RATIONALE FOR LOCATING THE PUBLIC PARK ALONG THE SITE’S SOUTHERN EDGE
Brian Hagood
HRGS Community
46 Ritchie Ave
Toronto, ON M6R 2J9
April 28, 2025
Victoria Fusz
Toronto City Hall
18th Floor, E., 100 Queens St. W.
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Subject: Park location at 2280 Dundas St. West
Dear Victoria,
The following is a response to the rationale you kindly provided us regarding the location of the public park for the proposed development at 2280 Dundas St West. Despite your reasoning, we continue to believe that the best location for this park is along the southern edge of the site, as shown in the attached alternative form plan. Below is your original email with our rebuttals and arguments in red italics.
Hi Brian,
I appreciate your patience while I coordinated with Parks staff to pull together the requested information.
The Official Plan provides policy direction regarding the location and configuration of new parks to be conveyed to the City. Specific polices related to new parks include:
3.1.1.18. New parks and open spaces will be located and designed to:
Connect and extend, wherever possible, to existing parks, natural areas, and other open spaces such as school yards; The southern location would connect with the existing open area at the end of Ritchie Ave, which for decades has been used as an informal park by the neighbourhood.
Consider opportunities for future expansion of the park or open space onto adjacent sites with development potential;
Provide a comfortable setting with wind and sunlight conditions that promote use and enjoyment of the space for community events and by users of all ages and abilities; The southern location would provide more sunlight and less adverse effects from tower-induced high wind conditions.
Provide appropriate spaces for a variety of active and passive recreation, as well as productive recreation such as community gardening; A larger park along the southern edge would provide more programmable space for these activities.
Emphasize and improve unique aspects of the community’s identity and character, including natural and human-made heritage. The existing community overwhelmingly desires a southern location.
3.1.1.19. Parks and publicly accessible open spaces such as POPS and schoolyards should be made prominent, visible, functional, and accessible by:
Locating parks and publicly accessible open spaces on appropriate public street frontages to establish direct visual and physical access; and The southern location would provide ample street frontage, including along a new laneway which could be activated with laneway houses.
Promoting buildings that face park and open spaces and have active uses along the frontages. Buildings with active street frontages would be along the entire northern edge of HRGS's proposed park. Furthermore, a laneway along the southern edge would provide the opportunity for activation by laneway houses.
3.2.3.8 The location and configuration of land to be conveyed should:
be free of encumbrances unless approved by Council;
be sufficiently visible and accessible from adjacent public streets to promote the safe use of the park; The HRGS proposed park has no point within it that would be more than 50m from a public street.
be of a usable shape, topography and size that reflects its intended use; The HRGS proposal meets this description and would be much larger than the proposed central park.
be consolidated or linked with an existing or proposed park or green space or natural heritage system where possible; and meet applicable Provincial soil regulations and/or guidelines for residential/parkland uses. The southern location would connect with the open area at the end of Ritchie Ave, which for decades has been used as an informal park by the neighbourhood. This space is currently proposed by Choice to be a POP, but we believe would be better as part of a continuous, larger park controlled by the City.
As you know, Site and Area Specific Policy 335 applies to the site and provides policies to guide the proposed development. SASP 335 directs that the parkland for the development be in a central location of the site with frontage on new public streets and be the focal point for the new neighbourhood and the larger community.
Staff are of the opinion that the central park as currently proposed, achieves the policy direction of the Official Plan as it would ensure that the new park is surrounded on three sides by public street frontage, creating multiple points of access and clear sightlines into the park, both of which improve the real and perceived safety of the park. Having street traffic on three sides of a small park seems less safe than having less street frontage. Placing the park at the southern edge of the site would result in at least one frontage of the park that would have no active uses at grade and would only have one public street frontage; this is a less desirable design as it limits access points and reduces sightlines, which could diminish the vibrancy and safety of the parkland. The depth of the HRGS proposed park from the public street would average the same as Choice Properties’ proposed park, and no point would be less than 50m, which is nearly the same as the Ritchie Ave parkette. That park feels perfectly safe. Furthermore, the HRGS proposed park would be bound on much of its southern edge with a new laneway, which provides the opportunity for activation by laneway houses.
Further, the central location creates a rectangular shaped park, which allows for a variety of different programming to occur in the park. The majority of active park uses, such as playgrounds, splash pads, sports courts, and rinks require buffers around them to ensure an adequate distance from other park features and the surrounding uses to avoid conflict between park users and adjacent uses. These buffers accommodate servicing needs and support user safety. It is generally more difficult to design and place features in an abnormally shaped park while achieving the required buffers; as such, it is a design best practice to pursue rectangular/square parks where site conditions allow. While the HRGS proposal would incorporate some irregular spaces, most of it would be large and open, very suitable for park features to be sited with adequate buffers. Regardless, the irregular spaces mentioned are still being incorporated into a park, just a privately-operated one (POPS). What’s the difference if the City controls this land? Wouldn’t that be better than just offloading it outside of the community’s control into an overall less-good open space?
In addition to the Official Plan, the City’s Parkland Strategy also guides long-term planning for Toronto’s parks, including where the City adds new parkland and improves existing parks. This site has been identified in the Parkland Strategy as being within an area of parkland need, where the City should prioritize parkland acquisition. The Parkland Strategy has also identified this site as being in an area that is parkland deficient. Through this application, we have an opportunity to add a substantial new public park that can be used by future residents of the community. The centralized location and shape will maximize parkland access for the greatest number of residents, ensuring this park serves the existing and new residents for years to come.
The Official Plan also provides direction on how to transition between areas of differing development scale. Policy 3.1.3.6 directs that “development will be required to provide good transition in scale between areas of different building heights and/or intensity of use in consideration of both the existing and planned contexts of neighbouring properties and the public realm.” Through policy 4.5.2, the Official Plan further directs that development in Mixed Use Areas will “locate and mass new buildings to provide transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, as necessary to achieve the objectives of this Plan, through means such as providing appropriate setbacks and/or a stepping down of heights, particularly towards lower scale Neighbourhoods.” The Official Plan does not direct that this transition be achieved using parkland. Yet parkland would accomplish this while allowing for higher density elsewhere on the site, which is a goal of this development.
In staff’s opinion, the incorporation of a 4-storey building at the south end of the Choice site is an appropriate scale given its adjacency to the existing low-scale Neighbourhood. Staff have directed that Choice continue to consider this important interface and incorporate an increased setback and linear POPS that would have the effect of achieving greater connectivity through the site and incorporate open space adjacent to the existing backyards. While a 4-storey building here is of an appropriate scale and relation to the adjacent houses, a park would be even better.
[end of original email with our rebuttals and arguments added in red italics]
In summary, we feel that the goal for this development should be to create a large, continuous, sun-filled park—not an oversized plaza and a series of small, disconnected open spaces. We believe that this approach aligns better with city policy as outlined above, while also providing a valuable buffer to the surrounding neighbourhood.
Furthermore, we believe that City Staff has overemphasized the idea of a neatly shaped park with street-activated edges, while sacrificing other worthwhile goals for a wonderful public park. This formula seems destined to result in plazas fronted by towers, as opposed to parks that better respond to the existing surroundings and help heal the landscape. Furthermore, this plaza ideal is entirely at odds with the character observable at most of our beloved local parks—like MacGregor Playground, Charles G. Williams Park, or Sorauren Park—which are integrated into the urban fabric in a way that provides various levels of edge activation and intimacy. In short, the best parks are adaptive and well-balanced, not overly formulaic.
We hope that you will take these thoughts into consideration, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter further in person.
Sincerely,
Brian Hagood
HRGS Community
46 Ritchie Ave
Toronto, ON M6R 2J9