PARKS IN CRISIS part 4:

A tale of two parks

APRIL 16, 2015 | BY JOHN LORINC

By John Lorinc and Alex Steep

Over the past few years, the city has seen a handful of examples of
park construction that offer impressive illustrations of how
intensification and forward-looking public space planning can proceed
hand-in-hand. Waterfront Toronto developed Corktown Common not as
an afterthought, but rather as a focal point for the Canary District, in
the West Donlands.

Not far away, the City and Toronto Community Housing, with strong
encouragement from developer Daniels Corp., established the
eponymously named Regent Park, on Dundas East west of Parliament,
as an anchor space in the middle of the mixed use/mixed income
projects going up on the old Regent Park lands.
But for each of these examples, there are many more where high
density development has no obvious connection to any kind of public
space acquisition strategy. And there are also cases where the citys
parkland investment plan seem troublingly disconnected from existing
policy goals.
Herewith, a tale of two such parks.

College Park: A missed opportunity

Besides the parkette in Liberty Village, the oddly-shaped swath of open
space south of College Park may serve the highest concentration of
local residents anywhere in Toronto. Abutted on three sides by high rise

condos, including the two Residences of College Park condos (45 and
52 storeys) and the massive 985-unit AURA tower (Canderel
Stoneridge), and College Street office complexes on the fourth side,
College Park is an outdoor room that serves thousands of condo
dwellers.
It should be one of Torontos great urban squares. Yet College Park has
limped along for years as an increasingly neglected space, and,
according to documents obtained by Spacing under access to
information requests, planned improvements will be done on the
cheap, with no contribution from the citys vast parkland reserves, 50%
of which are meant to finance improvements.
The park exists because of a forward-looking land dedication deal
negotiated by city planners years before amalgamation. The ownership
of the green space, however, is problematically fractured, and includes
the City, Canderel, College Park, which owns the stark concrete terrace
just outside the food court, and two other entities.
In the mid-1980s, the parks department erected a field house and
skating rink/fountain, but those facilities were shuttered two years ago.
City parks officials embarked on a major revitalization and placemaking process three years ago, with an eye to improving the space
to accommodate changing use patterns and the blocks increased
density.
But that exercise became bogged down by bickering over design,
unclear ownership issues and the budget for the project, according to
documents obtained by Spacing. From the outset, Parks, Forestry and
Recreation (PFR) officials made it clear the budget would not exceed
the $3 million the City obtained from AURA through Section 37
contributions. FOI documents show that PFR officials never bruited the
possibility of drawing on the parkland reserves, which included $50
million generated by development within Ward 27, where College Park
is located, between 2011 and 2014.
After consulting with the residents stakeholder committee, MBTW, a
landscape architecture firm retained by the City, produced a $4.5

million plan that called for re-establishing the rink and the change
house. But in April, 2013, a design review panel tore into MBTWs
concept, saying it couldnt be built for the approved budget and didnt
meet the residents desire for a tranquil green space, such as Teardrop
Park, a 0.7 ha green space wedged between a cluster of high rises in
Battery Park, New York. City officials sternly instructed MBTW to keep
to the $3 million budget.
MBTW came up with a revised plan, with a small water feature and a
semi-circular seating area, in the summer of 2013. But money issues
reared up again, this time over the cost of removing the existing
structures on the site, as well as a simmering legal dispute between
the City and Canderel over waterproofing repairs to the ceiling of the
city-owned garage beneath the park.
As MBTWs lead architect Christine Abe warned PFR in an August, 2013
memo, the $3 million revitalization budget will have to soak up the
cost of demolishing or burying existing structures. Whats more,
the scaled back landscaping plan ends abruptly at a line well short of
the diagonal walk-way from College and Bay, leaving a scrubby
rectangular space in the north end of the park. Two other areas within
the overall space are excluded altogether from the design. The project
is supposed to be concluded later this year, although theres little
evidence that the construction process has even begun.
The completion date is a moving target due to Canderels delays,
says area councilor Kristyn Wong-Tam. It is now 2015. We have spent
close to four years negotiating with the various stakeholders. [The
budget] is still not enough to do what we want. Asked why the city
didnt use Section 42 funding, she cites the funds required to make 11
Wellesley happen. We have to be very strategic about how we deploy
Section 42 local park improvement [funds].

819 Sheppard: School sites and opaque land deals

In 2010, city officials revealed they intended to spend $7.5 million on
a 2.5 ha school property near Sheppard and Wilson Heights that had
been deemed surplus by the Toronto District School Board. It would
become Torontos single costliest park purchase in both size and price
in recent years.
The patch of green space behind 819 Sheppard West, long used as a
school playing field, is in a district deemed to rank second lowest on
the citys five-point scale for parkland provision. Though surrounded by
single-family homes, it is also situated near the mid-rise condos going
up along Sheppard. Whats more, the deal is one of a series of moves
by the city to acquire surplus school properties.
Yet according to documents obtained by Spacing, it appears the city
had to drastically over-spend to consummate a public-private

partnership scheme that remains unresolved many years after it was

initially disclosed to the public.
Initially, the city wanted to buy 1.5 ha on the southern portion of the
site, and sought to partner with The Toronto Heschel School, a fastgrowing Jewish parochial academy that wanted the school building on
the northern portion. (The Toronto District School Board had declared
the school surplus.) Under the proposed agreement, the city would buy
the entire site and the private school would buy back the building on
the northern half, leaving the city with new community park space on
the rest of the large tract.
In a September 2009, email acquired by Spacing, the city estimated it
would pay $3.6 million to $4.5 million for the southern portion. But the
school boards land management subsidiary refused to sever the
property, and the school, in turn, backed out of the initial arrangement.
As a result, the city had found itself with no choice but to acquire the
entire property for $8.6 million, and then lease back the building to
Heschel, says local councillor James Pasternak, who notes that the
arrangement was negotiated before he took office in 2010.
Where the deal stands now is a bit of a mystery. According to a January
23, 2013, email from Heschel to city parks officials, the school still has
designs on the southern portion of the property that the city has said it
wants to transform into a park. THS remains quite committed to, and
wishes to express its intent, to purchase the north portion of the site
including the right to purchase the open/recreational space on the
south portion for its programming (consistent with its use to date) or in
the alternative, lease it for a term of 49 years.
In an interview, Pasternak admits the negotiations continue to drag on,
five and a half years later. But, he adds, the city has recouped a
portion of that initial purchase price through the rental payments made
by Heschel (he wont disclose the amount). The financial model
wasnt all that bad, he suggests.

As for the park, Pasternak remains optimistic it will receive even more
investment from the parkland improvement fund play structures,
landscaping and some other programming once the ownership
issues are ironed out. Theres enormous potential there to take the
southern part and turn it into a fine neighbourhood park, he says. In
the long run, it will be a major community asset.
Part 1: All built up but no place to grow
Part 2: Where the money flows
Part 3: The perils of cash-in-lieu
Part 3 sidebar: Section 42 explained
Part 4: The tale of two parks
Part 5: The system worked (slowly) for a west end park
Part 6: Are privately-owned public spaces the answer to parks deficit?
top and middle photo by Wylie Poon

3 COMMENTS
Neither the author nor Spacing necessarily agrees with posted comments. Spacing reserves the
right to edit or delete comments entirely. See our Comment Policy.

1.

Sean Galbraith
11 MONTHS AGO

We must be strategic in our paralysis in how not to create a plan for spending the
money on desperately, and obviously, needed improvements. Clearly, this is the
best way to proceed.
2.
Trisha
11 MONTHS AGO

If parks fees are supposed to be used on the creation of new parks, Kristyn
Wong-Tam is totally right to use the funding towards 11 Wellesley. These articles
are technically about the creation of new park spaces, not renovating our existing
ones. The renovation of college park would do little to actually resolve any parks
crisis.
Im also not sure you can blame the city about a landscape firm creating a park
design that exceeds the city budget they were supposed to stick to by nearly
50%.
3.
zac

11 MONTHS AGO

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/06/dangersecogentrification-best-way-make-city-greener
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2015/04/16/parks-crisis-part-4-tale-two-parks/