News   Mar 18, 2024
 822     0 
News   Mar 18, 2024
 2.7K     4 
News   Mar 18, 2024
 788     0 

Walks and Gardens Trust

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
18,468
Reaction score
24,837
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
In 1857 the government of Canada West established a Trust, the Walks and Gardens Trust, to collect and spend the income from the sale or lease of land reclaimed from Lake Ontario when the railways were given permission to bring rail lines into the area now occupied by Union Station. Until 1916 the Trust was active and used the proceeds of land sales and leases to improve parks in many areas of the City including High Park and Allen Gardens.

In 1916 the City changed how it financed parks and the Trust became dormant but Trusts never die unless 'killed off" and the Walks and Gardens Trust is thus still alive. Now the City are intending to ask the Provincial government to disolve it and ensure that the City is not liable for not operating it since 1916.

This has all happened because, with the work currently going on with Union Station, it is possible that citizens could demand that any 'profit' from the new station should go into the Trust (not general City revenues). I do not have an opinion on who is right, the City or the citizen group who reopened the issue but it's an interesting question. (Both the City and the citizen group recommend the Trust should be dissolved, they differ on whether the City should create a new 'endowment fund' to support the aims of the Trust; the City officials say "no", the citizen group says "yes".)

See

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.GM11.6

and

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-45101.pdf
 
Will then why not just keep it as is. Makes no sense to dissolve it and then create another endowment
 
Will then why not just keep it as is. Makes no sense to dissolve it and then create another endowment

I think the reasoning is that as the Trustees (the City) have not (apparently) followed the Trust since about 1916 it would be best to have it closed retrospectively and avoid any court cases and long legal wrangles but the citizens group felt that there should be some recognition of it, hence the new $$.
 
It doesn't make sense that because the city neglected the trust, we should now conveniently forget about it. On the other hand, unless Union Station's revenues will actually be substantial enough for parks improvement beyond what the city does with its budget, then the trust may be antiquated. If revenues are substantial, then some study might be warranted to determine if the trust is still the most logical and desirable way to spend the money. It might be better to use the money to fund the highest quality public realm improvements in Union Station and around it because there are many elements that aren't exactly up to world standards in spite of it being a very prominent space. For instance, the Front Street makeover could use a roadway paved in granite rather than just concrete pavers, some sophisticated arrangement of granite setts in mosaics for the pedestrian realm, and monumental art in the new plaza to compliment the Beaux-Arts architecture of the station.
 
It doesn't make sense that because the city neglected the trust, we should now conveniently forget about it. On the other hand, unless Union Station's revenues will actually be substantial enough for parks improvement beyond what the city does with its budget, then the trust may be antiquated. If revenues are substantial, then some study might be warranted to determine if the trust is still the most logical and desirable way to spend the money. It might be better to use the money to fund the highest quality public realm improvements in Union Station and around it because there are many elements that aren't exactly up to world standards in spite of it being a very prominent space. For instance, the Front Street makeover could use a roadway paved in granite rather than just concrete pavers, some sophisticated arrangement of granite setts in mosaics for the pedestrian realm, and monumental art in the new plaza to compliment the Beaux-Arts architecture of the station.

That hideous statue in front of Union Station, needs to be removed. It's an embarrassment, especially in such an important location. Who even allowed it in the first place?
 
That hideous statue in front of Union Station, needs to be removed. It's an embarrassment, especially in such an important location. Who even allowed it in the first place?

From what I read in Warkentin's Creating Memory, art critics generally disliked the Monument to Multiculturalism, but people in general enjoy it, and it's one of the monuments you're most likely to hear named if you ask random people about specific public art in Toronto. A Spacing article about it didn't elicit negative opinions.
 

Back
Top