Toronto Toronto Island Park Master Plan | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto

For those discussing on-going erosion, the City/TRCA already have an EA to protect the vulnerable portions of the Islands and slow or eliminate erosion.

I would be less concerned about that in the future (subject to delivery of the existing plan), than I would whether lost space is restored.

New Islands are a far more complex endeavor than new soil.

You have to account for hydrology, (how water functions at this location) and geomorphology (shifting sand/soil) you would likely need to erosion-protect any new islands, consider the impact on large vessels using the harbour, not to mention impacts on drinking water and effluent pipes!.

I would not open that can of worms without a compelling reason.
 
Last edited:
Reading through this thread, it would seem I'm in the minority.

I was there not too long ago. If there's one place in the city I try to get to whenever I can, it's the Islands.

Despite having been there countless times, I can't help but feel tremendously grateful with every visit.

For me, the Islands are essentially perfect as they are.

I love the neighbourhood on Wards & Algonquin Islands. Some may not care for the ownership rules, but it feels like a real neighbourhood, one that's an attraction in and of itself.

I love Centerville. I realize it's not a high end theme park, but it's wonderful spot for kids. It's a good size too - quaint and charming.

I love the boardwalk, and the seemingly endless view across Lake Ontario.

I love the fact that they're peaceful. It feels like a getaway from the city. There are a plenty of small, quiet spaces that uncover themselves with repeat visits.

I'm not interested in putting an LRT there, turning it into another Wasaga Beach, adding glitzy attractions/theme parks or incorporating more programming. Why does it need to be programmed?! I'm tired of programming.

I know we generally have a lot of gripes about Toronto, but the Islands "feel" like Toronto to me - and I mean that in the best possible way.

Improve what's there, but please, just leave them alone.
 
I read this thread on the heels of the thread referencing an article about lawns being an evil colonial interference with nature. I await a similar article about changes to The Islands. It seems to be a logic du jour.
 
lenaitch said:
I read this thread on the heels of the thread referencing an article about lawns being an evil colonial interference with nature. I await a similar article about changes to The Islands. It seems to be a logic du jour.
Click to expand...

LOL, Lawns are not evil.

But there are ecologically superior choices.

The Islands are nice as is; if somewhat challenged due to flooding/erosion and aging infrastructure.

They are being reviewed because action is required, and while we're there, making changes we have to make, we might as well ask what we would like the Islands to be for the next generation.

I'm fine with lawns that have purpose (Soccer pitch), or group picnic area, an edge to a space to ensure sightlines.

I'm less enthralled with lawns for their own sake.
 
^ I agree that the Islands are pretty nice as they are. I would not want to see them overdeveloped in a way that loses their serenity or their natural feel. Less may be more.
Even Centreville while tired is quite good for younger kids who may not be ready for bigger things. , It works, so long as one does not hold expectations of it being on a level of, say, Wonderland. But more splashpads and climbing mounds and skateboard ramps etc would add to attractiveness for bigger kids.
My main reservations are, as stated, accessibility for the less-than-able given distance between attractions, and poor-weather amenities. Surely that could be improved without the pendulum going all the way over to resorts or -gag- a casino.

- Paul
 
While it has been several years, Centreville struck me as something for the younger ages (and their parents), sort of like the splash pad/play area of Ontario Place. Anything that tries to cater to older teens/adults would seem to be in the wrong direction. To me, words such as 'retreat', 'open space', etc. point to less hard infrastructure rather than more.

Perhaps I woke up grumpy, but the G&M article, coupled with a couple of others I read in quick succession, just seemed to push my buttons that me and my ilk are the root of all that is bad. The article could have stood on its ecological arguments.

I suppose I'm on reasonably safe ground. We have a lawn but it is mostly weeds crabgrass and moss, receives no herbicides or pesticides - only fertilizer because the sandy soil (picture a beach) lacks any natural nutrients. It's green (ish) - I'm happy. :)
 
crs1026 said:
^ I agree that the Islands are pretty nice as they are. I would not want to see them overdeveloped in a way that loses their serenity or their natural feel. Less may be more.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the Islands are quite large, so we have room for the best of both worlds. I'd imagine we could make Centre Island, which is already relatively developed (it has Centreville, the farm and some small restaurants), more animated with better vendor selection and more programming, while leaving the other Islands in a relatively natural state. However I'd still suggest some landscaping be done to the more "natural" islands to beautify them, as the landscaping and foliage on these islands is just like any other victorian park in the city.
 
Blog.to has a article on changing the islands...

See link.

2017410-toronto-island.jpg
 
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster said:
Fortunately the Islands are quite large, so we have room for the best of both worlds. I'd imagine we could make Centre Island, which is already relatively developed (it has Centreville, the farm and some small restaurants), more animated with better vendor selection and more programming, while leaving the other Islands in a relatively natural state. However I'd still suggest some landscaping be done to the more "natural" islands to beautify them, as the landscaping and foliage on these islands is just like any other victorian park in the city.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see landscaping and natural going together.

Natural means native plants, densely grouped in forests/wetlands/meadows and then largely left to do their thing.

Landscape suggest order and the yellow flower goes there.

There's nothing wrong w/landscaping per se. I just don't want my natural spaces to have that manner of appearance.

If you mean that you want elegant paths or the like, I don't mind some of that, although I would personally prefer a hiking trail.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top