Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

[crs1026]

I'm sue that *something* will grow here... and even if the first attempt didn't work out great, once built there would always be the ability to redesign it into something better (#harbourfront #queesnquay).

My concern remains - is it a better deal for the City than just collecting Section 42 payments from developers and/or demanding appropriate levels of greenspace for development in the areas north of Front Street? My overwhelming suspicion is that this thing arose as a sneaky ploy by developers to minimise greenspace elsewhere and/or get a break on Section 42 payments for planned developments in the area. Can Mr Tory show that he is getting a better deal from developers than if we didn't do this, and they had to meet legal greenspace obligations in the area between Front/Strachan/Queen/Simcoe? Or has he catered to them?

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Though honestly I am more inclined to tell them to buzz off - it hasn't been working for awhile now, and it's time to have a national discussion and review of railway lands and development rights associated with them. Like how many years have it been?

AoD

Absolutely agree, the Feds of late have been almost completely AWOL on rail matters, of any description, and yet they have *tremendous* legislative powers...and *responsibilities* to ensure that railways are working in the greater interest of the nation. At this point, I even have to question whether the air rights are even the purview of the local municipality. To offer an analog: Airports. Perhaps the Island Airport is the template for that? *New expansion* might be, by the grace of the Feds, reviewed and decided locally. But overall authority still resides in Federal Jurisdiction.

I suspect we're going to be hearing a lot more discussion on the matter of jurisdiction.

My overwhelming suspicion is that this thing arose as a sneaky ploy by developers to minimise greenspace elsewhere and/or get a break on Section 42 payments for planned developments in the area. Can Mr Tory show that he is getting a better deal from developers than if we didn't do this, and they had to meet legal greenspace obligations in the area between Front/Strachan/Queen/Simcoe? Or has he catered to them?

Yeah...the present story, taken at face value, doesn't make sense. It's bizarre is so many respects. Don't get me wrong, this deck in whole or partially, has to happen, but the approach so far is almost destined to fail, it just doesn't add up in so many ways.

 

[steveintoronto]

Must run, no time to detail what I've discovered Googling on jurisdiction, but be aware of this:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tcss/RSA_review/chapter7-394.htm

Also the Vancouver Arbutus Corridor Supreme Court decision has bearing. Without reading the written decision, I withhold agreeing with the popular interpretation of it. I suspect the relevance is specific to Van, not in general.

 

[salsa]

If Toronto can afford to build the deck, it surely can afford to do this.

AoD

If Toronto can afford the Spadina Subway extension, then surely it can afford to tile the platform walls. Oh wait...

They've begun to carve the station names onto the walls. From Twitter:

It's nice that they're not just hanging up signs like on Sheppard, but I'm annoyed that they're going with bare concrete again.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If Toronto can afford the Spadina Subway extension, then surely it can afford to tile the platform walls. Oh wait...

It's obviously a choice - they could also have hired G+C to design the stations...just saying

AoD

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

And predictably, TTR got issues:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/comm/communicationfile-63032.pdf

This to me is a salvo from TTR: they're not prepared to accept designating the USRC as Open Space, devaluaing their air rights. They can be supportive of a park, but they will want to capitalize on additional money that can be captured if there is some additional residential or commercial development that can be integrated into it.

I personally agree. Expand the scope, expand the reach of the rail deck, maintain the total amount of park space, and integrate some private development so they can help pay for this.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This to me is a salvo from TTR: they're not prepared to accept designating the USRC as Open Space, devaluaing their air rights. They can be supportive of a park, but they will want to capitalize on additional money that can be captured if there is some additional residential or commercial development that can be integrated into it.

I personally agree. Expand the scope, expand the reach of the rail deck, maintain the total amount of park space, and integrate some private development so they can help pay for this.

I don't think some residential/commercial is a bad idea, but at the same time, the whole notion of them having ownership of air rights and being in a position to dictate based on concession from a century ago is frankly stone-age thinking that goes against the reality and needs of the city in *this* century.

They are not in it to help pay for this - they want to be in it so that they can make money off it, park or no park.

AoD

 

[salsa]

Executive Committee unanimously approves study plan for Rail Deck Park. Oh, and also a request to limit spending on staff resources.

 

[Northern Light]

I find the TTR thing very strange, seeing as they no longer own the USRC.

Morever, even if they retained 'air rights' how would they ever build (themselves) with out permission of Metrolinx, and the City.

Still, if they have a legitimate claim.....

I think Don Valley Rainbow is onto something.....

Except.......I would try a different deal, in exchange for being amicable............

Given them air rights over the Gardiner and Metrolinx tracks from the west side of the Ex to Sunnyside (foot of Roncy).

By my estimation a distance of around 1.8km.

That's got to be room for 15 or more large foot print towers, even allowing for roads and some park space.

The only major condition I would lay out is that the change has to make for an attractive, improved connection to the Lake.

Imagine replacing the Sunnyside Bridge with an extension with a grand pedestrian/bike path (the same width as Roncy......leading to a huge
staircase leading down to the western Beaches.

And adding maybe 2 more connection to the Lake.

And the Lakeshore Blvd facing side would be a berm/slope up to the height req'd for double-stack freight rail/double decker passenger rail + catenary.

The slope would be forested............and create the illusion of a much quieter, more natural lakeside setting.

Combine that with the currently dormant Western Beaches Master Plan which would eliminate the Lakeshore Blvd median and consolidate that parkland to the south; and created a triple tree-line edge for that space to buffer pollution/noise from Lakeshore............

Win-Win?

Just a thought.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I doubt anyone would want to trade core proximate development potential with something out in Parkdale.

AoD

 

[ssiguy2]

I appreciate why you are making the analogy to Vancouver's Arbutus Corridor but it's not the same.

First, the Arbutus Corridor was a non-functioning rail corridor. The city tried to take it over and make it a transit-only corridor when it was originally built by CN for freight.

Second, Rail Deck Park wouldn't inhibit any use of the rail corridor itself. Essentially it's just a roof over a rail track.

Third, CN no longer owns any part of the corridor while CN owns all of the Arbutus corridor.

Fourth, Arbutus has never been used for any passenger rail of any kind while the entry to Union has always been used as a passenger rail corridor whether by CN before VIA and since the 60s with GO.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I appreciate why you are making the analogy to Vancouver's Arbutus Corridor but it's not the same.

First, the Arbutus Corridor was a non-functioning rail corridor. The city tried to take it over and make it a transit-only corridor when it was originally built by CN for freight.

Second, Rail Deck Park wouldn't inhibit any use of the rail corridor itself. Essentially it's just a roof over a rail track.

Third, CN no longer owns any part of the corridor while CN owns all of the Arbutus corridor.

Fourth, Arbutus has never been used for any passenger rail of any kind while the entry to Union has always been used as a passenger rail corridor whether by CN before VIA and since the 60s with GO.

Some of these points are true, but some clarifications.

First, TTR sold the corridor to Metrolinx, but according to another thread, CN retained the air rights. Second, CN still operates on (and maybe owns?) the south bypass tracks in the USRC. It's not for mainline freight, but it is a service corridor for spur customers between Pickering and Burlington.

 

[steveintoronto]

CN and TTR are the holders of the air-rights. I'll post greater clarification later, but for now, here's how Tory is living in dreamland:

[Discussions with CN and Toronto Terminal Railways have gone well, Tory said, as they privately own the air rights to the space above the tracks.]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/downtown-toronto-park-1.3705774

Getting back to SomewhatSmartTrack...seems someone hasn't done their homework again...

[...]
STAFF REPORT
ACTION REQUIRED
Rail Deck Park: Work Plan for Official Plan
Amendments and an Implementation Strategy
[...]
Real Estate & Property Ownership Matters
Property ownership and interest within and adjacent to the project area is complex
.
Different elements of the rail corridor, including the rail
lines
and stratified air rights, are
owned or controlled by various entities including
Canadian National Railway (CN)
,
Toronto Terminal
s Railway
(TTR), Metrolinx
, the City of Toronto a
nd, potentially
,
other parties.
Extensive research will be required to assess the various interests attached to the
properties. Title to the various parcel
s, including the adjacent lands
is m
ulti
-layered.
This research will inform options to move forward the agreements and/or permissions
necessary to advance this ini
tiative.
Legal Services and Real Estate Services will prioritiz
e this work in order to determine
how best to advance discussions around securing an interest in these lands and/or
obtaining permissions to construct over the rail corridor. This information
will be
clarified and included in the report back to City Council in 2017.
A private developer has met with City Planning staff for some initial pre
-application
discussions
concerning
potential mixed used development in the rail corridor
and
indicated they had secured property interests in the area
. Staff advised them that a City
initiated planning process should guide future land use considerations in the area. [...]

http://www.cp24.com/polopoly_fs/1.3074157!/httpFile/file.pdf

Seems Keesmaat is AWOL too....doesn't know what her own department has already established.

 

[ponyboy]

Since we have little public money for this, a pragmatic approach would consider allowing some development along the edges of the new rail deck park, and using funds from that to buy air rights. Also, it seems reasonable to do the rail deck in stages. If it is seen as a long term incremental project that is paid for as they go, work can start soon near the Rogers Centre portions and work westward. Big projects like this will never get going unless we are willing to start small and pay as we go, but have a larger vision.

As nice as this park concept is for removing the impediment of the rail corridor by covering it, this part of the city is not the most starved for green space. Within a ten minute walk, there is Canoe Landing, Music Garden, Clarence Square, Victoria Park, Garrison Common, Little Norway Park, Ireland Park, HTO Park east and west, Roundhouse park, Under Gardiner-Bentway. I agree with Joe Cressy that areas like Richmond/John are deserving of a park (on that parking lot). Chinatown/Baldwin Village area could also benefit from a new park. I wouldn't want to put all our money for downtown parks into the raildeck park. As nice as NYC's Central Park is, it is partly a response to the terrible job that city did of creating green spaces south of it. I'd rather have decent sized parks in every neighbourhood than focus our limited resources on one giant park.

 

[jje1000]

Since we have little public money for this, a pragmatic approach would consider allowing some development along the edges of the new rail deck park, and using funds from that to buy air rights.

This is not a bad idea- development (preferably mixed-use office + residential + retail) could be allowed on some parts of the north edge of the deck.

Having retail open up directly onto the park could help drive activity in the park as well. That being said, the park will not be particularly wide so any development would have to take that into consideration.