Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

[Euphoria]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

You forgot the Tory's and Ford's.

Torys are only moderately wealthy, the Fords not at all. We need the folks who are Texas Big Rich to pay for this.

 

[nrb]

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.

Line in the sand against development? How so? If anything, this will raise property values in the area and make it even more attractive to developers.

Capital costs aside, who's paying for the maintainance of this park? Considering the engineering of a park floating over a major rail corridor, maintainance costs are going to be very large. Of course, Tory will be long gone before then and this won't be his problem.

 

[Ottawan]

This will likely die a quick death in council.

I don't know about that. Whatever your thoughts on Tory, he has built an effective council coalition, and knows how to lead it. By throwing bones to suburban councillors in the form of odd studies of nonstarter subways, and more significantly through the whole Gardiner debate, he has the political capital to bring the majority of them to support this initiative.

I'm also not that worried about this being a tough sell in the suburbs. It is the sort of project that can be sold as "world-class" (whatever that means) which somehow appeals to suburbanites. Like a giant Ferris wheel in the portlands, except that this park would actually be useful.

 

[Filip]

I don't know about that. Whatever your thoughts on Tory, he has built an effective council coalition, and knows how to lead it. By throwing bones to suburban councillors in the form of odd studies of nonstarter subways, and more significantly through the whole Gardiner debate, he has the political capital to bring the majority of them to support this initiative.

I'm also not that worried about this being a tough sell in the suburbs. It is the sort of project that can be sold as "world-class" (whatever that means) which somehow appeals to suburbanites. Like a giant Ferris wheel in the portlands, except that this park would actually be useful.

You'll have every neighbourhood association from Alderwood to Agincourt protesting that the entire city's park fund is going to one park downtown. Parks are absolutely lightning rod issues for these associations. Don't underestimate how powerful and influential they are on local councillors.

This is a great idea! The city should pay its share but this'll need to be primarily funded from other levels of government or privately in order to be successful.

 

[Jonny5]

At this point it feels like less of a proposal and more of a dream. It will make a fine addition to the many others.

 

[W. K. Lis]

That links with Fort York, no, but not Garrison Point?

The Mouth of the Creek Park is on the east side of Bathurst Street, south of the railway tracks.

Rail Deck Park will be over the railway tracks going east from Bathurst Street. The two parks could become one.