News   Jul 23, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars — All Aboard: How New Transit Will Change the GTA
 260     0 
News   Jul 23, 2024
10 Prince Arthur Tops Off in Yorkville
 355     1 
News   Jul 23, 2024
Trio of High-Rises Proposed at Highway 7 and Weston in Vaughan
 1.3K     3 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

Well, the title of the drawing is "Spadina Station Entrance on Front Street....,but I would guess it's a little west of Spadina, where the yard tracks abut Front St.... my inferene is three of the existing layover tracks north of the new RER station..... pretty much what the ML station analyses showed.

Although, in all seriousness, the only line I trust is the dotted line that shows where the old shoreline was. Until someone talks money, the rest is just filling the Albert Hall with holes.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Well, the title of the drawing is "Spadina Station Entrance on Front Street....,but I would guess it's a little west of Spadina, where the yard tracks abut Front St.... my inferene is three of the existing layover tracks north of the new RER station..... pretty much what the ML station analyses showed.

Although, in all seriousness, the only line I trust is the dotted line that shows where the old shoreline was. Until someone talks money, the rest is just filling the Albert Hall with holes.

- Paul
Click to expand...
I'd couldn't see the title for looking. But I had thought of the grade towards the west end of the yard. So all the more interesting that the high level platorm would be sited there. RER or UPX?

But the dotted line being the original shoreline is very interesting. That would indicate (as was probably the case with the fly-under ) that the soil fill there is amenable to being dug down. I didn't realize the fill had brought the corridor up so much from the original grade.
 
ADRM said:
No word on whether they also discussed money trees.
Click to expand...

"Mayor Tory presses province to pay for [whatever]..."

Date to be announced


Screen Shot 2017-07-20 at 7.13.26 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-07-20 at 7.13.26 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-07-20 at 7.13.26 PM.png
    359.3 KB · Views: 260
From Cressy's latest newsletter:

Rail Deck Park - Public Meetings in September
As our community grows, we must focus on building neighbourhoods and not just condo towers - that's why we've been working hard together to make critical and worthwhile investments in community facilities in Ward 20, and continuing efforts to secure much-needed parkland downtown.

Last August, Mayor Tory and I announced Rail Deck Park: a new 21-acre public park over the rail corridor. The size of 16 football fields, it will be a new and critical resource for our neighbourhoods, and a new central park for all of Toronto. City Council has already approved taking the first steps to move this bold and ambitious plan forward. Along with detailed implementation plans, cost estimates, and funding options, we have initiated an Official Plan Amendment process to formally review re-designating the space above the rail corridor as parkland.

After the plans for Rail Deck Park were announced, the City of Toronto received a private application to change the Official Plan to allow a large new development above the rail corridor, including a parking structure for 1,225 vehicles and 9 buildings up to 59 storeys tall.

To be very clear, I completely oppose any private development over the rail corridor because it would diminish the size and usefulness of Rail Deck Park. We have plenty of other sites downtown for more towers, but there are no other sites for a new 21-acre downtown park.

The Ontario Planning Act legally requires the City to review, hold public meetings, and make a decision on every private development application, no matter how obviously inappropriate it is, which is why a meeting is taking place on this application. And we also have to be prepared to defend that decision if it is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which has the power to overturn any of City Council's planning decisions.

These public meetings are a crucial opportunity to make sure your voice is heard in this process. Please attend and speak out in support of Rail Deck Park. We desperately need this major new park today and it will be a legacy we leave for future generations.

Rail Deck Park: City-initiated Official Plan Amendment

Date: Monday, September 25, 2017
Time: 6:00 pm
Location: City Hall – Council Chambers (100 Queen Street West)

Private Rail Corridor Development Application

Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Time: 7:00 pm
Location: Renaissance Hotel
Northern Lights Ballroom
(1 Blue Jays Way)
 
Joe Cressy is delusional. I fully support the private development. Either we get a smaller rail deck park, or none at all.
 
raptor said:
Joe Cressy is delusional. I fully support the private development. Either we get a smaller rail deck park, or none at all.
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with completely developing the section east of Spadina, but I'd like to see the section from Spadina to Bathurst be parkland, as much as possible.
 
lol...there's still the matter of ownership. I'm with the Supreme Court of Canada on this. I'll be at that meeting. So far, none of the legal honchos contacted can find anything in Law to upend the SCC's ruling that it (gist) "Belongs to the people of Canada". It would take an Amendment or a completely new Act of Parliament to overturn that. None has been found so far. They're still looking though.

And where, exactly, is the Title Deed that ORCA promised to produce by now? Even TTR and/or CN can't produce documents of title. The Esplanade and Tri-Partite Agreements stand.
 
If the City is going to allow private development over the rail corridor, the public space needs to be regulated more stringently than typical POPS in the city. It needs to be ensured that the private development is integrated seamlessly into the rest of Rail Deck Park with compelling design features, that the public has free and unimpeded access to the site, and that the property owners will adequately maintain the sites.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Can you elaborate on why not? Is this a matter of funding or ownership?
Click to expand...
I can't answer for Alvin, but even if it's made clear that the affected USRC is in 'public hands' (I think federal, but that has yet to be substantiated by a full title and legal search), there will have to be some private involvement to finance the project. It's implicit in that agreement/sale/participation that the City (within federal law, the Railway, Transportation, and other Acts pertain) that the City has oversight on how the project progresses and manifests. Upkeep, let alone building costs, will be massive.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that the land is privately owned, it really doesn't matter by whom..... whoever it is has the right to submit a development application. If they don't like the city's response, or if the city doesn't respond within the legislated time frame (reviews of major projects frequently require more time than the law allows) the proponent can take the matter to the OMB. Who, under existing law (I have lost track, but I'm pretty sure the Wynne amendments didn't get third reading yet?) are likely to see the matter much differently than Councillor Cressy.
I respect the pols' intent, but this is going to be a negotiated deal with some major development and some parkland. It will be worked out by planners and lawyers in a closed negotiation forum. The posturing is all theatrics for public consumption.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Assuming that the land is privately owned, it really doesn't matter by whom..... whoever it is has the right to submit a development application. If they don't like the city's response, or if the city doesn't respond within the legislated time frame (reviews of major projects frequently require more time than the law allows) the proponent can take the matter to the OMB. Who, under existing law (I have lost track, but I'm pretty sure the Wynne amendments didn't get third reading yet?) are likely to see the matter much differently than Councillor Cressy.
I respect the pols' intent, but this is going to be a negotiated deal with some major development and some parkland. It will be worked out by planners and lawyers in a closed negotiation forum. The posturing is all theatrics for public consumption.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Not quite, the legality of the ownership and transfer is rather opaque - and I suspect that's one reason the proponent is unwilling to go to the OMB or even the courts (like really, they should be eligible just about now) . If the city have done their homework, they probably would know this as well - the city won't be posturing the way it does now if they don't have a case.

AoD
 
Who exactly will be leading the development. As it stands it takes the city and parks department 5-10 years to plan and build out fairly small park projects with mixed results. Berzcy Park vs. June Callwood park. Now look at other projects such as a number of the the bridges built and currently planned, Fort York, City Place etc. They were complicated and took many many years.
Now lets look at Undergardiner, City did not have money or desire to develop this space so they semi privatized it with private funding and handed it to a Conservancy.
Now suddenly there is millions of dollars to be spent on consultants and countless staff hours dedicated to a massive project that is being take on by a city that has no expertise in delivering such a large scale development.
I say divert the money to improve existing facilities and build out other potential community projects in the area. At the end of the day, not one person in the new condo towers bought and moved in the area with the expectation that a billion dollar park would be built for them. They all knew that there is limited park space in the area and that did not deter them to invest and move to this part of the city. This scheme was cooked up by planners/consultants and politicians looking for a legacy project to work on . Just my opinion, but curious to know whether people actually believe that this is needed and if you believe the city is even capable of pulling this off.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top