ORIOLE PARK IMPROVEMENTS Complementng the constructon of Neshama Playground by Michael Black

[email protected] 416-487-0808 Revised version: December 07, 2010 I. TIMEFRAME Like many residents of the Davisville community, I was not initially perturbed by the announcement of the Neshama Playground project. I approved of an accessible play- ground in principle; and, as a long-time user of Oriole Park, I also felt that its land space was not being utilized to its full potential. I did not attend the community con- sultation workshop in 2009. It was only when hoardings were erected in Oriole Park at the end of the summer, 2010, that it became clear that certain accessibility and safety issues were not being properly addressed. When I took the time to scrutinize the playground design plan, I realized belatedly that I could have made some sub- stantial suggestions during last year’s consultation process. Furthermore, the pos- sibility that the park may expand into adjacent TTC Davisville Yard lands injects is- sues into the debate that were not on the agenda of the 2009 workshops.

Most of my ideas affect areas that actually lie outside the playground, rather than within its bounds. It is therefore not essential that the majority of the remedies be implemented during the Neshama Playground’s construction phase. Just the same, I do apologize for not coming forward with my proposals at an earlier juncture. Oth- ers in Ward 22 also regret that their opinions have not been taken into account prior to the commencement of construction. For example, the TCU22 cycling advocacy group (of which I am a member) has brought up several pressing cyclist issues. If further input is received from all of the park’s varied user groups, I see no reason why the Oriole Park neighbourhood cannot be optimized for handicapped accessibil- ity in ways that will benefit everyone, able and disabled alike. It is my hope that this memo will help in a small way to instigate a further round of grassroots consulta- tions, focusing on the future of Oriole Park as a whole. “It is recognized that accessib- ility planning is a long-term process and that community consultation is a key com- ponent towards a barrier-free City.” (City ODA Submission, p. 15)

II. PRINCIPLES Much of the discussion relating to Oriole Park’s reconstruction has been restricted to the playground’s financing, the tennis courts, handicapped parking and temporary inconveniences during the construction phase, such as the mulch path. My concerns relate to two issues that seem to have attracted relatively little attention:

a) the safety of various distinct traffic streams – pedestrians, the handicapped, cyclists, dogs and their walkers – as they flow through Oriole Park and its im- mediate vicinity; and b) the importance of surrounding a playground of visionary inclusiveness with urban infrastructure that is also accessible to those with special needs.

2 In order to avoid subjectiveness, I am basing my recommendations whenever pos- sible on The City of Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines, 2004 (hereinafter re- ferred to as: “ADG”). These guidelines are non-binding. Yet if the City does not ad- here to the ADG at the park where it is constructing Toronto’s flagship accessible playground facility, it can hardly expect the ADG to be respected elsewhere.

III. TRAFFIC PATTERNS One of the reasons that Oriole Park was chosen as the location for the city’s first completely accessible playground is its close proximity to the centrally located Dav- isville subway station (which is equipped with modern, handicapped accessible el- evators and entry gate). By the same token, Oriole Park is situated on the logical route between the subway station and the numerous high-rise apartment buildings at Lawton Blvd., and Brentwood Towers. Many of the high-density neighbourhood’s 4,000 residents traverse the park daily in order to use the TTC, get to work, and shop at stores along Yonge St.

It is often commented that optimal cycling routes do not lie on major traffic arteries but run closely parallel to them. In North Toronto, there exist three densely popu- lated high-rise nodes at Yonge Street’s intersections with St. Clair, Davisville and Eglinton Avenues. It is far safer for cyclists travelling in a north/ south direction between these nodes to avoid Yonge Street, and proceed along Lawton Blvd. and Du- plex Ave., which both lie just one block west of Yonge. Oriole Park serves as the con- nector between Lawton and Duplex. (TCU22 has also pointed out that the park func- tions in the same manner for Bikeway 35, located further to the west.)

Many conventional parks in Toronto exist as secluded havens. In contrast, Oriole Park is a busy nexus point bordered by high-rises and TTC subway yards. It has few amenities compared to larger parks in Toronto. Not surprisingly, those who come to Oriole for recreational purposes (such as dog-walkers) are usually outnumbered by pedestrians and cyclists who are transiting through the park at a relatively fast pace, intent on reaching destinations near and far and wide. The path on the east side of the Oriole Park that leads from Frobisher Ave. to Chaplin Crescent (and thence to the subway) will run through the Neshama Playground. There is no reason to believe that the steady flow of foot, dog and bicycle traffic that has traditionally passed along this route will be reduced subsequent to the completion of the playground.

IV. GATHERING AREAS To these three traffic streams, the new playground will add a fourth: users of mobil- ity devices. All streams will converge at Neshama Playground's northwest end, where the design calls for a couple of gathering areas (marked on Figure 1 by the let- ter “A”). The linear gathering area fronting the Junior Play section is scarcely wider than the footpath itself, and the oval gathering area has a tree rising out of its centre, reducing visibility (see Figure 2). I predict that these two areas will be used

3 Passage leading north to Chaplin Cresc., near Colin Ave.

Figure 1 Detail from Neshama Playground Concept Plan (June 2009)

Figure 2 - Oval gathering area during construction (Nov. 1, 2010)

4 by parents of challenged children to prepare them for play, or afterwards, to get them ready for their journey home. I can imagine, say, mittens being taking on or off, sun block being applied, wheelchairs and strollers being parked, etc. The pace will be relatively relaxed, and if conversations are struck up between special needs play- ground users and local residents who are ambling through the park, this would be laudable. I assume that the playground's non-segregated design reflects such an in- clusionary goal.

Next, imagine a steady stream of pedestrians, cyclists, rollerbladers, dog-walkers, bundle-buggy pushers, etc. hurriedly making their way along a route that they have followed for years. Starting in 2011, however, this self-powered traffic corridor will intersect the two gathering areas being used by disabled children. This is a poten- tially hazardous situation that special needs families driving in from more suburban locales will not be expecting. I am gravely concerned that accidents might occur in the playground because four differently paced traffic streams are being squeezed into bottlenecks.

SOLUTIONS: a) A short, paved detour path should be constructed which would skirt the north- west perimeter of the playground, connecting to the passage that lets out onto Chaplin Crescent, near Colin Ave. It would give travellers proceeding along the path the options of either entering the playground and possibly interacting with its users – or they could divert around it along a ‘fast track’. Admittedly, a detour solution would be less inclusionary than the existing design, but I feel that safety concerns are paramount. “All pedestrian routes . . . to accessible entrances should provide a safe, direct, level and obstacle free path of travel for persons with mobility or visual limitations.” [ADG 1.2.1] b) Parking recesses for wheelchairs and strollers should be established on the south side of both gathering areas, away from pedestrian and cyclist traffic streams. The recesses should be marked with adequate signage. [ADG 1.5.4; 1.6.1]

V. COW GATES The TCU22 group has commented on the inconvenience to cyclists caused by the long ‘cow gate’ barriers that exist at the two Lascelles entrances to Oriole Park (Ori- ole Park Reconstruction Accessibility Report – November Update). I must emphas- ize that these devices also pose various dangers to disabled persons entering the park. The cow gate at the park’s north end is particularly problematic. Its constric- ted design (see Figure 3) was meant to prevent the unauthorized ingress of motor vehicles, but it unintentionally acts as a barrier to wheelchair mobility. Park “en- trance gates . . . should be fully accessible to persons using mobility aids.” [ADG 1.3.9] The 900 mm. opening of the north Lascelles cow gate is far narrower than the recommended minimum for two-way traffic of 1675 mm. [ADG 1.1.8] It is also set at too steep an incline to allow for the safe movement of wheelchairs. From the visual perspective, the gate’s jutting arm deserves failing marks. “All routes should be free

5 of protruding obstacles . . . in the walking area to aid persons with visual limita- tions.” [ADG 1.1.8]

The cow gate needlessly imposes a bottleneck at a location where, ironically, there is a great deal of unused space. It creates a convoluted access route that definitely does not provide a “a safe, direct, level and obstacle free path of travel”[ADG 1.2.1] This is less of a concern with the cow gate at the south end, since wheelchair users will be able to travel around it on a special loop leading to the accessible parking zone. Un- fortunately, it will be easier for cyclists to take this loop as well, increasing the likeli- hood of collisions.

Figure 3 – Cow gate at north segment of Lascelles Blvd.

SOLUTION: a) At the north and south Lascelles entrances to the park the existing cow gates should be eliminated and replaced by metal bollards. Wheelchairs, strollers and bicycles can navigate through bollard rows with relative ease. b) Each bollard row should be configured to allow two-way traffic to access the park using a direct route. [ADG 1.1.7] c) Separation between bollards should be a minimum of 1675 mm. [ADG 1.1.8] d) Bollards should be marked with reflective stripes, or painted conspicuously in order to be easily detected. [ADG 1.6.3] e) The bollard design frequently used in Toronto parks is hinged at the base. This allows it to swing down towards the ground, where it can rest flat, about 150 mm. above grade. This is low enough to allow passage of parks maintenance

6 vehicles, but high enough to pose a tripping hazard to pedestrians with sight and developmental handicaps. Accidental contact with a bollard in a flat posi- tion may also risk destabilizing the balance of wheelchairs, strollers or bicycles. These concerns are especially relevant to the Frobisher Ave. entrance, where bollards would be installed next to the short loop leading to Neshama’s access- ible parking: “Permanent objects such as bollards . . . should all be placed to one side of designated pedestrian routes . . . without causing a hazard to per- sons with visual limitations.” [ADG 1.6.3] f) Ideally, bollards should be of a removable or retractable design. City mainten- ance staff must be able to remove or lower a bollard safely, such that the base of the bollard’s receiver socket does not project significantly above level grade. g) The pavement between the bollards should be set closer to grade, such that the slope does not exceed 1:20. [ADG 1.1.4] h) Bollard gateways should be maintained throughout the winter. “Every attempt should be made to ensure that snow, ice or water is quickly removed” from the entrances to the park. [ADG 1.5.5]

Figure 4 – On the LEFT, an example of a removable bollard (Reliance R-79 series) both in the upright position, and removed. The receiver socket is embedded in the pavement, and the base is flush to grade, with a cover that can be flipped down safely. On the RIGHT, an example from the Beltline trail of a hinged bollard (painted yellow) in the flat position, flanked by two upright bollards (painted black). Black and flat bollards have low visibility in poor light condi- tions.

VI. PASSAGE TO CHAPLIN CRESCENT The short pedestrian passage leading from the playground to Chaplin Crescent/ Colin Ave. also constitutes a dangerous bottleneck. It is narrow, involves sharp turns, has blind spots, and visibility conditions are especially poor at night. If one traces

7 the shortest route from the completely accessible Davisville subway station to the Neshama Playground, one encounters just one barrier to handicapped access: this passage.

SOLUTIONS: a) The path’s surfacing should re-paved as widely as possible, from fence to fence, in order to accommodate guide dogs, wheelchairs, bicycles and other wheeled contrivances that might be passing in opposite directions. [ADG 1.1.8] b) The passage’s disused cow gate should be removed and not be replaced by any type of barrier. c) Proper lighting should be installed. Lighting posts should be evenly distributed, and their placement should not inhibit the movement of persons using mobility aids. “At frequently used pedestrian routes recommended lighting levels should be 30 lux.” [ADG 1.5.2] d) “Pedestrian walkways should be designed to provide clear lines of sight to en- sure personal safety wherever possible.” [ASG 1.6.10] To this end the section between the two northernmost posts of the private, front yard wood fence on the east side of the passage (see Figures 5 and 7) should be reduced in height by at least 0.65 m., in order to eliminate a blind spot. Whereas the actual height of the fenceposts is 1.85 m., the maximum allowable front yard fence height stipulated by the Toronto Municipal Code [447 -2] is 1.2 m.

Figure 5 - Blind spot caused by high fence on Chaplin Cr.

8 e) Visibility conditions may also be improved by the installation of a concave safety mirror at the north end of the passage. f) An unobstructed view along the passage should be maintained by regular trim- ming of the hedges and foliage that bulge out from the fences on the east and west sides [ADG 1.18; 1.6.6]. g) The above measures also will have a collateral benefit: crime deterrence. For years, many women have been justifiably nervous about venturing through this claustrophobic, ill-lit walkway at night. h) The present rather decrepit sign advising cyclists to yield to pedestrians should be replaced with another sign “in contrasting colours” [ADG 1.6.1] and “bold ‘sans-serif’ lettering”, alerting all traffic that that the passage is a pedestrian route leading to the Neshama Playground [ADG 1.5.4]. Cyclists should be ad- vised to exercise caution, and dog-walkers should be reminded that their dog(s) must be kept on a leash.

VII. NORTH ENTRANCE AT LASCELLES BLVD. This entrance, which is located just south of Chaplin Cr., one block to the west of Colin Ave., does not suffer from visibility problems. It is broad, and with the removal of the cow gate, its space would be unconstricted. The entrance is therefore poten- tially a much safer access point for users of mobility devices and indeed for all able pedestrians. Unfortunately, this gateway has not been optimized for pedestrian traffic. Special needs users and all children in general who are approaching Oriole Park from points north need to be able to cross Chaplin safely.

The TTC route that stops closest to the Neshama Playground is not the Yonge sub- way, but Glencairn Bus #14 (which is wheelchair accessible, and runs 5 km. northw- est to Caledonia Rd.). Westbound travellers are required to cross Chaplin Cr. to the north side in order to reach the Lascelles stop of Bus #14. Currently, there are no sig- nalized crossings of any kind on Chaplin Cr. between Yonge St. and Oriole Parkway, a distance of half a kilometre. Because good TTC access was one of the prime justifica- tions for the decision to locate the Neshama Playground at Oriole Park, it is essential to optimize transit accessibility.

SOLUTIONS: a) A crosswalk should be located on Chaplin Cr. at the east side of its intersection with Lascelles Blvd. “Both audible and flashing crossing signals should be provided as an aid to persons who have hearing or visual limitations.”[ADG 1.5.1] The crossing timing should be extended, and the signal pushbutton should have tactile features. The crosswalk “should be located so that the side- walk and the crosswalk are at right angles to one another.” [ADG 1.1.2]. b) A paved footpath should be laid across the northern end of the central section of Oriole Park, connecting the north Lascelles entrance to the Neshama Play- ground.

9 c) In order to accommodate persons with mobility aids, walkers or guide dogs, the path should be paved “with firm, level, non-slip materials and is recommended to be a minimum of 1675 mm. wide to allow two-wheelchairs or scooters to pass one another.” [ADG 1.1.7] d) “Regularly used pedestrian routes from the site boundary to the main entrance or other accessible entrances should be kept clear of snow and ice during the winter months.” [ADG 1.6.11] e) These guidelines also apply to all other existing and proposed footpaths in Ori- ole Park, with the exception of the gathering area detour path.

VIII. ACCESS TO WESTERN PART OF ORIOLE PARK Although the designers of the Neshama Playground have taken great pains to ensure the handicapped accessibility of the eastern part of Oriole Park – where the play- ground will be located – several barriers prevent special needs users from fully en- joying the western part of the park. No paved paths or sidewalks exist in this section, except for an insignificant shortcut that slices through a corner of the Oriole Park- way gateway. It makes no sense to restrict Oriole Park’s paved path network to this shortcut and the two north/south footpaths that presently exist side by side in the central section. Oriole Park’s shape is elongated. Years overdue is a paved path that will extend across the park’s length, connecting the eastern and the western sec- tions.

SOLUTION: a) Just as a paved footpath would be ideal leading east from the Lascelles Blvd., so too could it be extended westwards all the way to Oriole Parkway, across the north end of the park where there is now only an inaccessible dirt path (see Figure 6). b) This would enable mobility-impaired users coming from points west to access both the baseball diamond [ADG 1.3.15] and the playground via green-space, rather than being forced to use the busy Chaplin Cr. artery. Without such a paved path, the handicapped will to some extent be excluded from half of a park meant to be uniquely accessible. This is simply not acceptable. c) A paved west path will also be useful for able-bodied users in inclement condi- tions, when grass can become unpleasantly wet and dirt tracks can turn to mud. The western section of the park is currently underutilized, partly because there are no proper paths.

10 Figure 6 - Present dirt path (in dry conditions) running north of baseball diamond towards Oriole Parkway

Figure 7 - Oriole Park neighbourhood, with proposed improvements (not to scale)

11 IX. LACK OF SIDEWALKS Current Neshama Playground design plans call for a sidewalk along the short seg- ment of Frobisher Ave. where handicapped parking will be built. This is of limited usefulness for pedestrians approaching from Forest Hill.

Over the course of the next few years, it is likely that the some families with special needs children will decide to move into Brentwood Towers or the apartment build- ings along Lawton Blvd. in order to live within easy walking distance from the play- ground. Unfortunately, the area just south of Oriole Park is one of the few in North Toronto that is not provided with sufficient sidewalks. There is naturally a great deal of foot traffic in an area dense with apartments. Especially in the winter, wheelchair operation can be hazardous when snowdrifts accumulate on the sides of roads that do not have proper sidewalks. In all four seasons, pedestrians often walk down the middle of the street (see Figure 8). Needless to say, sidewalks in the immediate vi- cinity of an accessible playground are a necessary asset.

Figure 8 - Pedestrians walking home (from Oriole Park) east along the middle of Brentdale Dr.

SOLUTIONS: a) Proper sidewalks should be constructed along Brentdale Ave. and the east side of Lascelles Blvd. Land ownership issues may result in a certain narrowing of the roadway in order to accommodate sidewalks, but there should nevertheless be enough space for all traffic modes. b) A sidewalk could also be built along the entire length of the northern side of

12 Frobisher Ave., though there would be less need for this if a paved path were to connect the western with the eastern sections of Oriole Park.

X. TREES AND GARDENS The creation of the Neshama Playground has been criticized for encroaching on the space available in Oriole Park for able users to pursue unstructured, leisure activit- ies. The question arises whether other parts of the park can be better utilized in or- der accommodate such activities. The 2008 Arris Oriole Park Brief brusquely dis- misses the central section of the park as being an unsuitable venue for high levels of any activity on account of the copious droppings that fall from swarms of birds perched in the trees.

Local community feedback has asserted the importance of maintaining greenery within the park, but surely it is possible to increase the variety of trees. To maintain a verdant canopy that envelops the park, it is necessary to retain the taller trees that currently exist around the park’s perimeter. However, I see no reason why the stand of trees within the interior of the central park cannot be culled. Their root structures are not at all suited to the park’s soil conditions, and the height of the trees makes it difficult for other plants and flowers to thrive in this section of the park. The reverse is also true: flowerbeds have proven damaging to some of the existing trees because the roots of flowers compete against those of trees in the prevalent shallow topsoil.

For these reasons, most substantial flowerbeds at Oriole have traditionally been loc- ated at the tip of the western section, close to the loud traffic of Oriole Parkway. This is in precisely the part of the park least conducive to the idyllic appreciation of a garden. In fact, the entire neighbourhood has suffered from a paucity of well-de- signed public gardens since 1952, when the magnificent Alexander Muir Memorial Park was relocated from its nearby, original site on Yonge St. (opposite Mt. Pleasant Cemetery) to the Lawrence Park neighbourhood.

SOLUTIONS: a) After consultation with arborists, cut down a few tall trees within the central section of the park, in order to enlarge some of the open pockets which already exist. b) Replant the culled areas with aesthetically pleasing shrubs and shorter trees that are better suited to local soil conditions. c) “Trees, shrubs and plants should be selected and located with a wide variety of disabled users in mind. For instance, plants and shrubs with a variety of fra- grances can provide an interesting diversion for persons with visual limita- tions.” [ADG 1.6.6] d) Foliage will be closer to eyelevel, and easy to appreciate. e) With fewer long branches that project outwards, small trees will attract far fewer birds.

13 f) A consequent reduction in bird excrement will help the Oriole site to finally throw off the grim pall of its 19th century garbage dump origins; g) it will also allow central park users, without hesitation, to lie on the grass, pic- nic, sunbathe, etc. h) Flowerbeds should be planted in the newly opened-up, sunnier areas. i) The design should “provide defined planting bed edges adjacent to busy pedes- trian walks a minimum of 100 mm. high.” [ADG 1.6.6] j) One or more pergolas supporting extensive vines and climbing flowers could provide shade during hot summer days. Unlike tall trees, pergolas do not cast long shadows in the winter, and are ideal in shallow topsoil. k) Flowers, shrubs, small trees and pergolas will create a less intimidating natural environment for special needs children than the current monotonous, towering stand of trees. Challenged kids ordinarily tend to spend most of their time in- doors. During excursions to parks, it is important to expose them to flowers and other natural objects of wonder. l) The public at large would enjoy the positive ambience of a more useable, scenic and diverse central section of the park, compensating adults for the loss of leis- ure-activity space in the eastern section.

Figure 9 – Alexander Muir Memorial Gardens owes its success to an assortment of different tree sizes and flower plantings. (Spring, 2010)

14 XI. DOGS No section of Oriole Park has been officially designated as an off-leash area. Never- theless, persons walking their dog(s) routinely ignore signage advising them to “please have your dog on a leash”. At certain times of the day the park – in particular, its western end – is monopolized by unleashed dogs. When this occurs, other activit- ies such as picnicking become an unpleasant proposition. Unpleasantness turns into an absolute danger when one considers the scenario of large dogs running uncon- trolled in an area that vulnerable special needs children will have to venture through on their way to the handicapped parking zone.

SOLUTIONS: a) Post more canine warning signs throughout the park. b) If the problem persists, by-law enforcement officers should patrol the park and the Frobisher Ave. handicapped parking area, fining all violators. c) Revisit the plan to designate a fenced-in, off-leash area for dogs. Dedicating space for off-leash purposes in the park’s western end, far from the playground, would be especially compelling if the park were to expand at the southeast end.

XII. AMENITIES The park’s amenities should better reflect the needs of local residents. As a con- sequence of new condo construction, the number of multi-unit buildings within the Oriole/ Davisville neighbourhood is steadily increasing, relative to the static number of single residential properties. Accordingly, I would think it reasonable that Oriole Park’s management should be giving commensurate priority to park usages that be- nefit high-rise residents.

Most single residential properties have back yards that are large enough to accom- modate barbecues and gardens, but generally are too small to allow pastimes such as dog-walking and tennis. In order to engage in the latter activities, local home- owning families like to make use of Oriole Park. The situation is different for high- rise tenants and condo-owners. Most multi-unit building dwellers do not keep large dogs. Furthermore, landlord and condo rules generally prohibit residents from using barbecues, maintaining substantial gardens or picnicking on building grounds. Some high-rise dwellers are frustrated that these activities are so difficult to undertake at local parks because of their inadequate facilities. Usage is even more restricted at one of the closest parks to Oriole, the Al Green Sculpture Park (serving the residents of the Greenwin cluster of high-rises, east of Yonge St.). The city Parks department is no longer involved at the Greenwin park, which is undergoing further redevelop- ment as a sculpture showcase.

On close scrutiny, Oriole Park is found wanting in even the most mundane amenities. The majority of its half-dozen park benches, and three picnic tables are decrepit (see

15 figure 10). None are optimized for handicapped use. Missing, cracked or broken wood planks may give splinters to park patrons. More worrisome, the missing pieces expose sharp corners of the metal supports, potentially cutting not only sitters, but also anyone passing by. Special needs children are obviously most at risk.

Figure 10 - Examples of hazardous park benches and picnic bench, with defects circled

SOLUTIONS: a) All defective and armless park benches should be replaced, and increased in number. They should be distributed evenly throughout the park in order to “be readily available to children and older persons” who may need to take frequent rest stops [ADG 1.3.9]. All benches should have suitable “arms that allow for easy transfers, with a seat height between 405 mm. and 460 mm.” [ADG 1.4.1] b) All picnic tables should be replaced with handicapped accessible models, and their number at least doubled. They should be placed on relatively flat terrain, as close as possible to pathways. Their design “should allow persons using mo- bility aids to approach them from one or both ends and provide adequate knee and armrest clearance.” [ADG 1.3.11] c) Likewise, garbage cans should be accessible, “securely mounted on firm, level pads. Where lids are provided on waste receptacles, they should be easy to op- erate with one hand and have openings mounted no higher than 1065 mm. from grade.” [ADG 1.4.9] “They should be designed to be unobtrusive, but be clearly identified by suitable colours or signage.” [ADG 1.6.4] Also as an aid to individuals with visual limitations, they should be placed on the same side of the path as light standards. [ADG 1.3.9]

16 d) The 600 mm. clearance of the drinking fountain near the baseball diamond is not sufficient for comfortable wheelchair access. Either the ground below the fountain should be dug out by 100 mm., or the fountain itself should be re- placed with a truly accessible model that provides “clear knee space below of 700 mm. The maximum height of the spout should be 915 mm. and controls should be easily operable with one hand.” [ADG 1.4.3] e) If the Davisville Yard lands redevelopment project gets off the ground, it may be possible for Oriole Park to annex an adjacent parcel of TTC land south of the park. The Friends of Oriole Park group has pointed out that park expansion would make practical many options for which there presently is not enough space. Even if the TTC were to surrender only enough land to migrate the ten- nis courts, the results would be dramatic. FOP has suggested that the city con- sider the installation of barbecue pits, pizza ovens, fitness apparatus, allotment garden plots or a coffee kiosk (as has occurred in other Toronto parks). The im- plementation of these suggestions would be of especial benefit to high-rise res- idents, and would help bring the park’s services more in line with the needs of the local population. f) A kiosk would also greatly enhance the playground. Standards exist for indoor beverage services [ADG 2.5.3] but the important requirement at Oriole – aside from good coffee – would be selling additional drinks popular with children, like fruit juice. g) It would be a valuable experience for a challenged child to participate with other park users in communal activities such as eating pizza fresh from an oven.

XIII. CONCLUSION The Neshama Playground is the product of a public-private partnership. The private component, spearheaded by Thomas Caldwell, originally aimed to raise $1,000,000 for “the redevelopment of the playground and related site improvements”. One of the repercussions of the economic downturn of 2008 was that some donors could not meet their philanthropic commitments to Neshama. At a time when investors were witnessing the ravaging of their portfolios, the financing of a playground wasn’t real- istically their top priority. The fundraising shortfall has prompted the public-private partnership to focus spending on what it considers the bare-bones essentials. The change is regrettable. A central tenet of the principle of inclusivity is that handi- capped persons not be compartmentalized and ghettoized. Yet this is exactly what Neshama’s private benefactors are bringing about when they direct their funds al- most entirely towards playground construction and not towards general park amen- ities located outside of the playground. Obviously, special needs children can enter into the life of Oriole Park only after all of its facilities are upgraded to proper ac- cessibility standards. This general goal should have priority in the future over ex- pensive wishlist items such as a senior splash pool.

Another precondition of inclusivity is that non-handicapped park users be receptive to those with special needs. This is not likely to be the case as long as the former are

17 relegated to the sidelines on crumbling benches while the latter enjoy their new, de- luxe installation. The playground expansion has reduced premium park space avail- able to non-handicapped adults for unstructured leisure activities. A major invest- ment to re-vitalize the park as a whole would compensate them for their loss.

The financial markets have improved over the last two years. I would expect that if members of the Neshama Playground steering committee were now to intensify their fundraising efforts, they would be able to tap new sources. In addition, I urge parents of children who will be benefiting from the playground to demonstrate their goodwill towards the local community by supporting general park improvements. This might entail donating to an Oriole fund . . . dedicating an accessible park bench . . . or paying for a pizza oven.

The City of Toronto also must not shirk its responsibilities. When the decision was taken to embark on the Neshama Project, a formal neighbourhood impact study should have been undertaken. Also, a budgetary commitment should have been made to ensure that the new playground would be supported by surrounding infra- structure that conforms to the city’s own accessibility design guidelines. I have at- tempted to enumerate these obligations. They are numerous, and as far as I am cog- nizant, the City has made no attempt to address them systematically.

Measures such as proper park paths, sidewalks, a crosswalk, suitable plantings, modern park amenities, and the streamlining of longstanding bottlenecks will bene- fit not just the handicapped. They will also enhance the lives of other stakeholders: able children, pedestrians, cyclists and all residents of the Oriole/ Chaplin Estates/ Davisville area in general.

If most of my recommendations are not implemented, I fear that Neshama will be plagued by contradictions:

• Toronto’s first completely accessible playground may exist next to streets without many sidewalks and crosswalks, in a park that may have several po- tentially dangerous cow gates but few paved paths. • An open, unstructured environment may have been acceptable when dog- walking was the primary activity at Oriole Park. But as soon as significant numbers of vulnerable, handicapped children are introduced, traditional practices – like turning a blind eye to unleashed dogs – become perilous. • These same children may be exposed to other dangers when they use gather- ing areas intersected by one of North Toronto’s busiest routes for self- powered travellers. • The Neshama Playground has a budget set at seven figures, yet it is being built in a park which is so run down that its users run the risk of getting splinters or tetanus should they be bold enough to sit on some of the existing benches. • Compared to Alexander Muir Memorial Gardens, which was transplanted out

18 of our area more than half a century ago, Oriole Park is colourless and utilit- arian – the poor cousin. Compared to the Neshama Playground, which is now being ‘airlifted’ in, the rest of Oriole Park still seems like a poor relation.

The Friends of Oriole Park campaign to facilitate the annexation and rejuvenation of a portion of the TTC’s Davisville Yard lands totally transcends accessibility issues. It is a grassroots initiative that hopefully will restore to Oriole Park some of the func- tions of a village green. But this is a village with a difference, since it extends into Forest Hill. A certain degree of opulence would not be inappropriate. If the standard cookie-cutter park mold is cast aside, the transformation of the Oriole Park area could be enhanced by financial contributions from members of the local community. I have in mind a funding mechanism more modest than a full-fledged, Neshama-style public/ private entity.

During the depths of the Great Depression, the exceptionally lavish Muir Gardens was funded by public subscription. More recently, the Rosehill Reservoir site, situ- ated 2 km. south of Oriole, coincidentally had been suffering from troubles due to the upgrading of its playground. “Generous neighbours” decided to stop complain- ing, reached into their pockets, and did something about the problem.

Figure 11 - Rosehill Garden (Nov. 22, 2010). . The Rosehill Garden was brought to fruition thanks to an arrangement that balances public, private, neighbourhood and section 37 funding. Donations from area resid- ents (many living in high-rises) are channelled into a special Rosehill charitable ac-

19 count set up by the City, enabling local donors to obtain tax write-offs for their con- tributions. This model is surely practicable for Oriole Park, which lies on the eastern edge of one of the most affluent neighbourhoods in Canada. We should set our sights high.

If Neshama is to set an enviable precedent as Toronto’s flagship accessible playground, then we must ensure that sufficient investments are made to bring up the infrastructure of the entire Oriole Park area closer to the stand- ards of the playground itself.

--- END ---

20