News   May 01, 2024
Four-Tower Complex North of Finch Station Grows in Resubmission
 742     0 
News   May 01, 2024
TMU Urban and Regional Planning Alumni Celebrate 25th Annual Spring Reception at Little Canada
 257     0 
News   May 01, 2024
Ballin' Out for Charity: Toronto's Real Estate Basketball Event Scores Big for Youth Empowerment
 333     0 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well, we know Mammo is going to fight this one (per the Sun - not going to link to that rag).

AoD
Click to expand...
I have not read the article, but let me guess - downtown vs suburbs. He knows we are almost at the half way point prior to the next municipal election
 
if this park goes ahead, what is to prevent developers from arguing against setting aside an appropriate level of public space in the development of the area north of Front? "We don't need to do this, you have the big railway park?"
I'm suspicious that this is Tory throwing a bone to the developers at the taxpayers' expense and to the detriment of building sufficient green space into this area.
If this goes ahead it should be cost neutral to the City and should be funded from the revenues from adjacent development.
It is a wonderful opportunity, but not at any cost. We have the one-stop to work out all our overspending urges on.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
if this park goes ahead, what is to prevent developers from arguing against setting aside an appropriate level of public space in the development of the area north of Front? "We don't need to do this, you have the big railway park?"
I'm suspicious that this is Tory throwing a bone to the developers at the taxpayers' expense and to the detriment of building sufficient green space into this area.
If this goes ahead it should be cost neutral to the City and should be funded from the revenues from adjacent development.
It is a wonderful opportunity, but not at any cost. We have the one-stop to work out all our overspending urges on.

- Paul
Click to expand...

In many cases there is nothing to be set aside - it's cash in-lieu anyways - and what contributions you have otherwise often amounts to this little strip that is meaningless (you know, those "parkettes" that we start seeing in proposals that are downright ridiculous).

AoD
 
p5connex said:
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but decking over of the Hudson Yards in New York City, at 11.5 hectares approximately, will/is to cost $700 million. However, I am not sure where that number stands today, since the information I have seen is from 2014.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hudson-yards-starts-next-phase-as-deck-begins
Click to expand...

The decking for the Hudson Yards includes supports for the buildings above it. This proposal will cost much less since the beams can be much smaller.
 
Euphoria said:
I love Trinity-Bellwoods, but my favourite park that I've seen in Canada is still Square Saint-Louis in Montreal.
Click to expand...
Montreal has many great modest but well-designed neighbourhood parks. It also has an existing linear park between its downtown and its tourist/recreation waterfront, built atop a covered highway. It's an uninviting area that you mostly rush past, used almost exclusively it seems by the local homeless. That wouldn't be the outcome I'd expect if this was built in Toronto, just because the scale of activity in Toronto is so much greater. But it is an example that exists at the opposite end of the spectrum from Millennium Park. Toronto does build some parks that become less used or used in different ways than designs full of render people usually promise.
 
crs1026 said:
if this park goes ahead, what is to prevent developers from arguing against setting aside an appropriate level of public space in the development of the area north of Front? "We don't need to do this, you have the big railway park?"
I'm suspicious that this is Tory throwing a bone to the developers at the taxpayers' expense and to the detriment of building sufficient green space into this area.
If this goes ahead it should be cost neutral to the City and should be funded from the revenues from adjacent development.
It is a wonderful opportunity, but not at any cost. We have the one-stop to work out all our overspending urges on.

- Paul
Click to expand...

If this does go ahead, I wouldn't mind whatever tiny green space that is planned you mentioned is canceled. We have enough of those half assed "parks" where a golden retriever can't even run. We should stop pretending those are functioning parks.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Sounds like empty promises. This ain't Chicago, where philanthropists and soft-hearted developers get behind something.
Click to expand...
I'm impressed someone came up with $25M for Bentway (Under Gardiner) -- that will still take a number of years to be built.

What if the same happens (at a slightly larger scale) for Toronto's raildeck park? I'm wondering if some creative funding arrangement is possible for the huge Toronto strata park -- obviously concessions needs to be made, but with the resurrected UPX bringing huge potential (convention centre, etc) to this part of downtown...

What if it could also tie in, too -- the Bentway combined with the deck park, would become our Toronto equivalent of NYC's High Line. Heck, one edge of the park could even be a High Line copycat with a railroad history feel, to respect historical railroad heritage; a good tie-in towards the Roundhouse.

Also, please, light up the glass atrium at Union. Maybe hourly color LED shows (not as disco as CN tower -- but gentle, tasteful and soothing pastel or mix of various classic incandescent hues -- more subdued). It could be a great visual attraction staring eastwards from anywhere in the park. The new Union glass atrium is hard to see from most of Toronto, but it would be super-visible from the park, so utilize that too.

Even a modified/enhanced Skywalk would actually become a destination along the edge of the park, as if the park is extended towards the convention centre, you'll easily access the deck park via the Skywalk.

Provisionally I think this is not something that will be done quickly, given GO's electrification, but as a 2025-2030 aim. And we also have to consider possible underground rail tunnels underneath the USRC underneath the park (part of the Metrolinx 2031 proposal from a few years back). It has to all be planned properly to be compatible with long-term GO RER goals as well as progression to high speed trains (whether 10-to-30 years from now).

Any comments/feedback from Metrolinx about this?
 
Last edited:
Palma said:
I have not read the article, but let me guess - downtown vs suburbs. He knows we are almost at the half way point prior to the next municipal election
Click to expand...
I didn't read it either (won't give the Sun the clicks), but what people making these kinds of complaints seem to forget is that developments downtown have paid for most of the parks reserve that has built up over the last 15 years. That combined with the lack of park space for the population downtown means that this is more than justified.
 
MisterF said:
I didn't read it either (won't give the Sun the clicks), but what people making these kinds of complaints seem to forget is that developments downtown have paid for most of the parks reserve that has built up over the last 15 years. That combined with the lack of park space for the population downtown means that this is more than justified.
Click to expand...

But that's rational. This is Mammo we're talking about here.
 
Personally I don't care for leaning on "philanthropy". First, it says we're not entitled to nice things unless Richie Rich writes a cheque. Second, we're supposed to feel grateful to Richie Rich who you can be damn sure is wringing tax and other benefits out of the deal. Third, sometimes Richie Rich doesn't actually turn over the full pledge, e.g. The Globe did an expose on ROM donors a while back.
 
Toronto needs a large and accessible park in the downtown for it's exploding population and a place for office workers to relax.

This is an excellent idea and doable. One thing is for certain thou, if this project goes ahead it must so soon. It has to incorporate the electrification of GO and the first section will be along this section for the UPX. If Queen's Park starts it's electrification process in 2022 for 2024 completion there is no way in hell they will allow Toronto to turn around ask for it to be ripped down for a cover and then put backup again.

This means the roof must begin construction BEFORE electrification does so it can be incorporated into the roof. That doesn't give the city a lot of time to have the section mostly completed. The situation is probably time pressured due to GO and ST wanting new stations near Spadina/Bathurst which means they too must be incorporated into the roof and again Queen's Park will not wait for Toronto to get it's act together.

Construction must be well underway within 2 years as QP wants those stations built. Oxford will also want the city to get it's ass in gear so they can coordinate the project. Toronto will have to start construction by 2018 to have the line finished in time to coordinate with the new GO/ST station and electrification or this will never get built.

This is truly a now or never project and it essentially has to be completed by 2023.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top