Pricefield Road Playground Park Improvements

The City is improving Pricefield Road Playground, located near Yonge Street and Summerhill Avenue, and engaging the community in the park design. Proposed improvements under consideration include new pathways, seating, signage, lighting, trees, plantings, a water feature and upgrades to the existing flexible active space and playground.

    • Fall 2023: Community Engagement Phases 1 and 2
    • Spring to Fall 2025: Community Engagement Phase 3
    • Winter to Spring 2026: Detailed design
    • Summer 2026: Hire a construction team
    • 2027: Construction starts
    • 2028: Construction complete

    The timeline is subject to change.

    Community Workshop

    November 2025

    A community workshop will take place to share a revised draft design and gather additional feedback from the community to inform further revisions to the design. More information on this workshop will be shared on this web page, the project mailing list, signs in the park, social media and other channels.

    Sign Up for Updates

    Sign Up Now

    Sign up for or unsubscribe from updates related to Pricefield Road Playground Park Improvements.

    Level of Engagement

    This project has been classified as a Consult project based on the International Association for Public Participation Spectrum. This means the City will obtain public feedback on the preferred option for the park improvements while keeping the community informed, listening to concerns, acknowledging aspirations and sharing how input influences decisions. This classification was assigned during Community Engagement Phase 3.

    This phase started in September 2023. In this phase, planning students from Toronto Metropolitan University worked with residents and stakeholders to define a renewed overall vision for the park, which informed the development of study options in Community Engagement Phase 2.

    Vision Statement

    The vision is co-created with the community to describe the ideal future park. It is a big-picture statement that should inspire everyone toward a common understanding of the project’s overall goals and objectives.

    The following vision was developed using community input to describe the ideal future park:

    Pricefield Road Playground will function as a community hub that enhances public life by fostering social connections. It will serve all community members’ recreational needs and desires as the neighbourhood grows over time. The park will maintain its existing natural beauty while acting as a gateway into the City’s wider ravine and trail system to strengthen visitors’ connections to the natural landscapes of Toronto.

    Guiding Principles

    The guiding principles are high-level directions that reflect the community’s most important values and ideas for how the park should look and feel. They help to clarify the vision statement and guide how the park should be designed by describing the desired outcomes.

    The following principles were developed using community input to guide the park improvements:

    • Improving accessibility and active recreational opportunities for seniors
    • Broadening recreational opportunities for girls and youth of different ages and abilities
    • Restoring connections to natural and Indigenous heritage through access to local ravines and native horticulture

    Student-Led Meetings and Events

    September 2023

    Online Survey

    From September 28 to November 12, an online survey gathered feedback from 22 community members. The survey asked participants how they use the park, what changes they would like to see and what features they would like to see retained.

    October 2023
    Virtual Town Hall Meeting

    On October 12, the town hall introduced the 20 attendees to the student-led project team and the planning process. Key discussion topics included specific park areas for improvement, seasonal changes, desired amenities and community activities. Participants were encouraged to complete the online survey and attend future events.

    In-Person Pop-up Events

    October 22 and October 24, pop-up events took place. Six members of the student-led project team were present to provide information, answer questions and guide participants through feedback activities using a map of the existing park. Approximately 20 community members participated in the first event and 14 participated in the second event.

    Feedback Summary

    Through Community Engagement Phase 1 and their own research, the student-led team identified the following areas for improvement, opportunities and diverging opinions related to the park improvements.

    Areas for improvement include:

    • Recreation opportunities for a broader range of age groups
    • Improving sightlines and lighting
    • Additional seating
    • Improve wayfinding and connectivity to the surrounding neighbourhood context
    • Improve existing amenities in the park (such as playground facilities)

    Opportunities include:

    • The additional capacity to facilitate social interaction
    • Increased opportunities for circulation and walking paths in the park
    • The ability to incorporate Indigenous and ecological stewardship into park design
    • Increase signage and wayfinding
    • The ability to increase safety and visibility through lighting and adaptive maintenance
    • Increase in accessibility by increasing amenities that include all residents

    Diverging opinions:

    • The incorporation of an off-leash or unfenced dog area within the park
    • The current or future state of facility maintenance, particularly in reference to snow removal and winter maintenance
    • Improved connections to Toronto’s Core Circle and Ravine System
    • How to address community safety and ways to mitigate interference with the existing sense of safety in the neighbourhood

    In this phase, a student-led team worked off the outcomes of Phase 1 to develop two study options for the park improvements. These were presented to local residents and stakeholders for feedback, with the input collected used to develop the students’ final design for the park.

    Study Options

    Option 1: The Web

    Plan view of the park improvements proposed in design option 1, divided into various zones, each labeled with its function and approximate area in square meters.
    Design Option 1. The CN Railway is to the north, Thornwood II Condominium is to the west, Toronto Lawn Tennis Club to the south, and Mathersfield Drive at the east side.

    The park includes the following sections:

    • A garden area (approximately 850m2) in the northwest, shown in green.
    • A dog area (approximately 800m2) in the north, shown in blue.
    • A multi-use play area (approximately 500m2) in the northeast, shown in orange.
    • An open green space (approximately 1000m2) in the central-west, shown in light green.
    • A picnic area (approximately 800m2) in the southwest, shown in pink.
    • A plaza at the centre, shown in yellow.
    • A playground area (approximately 650m2) along the east side near Mathersfield Drive, shown in gray.
    • A play space (approximately 750m2) in the south. shown in light purple.
    • A seating area (approximately 400m2) in the south, near the Toronto Lawn Tennis Club, shown in yellow.

    The plan also includes walking paths, trees and seating areas throughout the park, with the different zones separated by dashed black lines.

    Option 2: Gathering Hub

    Plan view of the park improvements proposed in design option 2, showing various designated areas with their functions and approximate sizes in square meters.
    Design Option 2. The CN Railway is to the north, Thornwood II Condominium is to the west, Toronto Lawn Tennis Club to the south, and Mathersfield Drive at the east side.

    The park includes the following zones:

    • A garden area (approximately 700m2) in the northwest, shown in green.
    • A train viewing area (approximately 350m2) in the north, shown in blue.
    • A sports area (approximately 900m2) in the northeast, shown in orange.
    • An open green space (approximately 1300m2) in the west, shown in light green.
    • A picnic area (approximately 800m2) in the southwest, shown in pink.
    • A social buffer area (approximately 500m2) in the south, shown in gray.
    • A play space (approximately 900m2) in the south, shown in light purple.
    • A casual seating area (approximately 400m²) in the south near the Toronto Lawn Tennis Club, shown in yellow.
    • Bushes along the eastern edge of the park, near Mathersfield Drive, which provide a natural barrier.

    The plan features pathways, trees, and seating areas spread throughout the park. The different zones are outlined with dashed black lines for clarity.

    Student-Led Meetings and Events

    November 2023

    In-Person Design Workshop

    Hosted at the Toronto Lawn and Tennis Club on November 6, 2023, the workshop presented the two study options and provided an open discussion format where 38 participants engaged with eight information stations. Participants could leave written comments and discuss the study options with members of the student-led project team and the City.

    Through Phase 2 of community engagement, the student-led team collected the following feedback on each study option and identified the following areas of agreement and disagreement related to the park improvements.

    Option 1 Feedback Summary

    Positive Feedback about Option 1:

    • Open architectural elements were well received
    • Support for a designated dog area
    • Interest in increased play spaces
    • Expanded and improved pathways welcomed

    Concerns and Suggested Improvements to Option 1:

    • Plaza design caused confusion and debate
    • Garden area safety concerns
    • Mixed opinions on dog area location as some suggested swapping with garden space
    Option 2 Feedback Summary

    Positive Feedback about Option 2:

    • Favourable response to ribbon-style seating
    • Improved pathway network appreciated
    • Retaining green space was widely supported
    • Larger sports/multi-use area welcomed

    Concerns and Suggested Improvements to Option 2:

    • Safety concerns about the train-viewing area
    • Suggestion to extend the garden into a dog-friendly space
    • Desire for colour use to blend with the natural environment
    • Unclear social buffer concept
    • Garden space still perceived as a risk for unwanted behavior
    • Concerns that the design was too isolating
    Areas of Agreement

    Green Spaces and Landscaping:

    • Strong support for tree retention and expansion
    • Interest in Indigenous plant species and a medicine garden
    • Calls for vegetation to serve as a sound barrier along the rail corridor
    • Landscaping changes needed to improve sightlines and safety

    Play and Recreation:

    • Retention of play equipment for young children was a priority
    • Seating and viewing areas near play spaces were emphasized
    • Concerns about noise and play surface materials, especially near basketball courts

    Seating and Gathering Spaces:

    • Increased seating needed throughout the park, especially near play areas
    • Support for seating designs that deter sleeping
    • More shaded and rest areas requested for older adults

    Wayfinding and Circulation:

    • More signage needed for navigation and to direct users to nearby destinations
    • Expanded and improved pathways supported, with rubberized surfaces preferred
    • Mixed opinions on increased pedestrian traffic
    • Concerns about safe cycling through the park

    Dog Off-Leash Area:

    • Strong support for a dedicated dog area to prevent encroachment on play spaces
    • Design considerations included requests for a dog drinking fountain, waste bins, and dog-friendly surface materials
    • Uncertainty about feasibility due to proximity to Ramsden Park’s off-leash area
    Areas of Disagreement
    • Green Space vs. Pathways: Some wanted more paved paths for accessibility, while others prioritized preserving open green areas.
    • Plaza Design: Some felt it was too elaborate for the park’s size, while others questioned its purpose.
    • Train Viewing Berm: Safety concerns versus enthusiasm for historical connection.
    • Cycling: Suggestions ranged from bicycle-friendly pathways to outright prohibiting cycling in the park.

    In this phase, the City will share the students’ study, final concept and its translation into a draft park design with the community. Through the engagement process, the draft design will be developed into a final design used to guide future park improvements.

    The community engagement activities anticipated in this phase include:

    • a virtual public meeting
    • an online survey
    • an in-person workshop

    The anticipated outcome of this phase is the final design.

    Draft Design

    The draft design map with Mathersfield Drive on the right and Thornwood North Parking Lot to the left. Numbers on the plan correspond to the first list after the image.

    1. Northern open lawn
    2. Southern open lawn
    3. Improved flexible active space, e.g. multi-sport court
    4. New fenced dog off-leash area
    5. Relocated and improved playground, e.g. new play equipment
    6. New plaza with water feature
    7. New picnic table
    8. New fitness station, e.g. exercise equipment
    9. New communal table
    10. New informal pathway
    11. New “figure 8” pathway
    12. New park bench
    13. New tree
    14. Existing tree
    15. Removed tree

    Community Engagement Meetings and Events

    July 2025

    Online Survey

    From June 16 to July 14, an online survey collected 680 responses with feedback on the proposed park improvements. The survey was advertised through social media, park signs, the project mailing list, the local Councillor’s office and targeted community outreach.

    Key Feedback

    When asked to rank features and amenities from most to least important to include in the new park design, respondents ranked them in the following order:

    1. New trees
    2. New informal path
    3. New planting areas
    4. New fenced dog off-leash area
    5. New plaza
    6. New communal table
    7. New water feature
    8. New fitness station (i.e. exercise equipment)
    9. New ping pong table

    When asked to indicate their level of support for the proposed features and amenities shown in the draft design, the following received considerable support:

    • 66 per cent of respondents supported the amount of open lawn spaces and 18 per cent opposed it.
    • 64 per cent supported the amount of planting areas (i.e. gardens, flower beds) and 18 per cent opposed it.
    • 61 per cent supported the inclusion of an improved playground (i.e. new play equipment) and 20 per cent opposed it.
    • 58 per cent supported the inclusion of an informal pathway and 20 per cent opposed it.
    • 53 per cent supported the amount of seating and gathering areas and 31 per cent opposed it.

    When asked to indicate their level of support for the proposed features and amenities shown in the draft design, the following received mixed support:

    • 45 per cent supported the inclusion of an improved flexible active space (i.e. multi-sport court) and 39 per cent opposed it.
    • 39 per cent supported the inclusion of a “figure 8” pathway and 35 per cent opposed it.
    • 39 per cent supported the inclusion of a water feature and 42 per cent opposed it.
    • 38 per cent supported the approximate size and location of the improved playground and 35 per cent opposed it.
    • 41 per cent supported the inclusion of a fenced dog off-leash area and 46 per cent opposed it.

    When asked to indicate their level of support for the proposed features and amenities shown in the draft design, the following were not supported:

    • 32 per cent supported the approximate size and location of the water feature and 42 per cent opposed it.
    • 32 per cent supported the inclusion of a fitness station (i.e. exercise equipment) and 51 per cent opposed it.
    • 29 per cent supported the approximate size and location of the fenced dog off-leash area and 51 per cent opposed it.
    • 25 per cent supported the inclusion of a ping pong table and 52 per cent opposed it.

    When asked to indicate their level of support for potential changes to park access and connections:

    • 41 per cent of respondents supported improving the connection to the ravine via Mathersfield Lane North and 44 per cent opposed it.
    • 23 per cent supported removing the northwest stairway connection to the Thornwood north parking lot and 37 per cent opposed it.
    • 27 per cent supported removing the fence along the eastern edge of the park and Mathersfield Drive to improve access and 54 per cent opposed it.

    When asked to select their preferred park seating or furniture types:

    • 79 per cent of respondents preferred park benches
    • 54 per cent preferred armourstone seat walls
    • 39 per cent preferred picnic tables
    • 25 per cent preferred patio tables with umbrellas
    • 23 per cent preferred Muskoka chairs
    • 21 per cent preferred café tables
    • 17 per cent preferred games tables (for chess, checkers, etc.)
    • 13 per cent preferred communal tables
    • 8 per cent preferred pod seats

    When asked to select their preferred style of playground:

    • 27 per cent of respondents preferred a traditional playground
    • 22 per cent preferred a natural playground
    • 20 per cent preferred a modern playground
    • 12 per cent preferred an integrated playground

    When asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the draft design overall:

    • 19 per cent of respondents were very satisfied
    • 22 per cent were somewhat satisfied
    • 13 per cent were somewhat dissatisfied
    • 36 per cent were very dissatisfied

    The following summarizes other written feedback about the proposed park.

    Overall sentiment:

    • Broad opposition to a major redesign, with most respondents reporting that the park is already safe, welcoming and well-used, and a strong preference for minimal updates.
    • Suggestions included enhancements to lighting, drainage, seating and maintenance.

    Lighting and safety:

    • Strong support for improved lighting, especially in darker corners and pathways.
    • Recommendations included adding security cameras, emergency call buttons and clearer sightlines.

    Playground and children’s use:

    • The playground is a highly valued feature.
    • Strong support for maintaining or slightly expanding the current playground, with a desire for a more inclusive playground experience, including a more accessible play surface.
    • Many opposed relocating the playground near roads and supported keeping the swings and sandbox.

    Off-leash area and dog use:

    • Opinions were mixed on adding a fenced off-leash area for dogs, with some in favour and others worried about noise, misuse or redundancy with nearby Ramsden Park.
    • The proposed off-leash area was often seen as too small and unnecessary.

    Opposition to adding a water feature due to concerns about maintenance, cost, noise and environmental impact.

    Green space and vegetation:

    • Strong opposition to removing mature trees.
    • Support for maintaining the park’s open grassy areas.
    • Support for native and pollinator plant species.

    Maintenance and drainage:

    • Frequent calls for better drainage, especially in the park’s corners.
    • Concerns about muddy conditions, pooling water, and overgrown vegetation.

    Access and pathways:

    • Strong support for improving existing informal pathways and making them more accessible.
    • Strong opposition to opening access to the ravine and removing fencing or barriers near busy roads, perceived as safety risks.

    Seating and amenities:

    • Requests for more benches, especially shaded ones and near the playground.
    • Opinions were mixed on picnic tables and the communal table, with concerns about loitering and garbage, given the park’s proximity to a liquor store.

    Noise and overuse:

    • Opposition to features like a pickleball or multi-sport court due to noise.
    • Some fear the park may attract illicit activity, become overcrowded, and lose its community charm if turned into a regional attraction.

    June 2025

    Virtual Public Meeting

    On June 16, approximately 90 community members attended a virtual public meeting to review the draft design, learn about past and upcoming community engagement activities and share questions and comments about the project. The meeting was advertised through social media, park signs, the project mailing list, the local Councillor’s office and targeted community outreach.

    Several members of the project team attended the meeting, including City staff and design consultants, as well as the local Councillor. A member of the student-led team that developed the initial study presented a summary of their work and was joined by the professor who supervised it.

    Download the June 16, 2025 meeting presentation.

    Feedback Summary

    The feedback summarized below includes both verbal and written comments. The responses the project team provided during the meeting are also summarized below.

    Overall sentiment: Many participants expressed a strong appreciation for the existing park and opposed any major changes. Participants agreed that the park could benefit from minor improvements rather than a significant redesign.

    History of engagement and relationship with new development:

    • Concerns were raised about the student-led engagement process prior to the City’s engagement which began in June 2025, and about the need for better advance notice of future activities, preferably through signs or flyers.
    • A member of the resident steering committee that initiated the student-led design project explained their desire to use the new residential development at 5 Scrivener Square as an opportunity to make improvements in the area and accommodate its growing population.
    • There were questions about the relationship of the developer of the new residential development at 5 Scrivener Square to this project. There were comments opposing the grapefruit sculpture present in one of the draft designs. There was concern that the developers’ goals may not be the same as current residents’ goals. Response: The developer’s role in the project has been limited to donating the design fees for the proposed park improvements. The developer is also required to pay into Section 37 benefits and parks cash-in-lieu to the City.
    • Some commented that other parks and facilities may be in greater need of funding and improvements.

    Design principles:

    • Participants wanted the park to feel unified and worried the zones in the draft design would divide the space. Response: The zones demonstrate how people might use different spaces rather than physically segmenting the park.
    • Participants suggested not trying to fit too many things into a relatively small park.
    • Some suggested that amenities in nearby parks be taken into consideration before choosing features for this park.
    • Comments were made about how this is a community focused park rather than a destination park.

    Park layout:

    • Suggestions were made about the locations of different park activities such as the placement of gardens to improve privacy between picknickers and at-grade, park-facing residents.
    • A suggestion was made to relocate the basketball court to address noise concerns.
    • Participants expressed concern that increasing ravine access would result in crime and overcrowding. One participant expressed a desire for better connectivity with the ravine.

    Green space and vegetation:

    • Participants appreciated the current open unprogrammed grassy area of the park.
    • Participants expressed concern about the potential removal of existing trees in the park. There was an interest in new mature trees for shade, and a preference for native trees. Response: There is arborist report for the area underway. Decisions about trees will be informed by this study about the health of individual trees and the impact of different species of trees on the park environment.
    • There were questions about whether there was an environmental assessment done for the park and whether that was informing the design. Response: The existing conditions of the park are currently being assessed.
    • There was a concern about the use of artificial grass and high temperatures.

    Park usage:

    • Some participants had concerns about increased park use because of the proposed park improvements. For example, concerns about more signage, more parking on the street, more garbage, as well as more people coming to or moving through the park. Response: The proposed improvements are not intended to make this into a destination park.

    Park features:

    • Some participants were opposed to a water feature due to future maintenance and other concerns.  Other participants supported a water feature for children in connection with an improved playground.
    • There was a desire for improvements including additional benches, improved ground cover, better pathways and better lighting.
    • There was concern that movable furniture would be removed from the park.
    • There were some concerns about a picnic area including concern about increased garbage.

    Safety:

    • Many participants expressed concern for safety in the park, the laneways nearby, and the ravine. These comments were often connected to concerns about increased park use, changes in connectivity, and the need for new lighting. Response: there are several things that can be done through design to improve safety, and these measures will be considered.
    • A few comments were made about managing speedy bike traffic especially at night.
    • There was a concern about dangerous tree roots on existing paths in the park which should be addressed with improvements.

    Off-leash area  and dog use:

    • Many participants were not in favour of adding a fenced off-leash area, while others said the off-leash area in the draft design was too small. Participants pointed out there was an OLA nearby at Ramsden Park. Some suggested park scheduling to manage dog time in the park without creating an enclosed off-leash area.

    Implementation and maintenance:

    • There was concern expressed about the timeline for changes and whether residents would have access to the park during this time.
    • A few participants asked about the budget for the park improvements.
    • Several participants asked about the maintenance budget and whether new funding could cover maintenance of new and existing park features. Response: Any new asset will have an impact on the maintenance budget and would be reflected in the park’s future maintenance budget.

    In late 2023, as part of a project initiated by a resident steering committee and supported by the local Councillor’s office and other City staff, a student-led team from the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Toronto Metropolitan University engaged local community members to explore potential improvements to Pricefield Road Playground. The resident steering committee was comprised of community members from Thornwood I Development Committee, North Rosedale Resident Association, South Rosedale Association, and the ABC Resident Association. The student-led team was supervised by a professor and worked closely with a landscape architecture firm to develop park improvement options based on the results of their community engagement and independent research.

    In the winter of 2025, the students’ master planning report and the landscape architecture firm’s landscape design proposal were submitted to the City for consideration, and City Council passed a motion to accept an in-kind donation from Scrivner Square Nominee Inc. for the design of park improvements through Motion 2025.M28.4.