News   Dec 05, 2025
 830     3 
News   Dec 05, 2025
 2.6K     4 
News   Dec 05, 2025
 505     0 

Western Waterfront Master Plan

Con't from above:

1763683192921.png

1763683219626.png

1763683255790.png


1763683294555.png

***

1763683602674.png

1763683631085.png


1763683671302.png


1763683721049.png

1763683699078.png


****
'
1763683980365.png


1763684041380.png


Enhance/Integrate the BMX facility is number 3

1763684111713.png


The last idea is "Refresh existing playgrounds"

Maybe more in another post, TBD.
 
18 years later, BLAH BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Also, no mention of re-aligning Lakeshore to the north in order to create a much larger park/beach space? That was by far the most appealing part of the original plan. Toronto adores The SHITIFICATION.
 
18 years later, BLAH BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Also, no mention of re-aligning Lakeshore to the north in order to create a much larger park/beach space? That was by far the most appealing part of the original plan. Toronto adores The SHITIFICATION.
I think the plan to realign LSB was replaced by adding storm-water retention areas in the section north of LSB and that they have added them. -not a bad solution.
 
I think the plan to realign LSB was replaced by adding storm-water retention areas in the section north of LSB and that they have added them. -not a bad solution.

The original plan was to shift the parking, or a lot of it, to the areas on the north side of Lakeshore; and to collapse the median with that space being added as park space to the Lakeside Parks. Between those 2 moves, the hope was to add ~ 9 acres of new waterfront park space.

The western segment of the land north of Lakeshore now has the BMX Park (west) and the Stormwater Pond (east). So that bit is out.

But the far eastern area still has room to shift the parking north:

1763742233264.png


^^^ That's Parkside Dr on the west side of the image, if you move the parking north, space for space and consolidated surplus land to the south you could achieve ~ 0.9ha or about 2 acres and change of new parkland on the south side.

In the central zone the land on the north side of Lakeshore has been mostly naturalized, you could remove that for parking, I would probably leave it.

But you do have some median you can consolidate to the south side:

1763742499563.png


That would add 0.4ha/1acre to the south parkland.

For the western segment:

1763742590587.png


I dont' see removing/relocating the BMX or the stormwater pond, so you're gain limited to consolidating the median to the south.

That adds ~0.6ha or 1.5 acres

So across all three segments you have about 4.5 acres of possible gain that math's out as the BMX and Stormwater facility occupy roughly 1.8ha or 4.4 acres of land.

Of these, the eastern segment clearly presents the most substantial opportunity for gain with ~2 acres in one spot added to less programmed space where something new/interesting could be done.

The central segment produces the lowest gain, because the pool isn't moving, so you'd just be adding a thin strip of trees/grass.

The west segment has more potential, but it can't be fully realized w/o reducing the parking present. There you either have to relocate it, somewhere, or you have to just cut spaces.

Removing the Kingsway onramp to the EB Gardiner would create the needed space to shift parking.....but that's an unlikely trade.
 
Last edited:
I find this very interesting. It seems there's the "Western Waterfront Master Plan" only stretching to the Humber, and then this kind of broadens the definition of the "Western Waterfront". Given that TRCA is likely the main player on the eastern waterfront from a natural hazard perspective (Lake Ontario erosion hazard), it's good to see something to inch forward here.

Some things to note here.

"Extending public waterfront and trail access between Royal York Road and First Street."
  • The City's map shows 1-25 Lake Shore Drive actually have lakefront access secured in public hands, as part of Prince of Wales Park. But I can tell you it is not accessible; a fence separates the Second Street ROW and 25 Lake Shore.
  • View attachment 491626
  • View attachment 491624
  • There are additional parcels south of the Nautical Lane condos and 2677-2711 Lake Shore Blvd W. I'd be interested who owns the rights there.
  • That leaves 4 parcels that appear to own rights over the water. I'm curious how you overcome that.
  • View attachment 491625

Windows on the Lake

I don't know what this is other than enhancing the roadway rights-of-way (five of them at Miles Rd, Lake Cr, 4th, 11th and 12th; six if you count Sand Beach Rd). I say don't bother spending the money unless you're going to stich them together.

----

Anyway, you can check out more at https://metroscapes.ca/toronto/projects/shoreline/etobicoke/
This is a very late reply, I apologize, but after seeing this post, I took a look at the city map myself.

I thought it worth noting that there seem to be encroachments on the western side of Prince of Wales park as well. The two apartment buildings on the western side seem to have fenced off a sizeable chunk of the lakefront.


Screenshot 2025-11-22 at 3.30.56 PM.png

I'm familiar with Prince of Wales park (It's a great place to bike to in the summer), but I haven't been by very recently, so perhaps this has changed.

Also, I think the city should look at acquiring 51 Lake Shore Dr, the next property to the west. It's been a boarded up eyesore for years. If the city could buy the property for next to nothing, they could extend a trail through the park, without waiting for any potential infill along the lake. The building on the property could then be demolished, or redeveloped and added to the city's housing portfolio.
 
This is a very late reply, I apologize, but after seeing this post, I took a look at the city map myself.

I thought it worth noting that there seem to be encroachments on the western side of Prince of Wales park as well. The two apartment buildings on the western side seem to have fenced off a sizeable chunk of the lakefront.


View attachment 697769
I'm familiar with Prince of Wales park (It's a great place to bike to in the summer), but I haven't been by very recently, so perhaps this has changed.

Also, I think the city should look at acquiring 51 Lake Shore Dr, the next property to the west. It's been a boarded up eyesore for years. If the city could buy the property for next to nothing, they could extend a trail through the park, without waiting for any potential infill along the lake. The building on the property could then be demolished, or redeveloped and added to the city's housing portfolio.

Last I heard (2015) Dunpar still owned this.....they had applied at one time for six townhomes here...........that got stifled, there were some 'SLAP' suits..........

Not sure where it sits today.

FWIW, I agree it would be an excellent pick-up for the City for parks purposes.

Edit to add:

I've been a proponent (without success thus far) of the City picking the entire set of properties to the east of Prince of Wales:

1763850436863.png


To me, this isn't just a trail link question...............if you see the colouration of the water here, this indicates shallow water, and as the name of the small park would indicate, this is a natural sand beach.

The City has few opportunities to pick up a chunk of land easily (relatively) convertible to a 250m long sandy beach. Sure, the land acquisition cost would be in the range of ~45M But I think that's money well spent and fundable from existing reserves.
 
Last edited:
The City has few opportunities to pick up chunk of land easily (relatively) convertible to a 250m long sandy beach. Sure, the land acquisition cost would be in the range of ~45M But I think that's money well spent and fundable from existing reserves.
I don't entirely disagree, but if the city has the money, and the willingness to expropriate that many homes, I wonder if it would be better spent west of Prince of Wales park. There are few homes separating Prince of Wales park, and Cliff Lumsdon, and not many more between Cliff Lumsdon and Colonel Samuel Smith park. It would be nice to connect them.

There is also this proposed park extension I came across that the city could spend money on.
I was looking at the Mimico lakefront zoning plan, and I came across this proposed future park extension, southwest of the existing Mimico Waterfront Park in Etobicoke.

View attachment 669127
Does anyone know more about it? It seems to be tied to a possible future re-development of nearby walk-up apartments, but I don't see anything on the UT project map. The city's property map shows the waterfront yard of an apartment building, one lonely two-storey home and two vacant lots.

screen-shot-2025-07-26-at-6-33-02-pm-png.669128

It would be great if the city could develop it (EDIT: as new park space, to be clear) as it seems a bit of wasted space.
 
I don't entirely disagree, but if the city has the money, and the willingness to expropriate that many homes, I wonder if it would be better spent west of Prince of Wales park. There are few homes separating Prince of Wales park, and Cliff Lumsdon, and not many more between Cliff Lumsdon and Colonel Samuel Smith park. It would be nice to connect them.

There is also this proposed park extension I came across that the city could spend money on.

Its premature for me to say exactly what will be prioritized by the City in this area.

But I can say this, City Planning is actively looking at that now, in conjunction w/Parks; I will also note that the new Waterfronttoronto mandate includes Scarborough and Etobicoke.
 
Its premature for me to say exactly what will be prioritized by the City in this area.
While we're on the subject, (and I hope this doesn't pester you) but I was wondering about the homes on Lake Shore Blvd between Royal York Rd and Lake Crescent. I know the zoning change now allows for six storeys as of right on most major streets (though I'm a bit confused if this is one of them.)

I know as of right means a developer doesn't need permission, but I was thinking the city should require any six storey developments on this stretch to give up their water lots for a future trail to be infilled. I figure it would save the city from having to buy those properties later.
 
While we're on the subject, (and I hope this doesn't pester you) but I was wondering about the homes on Lake Shore Blvd between Royal York Rd and Lake Crescent. I know the zoning change now allows for six storeys as of right on most major streets (though I'm a bit confused if this is one of them.)

I know as of right means a developer doesn't need permission, but I was thinking the city should require any six storey developments on this stretch to give up their water lots for a future trail to be infilled. I figure it would save the city from having to buy those properties later.

The Major Streets Study did not make any changes to this section of Lakeshore Blvd W:

1763857580718.png


The green shows where zoning was changed by this by-law.


This is the zoning map for the area in question:

1763857195755.png


I'll let UT's chief zoning guru @innsertnamehere dissect that.
 

Back
Top