News   Nov 27, 2020
 453     0 
News   Nov 27, 2020
 331     0 
News   Nov 27, 2020
 747     0 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

TO Steve

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Rail Deck Park is appealing to me for a variety of reasons which have already been discussed on here. But I'm not in favour of the city building it. There's been lots of speculation on budget. There is no way of knowing what the cost would be, but I would guess that if you want something like Chicago's Millennium Park the cost would be closer to the higher numbers thrown about. I would think the lower numbers will get you something like what Coronation Park is today. While Rail Deck Park would bring in tourists, there are other options that don't involve buying air rights and building a very large deck over the railway lands. Why not something that would be more uniquely Toronto? Use the water. It's our best feature. I love the islands, but let's face it, they have become rather dated and in need of a lot of TLC. What would it cost to make Centre Island a 21st-century tourist attraction? With a little imagination, the islands, Tommy Thompson Park, the new Promontory Park, Ontario Place and Coronation Park could become integrated into a unique waterfront series of parks. Let the rail deck get built over time one CIBC Square at a time.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
28,756
Reaction score
17,768
Location
Toronto
Rail Deck Park is appealing to me for a variety of reasons which have already been discussed on here. But I'm not in favour of the city building it. There's been lots of speculation on budget. There is no way of knowing what the cost would be, but I would guess that if you want something like Chicago's Millennium Park the cost would be closer to the higher numbers thrown about. I would think the lower numbers will get you something like what Coronation Park is today. While Rail Deck Park would bring in tourists, there are other options that don't involve buying air rights and building a very large deck over the railway lands. Why not something that would be more uniquely Toronto? Use the water. It's our best feature. I love the islands, but let's face it, they have become rather dated and in need of a lot of TLC. What would it cost to make Centre Island a 21st-century tourist attraction? With a little imagination, the islands, Tommy Thompson Park, the new Promontory Park, Ontario Place and Coronation Park could become integrated into a unique waterfront series of parks. Let the rail deck get built over time one CIBC Square at a time.
Supporting improving the Islands and supporting this project isn't a mutually contradictory position - and Rail Deck park is a one in several lifetime city-building opportunity - especially if you consider the synergistic effect of having a park that will eventually start from Simcoe Street all the way to Fort York.

AoD
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,389
Reaction score
8,100
There is no "wrong" position on this. The city has pressing needs in multiple areas, and all are valid. This does not need to be binary.

The city should bank the land/air rights, so nothing else gets built instead. But the park may have to wait and be built incrementally over a fairly long time frame.

- Paul
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
28,756
Reaction score
17,768
Location
Toronto
There is no "wrong" position on this. The city has pressing needs in multiple areas, and all are valid. This does not need to be binary.

The city should bank the land/air rights, so nothing else gets built instead. But the park may have to wait and be built incrementally over a fairly long time frame.

- Paul
Agree - a phased approach for this is totally reasonable.

AoD
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
719
...or the City could work with the apparent owners of the "site," to maximize park space while reducing the burden on the City to pay for an expensive project it can't really afford on its own. It's just an idea!

1591377014135.png
 

karledice

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
401
Reaction score
321
If the air space has already been designated as park land, might as well expropriate it with fair market value
We all need another Millenium park here with vendor, restaurant and licensing revenue for the city and all the tourist attractions
Make it happen!
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
719
People keep saying "Millennium Park, Millennium Park!"
Has anyone actually been there? Or read about how it was built and paid for?

Because that is - don't get me wrong - a beautiful park. But it doesn't really serve the "local neighbourhood," which is the ostensible reason for Rail Deck Park, right?

Is this for tourists or for Torontonians? Yes, those things aren't mutually exclusive but while MP certainly serves local functions (hosting concerts at the amphitheater, for example), I'd argue it serves more of a tourist function than a local one. And if THAT is what we're trying to do here, it's a different argument about spending tax $. I've quoted this before but the City of Chicago could not have produced MP with City of Toronto finances. You don't have to dig too deep, just check Wikipedia:

Some observers consider Millennium Park the city's most important project since the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893.[3][4] It far exceeded its originally proposed budget of $150 million. The final cost of $475 million was borne by Chicago taxpayers and private donors. The city paid $270 million; private donors paid the rest,[5] and assumed roughly half of the financial responsibility for the cost overruns.[6] The construction delays and cost overruns were attributed to poor planning, many design changes, and cronyism. Many critics have praised the completed park.

So, to recap - this being the model that gets cited all the time:
-The estimated budget for MP was $150M and it cost about 2.5x that. The estimated budget for Rail Deck Park is about $1.7B, which is MORE THAN TEN TIMES the budget of MP. Probably, hopefully it won't end up costing $4B but it's a pretty safe bet it'll be something like $2.5B, at least.

-The City paid about 57% of the final budget. If we did something remotely similar, it would mean the City would be on the hook for about $1 billion -at a minimum - and the other $700M would come from... I dunno. The feds? Private philanthropists?

-And, also significantly, the MP budget did not include the land. As per this article, the rail company (which was not using it as an active rail corridor anymore, unlike RDP) thought they owned it, there was a court case, it turned out they didn't and they DONATED it to the City. In our case, the City still has to expropriate the land at "fair market value," which has yet to be determined.

-AND, finally, MP was supposed to open in 2000 and opened in 2004.


To sum up, despite having superficial similarities (it's downtown! it's a park! choo choo trains used to run underneath!), once you translate to the Toronto context, MP is actually a pretty scary model of how RDP might go.
 
Last edited:

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
6,735
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Is "Rail Deck Park" only a "working title" for the project, or the "official title"? If we need a "working title" that will be officially renamed later, how about "Rob Ford Memorial Park", but only until we OFFICIAL open it with it's "real official name".
 

karledice

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
401
Reaction score
321
I think it can serve both purposes, a park is good for locals, local visitors, and foreign visitors too.
Look at Trinity Bellwoods recently how packed it was cause locals utilize it.
That park is always packed and it's an example of a downtown park. Tourists would also go to the park cause it's so central, right by CN tower, and that cluster of tourist attraction etc.

I've been to MP a few times, they have restaurants there, then ice cream, hot dogs etc, near the Bean.
Tourists go to Chicago usually stop by the Bean for photos then they use the services around.
I think there's an adjacent museum or some sort of exhibition that is revenue generating too

So all of that the City can charge rent and then all the tax money being spent here can cover some of the cost.

No park, no attraction, no revenue.

Consider that as an investment like building the CN tower and charging tickets to go up to it, besides all of the "cool" and being positioned tourist attraction for people to visit Toronto. Let's have a Bean here that tourist flock to to take pics and promote our city's tourism
 
Last edited:

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
719
I think it can serve both purposes, a park is good for locals, local visitors, and foreign visitors too.
Look at Trinity Bellwoods recently how packed it was cause locals utilize it.
That park is always packed and it's an example of a downtown park. Tourists would also go to the park cause it's so central, right by CN tower, and that cluster of tourist attraction etc.

I've been to MP a few times, they have a restaurant there, then ice cream, hot dogs etc, near the Bean.
Tourists go to Chicago usually stops by the Bean for photos then they buy the services around.
I think there's an adjacent museum or some sort of exhibition that is revenue generating too

So all of that the City can charge rent and then all the tax money being spent here can cover some of that.

No park, no attraction, no revenue. Consider that as an investment like building the CN tower and charging tickets to go up to it, besides all of the "cool" and being positioned tourist attraction for people to visit Toronto. Let's have a Bean here that tourist flock to to take pics and promote our city's tourism
I loved my own visit to MP and all things being equal, I like the idea of RDP. I'm just trying to be practical. (The CN Tower is not a good example, since it's privately owned by CN who owned the land and built it for a practical purpose (ie an antenna!) and got an awful lot of gravy out of it with its iconic status and attractions.)

If we are making this huge an investment of public $ - likely $2B, if everything goes according to plan - we can't assume we're going to make money back on Instagram likes and a few restaurants. There needs to be a solid business case and to this point, I haven't seen the City present one: just nice renderings and a feel-good campaign about how badly this park is needed, even while someone else owns the land (apparently). And it is needed - it's a great idea. But how are we going to do it, and pay for it... and is it worth it? That's all I'm saying.
 

karledice

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
401
Reaction score
321
I loved my own visit to MP and all things being equal, I like the idea of RDP. I'm just trying to be practical. (The CN Tower is not a good example, since it's privately owned by CN who owned the land and built it for a practical purpose (ie an antenna!) and got an awful lot of gravy out of it with its iconic status and attractions.)

If we are making this huge an investment of public $ - likely $2B, if everything goes according to plan - we can't assume we're going to make money back on Instagram likes and a few restaurants. There needs to be a solid business case and to this point, I haven't seen the City present one: just nice renderings and a feel-good campaign about how badly this park is needed, even while someone else owns the land (apparently). And it is needed - it's a great idea. But how are we going to do it, and pay for it... and is it worth it? That's all I'm saying.
True I haven't seen that type of analysis yet. Some attractions present more intangible value than just the direct revenue. It puts a city in a symbol and goodwill status.
Parks can do that, on top of revenue generating components. Millenium Park is a resounding success, so is Central Park in NYC, Hyde Park in London, etc. iconic in alot of ways.
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
719
True I haven't seen that type of analysis yet. Some attractions present more intangible value than just the direct revenue. It puts a city in a symbol and goodwill status.
Parks can do that, on top of revenue generating components. Millenium Park is a resounding success, so is Central Park in NYC, Hyde Park in London, etc. iconic in alot of ways.
Broadly speaking I agree but it's really comparing apples and oranges. Central Park was specially set aside when Manhattan started growing and the parks in London are also basically crown-owned land that got preserved as the city grew. Alas, we don't have any lovely green spaces where King Henry VIII and his family liked to go fox hunting.

The rationale behind Raildeck Park (and Millennium Park) is that we didn't set aside enough land, which is why we need to reclaim the land now. I think, if/when it's built, it will definitely be a showpiece of some kind and because Toronto loves aping everything World Class Cities do, it will have bean-like public art. I've always been supportive of the general idea - it's a perfect thing to put there - I just continue to be very skeptical of the finances. And the Covid situation isn't exactly boosting the City's coffers. Now, maybe all this will make them thinking of redirecting the $1B for the Gardiner to the park - that'd be something! In the meantime, someone else owns the site and the City has no means to pay for/build it and I just feel like both sides are playing a bit of chicken.
 

Top