Toronto Queen's Park North Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto

[JacksonYodels]

I just did the survey for this phase, where it’s briefly mentioned a portion of the park will be fenced off for 15 years for some sort of remediation.

This is going to be a mess once the general public becomes aware of what is being proposed.

The landscape architects seem to believe this is some sort of sacred forest and not, like, a central public park for gathering.

Equally having a central fire being the focus point - but then saying it can only be turned on for indigenous events that may or may not actually happen is just so goofy. A focus point that exists on one or two days a year? This was not thought out.

 

[picard102]

15 years? Full buildings get built in less time.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I might be the one pushing daisies here in 15 years... >.<

 

[Dr. Snoot]

15 years? Full buildings get built in less time.

I think the idea is to introduce an understory of plants beneath the trees, substituting it for lawn. I don't think this is a bad idea, as it provides an attraction while leaving lots of lawn area. They're proposing to fence it off for 15 years to allow the plants to establish and not be trampled. To me, it depends what the fence looks like and if it is effective.

I agree with most that the tree walk is a waste of money that presents hazards and could be better spent on basics.

I think the Heart (in the middle, with the fire) is the worst idea in the proposal. I predict it will rarely (if ever) be used by its very small target audience. It seems to be exclusive symbolism over public function.

 

[JacksonYodels]

I think the idea is to introduce an understory of plants beneath the trees, substituting it for lawn. I don't think this is a bad idea, as it provides an attraction while leaving lots of lawn area. They're proposing to fence it off for 15 years to allow the plants to establish and not be trampled. To me, it depends what the fence looks like and if it is effective.

I agree with most that the tree walk is a waste of money that presents hazards and could be better spent on basics.

I think the Heart (in the middle, with the fire) is the worst idea in the proposal. I predict it will rarely (if ever) be used by its very small target audience. It seems to be exclusive symbolism over public function.

The understory idea reminds me of what Rosenberg just did at George Hilsop Park. Having it fenced off made it a prime spot for the homeless to set up camp. The small fences there were also immediately destroyed. Worse it’s being proposed in the most shaded part of the park, where you really want to be in the heat of the summer.

And yeah, I don’t know how the fire idea made it so far without question. If you want a central piece to attract people - a large fountain like Cormier did would actually serve that purpose. A fire that appears once or twice a year, should really just be set up on the lawn - installing permanent infrastructure for it is really overboard. And if you want to honour indigenous heritage - do so in a way that’s actually visible day to day, not a switch on a gas flame.

 

[Northern Light]

Look what's on the agenda for this week's Toronto Design Review Panel:

 

[Northern Light]

I think the idea is to introduce an understory of plants beneath the trees, substituting it for lawn. I don't think this is a bad idea, as it provides an attraction while leaving lots of lawn area. They're proposing to fence it off for 15 years to allow the plants to establish and not be trampled. To me, it depends what the fence looks like and if it is effective.

I'm someone very sympathetic to nature; and I actually advocated for including some native flowers in this proposal prior to it being made public.

That said, the idea as currently formulated has multiple problems

1) Displacement within finite space. Meaning, Queen's Park is used on the nicest days by people picinicing, or reading, or tanning on various bits of lawn, or at the various picnic tables etc.

Certainly, there is room to sacrifice some space for nature and/or landscaping, it's not all used, and not for that much of the year.

But the park is currently 88% lawn, the proposal would reduce it to 41%, or by more than 1/2. That's a lot of displacement of existing use where no new parkland is being created.

2) The primary understory proposal is billed as 'savanna' by which they mean oak savanna.

Savanna is a landscape that is created and maintained by forest fires, or in an urban context, through prescribed burns. Said burns are usually conducted in early spring, immediately following snow melt, so as to minimize the risk of them getting out of control and to witness benefits throughout the growing season.

Does anyone thing setting Queen's Park on fire every or every other spring, at the end of spring semester sounds like a problematic idea?

The tree species currently present include species inconsistent with this habitat choice, ranging from non-native, invasive Norway Maples, to perfectly fine native trees that simply don't belong in White Oak Savanna.

The soil on site, is not consistently correct for supporting savanna species.

Typical savanna choices will also be ~3-4ft tall in mid-summer and may obstruct sightlines.

The appearance will tend to be 'messy'. I like nature and its organic variety of colours and shapes makes hiking a joy; but in a highly urban environment it will tend to look out of place if there isn't heavy curation/maintenance, and to have that across 40% of the park just does not make sense to me.

What I would have loved to see is a select few 'curated' beds of wildflowers, accenting existing clumps of trees, filled in with a few shrubs as appropriate. But relatively small in scale, so that they can be 'gardened' as required.

A couple of beds of trilliums in the spring, our provincial flower; in a couple of sunny patches, beds of Woodland Sunflower, in some shadier areas, wild strawberry would be lovely. But we should be thinking more in the range of 5-10% of the park, not 40%

I agree with most that the tree walk is a waste of money that presents hazards and could be better spent on basics.

I think the Heart (in the middle, with the fire) is the worst idea in the proposal. I predict it will rarely (if ever) be used by its very small target audience. It seems to be exclusive symbolism over public function.

Agreed, on both counts.

 

[Northern Light]

This is the current item at Committee, I have a lunch meeting so I won't be able to follow the whole thing.

But I did see some communications of note.

Excerpt from the ABC Residents Assoc:

**

From Elizabeth Sisam (former University of Toronto planner)

From the Annex Residents Assoc:

From the Bay Cloverhill Assoc:

From the Greater Yorkville Residents Assoc.:

From Friends of Queen's Park North:

When did over 90M in free money ever generate this much controversy? This has been badly mishandled by staff.

 

[taal]

When did over 90M in free money ever generate this much controversy? This has been badly mishandled by staff.

I disagree ... the answer is "always" ... look at the underlying sentiment behind the push back ... " we want to keep it our community park" ... I think there is a tangible argument for losing the "forest like nature" that exists today but that's not what's fueling this - it's the typical "not in my backyard" sentiment - no pun intended - as to them this is a local park and not something that should be a grand attraction. NIMBYism at its finest.

 

[Northern Light]

I disagree ... the answer is "always" ... look at the underlying sentiment behind the push back ... " we want to keep it our community park" ... I think there is a tangible argument for losing the "forest like nature" that exists today but that's not what's fueling this - it's the typical "not in my backyard" sentiment - no pun intended - as to them this is a local park and not something that should be a grand attraction. NIMBYism at its finest.

Disagree.

We could nitpick around the edges, but I think most of the points raised are fair and reasonable.

 

[Northern Light]

Passed with the following amendment:

****

I think the amendment is fine, as far as it goes; but I think based on the above feedback, it should have directly killed the tree canopy walk; should have directed a greater amount of lawn and formal space, and should have directed that the final concept better reflect the feedback of the community.

 

[nightstreak]

@Anthony Teles third picture (by @ADRM) in your front page article is incorrect.

This is certainly not Queen's Park North. That's King's College Circle, NW corner:

 

[JacksonYodels]

I disagree ... the answer is "always" ... look at the underlying sentiment behind the push back ... " we want to keep it our community park" ... I think there is a tangible argument for losing the "forest like nature" that exists today but that's not what's fueling this - it's the typical "not in my backyard" sentiment - no pun intended - as to them this is a local park and not something that should be a grand attraction. NIMBYism at its finest.

I disagree with this. When there is no one at public meetings and no one from local BIAs on board with a specific design, that’s not NIMBYism. That’s a failure of the design team to produce something of value.

There is a lot to fix in Queen’s Park, but the problem in this plan - is most of those problems remain unresolved, while a lot of effort here is being directed at demolishing large parts of the park that already work well.

If anything, this reads like a pompous landscape architect who wants to put their signature on a place instead of trying to understand the existing park and improve upon it. That’s what this plan should be - how to make this park function better for residents.

Removing half the lawn for grasses and shrubs does not serve residents.

Putting in a workshop and classroom space in a park surrounded by a university full of hundreds of classrooms is the definition of absurdity.

This plan puts large plantings next to the running track - a perfect spot for someone to hide out and attack a runner at night. Instead they should be focused on how the track could have a better running material and far better lighting. For safety and use - not some grand idea of a forest savana.

There has been ample opportunity for this design to improve and respond to the community. At this point the design team should be fired.

 

[Northern Light]

At DRP Today.

This is the ask of the panel:

There are 9 panel members today.

I listened to the question segment and I didn't think there was any question or answer that was revelatory........except...

In materials submitted to the panel that are not public, there is a reference to working with the team managing the University Park file. A panel member was interested in what that was about.
I won't be mean here, but I will describe the answer as somewhat evasive, and fuzzy. Along the line of lacks funding and mandate to move forward at this time, without clearly stating what it is the team is doing or whether there is any anticipated work plan going forward there and over what time.

Panel Comments:

Gordon: He broadly likes the plan, called it evocative. Washroom + Cafe is needed. He likes the tree walk idea.

Jim G. "I would be cautious about overloading the site" . He doesn't like how the King Edward statue is sited, feels it reads as 'off to the side', should be in middle of the path.

Olivia: "I realize this is out of scope, but I have concern about all the traffic and how pedestrians will access this 'island". Would like more details on the Tree walk, on width, are there resting point, renders showing what the walk along it will look like.
- could there be more consideration of net zero, carbon reduction/ Toronto Green Standards. Maybe the negative engagement is because people don't see their ideas in the renders.....

Sibilla: She wants a loop or loops to encourage people to walk around the park, not just through it. Do we need to do something more drastic to improve planting conditions like Silva Cells?
Concern about canopy walk safety and maintenance Notes that its very hard to get plants to take under Norway Maple, maybe we just need to remove them all. (correct, note there are about 30 in the park)

Pat H.: Not sure about the tree walk, appreciate the idea. Like the commitment to nature, not sure that there is enough though into making it work.

Mark: Trees are the priority. Everything else is secondary. The heart is 100M+ from the edge of the park, that's the limit of human perception, concerned that people may not be drawn in if the centre isn't obvious.
Tree walk is a safety concern. Concern that cafe building may grow in size.

Paul: With many trees closed to end of life there is a need to identify hero trees that will be kept alive for the year ahead at all costs, and carefully planning the naturalization to maintain a canopy over time.
Concern with tree walk; "If we can't keep the walkways at City Hall open are we being realistic here that we can do this" Safety is one key concern, another is winter maintenance, need a nuts and bolts operating strategy before design is advanced. Concerns with Savanna idea including prescribed burns, risk of litter all over, and snow fences, and orange snow. Thinks the statue move show be playful instead of respectful, put it on the ground, put play equipment around it.

Jim M.: A forest management plan is necessary. Maybe get rid of all the Norway Maples, then you have more sun which gives you more choices. Concerned that design choices today conflict with the longer term vision of University Park.
Thinks the commemorative garden could be better integrated with the path system, rather than boxed off. Doesn't get the labyrinth idea. Cafe moving to the edge avoids servicing and garbage issues if its in the middle. Try kiosk/food truck first to gauge interest. It food service sustainable in winter. Don't need the tree walk , don't know where it came from, not like the experience of a real tree walk. Path isn't high enough and canopy not dense enough to give the desired experience.

Joe: A great deal to love about all of this. Particularly likes the addition of a washroom. He likes it in the heart of the park as that's where the people are. Commemorative garden could be reinterpreted, likes the reflective pool at the south end, not so sure about the rest. Tree walk feels alien to Queen's Park North. The park is a place of repose, its not an exhibit. Huge liability risks, winter an issue. Not where I would invest. Would be nice to have a public art program.

Sum up: A lot of appreciation for the general ideas, a lot of support of cafe and washrooms. There were comments of caution about over-loading. There were comments about the statue Mixed comments about the commemorative garden
Mentioned tree walk. Mention of something I didn't hear, that someone suggested using the roof of the cafe as a way to see the tree canopy as opposed to the tree walk.

Vote: With two conditions:

1) Revisit the composition of programming. (idea, there's too much)(

2) Comprehensive Forest Management is required.

Unanimous support with the two conditions above. A clear understanding this needs to come back to the panel for another review.

***

The audio feed was dreadful at times. I have done my best to accurately represent the panelists comments, any mistakes are my own, with apologies.

The only comment from me in the centre of the transcription is bolded as added info.

****

My comments: There was a significant push back on the tree walk, which I was glad to see, and the idea should be dropped. I felt like this wasn't emphasized in the sum up. I agree with the discussion of over-programming of which the tree walk is most conspicuous feature. I'm happy to concur w/Joe.... drop the labyrinth and the workshop. Curious, if I didn't miss it, I didn't hear any discussion about the nature of the water feature, no endorsements or critiques. * Well, not quite true, the idea of University Park and a shadow Taddle Creek came up and whether that could be 'the' water feature and/or integrated into other water features. I don't support adding a playground. To be any good, it would occupy at least 1 acre of the park, and it would be further over programming and it would be competing programming. The University Park concept for this area really needs to be openly discussed, with this much money on the table something is plausible here. But any variation of said park will radically alter the surroundings by removing, or greatly reducing roadways (though possibly adding a lane on the east side), it would profoundly affect how this space would be designed. If University Park is off-the table we should just say that but then focus mitigating the road as much as possible.

 

[taal]

Thank you for the summary !! Sorry any details on what university park is referring too ?