Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

[BurlOak]

Does this count as Rail Deck Park II.?

City looking to create new greenspace over midtown subway

I thought the key to these types of parks is to allow some development to create money to pay for the project. I don't think that could happen up near Eglinton. Maybe closer to Rosedale they could develop some parkland (i.e. Budd Sugarman Park) in exchange for creating parkland over top of the subway.

 

[Northern Light]

Does this count as Rail Deck Park II.?

City looking to create new greenspace over midtown subway

I thought the key to these types of parks is to allow some development to create money to pay for the project. I don't think that could happen up near Eglinton. Maybe closer to Rosedale they could develop some parkland (i.e. Budd Sugarman Park) in exchange for creating parkland over top of the subway.

This is quite simple and straight-forward compared with Rail Deck Park.

Your only covering 2-3 tracks, and there's ample room on both sides of the ROW for structural supports.

The TTC previously decked over the open cut between St. Clair and Summerhill, the above today is mostly green space or parking though there is one tower as well.

Given that midtown is short of greenspace, and the premium for land in the area, the decking idea makes sense here.

The TTC is supportive as this allows removal of the trees on the embankment that sometimes fall or shed a branch across the tracks; it also reduces issues w/trespassers.

The cost can be at least partially financed out of section 37 and 43 dollars for the area.


****

There is zero chance of Budd Sugarman Park being developed in the near or medium term.

Even the small greenspace directly adjacent to Rosedale Station would meet w/heavy objections from some very influential folks.

The economics for developing directly over Rosedale Stn may be there, but given folks in the area, I'd wager a height limit that would make that uneconomic, probably 4-5 floors; where 8 or 9 would be needed.

 

[BurlOak]

The TTC is supportive as this allows removal of the trees on the embankment that sometimes fall or shed a branch across the tracks; it also reduces issues w/trespassers.

The cost can be at least partially financed out of section 37 and 43 dollars for the area.

My quick estimate would be about $100M to cover from Eglinton to Davisville

There is zero chance of Budd Sugarman Park being developed in the near or medium term.

Even the small greenspace directly adjacent to Rosedale Station would meet w/heavy objections from some very influential folks.

The economics for developing directly over Rosedale Stn may be there, but given folks in the area, I'd wager a height limit that would make that uneconomic, probably 4-5 floors; where 8 or 9 would be needed.

If we assume this portion would cost a similar $100M, how could that be paid for. There seem to be 15 to 20 story buildings a stone throw away. I somehow would prefer not building directly over the tracks - it seems if that's the area that's left as parkland, we keep some options open. The linear park would add about 1ha. of green space. I would expect that maybe a portion of this amount could be removed from existing parkland and converted to development to pay for it.
How much could a 30m x 30m parcel, 15 stories high fetch?

 

[steveintoronto]

I somehow would prefer not building directly over the tracks - it seems if that's the area that's left as parkland, we keep some options open.

Good post response, but neither agreeing or disagreeing on this, as you might have a good reason engineering aside, by why "I somehow would prefer not building directly over the tracks"? Do you mean to cover/not cover apart from building/not building? If I read the situation as I understand, I'd say build over the tracks, and take the green space from elsewhere.

The height, as @Northern Light points out, and you allude to is an issue in terms of 'making it pay' as per return on investment. A land swap might be much more doable, or perhaps a bit of both: Building allowed over the tracks for an offset of open public park space on deck adjacent. This would be revenue neutral for the City as per providing park space where it would otherwise be financially prohibitive, and the builder, even though height would be restricted, would have the support of the locals in terms of rendering more green space, and the sellability of the building would be much higher too offsetting the costs of reduced height.

 

[BurlOak]

Good post response, but neither agreeing or disagreeing on this, as you might have a good reason engineering aside, by why "I somehow would prefer not building directly over the tracks"? Do you mean to cover/not cover apart from building/not building? If I read the situation as I understand, I'd say build over the tracks, and take the green space from elsewhere.

I meant don't built a building over tracks. Who knows what might come up, structural concerns (i.e. settlement of a building over the tracks) or desire to widen tunnel (i.e. adding a pocket track or passing track or creating a wye for a potential perpendicular subway). They would all be very difficult with a building over the tracks. But a park can easily be closed, with the tunnel opened up and track level worked on. This is not a planned maintenance activity, just keeping some options open for "what if" scenarios.

 

[dowlingm]

Does this count as Rail Deck Park II.?

City looking to create new greenspace over midtown subway

I thought the key to these types of parks is to allow some development to create money to pay for the project. I don't think that could happen up near Eglinton. Maybe closer to Rosedale they could develop some parkland (i.e. Budd Sugarman Park) in exchange for creating parkland over top of the subway.

The main difference between Yonge-Eglinton and Rail Deck is 1. the rail underneath is already electric so ventilation demands are lower and 2. the City owns the land and thus the air rights, and doesn't have to hand over millions to CN/TTR for them.

 

[dowlingm]

I meant don't built a building over tracks. Who knows what might come up, structural concerns (i.e. settlement of a building over the tracks) or desire to widen tunnel (i.e. adding a pocket track or passing track or creating a wye for a potential perpendicular subway). They would all be very difficult with a building over the tracks. But a park can easily be closed, with the tunnel opened up and track level worked on. This is not a planned maintenance activity, just keeping some options open for "what if" scenarios.

Metrolinx are already building over the tracks at Eglinton Portal for their ventilation plant, aren't they?

 

[steveintoronto]

They would all be very difficult with a building over the tracks. But a park can easily be closed, with the tunnel opened up and track level worked on.

I would agree with this in principle, albeit the swath left covered would wide enough to allow adding extra tracks in the future, but Dowling exactly makes the point I was going to, the horse has already bolted on that, both to the north and south:

Metrolinx are already building over the tracks at Eglinton Portal for their ventilation plant, aren't they?

What I think would/should be a requisite is unfettered pedestrian/cycling on that covered section, or failing that in spots, through passage beside it. That could even go through buildings on the route if need be at ground level, not only to retain a green ribbon, but also that would allow those buildings to have more public access business frontage within that through passage, a la a mall, a win/win/win for everyone.

 

[steveintoronto]

The main difference between Yonge-Eglinton and Rail Deck is 1. the rail underneath is already electric so ventilation demands are lower and 2. the City owns the land and thus the air rights, and doesn't have to hand over millions to CN/TTR for them.

OMG, the awful truth just hit me again...it (upload) would be a gift to Queen's Park. If it comes to planning, for all its faults, I'd much rather it be the City than the present collection of fools, farts and worse at QP.

On this point, however, the USRC, by statute defined as the "Esplanade Corridor" (detailed with reference and extensive quoting in the Rail Deck string) was granted to the *City* and not the Province by the Parliament of Canada, alterable only by Parliament *For the General Advantage of Canada*!

I'll find the legal reference and post it later.

The SCC and the Parliament of Canada:

Supreme Court of Canada

Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto, (1910) 42 S.C.R. 613

Date: 1910-02-15

The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company Appellants;

and

The City of Toronto Respondent.

(Toronto Viaduct Case.)

1909: November 29, 30; 1910: February 15.
[...]

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9855/index.do

The full original SCC ruling is linked prior in this string along with other pertinent statutes and acts, including the Tripartite and Esplanade Agreements and subsequent SCC rulings which not only quoted them, but examined them.

Clarification: Ontario jurisdictions and courts can only interpret what the SCC has previously ruled.

See:
A Short Treatise on Canadian Constitutional Law

https://books.google.ca/books?id=pYc43S0cjFIC&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=Grand+Trunk+Railway+Co.+v.+City+of+Toronto+parliament+of+canada+good&source=bl&ots=wIMad3Ycg6&sig=eMhe6XMVh3AenHWGbGqsNYHoYWk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjctayjjOHWAhVi4oMKHTUwBIoQ6AEIPzAE#v=onepage&q=Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto parliament of canada good&f=false

And: Esplanade Agreement

https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=tripartite+esplanade+agreement&source=bl&ots=1qbQAg7IRO&sig=xrCm86LZdztd3X932QRoPf0Omgo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcjvuJ_LbUAhUm9YMKHWMrBS8Q6AEIQjAE#v=onepage&q=tripartite esplanade agreement&f=false

[...]
The Dominion statute could not give capacity to the City of Toronto. This was done by the Ontario statute. The Dominion statute was necessary to make the scheme agreed topermanent and final until otherwise provided for by Parliament.

Section 1 enacts that

all works done or to be done in order to give effect to the agreement hereinafter mentioned, as well as those affected by it, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

They cannot, therefore, be considered as private works of railway companies. They are to all intents and purposes federal works remaining under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament, under section 92, par. 10, of the British North America Act.
[...]

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/9855/1/document.do

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-deck-development-m-s-sweeny-co.27279/page-18

 

[Toronto1834]

See tweet and comments about LPAT hearing

https://twitter.com/x/status/1133022719237402624

 

[steveintoronto]

"The tribunal has asked all of the witnesses if the “2018 Metrolinx regional transportation plan” is in force and effect. No one knows. "

This may just be a procedural hiccup...it may be something far more ominous...as stated, that beggars belief.

 

[nfitz]

This may just be a procedural hiccup...it may be something far more ominous...as stated, that beggars belief.

Looks they answered the question later on during the session - though the city seems to want to argue it isn't in effect - which will surely fail; the board will never throw out provincial policy in a ruling contradicting a previous ruling ... though if the city objects, it keeps their right to raise it in an appeal to the court.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1133063954593402880

 

[steveintoronto]

the board will never throw out provincial policy in a ruling contradicting a previous ruling

If this is as it appears, in terms of *standing law* (or not) this might end-up being petitioned to the Ont Court of Appeal. Without delving into the Act, I presume that is the legal appeal process as per https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/45696

Further to the above:

The 2041 RTP is not a Metrolinx plan, but a plan built from input from all of our partners and stakeholders in the GTHA who share responsibility for the region’s success. The companion report, Making it Happen, begins the conversation about how we achieve the strategies and projects in the 2041 RTP. You can read both reports and find more information at Metrolinx.com/theplan or by e-mailing theplan@Metrolinx.com

https://www.metrolinxengage.com/en/content/ask-metrolinx-february-26-2018

This appears to be on slippery legal ground...

Further to the Twitter posted above:

 

[nfitz]

If this is as it appears, in terms of *standing law* (or not) this might end-up being petitioned to the Ont Court of Appeal.

Pretty much ... whole think would likely be moot by then, for one reason or another.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Does this count as Rail Deck Park II.?

City looking to create new greenspace over midtown subway

I thought the key to these types of parks is to allow some development to create money to pay for the project. I don't think that could happen up near Eglinton. Maybe closer to Rosedale they could develop some parkland (i.e. Budd Sugarman Park) in exchange for creating parkland over top of the subway.

This is quite simple and straight-forward compared with Rail Deck Park.

Your only covering 2-3 tracks, and there's ample room on both sides of the ROW for structural supports.

The TTC previously decked over the open cut between St. Clair and Summerhill, the above today is mostly green space or parking though there is one tower as well.

The main difference between Yonge-Eglinton and Rail Deck is 1. the rail underneath is already electric so ventilation demands are lower and 2. the City owns the land and thus the air rights, and doesn't have to hand over millions to CN/TTR for them.

Agreed with all the points at least north of Imperial Street. It's just sad that this won't be considered in conjunction with upzoning the adjacent lands.

Between Imperial and Chaplin (aka Davisville east of Yonge), it gets a little more complicated because the right-of way widens, and you have the subway platform and the Davisville Carhouse buildings present.