We are looking for a Partnerships and Project Specialist in Toronto.
TD Park People Grants support local leaders to organize environmental education, sustainability or stewardship events that bring people together across Canada.
A guidance and resources to measure the impact of your park work on community health and wellbeing, integrating a social equity lens.
Learn more about green social prescribing, an evolving practice that encourages individuals to reestablish connections with nature and one another to enhance their mental, physical, and social wellbeing.
Connect, Support, Influence and Inspire your community parks - Get our newsletter and email updates!
By donating to Park People, you’ll support vibrant parks for everyone.
This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Park People launches the first Canadian City Parks Report, highlighting park trends, challenges, and leading practices in Canadian cities.
The Canadian City Parks Report finds tight parks budgets, increasingly extreme weather events, and changing use of parks by residents are challenging cities across the country. But it also finds many cities are leading the way on solutions through an increasing focus on collaborative partnerships, proactive parks planning, and inclusive engagement practices.
In the report, we share:
Budgets tight while populations grow
Cities across Canada are experiencing budget constraints at the same time as growing populations and changing demographics create demand for more parks, amenities, and programming.Resilience must be scaled up. As instances of extreme weather increase, additional pressure is placed on park systems to absorb effects, like flooding. While cities are piloting green infrastructure in parks, there is a need to scale up and standardize these efforts. We found only 48% of cities have citywide green infrastructure strategies that includes parks.
The future is connected
Population growth and urban development is necessitating a focus on proactive parks planning and creative methods to expand and connect parks. Currently 70% cities have updated park system master plans.
Partnerships are powerful
Cities are developing non-profit partnerships and collaborations with resident groups to bring creative programming, alternative funding, and specialized knowledge to help meet new demands on city parks. We found 74% of cities currently have at least one non-profit park partnership.
Inclusion means going deeper
Cities are beginning the work of ensuring parks foster inclusion by exploring their own policies and practices, increasing accessibility, and developing programs for newcomers.
Happy reading!
Park People launches the second annual Canadian City Parks Report, highlighting the trends, challenges, and leading practices in Canadian cities to inspire action, share learning, and track progress in city parks across the country.
As we worked on stories about biodiversity, creative park development, community engagement, and homelessness, the world changed around us. But it quickly became apparent that these stories were not made irrelevant, but more urgent than ever.
This year, the report highlights new city park insights to shape the future of biodiversity, creative park development, community engagement, and approaches to homelessness in city parks.
In the report, we weave together the themes we heard from conversations with city staff with the data we gathered from our surveys of 27 municipalities and nearly 3,500 residents of Canadian cities.
How urban biodiversity improves our well-being and why that matters even more during COVID-19.
How we can both deepen the conversation about biodiversity and broaden it to include more people
Why habitat corridors are important for urban biodiversity and what cities are doing to make sure parks large and small are connected
As populations and development boom in many cities, finding space for new parks is creating challenges—and spurring innovation
How creative community groups and city support are growing connections through food in parks.
This case study is part of the 2021 Canadian City Parks Report, showcasing Inspiring projects, people, and policies from across Canada that offer tangible solutions to the most pressing challenges facing city parks.
______
In Canada, philanthropy has historically been focused on public institutions like universities, hospitals, and the arts, but less so on parks. However, recent years have seen major new public space donations in Canada. With rising appreciation for parks during the COVID-19 pandemic, philanthropic interest in parks could grow, bringing both opportunities and challenges.
For Sheila Taylor, Executive Director of the Parks Foundation Calgary, an independent organization that primarily supports resident-led park projects, park philanthropy is connected to the city’s entrepreneurial spirit.
“Citizens have always gotten involved to create the city that they want,” she said. “People deeply care about parks and public spaces—we’ve seen that more and more through the pandemic. And when people care for something they want to contribute to that—whether it’s their time, talent, or financial contributions.”
This deep sense of connection is also why Toronto’s Parks Forestry and Recreation Division’s Doug Bennet believes people give to parks. “Philanthropy is an opportunity for people to give to causes that are important to them,” he said. “People love our parks and a lot of people feel compelled to give back.”
Park philanthropy is still quite nascent in Canada. While there have been some larger donations, such as $25 million for Toronto’s Meadoway, the majority of funding is for smaller-scale projects, such as playgrounds, and community programming. This can take the form of individual major gifts, foundations, corporate donations, and community-based fundraising.
Bennet said that while donations to parks can make real impacts—and he has seen interest in park philanthropy grow during his eight years at the city—it’s important to keep the scale of these investments in mind compared to the overall publicly funded city parks budget.
“It’s not an insignificant amount, but it’s also not an enormous amount,” Bennet said. In the 2020 Canadian City Parks Report, for example, Toronto reported $8 million from private sources out of a more than $100 million capital budget, showcasing the dominance of public funding.
Even with philanthropy-supported park projects, private dollars rarely cover the whole bill. In Calgary, the city’s Leverage Partners Program provides matching funding for philanthropic and community-led park projects through an $8 million budget over 2019 – 2022. Thunder Bay has a similar program where the city will share half the cost with a community for projects over $100,000, while Ottawa splits its cost-sharing program into both minor and major capital projects.
While Canada is nowhere near the scale of park philanthropy seen in the United States, there are lessons we can take from the American experience where drastically reduced parks department budgets have coincided with an explosion of privately funded and operated parks.
Park budgets in Canada, while strained, have not seen the drastic cuts that many American cities have faced, which have effectively shifted a portion of responsibility of care and funding for city parks from the public to the private sector.
This shift has resulted in some truly eye-watering donations, including $100 million for New York’s Central Park and $465 million for the creation and operation of Tulsa’s Gathering Place.
These increasingly large donations have caused some to raise concerns. Critics argue that big money donations distort park planning towards donor visions, crowd out public dollars, and result in the overfunding of showcase parks in affluent, often whiter, neighbourhoods at the expense of lower income, racialized communities.
In response, a new crop of American philanthropic initiatives have sprouted that centre equity, funding underserved communities, and building local capacity.
Take Reimagining the Civic Commons. This equity-focused philanthropic initiative works in 10 U.S. cities to provide public space funding to support equitable economic development, environmental sustainability, and social connections. The project has published numerous resources to assist others in engagement methods, design, and evaluating impact. The experience of New York’s High Line is another example. Following criticism that the heavily privately-funded linear park catered to mostly white visitors and resulted in gentrifying the neighbourhood around it, the non-profit behind the park launched the High Line Network. This new organization—of which the philanthropic-supported Bentway and Meadoway in Canada are members—publishes resources to help other parks follow a more inclusive and equitable development path.
Successful philanthropy responds to community needs and doesn’t arrive with a fully baked plan that provides little avenue for community members to shape outcomes. For cities, it means ensuring transparent and equitable processes for evaluating projects. While some donors may be frustrated at a slower pace for approvals, these processes are critical in providing public oversight.
In Calgary, Parks Capital Development Manager Nico Bernard said that the city has done a lot of work defining the relationship with the Parks Foundation Calgary, including expectations of how projects align.
The city uses a “stage gate” process that involves projects passing through several evaluations. This ensures projects fit within the city’s strategic vision and meet actual user needs. Projects are evaluated several times from proposal to construction. “There’s a rigor there to make sure projects get vetted,” Bernard said.
Part of vetting is “thinking about the future of the space too, not just what happens when it’s first built,” Sheila Taylor said. It’s important to have conversations up front about who will maintain a space long-term before any fundraising agreements are in place.
The Foundation has also helped the city with its own priority park projects, such as the recently completed Rotary-Mattamy Greenway. With its $50 million budget funded by both private and public dollars, the 138km greenway connects 55 communities around the city and was a part of the city’s strategic vision.
In Toronto, Bennet said any donation over $50,000 must go to city council for a vote, which dictates a level of due diligence. “You’re going to want to make sure that you’re putting forward a project that aligns with city interest,” he said.
Additionally, Bennet said that the city directs corporate giving to the city’s Neighbourhood Improvement Areas, which are defined by a set of equity-focused criteria, and other areas of the city that may not have access to the kind of philanthropic interest certain neighbourhoods receive.
Assessing philanthropic opportunities in parks through an equity lens is important as recent reviews of Canadian giving have uncovered some startling divides.
A 2020 report, Unfunded: Black Communities Overlooked by Canadian Philanthropy, compiled financial data from Canadian foundations to look at what kinds of organizations get funded. While the report doesn’t focus specifically on parks investment, the results point towards a systematic failure of Canadian philanthropy to fund Black-led organizations—one that should make the parks sector pause as well. For each $100 given by top Canadian foundations, 3 cents went to Black-led organizations, while community foundations gave 7 cents.
Rudayna Bahubeshi, a policy and programs specialist with nearly five years of experience working in the Canadian charitable sector, said it’s necessary to evaluate park funding through a racial-equity lens given the mental and physical health benefits we know come from access to high quality green spaces.
While it’s important to review which groups and neighbourhoods have gotten funding in the past, Bahubeshi said that it’s critical for organizations to think upfront in program design about what they can do if they’re not reaching Black and Indigenous-led groups.
For example, if a funder is hoping to reach a certain population, they should be clear about those commitments in the grant itself, she said. If people don’t see people like themselves supported in the past, then “it’s not obvious to them what’s a priority for the organization.”
Reforming how grants are reviewed is also key—a topic Bahubeshi explored in a 2021 article for The Philanthropist on anti-Blackness in the Canadian sector.
She stressed that care needs to be taken when assessing groups based on “capacity” because there’s a tendency to pass over groups who have less experience, ultimately resulting in the same groups being funded time and again. Rather than penalizing groups with less experience writing grants, it should be viewed as an opportunity to support these groups to grow, Bahubeshi said.
This advice supports what urbanist and anti-oppression consultant Lena Phillips wrote in a 2020 article on creating safe public spaces where she argued that current funding models privilege certain groups, containing access barriers such as requirements for charitable status or incorporation.
Some granting organizations have since taken steps to address these gaps. Both the Toronto Foundation and Vancouver Foundation have launched grants that specifically target Black and Indigenous-led organizations, offering phone consultations and reducing some of the barriers to access around charitable status.And, while it is a publicly-funded grant, the Federal Government’s 2021 Healthy Communities Initiative, delivered by Community Foundations Canada, contained equity guidance for applicants designed by Canadian placemaker Jay Pitter that is helpful for organizations, cities, and foundations when designing programs.
While much of the focus on park philanthropy is about money, another important aspect—even more so than the dollars, some experts said—is the community capacity and stewardship-building element.
Park People Managing Director Erika Nikolai said it’s the time and energy people donate through organizing community programming that is so important. These smaller activations help build community connections, but also the capacity of these groups to put on larger activities and advocate for improvements.
She also pointed out that the pandemic has highlighted the importance of community programming in supporting more socially connected and healthier communities. Rather than focusing philanthropic dollars solely on capital projects, she said supporting these types of activities can be beneficial, while also requiring less money.
Philanthropic projects can also help bring people together. While solely city-funded park projects include community engagement elements, the quality of that engagement can be different when community members are more directly involved in raising funds, conceiving of a project themselves, or both.
Sheila Taylor argued philanthropy is about building a constituency of support for parks and a sense of shared responsibility and purpose. “I really believe that philanthropy isn’t just giving money, it’s about a commitment of your time and talents to a cause,” she said.
The Foundation focuses on providing tools to communities rather than taking on projects themselves. This includes grants to support conceptual design work and help managing the financial aspects of projects.
“We built a music garden last year and that was a real labour of love that saw many, many Calgarians donate personally,” Taylor said of the Quinterra Legacy Garden, a park built in memory of five youth who were murdered in 2014. “It was probably hundreds and hundreds of donors to this park to create this music garden and it was such a transformational experience.”
Toronto’s Doug Bennet pointed to the experience of philanthropic-supported playground builds. Engaging residents in constructing playgrounds together is a way to build relationships, Bennet said. “Partnership work can be about building that trust and that’s critical for government.”
Another way to tap into similar stewardship and relationship-building impacts, however, may be through participatory budgeting exercises. This publicly-funded process allows community members to propose and vote on a slate of projects to fund in their own community. Canadian cities such as Kitchener, Montreal, Longueuil, and Toronto have piloted this process to varying degrees, with Montreal launching a $10 million budget focused on social and ecological resilience. These cities touted higher rates of participation than traditional park engagement. But they also raised concerns about the potential to foster a competitive atmosphere, which highlights how an equitable, transparent decision-making process is key—whether privately or publicly-funded.
Finally, philanthropic and community-driven projects can help bring fresh ideas and a creative mindset to public spaces. A community can sometimes see connections across different types of public spaces they use in their daily lives—such as parks, hydro corridors, and streets—that a city parks department may not.
As Calgary’s Manager of Partnerships Marisol Narvaez said, philanthropy “does cause us to rethink how we approach public spaces.”
Just look at Calgary’s recently constructed Flyover Park. This unique park was the result of a community vision to reimagine public space underneath a roadway overpass.
Community members worked with middle school students to envision what was possible, eventually bringing on landscape architecture students from the University of Calgary to help flesh out the design. It was ultimately funded by a collection of private donations and funding from both the provincial government and the city.
Now it has become a much beloved spot in the community, but, as Sheila Taylor put it, “it started with children who had an idea to create a park there.”
Park People launches the third annual Canadian City Parks Report on Centring Equity and Resilience: How parks can help create more equitable, resilient cities—not only as we recover from COVID-19, but as we address another looming crisis: climate change.
Park use during the pandemic spiked across the country as people flooded into outdoor spaces to seek safe ways to connect with others, experience nature, and get some exercise. Parks became more important to Canadians in their daily lives, but cities also faced new challenges with rising demands and public health considerations.
In the report, we weave together the themes we heard from conversations with city staff with the data we gathered from our surveys of 32 municipalities and nearly 3,500 residents of Canadian cities.
Dive into the pdf to read about our key insights on trends and challenges in city parks:
How climate change is impacting how we plan, design, and maintain parks.
Whether converting streets to cool green oases, designing parks that celebrate water, or re-naturalizing the mouths of entire rivers, these eight Canadian projects point a way forward to more climate resilient cities.
How using an environmental justice lens can help tackle climate change resilience and inequity in parks.
Moving more towards nature-based solutions that view parks as key pieces of green infrastructure.
How Canadian cities can harness the power of park philanthropy—and address some of its challenges
How BIPOC park leaders are centring conversations of justice and power in parks
Park People launches the fourth annual Canadian City Parks Report on Nurturing Relationships & Reciprocity: How collaboration, mindfulness, and power-sharing in parks can help nurture and repair relationships between ourselves, our communities, and the wider natural world.
This year’s report begins to move beyond the impacts of the pandemic to explore how the lessons we’ve learned over the last two years can point the way toward more equitable and creative ways of planning, designing, and programming parks.
In the report, we weave together the themes we heard from conversations with city staff with the data we gathered from our surveys of 30 municipalities and over 3,000 residents of Canadian cities.
How leaders from across the country are using different methods to promote a sense of connection to nature by meeting people where they’re at
How we can foster a greater sense of connection to nature through awareness, reciprocity, and gratitude—and why that matters.
How the pandemic has impacted park budgets and sparked a heightened focus on the importance of equity-led investment.
How park engagement can lay the foundation for relationships that last well beyond the end of a consultation period
How investing in ongoing trust-building beyond one-off consultations can help to repair relationships, redistribute power, and reimagine parks.
The unique opportunity of parks departments to play a positive role in addressing houselessness
Examining Prairie cities’ efforts to decolonize park spaces and honour the Indigenous histories of the land they are built upon
How collaborative funding approaches, and investment from other levels of government, are opening up new ways to support parks.
This case study is part of the 2022 Canadian City Parks Report, showcasing Inspiring projects, people, and policies from across Canada that offer tangible solutions to the most pressing challenges facing city parks.
It’s a tale as old as time—or at least as old as parks department budgets. As cities grow, and more people use parks for different activities, park budgets—particularly operating budgets—become strained.
So what happens when park departments that were already experiencing constraints and aging infrastructure come face to face with a global pandemic?
In short: additional pressures, creative thinking, and a heightened focus on how we can plan together for more equitable park investments going forward.
For the second year, cities said Covid put pressure on already strained operations budgets—the money that funds work like cutting the grass. Budgets weren’t cut during the pandemic, but the additional public health-related tasks meant the same pot of money had to cover more things.
As Niall Lobley, Director of Parks and Cemeteries for the City of Kitchener said: park budgets have been “routinely stretched to the maximum extent possible—and have been even further stretched.”
“A “huge” amount of resources were invested during the pandemic into sanitation, extra staffing to monitor physical distancing and high use areas, litter pick-up, and mitigating damage done to natural areas from high use.”
Niall Lobley
In Regina, Parks Support Operations Coordinator Trevor Klein said staff worked hard to find room in existing budgets to launch programs like the winter cities program, which encouraged people to use parks during the colder months.
Klein also mentioned that service requests and expectations of park quality rose during the pandemic. People working from home had more time to visit local parks during the day, increasing their contact with parks staff while they were on the job. This led to an “increase in service requests and a higher level of expectation on [grass] cuts and trimmings and what facilities were available to residents,” Klein said.
At the same time, Klein said the department was dealing with reduced staff early in the pandemic due to a city directive to not hire additional casual staff in summer 2020. This meant training costs were higher when these staff were reintroduced in 2021. Indeed, 50% of cities noted that reduced staff was a challenge during the pandemic.
In Ottawa, city staff said Covid impacts started with “simple reductions to maintenance,” which was “in part to meet a departmental need to conserve funds as additional pressures were expected throughout 2020.”
These services were then adjusted to meet “changing needs,” which included a spike in waste collection costs that began in 2020 and continues today. City staff also said that some “parks operating funds were diverted to help compensate for Covid-related costs,” including portable washrooms and hand-washing stations.
It hasn’t been all bad, however. Some parks departments have been able to tap into Covid funding, particularly for active transportation projects such as trail enhancements or for local economic recovery through tourism funding.
While budgets on average have held steady during the pandemic, Kitchener’s Niall Lobley does worry about what future years hold as city governments begin to grapple with the budgetary fallout from high spending during the pandemic.
“I expect that we have some years where there is likely to be pain felt within tax-supported structures, whether that be at the municipal, provincial or federal level.”
“Traditionally speaking, those periods of payback can be quite hard on soft services like parks and recreation,” Lobley added. “We can see those suffering the more significant and earliest cuts in a time where we’ve seen very high levels of public spending that need to be recouped.”
It’s clear, however, that city residents want to see more, not less, investment: 87% of respondents to our survey of over 3,000 Canadian city residents said they wanted to see more public funding for parks. This included 36% who wanted to see more funding for maintenance and 35% for higher quality designs. Positioning parks as public health infrastructure and citing the rising importance of parks in the last two years for mental and physical health may be one way to ensure funding keeps pace.
In addition to being asked to do more with less, many cities also indicated that building and upgrading parks has become more expensive. In fact, 69% of cities said they had to delay capital projects due to Covid and 86% said cost increases were a challenge.
It’s difficult to attribute these rising costs solely to the pandemic, Lobley said, noting the trend had been in place before Covid. But the pandemic and recent supply chain challenges haven’t helped.
Lobley specifically mentioned playground costs, which have risen as much as 15% a year while “general infrastructure like benches, seats, picnic tables, and all those sorts of things are seeing cost increases as global supply chains are strained.”
Community expectations around park designs have also changed as park use increases, impacting the cost of design and construction.
“It’s not just a case of replacing a few pieces of playground equipment; these are much more comprehensive renewals of neighbourhoods parks.”
“I’m certainly foreseeing 2022 and beyond being very difficult in terms of bringing projects on time and on budget,” Lobley said.
Ottawa city staff also noted this long-term challenge, saying that, if sustained, rising costs may “reduce the number of renewal projects completed annually, or necessitate larger budgets for renewal to maintain existing service levels.”
In addition, staff said that, “extended lead times for parks materials have resulted in some project delays, but these longer lead times and cost increases are being built into our project planning process. Future projects may take longer to deliver, and may be more costly, but we will continue to adjust budgets and timelines based on market conditions.”
A key trend emerging from the pandemic has been a renewed focus on the already existing inequities in how parks are accessed and enjoyed. As parks were held up as critical places for mental health and community connection, it became harder not to notice how some neighbourhoods were greener than others.
Now, as cities begin to shift focus from immediate pandemic needs to longer-term planning, many are turning their energy towards new strategies that use equity-based metrics to guide park investment decisions for years to come.
The “single biggest focus and single biggest change in work focus” in Kitchener’s under-development Places and Spaces Strategy is the focus on equity-led investment, Lobley said.
“What I mean by that is making sure that we don’t just invest where the [development] money is, or invest where the new parks are being built, but that we are deliberately investing in areas which have been underserved in terms of park rehabilitations and new park developments. Our oldest parks are in communities that probably have the greatest need from a social perspective for those parks,” he said.
Consider the urban forest—a topic we explored in last year’s Canadian City Parks Report. Through city-wide mapping, Lobley said the city found some communities are over the city’s goal of 30% tree canopy, while some are sitting at less than half that level. “When we overlay two maps and see where we’ve got less canopy, these tend to be the equity-deserving communities—communities in high density developments, high population of rental apartments, lower socioeconomic status,” he said.
While Kitchener was already moving in this direction pre-pandemic, Lobley noted he “can’t help but think it’s at least partly influenced” by the pandemic, which put a heightened focus on equity.
The resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the Land Back Camp advocating Indigenous land rights in Kitchener, helped raise both awareness and put pressure on decision-makers to act, Lobley said.
“I would say that the social movements we’ve seen grow through Covid have really allowed us to move [the equity-led focus] forward with a greater sense of urgency.”
Other Canadian cities are moving on this as well. Vancouver and Toronto both released park plans with equity-focused metrics in recent years. Regina’s Trevor Klein noted that the city’s forthcoming 25 year parks and open space master plan will focus on the equitable distribution of parks—not just the green space, but facilities and amenities like picnic spots.
In Ottawa, city staff pointed to the city’s new park master plan, which uses the Ottawa Neighbourhood Equity Index, a resource created by the Social Planning Council of Ottawa, as a lens through which park investment priorities can be made. City staff also said this equity-based approach will be important in the city’s forthcoming Greenspace and Urban Forest Master Plan and in its Climate Resilience Strategy.
While the impacts of the pandemic will likely continue to be felt for years to come, this sharpened focus on equitable investment will help cities plan more resilient park systems for the future.
While municipalities offer multiple ways for residents to get involved in budgets through town halls, surveys, and other activities, it’s often unclear how community input influences final decisions. Proponents of participatory budgeting hope to change that by providing a direct route for residents to make funding decisions.
Toronto, Kitchener, and Longueuil have piloted participatory budgeting processes in the past. On the positive side, participatory budgeting was found to promote higher rates of participation than traditional park engagement, but it also raised concerns about the potential to foster a competitive atmosphere among community members.
How to devise a transparent, fair, and inclusive participatory budgeting process is something Isabelle Gaudette has thought a lot about. Gaudette is the Coordinator for Participatory Processes for the Centre d’écologie urbaine de Montréal, which worked with the City of Montreal to devise and run its $10-million participatory budgeting program in 2021.
The city received 620 submissions from the public, which were whittled down based on feasibility to a final 35 that people voted on in June 2021. Projects had to be between $500,000 and $3 million, take place on city property, and “contribute to Montreal’s ecological and social transition” by addressing climate change, biodiversity, equity, or sustainable resource consumption. Montreal is continuing the program, Gaudette said, setting aside a budget of $60 million over the next three years.
The voting age was set to those above 12 years old and the process also allowed non-citizens to vote–in fact, approximately a quarter of those who voted were youth and non-citizens, Gaudette said. Voter turn-out met the project team’s goal of 1% of the population. While that may seem small, she said, it represents 20,000 people directly voting on budget decisions that are usually left to a handful of elected officials and city staff.
Participatory budgeting also shows how the priorities of the public may differ from those of city officials, Gaudette said. The seven winning projects included mini forests, urban agriculture, green laneways, and more. But the second most voted on improvement was adding 125 water fountains and filling stations to parks in six boroughs.
“I don’t think that the professionals, the elected officials, would have said: “we are going to put drinking fountains in each park”. It seems basic, but that’s what people chose. It is a basic need.”
Isabelle Gaudette, Coordinator for Participatory Processes for the Centre d’écologie urbaine de Montréal
Gaudette’s advice for participatory budgeting:
Most Canadian cities offer a grant or matching fund program for residents who want to undertake public space projects, ranging from small events to larger infrastructure projects.
However, many of these grant programs were thrown into uncertainty when park amenities were closed or restricted due to Covid and public health guidelines discouraged gathering.
Recognizing this, the City of Waterloo introduced temporary changes to some of its community grants. This included more flexibility in how funds could be used (for example, buying personal protective equipment for volunteers), reducing matching fund requirements in recognition that volunteer hours may be more difficult to contribute, and encouraging projects that addressed public health, community well-being, and social isolation. Waterloo city staff said that these “changes were an important step to help remove barriers and to encourage unique and safe ways for the community to lead opportunities for connection.” Projects funded through the Neighbourhood Matching Fund included additional park seating, community message boards, and expanding community gardens. A mini-grant providing up to $300 also supported small-scale park events such as an ice cream social with rapid test pop-up.
In Hamilton, the city is testing a new approach with its Placemaking Grant pilot program. Made possible by a $100,000 donation by the Patrick J. McNally Charitable Foundation, Program Manager Sarah Ehmke said it specializes in “creative, temporary ways of activating public spaces.”
While conceived pre-Covid, Ehmke said the pandemic only made the program’s goals more relevant as people looked to engage in outdoor spaces. While the city only had funding for 10 to 12 projects, Ehmke spoke with 50 people proposing ideas. “A number of the proposals that we received…were directly in response to people’s experiences during Covid in public spaces,” she said.
One project in Hamilton Amateur Athletic Association Park included a local photographer who had taken photos (with permission) of people using the park in various ways during the pandemic. The grant funded a photo gallery in the park “to show the different ways people have been using the park during Covid,” Ehmke said. Photos showed dog walkers, kids playing, and people using park infrastructure as an outdoor gym.
To ensure projects were community- and equity-focused, the city encouraged applicants to propose projects in their own neighbourhoods and demonstrate partnerships to make sure the group had “considered the needs and wants and uses of public spaces beyond their own use.”
Ehmke’s advice for community grants:
While the federal government doesn’t have a long history of investing in city parks, two new funding initiatives have opened up new opportunities for collaboration.
National Urban Parks Program
While still in development, in 2021 the federal government announced a $130 million commitment over five years for Parks Canada to develop a National Urban Parks Program. This follows the federal government’s investment in 2012 to create the Greater Toronto Area’s Rouge National Urban Park.
“Urban parks represent the next evolution for Parks Canada, which has a long history of over 110 years of establishing national parks, national historic sites, and national marine conservation areas,” said Parks Canada Director of Urban Parks and Ecological Corridors Miriam Padolsky.
The new program, which the government views as part of its goal to conserve 25% of land and inland waters by 2025, will see Parks Canada work with governments, Indigenous partners, conservation organizations and other stakeholders to create or expand national urban parks in or near municipalities.
“National urban parks will offer a number of important benefits that align with Parks Canada priorities, including protecting biodiversity, contributing to climate resilience, connecting people with nature, and supporting reconciliation with Indigenous populations.”
Miriam Padolsky, Parks Canada Director of Urban Parks and Ecological Corridors
Healthy Communities Initiative
The Healthy Communities Initiative was a federally funded program with a unique structure that provided funding to community-based organizations to “create and adapt public spaces to respond to the new realities of COVID-19.” The $31-million program was managed by Community Foundations Canada (Park People was also a partner).
The program funded over 550 projects, but the demand was far greater. Over 6,000 applications were received, totalling $650 million in requested funding, showing how great a need there was–and is–for community-based public space funding.
Three quarters of the funding went to non-profits and charities, a point Community Foundations Canada emphasized in their final report: the initiative demonstrates “how small-scale innovations can have a big impact in communities to transform public spaces” and “how community-led infrastructure re-thinks social challenges and plays a critical role in providing innovative recovery solutions.”
The program included an equity guidance document prepared by Jay Pitter Placemaking for prospective grantees. This document has proven useful for other city-led granting programs as well, with the City of Hamilton referring grantees to the document in their Placemaking Grant pilot described earlier. When analyzing where grants went, Community Foundations Canada found that the communities most served by the initiative were “people experiencing low income or living in poverty, persons with disabilities, and newcomers.”
The full list of projects can be viewed on a map, but included initiatives by
This case study is part of the 2020 Canadian City Parks Report, showcasing Inspiring projects, people, and policies from across Canada that offer tangible solutions to the most pressing challenges facing city parks.
Much of the low hanging fruit is gone, but cities are finding the fruit higher up tastes a bit more interesting. Or, as Ann-Marie Nasr, Toronto’s Parks Development and Capital Projects Director put it: “Part of not having a lot of land around to turn into parks means you become more inventive, right?”
Nasr is overseeing a burst in innovative park building, including rooftop recreation facilities, parks over rail corridors, and linear parks in hydro corridors. Vancouver’s experience is similar, with designs for a new downtown park including an elevated walkway. “We need to think in three dimensions,” Dave Hutch, the Vancouver Park Board’s Planning Director said, and “use every square inch, especially on small sites.”
While the majority of the projects in this article were in development before COVID-19, physical distancing requirements have put additional pressure on cities to creatively and quickly expand public space, potentially bolstering arguments for and accelerating planning for new public spaces.
However, as these constraints push public space creation into so-called “leftover” spaces in a city, such as under a highway or along rail lines, it can have unintended effects. This includes displacing people occupying those spaces for shelter and potentially spurring gentrification.
Despite its popularity, many have criticized New York’s elevated High Line park as contributing to unaffordable housing and catering to overwhelmingly white visitors despite the racial diversity of the neighbourhood. In response, the Friends of the High Line spun out a new entity called the High Line Network to advise infrastructure reuse parks on more inclusive practices. Toronto’s Bentway and The Meadoway are the groups only Canadian members. The Network has published toolkits with strategies for community-based planning and equitable development principles, which can be helpful guides as Canadian cities embark on a new era of park building.
One trend likely to grow is building parks on top of other infrastructure, like a parking garage. These are called strata parks because of their stratified ownership: the city doesn’t own the land underneath, just the layer on top.
On its face, it seems like a win-win situation. A property owner gets to build something and the city gets a park on top. But in reality, strata parks present a number of logistical, design, and legal challenges with which cities are grappling.
The structural integrity of what is below dictates the amount of soil you can place on top, which impacts landscaping. Additionally, when the waterproof membrane separating the park from the structure below needs replacing or maintenance, the park must often be scraped off and rebuilt. These parks can end up less green because of these factors, Nasr said—an issue when cities facing climate change want to add more greenery for stormwater management and urban heat mitigation.One city that has seen rising pressure to accept strata parks is Richmond Hill. “Land value has appreciated quite substantially in the last 10 years,” said Michelle Dobbie, the city’s Park Planning Manager, leading developers to maximize land by pushing parking underground.
Aside from the design challenges of strata parks, there’s a host of legal and logistical implications, like long-term financial liability for future upgrades. Recognizing that this pressure is not abating, Richmond Hill has commissioned a study to look at strata parks and help guide its decisions on accepting this type of parkland.
Vancouver’s plans for a new park partially on top of the redeveloped Oakridge Mall shows both the promise and complexity of strata parks. The 3.6 hectare park will rise from ground level onto the mall’s roof with areas for social gathering, gardening, and sports. Using the roof allowed the city to create a much larger park, Hutch said.
The Park Board worked hard to negotiate an ownership structure with the mall, Hutch said, including a provision that park maintenance and future capital renewal are paid for and done by the landowner, not the Park Board. A first for the Park Board, this was negotiated due to the complexity of having multiple maintenance crews on site and liability if a Park Board staff person damaged the protective membrane. An operating committee including Park Board and mall staff will be created to troubleshoot issues.
As we reported in last year’s Canadian City Parks Report, parks planning is increasingly concerned with connectivity. Linear parks, trails, and other green spaces that thread their way through tight spots—repurposing rail corridors and hydro corridors to do so—are becoming more common.
One such project is the Edmonton High Level Line, a vision by a group of community members that has caught city officials’ attention. The plan proposes connecting neighbourhoods along a 4km route using an existing rail corridor across the North Saskatchewan River. It’s an idea that follows the principles of connectivity put forward in the city’s 2019 Downtown Public Places Plan.
The project envisions tying existing parks together, but also plays off opportunities on private lands. For example, property owners could develop their sites to open up onto the Line or provide amenities. “Edmonton has this great asset in the North Saskatchewan River and the River Valley…but it also acts as a real barrier,” said Kevin Dieterman, spokesperson for the group. But the project isn’t just about moving from A to B, he said, it’s “the experience that you have along the way.”
Land in the public right-of-way, such as streets, is increasingly being viewed as a resource for temporary and permanent public space creation. New designs that employ low curbs and special paving allow streets to be used more flexibly. Toronto calls this design approach “parks plus.” As Nasr explained: “If you think of it as an equation, parks plus streets equals an amazing public realm.”
However, it’s Montreal that has been a pioneer with 15 shared/pedestrian streets developed in the last five years adding to the 50 already in existence. The city’s Shared and Pedestrian Streets Program (“Le Programme de rues piétonnes et partagées”), which has developed an inspirational catalogue, supports the implementation of projects that reflect the culture of a neighbourhood, including a participatory design process.
While street reallocations have been happening for years, the practice accelerated during COVID-19. Starting in April, cities across Canada including Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, began turning over car lanes to pedestrians to create temporary public space to help with physical distancing. Advocates and urbanists have since deepened that conversation. For example, placemaker Jay Pitter highlighted the “spatial inequities” that underscore the limits of such reallocations and which populations they serve. She has called for the need to centre discussions around racial and socioeconomic inequities, and specifically anti-Black racism, as cities expand public space—a call that other writers have echoed. Rising incidents of anti-Asian racism in public spaces, for example, have also been reported in Canada during the pandemic.
Over a third of cities we surveyed reporting increasing demand for privately-owned public space development (POPS). POPS are built and maintained by private property owners, with city agreements to ensure public access. Cities like Toronto and Vancouver already have many POPS, while Mississauga, Richmond Hill, and Waterloo said they were contemplating their use.
“I think being clear about [POPS’] role and function is really important,” said Nasr. In Toronto, POPS have been used to create a more connected public realm, like a landscaped walkway or small gathering space in the front of a building, but not to replace requirements for parks. They can also help take some pressure off parks in dense areas, Nasr said.However, the “publicness” of POPS have been called into question with disputes over access and encroachment from businesses. And since they’re privately owned, these spaces could be redeveloped over time, as has happened in Vancouver. In a bid to raise awareness and promote better design and visibility, Toronto mapped POPS and produced design guidelines and a signage strategy to clarify that POPS were public spaces.
Weighing the cost and benefits of expanding parkland versus improving the parkland you have should be part of the discussion, said Chris Hardwick, Principal at 02 Planning + Design, who has worked on park plans in Edmonton, Halifax, Toronto, and Winnipeg.
In cases where land is expensive and scarce, the best strategy may be to deploy resources to improve parkland to ensure it’s performing its best, Hardwick argued. However, it’s critical for cities to get ahead of development by targeting land acquisition in areas that are slated for growth, as opposed to playing catch up later.
Different challenges exist in different urban contexts, depending on growth and demographic change, he said. Some cities are dealing with a lack of park space, while others are dealing with too much or the wrong kind of spaces. For example, Prince George reported turning underused baseball diamonds into dog parks.
Other cities are in between. They’re shifting from a more suburban style of development to higher density development, necessitating shifts in policies, financial tools, and planning to ensure new neighbourhoods have the parks they need as they grow. For example, Surrey reported land banking in growth areas to prepare for future development.
Toronto’s Nasr said that suburban malls are becoming another focus of new park development, with some malls slated to be transformed into the centres of new, dense neighbourhoods. “They’re big blocks of land in which parks become an organizing element to inform those transformations,” said Nasr.Toronto has three major mall redevelopments underway that contain new anchor parks, including Cloverdale, Yorkdale, and Agincourt. In neighbouring Mississauga, the redevelopment of Square One Mall will include 37 towers and new parks.
If you want to see a park staffer cringe, just mention dog parks. There’s hardly a park amenity more controversial than setting aside space for dogs to run off-leash in green space.But off-leash dog areas are also increasingly in demand, as 85% of cities noted in our survey, and they can provide important social benefits. However, cities are challenged to find suitable land and deal with community concerns. The COVID-19 crisis further complicates the issue as many Canadian cities including Edmonton, Ottawa, Calgary, and Toronto restricted, or closed, off-leash parks to encourage physical distancing. In May, Edmonton opened up off-leash parks as part of its first phase of re-opening. However, longer-term physical distancing requirements may challenge cities already struggling to provide enough off-leash space.
As cities grow, so does our population of four-legged friends. Many cities are under pressure to create more space for dogs, while juggling demand for other park uses, which leads to conflicts.
In 2011, Waterloo dropped a pilot to create six off-leash areas due to lack of public support and is now looking to expand their one off-leash area to three. Guelph city council nearly closed the city’s only fenced-in leash-free park due to community complaints, before reversing course. The animosity can quickly reach ridiculous heights. In Toronto, someone locked up an off-leash dog area and a resident played recordings of barking out a window to rile up the dogs.
Conflict with natural areas is another area of concern, with the potential for off-leash dogs to trample sensitive plantings and disturb wildlife. Ron Buchan, Parks Community Strategist for the City of Calgary, said that the city has turned down community requests for new off-leash areas adjacent to natural areas. However, of the city’s 152 off-leash areas, only 11 are fenced, meaning that in parks where existing off-leash areas abut natural spaces, there is nothing physically stopping dogs from heading into sensitive habitats. To address this, Calgary is working on initiatives that include a park ranger program targeted to high user conflict areas, education on habitat restoration and dog etiquette, and an adopt-a-park program to encourage stewardship.
The number of off-leash areas varies widely between cities and many appear to have been planned in an ad hoc manner. Finding appropriate sites to locate off-leash areas is difficult, especially in cities already dealing with park deficiencies.
“There are many areas in Hamilton that are parkland deficient,” Hamilton city staff said. “There is a bit of a tug of war between folks who want land for people and those that want it for dogs.” In an indication of how challenging space constraints have become, the last two off-leash areas the city created were approved by council direction even though they didn’t conform to the city’s policies on size.
A citywide strategy for managing and expanding off-leash areas can go a long way to alleviating concerns—both from dog owners and others, said Eric Code, founder of the 2,000 member Toronto Dog Park Community Group. “If you’re going to walk across a tight-wire, you need a pole,” he said. “That’s what policy is.”
We found one third of cities have off-leash strategies that include planning and design criteria for establishing and managing areas citywide. In Calgary, Buchan said the city’s decade old management plan helped “tremendously” by providing a clear decision-making framework for where and how to expand off-leash areas and clarity in responding to residents. In Ottawa, the city uses a point system to designate off-leash areas. The city allows dogs off-leash in 175 parks and in 62 others only in certain areas or at certain times, with nine of these areas fenced-in.
For Eric Code, the benefits of the dog park go far beyond being a place for his dog to play—they create a sense of community, providing a “third space” between work and home where he connects with others.
Taking your dog to the park makes it easier to start up a conversation with a stranger, Code said. You wouldn’t necessarily go up to people throwing a ball around and start chatting, Code said. But you can easily meet new people at the dog park.
“In today’s world, especially in Toronto, where life can be a bit cold, there’s a small town feeling in dog parks that you just can’t get elsewhere,” he said. The importance of dog parks for social connection is backed up by research. One study found having dogs increased the likelihood of people meeting others in their community, acting as an ice-breaker, while another study found that dogs help reduce feelings of social isolation and increase the chance of building social support networks. Dog parks have also been shown to increase perceptions of safety as dog owners use parks in the “off hours” of early morning or evening.
Some Canadian cities rely on, or are developing, programs that involve community members to fundraise for and manage dog parks—a response to both budgetary pressures and desires for greater community engagement.
After noting the city’s “limited resources,” Edmonton is studying the creation of community-operated off-leash areas to help expand offerings. Montreal’s Club d’Agilite de Montreal is run by a community non-profit that provides space for dog agility training. And in Gatineau the 1,200 member Aylmer Canine Club has an agreement with the city to run an off-leash area in Paul Pelletier Park.
But it’s Mississauga that has the most developed community-run off-leash arrangement out of the cities we surveyed. In 1997, a city by-law created off-leash zones in parks, but also placed the costs and management on a non-profit called Leash-Free Mississauga; however, in 2016 due to funding challenges as demand grew, the city stepped in with financial support.
In Calgary, where the city runs a volunteer program called P.U.P.P.Y (Pick Up Pooch’s Poo Yourself), Buchan said that dog park community groups help reduce complaints as people take on a stewardship role.
Eric Code noted that programs to get residents more involved in dog parks can be a way to harness people’s frustrations for good. It can help build a sense of responsibility, reducing incidents of dog owners not respecting the rules.
“If you make people volunteers, and give them the ability to make the dog park better, they’re going to take that much more care and pride in it.” Code said.