Toronto Canoe Landing Park | ?m | ?s | Concord Adex

I too am not impressed with the final product, however I agree that the fountains/beaver dam do make a great 'centre'. The red canoe also seems to be a popular spot, and the artificial turf is always full of people playing a variety of sports when the weather is nice. The park is well used, not only by dog walkers, but children and teens, as well as people who just go by to eat lunch (Picnic tables were brought in by the parks team to accomodate this).

Despite the park being 'cheapened', it seems to be doing pretty well for itself, and I can assume it will only get more use as more buildings get occupied, and the bridge to Portland Street opens.

It is also important to note that the park is not yet fully complete. The original plantings were completely clear cut, and will need to be replanted, so it will be several more years before things begin to feel more natural and 'park like'. There is also a fairly large section of park that has yet to be built, as it will be built along with the school and community centre.
 
taal said:
The waterpark in the middle indeed functions as the 'heart' of the park, so I disagree completely.

Having said that it is unfortunate some of the other features didn't make it in.
Click to expand...

And do you ever see people there? I walk through this park all the time and the only place I see people congregate, is dog walkers, on the grass area and occasionally, guys playing soccer on the soccer field. Other than that, this park is pretty much unused. Take out the dog walkers and this park is a ghost town. I hope that changes when the other buildings are finished but right now, few people use this park to just hang out and enjoy.

Is the Beaver Dam working? Last summer it was not, for much of the time. I think they just turned off the water but left the lights on. A number of elements in this park are already in bad shape. Take a close look at the white bench, neat the canoe. Much of the white paint is scratched off and it's dented. If this park is not properly maintained, it will start to look dilapidated really quickly. Before a park is built, they need to consider what materials to use because the wrong choice of materials, will just be impossible to properly maintain. I don't think this park was thought out all that well.
 
Last edited:
Torontovibe said:
And do you ever see people there? I walk through this park all the time and the only place I see people congregate, is dog walkers, on the grass area and occasionally, guys playing soccer on the soccer field. Other than that, this park is pretty much unused. Take out the dog walkers and this park is a ghost town. I hope that changes when the other buildings are finished but right now, few people use this park to just hang out and enjoy.

Is the Beaver Dam working? Last summer it was not, for much of the time. I think they just turned off the water but left the lights on. A number of elements in this park are already in bad shape. Take a close look at the white bench, neat the canoe. Much of the white paint is scratched off and it's dented. If this park is not properly maintained, it will start to look dilapidated really quickly. Before a park is built, they need to consider what materials to use because the wrong choice of materials, will just be impossible to properly maintain. I don't think this park was thought out all that well.
Click to expand...

I walk by the park every day, as I live across from it, and my observations have been completely different. The turf field is always in use, and by many people, and the canoe usually has a few people hanging out around it. The only time the turf is empty is on cold or rainy days. As for the dog walkers, why don't they count as usage to you? Just because you are not one of them, means they dont count? If it were completely full of dog walkers, would that not still count as a full park? I don't see why you would count them out.

The beaver dam was off all of last summer because there was a broken part that could not be replaced in time. I believe it has since been fixed and the fountain should be running this summer. The splash pad usually gets quite a few kids running through it during the summer also.

The white iceberg benches are in bad shape, and the city is aware of this and is looking for a solution. The panels that cover the lights in them keep getting kicked out too.
 
Last edited:
If a park is full of dog walkers but very few other people, it's clear that the park is not appealing to the general public. Let's face it, dog walkers will walk their dogs in whatever park is closest, no matter what that park looks like. It could be located beside a run down factory but if a dog can have a run and crap in the park, dog walkers will use it. Are we satisfied if parks function as mainly washrooms for dogs? I think we need higher standards than that. lol If a park doesn't attract the general public to want to spend time in it, is it a success? Is that the kind of park we want to keep developing? I know dog owners need places for their dogs to exercise and do their business but we also need parks that attract people who just want a well designed and well programmed park. We need parks that actually give people things to do and reasons to go there. This city has way too many 3rd rate parks (the just grass & trees type) that sit half empty most of the time. Check out Trinity Bellwoods Park to see what a well used park looks like. Build something beautiful or unique or with good amenities and people will come. The blandness of Canoe Landing Park just doesn't cut it in my books. It's not beautiful, it's not unique and not much fun if you're not a soccer player or dog walker. I guess it's kind of unique, in that it offers a great view of the Gardiner Expressway but I need a little more animation than that.

It's funny how 2 people can walk through the same park on a regular basis and experience different things. I think we might have different expectations and different views of what a busy park looks and feels like. This park feels isolated and lifeless to me.
 
Last edited:
I think Cityplace handled the park so badly - it is so cheapened, dumbed-down and less intricate than the original plans shown - that it practically owes the development more parkland.
I think the current 'pit' - the lot between the existing park and N1/N2 - would do nicely. As part green park, part treed area. P'haps with a pond?
The planned community centre and the rest could be put more or less underground, and an extension to the existing park could rise and fall on a huge folded ceiling/green roof. Of course that'd mean more or less nixing the planned towers. But - I think Cityplace has enough as it is. Keep the park-central frontage of Bremner clean.
Some mature trees here would work wonders, to, in patches dense enough to get surrounded by. Cityplace would get a real boost from a touch of urbane forestry.
 
Last edited:
I've been there - once - more out of curiosity than anything else, and it strikes me as being more of a neighbourhood park than a destination park for the rest of us. I don't think that Toronto's mid-sized parks live or die depending how well they're "programmed" with events or attractions, though those things may happen in due course. And if those of us who live in, say, Riverdale ( the "general public" ... ) aren't given a reason to go to this park, and don't do go there, the place doesn't fail. I can see that they wanted to provide for a range of different, fairly casual uses, based on the landscaping they've done, and the canoe thing is mildly interesting as a focal point, but there's plenty of scope for it to develop into a popular place for the locals, and for them to make their mark on it - like Withrow Park, maybe - as time goes by, and for it to develop a character rather than to have one imposed on it by design. I think there's a danger in over-designing places that are often best left to evolve in their own unique ways.
 
Urban Shocker said:
I've been there - once - more out of curiosity than anything else, and it strikes me as being more of a neighbourhood park than a destination park for the rest of us. I don't think that Toronto's mid-sized parks live or die depending how well they're "programmed" with events or attractions, though those things may happen in due course. And if those of us who live in, say, Riverdale ( the "general public" ... ) aren't given a reason to go to this park, and don't do go there, the place doesn't fail. I can see that they wanted to provide for a range of different, fairly casual uses, based on the landscaping they've done, and the canoe thing is mildly interesting as a focal point, but there's plenty of scope for it to develop into a popular place for the locals, and for them to make their mark on it - like Withrow Park, maybe - as time goes by, and for it to develop a character rather than to have one imposed on it by design. I think there's a danger in over-designing places that are often best left to evolve in their own unique ways.
Click to expand...

You make a valid point about the local-focal nature of this parkland project, and others. However, with a project the size/locale of Cityplace, one might expect a lot more for the city at large.
 
It was intended to be a designed space. If they had thrown up soccer pitches and left it at that we'd probably have far less to say about it.
 
Indeed, the people who live in City Place could have much more in their local park - soccer pitches, a baseball diamond, tennis courts, an ice rink, a dog-walking area, volleyball nets, plenty of seating, a grassy wilderness area with trees, changes in grade, a building for events. They could have it all - just like Withrow Park, which strikes me as an excellent model for how such local amenities can evolve.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Indeed, the people who live in City Place could have much more in their local park - soccer pitches, a baseball diamond, tennis courts, an ice rink, a dog-walking area, volleyball nets, plenty of seating, a grassy wilderness area with trees, changes in grade, a building for events. They could have it all - just like Withrow Park, which strikes me as an excellent model for how such local amenities can evolve.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it... the City Place park is 1/4th the size of Withrow Park.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Not that we should place all our faith in Wiki, but it lists Withrow as 21 acres and Canoe as 20 acres.
Click to expand...

I used Google Earth to measure it. Withrow came out to around 80,000 square metres and Canoe was at around 20,000.

EDIT: I just checked the wiki article and noticed that Canoe is described as 8 hectares in the news as well. Anyone want to explain how this could be when it's pretty clear that it's not even close to that size?
canoe.jpg
 

Attachments

  • canoe.jpg
    canoe.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 1,147
Last edited:
jn_12 said:
I used Google Earth to measure it. Withrow came out to around 80,000 square metres and Canoe was at around 20,000.

EDIT: I just checked the wiki article and noticed that Canoe is described as 8 hectares in the news as well. Anyone want to explain how this could be when it's pretty clear that it's not even close to that size?
View attachment 8928
Click to expand...

Canoe Landing isn't fully built yet, as I stated before... though I doubt it would be as large as Withrow Park even once fully completed.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Canoe Landing isn't fully built yet, as I stated before... though I doubt it would be as large as Withrow Park even once fully completed.
Click to expand...

Care to explain how they plan to even double the size of this park? I'm not aware of any plans to make it any bigger than what's in this plan (which has been already built):
proj_commons_03_c.jpg


Also I just found a report by the city of Toronto that indicates the park is only 8 acres, not 8 hectares: http://www.toronto.ca/tuda/2011/pdf/largeplaces_summaries_july14.pdf
 
Maybe the figure quoted for Canoe Stranding Park also includes South Linear Park and North Linear Park lands within CityPlace, possibly even Mouth of the Creek Park too? Maybe the 8 hectares refers to all parkland within the Railway Lands and someone then applied the number just to the one park…

Mistakes like that happen often.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top