Automation Gallery
Superstar
Can we assume that by votes, the 44 city councillors plus the mayor will decide the fate of a casino for Toronto?
Toronto Union Park | 303.26m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli
- Thread starter Conrad Black
- Start date
MetroMan
Senior Member
From North to South: At Front St it starts off as a green roof which ends at the current rail corridor's north boundary. This is where you have a 2 story façade of store fronts facing south as you can see here:
The grade drops 2 floors down after which hills and lawn steps -- kind of what exists at the Music Garden but at a larger scale -- levels with Bremner.
The main through points will still be on the existing N-S lines (BlueJays Way, John and Simcoe) but much more inviting. The John st corridor will start off at sidewalk level on Front St and slope up to the park -- where the bridge currently starts. You then arrive at the park and can turn left or right into a pedestrian street lined with shops and patios and with the base of the CN Tower in plain view straight ahead.
This new pedestrian street goes all the way from Simcoe to Blue Jays way so it'll will be a new E-W access to the CN Tower. There may be a mid block indoor corridor that leads you to the park straight from Front through a mall and into the park.
The roof of the casino appears to be private for hotel guests with the hotel pool. It may be that the convention centre roof is also exclusive to tower office workers and residents. The public park and plaza is essentially the sliver the width of the rail corridor.
Circulation will be much improved with people able to walk around the tower entirely and with street life facing south from the pedestrian centre.
If this does come to be, those patios are going to be amongst the most popular in the city with a gorgeous view of the CN Tower and the waterfront up ahead -- ok, with the Gardiner in the way :/ But that's an issue for another day.
Attachments
Last edited:
fedplanner
Active Member
I thought it was a provincial decision. Thankfully, the provincial government said they will not force it on any municipality that doesn't want it. Unless of course the province changes it's mind... $3.1 billion dollars is a lot of investment.
MetroMan
Senior Member
Hey, the Province owns Ontario Place. If the city turns down this kind of investment, Dalton might just take it to the large parking lots by the lake at Ontario Place. Markham has said they'll take it but its not quite the same. I don't think the big players would be interested.
steveve
Senior Member
Does anyone on UT remember this proposal for the railway right of way?
Toronto Waterfront Viaduct
One of the most fanciful and elegant solutions to the Gardiner Expressway and rail lands. If they could meld this with the Foster plan and casino, then we would have something!
wow. that's actually pretty cool. (although those archways/towers are WAY too high)
and pretty neat idea combining the two barriers into one, although it could turn on itself, providing an even larger barrier to the city.. but i can actually imagine looking down (over the connecting CN tower bridge over the railways) onto a highway... a futuristic one... like iRobot... one can dream.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
MetroMan:
Except the province already categorically said no casinos to OP. Probably easier to get/force the city to accept the Front Street site than to eat their words on that particular promise.
AoD
Except the province already categorically said no casinos to OP. Probably easier to get/force the city to accept the Front Street site than to eat their words on that particular promise.
AoD
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
But those bridge pier heights are realistic for the span lengths (400-500ft heights for a 2000+/- ft long span). I don't think it would be as feasible to have shorter bridge piers which would result in shorter spans and far more towers overall because of the amount of obstructions and limited space available along the rail corridor. Of course all of that really is just a pipe dream anyways
Joe R.
Banned
The parkland will only cover the sliver of tracks? So basically, there will be hardly any.
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Well the corridor width is on average about 45m/150ft and the length would be from Blue Jays Way to Simcoe street which is about 450m/1500ft. Which gives us about 20,000 sq meters of space which would make it about the same size as Canoe Landing Park. In comparison, Nathan Phillips sq is about 25,000m2(the open space in front of city hall) and Dundas Square is less than 5000m2. So I wouldn't all it 'hardly any' or just a 'sliver'. While its not huge, its still a substantial park for an area that has hardly any.
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
That purchase was from the west end of USRC(Union Station Rail Corridor) limits to Campa mile 8.4 of the Oakville sub. Basically the tracks that were bought from CN in that purchase start from a location west of Batherst St. to a point west of Kipling Ave in Etobicoke. It does not involve the rail corridor by the convention center. That section of the tracks is the USRC which is owned and maintained by the TTR(Toronto Terminals Railway) which in term is owned by the government. However CN used to be a part owner of the corridor and apparently retained some of its air rights;
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/0...way-lands-bridge-25-long-years-in-the-making/
Again just to note; I don't see signal sight lines as being an issue in this section of the corridor because the section is almost entirely controlled by ground level signals and speeds are restricted to 15mph(25kph), unlike the section by the CP bridge which has signals placed on mast structures above the track with trains operating at 60mph(100kph). There will however need to be sufficient clearance for the planned future electrification of the corridor. But I believe the current height of the bridges at Blue Jays way and John st are sufficient, so the park would be at the same level which only makes sense in the first place.
That's the one thing GO would surely balk at. Other than the lightly used CN north-south connecting track (the two south most tracks) and a stub end track located under the convention center hang over, I highly doubt they'd agree to any plan that would eliminate the usage of any other tracks.
MetroMan
Senior Member
^ and larger than the little parquette in front of the Eiffel tower that tourists seem to really enjoy. With patios lining up the park's northern edge, this will be a very popular place for tourists and locals alike.
... if it happens.
alklay
Senior Member
I cant see this area being popular at all. At its best, it will be homogeneous retail in the back of a building and to call this a park, as opposed to a strip of lawn between buildings, is pushing it. There is no street, no passing through traffic (cars or people) and no real reason to be there (no 'there there"). Imagine setting up a cafe at the south side of the convention centre now: people are not going to flock to sit staring at the lawn between the convention centre and Bremner/the CN Tower. And it will never be popular ("should we sit on a patio on College Street or go down to the casino and commercial offices and sit with those who are tied of losing their money in the slots?")
Last edited:
11th
Senior Member
None of those three casinos are located at prominent locations of the city. Vancouver - edge of downtown; Montreal - across from downtown; Hull - edge of downtown. So using those as examples aren't exactly fair.
Although people use examples of other big Canadian cities with casinos as comparison, and none (or very few?) of those are located "downtown".
Last edited:
Mongo
Senior Member
Wow. Way to project your own opinions on the entire population of Toronto and visitors.
Last edited:
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
If shovels went into the ground today, how long would this project take to complete?