Printer friendly version | help

Editor (Main)

Comments on the CELOS Oct.17, 2018 meeting notes

Comments on these notes from CRG members:

From Anne Freeman:
Here are a few additions to clarify details/fill in gaps. We have a lot more meetings ahead, so going forward, I'm hoping most points will be captured in the record Lura will post, and notes can be added to that if necessary.

-CRG group members were strongly supportive of outreach to other park users to find more reps from diverse groups. (The CRG requires volunteering for a lot of evening meetings, which was put forward as a reason the group does not have eg/ a rep with young children.)

-A CRG member suggested including awareness of the original landscape of Dufferin Grove in thinking about any additions or re-configurations.

-DTAH explained the 'light and loose' approach they took in work at the Brick Works, i.e. keep things as flexible as possible for future varied uses, add only what is necessary.

-Not aware of specific remarks about 'how DG fits in with green spaces city-wide'. There was discussion of what is happening at Bloor-Dufferin and any possible collaboration; this was largely ruled out.

-CRG member comments about fieldhouse bathrooms were meant to be in connection with the impact of construction: i.e. if users are diverted from the rinkhouse to the fieldhouse bathrooms, there will be problems because of the state they are in. This was clarified in discussion.

-DTAH said they are very willing to work on ways to reduce the overall impacts of the project on current park activities by staging, sensitivity to time of year, etc.

"I also asked staff members what ideas had come forward in their meeting, and here's a list:"

Get rid of two kitchens (inefficient and time consuming to go back and forth) or use one only for washing dishes/warming food
Relocate rink plant to open up building
Have a secure place for staff to store belongings
Have a place for staff to take breaks away from public eye ie, not in the middle of programmed areas
Perhaps have a washroom just for staff (stalls or separate all-gender)
Lockers for staff
A 'real' office area for computer and paperwork
Laundry locked away
Kitchen that has proper storage and work flow and surfaces easy to keep clean
Storage space for chemicals and cleaning fluids away from programmed areas
Mindfulness about ongoing programs need for storage - campfires, gardening etc
Revamping the skate rental room and maybe having on site skate sharpening for the public, not just for skate rental program
Have one large or two multipurpose room for meetings, rink change room, parties, and the market
An overhang by the rink so that patrons can change into skates in some comfort outside
Protect the wood-fired ovens during construction
Garden and wood storage separately
Participation of staff (including part-time) in TWG

---

From Chang Liu:
I think that bit from DTAH about their 'light and loose' approach is going to be very important to keep in mind as we start to narrow in on the best options.

I think it is instructive to explore further how DG fits in with green spaces city-wide.

Yesterday I went to see the ongoing "park improvements" at Queen's Park, which had ground to a standstill all summer and have recently picked up again, well behind schedule.

Although it is difficult to get a detailed look due to the large perimeter fence, if you are at all familiar with QP, you will quickly register several things: the "improved" footpaths are much wider; several large and healthy trees that provided welcome shade for people sitting on benches near the equestrian statue have been cut down; and the pavement around the statue has been substantially enlarged, where previously there was grass and those large trees. A few saplings have been planted, but as every forester knows, a mature tree provides many times more ecosystem benefits (shade, air filtration, soil retention, spaces and food for wildlife, etc.) than even a large number of young trees. As far as I could tell, and I have some training on this, the mature trees that were removed were healthy and would lived many more decades.

I bring up Queen's Park because all over the city I am seeing the same drive to "improve" our parks, with the same assault on green space and the same preference for more artificial surfaces, not less. Whether in the name of accessibility or child-proofing or modernizing, the City is basicallyt increasing man-made surfaces while removing permeable soil and green space, when in fact it should be doing the opposite.

Do we really want DG to follow this trend, or do we want DG to retain as much of its original natural features as possible, which, let's be honest, are one of its biggest draws? Incremental chipping away at our green space too often makes subsequent encroachments seem more acceptable. The "grove" in Dufferin Grove stands for something, especially as younger generations afflicted with "nature deficit" see fewer and fewer opportunities to explore and understand the natural world. The northwest corner can and should also be a showcase for the park's natural features. I hope (and am inclined to believe) that DTAH thinks the same way.

---

From Erella Gagnon:
Personally, when we were “blue skying” (third time this week I was asked to use blue sky as a verb), the most exciting aspect was when we were discussing putting storage and the cooling systems on the second floor so that we have more room.

We also explored relocating Park activities to another part of the park during the construction period. Perhaps using a yurt (or a couple of them)or some other temporary building in winter so that park activities are disrupted as little as possible.

We talked about one of the best things at the park was how flexible programming is/was. This comment was echoed by Thomas Buckland (the skateboarder, architecture student). He loved how responsive to our needs the park has been for many users.

Afterwards I talked to Bryce, one of the architects. He said that personally, his reasons for wanting to work on this project was how “passionately engaged” our community is and how many residents have a sense of engagement and ownership. He said in many neighbourhoods, that is lacking. People move into our neighbourhood and don’t want to leave. They want to constantly make it better.

I think it is important to note that we talked about how important the park is now but with new developments coming in the short term, this green space and the programming will become even more vital.

Most people who use the park haven’t got backyards, cottages or cabins in the woods and the park represents the only green space they have access to. We all made it clear that disruption to park activities have to be kept as small as possible. This is important.

I talked about the possible effect of breaking up the important momentum we’ve established.

---

---

Comments from non-CRG members who attended the meeting:

From Tom Buckland:
Everyone's 'blue sky' option seems to be more or less "do nothing", aside from providing storage and washroom upgrades. I was actually relieved to hear the budget for the whole project was ~only~ 4 million (including rink upgrades). The suggestion of moving the rink was very strange but the look on Peter’s face (the budget guy) didn't suggest that anyone would take that seriously. I thought Megan from DTAH spoke very well, although, as you said, not sure what they are there for.

I know Tom and Mig have pointed out the desire for storage for skatepark features.

Other than that I think it is a good question for the skateboard folks to ask. Maybe it would be posed to the consulting firm?

---

From Peter Thillaye:

• Pre-meeting walkabout: only extended to walk out by the rink and to the cement close to the bread oven and the front of the garage. • in the meeting room there was quite a lot of discussion about expanding the CRG , the homeless, St. Mary's the people in the residence North of the rink house people with small children , • there was no discussion about the fire pits , playground , the wading pool the adventure playground • there was no discussion about Luke's visit or tour of the park before Sept 30th • I did raise the question for Megan how can we as the park public could communicate the relevant information about who uses the park when and for what thru a day week a month a season and what improvements are needed . both maintenance and capital . how will this summarized and communicated direct to DTAH and LURA or thru a CRG rep . Megan said she would like to have this information but did not really say in what form . map calendar , text > • after the meeting I said to Megan does everything have to happen in one grand sweep , here is the budget one big push or can we do things incrementally i.e. fix what we need to do now and plan and get consensus for the big stuff later ... she thought we could as long as the budget to achieve does not from the city perspective drain away or disappear

hosted by parkcommons.ca | powered by pmwiki-2.2.83. Content last modified on October 25, 2018, at 04:40 AM EST