Go Back

Park Plan

Share Park Plan on Facebook Share Park Plan on Twitter Share Park Plan on Linkedin Email Park Plan link

Consultation has concluded

Guelph is growing and the way people use parks is changing. It’s important we plan Guelph’s park system to provide optimal services as our population grows and changes.

This consultation is now closed. Watch for an upcoming report to council

What is a Park Plan?

A Park Plan is needed to ensure we have an optimal level of service for parks that is accessible to all residents as we grow and is sustainable, affordable and realistic.

The Park Plan is a continuation of the parks conversation from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) and aims to address time-sensitive legislative changes to the Parkland Dedication Bylaw required before September 2022.

Parkland dedication alone will not achieve Guelph’s Official Plan parkland targets. The larger PRMP will explore creative solutions to address those goals. The final Park Plan will be integrated into the PRMP and delivered to Council in 2023.

The Park Plan will:

  • Define our park system to understand our existing conditions
  • Outline future challenges and opportunities facing our park system
  • Plan for an optimal level of service as our community grows and changes
  • Develop strategic directions for parkland retention, optimization and expansion

We need a Park Plan in order to update our policies and priorities in line with the City’s Strategic Plan and to take advantage of new approaches, legislation, trends and guidelines in park planning and development.

Guelph is growing and the way people use parks is changing. It’s important we plan Guelph’s park system to provide optimal services as our population grows and changes.

This consultation is now closed. Watch for an upcoming report to council

What is a Park Plan?

A Park Plan is needed to ensure we have an optimal level of service for parks that is accessible to all residents as we grow and is sustainable, affordable and realistic.

The Park Plan is a continuation of the parks conversation from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) and aims to address time-sensitive legislative changes to the Parkland Dedication Bylaw required before September 2022.

Parkland dedication alone will not achieve Guelph’s Official Plan parkland targets. The larger PRMP will explore creative solutions to address those goals. The final Park Plan will be integrated into the PRMP and delivered to Council in 2023.

The Park Plan will:

  • Define our park system to understand our existing conditions
  • Outline future challenges and opportunities facing our park system
  • Plan for an optimal level of service as our community grows and changes
  • Develop strategic directions for parkland retention, optimization and expansion

We need a Park Plan in order to update our policies and priorities in line with the City’s Strategic Plan and to take advantage of new approaches, legislation, trends and guidelines in park planning and development.

Consultation has concluded

We're an open book.  

If you have a question about this project, the Parkland Dedication Bylaw or anything about parks, ask it here.  We will be sure to get back to you within three business days.

  • Share The City owns about 20 acres (N. of Stone West and E. of Eramosa River) that it paid $284,000 for to protect the ANSI AND to create a future park. Why is this park not noted on the map as a future park ? Is it because it is being turned over to be part of the Operations Campus (as part of it was in the study area for that initiative) to the east ? on Facebook Share The City owns about 20 acres (N. of Stone West and E. of Eramosa River) that it paid $284,000 for to protect the ANSI AND to create a future park. Why is this park not noted on the map as a future park ? Is it because it is being turned over to be part of the Operations Campus (as part of it was in the study area for that initiative) to the east ? on Twitter Share The City owns about 20 acres (N. of Stone West and E. of Eramosa River) that it paid $284,000 for to protect the ANSI AND to create a future park. Why is this park not noted on the map as a future park ? Is it because it is being turned over to be part of the Operations Campus (as part of it was in the study area for that initiative) to the east ? on Linkedin Email The City owns about 20 acres (N. of Stone West and E. of Eramosa River) that it paid $284,000 for to protect the ANSI AND to create a future park. Why is this park not noted on the map as a future park ? Is it because it is being turned over to be part of the Operations Campus (as part of it was in the study area for that initiative) to the east ? link

    The City owns about 20 acres (N. of Stone West and E. of Eramosa River) that it paid $284,000 for to protect the ANSI AND to create a future park. Why is this park not noted on the map as a future park ? Is it because it is being turned over to be part of the Operations Campus (as part of it was in the study area for that initiative) to the east ?

    wmungall asked almost 3 years ago

    Thank you for your question. You are correct, the Guelph Innovation District (GID) Secondary Plan identifies future open space and park in the area you are describing.  We will be adding this to the Park Plan mapping.

  • Share In reviewing your Park Plan, I see a disconnect between your difficulty in maintaining our current park standards and then not considering innovative park provision mechanisms (POPs) as a way to provide new park space (pg 105 of report). Why is this the case . . . and don't say because the OP says so? There may be instances where small areas (tot lots; small dog runs, etc.) would be useful for this. All available mechanisms should be explored in an increasingly intensified City rather than accepting a lower parkland standard. on Facebook Share In reviewing your Park Plan, I see a disconnect between your difficulty in maintaining our current park standards and then not considering innovative park provision mechanisms (POPs) as a way to provide new park space (pg 105 of report). Why is this the case . . . and don't say because the OP says so? There may be instances where small areas (tot lots; small dog runs, etc.) would be useful for this. All available mechanisms should be explored in an increasingly intensified City rather than accepting a lower parkland standard. on Twitter Share In reviewing your Park Plan, I see a disconnect between your difficulty in maintaining our current park standards and then not considering innovative park provision mechanisms (POPs) as a way to provide new park space (pg 105 of report). Why is this the case . . . and don't say because the OP says so? There may be instances where small areas (tot lots; small dog runs, etc.) would be useful for this. All available mechanisms should be explored in an increasingly intensified City rather than accepting a lower parkland standard. on Linkedin Email In reviewing your Park Plan, I see a disconnect between your difficulty in maintaining our current park standards and then not considering innovative park provision mechanisms (POPs) as a way to provide new park space (pg 105 of report). Why is this the case . . . and don't say because the OP says so? There may be instances where small areas (tot lots; small dog runs, etc.) would be useful for this. All available mechanisms should be explored in an increasingly intensified City rather than accepting a lower parkland standard. link

    In reviewing your Park Plan, I see a disconnect between your difficulty in maintaining our current park standards and then not considering innovative park provision mechanisms (POPs) as a way to provide new park space (pg 105 of report). Why is this the case . . . and don't say because the OP says so? There may be instances where small areas (tot lots; small dog runs, etc.) would be useful for this. All available mechanisms should be explored in an increasingly intensified City rather than accepting a lower parkland standard.

    prk asked almost 3 years ago

    Thank you for your comment and question. Common amenity spaces that can support tot lots and dog runs are already a requirement for many residential development types within the city. They are not considered parkland because they are not publicly owned or operated by the city and they are meant to service only residents within the development. 

    While we don’t currently have policies around accepting Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) as parkland, staff are assessing how to develop a framework to evaluate alternative parkland arrangements like POPS on a case-by-case basis. We will take a look at how we can better acknowledge this in the Park Plan.