evandyk
Senior Member
The joy he experienced from the fountain was real. We went to Spain recently, and he probably liked the fountain almost as much as he liked the Mediterranean Sea.
|
|
|
Problematic Park Design - Why Some Parks Don't Work
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
evandyk
Senior Member
It was a bit strange, because the splash pads and wading pools are all open, but the fountain was a huge thing for him.
evandyk
Senior Member
Yeah, the access to bathrooms around Toronto is really bad right now. And no one seems that interested in doing something about it.
Northern Light
Superstar
As promised, a quick glance at ways I think Canoe Landing Park could be improved.
Note that as per @Tuscani01 the DOLA is apparently going to be relocated under the Gardiner here, I'm not entirely convinced that will work as well as hoped.....but regardless, I will assume that the existing space will become available, I will also not proposed funding for a DOLA on the assumption that that is funded.
Back of the envelope costing (lots of unknowns)
Main entrance re-do plus playground - $500,000
Field re-do $250,000 (includes new path and seating) (could be much more depending on underlying problems)
Natural Landscape Fix - $100,000
Allee: $150,000 basic, $350,000 w/upgraded lighting, pavers + perennial floral features.
New Washroom $300,000
Picnic Space improvements: $50,000
New Stairs/entrance: $750,000 (assumes lighting, seats at base, mid-point and top)
Miscellaneous (replace dead trees, add signage/seating and perennials at park entrances) $150,000
Estimate: 2.4M
Note that as per @Tuscani01 the DOLA is apparently going to be relocated under the Gardiner here, I'm not entirely convinced that will work as well as hoped.....but regardless, I will assume that the existing space will become available, I will also not proposed funding for a DOLA on the assumption that that is funded.
Back of the envelope costing (lots of unknowns)
Main entrance re-do plus playground - $500,000
Field re-do $250,000 (includes new path and seating) (could be much more depending on underlying problems)
Natural Landscape Fix - $100,000
Allee: $150,000 basic, $350,000 w/upgraded lighting, pavers + perennial floral features.
New Washroom $300,000
Picnic Space improvements: $50,000
New Stairs/entrance: $750,000 (assumes lighting, seats at base, mid-point and top)
Miscellaneous (replace dead trees, add signage/seating and perennials at park entrances) $150,000
Estimate: 2.4M
Northern Light
Superstar
Just to let @Undead. @mjl08 and @Sky High Arch know, I haven't forgotten about those North York requests...........LOL
Twice this week, I was going to go after lunch...........and hit all 3 parks..........and, well.........The Weather Network Radar projection changed the plan:
I will get up there soon....ish.......... LOL
Northern Light
Superstar
Ok, we're back, several members requested reviews of different parks in North York, I finally had a chance to get up that way and took photos of all three, the reviews will flow over the next week or so.
We'll begin with Albert Standing Park, requested by @Sky High Arch .
This park is located in NYCC, almost directly across from Sheppard Subway Station, just west of Yonge, on the south side of Sheppard.
When I do reviews, I usually start by checking the City's website to see what they think the Park is supposed to be all about.,
Short Description here:
The park features list only notes picnic space and a drinking fountain.
Now lets check an aerial view:
Ok, so we''ll start our tour momentarily, as per the norm, we'll be looking to see how the park does measured against what its supposed to be according to the City; we'll look for any issues
concerning maintenance, or anything that jumps out as a design issue.
We'll begin our tour, on approach from Sheppard Avenue
This is the park's principle entrance:
Source: Streetview
In many ways, this is very attractive, there's an annual flower display on your left, a perennial display on your right, the trees are fairly healthy.
But I have 3 small'ish quibbles here.
Lets start with my old peeve about signage, the sign you see as you enter is not the Park sign, but rather "Welcome to the community of West Lansing". Its an attractive sign, but I want people entering a park to know the name of it, if only
for the unfortunate need to call 911. Here, the park sign is located facing north, between the two entrances from Sheppard, hardly the end of the world, but I'd prefer the park name be located at the principal entrance.
Two other notes about the entrance which are both maintenance oriented, but quite small, and easy to fix.
First, that perennial bed did not look quite like the above pic when I arrived:
Above is the actual condition of the area in front of that West Lansing sign, where the yellow flowers are in the Streetview photo. The rest of the plants in that display are fine........but these were clearly removed at
some point and not replaced.
My second quibble is the annual flower display to the left, or, more accurately the small area in front of it.
But first, lets look at what was a really beautiful display this year; well done to Horticulture on this one:
But right in front of it, is this:
As one can see, people clearly choose to enter/exit the park right in front of this flower bed, even though the path is but 2ft away.
Its an easy enough fix, there are two choices here, either hardscape that path and make it part of the entrance area; or obstruct it by putting in miniature ornamental fences. I think, in this case, hardscaping makes the most sense.
But it would create the oddity of a pole in the middle of the entrance, which may or may not be worth relocating.
***
Ok, let's head in.
First thing we see is the promised decorative fountain, which I'm pleased to say was in working order and fine form on this day.
No real complaints here, the use of the conventional park benches isn't overly inspired, but it works just fine and they're in decent condition. As always a big test for me is, are there people out enjoying the park, and
a given particular feature. The area around the fountain was one of three clear spaces in the park intended for gathering and all were busy on Sept 1st, 2022, at about 5pm.
We'll steer left here, and head past the 'picnic' area.
Multiple tables, all in decent condition, on concrete pads, also in decent condition, and the majority were occupied by parks users on this day. The grass around them was in equally good condition, there's really not much to critique
other than our usual ugly garbage cans (I'll spare us a photo of those); there's even a working drinking fountain!
So, let's move further south into the park to see the final feature area, the pergola:
I'm mostly liking what I see here there's a nice flower display a good structure, a nice balance of sun and shade. The flower planter is set a bit high visually, but that's a very minor quibble.
I would say, there are a couple of other design tweaks I think are needed here. the hedges (if retained) are simply encroaching too much on the entrance to this area, it obstructs the sightline and is a potential safety issue.
Lets go into the pergola area to see my other issue:
At first blush this looks decent, I puposefully shot the side people were not sitting on, this feature did in fact have a few people out enjoying it. The standard park benches are, again an
uninspired choice here, but in good condition and perfectly functional. The concrete surface could be something nicer, but neither of these are really design flaws per se and are in good enough condition, the next photo reveals my issue.
There was a fair bit of litter accumulation behind the benches, trapped up against the hedges. This can be remedied by litter picking, of course. But I think there may be some design remedies here.
The form allows litter to migrate under and between the benches, while the hedge both traps it, and makes it difficult to remove the litter from the other side. Since the benches are bolted in, its not super easy to litter pick behind them either.
My preference here, would be to re-do the benches are a custom seat-wall, mounted at sitting height off the ground, with no legs, and solid wall underneath at the rear. This would make it easy to get a broom in, and prevent litter from getting stuck.
The alternative would be to re-do the hedges, but set them back about 1M with a hard surface in front where maintenance staff could come in and sweep.
***
The balance of the park is unremarkable, but generally in decent condition. But does have a problem of sorts. Two areas where there is no grass growing, due to the denseness of the shade from the trees:
This spot is traditional Norway Maple effect, little if anything tends to grow under the dense shade of these non-native, invasive trees. The other spot does not have Norways, simply too many dense shade trees to support grass.
There are two options here, one is to selectively remove 2-3 trees per shady patch to just let a bit light in; some moderately aggressive trimming may help as well, but I don't think it would be enough without some removals.
Alternatively we can simply accept the dense shade as it is; but in that case, I'd like to see this area edged, and have a thousand cubic yards of mulch dumped on it, to make it look like a purposeful park of the landscape, rather than an unfortunate misfire.
As we come towards the end of our tour, the park's most clear, if again simple, easy to fix, design flaw becomes apparent, this desire line (path though the landscape formed by people all traipsing the same way).
This path is clearly well worn and should be formalized and paved in some fashion. Having formalized it, it should also have lighting.
The secondary park entrance, to which this path leads is unremarkable, but fine, I suppose, save and except for the absence of signage, but I won't offer my last pic for that.
Instead, I will look at the park's eastern flank along Beecroft.
Technically this isn't IN the park, but it certainly forms part of the experience of the park. The narrow, asphalt boulevard is unfortunate here, and creates an unpleasant experience at the park edge next to heavy traffic.
There is ample room between the adjoining grass an a slightly bloated ROW width to add a tree-lined, landscaped boulevard to the edge of this park.
Overall, based on the condition of key park features, attractive design elements and utilization I would give this park an A-
It would largely benefit from minor tweaks. I would estimate a capital cost for all of my suggestions in the range of $150,000 which I think would make this park a stellar little spot. (though its still pretty good as it is)
We'll begin with Albert Standing Park, requested by @Sky High Arch .
This park is located in NYCC, almost directly across from Sheppard Subway Station, just west of Yonge, on the south side of Sheppard.
When I do reviews, I usually start by checking the City's website to see what they think the Park is supposed to be all about.,
Short Description here:
The park features list only notes picnic space and a drinking fountain.
Now lets check an aerial view:
Ok, so we''ll start our tour momentarily, as per the norm, we'll be looking to see how the park does measured against what its supposed to be according to the City; we'll look for any issues
concerning maintenance, or anything that jumps out as a design issue.
We'll begin our tour, on approach from Sheppard Avenue
This is the park's principle entrance:
Source: Streetview
In many ways, this is very attractive, there's an annual flower display on your left, a perennial display on your right, the trees are fairly healthy.
But I have 3 small'ish quibbles here.
Lets start with my old peeve about signage, the sign you see as you enter is not the Park sign, but rather "Welcome to the community of West Lansing". Its an attractive sign, but I want people entering a park to know the name of it, if only
for the unfortunate need to call 911. Here, the park sign is located facing north, between the two entrances from Sheppard, hardly the end of the world, but I'd prefer the park name be located at the principal entrance.
Two other notes about the entrance which are both maintenance oriented, but quite small, and easy to fix.
First, that perennial bed did not look quite like the above pic when I arrived:
Above is the actual condition of the area in front of that West Lansing sign, where the yellow flowers are in the Streetview photo. The rest of the plants in that display are fine........but these were clearly removed at
some point and not replaced.
My second quibble is the annual flower display to the left, or, more accurately the small area in front of it.
But first, lets look at what was a really beautiful display this year; well done to Horticulture on this one:
But right in front of it, is this:
As one can see, people clearly choose to enter/exit the park right in front of this flower bed, even though the path is but 2ft away.
Its an easy enough fix, there are two choices here, either hardscape that path and make it part of the entrance area; or obstruct it by putting in miniature ornamental fences. I think, in this case, hardscaping makes the most sense.
But it would create the oddity of a pole in the middle of the entrance, which may or may not be worth relocating.
***
Ok, let's head in.
First thing we see is the promised decorative fountain, which I'm pleased to say was in working order and fine form on this day.
No real complaints here, the use of the conventional park benches isn't overly inspired, but it works just fine and they're in decent condition. As always a big test for me is, are there people out enjoying the park, and
a given particular feature. The area around the fountain was one of three clear spaces in the park intended for gathering and all were busy on Sept 1st, 2022, at about 5pm.
We'll steer left here, and head past the 'picnic' area.
Multiple tables, all in decent condition, on concrete pads, also in decent condition, and the majority were occupied by parks users on this day. The grass around them was in equally good condition, there's really not much to critique
other than our usual ugly garbage cans (I'll spare us a photo of those); there's even a working drinking fountain!
So, let's move further south into the park to see the final feature area, the pergola:
I'm mostly liking what I see here there's a nice flower display a good structure, a nice balance of sun and shade. The flower planter is set a bit high visually, but that's a very minor quibble.
I would say, there are a couple of other design tweaks I think are needed here. the hedges (if retained) are simply encroaching too much on the entrance to this area, it obstructs the sightline and is a potential safety issue.
Lets go into the pergola area to see my other issue:
At first blush this looks decent, I puposefully shot the side people were not sitting on, this feature did in fact have a few people out enjoying it. The standard park benches are, again an
uninspired choice here, but in good condition and perfectly functional. The concrete surface could be something nicer, but neither of these are really design flaws per se and are in good enough condition, the next photo reveals my issue.
There was a fair bit of litter accumulation behind the benches, trapped up against the hedges. This can be remedied by litter picking, of course. But I think there may be some design remedies here.
The form allows litter to migrate under and between the benches, while the hedge both traps it, and makes it difficult to remove the litter from the other side. Since the benches are bolted in, its not super easy to litter pick behind them either.
My preference here, would be to re-do the benches are a custom seat-wall, mounted at sitting height off the ground, with no legs, and solid wall underneath at the rear. This would make it easy to get a broom in, and prevent litter from getting stuck.
The alternative would be to re-do the hedges, but set them back about 1M with a hard surface in front where maintenance staff could come in and sweep.
***
The balance of the park is unremarkable, but generally in decent condition. But does have a problem of sorts. Two areas where there is no grass growing, due to the denseness of the shade from the trees:
This spot is traditional Norway Maple effect, little if anything tends to grow under the dense shade of these non-native, invasive trees. The other spot does not have Norways, simply too many dense shade trees to support grass.
There are two options here, one is to selectively remove 2-3 trees per shady patch to just let a bit light in; some moderately aggressive trimming may help as well, but I don't think it would be enough without some removals.
Alternatively we can simply accept the dense shade as it is; but in that case, I'd like to see this area edged, and have a thousand cubic yards of mulch dumped on it, to make it look like a purposeful park of the landscape, rather than an unfortunate misfire.
As we come towards the end of our tour, the park's most clear, if again simple, easy to fix, design flaw becomes apparent, this desire line (path though the landscape formed by people all traipsing the same way).
This path is clearly well worn and should be formalized and paved in some fashion. Having formalized it, it should also have lighting.
The secondary park entrance, to which this path leads is unremarkable, but fine, I suppose, save and except for the absence of signage, but I won't offer my last pic for that.
Instead, I will look at the park's eastern flank along Beecroft.
Technically this isn't IN the park, but it certainly forms part of the experience of the park. The narrow, asphalt boulevard is unfortunate here, and creates an unpleasant experience at the park edge next to heavy traffic.
There is ample room between the adjoining grass an a slightly bloated ROW width to add a tree-lined, landscaped boulevard to the edge of this park.
Overall, based on the condition of key park features, attractive design elements and utilization I would give this park an A-
It would largely benefit from minor tweaks. I would estimate a capital cost for all of my suggestions in the range of $150,000 which I think would make this park a stellar little spot. (though its still pretty good as it is)
Last edited:
Sky High Arch
New Member
Thanks @Northern Light
100% agree that this park has some great aspects. But like you mention what makes the park look run down in the mud in areas where grass was once or where walkers cut through. As well as it Can be very dark with the Mature trees.When the park gets a chunk of land to the west from the current application for 'North York Condo' I really hope they don't put in a play structure as it would take away from the nature feel and relaxation this park attracts. A possible attraction might be for an outdoor exercise equipment for when the park expands. As well as the Muskoka chairs.
Other small improvements could be..
Remove the Calcium staining on the fountain. As show in your picture above.
Powerwash the Cement walkway.
Northern Light
Superstar
You're welcome.
These bits are super easy and inexpensive to fix. Totally worth emailing the parks supervisor, and/or councillor's office (even though he's not running again) and see if these can't be put in motion.
The City generates mulch through trimming trees and would do so on this site, its great for the crews if they don't have to cart it off site.
My main issue w/any play structure is that it have enough room to do what its supposed to do well.
I don't think, if it had the kind of land area it needs, that would be an issue.
But I gather the potential new amount of land is quite small. Better to put a playscape somewhere else where it can have enough room to be a great playscape.
Low cost, quick-win item, another good one.
Not sure that would achieve any lasting improvement.
Sky High Arch
New Member
lasting No it wont. but looking at your picture at bench's you can see rust stains, algae/ moss stains, plus the concrete turning Grey / black.
If they want to remove all the paths and re do all. Ill take that too
Northern Light
Superstar
lasting No it wont. but looking at your picture at bench's you can see rust stains, algae/ moss stains, plus the concrete turning Grey / black.
If they want to remove all the paths and re do all. Ill take that too
The weeds coming up through the expansion joints might be killed by a blast of boiling hot pressurized water, but its not a given; but they'd re-grow in one season if those joints weren't actually sealed after.
The grey you're seeing is a mixture of imperfect application of, and wearing away of the curing compound placed on freshly poured sidewalk which turns it white.
Its this: (or a variant thereof)
1600-WHITE - Concrete Curing Compound - W. R. Meadows
1600-WHITE Concrete Curing Compound from W. R. Meadows is an acrylic, pigmented curing compound for concrete pavement and flatwork.
www.wrmeadows.com
You can't apply it to fully cured concrete. (well, you could, but no one would and I don't think it would adhere)
The only way to restore that white would be to mill the concrete (shave off the top layer) put new and spray the compound again.
Last edited:
Sky High Arch
New Member
lets just replace it allThe weeds coming up through the expansion joints might be killed by a blast of boiling hot pressurized water, but its not a given; but they'd re-grow in one season if those joints were actually sealed after.
The grey you're seeing is a mixture of imperfect application of, and wearing away of the curing compound placed on freshly poured sidewalk which turns it white.
Its this: (or a variant thereof)
1600-WHITE - Concrete Curing Compound - W. R. Meadows
1600-WHITE Concrete Curing Compound from W. R. Meadows is an acrylic, pigmented curing compound for concrete pavement and flatwork.
You can't apply it to fully cured concrete. (well, you could, but no one would and I don't think it would adhere)
The only way to restore that white would be to mill the concrete (shave off the top layer) put new and spray the compound again.
Northern Light
Superstar
lets just replace it all
If we're doing that, lets spring for an attractive interlocking paving, at least around the fountain, and at the shade structure.
Northern Light
Superstar
Ok, on to our next North York Park review, this one of Godstone Park for @Undead. This park is located ~ 3 blocks north of Fairview Mall. This will require 2-3 posts.
So this one is rather different than our typical park. Usually, we're looking at either a park that aspires to some form of elaborate design; or a large park or some such thing.
Here were looking at a medium sized, suburban park with no grand aspirations, and beyond assessing its condition/functionality, we're really looking for whether there's opportunity to do something better here.
Per our norm, we''ll take a look at the City's page for this park and see what the City thinks its supposed to be accomplishing.
The City's Page says:
Features include the above and 'exercise equipment'.
Now let's turn to the aerial pic(s) for an overhead view of the space:
We need two because of the awkward shape of the park, after seeing the whole thing, we'll look at primary area in greater detail.
As you can see, there's lots of 'stranded'; space, while the park's nominal areas is 2.8ha, its true principle space is only 1.9ha*
Though, its located directly adjacent to a school yard where joint management/sharing of facilities may be possible.
All of that said, lets start our tour and see what this park looks like on the ground, then assess its potential.
The park's principle entrance:
You know, nothing brilliant going on here, but nothing terribly wrong either.............
There are two paths leading off from this park entrance:
The first, is the principle path:
Here we find a water-bottle filling station right at the park entrance. What we don't see are two things I think we should see.
1) Seating. In general, I've discussed the importance of seating at or near park entrances as way to animate them and make them feel welcoming. Its also important for parks that may not have winter maintenance to keep seating available closer to sidewalks, where people can still take a rest on their way home from the store or the like, in a nice setting.
2) A map. We looked at the odd shape of this park with several different entrances and alcoves spread across 5 1/2 acres of land (more if you add in the school yard); and i think the need for a map and wayfinding signage become apparent.
Which route to which street, or bus stop or park facility?
Otherwise, we're mostly good here. The main path is in good physical condition.
The second path, runs along the park's southern perimeter:
This path leads to the adjacent school and is one of two paths to do so, the other branching off the principle path at a later point and running up the northern perimeter of the main park area.
This path is not in great condition. I would also make not here that there isn't much/any seating here either, nor is their a landscaped buffer between the abutting backyards and the park.
I could see a safety argument regarding that, but if right landscape design was adopted, and the path correctly sited, I still think it would be preferable. The chain-link fence doesn't offer much ambiance to park users, school kids or the abutting property owners.
Now we're almost ready to head into the park........but first......let's have a closer look at the park sign, and the perennial flower display around it.......
Once again, :I'm not taken w/this. I know what they were trying to do, but on an August day only the small white flowers were still in bloom and those were dying off. The monochromatic green isn't much of a flower display
and just reads as a bit messy to me. If this is all we can afford, better to revert to mowed grass. I like landscaping, but it does require some careful design and some ongoing maintenance its not just plug n'play.
****
Now let's get into this space:
This is a series of 4 pics that form a panorama of the main area of the park just in from the southern entrance, looking at the sports field and principle pathway.
Mostly fine, for what it is.............
One key observation though.............the soccer pitch does not have any lighting, which precludes any evening use (in an organized way) from mid-Sept to April. Lighting would allow the field to be programmed into early November.
Some area residents might object, but the field isn't right next to anyone's home, lighting could largely be facing away from any homes, and can be set to turn off automatically by say 9pm.
**
A quick glance at the park bench merely to note it as standard street furniture here, along with the light fixture:
Boring, but in good condition, on a pad.........fine.
The light fixture is ok, and in ok condition, but aside from being dull, I'm not a fan at all of the unpainted look, particularly with a matte finish on the poles, it really tends to age very poorly. I would also note these lights are a bit taller than most for a pathway, likely to save $ on more poles, but I'm not taken by that choice, I'd rather see something a bit more intimate, with additional poles. This would not only look/feel better, but would reduce shadowing/light gaps, reduce glare and reduce wasted light going into the sky or neighbhouring homes/backyards.
Now on to some fitness equipment that was mentioned above:
On a nice day, at ~4pm, the fitness park was empty but for someone using an adjacent bench.
Looks fine, as far as it goes, though I'm not sure how many would recognize it as fitness equipment as opposed to an extension of the adjacent playground. Perhaps its busy at other times, but on this day, it seems to have been a poor investment of space and $
****
With that, we break to the next post in this this thread as I'm out of room for the next series of pics!
To be con't.
So this one is rather different than our typical park. Usually, we're looking at either a park that aspires to some form of elaborate design; or a large park or some such thing.
Here were looking at a medium sized, suburban park with no grand aspirations, and beyond assessing its condition/functionality, we're really looking for whether there's opportunity to do something better here.
Per our norm, we''ll take a look at the City's page for this park and see what the City thinks its supposed to be accomplishing.
The City's Page says:
Features include the above and 'exercise equipment'.
Now let's turn to the aerial pic(s) for an overhead view of the space:
We need two because of the awkward shape of the park, after seeing the whole thing, we'll look at primary area in greater detail.
As you can see, there's lots of 'stranded'; space, while the park's nominal areas is 2.8ha, its true principle space is only 1.9ha*
Though, its located directly adjacent to a school yard where joint management/sharing of facilities may be possible.
All of that said, lets start our tour and see what this park looks like on the ground, then assess its potential.
The park's principle entrance:
You know, nothing brilliant going on here, but nothing terribly wrong either.............
There are two paths leading off from this park entrance:
The first, is the principle path:
Here we find a water-bottle filling station right at the park entrance. What we don't see are two things I think we should see.
1) Seating. In general, I've discussed the importance of seating at or near park entrances as way to animate them and make them feel welcoming. Its also important for parks that may not have winter maintenance to keep seating available closer to sidewalks, where people can still take a rest on their way home from the store or the like, in a nice setting.
2) A map. We looked at the odd shape of this park with several different entrances and alcoves spread across 5 1/2 acres of land (more if you add in the school yard); and i think the need for a map and wayfinding signage become apparent.
Which route to which street, or bus stop or park facility?
Otherwise, we're mostly good here. The main path is in good physical condition.
The second path, runs along the park's southern perimeter:
This path leads to the adjacent school and is one of two paths to do so, the other branching off the principle path at a later point and running up the northern perimeter of the main park area.
This path is not in great condition. I would also make not here that there isn't much/any seating here either, nor is their a landscaped buffer between the abutting backyards and the park.
I could see a safety argument regarding that, but if right landscape design was adopted, and the path correctly sited, I still think it would be preferable. The chain-link fence doesn't offer much ambiance to park users, school kids or the abutting property owners.
Now we're almost ready to head into the park........but first......let's have a closer look at the park sign, and the perennial flower display around it.......
Once again, :I'm not taken w/this. I know what they were trying to do, but on an August day only the small white flowers were still in bloom and those were dying off. The monochromatic green isn't much of a flower display
and just reads as a bit messy to me. If this is all we can afford, better to revert to mowed grass. I like landscaping, but it does require some careful design and some ongoing maintenance its not just plug n'play.
****
Now let's get into this space:
This is a series of 4 pics that form a panorama of the main area of the park just in from the southern entrance, looking at the sports field and principle pathway.
Mostly fine, for what it is.............
One key observation though.............the soccer pitch does not have any lighting, which precludes any evening use (in an organized way) from mid-Sept to April. Lighting would allow the field to be programmed into early November.
Some area residents might object, but the field isn't right next to anyone's home, lighting could largely be facing away from any homes, and can be set to turn off automatically by say 9pm.
**
A quick glance at the park bench merely to note it as standard street furniture here, along with the light fixture:
Boring, but in good condition, on a pad.........fine.
The light fixture is ok, and in ok condition, but aside from being dull, I'm not a fan at all of the unpainted look, particularly with a matte finish on the poles, it really tends to age very poorly. I would also note these lights are a bit taller than most for a pathway, likely to save $ on more poles, but I'm not taken by that choice, I'd rather see something a bit more intimate, with additional poles. This would not only look/feel better, but would reduce shadowing/light gaps, reduce glare and reduce wasted light going into the sky or neighbhouring homes/backyards.
Now on to some fitness equipment that was mentioned above:
On a nice day, at ~4pm, the fitness park was empty but for someone using an adjacent bench.
Looks fine, as far as it goes, though I'm not sure how many would recognize it as fitness equipment as opposed to an extension of the adjacent playground. Perhaps its busy at other times, but on this day, it seems to have been a poor investment of space and $
****
With that, we break to the next post in this this thread as I'm out of room for the next series of pics!
To be con't.
Northern Light
Superstar
Godstone Park, Part II
On to the Children's Playground:
While not the world's most exciting playscape, its got a decent range of equipment and seems in decent condition. On this day, in fine weather, at ~4pm, it had only a single parent and child making use of it though.
I'm not all that familiar with this area, but it does have a high proportion of apartments and some TCHC, which may have me wondering if parents of young children simply weren't home from work when I was here, but I might have expected to see it a bit busier.
Something that struck me, is that while centrally located, the playground is relatively deep into the park (~200M) and most area residents would have no sightline to the playground, I wonder if that impacts how many kids are allowed to access the playground w/o their parents in tow?
***
Adjacent to the playground we have a shade structure:
I'm not a fan of these in most spots. Trees provide more attractive shade, more cheaply. Sure, these work better in rain, but you don't need shade in the rain, LOL, and these have no lighting. I don't know how appealing these tables would during a rain shower or T-Storm, I'd further add, in respect of encouraging picnics at all, this park has no washroom.
At least one person was making use of a table though, so that's something.
**
On the opposite side of the pathway, we find a ping pong table:
The most notable investment in this park in the last year or two is clearly the planting of additional trees:
Well over 20 large trees were planted not that long ago, and most are doing well.
****
That really brings us to to the end of the main park area, and its features, but not the end of this review. Here, at the northern extent of the park, it branches off in several different directions along small, and smaller access corridors to surrounding streets and neigbhourhoods.
This first one runs north/north-east, it runs a phenomenal 320M between two sets of backyards.
The poor condition of this section of path aside, I take very real issue w/this design. There are no intervening exits. That's a long, relatively narrow, isolated corridor which I don't think is a safe design choice; and I think just as
importantly, it would not be seen as safe by many area residents, particularly in the evening hours.
Fixing that is a huge problem, assuming one doesn't wish to remove this corridor entirely (which I don't); it means buying some adjacent homes, to create new openings/exists, and probably taking from some backyards in order to widen the corridor a bit as well.
From Streetview, this is where that long corridor comes out, at Van Horne:
No signage, no seating, otherwise, fine, but for the corridor that connects it to the main park.
****
I followed this much shorter exit out to a cul de sac........its just a tiny easement between two homes. No lighting.
Note here that there is no park signage, and no wayfinding signage within the park to outlining where any of these small paths and corridors go.
At this point, I moved on to Don Mills Road to begin the walk back to the subway, but along that walk, I encountered yet another entrance/exit from Godstone Park:
This is a streetview shot of the corner in question, after which a couple more pics from me:
Again, note the absence of any park name or wayfinding signage. The path could clearly use some work too.
This is the interior-park side of this corridor:
*****
Before we talk about grand projects to optimize or expand this park, a summary of what we've seen and needs attention.
The Park's overall facilities are decent and in reasonable condition with the exception of most secondary pathways, which need repaving.
The soccer pitch could probably use lighting.
And way-finding and park entrance signage is largely missing and in my opinion, sorely needed.
Cost of addressing these issues (back of the envelope:
Signage: ~$10,000
Pathways: $120,000
Sports field Lighting: $100,000
Total: $230,000
We'll move on to one last post, to discuss optimization/expansion of this park.
On to the Children's Playground:
While not the world's most exciting playscape, its got a decent range of equipment and seems in decent condition. On this day, in fine weather, at ~4pm, it had only a single parent and child making use of it though.
I'm not all that familiar with this area, but it does have a high proportion of apartments and some TCHC, which may have me wondering if parents of young children simply weren't home from work when I was here, but I might have expected to see it a bit busier.
Something that struck me, is that while centrally located, the playground is relatively deep into the park (~200M) and most area residents would have no sightline to the playground, I wonder if that impacts how many kids are allowed to access the playground w/o their parents in tow?
***
Adjacent to the playground we have a shade structure:
I'm not a fan of these in most spots. Trees provide more attractive shade, more cheaply. Sure, these work better in rain, but you don't need shade in the rain, LOL, and these have no lighting. I don't know how appealing these tables would during a rain shower or T-Storm, I'd further add, in respect of encouraging picnics at all, this park has no washroom.
At least one person was making use of a table though, so that's something.
**
On the opposite side of the pathway, we find a ping pong table:
The most notable investment in this park in the last year or two is clearly the planting of additional trees:
Well over 20 large trees were planted not that long ago, and most are doing well.
****
That really brings us to to the end of the main park area, and its features, but not the end of this review. Here, at the northern extent of the park, it branches off in several different directions along small, and smaller access corridors to surrounding streets and neigbhourhoods.
This first one runs north/north-east, it runs a phenomenal 320M between two sets of backyards.
The poor condition of this section of path aside, I take very real issue w/this design. There are no intervening exits. That's a long, relatively narrow, isolated corridor which I don't think is a safe design choice; and I think just as
importantly, it would not be seen as safe by many area residents, particularly in the evening hours.
Fixing that is a huge problem, assuming one doesn't wish to remove this corridor entirely (which I don't); it means buying some adjacent homes, to create new openings/exists, and probably taking from some backyards in order to widen the corridor a bit as well.
From Streetview, this is where that long corridor comes out, at Van Horne:
No signage, no seating, otherwise, fine, but for the corridor that connects it to the main park.
****
I followed this much shorter exit out to a cul de sac........its just a tiny easement between two homes. No lighting.
Note here that there is no park signage, and no wayfinding signage within the park to outlining where any of these small paths and corridors go.
At this point, I moved on to Don Mills Road to begin the walk back to the subway, but along that walk, I encountered yet another entrance/exit from Godstone Park:
This is a streetview shot of the corner in question, after which a couple more pics from me:
Again, note the absence of any park name or wayfinding signage. The path could clearly use some work too.
This is the interior-park side of this corridor:
*****
Before we talk about grand projects to optimize or expand this park, a summary of what we've seen and needs attention.
The Park's overall facilities are decent and in reasonable condition with the exception of most secondary pathways, which need repaving.
The soccer pitch could probably use lighting.
And way-finding and park entrance signage is largely missing and in my opinion, sorely needed.
Cost of addressing these issues (back of the envelope:
Signage: ~$10,000
Pathways: $120,000
Sports field Lighting: $100,000
Total: $230,000
We'll move on to one last post, to discuss optimization/expansion of this park.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
As we wrap up the review of Godstone Park, by looking at its potential for improvement through optimization and/or expansion, we'll begin by returning to the aerial overview of the park:
There are two distinct types of opportunities here.
The first focuses on the existing, core park to consider whether it would be possible to add new features or utility w/o expansion.
The second looks at the various narrow arms of the park, which are mostly useless except as passage ways in their current form, to see how much land one would have to add to create programmable spaces.
Above, we see the main area of the park, and the adjacent school yard, which are roughly divided by the sporadic trees along the right hand side of the soccer pitch.
Here, we don't see a lot of programmable, leftover space, unless we choose to re-arrange things; and even then, without the school yard, we would mostly, arguably be improving functionality a bit, for some parks users, rather than enhancing overall choice. (ie. we could swap the playground to the south-west corner of the park, where we started our tour, bump the soccer pitch to the north) This would offer the adjacent apartment neighbhourhood and TCHC site, better access to the playground. But it would make it further away for the SFH community to the north and east.
That said, there is an opportunity here, as I see it, and that is joint management with the school board. Why?
Because when I look at the school yard, I see 2 small grubby T-Ball diamonds, and another, smaller soccer pitch that overlaps w/them.
I'd be inclined to swap out the current sports facilities in the school yard for a single baseball diamond (or cricket pitch) of quality, which the park could use in non-school hours; and then let the school use the City's soccer pitch during the day.
I think there's a good optimization to be had there.
****
On to the 'arms' of the park...........how to make sense of this gangly nonsense..........
Segment one, the space between the cul de sac entrance, and the Don Mills entrance:
Buying up these bungalows, just for more park space, next to a large park would be hard to justify..........but I have a different thought.
This is MTSA territory, we're close to Don Mills Station, and adjacent to the Don Mills bus. What if the City, acting as Housing Now developer were to buy this entire cul de sac up?
This would allow the removal of the foot print of Deerford Rd (southern loop), which would cease to exist. It would now be possible to put a new building right at the corner of Deerford and Don Mills, offering mixed-income
housing, retain about 1/2 the corner and add some land from the south, to retain the existing park access corridor, but widen it to become safer and more welcoming, and allow programming.
A second park entrance could come off the end of Deerford, the existing narrow easement is gone, and the corridor here, widened, by say 10M
I see a win-win proposition in this scenario. I won't bother costing it, as this would obviously depend on what building was erected and by whom and the apportionment of costs to different programs (Housing Now vs Parks etc)
****
The next area to examine, is to the immediate south of the one above:
This site is a TCHC community. Relatively low density, it is currently inward-facing, turning its back on both Don Mills Road and Godstone Park.
That cries out for redevelopment to me. You can see some mature trees next to Don Mills, I would want to save those if possible. But a hirise at the corner of Godstone and Don Mills seems incredibly obvious, and likely an opportunity to introduce neighbourhood retail as well.
Create one new, wide, park access on the north flank of said new tower, and then redevelop the balance of the TCHC community as mid-rise, bending around the mature trees on Don Mills in a semi-circular fashion and allowing the park foot print to be modestly widened with no loss of housing (indeed I would imagine a material increase.)
****
I don't see the same functional gain opportunities for the north-east flank of the park, without leveling most of that community. But I would still like to see some opening up of that closed in corridor. In light of what I have suggested for the west side of the space, I would propose to take a small number of homes near Vanhorne and Houston to create greater safety.
There would be room, if desired, to add tennis courts or pickleball at this location.
With that, our latest park review comes to a close.
There are two distinct types of opportunities here.
The first focuses on the existing, core park to consider whether it would be possible to add new features or utility w/o expansion.
The second looks at the various narrow arms of the park, which are mostly useless except as passage ways in their current form, to see how much land one would have to add to create programmable spaces.
Above, we see the main area of the park, and the adjacent school yard, which are roughly divided by the sporadic trees along the right hand side of the soccer pitch.
Here, we don't see a lot of programmable, leftover space, unless we choose to re-arrange things; and even then, without the school yard, we would mostly, arguably be improving functionality a bit, for some parks users, rather than enhancing overall choice. (ie. we could swap the playground to the south-west corner of the park, where we started our tour, bump the soccer pitch to the north) This would offer the adjacent apartment neighbhourhood and TCHC site, better access to the playground. But it would make it further away for the SFH community to the north and east.
That said, there is an opportunity here, as I see it, and that is joint management with the school board. Why?
Because when I look at the school yard, I see 2 small grubby T-Ball diamonds, and another, smaller soccer pitch that overlaps w/them.
I'd be inclined to swap out the current sports facilities in the school yard for a single baseball diamond (or cricket pitch) of quality, which the park could use in non-school hours; and then let the school use the City's soccer pitch during the day.
I think there's a good optimization to be had there.
****
On to the 'arms' of the park...........how to make sense of this gangly nonsense..........
Segment one, the space between the cul de sac entrance, and the Don Mills entrance:
Buying up these bungalows, just for more park space, next to a large park would be hard to justify..........but I have a different thought.
This is MTSA territory, we're close to Don Mills Station, and adjacent to the Don Mills bus. What if the City, acting as Housing Now developer were to buy this entire cul de sac up?
This would allow the removal of the foot print of Deerford Rd (southern loop), which would cease to exist. It would now be possible to put a new building right at the corner of Deerford and Don Mills, offering mixed-income
housing, retain about 1/2 the corner and add some land from the south, to retain the existing park access corridor, but widen it to become safer and more welcoming, and allow programming.
A second park entrance could come off the end of Deerford, the existing narrow easement is gone, and the corridor here, widened, by say 10M
I see a win-win proposition in this scenario. I won't bother costing it, as this would obviously depend on what building was erected and by whom and the apportionment of costs to different programs (Housing Now vs Parks etc)
****
The next area to examine, is to the immediate south of the one above:
This site is a TCHC community. Relatively low density, it is currently inward-facing, turning its back on both Don Mills Road and Godstone Park.
That cries out for redevelopment to me. You can see some mature trees next to Don Mills, I would want to save those if possible. But a hirise at the corner of Godstone and Don Mills seems incredibly obvious, and likely an opportunity to introduce neighbourhood retail as well.
Create one new, wide, park access on the north flank of said new tower, and then redevelop the balance of the TCHC community as mid-rise, bending around the mature trees on Don Mills in a semi-circular fashion and allowing the park foot print to be modestly widened with no loss of housing (indeed I would imagine a material increase.)
****
I don't see the same functional gain opportunities for the north-east flank of the park, without leveling most of that community. But I would still like to see some opening up of that closed in corridor. In light of what I have suggested for the west side of the space, I would propose to take a small number of homes near Vanhorne and Houston to create greater safety.
There would be room, if desired, to add tennis courts or pickleball at this location.
With that, our latest park review comes to a close.
Last edited: