Toronto Rail Deck District | 227.23m | 70s | Craft Dev Corp | Sweeny &Co

[ADRM]

That would have to be the case here.

sounds excellent.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't mind condos sharing the available space but no one will use a park that is effectively hidden from view at the top of a two story parking garage. And what about accessibility? They've built condos without parking before. That would have to be the case here.

Taking the proposal as is, there is an office tower that will need some parking.

AoD

 

[jje1000]

Taking the proposal as is, there is an office tower that will need some parking.

AoD

I think that could be accommodated via elevating part of the site, or stacking the parking decks in a podium.

 

[neuhaus]

I like to see more porosity between Front Street and the park.
Having a line of towers on a wall of podium seems like it's adding another barrier (visually and foot traffic-wise), just like the tracks and the Gardiner.
It will be interesting the logistics of building massive towers that half straddle over the train tracks. I don't think it's realistic to have no parking for this massive development. Some is needed for commercial/retail and family-friendly units that may need a vehicle.
It's an interesting proposal, especially with the mix of affordable and family-sized units which the city desperately needs.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think that could be accommodated via elevating part of the site, or stacking the parking decks in a podium.

It could, but the whole project requires a broad rethink in any case IMO.

AoD

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

And what about accessibility?

Thank you for shining light on this.

 

[ponyboy]

took a few photos of the corridor today (below). As far as building over the tracks, would they be able to put concrete pillars between the existing tracks of the Bathurst yard, or need to bridge 4-6 tracks? It looks tight. Also if they can use fuel cell locomotives, will this reduce the needed space above the tracks, making it easier to lower the park development? I know people were upset when they learned that the yellow ped bridge had to be so high, but I don't know if it was because of signal visibility or future RER needs.

 

[jje1000]

It could, but the whole project requires a broad rethink in any case IMO.

AoD

Definitely so- the current complaints about the waterfront is that it's cut off by a row of condos.

In this case, it looks like we would be repeating the same mistake.

 

[ADRM]

took a few photos of the corridor today (below). As far as building over the tracks, would they be able to put concrete pillars between the existing tracks of the Bathurst yard, or need to bridge 4-6 tracks? It looks tight. Also if they can use fuel cell locomotives, will this reduce the needed space above the tracks, making it easier to lower the park development? I know people were upset when they learned that the yellow ped bridge had to be so high, but I don't know if it was because of signal visibility or future RER needs.

View attachment 112041 View attachment 112042 View attachment 112043 View attachment 112044 View attachment 112045 View attachment 112046 View attachment 112047 View attachment 112048 View attachment 112049 View attachment 112050 View attachment 112051

Great pics -- and if you think that's tight, check out the rail yards that phase 2 of the Hudson Yards redevelopment will be decking over:

source

...and a vaguely helpful infographic:

source

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Definitely so- the current complaints about the waterfront is that it's cut off by a row of condos.

In this case, it looks like we would be repeating the same mistake.

Though to be fair, this is some distance away from the waterfront, that there are already two rows of condos behind and the rail corridor isn't exactly all that benign. The issue is more how the proposal envisions that space, and how it does, or doesn't knit the urban fabric together.

AoD

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Also if they can use fuel cell locomotives, will this reduce the needed space above the tracks, making it easier to lower the park development? I know people were upset when they learned that the yellow ped bridge had to be so high, but I don't know if it was because of signal visibility or future RER needs

The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way Association (AREMA) recommended clearance is about 7 metres, however, this does not accommodate the clearance required for CN/CP double-stacked freight. This pushes the minimum envelope to 8.something (my memory is failing me this morning). Even on Metrolinx-owned ROWs, this is applied. It makes sense for where local limited freight service is offered, but beyond that I didn't understand why. Perhaps it was a condition of sale.

That's why the Puente de Luz is so high. I can also tell you that there are a number of bridges that do not meet this height, and may require reconstruction for electrification. Details will likely emerge with the electrification TPAP.

 

[jje1000]

I do hope the city isn't considering the ORCA project as-is. We'd be getting a pittance of parkland in exchange for another wall of condominiums.

 

[raptor]

I do hope the city isn't considering the ORCA project as-is. We'd be getting a pittance of parkland in exchange for another wall of condominiums.

As opposed to? nothing?

 

[innsertnamehere]

ORCA is DOA. City is pursuing the full park through a traditional public funding model. They have a ton of money from cash in lieu parkland payments from all the development over the last 15 years sitting in an account and waiting to be spent, and the rail deck park is a place to spend it.

 

[Automation Gallery]

ORCA is DOA. City is pursuing the full park through a traditional public funding model. They have a ton of money from cash in lieu parkland payments from all the development over the last 15 years sitting in an account and waiting to be spent, and the rail deck park is a place to spend it.

What, all of a sudden they will find a couple billion dollars out of a hat? in lieu of parkland payment from section 37...dream on