Filip
Senior Member
That's silly when you have decrepit parks. In that area too!
|
|
|
Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)
- Thread starter DSC
- Start date
TDotTeen
New Member
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.
I say go for it.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
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
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
pman
Senior Member
I'm confused. Tory proposed something that would actually be good for people who live downtown.
muller877
Senior Member
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.
Armour
Senior Member
That links with Fort York, no, but not Garrison Point?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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: