Toronto June Callwood Park | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | gh3

[AHK]

July 10, 2017. After all the wonderful photos of Berczy Park, Grange Park, and the new Ontario Place park / Bill Davis trail over the past days, the June Callwood park is such a sad contrast. From my perspective, the park is a complete and total misfire. Hopefully, the situation there will soon get some attention (more than just the replacement of dead trees), and at minimum, receive some thoughtful cosmetic dressing up, but I think a complete reworking may be more appropriate.

Six photos taken this afternoon:

 

[Longview]

July 10, 2017. From my perspective, a the park is a complete and total misfire.

Agreed. Add the conspicuous neglect and the effect is, to say the least, depressing

 

[junctionist]

That's what a lot of people fear will happen to Berczy Park and other "designer" parks that go beyond the basic lawn-and-trees format. It's unacceptable to spend money on attractive new parks only to see them neglected just a few years after they open.

Yes, the design has flaws and needs structural improvements. It's telling that the park is completely empty on a warm summer day. But in the meantime, replace the dead and dying trees. Keep the weeds under control. This park needs better basic maintenance.

 

[interchange42]

The Parks budget needs to stop being cut. We have more and more parks, and people have fewer green spaces of their own to relax in, so yes, we have to better maintain what we have.

In the meantime, there was a laudable high concept literally embedded in the park design here, but it seems that the notion of the tribute to June Callwood by taking a VU readout of her speaking "I believe in kindness" and taking the park's hardscaping plan from that, lulled people into accepting something that was not well thought out in terms of what it would offer park users. Here's hoping that when the park is remade, that a tribute to Callwood remains, but that it is now in service to park users too, and not only Callwood's memory.

42

 

[Irishmonk]

Worst. Concept. For.Neighbourhood.Park.Ever.

Apologies to June Callwood who deserved better than this gimmicky, pretentious, needlessly esoteric and ultimately tone deaf design. Parks are for local people to use and enjoy, not to burnish the designers resume with high-falutin art prize winning rubbish.

On Edit. I forgot to mention that the park is ugly and not much more enjoyable to walk through than an empty parking lot. Money well wasted! =(

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The Parks budget needs to stop being cut. We have more and more parks, and people have fewer green spaces of their own to relax in, so yes, we have to better maintain what we have.

In the meantime, there was a laudable high concept literally embedded in the park design here, but it seems that the notion of the tribute to June Callwood by taking a VU readout of her speaking "I believe in kindness" and taking the park's hardscaping plan from that, lulled people into accepting something that was not well thought out in terms of what it would offer park users. Here's hoping that when the park is remade, that a tribute to Callwood remains, but that it is now in service to park users too, and not only Callwood's memory.

42

There is the issue of the Park budget on one hand, but there also need to be a public, non-governmental response to park maintenance - what we also need is a conservancy with teeth, one that can mobilize the public to raise funds, draw volunteers for simple work that doesn't need to call upon staff.

On another note - did they use soil cells for this project? I don't recall - what I do remember is that the trees aren't in the greatest of shape when they planted it.

AoD

 

[WislaHD]

Worst. Concept. For.Neighbourhood.Park.Ever.

Apologies to June Callwood who deserved better than this gimmicky, pretentious, needlessly esoteric and ultimately tone deaf design. Parks are for local people to use and enjoy, not to burnish the designers resume with high-falutin art prize winning rubbish.

On Edit. I forgot to mention that the park is ugly and not much more enjoyable to walk through than an empty parking lot. Money well wasted! =(

100% Agreed.

Maybe landscape architect firms should begin hiring user experience designers.

 

[Dr. Snoot]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Complain to the councillor repeatedly and call 311.

 

[Northern Light]

Count me for those who think the underlying design here is all but un-saveable.

The un-even pavement treatments are dangerous, especially in the winter; the park also fails to meet the needs of the area, it is entirely a 'gallery piece' w/o amenity in any tangible way.

I can't say this is the worst design ever....there's a Rosenberg park or two I might nominate..........but it's up there!

***

On the broader issue of parks maintenance and funding.

I could get off on a long tangent here.

I will try to be concise (ish).

First, overall funding for parks is too low. But as someone with an intimate knowledge of how money is spent in the department I will say far too much is wasted.

The amount of staff time burned up by 'planners' and managers doing things that they can't remotely justify and ratios of management to staff that don't make sense is very troublesome.

Waste exists in the private sector and public, it's a common problem in large organizations; it will never be entirely eliminated either. But let's be clear I could find $3M in that budget each and every year in a heartbeat.

That doesn't include investments in long overdue technology (you wouldn't believe what still gets done by hand in the back offices)

***

More money should still come to parks.

But the nature of that money needs to shift.

Whether it's tied funding to certain parks or buildings, or whether it's how staffing is done.

As an example of where maintenance has gone backwards many parks now lack a foreperson.

It used to be common for every parks district to have at least one and sometimes more.

Now there are often no year round, non-management staff who actually have the skill to repair things.

We won't even discuss how the City's work-order system slows repairs down to molasses at times.

There is a need for a complete culture shift.

Part of that is more money, but part of that is leadership that demands and expects more of staff; and empowers them to solve problems.

 

[Northern Light]

I will add here that the City's culture around volunteers in parks hasn't been great for a long time; but it's become much worse the last 3 or so years.

I'd say more on that, but I have to leave it there.

****

My remedies:

Fewer Plans: Parks writes more master plans, management plans, 5-year plans, etc. etc. than anyone could justify. The vast majority of what's in them, never gets implemented.
A good chunk of money is sucked up by those plans. (as in millions)

Complete Plans: That means major projects need to have a long-term maintenance plan and budget from day one.

Special Sites: While retaining full public ownership and oversight, special sites, 'signature parks' should get their own conservancy and/or a shared one for small, close-by parks. Let the areas that need focus have focused attention.

Staff: More year-round staff w/practical required abilities, fewer seasonal, fewer managers.

Resource Shift: Think carefully about how and where spaces can be made to self-maintain, so that resources can be pushed to areas that require regular human intervention. (well done naturalizations, after 3-5 years, require only once a year visit to remove undesirable species or fill in a gap w 1 or 2 new plants.) Where formal landscape beds, even w/perennials are done, intervention must happen monthly from professional gardeners.

Streamline and Simplify: Sportsfields and Rec. Ctrs all have have different designations (A,B,C) that receive different service and charge different prices. That creates confusion and questions and need for more staff. For public-facing materials, one type of rec. ctr, one type of park, differences in services/programs should be internal.

Can the free rec. ctr programs and the wellness policy. I don't want to penalize the poor in any way. But the current system is cumbersome and expensive.

Choose the programs you want to be free, make them free everywhere. Make the others 'affordable', and save all the staffing and software and time and energy used up via a confused hybrid model.

Fewer meetings w/better co-ordination: I can't tell you how many times I have been a source of news about Parks to Parks staff. That unto itself should be shocking, worse is that they have seemingly endless meetings, and somehow, the information still doesn't get from the left hand to the right.

Less fighting: I have to be careful in what I say here, except to share that City departments and agencies often squabble about things. This can result in completely unnecessary orders for additional work 'justify your position'

Finally: Would someone please send the liability police packing. Where they might have proved useful was June Callwood Park's terrible uneven surfaces. Somehow, that got ok'd. Yet the # of things staff, volunteers or others can't do w/o insurance or silly levels of training (I'm talking simple, easy, low-risk) things......

 

[PinkLucy]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Complain to the councillor repeatedly and call 311.

I can attest to the fact that the councillor has received many many complaints and has heard from area residents.

 

[PinkLucy]

Fewer meetings w/better co-ordination: I can't tell you how many times I have been a source of news about Parks to Parks staff. That unto itself should be shocking, worse is that they have seemingly endless meetings, and somehow, the information still doesn't get from the left hand to the right.

I know a number of people who have informed Parks about what is going on in their parks. I, and others I know, have sat in on community planning meetings and discussed how people use parks, but it seems that once the architects get hold of an idea, their vision isn't going to be derailed by reality. And then once the park is built, they wonder why it isn't successful.

 

[Christopher Brown]

Green space it ain't. It looks like a East German commercial plaza - before the wall fell.

Tear it up, replace the hard surface with grass. Course that would mean somehow or other preventing it from turning into a field of weeds, thanks to the ban on weed control. Where I lived before in lower Etobicoke, there was a brand new gorgeous park/playground, Dalesford Parkette. Within a few years of City neglect, plus the to be expected traffic of kids and families, the grass disappeared completely and only weeds and mud remain.

 

[Northern Light]

I know a number of people who have informed Parks about what is going on in their parks. I, and others I know, have sat in on community planning meetings and discussed how people use parks, but it seems that once the architects get hold of an idea, their vision isn't going to be derailed by reality. And then once the park is built, they wonder why it isn't successful.

That too.

But I was actually meaning internal department news.

I have spoken to park supervisors and told them about redesigns and construction pending in the parks they manage, in the year ahead, that they knew nothing about.

You wouldn't think that would be possible; but it is, and happens w/some frequency.

I can't explain in too much detail; but I'll say that parks has a dedicated unit called 'Capital Projects' that takes on various items sometimes w/o letting the directly effected parties know.

This can also happen when the forestry side doesn't talk to the operations side; or when cycling (overseen by transportation) elect to change trails/signs w/o talking to the right people.

 

[Northern Light]

Green space it ain't. It looks like a East German commercial plaza - before the wall fell.

Tear it up, replace the hard surface with grass. Course that would mean somehow or other preventing it from turning into a field of weeds, thanks to the ban on weed control. Where I lived before in lower Etobicoke, there was a brand new gorgeous park/playground, Dalesford Parkette. Within a few years of City neglect, plus the to be expected traffic of kids and families, the grass disappeared completely and only weeds and mud remain.

I'm not familiar w/that particular spot.

I will say this, it is possible to maintain nice grass w/o lots of pesticide.

However, pesticide or not, grass in small, well-used parks is often trouble.

It's a plant, and it needs aerated soil to do well. Too many people over top of it and you get compaction.

In a small space using a groundcover that clearly isn't meant for walking on is often a preferable way to soften the landscape.

Alternatively, one can use wood chips, but they do need to be topped up pretty much every year.

If one is going to invest in grass, then you need to do a few things properly. First, make sure heavy traffic is kept off it by making proper use of pathways of adequate width which follow logical 'desire lines' (where people actually want to get from and to).

Second, if you need to stop people from creating a desire line (beaten in path) for landscape/sports/programmatic reasons then you need to willfully obstruct that choice. (generally fences, though hedges/flower beds/armour stone may work depending on the situation) .

Third, the grass needs a maintenance program. That means, water, nutrients and aeration from time to time. Nature can supply the water in most cases, but irrigation works best as a bulwark against drought. Lawns need the right mix of nutrients and its specific and different from what flowers or shrubs may need. In an urban park, nature is unlikely to provide this, and even if the right mix of dung/leaves etc was on the lawn, in most cases, it would be removed, meaning human application is required.

Finally, the City tends to buy all the same kinds of sod.

Mostly, that's fine, but if you're trying to make grass grow in challenging conditions (abnormally dry/wet, shady, shallow soil etc.) then you need the appropriate kind of grass. This may mean resorting to seeding.