Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed

[Spokes]

I wish there was a big central park near this development.  Hmm if only hah.

The perspective of some - which is not really wrong on a park space per person basis - is that central park is not large enough to support these U/C and planned above-zoned density projects. I don't have a really strong opinion beyond thinking that city surface lots that are only really used by work commuters (Bramm St.) should be put to better use for downtown residents. 

Probably in some combination of park space, which you can't really expect a developer to prioritize, and development that meets the affordable and rental deficiency in town, which could be controlled more if they are the ones deciding what to do with the parcel of land?

But this lot is essentially just a placeholder for future development, is it not?

[Joedelay Highhoe]

If the developer were to provide funding for parkland, the ideal option would be for the city to purchase 168 West Ave. At almost two acres it might be rather expensive, though.

I was musing to a friend the other day that this lot could make for a slightly better option for the Indigenous Centre proposed by some for the Charles St Terminal lot. Still central and accessible but not taking away what is otherwise a fairly central (read: high land value) parcel that may better raise some funds with a developer towards some much needed housing in a core area.

They should turn the boathouse into an indigenous center. It's an okay music venue, and the best downtown patio by far, and yet nobody has been able to turn it into a successful business. May as well put it to good use.

[dtkvictim]

I visit or go through victoria park just about every single day outside of winter (and even then most days). There are a handful of days each year (some of which you highlighted) which I personally find unpleasantly crowded. However, there are many, many more days throughout the year that I think are very close to being crowded. And with the amount of nearby housing coming online, I don't think we're far off from a crowded reality, even if we aren't there today.

I think it all depends on (1) time of day, (2) the part of the park, and (3) one's definition of "crowded".

We walk the park almost every day after dinner. For the last two months or so, there are generally very few (or no) people on the trails. In the summer, there are people, sure, but we generally don't have any trouble doing the social distancing (2m or so). To me, that's not unpleasantly crowded. (The kids' play area certainly is busy in the summer, though.)

Now, you may be using a different part of the park, or at a different time of day. Or else your "crowdedness threshold" is just way lower than mine.

You are right on all three points. My comment is exclusively about after 5pm, or afternoons on the weekend, or in other words the peak. I would wager that the park at peak times has more people than the rest of the day combined - that is to say, the majority of park users are experiencing the peaks. But to clarify my position, I think the peaks are only an issue on days above 15-20 degrees or so.

My "crowded threshold" is almost certainly lower than others. I go to the park every day to relax and de-stress, and people are the antithesis of that for me.

Dan is also right, cycling through the park during busy times is a much worse experience than walking through the park.

[cherrypark]

The perspective of some - which is not really wrong on a park space per person basis - is that central park is not large enough to support these U/C and planned above-zoned density projects. I don't have a really strong opinion beyond thinking that city surface lots that are only really used by work commuters (Bramm St.) should be put to better use for downtown residents. 

Probably in some combination of park space, which you can't really expect a developer to prioritize, and development that meets the affordable and rental deficiency in town, which could be controlled more if they are the ones deciding what to do with the parcel of land?

But this lot is essentially just a placeholder for future development, is it not?

It is - my point was that folks are concerned about the density at Park & Victoria while this enormous space is going to stay empty for some uncertain amount of time and Councillor Chapman made a comment that more parkland near downtown is up to developing city lands (mostly parking) or buying new parcels (not super likely at the going rate per acre).

Just a thought experiment given lesser density is going to mean putting those dwellings on other parcels that could be e.g. - park space those same people are worried about.

Re: Victoria Park I think Dan is right; there is a lot of space in the park but certain amenities and routes that are pretty busy during normal park-using hours (weekends, etc.). The kids area especially and at times the bridge routes, and more notable if you are not on foot.

[tomh009]

Re: Victoria Park I think Dan is right; there is a lot of space in the park but certain amenities and routes that are pretty busy during normal park-using hours (weekends, etc.). The kids area especially and at times the bridge routes, and more notable if you are not on foot.

Right. The park as a destination is not so busy (apart from the kids' play area), if you are there for a walk etc. But if considered as a bicycling route, it is fairly busy at times.

But, maybe that is not saying that we need another large park, but that we need to continue to improve the cycling grid so that people have options other than riding on the park paths.

[danbrotherston]

Re: Victoria Park I think Dan is right; there is a lot of space in the park but certain amenities and routes that are pretty busy during normal park-using hours (weekends, etc.). The kids area especially and at times the bridge routes, and more notable if you are not on foot.

Right. The park as a destination is not so busy (apart from the kids' play area), if you are there for a walk etc. But if considered as a bicycling route, it is fairly busy at times.

But, maybe that is not saying that we need another large park, but that we need to continue to improve the cycling grid so that people have options other than riding on the park paths.

I think there's an argument for both. But to be fair, if we used the green space we have more effectively, we could probably manage with the space we have.

Closing Jubilee Dr. to cars is an obvious example. Doing so would make the eastern part of the park much more usable. We could easily add a second playground in the area and spread out the number of people.

Honestly, space is not the issue anywhere in our city. How we use it is. And how we use it, is almost always for cars.

[ac3r]

The park itself isn't busy in any regard...it's a ghost town most days of the year to be honest. It's not like it gets packed full of people like Toronto parks do where you can barely find a blanket sized patch of grass to sit down on. Overall, there's plenty of greenspace downtown or within a 10-15 minute walk from the main core. Victoria Park obviously, but also Sandhills Park, Kaufman Park, Cherry Park, Civic Centre Park, Vogelsang Green, Market Green, Woodside Park, public schools with greenspace, playgrounds and probably a few more things I'm forgetting. The Station Park development will also have a semi-public area and I'm sure future developments that go up around this area will also include recreational areas.

Jubilee Drive is useful because it acts as a connector for Park Street and Victoria Street traffic and can funnel cars onto Courtland, King, Charles, Queen etc, but it's not a big enough street that it causes serious traffic issues in the park itself. If you closed Jubilee, then you just force cars to go down roads like West Ave/Highland/Queen or to Victoria and then down to Charles or King. That just worsens traffic in other areas (particularly due to all of the intersections one needs to stop at), meaning you just move the traffic elsewhere which would continue to piss off the people who hate cars and they'd continue to yell at the clouds. I think the best thing that could be done for Victoria Park is to appropriate that junkyard full of derelict tractor trailers - perhaps even those two little homes - and expand it there, which would connect it to the Iron Horse Trail. If Victoria Street continues to densify eastward, perhaps the city/region can find another area to build up a new park, such as that vacant plot of land on Margaret Ave which is a fairly good size and could house a playground and other facilities no problem. It doesn't seem like anything is getting developed there despite the proposals.

[danbrotherston]

....

Jubilee Drive is useful because it acts as a connector for Park Street and Victoria Street traffic and can funnel cars onto Courtland, King, Charles, Queen etc, but it's not a big enough street that it causes serious traffic issues in the park itself. 

Lol...no, it's an issue, routinely I have drivers speeding past while I am trying to cross. To say nothing of the noise and pollution and space is takes.

It's true that a road can be useful for drivers, that's a terrible argument. It would also be convenient if we'd paved lakeside park and connected Homer-Watson to Benton, and I'm sure any time someone suggested removing Homer-Watson and making lakeside park better someone would say "but it's useful, drivers would just go elsewhere"...yes, that's the whole damn point. 

And no, the junkyard would expand the park yes, but that's all...it achieves none of the other benefits of closing Jubilee.

[cherrypark]

....

Jubilee Drive is useful because it acts as a connector for Park Street and Victoria Street traffic and can funnel cars onto Courtland, King, Charles, Queen etc, but it's not a big enough street that it causes serious traffic issues in the park itself. 

Lol...no, it's an issue, routinely I have drivers speeding past while I am trying to cross. To say nothing of the noise and pollution and space is takes.

It's true that a road can be useful for drivers, that's a terrible argument. It would also be convenient if we'd paved lakeside park and connected Homer-Watson to Benton, and I'm sure any time someone suggested removing Homer-Watson and making lakeside park better someone would say "but it's useful, drivers would just go elsewhere"...yes, that's the whole damn point. 

And no, the junkyard would expand the park yes, but that's all...it achieves none of the other benefits of closing Jubilee.

Unfortunately, I think them one-waying Joseph just about ensures Jubilee is going to be there to stay (more than it already was).

I do wish they would improve some AT designated route through the park, particularly when they just finished building a new bridge that could have easily been widened to give a separated bike crossing that would eliminate a lot of negative ped-bike interactions.

[Acitta]

Lol...no, it's an issue, routinely I have drivers speeding past while I am trying to cross. To say nothing of the noise and pollution and space is takes.

It's true that a road can be useful for drivers, that's a terrible argument. It would also be convenient if we'd paved lakeside park and connected Homer-Watson to Benton, and I'm sure any time someone suggested removing Homer-Watson and making lakeside park better someone would say "but it's useful, drivers would just go elsewhere"...yes, that's the whole damn point. 

And no, the junkyard would expand the park yes, but that's all...it achieves none of the other benefits of closing Jubilee.

Unfortunately, I think them one-waying Joseph just about ensures Jubilee is going to be there to stay (more than it already was).

I do wish they would improve some AT designated route through the park, particularly when they just finished building a new bridge that could have easily been widened to give a separated bike crossing that would eliminate a lot of negative ped-bike interactions.

It was widened and is easier to cross on a bike than it was before, especially since it is not as steep.

[Joedelay Highhoe]

Unfortunately, I think them one-waying Joseph just about ensures Jubilee is going to be there to stay (more than it already was).

Agreed. I live in the area and use Jubilee more now because of the one-wayification.

[skyrise32]

Sorry, do we know who the developer is yet?

[cherrypark]

Unfortunately, I think them one-waying Joseph just about ensures Jubilee is going to be there to stay (more than it already was).

I do wish they would improve some AT designated route through the park, particularly when they just finished building a new bridge that could have easily been widened to give a separated bike crossing that would eliminate a lot of negative ped-bike interactions.

It was widened and is easier to cross on a bike than it was before, especially since it is not as steep.

Fair enough - it is wider indeed; I meant more having one side or the other with a railing and separate bike section as that would reduce some of the scattered pedestrians having to keep a head up for cyclists. Though for most hours of the day it is probably clear enough.

[Acitta]

It was widened and is easier to cross on a bike than it was before, especially since it is not as steep.

Fair enough - it is wider indeed; I meant more having one side or the other with a railing and separate bike section as that would reduce some of the scattered pedestrians having to keep a head up for cyclists. Though for most hours of the day it is probably clear enough.

I have had no problems crossing it. As long as you are going a reasonable speed, any pedestrians on the bridge will see you and move to the side. There is a lot of room, and you are only going to be on the bridge a few seconds, anyway.

[taylortbb]

Sorry, do we know who the developer is yet?

https://www.dovcapital.com/