News   Nov 07, 2024
Vineyard Getaway
 185     0 
News   Nov 06, 2024
Exterior Coming Together as 88 Queen Approaches Occupancy
 1.2K     1 
News   Nov 06, 2024
More Focus on Family-Sized Units for Proposal near St Clair Station
 1.6K     4 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

TossYourJacket said:
But sure, everyone downtown should be so thankful we get way less parkland than the suburbs because lol people in apartments are less valuable humans than homeowners.
Click to expand...

This is an absurd statement. Of course the downtown will always have less parkland than the suburbs. If it did, it wouldn't be the downtown of a city anymore.
So yes, they should be happy with what they chose to buy into. Just as those living in the suburbs should be fine with having less density of services because that's what they bought into.
 
crs1026 said:
Too many planning decisions in this city are delivered as political photo op packages tied to the political fortunes of one individual or regime. The planners get ignored and their output gets forgotten.

Toronto should have had a well-thought-out, disciplined long-term plan to create open space in the downtown. The core should never have been allowed to develop as it has.... so cavernous, and so little green space. The strategy of banking small amounts of money, but not actually committing any to meaningful amounts of land acquisition, has not served the city well....rather, it has allowed successive councils to avoid making decisions while maintaining that all is well.

The rail deck is a plan of last resort, using the only open space remaining, triggered by the realisation that it is the final opportunity....and at that, only because one politician saw it as an opportunity to advance their own brand.

I would rather see Toronto pay through the nose, and build it at fair market rates, than drop the idea and have a downtown that is that much less liveable. But it’s definitely a cost penalty being paid by the City for lack of having acted sooner. The LPAT ruling is quite reasonable as a reminder to Tory et al that there are no freebies out there.

- Paul
Click to expand...
You should read the Downtown Parks & Public Realm Plan, which includes Rail Deck Park, University Avenue, Yonge Street... among many other projects.
 
picard102 said:
This is an absurd statement. Of course the downtown will always have less parkland than the suburbs. If it did, it wouldn't be the downtown of a city anymore.
So yes, they should be happy with what they chose to buy into. Just as those living in the suburbs should be fine with having less density of services because that's what they bought into.
Click to expand...
Lol I completely agree with you. How can someone expect to have suburban life in the downtown of a city? literally contradict themselves saying that.
 
kthing said:
Lol I completely agree with you. How can someone expect to have suburban life in the downtown of a city? literally contradict themselves saying that.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing that the suburbs likely has more parks (though the quality of these parks can be debated).

It's entirely possible for a city to have more parks than the suburbs. The suburbs don't fill their vast land with parks, it's filled with asphalt, parking lots, strip malls, and single family homes. It's not like people look at Markham for world class examples of functional parks.
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
Maybe a land swap between the city and CRAFT maybe possible? In exchange for land in the Don Portlands, for example, where they can build their towers.
Click to expand...
I actually think that could solve this. The opportunity for waterfront development in the Portlands and along the Keating Channel is enormous. All great cities have great city parks. The idea of a wide linear park that could eventually run from west of Strachan to Corktown Common would approach the scale of London’s Regent Park. It’s not a Central Park or Mount Royal, but it could be as grand as or better than Millennium Park if built out to the greatest extent possible. This project should involve all three levels of government, a major philanthropy campaign, gallery and arts funding for outdoor installations, and POP funding from private developers. Toronto hasn’t taken any bold steps since SkyDome and the CN Tower before that. Pan Am Games really weren’t a big deal. We need something to stoke civic pride.
 
This is unfortunate but , although it may play well in the political sphere, the reality is that this is 100% the fault of the City. RDP was announced years ago but since that time the City has done squat so their promoted notion that they desperately needed the area for a park fell on deaf ears. If the City couldn't advance the project in the slightest in 5 years then there is no reason why LPAT would believe they are even remotely serious about it.

It also didn't help that the City has no real vision for what it wants to do with the corridor. If the City had a real long-term plan for the entire corridor from Bathurst to the DVP and this was just a section of a linear park and the City couldn't proceed with that small section until the entire corridor review was completely then the LPAT might have been more forgiving.
 
More info re this at Council in July. See: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.CC35.25 and https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-169143.pdf


CC35.25
ACTION​
​
​
Ward: 10​
Update Concerning Appeal of Tribunal Decision Regarding Application for Consent by Canadian National Railway and Toronto Terminals​

Others may understand this better but it appears that Metrolinx made an end run around the City and its appeals.

"On June 16, 2021, approximately one week before the hearing of the appeal, the City was advised that Metrolinx acquired the subject parcel from CN & TTR and completed the conveyance to CRAFT Kingsmen Rail Corp. ("CRAFT"). The City was provided the deed evidencing the transfer to CRAFT for consideration of $3,012,500 dated June 15, 2021. In the absence of the acquisition and conveyance by Metrolinx, CN and TTR required the Consent of the City to sever the parcel they intended to convey to CRAFT pursuant to section 53 of the Planning Act. CN and TTR had appealed to the Tribunal to obtain the required Consent as permitted by the Planning Act. As a provincial entity, Metrolinx is exempt from the requirement to obtain Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act and accordingly, Metrolinx was able to convey all of the parcel at issue in the City's appeal to CRAFT without the need to fulfill any of the conditions to the Consent, including the conveyance of the required public safety and maintenance easements at the Spadina Avenue and Blue Jays Way bridges over the rail corridor. The City Solicitor has received correspondence from CRAFT indicating that as part of the conveyance from Metrolinx, CRAFT undertook to grant certain easements with respect to the Spadina and Blue Jays Way bridges, including the required public safety and maintenance easements at issue in the City's Appeal; however, CRAFT's undertaking to do so was on the same terms granted by the Tribunal's Decision which the City has appealed. On June 21, 2021 the hearing of the appeal before the Divisional Court was adjourned to allow time for the review of this new information."
 
DSC said:
More info re this at Council in July. See: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.CC35.25 and https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-169143.pdf


CC35.25
ACTION​
​
​
Ward: 10​
Update Concerning Appeal of Tribunal Decision Regarding Application for Consent by Canadian National Railway and Toronto Terminals​

Others may understand this better but it appears that Metrolinx made an end run around the City and its appeals.

"On June 16, 2021, approximately one week before the hearing of the appeal, the City was advised that Metrolinx acquired the subject parcel from CN & TTR and completed the conveyance to CRAFT Kingsmen Rail Corp. ("CRAFT"). The City was provided the deed evidencing the transfer to CRAFT for consideration of $3,012,500 dated June 15, 2021. In the absence of the acquisition and conveyance by Metrolinx, CN and TTR required the Consent of the City to sever the parcel they intended to convey to CRAFT pursuant to section 53 of the Planning Act. CN and TTR had appealed to the Tribunal to obtain the required Consent as permitted by the Planning Act. As a provincial entity, Metrolinx is exempt from the requirement to obtain Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act and accordingly, Metrolinx was able to convey all of the parcel at issue in the City's appeal to CRAFT without the need to fulfill any of the conditions to the Consent, including the conveyance of the required public safety and maintenance easements at the Spadina Avenue and Blue Jays Way bridges over the rail corridor. The City Solicitor has received correspondence from CRAFT indicating that as part of the conveyance from Metrolinx, CRAFT undertook to grant certain easements with respect to the Spadina and Blue Jays Way bridges, including the required public safety and maintenance easements at issue in the City's Appeal; however, CRAFT's undertaking to do so was on the same terms granted by the Tribunal's Decision which the City has appealed. On June 21, 2021 the hearing of the appeal before the Divisional Court was adjourned to allow time for the review of this new information."
Click to expand...

Very odd.........Mx has nothing obvious to gain from this transaction, so far as I am aware.

That is very curious.
 
Yeah... it kind of sounds like the City thought they had an angle regarding the air rights but Metrolinx used their powers to give CRAFT what they needed and so now the City's lawyers are going, "Erm, yeah, well...nevermind, then."

What a mess this continues to be.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top