Toronto Rail Deck Development | 239.43m | 72s | LIUNA | Sweeny &Co

Honestly the real tragedy here is in the early 1970s the waterfront was mostly parking lots and a few warehouses. What should have happened is the first 100m from the lakeshore should have been parkland with progressively taller buildings moving away from the lake. Paying hundreds of millions, or billions?, for a false park over railway lines is not in the same league as lakefront green space.
 
Honestly the real tragedy here is in the early 1970s the waterfront was mostly parking lots and a few warehouses. What should have happened is the first 100m from the lakeshore should have been parkland with progressively taller buildings moving away from the lake. Paying hundreds of millions, or billions?, for a false park over railway lines is not in the same league as lakefront green space.
That's what happens you have politicians without any vision (mostly provincial and municipal in this case) who lead and create a grand cock up known today as Toronto's waterfront.

And to be clear here i'm not talking about the portion that Waterfront Toronto has jurisdiction over, i'm talking about the grand stretch from Park Lawn through to Yonge.
 
Honestly the real tragedy here is in the early 1970s the waterfront was mostly parking lots and a few warehouses. What should have happened is the first 100m from the lakeshore should have been parkland with progressively taller buildings moving away from the lake. Paying hundreds of millions, or billions?, for a false park over railway lines is not in the same league as lakefront green space.

Had lots of land to bury the Gardiner at the same time. Concord, for example could have built a portion under CityPlace in return for density.
 
Had lots of land to bury the Gardiner at the same time. Concord, for example could have built a portion under CityPlace in return for density.
But why? They got all the density they wanted (far more than the original visioning for the CityPlace area), and didn't have to commit to any of that.
 
So unfortunate this is all becoming real...The neighbourhood received the notice for community consultation meeting, please show up if you are against it (even though we can only reduce the height but not cancel the project)...
 

Attachments

  • 2024.10.29 Rail Deck District development.pdf
    257.4 KB · Views: 72
So unfortunate this is all becoming real..

Its nowhere near real as-yet.

The neighbourhood received the notice for community consultation meeting, please show up if you are against it (even though we can only reduce the height but not cancel the project)...

By all means, you and your neighbours should participate in the process; I would never discourage engagement or encourage apathy.

But @ProjectEnd has spoken on this; we're there any doubts.....this proposal as currently structured is not viable, certainly not in the current market, but probably not in a much better one either.

That said, on the off chance any builder finds a variation here that could work; it would be be my suggestion that you focus on items other than height, for the simple reason that i don't think you'll find +/- 10s on 1, 2, or 6 buildings actually makes a huge difference to you.

You're likely better off focusing on quality of life concerns, everything from unit mix, to tenure, to public realm / parks etc.

IF you haven't already done so, have a good look up thread at the detailed comments, they will give you many jumping off points.
 
more community consultation
1730749372904.png

1730749621648.png
 
I can see the little site east of Spadina being doable in the near term as not that big.
 
I can see the little site east of Spadina being doable in the near term as not that big.

It is not do-able in the near term.

It would require de-risking or in plain english, a material subsidy to make the numbers work.
 

Back
Top