A fun game here is looking at all the ways the City planning department subtly skewed things to make their proposal look better. Note, for example, that even though it is the SAME PIECE OF LAND, the CRAFT proposal gets shown from the north, as a big hunk of towers blocking out the lake. The park, on the other hand, is shown from the south, , making it look like an island and an intrinsic part of the waterfront. Even though the CRAFT proposal also includes a substantial park they propose to donate to the City, it can't be called a "park," so it's just unquantified "open space," and because the view is from the north, you can't see it. It looks like it's all buildings. And the City's description offers a helpful explanation that unlike that stupid private development - which presumably serves no purpose - this is to ensure there's enough park space for people downtown etc.
Interesting. There's so much up in the air with this project it could go any number of ways. In the meantime, CRAFT has a sliver of land the City wants/needs for the park. So, at worst, some expropriation $ and at best a nice beachhead. I don't know how much I'd read into the value - it's a value that's contingent on a lot of other things but it's "worth more" than whatever they paid for it.[/QUOTE]pennies on the dollar. They either made out like bandits on this from CNR, or this is a much less feasible development than many thought. That's probably 1/20th of the land value for an unencumbered site that can accommodate a development of the scale they have proposed.
Which is rather telling. None of that was covered under the Esplanade Tri-Partite Agreement. That land you illustrate was never ceded to the Dominion of Canada in exchange for the properties adjacent to the USRC, which remain as per:Correct. This was for approximately 4.5 acres. The total development parcel is 21.2 acres.
They got roughly what is outlined below:...
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto - SCC Cases (Lexum) See pg 622[...]
Section 1 enacts that
all works done or to be done in order to give effect to the agreement hereinafter mentioned, as well as those affected by it, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
They cannot, therefore, be considered as private works of railway companies. They are to all intents and purposes federal works remaining under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament, under section 92, par. 10, of the British North America Act. [...]
Incredibly by today's discussion on this very topic, your question is addressed in the "esplanade tripartite agreement"I have a question for the group.
Interjecting as a reminder: the City also claims ownership of continuous strips of land along the south side of Front and along the north side of Iceboat Terrace which, should the City refuse to allow right-of-way across them, would make the air right properties much tougher to connect to the city around it.
Yeah, this is kind of the thing. They won the right to build the park, on principle.So the lands (err... air) become designated parkland in the OP.
Now the city has to buy it. Can it buy it at the price point of it being parkland, or as the "extremely profitable and super-duper-uber valuable" price that CRAFT is trying to paint it as? Especially considering CRAFT has been purchasing it from CN for pennies..