49 Judson | 13.4m | 4s | Dunpar Homes | OP Design

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,639
Reaction score
11,637
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
This project is west of the cement plant at Royal York and beside Metrolinx/GO Transit Willowbrook yard.

I have always wonder why Metrolinx hasn't bought out the cement plant and these buildings, as it would help them for getting trains in/out of the yard a lot better.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-90450.pdf

Photos to follow
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,639
Reaction score
11,637
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
June 13
27095082744_4656fdb680_h.jpg

27095086964_189c1ba733_h.jpg

27632657231_628f7d63c6_h.jpg

27632665561_7f358fa232_h.jpg

27673278516_76e7f24284_h.jpg

27632671591_f71c8cefc3_h.jpg
 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
4,220
Location
Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
This is the development that Justin Di Ciano was pushing for, even though his brother was employed at Dunpar and the development was outside his own ward.

Di Ciano didn't vote with council in favour of this development but the local councillor, Mark Grimes, pushed it, and Tory and his allies approved it.

City Council's rot starts in Etobicoke.
 

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
871
Location
Београд
This is the development that Justin Di Ciano was pushing for, even though his brother was employed at Dunpar and the development was outside his own ward.

Di Ciano didn't vote with council in favour of this development but the local councillor, Mark Grimes, pushed it, and Tory and his allies approved it.

City Council's rot starts in Etobicoke.
I can't speak much for DiCiano yet although he's turning out to be shady af. Grimes on the other hand? I'm pretty sure there's evidence floating around to charge him of something. It's like he works for the developers. How is that allowed?
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
7,029
Reaction score
9,871
This project is west of the cement plant at Royal York and beside Metrolinx/GO Transit Willowbrook yard.

I have always wonder why Metrolinx hasn't bought out the cement plant and these buildings, as it would help them for getting trains in/out of the yard a lot better.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-90450.pdf

Crossposting for those who don't read the GO threads in Infrastructure -

One of the key flaws in this report IMHO is the statement that guidelines provide for a 30 meter setback for residential property from a rail corridor.
The same guidelines provide for a much larger setback from a rail yard.

The planners were apparently bamboozled by the argument that the GO property is a rail "corridor" and not a "yard". It's true that there is a "corridor" - ie a mainline - on the south side of the Willobrook Yard, but the "yard" is what adjoins the property.

This isn't just semantics - GO's use of the "yard" trackage is much more intensive and much noisier than the use of the "corridor", more bells, more throttling, more shunting, and locomotive maintenance. The guidelines for setback from a "yard" are more relevant yet they were not applied.

- Paul
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,338
This is the development that Justin Di Ciano was pushing for, even though his brother was employed at Dunpar and the development was outside his own ward.

Di Ciano didn't vote with council in favour of this development but the local councillor, Mark Grimes, pushed it, and Tory and his allies approved it.

City Council's rot starts in Etobicoke.
Ouch! There's certainly something very odd about all of this...
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
24,536
Reaction score
23,834
Location
by the Humber
Di Ciano's twin brother was previously employed by Dunpar, a distinction not made above. Apparently he received a slap on the wrist from the City, and was warned to be more cautious with dealing in gray areas in the future. That said, here's hoping Metrolinx makes short work of this ridiculous land use conversion.

42
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,338
Di Ciano's twin brother was previously employed by Dunpar, a distinction not made above. Apparently he received a slap on the wrist from the City, and was warned to be more cautious with dealing in gray areas in the future. That said, here's hoping Metrolinx makes short work of this ridiculous land use conversion.

42
Yes, been following this closely, did some extensive posting at http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...-metrolinx-various.9023/page-191#post-1133789 and that's a puzzle, but there's more going on methinks. The 'vested interest' aspect would seem to go deeper than just a family tie, or at least that one.

I'll get back to this string with some more of the political angle, there's some real issues going on behind the scenes that I touched on in the string mentioned, but would like to get some more facts referenced before expressing my opinion any further. Doubtless, something's not right.

On an up note, here's an alternative that *may* satisfy all concerned, albeit it would take further implementation of zoning categories, and the Mixed category has been mentioned in the press and reports, but not the powerful new CRE category:
http://www.toronto.ca/zoning/bylaw_amendments/ZBL_NewProvision_Chapter50_10.htm

But rather than get bogged down on detail with that (NYC has a whole chapter devoted to it in this report: http://council.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYEO.pdf now being pioneered in Canada by Vancouver, can add much more detail later), I had posted the following in the aforementioned string, but the attachment pics are dead-linked. I'm still unsure of this forum's software tags, so perhaps you could assist in reformatting the necessary tags to get them to display when clicked?

This is what *could/should* be discussed, at least in part, for the Mimico Yards:
How NYC's Newest Neighborhood Will Float Above an Active Train Yard

Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan

3/19/14 7:10am
Filed to: cities
19315
rzr2yjtzjksn1elqakhu.png

In Manhattan this spring, crews are ramping up work on Hudson Yards, the largest private development in US history. But what's fascinating about this new mega-development aren't just its buildings. It's the fact that they will float above an existing train depot on a massive artificial foundation. We got an early look at how it's being built.


First, a little back story. West Side Yard, a sunken rail yard wedged above the High Line and two blocks away from Penn Station, is a critical nerve center in NYC's transit system: A 26-acre depot that serves overflow Long Island Railroad trains during rush hour, with 30 tracks and space for storage and maintenance, too. It's so important that it's been spared from the rush to redevelop the West Side in the wake of the High Line—though that's not to say its creators didn't foresee it.


View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
When the rail yard opened in the 1980s, its engineers were already imagining the day when a hungry developer would pave over it. So they left a small gap that runs around the edges of the yard—just enough space for structural members to be laid down without interrupting traffic. Think of it as an insurance plan for future city-builders.

Now, those builders have arrived—and they're building something far bigger than the planners of the 1980s probably ever imagined: Hudson Yards, a tightly-packed puzzle of four skyscrapers and a cadre of other towers that represent the largest private development project in the entire history of the US, and the largest development in NYC since Rockefeller Center.

View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
It will add an entire new neighborhood to Manhattan—65,000 people will live or work here—and all of it, from offices to schools to streets, will rest on the super-strong platform that's now being built over the rail yards.

A Bridge That Holds Up a Neighborhood
Building this platform, let alone the buildings themselves, will require a Jenga-esque succession of tactical construction stages—in part because the rail yard will continue to function as the massive new neighborhood rises above it. Related Companies, the developer of the project, explains the structure with this graphic:

View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
But let's take it in steps. To begin with, crews will drill 300 caissons—essentially, large column-like pipes—into the bedrock below the tracks, filling them with concrete:

View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
Builders have been doing this in NYC for ages—just look at the Brooklyn Bridge. A century later, this feat will be just as complicated: Because trains will continue to run through the yard, crews will sink the caissons in sections, avoiding the moving trains, drilling as deep at 80 feet into the bedrock below the West Side.

View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
Once the caissons are in place, work will begin on a massively heavy, incredibly strong platform—a foundation perched on columns. This work will go piece-by-piece too, all to ensure the safety of the train drivers and the construction crews both:


View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
But the most difficult bit will come at the narrow neck of the rail yard. Here, the trains form a dense thicket of activity, and there's no room for massive caissons. Instead, crews will built a series of trusses across the rail yard:

View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
Then—then!—come the buildings. Skyscrapers, apartment complexes, restaurants, a public school. Some 17 million square feet of office and residential spaces. 14 acres of public land. Hotels, shops, a theater. All that and more will sit perched on what amounts to a bridge—a bridge that supports thousands of people and no fewer than three skyscrapers.

View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
By the time the platform is complete, workers will have installed 25,000 tons of steel (more than half of the Williamsburg Bridge) and 14,000 cubic yards of concrete. It will weigh more than 35,000 tons. For comparison's sake, the bridge portion of the Brooklyn Bridge weighs around 14,680 tons.

A New Generation of NYC Megastructures
The architect of some of the first skyscrapers in the world, Daniel Burnham, once said "make no little plans, they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized." In other words, small ideas don't get anyone excited enough to see them through to completion.

It's a good way to describe Hudson Yards, a cornucopia of pricey real estate that will be so vastly lucrative that it justifies one of the largest structures ever built in New York. Some may see it as more evidence of Manhattan's transformation into a city of penthouse-dwelling oligarchs. But that constantly-churning economic metabolism is the core of New York's urban soul. What's great about it, though, is that what emerges out of the mire of the present will last far beyond it. Each generation scrubs away the legacy of the last—and then makes up its own stories about how the past came to be.



View attachment upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif

Four of America's Tallest Towers Will Rise Within Blocks of Each Other
While most of the supertall building boom spotlight has been placed China and the UAE over the past … Read more

However you feel about the new burst of development in New York, it's been too long since the city built a new megastructure. We're lucky that we get to watch this one take shape. We'll have more on the project soon.

Reply193 replies
http://gizmodo.com/how-nycs-newest-neighborhood-will-float-above-an-activ-1546127069
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 227
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 229
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 179
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 240
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 229
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 222
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 150
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 208
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 246
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 224
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 235
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 153
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 214
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 201
  • upload_2016-7-16_15-21-3.gif
    37 bytes · Views: 216

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
3,627
Reaction score
4,357
Location
Toronto
This is what *could/should* be discussed, at least in part, for the Mimico Yards:
This is an apples to oranges comparison here. What's happening in New York with the Hudson's Yard project is completely different thant anything that should/could ever happen with the Willowbrook Yard. I wont go into all the details but here's one of the biggest differences: Hudson Yard is located near the heart of Manhattan; Willowbrook is located in a suburban Toronto location surrounded by industry.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,338
This is an apples to oranges comparison here. What's happening in New York with the Hudson's Yard project is completely different thant anything that should/could ever happen with the Willowbrook Yard. I wont go into all the details but here's one of the biggest differences: Hudson Yard is located near the heart of Manhattan; Willowbrook is located in a suburban Toronto location surrounded by industry.
And? We have two issues in this case: Noise, and land usage. Stating "apples and oranges" means nothing unless you make a good reason why not.
Riverside Plaza. The Broadgate Development. Millennium Park. These developments, each built atop a complex network of rail yards, have forever changed the urban landscape of the cities in which they inhabit. While rail yards can often fragment a city, dividing it into unsightly zones that are difficult to cross, air rights developments can re-stitch the urban fabric, adding usable open space and potential amenities. Whether the rail right of way is privately owned (as in the United States) or publicly owned (as in France), these developments create value for owners, developers, government entities, and private citizens.

The disposition of railway tracks and the presence of the railway station have always been key elements of the socio-economic geography of cities. Invariably, railway stations and railway-owned land are at the hub of urban activity, ideally located in terms of public transport, infrastructure and accessibility. While the station has traditionally been celebrated as an arrival point of major urban significance, the presence of the tracks and the noise and pollution generated by moving trains have always interfered with the continuity and quality of urban life. As a response, the development of air rights has been an established practice for many decades. The premise is simple: build in the unused space above and around railway tracks and stations, in order to provide the opportunity for commercial development and enhanced public amenities. While the character of each development is dependent on the particular conditions of the site, air rights developments can be broadly divided into three basic types: 1) over the station terminus building; 2) over station platforms; and, 3) over through-tracks outside stations. While all three promote connectivity from one area of the city to the other, the first two create density around existing high-volume transit locations. From a developer’s perspective, this presents an ideal situation, as access to rail traffic creates real estate value and opportunity. These high traffic areas are easily accessible and appealing to commercial tenants seeking to provide ample commuting arrangements for their employees.

The following case studies prove that commercial development has been successfully completed over rail facilities without major relocation or disruption of operation. In doing so, designers have produced additional benefits for the railway, while providing state-of-the art office and commercial facilities. [...continues in detail with pics and and examples...]
http://www.mascontext.com/issues/13...-air-rights-development-and-the-urban-fabric/

How about right here in Toronto?
Big Ideas: Use air rights to build a better city


Urban design professor David Lieberman suggests that by leasing air rights above the tracks that divide downtown, Toronto could better integrate them into the fabric of the city.

union_from_above.jpg.size.custom.crop.889x650.jpg

Union Station's air rights could be used to create an entire neighbourhood above the tracks. (DAVID COOPER / TORONTO STAR file photo)
By Kim NursallStaff Reporter
Wed., April 2, 2014
There’s money in the air, especially above Union Station’s train tracks.

In a growing metropolis like Toronto, every speck of space comes with a dollar sign, from the ground beneath our feet to the air above our heads.

And increasingly, cities around the world are using that “air” — or more specifically, the rights to it — to transform skylines. Should Toronto be doing the same?

Air rights are used “to either preserve a historical building of a lower density, or the character of a neighbourhood,” said David Lieberman, an associate professor at the University of Toronto who teaches architecture and urban design.

Say, for example, a historic theatre house needs funds. If the plot of land it is located on allows for higher density/more storeys than the theatre’s status quo, the rights to that “air” can be sold to another property. The density of that property can then be increased.

Air rights can also help facilitate massive development projects, like Hudson Yards, the so-called “floating city” being built above an active train yard in New York. It’s the largest private development in U.S. history, and includes a 99-year lease with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to the air rights above the tracks.

As Lieberman noted, the tracks that divide Toronto’s downtown, as well as the rail yards in the city’s outskirts, are cumbersome to navigate and build around. Selling air rights could offer a way to better integrate these spaces: Just imagine a new neighbourhood springing up above the tracks leading to and from Union Station.

For David Amborski, director of Ryerson University’s Centre for Urban Research and Land Development, transit air rights hold lots of potential. [...continues...]
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/02/big_idea_use_air_rights_to_build_a_better_city.html

What I'm suggesting is a solution to the complaints (justified or not) of how the "noise and vibrations" will impact the neighbourhood. What goes above a below-grade expansion can even be commercial/industrial low-rise. Or residential. What is your objection to that exactly?
I wont go into all the details
Why not? Just dissing someone else's researched suggestions isn't good enough. And it certainly wouldn't be good enough for an OMB defence.
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
3,627
Reaction score
4,357
Location
Toronto
Sigh, where do I start.

I never stated I was against air rights. If there was development to take place above a railway corridor, Willowbrook Yard would be on the list of places in the city that would not have a business case to proceed with that kind of development. Land use and economics plays a large role with air rights, and building over rail corridors only makes sense if finding vacant land is at a premium. Why would any developer pay extra costs to develop over a rail corridor when there is still parcels of vacant land close to that same rail corridor and piece of land? This is why Manhattan is a different beast, they have virtually no vacant land in that borough and the only way to develop is to demolish an existing building, or build on top of an existing structure.

Now if you wanted to explore selling air rights, it would make sense closer to the core of the city since vacant land is comping at a premium these days. Developers will pay extra to develop in a location where it is financially viable and where there would be significant demand for commercial or residential uses. Metrolinx has already explored selling air rights- for the first time in the city- in relation to Ivanhoe Cambridge's Bay Park Centre proposal.

Willowbrook would not attract significant attention from developers because there would be very little demand for residential or commercial uses around this area of South Etobicoke. If there was, you would already be seeing gentrification of the area and that huge parcel of land held by Build Toronto would have had a proposal for a development by now.

I was not bashing your previous statement, I just gave a simple explanation as to why it would not make sense to proceed with a residential development in a place where it would be completely unwarranted.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,338
"Sigh"? Do you have a breathing problem?
If there was development to take place above a railway corridor, Willowbrook Yard would be on the list of places in the city that would not have a business case to proceed with that kind of development.
That's fascinating. So the whole issue of developing that land in lieu of a rail yard expansion doesn't exist? Perhaps you should inform the City?

Why would any developer pay extra costs to develop over a rail corridor when there is still parcels of vacant land close to that same rail corridor and piece of land?
See point above, and read the background on this case. It *IS* in demand. That's what this whole issue is about.

Willowbrook would not attract significant attention from developers because there would be very little demand for residential or commercial uses around this area of South Etobicoke. If there was, you would already be seeing gentrification of the area and that huge parcel of land held by Build Toronto would have had a proposal for a development by now.
Sir, I suggest you read the posts above, starting with the very first one of Drum's that kicked off this particular string.
Why would any developer pay extra costs to develop over a rail corridor when there is still parcels of vacant land close to that same rail corridor and piece of land?
What I am proposing, if you would only read, is putting in the Metrolinx additional yard *below grade* so that *in future* it can be decked over. That also mitigates a lot of noise issues. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? It will add to the cost of expansion, but pay off later.

Mimico - Judson Regeneration Areas Study

In December of 2013 City Council adopted OPA 231 which proposes to redesignate the lands near the Mimico GO Station and a portion of lands west of Royal York Road to Regeneration Areas. The Decision was part of City Council's consideration of staff recommendations related to the City of Toronto's Municipal Comprehensive Review of Employment Lands.

The Regeneration Areas designation provides for a mix of employment, institutional and residential uses that area implemented through a Site and Area Specific Policy.

Council directed staff to initiate a study of the Mimico-Judson Regeneration Area that will result in a revitalization framework to accommodate employment and residential population growth which capitalizes on the lands proximity to the Mimico GO Station. The Study is intended to identify opportunities and constraints presented by the existing development permissions, built form, community services provision and movement through the Study Area in order to unlock the potential of the Mimico-Judson area to provide for an appropriate mix of compatible uses. [...]
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=82e352cc66061410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Demonstration Plan
The planning and transportation consultant team has developed a Demonstration Plan which illustrates conceptually how the Study Area could be built out based on the study research and findings conducted to this point including a precedent review, consultation with the community working group and stakeholders as well as professional planning analysis of best practices.

 
Last edited:

Top