Toronto First Parliament Site | ?m | ?s

Hipster Duck said:
Within the downtown core we have the following public squares:

NPS
Dundas square
Trinity Square
Market Square (St. Lawrence)
Yorkville Park
College Park
Scrivener Square
Berczy Park
Sherbourne Common
Practically the whole Waterfront between Bay and Spadina
the entirely-pedestrianized Distillery District (5 minutes away)
There's also this square inside David Crombie park that's just around the corner.

That's just off the top of my head. I could probably come up with more.

Not to mention all of the private-public squares created by office towers and condos that dot the city like the one at the B/A centre, CCW, TD Centre, outside the CBC HQ or all those mewses in Yorkville.

We don't have a shortage of squares. We have a surplus of squares, and we hardly know what to do with them. Building a landscaped public space of the size most people want here is neither cheap (it probably will cost about $5 million of taxpayer money) nor necessary - there are perfectly good squares literally around two corners: at David Crombie park and in the Distillery district.

Finally, I don't see the corner of Parliament and Front making a particularly good square. What reason is there to congregate there? There already are great public spaces nearby that are established and the population density isn't high enough (and it never will be if we dedicated that land to building a square).
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Do you really have no idea what a proper public square is? Berczy Park? OY VAY! That run down park is not at all what I'm talking about and if you think that ugly (and run down) walkway beside St. Lawrence Market is a proper public Square, you seriously need to get your ass to Europe. Come on, give me a break. Don't you have more ambition for this city than that? How low are your standards? If a public space has more grass than paving stones, it's usually A PARK! (as in Sherbourne Common)

And if spending money on our city is your issue, well then the kind of city you want is very different than the kind of city I want Toronto to be, because I think we need to spend a lot more on our public realm and in developing a great, yes, I said GREAT, city! I strive for nothing less.
 
Last edited:
Torontovibe said:
Are you serious? Do you really have no idea what a proper public square is? Berczy Park? OY VAY! That run down park is not at all what I'm talking about and if you think that ugly (and run down) walkway beside St. Lawrence Market is a proper public Square, you seriously need to get your ass to Europe. Come on, give me a break. Don't you have more ambition for this city than that? How low are your standards? If a public space has more grass than paving stones, it's usually A PARK! (as in Sherbourne Common)

And if spending money on our city is your issue, well then the kind of city you want is very different than the kind of city I want Toronto to be, because I think we need to spend a lot more on our public realm and in developing a great, yes, I said GREAT, city! I strive for nothing less.
Click to expand...

Just because those other squares aren't perfect doesn't mean that we should build a square here. There are 3 simple reasons for this:

1. The location of this square, and its relation to other squares.

In order for the square to work, it has to be in an area with a lot of nearby foot traffic and be a place where people naturally feel like congregating. It has neither. The area doesn't have a lot of foot traffic (and that's not a bad thing, necessarily), and there are already two good public spaces nearby in places that are bigger attractors: the Distillery district and the space I showed in David Crombie Park. What will draw people to a grand, public space at Front and Parliament? I don't see anyone who's not from the immediate area using it.

2. Land economics

A public park isn't free. There is the cost of building it, the annual cost of maintaining it, and the opportunity cost lost of developing it for other uses. The cost of building it is in the millions, the cost of operating it is in the tens of thousands and the opportunity cost foregone of developing it is in the tens of millions (plus millions in lost property taxes). You can see why the city hasn't developed more squares, even if I think we have enough.

3. Torontonians use public space differently, and that's not a bad thing.

Torontonians don't have a public square culture. We don't go down to the piazza and sip Campari and Soda under an umbrella. Hell, we can't even drink if it's not behind a fence. That's not to say that Torontonians don't love public space and public interaction, it's just that we do it differently: we stroll up and down the sidewalks of our linear shopping streets and that's where our buskers are, our patios are, that's where charity canvassers harass you. It's the reason why Toronto is a great city. Even if we hold protests, we take over some street and march down it - we don't congregate in some public square. I used to think we were sort of 'deficient' for not having a public square culture and for having these long linear shopping streets instead of tight, clustered shopping districts. However, I've come around to realizing that this is what makes us who we are and we would be silly to change that. I don't think we ever will have a public square culture, and who cares? It's like worrying over eating Chinese food with a fork and knife or whether the British will ever drive on the right side of the road. It's not worse, it's just different.
 
A commemmorative structure strikes me as being more appropriate than either a common-or-garden plaque, a public square, or a park.

That World War One memorial at the west side of the Cathedral Church of St. James, which looks as if it's loosely based on the design of the Eleanor Crosses in England, is of the appropriate scale and gravitas. A design that spoke of democratic values, rather than Gothic religious symbolism, would work very well.
 
If Berczy Park is rundown, to take an example, we would be far better off spending money to improve this space (which has considerable potential and is ideally located) than spending money on a new square that will likely not be adequately maintained.
 
In that case shouldn't we stop spending money on all new parks, squares and pubic areas, until all our run down squares and parks are repaired? I figure that will be no new amenities until around 2020 or later. Too bad for Regent Park, eh? What do they need a new park for anyway.
 
Grimace said:
If Berczy Park is rundown, to take an example, we would be far better off spending money to improve this space (which has considerable potential and is ideally located) than spending money on a new square that will likely not be adequately maintained.
Click to expand...

Once a highrise gets plunked onto the site, you lose it forever.
 
I think Urban Shocker's right on this one. 'Commemorative' doesn't mean a plaza or square - it means a monument or structure that is worthy in it's own right, and worthy to maintain.
There might be a square, space, yard, plaza, court, field or platz - or not. But I think the site does deserve a monument (large or small) that's appropriately severe, beautiful and noteworthy. It would also help if whatever was built for this purpose was an attraction, in the best sense of the word.

What built could be a building that contains the memorial and historical part - it needn't be empty space. It might also be a good place for, say, a museum of Toronto too if handled properly. But it's disgraceful that the first parliament site has gone uncared for in any way for so long.
 
Last edited:
The pro-square argument seems to be: "The squares we have are ugly and rundown, so let's build another one." But that one will get ugly and rundown too, no? Better to spend on improvements and - what every politician forgets - maintenance, instead of new construction.

The idea of commemorating the Parliament site makes no sense to me. The Parliament of the period was a cozy talking shop for the ruling elite. It was not a democratic institution. What's to commemorate?

I'd rather see something marking the 1837 rebellion. There could be improvements to the Montgomery Tavern site at Yonge and Eglinton. There could be new commemorations at College Park (roughly the site of the last shots fired), or at the parking lot at Church and Colborne (rallying point for loyalist troops). All more historically interesting, and better places for a public square, I think.
 
Two things here: (a) the location has been verified, and (b) it's in a "pre-development" state--put two and two together, and it ain't just any old parcel for any old stuff, with history patronizingly out of sight, out of mind. Though I can understand the concern with overfetishization, almost as if a Colonial Williamsburg-like conjectural reconstruction was holus bolus planned.
 
k10ery said:
The idea of commemorating the Parliament site makes no sense to me. The Parliament of the period was a cozy talking shop for the ruling elite. It was not a democratic institution. What's to commemorate?
Click to expand...

Well, baronial England wasn't democratic in the present sense either, but we celebrate Magna Carta. There's a symbolic value to the site regardless of how knuckleheaded, or otherwise, the legislators were.

If we can't get the kid to drag his obelisk in a wagon down there we ought to get something commissioned. We've got an Archer, and Rising, and there's Shift up in King City and all manner of other fine examples of contemporary art, so let's bestow the site with a work of equal artistic value.
 
If you forget about the history and just take into consideration, the location of the site, it's clear that this can be an amazing opportunity to do something special. Almost everything around this site is going to be redeveloped soon. The few buildings that are there (the opera centre, a theatre and police station) are great, historic buildings. Front Street is the major commercial street and a big renovation is planned, making this the main entrance to the Pan Am Games. Many tourists who visit Toronto will stop at St. Lawrence Market and then follow Front Street right to the West Don Lands or The Distillery. This site could be right on their path and has great tourism potential. Not only that but it's central to linking the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, Corktown, Regent Park, The Distillery and The east waterfront. I cannot think of a better situated parcel of land. There is a Staples, library building & Car dealership right across the road but we all know that those are all temporary, so what we have here is an amazing opportunity for city building, tourism and a central focal point to showcase the character of this whole area and link everything together. Some of you people have no ability to see potential and realize what we have here but if you don't, other people do and we will make ourselves heard.

Big changes are coming to the east side, so we better take full advantage of them because they won't happen again in our lifetime. Think big and see the big picture.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Well, baronial England wasn't democratic in the present sense either, but we celebrate Magna Carta. There's a symbolic value to the site regardless of how knuckleheaded, or otherwise, the legislators were.

If we can't get the kid to drag his obelisk in a wagon down there we ought to get something commissioned. We've got an Archer, and Rising, and there's Shift up in King City and all manner of other fine examples of contemporary art, so let's bestow the site with a work of equal artistic value.
Click to expand...

Who has Rachel Whiteread's number?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top