Pricefield Road Playground Park Improvements

Project Timeline

• Fall 2023 to Spring 2024: Student-led community engagement
• Spring 2025/2026: City-led community engagement to select preferred design option
• Spring to Fall 2026: Detailed design and construction documents
• Fall 2026 to Winter 2027: Hire a construction team
• Spring 2027: Construction starts
• Summer 2028: Construction complete

The timeline is subject to change.

Get Involved

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.

Design

Park Improvements

Park Identity

• Community identity reinforced by the Rose for Rosedale narrative
• Rose-themed design elements create cohesive experience related to local history
• Artistic and interpretive elements include graphic feature on multi-use court

Play and Recreation

• High-challenge playground designed to maximize play value and support a wide range of ages and abilities
• Distinct active play zones offering varying levels of challenge for different age groups and skill levels
• Dedicated parkour circuits designed for youth ages 12+ to encourage physical activity, social interaction, and skill development including accessible design features
• Swings and signature tube slide serving as a key play feature
• Sand play area for younger children with seating opportunities

Safety and Circulation

• Accessible pathways support all-ability use and park maintenance
• Clear sightlines ensure visibility throughout
• Realignment of the pathway to better preserve existing connections and existing topography
• New light poles around path, playground and gathering hub increase safety and security
• Lighting level compliant with IES recommendations and City dark sky compliance

Seating and Gathering

• New benches with backs and armrests distributed along the pathway network
• Seating concentration around the playground and gathering hub
• Accessible picnic table area
• Stone seating wall feature at multi-use court
• Simplified small water feature at gathering hub to create a focal point

Green Space and Landscaping

• New trees selected to support biodiversity and park health including in the playground area for shade
• Perimeter buffer of pollinator-friendly plantings and habitat support biodiversity and climate resilience
• Increase drought-tolerant, low-maintenance all-season interest native species
• Durable, efficient, and easily maintainable water supply and site drainage including additional catch basins
• Minor site re-grading to promote efficient stormwater runoff
• Infiltration trenches at selected pathways to reduce ponding and support stormwater infiltration

Plan

1. Multiuse court
2. Playground
3. Gathering area
4. North lawn
5. South lawn
6. Main path

Entrance

Playground

Sand Play

Gathering Area

Multiuse Court

Community Engagement Phase 1: Towards a Vision

This phase started in September 2023. In this phase, planning students from Toronto Metropolitan University worked with residents and stakeholders to explore ideas for the park, which informed the development of design options.

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

A student-led team then worked off the outcomes of the student led engagement 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.

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

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

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 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 behaviour
• 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.

Community Engagement Phase 2: Exploring Options

In this phase, the City began to lead the engagement and planning for park improvements. This phase started with sharing the students’ study, final concept and its translation into a draft park design with the community. Through Community Engagement Phase 2 and 3, the draft design will be developed into a preferred design used to guide future park improvements.

Community Engagement Meetings and Events

November 2025

Community Workshop

On November 20, 2025, 72 members of the community attended an in-person community workshop at Jesse Ketchum School to review responses to community feedback on an earlier draft design, including updated guiding principles and design options.

Several members of the project team attended the meeting, including City staff and design consultants, as well as the local Councillor. The meeting was advertised through social media, park signs, the project mailing list, and the local Councillor’s office.

The three-hour meeting began with an opportunity to view the revised design and design elements on printed materials posted around the room. This was followed by a presentation including a summary of the design and engagement process to date, a presentation on the revised design by the designers, and a Question-and-Answer (Q and A) session. After the Q and A, the community had the opportunity to explore display boards and provide feedback through cue cards, sticky notes, dot stickers and by speaking to the team in a general discussion area.

Download the November 20, 2025 workshop presentation.

Feedback Summary

The following summary reflects feedback collected during the Q and A and in the general discussion area, written feedback submitted by participants on cue cards and post-it notes, dot-voting and drawing on the display boards, as well as feedback received in person and through email after the event.

Overall design:

• Several comments noted that the new design is developing in the right direction and is a significant improvement over earlier versions.
• A number of comments requested minor changes rather than a major redesign due to liking the park, concerns about the City budget, the impacts of construction, and wanting to prioritize maintenance of existing elements over adding new features.
• Some comments across feedback areas in favour of a more multigenerational park with additional focus on senior uses.

Trees and open space:

• Some concern about removing mature trees.
• Many comments expressed the value of the shady areas of the park and the existing mature trees.
• Some concerns were shared about the size, health and caretaking of newly planted trees.
• More support for removing the Norway Maples at the edge of the park near the tennis club than the ones in the center of the park or in the treed walkway.
• Some recognition that the invasive Norway maples have created dense shade and a lack of groundcover/grass.

Drainage and topography:

• A few comments raised concerns about poor existing drainage and the need for improvement.
• Some participants asked for clarification on grading, as some renderings appeared flatter than the current site.
• Some comments highlighted the importance of preserving the central hill, which is valued by the community for winter sledding.

Playground layout:

• Some preference not to change the existing playground.
• Some dislike for the “split” playground. Reasoning primarily includes poor sightlines if more than one child is playing.
• A few comments expressed appreciation for including a play area for older children.
• A few comments expressed concern about the new playground location due to noise.
• Other feedback highlighted the value of balancing areas for children and areas for seniors or multigenerational use.

Playground equipment:

• A number of comments in favour of swings which could also be appreciated by teens.
• A number of comments expressed opposition to the proposed natural design.
• Some desire for more traditional swings, slides and climbers.
• A few comments requested minor or no changes to the playground.
• A few comments about other elements like keeping the current trellis and adding picnic tables.

Sport/Basketball court:

• Several comments shared noise concerns, including suggestions for exploring a noise-mitigating surface.
• A couple of comments in favour of artistic designs.
• A comment in favour of a classic surface design.

Fencing:

• Many participants emphasized maintaining a fence along Mathersfield Drive for child safety.
• Others preferred keeping the park open without small fences, which were seen as potential tripping hazards.
• Temporary fencing was generally viewed positively if used selectively and removed once no longer needed.

Planting and roses:

• Substantially more support than disagreement with the rose theme.
• Some concerns about the maintenance of roses.
• Support for planting pollinators and mixed wildflowers.

Pathways:

• The most frequent comments suggest that the paths in the design lack functionality and would benefit from a more direct connection between the Scrivner, Mathersfield and Pricefield entrances.
• Many comments that opposed the figure eight (8) path were concerned that the path would not fit the scale of the park and would divide the park, especially the lawn area.
• Some comments expressed appreciation of the figure eight (8) path for its increased accessibility and walkability throughout the park.
• Some comments said they like the existing paths.
• There were some additional comments about path surface, precedent parks, and concerns about the width of the path.

Safety and lighting:

• One comment about safety at the Thornwood path entrance due to fast-moving bicycles.
• One comment about the potential impact of added lighting on wildlife and vegetation.
• One comment supporting improved lighting.

Seating:

• Strong support for more and varied seating including “comfortable” seating with chairs with backs, as well as picnic tables.

Central feature:

• Many comments expressing opposition to proposed water feature for varied reasons including concern for maintenance, safety, noise and space use.
• The strongest support was for the central seating area with some saying it allows for multigenerational use.
• A few comments suggested openness to the water feature.
• A couple of comments in favour of a splash pad type water feature.
• Two comments in favour of the central planter option.

Construction issues:

• Many comments expressed concern about maintaining access to Yonge Street during construction.
• A few concerns were about ensuring there was enough money to complete the project.
• Some concerns were shared about the length and discomfort of a construction process.

Process concerns:

• A few comments describing issues of lack of trust with the tendering process for the designer.
• A couple of comments referred to division within the community.
• A couple of comments expressed concern about ensuring the project can be completed and maintained.

Additional comments include suggestions about garbage, off-leash dogs, requests for shade structures, support for ping pong, preference not to have chess, appreciation for the councillor and concern about attracting more park users.

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.

Draft Design

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 Phase 3: Setting the Direction

In this phase, the City shared the preferred design with the community. The project will now move into the detailed design phase, where the design team will finalize the design by working through the technical details and drawings.

Community Engagement Meetings and Events

February 2026

Online Survey

From January 30 to February 13, an online survey collected 243 responses with feedback on the preferred design for the park improvements. The survey was advertised through social media, park signs, the project mailing list, the local Councillor’s office and targeted community outreach.

Preferred Design

1. Multiuse Court
2. Playground
3. Gathering and Seating Area
4. North Lawn
5. South Lawn
6. Main Path

Key Feedback

There was clear satisfaction with the overall preferred design and with each of the key design areas.

• 73 per cent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall preferred design.
• 70 per cent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the pathways and circulation in the preferred design.
• 64 percent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the playground area in the preferred design.
• 65 percent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the seating and gathering area in the preferred design.
• 70 per cent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the multi use court in the preferred design.
• 72 per cent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the plantings and fences in the preferred design.

Additional comments

122 respondents left additional comments. These were thematically coded and are described below from most to least common.

Playground

• Strong support for shade or covered seating near the playground similar to the existing trellis area
• Desire for a great all ages playground
• Some opposition to the water play area due to mess or concern about seasonal complications
• Requests for including accessible playground equipment
• Support for naturalistic playground and neutral colours
• Some concern about spacing or size of playground or equipment
• Some appreciation for existing playground

Sports Courts

• Many requests to ensure no pickleball with one comment in favour of pickleball
• Support for exploring quiet sport court options but also concern that the surface should still be good for sports
• Preference for picnic table near the playground not near the sport court
• Additional comments including dislike of coloured surface, request for a drinking fountain and a desire for a gate to prevent balls on the road

Seating

• Strong support for more seating especially at north and south end of the park and including seating both in the shade and in the sun
• Strong support for seating options that have backs
• Suggestions about number and location of picnic tables

Trees and planting

• Support for retaining the mature trees in the park
• A few comments about trees that need thinning or trimming.
• Strong desire for shade and shaded seating in the park
• Some opposition to roses
• Some concern for existing drainage issues

Fences

• Opposition to low fences due to tripping concerns and a reduction in open space
• Support for retaining or replacing the full height fence along Mathersfield especially to separate the playground and the sport area from that road

Pathways and open spaces

• Some respondents said the route between Mathersfield and Scrivner should be even more direct and that people will cut across the grass
• Some opposition to the width or length of path in relation to the size of the park or open areas
• Support for maximizing open spaces

Process concerns

• A few respondents felt changes are not necessary

Lighting

• Support for improved lighting
• Concerns that the lighting plan was not included in the design

Dogs

• Some desire for the design to include a dog off leash area
• Some desire for more green space for dogs

About the Project

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.