News   Jan 22, 2021
 1.8K     2 
News   Jan 22, 2021
 757     0 
News   Jan 22, 2021
 1.3K     3 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

TDotTeen

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
90
Reaction score
64
To those who say this is a waste of money: I couldn't disagree more. It's true that there are other ways to spend our money, and many of them are incredibly important. However, there will always be other things that require fixing, or upgrading, etc., etc.. Now is as good a time as ever to allocate some of the City's parks money towards a grand gesture downtown. In fact, we really need to get moving; great opportunities like this won't always be feasible.

I say go for it.
 
Last edited:

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
18,390
Reaction score
7,187
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
It's a waste of money. We have too many important infrastructure projects that are unfunded.

So parks are a "waste of money"? You'll rather bulldoze all parks and sell them to developers? You'll rather them pave paradise and put up a parking lot?

No thanks. We need more parks and less parking lots.
 

Armour

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
1,718
Reaction score
368
It would be a good idea to tie this into the proposed park that is part of the Garrison Point condo development.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
18,390
Reaction score
7,187
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
It would be a good idea to tie this into the proposed park that is part of the Garrison Point condo development.

See
Mouth of the Creek Park
thread at this link.

 

pman

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,147
I'm confused. Tory proposed something that would actually be good for people who live downtown.
 

muller877

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Messages
1,689
Reaction score
760
Can't find out just who is paying for it, but there is this ...

A few questions I had:
- the presentation and media boards look like they were slapped together (plus no dedicated website). Is this due to another announcement soon? Why so quick? (maybe an Oxford property announcement for the convention centre or a Metrolinx announcement for the new station or Tory's friends are having trouble selling condo's in the Globe and Mail lands)
- I don't know air rights rules but if the park is under 27 feet do we have to buy them from CN? Cost?
- If they try to solicit donations will the city accept naming rights? (almost everything in Millennium Park has a sponsor...McDonalds bike park in Toronto?)
- are they just going for grass or adding destination activities (i.e. grandstand, etc). Will impact the cost. Millennium Park without all the buildings would have been built for about $200M....more than double that for all the other things.

- How does this impact the Bathurst St bridge reconstruction? Can transform the rebuild by adding LRT and bike lanes.
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,730
Reaction score
1,324
Location
Burlington
A few thoughts:

1) Fantastic.

2) I thought of the Oxford proposal when I saw this too. In fact, the backgrounder that was posted a few pages ago lists the study area as "from Bathurst to Blue Jays Way" and "from Blue Jays Way to York", the latter of which clearly includes the Oxford proposal lands. There may be more to come.

3) As for "decking the whole shabang", that would be significantly more difficult in the east, as it's on an elevated berm. This section is in a defacto trench, as development has been elevated on either side of it. The east side is unlikely to happen.
 

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
3,704
Reaction score
1,528
That's silly when you have decrepit parks. In that area too!
That is the legal basis for which the City can demand these funds from developers. If the City tried to use it for other purposes, the developers would march to the OMB looking for it back.
 

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
870
Location
Београд
That is the legal basis for which the City can demand these funds from developers. If the City tried to use it for other purposes, the developers would march to the OMB looking for it back.
I don't have a problem with the mechanism. It's a great idea. But there are numerous areas in this city screaming for additional parks (some with very high development pressures and growth) and spending the whole budget on a single strip of grass downtown is a bit insulting.

This will likely die a quick death in council.
 

Euphoria

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 7, 2015
Messages
513
Reaction score
130
Exciting time in the city's history for sure. This park will be looked back on as a line in the sand against unfettered condo development. Between this and the Port Lands naturalization of the Don, the city may finally get its due public parks. Add the DRL, ST/GO RER, and removal or trenching of the eastern Gardiner and we'll have better movement and more attractive streets to go with these added public spaces.
 

DonValleyRainbow

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,893
Location
Kay Gardner Beltline Trail
Plus some sources of funding (e.g. the park reserve) can only be used on exactly this type of thing...

AoD

The development money for parks is split into separate funds for each ward. Ward 20 (Trinity-Spadina) and wards 27 and 28 (Toronto Centre-Rosedale) collected $213 million in cash from developers for parks between 2000 and 2014. If we're ballparking this thing to cost $700 million conservatively, that falls well short, and it is assuming money from Toronto Centre-Rosedale can be pooled in.

Source.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
1,798
Location
Ward 28
One thing I'm wondering is how far can s.37 funds be spread beyond a development. If we were to get the DRL west of University (as it should be in Phase I), and added density for any future developments along the University-Bathurst portion of the DRL corridor is obtained using s.37, perhaps the funds can be directed towards this park?

Pooled s.37 within a 500m radius might only put a dent in the overall cost, which leads me to believe the possibility of a bait and switch of sorts. Not sure yet where the proposal stems from, but perhaps others are correct in bringing up the Oxford proposal. Let's say those in the know will present a large park *knowing* that it will cost too much to be feasible. Once the public learns of its cost and it's quickly deemed unfeasible, then soon after maybe we'll be presented with a revamped proposal that will drastically lower the cost. The catch? Half the site will be a development (casino?), and the other half will be a park.
 

Euphoria

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 7, 2015
Messages
513
Reaction score
130
Even a casino on the elevated tracks east of Blue Jay Way would be better than what we have now, and it would make this area more of a destination. I don't think we'll get a casino, nor is one needed to generate profit from developing this site. Won't the park will be to the west of that site? I'm glad that this park still leaves room for an intermodal station and a Front St. Extension, which will be needed if we ever decide to remove or bury the Gardiner. We also still get the new street in Liberty Village and the park that will connect with the Under Gardiner park and Fort York bridge.
 
Last edited:

Top