Tewder
Senior Member
Is that Haley Joel Osment sitting on that park bench?
Toronto Frank Stollery Parkette | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Slightly off topic, but does anyone know of any ghost walks in Toronto? I remember quite a few in Edinburgh and a few other cities.
Oh, and I don't mind how the parkette turned out. It could have been a lot worse with concrete sidewalks all over and puny little bushes instead of the stone pavers and trees, respectively.
junctionist
Senior Member
I don't think that comparing the reality to a worse case scenario is particularly helpful in great city-building. We often don't have that much control over these things but at least we can have an unwavering attitude in favour of great public spaces.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Although I suggested inferior materials, it could still be much worse than that. Nine times out of ten I my comments will be postive rather than negative, since I feel bitching and complaining on an internet forum about things I have no control over is not constructive either in terms of great city-building. We all want great public spaces, but not everyone will agree on what makes those that are so great. To me, the function and programming are more important than the aesthetics. I am not saying aesthetics are not important, because they are, but where's the sense in gold-plating every little element if there is nothing that will attract and keep the everyday person there?
To use another public space/park that was opened recently, Sugar Beach, as an example, what garnered the most attention here when it first opened? The friggin' lights. It was like listening to kids crying about how an older kid stole their snack-pack at lunch and the world was gonna end. I highly doubt that 90% of the people, including us, who are using the park and enjoying it really care that the (temporary) lights are basic street lights. The fact that there are lights is a plus because it allows people to use and enjoy the Beach and walk along the lovely promenade after the sun goes down. I think that the more people will go to Sugar Beach and continue to go there is a greater measure of successful city-building than whether or not granite was used instead of concrete for the sidewalks.
Is Frank Stollery Parkette the worst thing we could have gotten for this location? No. Is it the best? Probably not. What can be done is take the positvies and negatives from this and other examples across the City, old and new, and take that information to public meetings for future public spaces and have your opinions heard. If that's not possible then send an email to the local councilor. There are a lot of things we do not have control over, but we can still have our voices heard in one form or another. As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't think after-the-fact debating about these things is the most productive way to build great cities.
Tewder
Senior Member
No, if anything we need more brutally honest criticism in Toronto. The 'everybody-gets-a-star-for-trying' mentality encourages mediocrity.... and this is not an issue of 'bitching'. I mean, why take part in a forum on these issues if you don't have a point of view?
It is this attitude of acquiescence that is so frustrating to us 'bitches'. Why shouldn't we expect both function and aesthetics? It is the presence of both that characterizes excellence in design, and we just want excellent design! What's more, to dismiss aesthetics as icing is nonsense. The French have regular uprisings over such things. It's all about what we expect of our spaces and I think we should be expecting more.
I truly don't get your point here: we should make our voices heard but not criticize anything??? Look, it takes a public dialogue about these things to raise a collective public awareness. Of course any Frank Stollery Parkette is better than no Frank Stollery Parkette but what does this contribute to the dialogue? This little parkette was an opportunity for creative expression and excellence in the public realm. The small square footage meant that even the highest quality materials would have not amounted to much in cost, and the diminutive space offered possibilities that may not be easily attempted in larger ones. Lets face it, it's all in the details and this is where the lamp posts at Sugar Beach may irk... and hopefully they are just temporary anyway and then the praise will be unanimous and gone will be the tired excuse that we are incapable of achieving both form and function in this city.
Last edited:
I've detached all of the above posts from their original thread which focused on Lotus, (the building behind this), because it's time to create a dataBase file for the parkette now that there's an upstart replacement being dangled by the developer of the condo across Scollard to the south. You'll find lots of renderings of the reimagined park by Martha Schwartz Partners in the dataBase file linked to the top of the page which are not seen in the 1 Scollard thread. It's hard to say just what the chances are of this redesign coming to fruition, as the City would rather tell the developer how they would like to see public benefits funds dispersed in the area.
Meanwhile, the Vertechs Design website has dropped Frank Stollery Parkette from the work they feature. My take is that it didn't live up to their own expectations, likely because the budget was too small to complete the original vision. (No water feature! Other stuff!)
42
Meanwhile, the Vertechs Design website has dropped Frank Stollery Parkette from the work they feature. My take is that it didn't live up to their own expectations, likely because the budget was too small to complete the original vision. (No water feature! Other stuff!)
42
Tulse
Senior Member
Is there any formal relationship between 1 Scollard and this parkette, as in the parkette land is owned by them? It seems rather random to me that the 1 Scollard developer is proposing to change a neighbouring park.
There is no formal relationship. This is not the first time that something similar has been suggested by a developer however for adjacent green space. At 400 Front, the developers have suggested that they'd like to pour money into upgrading Clarence Square, and at 350 Adelaide West the developers are suggesting a new park built on 401 Richmond's surface parking lot. There must be others I'm not remembering right now. The City has bristled when these proposals are made without being solicited by them.
42
42
Tulse
Senior Member
It does seem really presumptuous, especially since it is presumably pretty cheap compared to using land the developer actually owns.
It's a pretty small site that 1 Scollard is proposed for, and because it is across the street from a parkette, they can convincingly argue that there's no reason for park dedication on their own site (it would be teeny-tiny if they did), and that cash-in-lieu makes perfect sense for them instead. Cash-in-lieu goes into a City fund to buy more park space though, not one to improve existing parks, so that's where the presumption starts.
It's my own feeling that Frank Stollery Parkette suffered from The Cheapening™ a half dozen years ago, so personally, I'm fine with it getting redone. I also get that 1 Scollard is high end design, and that the developer would like to see a high-design park out front of it: it makes perfect sense in that regard. Yes, Martha Schwartz Partners design of the forest bowl owes a major edit to Anish Kapoor's Cloud Gate, but it's also different enough that if constructed as rendered, it will be a memorable landmark and effective signpost of entrance to a significant part of town.
Anyway, what I really wanted to address was "cheap". If this park redesign ever does happen, it wouldn't be inexpensive: the materials look costly, and the developers would pay the same amount for public benefits one way or the other. They are all to be negotiated with the City and commented on by the locals (I think more than anything, it will be the local residents associations who hold the most sway over whether or not the park redesign goes through). In the end though, as I said, the developer will pay a lot for public benefits, whatever they go to.
42
It's my own feeling that Frank Stollery Parkette suffered from The Cheapening™ a half dozen years ago, so personally, I'm fine with it getting redone. I also get that 1 Scollard is high end design, and that the developer would like to see a high-design park out front of it: it makes perfect sense in that regard. Yes, Martha Schwartz Partners design of the forest bowl owes a major edit to Anish Kapoor's Cloud Gate, but it's also different enough that if constructed as rendered, it will be a memorable landmark and effective signpost of entrance to a significant part of town.
Anyway, what I really wanted to address was "cheap". If this park redesign ever does happen, it wouldn't be inexpensive: the materials look costly, and the developers would pay the same amount for public benefits one way or the other. They are all to be negotiated with the City and commented on by the locals (I think more than anything, it will be the local residents associations who hold the most sway over whether or not the park redesign goes through). In the end though, as I said, the developer will pay a lot for public benefits, whatever they go to.
42
Tulse
Senior Member
That's helpful context. It still seems a bit of hubris to propose bulldozing some other designers' recent work, even if it did not turn out as well as hoped.
That said, I think this area is far too small and surrounded by far too much traffic nearby to be a restful space, so something more "monument" and less "park" here makes a lot of sense to me.
That said, I think this area is far too small and surrounded by far too much traffic nearby to be a restful space, so something more "monument" and less "park" here makes a lot of sense to me.
greenleaf
Senior Member
#sitTO - this new proposal for the bowl does not address the need for seating here.
There is also a prominent piece of public art relating to Aboriginal trail along Davenport here that will need to incorporated, should they revamp the park.
There is also a prominent piece of public art relating to Aboriginal trail along Davenport here that will need to incorporated, should they revamp the park.
Last edited:
