection with Toronto's history, than then councillor's like McConnell. This city has a very long and deep military connection whether people like to admit it or not. Why should they move?
5) Suggestion of co-using for community stuff??? That's funny. It may not look like a hive of activity on most day's but it is a functioning military installation, and you may want to look up the definition of armoury. That should give a clue as to why, access to the building is restricted and controlled. When outside groups do use the space, there is always military staff on hand to make sure people don't go wandering.
 
Privateer said:
I know a bit of necro-posting (and I realize one of the posters in this thread is banned), but I just stumbled across, and as a former member of one the tenants of Moss Park, I find alot of these comments amusing.

1) that the park isn't used. Of course it is, when the whether is nice people are there all the time (Cept when David Miller used it as a dump site). Sometimes parks are just that, open space, why do they need to have sculptures and the like? What's wrong with a decent sports field?
2) The only time us military folks used the park is for sports, like all the other area residents.
3)For people suggesting in should be moved, no one has really brought up one real legitimate reason for doing so. The most common refrain is that it looks ugly. So what, blame the people who designed it in the 60's. It's
purpose is to provide a staging/training area for the city's reserve members, and the current mission of the reserves is to provide support to local authorities in times of emergency, natural or man made. Despite all the media attention of Mayor Mel calling in the army for the snow storm, most of those army members were in fact reservists.
4) Two of the units in the armoury, The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, and The 48th Highlanders of Canada (my former unit), have histories dating back to the 1800's, and have more in connection with Toronto's history, than then councillor's like McConnell. This city has a very long and deep military connection whether people like to admit it or not. Why should they move?
5) Suggestion of co-using for community stuff??? That's funny. It may not look like a hive of activity on most day's but it is a functioning military installation, and you may want to look up the definition of armoury. That should give a clue as to why, access to the building is restricted and controlled. When outside groups do use the space, there is always military staff on hand to make sure people don't go wandering.
Click to expand...

The Toronto Scottish rugby team used to use the armoury for winter training, but the concrete was too hard on people's knees. We had nothing but good relations with the reservists. Moss Park gets a bit of a bad rap - the arena, pool, ball diamond, tennis courts all get lots of use. It's the lads having a last hit/drink before sleeping at the shelter that give the place a bad name.
 
There are dozens of armouries located in prominent urban locations throughout Canada. They primarily house reserve units. The CF maintains these locations as an important means of recruiting reservists from the local communities. One main drawing card for many reservists is being able to train and serve in your own community, accessible by transit or on foot. (You can often see many of the reservists walkng to the armouries in uniform). The CF is well aware that it could save millions each year by combining reserve locations. They don't do it because recruitment would plummet.


worldlycanuck.blogspot.ca
 
I have no objection to the CF operating armouries in the 416 but like all land uses some locations make more sense than others. Fort York has a historical significance at least. Now the issue of operating shelters has arisen again. According to Shawn Micallef, DND leases Moss Park from the city until 2031, which may explain why there is no incentive for the Feds to move or for the City to ask them to.
 
Interesting thread spanning the past few years. If Moss Park's location is felt to be inappropriate, I wonder where folks would feel to be be a better location? If I had to guess, suggested locations would be no where near a suggester's location. Keep in mind that, in addition whatever other design requirements, it would have to have to be on land of sufficient acreage (hectarage?) that is already owned by the city or federal government. Not every scrap of land can or should be turned into condos or townhouses. How long does anyone think the open space would survive a developers dollars?

The armoury serves a local a national need, but I get the sense many don't agree with the need, regardless of where it is located.

If it should be torn down since it is ugly, I await the wrecking ball at the (former?) Wang and Dansky towers on Queen's Quay, the OCAD building or several private homes I have seen. It's often a matter of personal taste. If the federal government built a building full of fancy and upscale design elements, people would complain about that too. I think it's biggest design problem stems from the fact that it was built at a time of general ugliness. I have been in the Ottawa Armoury and agree that it is a stunning stone heritage compound, although that often comes with inefficient use of space and difficulty to upgrade.
 
The armouries could be combined with other uses like a large public market. That way, we wouldn't be saddled with the deadening effect of a standalone armoury. It would also provide an incentive to invest in the architecture and urban design of the centre for a true landmark building.
 
I suppose they could combine it with any other use so long as the security, integrity and use of the armoury space is protected, and DND agrees. It's a federal military establishment. It would be akin to setting up a farmer's market in a fire hall or police station. Not every public property is public space.
 
gabe said:
It's been in the news lately.

Don’t clear out Moss Park's homeless encampment, Toronto advocates say
City assures no one will be evicted without shelter


https://www.toronto.com/news-story/...-s-homeless-encampment-toronto-advocates-say/

www.blogto.com

Large encampment in Moss Park highlights urgent need for more housing in Toronto

Though the numbers haven’t officially been released, Diana McNally, training and engagement coordinator at Toronto Drop-In Network, estimates there...
www.blogto.com www.blogto.com
Click to expand...
I agree housing is needed, but if people are not from Toronto, such as the featured woman from Belleville, is it really Toronto’s responsibility to house her? In fact it’s rather backwards to think that the most expensive and housing poor city in the country would be a suitable place for a Belleville resident or anyone else to flee to in search of housing.I suppose there’s a larger homeless service industry in Toronto, but affordable housing needs to be provincial, so that this person can stay in Belleville, as one example.
 
Admiral Beez said:
... such as the featured woman from Belleville, is it really Toronto’s responsibility to house her?
Click to expand...

Yes. Toronto receives shelter money from the province, that most regions do not receive, exactly due to the city collecting the provinces homeless and downtrodden. Now, the amount the province sends is certainly up for debate but in theory the GTA is fully compensated for homeless migrants.

Economies of scale through centralization of services should make it cheaper for the province overall too; many require services beyond basic housing such as treatment for mental health.
 
Last edited:
For better or worse................the homeless encampment is being cleared from Moss Park this afternoon.
 
Of course we now have encampments at Taylor Creek Park in the east end; and Dufferin Grove in the west; and people are tenting in Ivan Forrest Gardens in the Beach.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top