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

Northern Light said:
I'm not thinking of a new land connection, I'm thinking of the one that already exists to the airport, but that you can't use to get to the parkland.
Click to expand...
Yup I assumed that's what you meant. But there are a lot of people who believe that the quality of the islands (including ecologically) would be degraded if we significantly increased access, and thus the amount of people frequenting on a regular basis. This is separate from the issue of "is the airport giving enough value and thus should be axed in favor of more parkland" but it's related to the notes above.

Anywho, I don't want to get too off topic. Just adding my voice that I don't think it's as simple as just getting ride of one for the other.
 
The proposed redevelopment includes 11 towers, ranging in height from 12-70-storeys, with a combined residential gross floor area of 366,026.69 square metres (5,754 units), and a non-residential gross floor area of 22,359 square metres comprised of retail, hotel and daycare uses. Approximately 377 residential units are intended as affordable units. A total of 1,430 parking spaces and 5,777 bicycle parking spaces are proposed throughout the development. The proposal also includes an on-site park measuring approximately 2.5 acres.
Click to expand...

ORCA1.jpg
ORCA2.jpg
Orca3.jpg
 
*Notes the massing on the East side of Spadina*

....are they really planning to build those huge towers right over the rail corridor? Seems some scary engineering prospects (and many sleepless nights) are afoot here...especially if they are only allow to build it when Go/Via are not operating during the given day, goodness.
 
the planning rationale has an another rendering showing the plan minus the City's park portion.

The developers are basically proposing to leave most of the rail corridor exposed now aside from a smallish park roughly where the Puente De Luz bridge is today. The city would then have the option to build the other two portions on either side of the Developer's portions when they wish.

All in all this is a massive improvement over the previous scheme if you ask me. Seems like a happy medium between delivering green space and housing.
 
Yeah that site plan basically says to the city here's the place for your rail deck park if you want to build it.

Obviously the city should negotiate the deck construction at minimum... and then Northern Light can lead a UT team to deliver the spectacular landscape plan (bring shovels, boots and proper saplings).

edited for clarification
 
Last edited:
ADRM said:
An improvement with the glaring exception being the range of affordability proposed -- 6% of units as affordable in a development of this scale is laughable in this climate.
Click to expand...
seems healthy for a private developer to be delivering in terms of below-market units. Every additional % of below-market housing you add is just going to add more costs to the remaining market units to cover.

Given the other city building objectives occurring on this site, it's a healthy amount. We are talking about over 5,000 units here after all, even at 7%, we are seeing nearly 400 affordable units at no cost to the city. That's huge. If the city wants to contribute $$$ to increase that %, fine, but for this site I'd probably rather see the money directed to completing the rail deck park.
 
a bit random, but why don't they build on the other side of the rail deck closer to city place where there are already tall buildings in place.
 
Mo York said:
a bit random, but why don't they build on the other side of the rail deck closer to city place where there are already tall buildings in place.
Click to expand...

There are multiple reasons, but a key one is that if you intend to create or facilitate a large park on a portion of these lands, and you put a row of new towers to the south of said park, you'll automatically flunk the shadowing test for public parks.

A secondary issue is that you would leave the existing south linear park in almost perpetual darkness and wind tunnel; and if that were avoided through a land swap, you'd still have separation distances to address.
 
Cardinalcomb said:
The City should purchase the air rights from the developer. It was offered to them a few years ago, it's not too late.
Click to expand...

Not to be a downer, but I don't think the City has the will nor the necessary funds to buy the air rights from the developers and also fund the rail deck park to their original vision.

The thing that irks me about this new proposal is that the city still needs to fund the rail deck park for the majority of the site. I say get the developer to pay for at least the decking and the city can take over to create the city park on top of it.
 
fanoftoronto said:
Not to be a downer, but I don't think the City has the will nor the necessary funds to buy the air rights from the developers and also fund the rail deck park to their original vision.

The thing that irks me about this new proposal is that the city still needs to fund the rail deck park for the majority of the site. I say get the developer to pay for at least the decking and the city can take over to create the city park on top of it.
Click to expand...
..if this is the case, all this will be end up being is just a row of fancy towers lined up on top of a faceless crash wall next to the rail corridor (least West of Spadina) if they leave it to The "We're out'ta cash!!" City to "fund" the deck portion otherwise. That's neither desirable or acceptable, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top