August 5, 2007
No Parking
The corner of Dundas Street West and Indian Grove used to host McBride Cycle, a 21,000 square-foot motorcycle retailer with some ninety-seven years of history behind it. As of last September, however, the store is no more, a death caused in large part by motorcycling companies cancelling agreements with dealerships like McBride's around the country. Beginning in the spring, the building was slowly demolished, and now there is little more at the corner than a bed of rubble, some metal poles, a big garbage bin, and a single line of fence running parallel with Dundas West.
Gord Perks, the ward's councillor, wrote on his blog this past February that the building's demolition was bad news, but that development was on its way and that "at this early stage the proponents [the new owner and his architect Robert Chang] are proposing a mid-size, 74 unit condominium building with commercial at grade."
Of course, unanimity is not exactly a common thing when it comes to urban development, and now someone has added to the fence a suggestion that a park be put in instead—placed neatly beside a Royal LePage "Sold" sign and its accompanying scotch-taped building permits. Who can resist the homemade sign's green paint? Its exclamation-pointed-heart? Its miniature arrow drawing extra attention to "Park"? While the sign's objective may be a lost cause, at least its...well, heart is in the right place.
UPDATE (August 15): Sometime over the past week, the sign has been removed (though not too effectively; two cardboards stumps remain where it was hanging before):
Photos by David Topping.
|
I saw this sign yesterday, and it really reminded me of an article in this week's Now (in which I happen to be quoted), inspired by this Wire post.
In preparation for my interview with Jenny, I did some research into the City's policies for dealing with vacant lots and found a recent staff report recommending refusal of an application to permit demolition of some derelict townhouses in the adjacent ward, which states that:
I also found the Property Standards Bylaw, which mandates that such vacant spaces may not be used by the public:
I think this context takes the sign from being merely a cute gesture to also being a political statement.
I just wish that the architecture pays some tribute to the beautiful but weathered blocks along that part of Dundas and the history of the area. But you know it won't...
It's always a nice idea to think of parks, but even if it were a possibility (who owns the land here?) this is not the appropriate place for one. Parks do not benefit from bordering commercial streets and if anything both the street and the park would be harmed. A midrise building with commercial use at grade is the appropriate land use, apologies to the signwriter.
I agree with uskyscraper. The neighbourhood south of this stretch of Dundas is pleasant but Dundas itself tends to be deserted most hours of the night. Combine that with a few seedy bars near by and you're likely looking at a problem park rather than a community asset.
However, a different outcome could be had if it was a park with a specific attraction like community gardens, a stage, etc.
There's also a park practically across the street bordering Dundas!
That's true, AR, but that park is bordered on three sides by buildings, backs out (I think) onto a laneway, gets barely any light, and, uh, you don't want to go into it after the sun sets. Not that I necessarily think that another park is a better idea than more housing in the area, I just think that the existing park is not really the pinnacle of good planning.
It's kind of a bummer that they ripped down that building. It wasn't somthing that was going to get a historic designation - but it was quite handsome IMO.
Junction has a lot of buildings like this - hopefully the area can develop and posper without killing all the character.
I agree - this is not the place for a park. Some lively retail would be a major plus in this location. The Junction is one of the most interesting places in the city to me - but sometimes it seems a bit too quite.
Cant have parks everywhere along side single family dwellings and expect the necessary density to be there for frequent public transit and other services. I support intensification if it combats sprawl and car-centric development - it allows easier cases to be made for accessible frequent public transit and more efficient use of local services. The requirements for commercial space at grade is also very necessary as it keeps the street alive and safe at night (I'd also speculate 1 or 2 floors of office space above the retail on ground).