Toronto John Innes Recreation Centre & Moss Park Arena Revitalization | 21.35m | 4s | City of Toronto | MJMA

I've been attending the More Moss Park meetings - next one is this Wednesday where they are going to be showing the schematic design. I'll be sure to share my remarks. Last time I was very pleased with the program and proposed siting of the new building, as well as the park upgrades. This will be a really great change for all Moss Park residents.
 
Is there a possibility that the current buildings can be moved close by so the entire lot can become a park? Build density surrounding the park, not on it.
 
No, because the entire point is for the park amenities to engage and activate the park. The relatively small gain in open space from moving the amenities has no net positive effect, if not a negative one from the removal of eyes on the park. Plus it would mean purchasing additional land nearby.

The current plan as I am aware of it is to have a more stacked/vertical community centre (to take up minimum park space) on the west edge of the site beside the Armoury building. It also has the added effect of blocking the Armoury's menacing and militaristic presence from public view.
 
modernizt said:
No, because the entire point is for the park amenities to engage and activate the park. The relatively small gain in open space from moving the amenities has no net positive effect, if not a negative one from the removal of eyes on the park. Plus it would mean purchasing additional land nearby.

The current plan as I am aware of it is to have a more stacked/vertical community centre (to take up minimum park space) on the west edge of the site beside the Armoury building. It also has the added effect of blocking the Armoury's menacing and militaristic presence from public view.
Click to expand...

I realize it's not in the plans, but I must admit, I really wish they'd move the armoury.

To me, its location is no longer logical.

We have lots of lower-value land where an armoury can be made to fit in more logically to its surroundings and can be made to fit w/new development patterns.

Using the portlands or a portion of the Unilever site, or the like would be preferable to the current location.

The Armoury has to be a bit dated for the military's needs anyway, why not build new?

That would allow the new Rec. Ctr to be sited directly on Jarvis, roughly occupying the current Armoury's footprint, and create a significant gain in usable greens space as well.
 
modernizt said:
No, because the entire point is for the park amenities to engage and activate the park. The relatively small gain in open space from moving the amenities has no net positive effect, if not a negative one from the removal of eyes on the park. Plus it would mean purchasing additional land nearby.

The current plan as I am aware of it is to have a more stacked/vertical community centre (to take up minimum park space) on the west edge of the site beside the Armoury building. It also has the added effect of blocking the Armoury's menacing and militaristic presence from public view.
Click to expand...
I believe he means integrate it with an adjacent development. There is a large complex proposed just to the east at the old Honda Dealer site that could easily accomodate the community centre. Section 37 benefits from the project could help fund it, too.

Agreed on moving the Armory to the Portlands.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I believe he means integrate it with an adjacent development. There is a large complex proposed just to the east at the old Honda Dealer site that could easily accomodate the community centre. Section 37 benefits from the project could help fund it, too.

Agreed on moving the Armory to the Portlands.
Click to expand...

Don't really agree with the idea of moving it to the Portlands. Perhaps it can be swapped with the Fort York Armoury (currently leased by the city) in perpetuity and create a bit of a "military precinct" in the Fort York area?

AoD
 
Northern Light said:
I realize its not in the plans, but I must admit, I really wish they'd move the armoury... Using the portlands or a portion of the Unilever site, or the like would be preferable to the current location.
Click to expand...

It's important to remember when talking about the armoury that it's not just, like, a warehouse for guns. It's a workplace for hundreds of people. (It has other functions too, but they aren't as relevant to planning.)

Lots of reservists are students or other young people, who may not have cars. If you're going to be moving the armoury, you've got to move it somewhere with good access to transit. Right now it's walking distance to a subway station; the Port Lands would be a big step down from that. If/when the DRL gets built to Unilever, maybe there'll be a good option there.

Cramming seven units into Fort York Armoury doesn't seem like a good deal for the military at all. Both in terms of space constraints and the "single point of failure" factor.
 
spires said:
It's important to remember when talking about the armoury that it's not just, like, a warehouse for guns. It's a workplace for hundreds of people. (It has other functions too, but they aren't as relevant to planning.)

Lots of reservists are students or other young people, who may not have cars. If you're going to be moving the armoury, you've got to move it somewhere with good access to transit. Right now it's walking distance to a subway station; the Port Lands would be a big step down from that. If/when the DRL gets built to Unilever, maybe there'll be a good option there.

Cramming seven units into Fort York Armoury doesn't seem like a good deal for the military at all. Both in terms of space constraints and the "single point of failure" factor.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting moving it tomorrow. I believe the timeline in on new rec. complex at Moss Park is still several years out.

I also recognize that currently the Portlands are seriously underserved by transit; though if we get the Queen's Quay East LRT built.......to Cherry (as opposed to Parliament), then that may be close enough, depending on where one sited a new Armoury.

Any pubic lands could be fair game though; and I for one would love to see our current top court in Toronto taken down, the one that replaced the Armoury, on Armoury street.

That was a handsome building.........re-creating it...........sigh, would be grand, alongside Osgoode Hall.

But that's not happening either..........one can dream though.
 
spires said:
It's important to remember when talking about the armoury that it's not just, like, a warehouse for guns. It's a workplace for hundreds of people. (It has other functions too, but they aren't as relevant to planning.)

Lots of reservists are students or other young people, who may not have cars. If you're going to be moving the armoury, you've got to move it somewhere with good access to transit. Right now it's walking distance to a subway station; the Port Lands would be a big step down from that. If/when the DRL gets built to Unilever, maybe there'll be a good option there.

Cramming seven units into Fort York Armoury doesn't seem like a good deal for the military at all. Both in terms of space constraints and the "single point of failure" factor.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't explain further - I don't meant cramming 7 units into the existing FY Armoury - but that it provides an opportunity to make the lease from the city permanent plus there space nearby for an additional new build across from Garrison Rd.

AoD
 
innsertnamehere said:
I believe he means integrate it with an adjacent development. There is a large complex proposed just to the east at the old Honda Dealer site that could easily accomodate the community centre. Section 37 benefits from the project could help fund it, too.

Agreed on moving the Armory to the Portlands.
Click to expand...

Why propose to move the one thing that works well in the park already? The community centre IS the park. It's what brings people there and keeps it animated. It's in no way a constraint.

Rebuilding it in a way that helps it animate the park instead of turning its back to it is exactly what should be done and will do far more for this space than it would being integrated into some other development.

Why fix something that isn't broke?
 
innsertnamehere said:
I believe he means integrate it with an adjacent development.
Click to expand...

Which I addressed as a very misguided planning move; it doesn't solve any problems but rather removes the eyes on the park and the synergy that exists between the community centre and park. The two are more than the sum of their parts when they are combined.
 
I think what you might be referring to are not escalators but in fact the means of egress, which are arranged in straight runs along the west edge of the project.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top