Skip to content

Canadian Urbanism Uncovered


  1. Christie Pits swimmers face new user fees, while the snack bar sits empty (unless there’s a baseball game on). And so Baskin Robbins and hot dog vendors get money that could have preserved free swimming.

  2. John – that is assuming a full time snack bar would be profitable. Any evidence to suggest it is possible?

    In any case, even if it were profitable the money would be directed to the entire department and would not go directly to subsidize the local swimming pool. Why not? Well, you don’t want lower income neighbourhoods relying on profits from their local snack bar to keep the pool open and free.

  3. I think the TTC museum is a great idea. So long as they build it after developing the “Toronto Museum of Fiscal Prudence”

  4. Evidence a snack bar would be profitable? Yes: the profitable and well-loved Zamboni cafe at Dufferin Grove Park, which serves freshly-baked cookies and healthy meals. It was created as a result of community action, and had to overcome obstacles thrown up by senior Parks/Rec bureaucrats (see:

    And J, your second paragraph makes no sense at all. How do new user fees help lower income neighbourhoods?

  5. John, thanks for the info on Dufferin Grove. It does show how community ownership and control can make a real difference.

    My second paragraph was mainly to point out that not every park, pool or rink can be funded through money raised from a local community. Some neighbourhoods do not have the capacity (organizational or financial) to do things like Dufferin Grove. They will always be funded out of the general parks & rec budget.

    I just worry about a potential ‘two-tier’ park & rec system where some neighbourhoods get more than others due to this difference.

    p.s. i’m not condoning the new/increased user fees, just commenting on your idea.